Nuclear is clearly expanding world wide, a true "Renaissance" of
industrial energy development. each plant that comes on line can cut
carbon output up to several million tons. The latest roundup...

1. India
India has 17 nuclear power plants with a total installed capacity of
4,120 MW in operation. Six additional units, with a capacity of 3,160
MW, are under various stages of construction.

If nuclear trade with global players opens up, the Centre, which was
originally targeting 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, hopes to
double nuclear capacity addition to achieve an installed capacity of
40,000 MW over the next 12 years.

According to US-India Business Council estimates, at least $100
billion (about Rs 400,000 crore) worth of investment will be needed to
develop nuclear energy in India over the next 20 years.

2. Italy
Italy has overturned it's ban on nuclear energy (peferring previously
to have *other countries* develop nuclear generation which would be
bought by Italy, now this is costing Italy way too much money).

3. The United Arab Emirates
The UAE has started developing it's nuclear plan in co-operation with
the IAEA and France. Up to 20,000 MWs of new nuclear is being
considered.

4. China
China is so busy with building nuclear plants that it is very
difficult to keep track. China is interested in EVERY from of energy,
not just nuclear, and, within nuclear, it is interested in High
Temperature Gas Reactors/PBMRs (two pilot plants under construction),
Light Water Reactors and Heavy Water Reactors. By 2030 they want to
have 120,000 MWs of nuclear either built or under consturction. This
is being developed with every major nucleare supplier in the world as
well as the development of a compeltely vertically integrated nuclear
component mnaufacturing sector.

5. Russia is still on plans for at least an other 40,000 MWs of
nuclear, with an average of 2 plants a year coming online for 20 years
at least. The more nuclear Russia builds, the less coal and gas it
burns and the more of this it can sell on the world market.

6. Romania
New reactor helps cut Romanian power imports. Romania managed to cut
its electricity imports by nearly 30% in the first half of 2008
relative to 2007, thanks to a massive increase in nuclear output after
its second nuclear unit started up.

The country's second nuclear reactor, Cernavoda 2, entered commercial
service in October 2007. Now, half-yearly figures published by the
Romanian National Institute of Statistics show that, in a 6-month
period when overall electricity production was up on the same period
the previous year, imports, at 395.5 million kWh, were 169.3 million
kWh down. Nuclear generation for the six months, at 5119.2 million
kWh, was over 66% up on the same period in 2007, with hydro also 28%
up.

 Romania's next two nuclear units, also at Cernavoda, will be built by
a consortium of six European companies in a joint venture with
Romania's Nuclearelectrica SA under plans finalized earlier this
year.

7. Japan
Japan is planning another 10 or so nuclear reactors. Half their power
is generated from nuclear and they want to increase it to eliminate
all gas and coal from their grid.

8. S. Korea
S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their
geneation (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being
planned.

On Aug 17, 8:49 pm, nada  wrote:
[ . . . ]
> Temperature Gas Reactors/PBMRs (two pilot plants under construction),
> Light Water Reactors and Heavy Water Reactors.

Would someone please list the types of nuclear fission power
reactors and explain each.

On Aug 18, 12:42 am, Roger Coppock  wrote:
> On Aug 17, 8:49 pm, nada  wrote:
> [ . . . ]
>
> > Temperature Gas Reactors/PBMRs (two pilot plants under construction),
> > Light Water Reactors and Heavy Water Reactors.
>
> Would someone please list the types of nuclear fission power
> reactors and explain each.

(LWR) Light Water Reactors use regular (but demineralized) water as
the moderator...the water surrounds the fuel rods and slows down the
neutrons so they can collide and start a chain reactions that provides
energy. The water is also the coolent and provides either the steam
directly used in the turbine/generator as in a

(BWR) Boiling Water Reactor. However this is done in only about 15% of
all reactors. Most reactors are

(PWR) Pressurized Water Reactors where the whole reactor is under
heavy pressure (usually around 400psi) and the water does not boil but
simply circulates between the core of the reactor as described above
in the LWR and a "Steam Generator", essentially a heat exchanger where
the very hot pressurized water gives up it's energy to an loop of
water that turns it into steam. The other reactor is called a

