Obama primary opponent Bob Greene: Calif. man has energy plan for U.S. for next 1000 years

[kristopher]

21. I'm sorry, I thought I asked for specifics.

Specifically what problems are solved with the design you suggest?

I thought the two designs were compared adequately at the wiki link, so here I'm asking what problems found in the current once-through fuel cycle do you expect this version of the reactor to solve? Would you mind addressing that?

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 wrote, "I dont know if MIT studies considered non-classical reactors such as MSR, probably not if they reached such conclusion."
Actually I believe that the very pronuclear folks at MIT examined every conceivable option and that their timeline is based on far more than the relative abundance of fuel. Is that your reply to the question of what problem is solved by LFTR design, a scarcity of uranium? One point MIT made about all closed loop and breeder technologies is that there simply is no shortage of uranium so if that is your rationale it is a weak one.
Given that your take on fuel availability is fundamentally incorrect, I'm not sure I would accept the oversimplification of the thorium fuel cycle you've offered. True of false, that claim doesn't speak at all to the considerations that are involved in the conclusion by MIT that it takes 50-100 years to move to a new fuel cycle.
What specifically is it about the LFTR two fluid design that makes you believe it can enable a transition faster than any other technology?

LFTRs are not presently available agreed?
The known economics of the technologies that ARE presently available tell us that within the next 30 years renewable energy sources are going to dominate the world energy systems *and* that the performance they will deliver is going to be more dependable than what is presently available. How do you think that will affect the way the public reacts to neighborhood nuclear plants?

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.

You responded that, "SMR = small modular reactor. It is about the size of the reactor, which is less than 500 MW. The type of SMR can be anything from LWR to LFTR. SMR LFTR combines advantages of both SMRs and LFTRs."

Thanks, but I was aware of that. What I'm asking is specifically what advantage do you see they have in common? Size is a characteristic; for it to be an advantage it has to aid in achieving a goal. What is the advantage or advantages that you think the LFTR will have that you think are exemplified by the SMR of today?