Environment & Energy

kristopher

(29,798 posts)

9. Please be specific

Mon Jan 2, 2012, 03:33 PM

Jan 2012

The wiki LFTR page you linked to discusses two designs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Two_versus_Single_fluid

What design are you endorsing and why?

Specifically what problems are solved with the design you suggest?

MIT's policy studies on nuclear fuel cycles repeatedly assign a timeline of between 50-100 years to shift from any fuel cycle to another. What is going to make the LFTR an exception?

You, and other nuclear proponents regularly conflate the advantages of different reactors into one discussion making it sound like a given design has the positive attributes of another design. In the most recent version of pronuclear promotion we are seeing arguments about supposed economic advantages of SMRs appearing frequently with discussions of LFTRs. Please clarify the actual link, if any, between those two apparently separate discussions.

Thanks.

Click here to purchase valentine hearts!

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

43 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama primary opponent Bob Greene: Calif. man has energy plan for U.S. for next 1000 years [View all] Maslo55 Jan 2012 OP

Great idea! Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #1

LFTR power Maslo55 Jan 2012 #2

Geeezzeeeee - here we go again... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #3

Its like asking Maslo55 Jan 2012 #4

Doesn't make sense... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #6

You do not understand NIMBYism... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #8

A whole lot of assumptions there bob txlibdem Jan 2012 #10

And then they'll look at the solar panels on their roof... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #11

Without adequate excess capacity *and* energy storage, wind / solar will never get us off fossils txlibdem Jan 2012 #14

You have zero basis on which to make that claim... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #19

Which claim are you even talking about? Do you have proof? txlibdem Jan 2012 #27

Without existing, gen IV nuclear will never get us off fossils FSSF Jan 2012 #23

What is the title of this OP? Is it "Let's talk about what we have now?" No. txlibdem Jan 2012 #28

Because if LFTR performs as expected Maslo55 Jan 2012 #16

And if elephants could fly... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #20

Never saw the movie "Operation: Dumbo Drop?" txlibdem Jan 2012 #34

Around the corner... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #36

The failure of a 1960s design is the basis of your argument? txlibdem Jan 2012 #41

There are 104 nuclear reactors running fully-insured in the US right now wtmusic Jan 2012 #43

Please be specific kristopher Jan 2012 #9

Two fluid Maslo55 Jan 2012 #17

I'm sorry, I thought I asked for specifics. kristopher Jan 2012 #21

specifics are in the links Maslo55 Jan 2012 #24

Some things. FSSF Jan 2012 #25

FSSF has already provided some important points for you to consider... kristopher Jan 2012 #30

There are far more problems Maslo55 Jan 2012 #32

Actually there aren't. kristopher Jan 2012 #37

LFTR Maslo55 Jan 2012 #38

Prove it. kristopher Jan 2012 #39

here you go Maslo55 Jan 2012 #40

That doesn't support your claim. kristopher Jan 2012 #42

People in the solar industry think they can get solar at or less than the cost of coal much faster. FSSF Jan 2012 #22

"to build the largest manufacturing industry in the history of mankind" kristopher Jan 2012 #29

K&R. wtmusic Jan 2012 #5

Road apples... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #7

So you think it's ok to villainize people just for disagreeing with your anti-nuke views? txlibdem Jan 2012 #12

Nut jobs... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #13

Your post is offensive txlibdem Jan 2012 #15

You haven't noticed all the people... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #18

So you're not against misleading people, just as long as it's not toward the pro-nuclear side txlibdem Jan 2012 #26

You are doing the math wrong... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #31

And Maslo55 Jan 2012 #33

Yep. Some of it is really expensive... Bob Wallace Jan 2012 #35