(PHWR) or Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor which uses "heavy water" as
the moderator and coolant. Heavy Water is a water containing an
elevated concentration of molecules with deuterium ("heavy hydrogen")
atoms. The Canadian CANDU reactor is a PHWR. The advantage of this
kind of reactor is two fold: it can use almost any kind of uranium
fuel, especially noteworthy is that it can use 'natural uranium', in
other words, unenriched uranium in it's natural state. Secondly it can
be fuel online...and never come off line. A version of this reactor is
being designed to run on spent nuclear fuel or what most people
understand as "high level nuclear waste". The CANDU can be a "nuclear
waste eater". There are also 4th generation nuclear deisgns...

The (PBMR) which the S. Africans and Chinese are building based on a
German design that uses tennis ball size 'pebbles'...graphite imbedded
with enriched uranium and that is "melt down proof"...uses heilum as
the coolent (which is inert and can be inoized). It's a very different
form of nuclear energy that has zero water any part of the cycle.

The LFTR or Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor...see
energyfromthorium.com for more information. Briefly it uses fluoride
salts as the coolent and graphite as the moderator. It uses about 1
ton of fuel a year (as opposed to 30 tons from a LWR) and the fuel is
thorium, 4 times as abundant as uranium. It produced about .1% of the
dangerous high level wastes as a LWR and this is only dangerous for
300 years at which point it can be sold as scrap metal.

The LFTR was demonstrated in the 1960s as ORNL. Uranium and military
interests killed it off for narrow political reasons. It is the future
of energy for the planet because it can be used for everything form
process heat (oil and chemical refineries, desalination of salt water
cheaply, cracking of H20 into hydrogen fuel, etc etc) and it's
scalable from a large size of, say, 1700 MWs reactor down to 5 MW
reactors. Since the fuel is in a liquid state, chemical reprocessing
can be done onsite and inline. A much cheaper version of an atomic
power plant compared to anything out there.

More here:
http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf51.html?ekmensel=185bf1b1_18_0_288_10

On Aug 18, 4:49 am, nada  wrote:
> Nuclear is clearly expanding world wide, a true "Renaissance" of
> industrial energy development. each plant that comes on line can cut
> carbon output up to several million tons. The latest roundup...
>
> 1. India
> India has 17 nuclear power plants with a total installed capacity of
> 4,120 MW in operation. Six additional units, with a capacity of 3,160
> MW, are under various stages of construction.
>
> If nuclear trade with global players opens up, the Centre, which was
> originally targeting 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, hopes to
> double nuclear capacity addition to achieve an installed capacity of
> 40,000 MW over the next 12 years.
>
> According to US-India Business Council estimates, at least $100
> billion (about Rs 400,000 crore) worth of investment will be needed to
> develop nuclear energy in India over the next 20 years.
>
> 2. Italy
> Italy has overturned it's ban on nuclear energy (peferring previously
> to have *other countries* develop nuclear generation which would be
> bought by Italy, now this is costing Italy way too much money).
>
> 3. The United Arab Emirates
> The UAE has started developing it's nuclear plan in co-operation with
> the IAEA and France. Up to 20,000 MWs of new nuclear is being
> considered.
>
> 4. China
> China is so busy with building nuclear plants that it is very
> difficult to keep track. China is interested in EVERY from of energy,
> not just nuclear, and, within nuclear, it is interested in High
> Temperature Gas Reactors/PBMRs (two pilot plants under construction),
> Light Water Reactors and Heavy Water Reactors. By 2030 they want to
> have 120,000 MWs of nuclear either built or under consturction. This
> is being developed with every major nucleare supplier in the world as
> well as the development of a compeltely vertically integrated nuclear
> component mnaufacturing sector.
>
> 5. Russia is still on plans for at least an other 40,000 MWs of
> nuclear, with an average of 2 plants a year coming online for 20 years
> at least. The more nuclear Russia builds, the less coal and gas it
> burns and the more of this it can sell on the world market.
>
> 6. Romania
> New reactor helps cut Romanian power imports. Romania managed to cut
> its electricity imports by nearly 30% in the first half of 2008
> relative to 2007, thanks to a massive increase in nuclear output after
> its second nuclear unit started up.
>
> The country's second nuclear reactor, Cernavoda 2, entered commercial
> service in October 2007. Now, half-yearly figures published by the
> Romanian National Institute of Statistics show that, in a 6-month
> period when overall electricity production was up on the same period
> the previous year, imports, at 395.5 million kWh, were 169.3 million
> kWh down. Nuclear generation for the six months, at 5119.2 million
> kWh, was over 66% up on the same period in 2007, with hydro also 28%
> up.
>
>  Romania's next two nuclear units, also at Cernavoda, will be built by
> a consortium of six European companies in a joint venture with
> Romania's Nuclearelectrica SA under plans finalized earlier this
> year.
>
> 7. Japan
> Japan is planning another 10 or so nuclear reactors. Half their power
> is generated from nuclear and they want to increase it to eliminate
> all gas and coal from their grid.
>
> 8. S. Korea
> S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their
> geneation (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being
> planned.

