• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium

Help Support Ranchers.net:

A

Anonymous

Guest
http://news.yahoo.com/grass-roots-petition-gov-funding-liquid-fluoride-thorium-070751490.html

Should this be funded or not? Sounds pretty interesting. Also internet stories seem to think that Russia and China are planning to have this working within twenty years.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
If it is a viable energy source and there is $$ to be made off of selling it as an energy source, why not let private enterprise fund the research and development?

Once you have government involved, then you get the lobbyests involved, and risk of further regulatory capture.


why would the taxpayer want to take on the financial risk of R & D, only to let the private corporations reap the profits later on?
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
Political issues

To exploit the reactor's breeding potential to the fullest, the reactor must be co-located with a reprocessing facility. Nuclear reprocessing does not occur in the U.S. because no commercial provider is willing to undertake it. The regulatory risk and associated costs are very great because the regulatory regime has varied dramatically in different administrations.

Some U.S. Administration departments have feared that fuel reprocessing in any form could pave the way to the plutonium economy with its associated proliferation dangers.

A similar argument led to the shutdown of the Integral Fast Reactor project in 1994.[20] The proliferation risk for a thorium fuel cycle stems from the potential separation of uranium-233, which might be used in nuclear weapons,

we see this already with current proposed nuclear and coal plants,.. with the EPA, Dept of energy ect always moving the goal posts..

it is not a new concept.. and there were plans to proceed.. but someone not only moved the goal post, they effectively shut the idea down and made it hard to restart any program that would require reprocessing..

who moved the goalpost the last time this idea was started?

With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts,

in 2001 it was part of the Bush energy plan.. but as soon as you say reactor.. it hit the usual roadblocks..


it should be thought through.. and at this point we would be again leading from the rear..



One disadvantage of any new reactor technology is that safety risks may be greater initially as reactor operators have little experience with the new design. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum has explained that almost all serious nuclear accidents have occurred with what was at the time the most recent technology. He argues that "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes".[5] As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not"
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
Steve said:
Political issues

To exploit the reactor's breeding potential to the fullest, the reactor must be co-located with a reprocessing facility. Nuclear reprocessing does not occur in the U.S. because no commercial provider is willing to undertake it. The regulatory risk and associated costs are very great because the regulatory regime has varied dramatically in different administrations.

Some U.S. Administration departments have feared that fuel reprocessing in any form could pave the way to the plutonium economy with its associated proliferation dangers.

A similar argument led to the shutdown of the Integral Fast Reactor project in 1994.[20] The proliferation risk for a thorium fuel cycle stems from the potential separation of uranium-233, which might be used in nuclear weapons,

we see this already with current proposed nuclear and coal plants,.. with the EPA, Dept of energy ect always moving the goal posts..

it is not a new concept.. and there were plans to proceed.. but someone not only moved the goal post, they effectively shut the idea down and made it hard to restart any program that would require reprocessing..

who moved the goalpost the last time this idea was started?

With the election of President Bill Clinton in 1992, and the appointment of Hazel O'Leary as the Secretary of Energy, there was pressure from the top to cancel the IFR. Sen. John Kerry (D, MA) and O'Leary led the opposition to the reactor, arguing that it would be a threat to non-proliferation efforts,

in 2001 it was part of the Bush energy plan.. but as soon as you say reactor.. it hit the usual roadblocks..


it should be thought through.. and at this point we would be again leading from the rear..



One disadvantage of any new reactor technology is that safety risks may be greater initially as reactor operators have little experience with the new design. Nuclear engineer David Lochbaum has explained that almost all serious nuclear accidents have occurred with what was at the time the most recent technology. He argues that "the problem with new reactors and accidents is twofold: scenarios arise that are impossible to plan for in simulations; and humans make mistakes".[5] As one director of a U.S. research laboratory put it, "fabrication, construction, operation, and maintenance of new reactors will face a steep learning curve: advanced technologies will have a heightened risk of accidents and mistakes. The technology may be proven, but people are not"



You know Steve, I'll have a hard time ever believing you again, after your attempt to portray Bush as some sort of "alternative energy" advocate. :wink:


This scheme was an obvious attempt by Bush to gain wealth through crony capitalism.

At this point it has been recognized as an alternative energy source and by all means, it should be investigated, researched and developed with taxpayer/stimulus funds. Maybe a few $ billion, will make it viable?

The World is dying from all the oil usage, that Bush mandated in his "secret" meetings, and obama is the savior, the oceans are about to recede, if you'd only give him a chance and have a little hope.



:roll: :roll: :roll: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think it would be okay to take away the ethanol subsides and apply them to this program. Each refiner that blends ethanol gets .45$ a gallon in subsides. Time for ethanol to stand on its own.
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 12, 2008
Messages
24,216
Reaction score
0
Location
real world
hurleyjd said:
I think it would be okay to take away the ethanol subsides and apply them to this program. Each refiner that blends ethanol gets .45$ a gallon in subsides. Time for ethanol to stand on its own.

yep
 

Latest posts

Top