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

[Maslo55]

32. There are far more problems

with that blog. He seems to completely misunderstand the technology, and is biased against it. It has been thoroughly debunked here:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/07/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/08/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/07/very-strange-technical-critique-of.html

"To those of you, here's a quick summary of some of the things in this critique which are complete nonsense, so you can judge for yourselves (I'll go into a bit more detail after the summary):
Summary of some of the biggest howlers:
-Claims MSRs have "Isotope Separation Plants" which separate 233U and 232U (the trace contaminant)
-Warns of hazardous fission products, such as thorium isotope "T-232" [sic], which supposedly is a disadvantage of thorium-fuelled reactors because of its 14 billion year half-life
-Warns that electrolyzing nuclear fuel salts is energy-intensive
-Warns that heat inputs in fluoride reprocessing are energy-intensive
-Asserts that thorium MSRs are constrained to a lower temperature limit of 1,110 °C, the melting point of pure ThF4. Concludes MSRs must be built entirely from ceramics
-"Obviously, once we exhaust the world’s U-235 stockpiles, LFTR’s and any other Thorium fuelled reactors will cease to function."
-Argues against using molten fuel salt as a working fluid in a gas turbine(!?)"

Regarding the SNR burning, why repeat what has been said. Here is a thread about it on EfT forum:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&t=3003&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

If you really want to go for a quick waste burner, then faster spectrum LFTR or even chloride based MSR are more preferable. Normal thermal spectrum LFTR can also eat it, but it will take longer and decrease the neutronic efficiency. Still, it is possible.