I sincerely hope they come to their senses soon....
Nuclear power is not the answer.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 09:35:56 -0700 (PDT), nada 
wrote:

>On Aug 18, 12:42 am, Roger Coppock  wrote:
>> On Aug 17, 8:49 pm, nada  wrote:
>> [ . . . ]
>>
>> > Temperature Gas Reactors/PBMRs (two pilot plants under construction),
>> > Light Water Reactors and Heavy Water Reactors.
>>
>> Would someone please list the types of nuclear fission power
>> reactors and explain each.
>
>(LWR) Light Water Reactors use regular (but demineralized) water as
>the moderator...the water surrounds the fuel rods and slows down the
>neutrons so they can collide and start a chain reactions that provides
>energy. The water is also the coolent and provides either the steam
>directly used in the turbine/generator as in a
>
>(BWR) Boiling Water Reactor. However this is done in only about 15% of
>all reactors. Most reactors are
>
>(PWR) Pressurized Water Reactors where the whole reactor is under
>heavy pressure (usually around 400psi) and the water does not boil but
>simply circulates between the core of the reactor as described above
>in the LWR and a "Steam Generator", essentially a heat exchanger where
>the very hot pressurized water gives up it's energy to an loop of
>water that turns it into steam. The other reactor is called a
>
>(PHWR) or Pressurized Heavy Water Reactor which uses "heavy water" as
>the moderator and coolant. Heavy Water is a water containing an
>elevated concentration of molecules with deuterium ("heavy hydrogen")
>atoms. The Canadian CANDU reactor is a PHWR. The advantage of this
>kind of reactor is two fold: it can use almost any kind of uranium
>fuel, especially noteworthy is that it can use 'natural uranium', in
>other words, unenriched uranium in it's natural state. Secondly it can
>be fuel online...and never come off line. A version of this reactor is
>being designed to run on spent nuclear fuel or what most people
>understand as "high level nuclear waste". The CANDU can be a "nuclear
>waste eater". There are also 4th generation nuclear deisgns...
>
>The (PBMR) which the S. Africans and Chinese are building based on a
>German design that uses tennis ball size 'pebbles'...graphite imbedded
>with enriched uranium and that is "melt down proof"...uses heilum as
>the coolent (which is inert and can be inoized). It's a very different
>form of nuclear energy that has zero water any part of the cycle.


As seen in chernobyl.. Graphite has a tendency to catch on fire when
exposed to the atmosphere.. 


>
>The LFTR or Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor...see
>energyfromthorium.com for more information. Briefly it uses fluoride
>salts as the coolent and graphite as the moderator. It uses about 1
>ton of fuel a year (as opposed to 30 tons from a LWR) and the fuel is
>thorium, 4 times as abundant as uranium. It produced about .1% of the
>dangerous high level wastes as a LWR and this is only dangerous for
>300 years at which point it can be sold as scrap metal.

Claim of fuel usage.. unsupported.. same goes for waste products.. 
  both are dependant on power output.   No real difference between LWR
and any proposed LFTR reactor in waste products per MWh produced..
Both just as deadly...

