Environment & Energy

Maslo55

(61 posts)

38. LFTR

Tue Jan 3, 2012, 05:45 PM

Jan 2012

CAN burn SNF waste, so the Wiki is correct. All I said is that is you want a dedicated waste burner, there are better routes than thermal LFTR. But it is possible to burn all our nuclear waste even with thermal LFTR, it will just take longer. Now that may not be a disadvantage - TRUs are a good way to priming the LFTRs afterall. The longer they last, the less of the bred U233 would we need to start new LFTRs. In that case SNF is a resource, not a "waste", so it may even be desirable.

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