Do you see the average citizen wanting fission power nowadays? It seems cheaper and quicker to go with sun and wind for electricity, once the storage issue is put in the rear view mirror.
Actually there is no such evidence except when the exposure is huge. I'll have a lot more to say about that shortly but I've got to go to work now. John K Clark -----Original Message----- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Mon, Jun 30, 2014 1:50 pm Subject: Re: Germany sets record for peak energy use - 50 percent comes from solar (Update) On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 2:55 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > LFTR does not exist in reality (at least yet) And that is not surprising given that the amount of money spent of LFTR research during the last half century is virtually zero. > I have however looked at some interesting solid breeder designs namely > TerraPower’s travelling wave breeder proposal > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TerraPower Curious of you have looked at > travelling wave breeder concept at all? I am not impressed with the traveling wave reactor, it's just a even more complicated type of solid fuel Uranium breeder that was already complacated enough, and it still uses molten sodium as a coolant. It's only advantage is that it pushes the the waste disposal problem under the rug for 40 or 50 years, but it doesn't burn all the transuranics or even all the Uranium so at the end of the reactor's lifetime you've got about 240 tons of heavy elements like Uranium and Plutonium and even heavier more exotic stuff and 60 tons of lighter radioactive fission products. And a traveling wave reactor is big, not in power output but in physical size. A LFTR is extremely compact, believe it or not Alvin Weinberg originally came up with the LFTR idea because he was told by the Air Force to find a nuclear reactor that could power an airplane. Weinberg never thought that a nuclear airplane was a very good idea but he took the Air Force money anyway because he was sure that a small very high temperature nuclear reactor that operated at atmospheric pressure would be useful for other things. > We are going to disagree on the ultimate impact of nuclear accidents such as > Chernobyl or Fukushima –I feel that there is actuary evidence to suggest a > strong linkage to these events and subsequent cancer deaths Actually there is no such evidence except when the exposure is huge. I'll have a lot more to say about that shortly but I've got to go to work now. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