LFTR is a non starter..  
   Coolant chosen absorbs too many neutrons to make a decent breeder..
   Very corrosive coolant, reacts with U, Pu and Th. 
   Requires a large initial core. (2000kg ) of Pu or HEU. 
      1.  Reprocessed Pu is fairly hot (mix of Pu-239, 240 and 241). 
      2.  U.S. facilities which reprocessed fuel are all superfund
clean up sites.  (A fairly messy operation.) 
      3.  Extreme proliferation risk.. 2000kg == 300 thermonuclear
weapons.. (megaton sized.) .. No superpower is going to allow that
stuff out of site.. 
      4.  Limited amounts of Pu avail for down blending.. (60 tonns.) 
  
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html
      

>
>The LFTR was demonstrated in the 1960s as ORNL. Uranium and military
>interests killed it off for narrow political reasons. It is the future
>of energy for the planet because it can be used for everything form
>process heat (oil and chemical refineries, desalination of salt water
>cheaply, cracking of H20 into hydrogen fuel, etc etc) and it's

Breeders don't a good track record ... most of them operated for just
a couple of years before suffering a major incident. 


>scalable from a large size of, say, 1700 MWs reactor down to 5 MW
>reactors. Since the fuel is in a liquid state, chemical reprocessing
>can be done onsite and inline. A much cheaper version of an atomic
>power plant compared to anything out there.

The last thing you want is liquid reactor fuel especially in the
cooling system. 

snip..

On Aug 18, 12:47 pm, T. Keating  wrote:


> As seen in chernobyl.. Graphite has a tendency to catch on fire when
> exposed to the atmosphere..

It wasn't the exposure to air...graphite does NOT have a tendency to
catch fire in O2, it's when it's heated beyond it's rated capability,
which is very high. The original Manhattan project moderator was
atomospheric exposed graphite.

> Claim of fuel usage.. unsupported.. same goes for waste products..
>   both are dependant on power output.   No real difference between LWR
> and any proposed LFTR reactor in waste products per MWh produced..
> Both just as deadly...

Bullshit. It's proven as the ORNL rector ran for a year and produced
very little waste. All the original documents are available. the out
put per MW is 1/1000 of highly radioactive waste compared to a LWR.
First, there is the mass of the fuel itself...which is 1/30 to 1/50th
weight. Secondly, you have a 99% burnup...do you understand what this
means? 99% of the highly dangerous tranuranics are BURNT UP. The
document library at ORNL is onlne at energyfromthorium.com. IT bothers
you doesn't it Keating? That waste problems are virtually eliminated
from LFTRs fission reactors...

> LFTR is a non starter..

Started already.

>    Coolant chosen absorbs too many neutrons to make a decent breeder..

You don't understand what a breeder is Keating. It doesn't have to
produce a vast surplus of fuel, only enough to keep it going with the
addition of thorium. It is not the "coolant chosen" that inhibits
breading, it's that the intrinsically safe LFTR runs in a 'thermal'
spectrum, not a "fast spectrum".

>    Very corrosive coolant, reacts with U, Pu and Th.

Taken care of by advances in material R&D. It's not 1956 anymore.

>    Requires a large initial core. (2000kg ) of Pu or HEU.

About right. Easily attainable through current enrichment. Plus, every
nine years we get an extra load of surplus bred U233. Nice, huh?

>       1.  Reprocessed Pu is fairly hot (mix of Pu-239, 240 and 241).

No a problem.

>       2.  U.S. facilities which reprocessed fuel are all superfund
> clean up sites.  (A fairly messy operation.)

Because that was the old days, the new ones at 30 years in advance of
the old ones.

>       3.  Extreme proliferation risk.. 2000kg == 300 thermonuclear
> weapons.. (megaton sized.) .. No superpower is going to allow that
> stuff out of site..

Not from an LFTR it isn't. There too much U232 and non-weaponized Pu
involved. It's essentially proliferation resitance. go to left-
atomics.blogspot.com to show why it's easier NOT to use a reactor. In
fact, no civilian/commerical reactor has EVER been used for WMD
production.

>       4.  Limited amounts of Pu avail for down blending.. (60 tonns.)

