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

[Maslo55]

24. specifics are in the links

"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?"

Read the advantages section in the Wiki, there is a good summary.
- increased safety and proliferation resistance
- nuclear waste issue would be essentially solved (waste from a LFTR reaches safe levels after just 300 years, it can also burn current waste)
- far cheaper fuel which is longterm sustainable (not hundreds but thousands of years)
- no refueling outages due to continual refueling (increased capacity factor)
- far better load following
- various economic advantages during construction (it does not need the most expensive item in a light water reactor, a high-pressure reactor vessel for the core, containment structure only slightly bigger than the reactor vessel can be used, instead of a thousandfold bigger in volume like in LWR, due to high temperature operation efficient and simple Brayton cycle turbines can be used, which reduces the cost of auxiliary equipment (major capital expenses) by 50% or more
- low waste heat - it can be air-cooled, which is critical for use in many regions where water is scarce (does not need huge cooling towers)
- fission products stable after 10 years include many valuable elements (rare earths and medically valuable products)

"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 the physics tell us that without significant world grid overhaul and massive amounts of storage, intermittent renewables can never supply more than 1/3 of grid electricity reliably. The step from 0% to 15% of intermittent energy sources in a grid is just not comparable in terms of grid dynamics to the step from 30% to 45%, or 45% to 60%. LFTR and other nuclear delivers continuous power always with nameplate capacity independent of weather, 24/7. We already have a grid with almost 80% nuclear and it is very stable (France).
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/11/03/wws-2030-critique/
Simple extrapolation of current trends (caused by huge government subsidies per TWh compared to competition btw) 30 years into the future is a poor way of prediction.

"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?"

I have already answered that. SMR LFTRs can be mass produced in a factory and then brought where needed, decreasing construction cost per unit.