Please. That's what sitting around in the US. World wide there is 400
tons (for 400 starts. And that's just available now. If we take ALL
the weapons...well, you should support the use of down-blending or
better yet Pu start charges for MSRs/LFTRs to GET RID OF NUCLEAR
WEAPONS. But you don't, which is why you for keeping them around, I
suppose.

> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html

Exactly. See all the papers there on this. Look for "Megatons to
Megawatts". Are you FOR WMD or AGAINST it? On nuclear power provides
the solution to get rid of it forever.

> Breeders don't a good track record ... most of them operated for just
> a couple of years before suffering a major incident.

You are confusing fast breeders which is only subset of breeders. In
fact, ALL LWRs breed upto about 50% of their fuel.

> The last thing you want is liquid reactor fuel especially in the
> cooling system.

Gawwwddd...! You have no idea, do you? The cooling system relates to
energy transfer. But perhaps you could explain why you don't want
this?

D.

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT), dave.walters@comcast.net
wrote:

>On Aug 18, 12:47 pm, T. Keating  wrote:
>
>
>> As seen in chernobyl.. Graphite has a tendency to catch on fire when
>> exposed to the atmosphere..
>
>It wasn't the exposure to air...graphite does NOT have a tendency to
>catch fire in O2, it's when it's heated beyond it's rated capability,
>which is very high. The original Manhattan project moderator was
>atomospheric exposed graphite.

Graphite == Carbon.. 
    Hot Carbon(over 250C) + Air == fire..   


>
>> Claim of fuel usage.. unsupported.. same goes for waste products..
>>   both are dependant on power output.   No real difference between LWR
>> and any proposed LFTR reactor in waste products per MWh produced..
>> Both just as deadly...
>
>Bullshit. It's proven as the ORNL rector ran for a year and produced
>very little waste. All the original documents are available. the out
>put per MW is 1/1000 of highly radioactive waste compared to a LWR.
>First, there is the mass of the fuel itself...which is 1/30 to 1/50th
>weight. Secondly, you have a 99% burnup...do you understand what this
>means? 99% of the highly dangerous tranuranics are BURNT UP. The
>document library at ORNL is onlne at energyfromthorium.com. IT bothers
>you doesn't it Keating? That waste problems are virtually eliminated
>from LFTRs fission reactors...

Prove it.. you'e got no data.. 

   Fission in any form still produces lots of radioactive isotopes
and other nasties. 

>
>> LFTR is a non starter..
>
>Started already.


Oh.. really .... Care to list any of them currently in operation???
   Answer you can't ... none have been built in last 40 years. 
 
What was built in the early 60's where very small scale prototypes.. 
   
>
>>    Coolant chosen absorbs too many neutrons to make a decent breeder..
>
>You don't understand what a breeder is Keating. It doesn't have to
>produce a vast surplus of fuel, only enough to keep it going with the
>addition of thorium. It is not the "coolant chosen" that inhibits
>breading, it's that the intrinsically safe LFTR runs in a 'thermal'
>spectrum, not a "fast spectrum".

Which cuts down on the breeding ratio.

>
>>    Very corrosive coolant, reacts with U, Pu and Th.
>
>Taken care of by advances in material R&D. It's not 1956 anymore.
>
>>    Requires a large initial core. (2000kg ) of Pu or HEU.
>
>About right. Easily attainable through current enrichment. Plus, every
>nine years we get an extra load of surplus bred U233. Nice, huh?
>
>>       1.  Reprocessed Pu is fairly hot (mix of Pu-239, 240 and 241).
>
>No a problem.
>
>>       2.  U.S. facilities which reprocessed fuel are all superfund
>> clean up sites.  (A fairly messy operation.)
>
>Because that was the old days, the new ones at 30 years in advance of
>the old ones.
>
>>       3.  Extreme proliferation risk.. 2000kg == 300 thermonuclear
>> weapons.. (megaton sized.) .. No superpower is going to allow that
>> stuff out of site..
>
>Not from an LFTR it isn't. There too much U232 and non-weaponized Pu
>involved. It's essentially proliferation resitance. go to left-
>atomics.blogspot.com to show why it's easier NOT to use a reactor. In
>fact, no civilian/commerical reactor has EVER been used for WMD
>production.

U232 does not exist in a natural state.. (70 year half life).   
U233 also does not occur naturally.. 
 when manufactured it has been used to fuel and test several
n-weapons. (google Operation Teapot)

>
>>       4.  Limited amounts of Pu avail for down blending.. (60 tonns.)
>
>Please. That's what sitting around in the US. World wide there is 400
>tons (for 400 starts. And that's just available now. If we take ALL
>the weapons...well, you should support the use of down-blending or
>better yet Pu start charges for MSRs/LFTRs to GET RID OF NUCLEAR
>WEAPONS. But you don't, which is why you for keeping them around, I
>suppose.

Obviously you didn't look at the link.. 
>
>> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html
>
>Exactly. See all the papers there on this. Look for "Megatons to
>Megawatts". Are you FOR WMD or AGAINST it? On nuclear power provides
>the solution to get rid of it forever.

"Plutonium and MOX

Disarmament will also give rise to some 150-200 tonnes of
weapons-grade plutonium (Pu). Weapons-grade plutonium has over 93% of
the fissile isotope, Pu-239, and can be used, like reactor-grade Pu,
in fuel for electricity production. Options for its disposal include:

    * Immobilisation with high-level waste - treating plutonium as
waste,
    * Fabrication with uranium oxide as a MOX fuel for burning in
existing reactors,
    * Fabrication with thorium as a fuel for existing Russian
reactors,
    * Fuelling fast-neutron reactors.

In 1994 the USA announced that 52.5 tonnes of its military plutonium
stockpile was surplus to military requirements. This included non-pit
material, and about 20 tonnes of it was of such quality that it might
not be possible to utilise it for MOX.

In June 2000, the USA and Russia agreed to dispose of 34 tonnes each
of weapons-grade plutonium by 2014."


>
>> Breeders don't a good track record ... most of them operated for just
>> a couple of years before suffering a major incident.
>
>You are confusing fast breeders which is only subset of breeders. In
>fact, ALL LWRs breed upto about 50% of their fuel.

Not enough.. Pu doesn't grow on trees..   It is quite limited in
supply.    Recoverable U are going to be mined out by the end of this
century.   

If you need 50% of your fuel from LWR's your going to be limited to a
relativity small number of GWe size reactors.. (less than 200).. 

And once the LWR are shut down.. so goes your fuel supply. 

>
>> The last thing you want is liquid reactor fuel especially in the
>> cooling system.
>
>Gawwwddd...! You have no idea, do you? The cooling system relates to
>energy transfer. But perhaps you could explain why you don't want
>this?

Your promoting a design that has limited practicality and is quite
dangerous.,    It does not scale up and is highly dependant on LWR
reactors.. (Which also have a limited future.) 

"Reactor cleanup making progress
Nuke material removal at Molten Salt almost done after much delay "

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/mar/17/reactor-cleanup-making-progress/
Monday, March 17, 2008

"Within the next couple of weeks, workers should have extracted the
final quantities of uranium-233 from old fuel tanks at the reactor and
shipped the fissile material - of potential use in nuclear weapons -
to a secure site at Oak Ridge National Laboratory."

"The reactor was built as an experiment to test new reactor concepts,
including the use of lithium and beryllium salts to cool the reactor's
fuel. The experiment also substituted U-233 for the more-traditional
U-235 to evaluate its fuel capabilities."

Note:  No.. ..Fluorine salts.... 

"We've run into some unexpected problems. We thought we'd be done here
at the end of January," said Paul Divjak, the president of Bechtel
Jacobs Co., DOE's cleanup manager. "You've got to do it safely."

"There's much work left to be done, including the removal of nine tons
of fuel salts stored in a series of tanks and, ultimately, demolition
of the reactor building itself."

A Human Being wrote:
> On Aug 18, 4:49 am, nada  wrote:
>> Nuclear is clearly expanding world wide, a true "Renaissance" of
>> industrial energy development. each plant that comes on line can cut
>> carbon output up to several million tons. The latest roundup...
>>
>> 1. India
>> India has 17 nuclear power plants with a total installed capacity of
>> 4,120 MW in operation. Six additional units, with a capacity of 3,160
>> MW, are under various stages of construction.
>>
>> If nuclear trade with global players opens up, the Centre, which was
>> originally targeting 20,000 MW of nuclear power by 2020, hopes to
>> double nuclear capacity addition to achieve an installed capacity of
>> 40,000 MW over the next 12 years.
>>
>> According to US-India Business Council estimates, at least $100
>> billion (about Rs 400,000 crore) worth of investment will be needed to
>> develop nuclear energy in India over the next 20 years.
>>
>> 2. Italy
>> Italy has overturned it's ban on nuclear energy (peferring previously
>> to have *other countries* develop nuclear generation which would be
>> bought by Italy, now this is costing Italy way too much money).
>>
>> 3. The United Arab Emirates
>> The UAE has started developing it's nuclear plan in co-operation with
>> the IAEA and France. Up to 20,000 MWs of new nuclear is being
>> considered.
>>
>> 4. China
>> China is so busy with building nuclear plants that it is very
>> difficult to keep track. China is interested in EVERY from of energy,
>> not just nuclear, and, within nuclear, it is interested in High
>> Temperature Gas Reactors/PBMRs (two pilot plants under construction),
>> Light Water Reactors and Heavy Water Reactors. By 2030 they want to
>> have 120,000 MWs of nuclear either built or under consturction. This
>> is being developed with every major nucleare supplier in the world as
>> well as the development of a compeltely vertically integrated nuclear
>> component mnaufacturing sector.
>>
>> 5. Russia is still on plans for at least an other 40,000 MWs of
>> nuclear, with an average of 2 plants a year coming online for 20 years
>> at least. The more nuclear Russia builds, the less coal and gas it
>> burns and the more of this it can sell on the world market.
>>
>> 6. Romania
>> New reactor helps cut Romanian power imports. Romania managed to cut
>> its electricity imports by nearly 30% in the first half of 2008
>> relative to 2007, thanks to a massive increase in nuclear output after
>> its second nuclear unit started up.
>>
>> The country's second nuclear reactor, Cernavoda 2, entered commercial
>> service in October 2007. Now, half-yearly figures published by the
>> Romanian National Institute of Statistics show that, in a 6-month
>> period when overall electricity production was up on the same period
>> the previous year, imports, at 395.5 million kWh, were 169.3 million
>> kWh down. Nuclear generation for the six months, at 5119.2 million
>> kWh, was over 66% up on the same period in 2007, with hydro also 28%
>> up.
>>
>>  Romania's next two nuclear units, also at Cernavoda, will be built by
>> a consortium of six European companies in a joint venture with
>> Romania's Nuclearelectrica SA under plans finalized earlier this
>> year.
>>
>> 7. Japan
>> Japan is planning another 10 or so nuclear reactors. Half their power
>> is generated from nuclear and they want to increase it to eliminate
>> all gas and coal from their grid.
>>
>> 8. S. Korea
>> S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their
>> geneation (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being
>> planned.
> 
> I sincerely hope they come to their senses soon....
> Nuclear power is not the answer.

Nuclear power was the answer, is the answer, and will be the answer.

Pass the word.

On Aug 18, 2:26 pm, T. Keating  wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 13:30:47 -0700 (PDT), dave.walt...@comcast.net

> >It wasn't the exposure to air...graphite does NOT have a tendency to
> >catch fire in O2, it's when it's heated beyond it's rated capability,
> >which is very high. The original Manhattan project moderator was
> >atomospheric exposed graphite.
>
> Graphite == Carbon..
>     Hot Carbon(over 250C) + Air == fire..

Ugh. back to school. No, it doesn't...
see:
http://www.iaea.org/inisnkm/nkm/aws/htgr/fulltext/29059917.pdf


>
> >Bullshit. It's proven as the ORNL rector ran for a year and produced
> >very little waste. All the original documents are available. the out
> >put per MW is 1/1000 of highly radioactive waste compared to a LWR.
> >First, there is the mass of the fuel itself...which is 1/30 to 1/50th
> >weight. Secondly, you have a 99% burnup...do you understand what this
> >means? 99% of the highly dangerous tranuranics are BURNT UP. The
> >document library at ORNL is onlne at energyfromthorium.com. IT bothers
> >you doesn't it Keating? That waste problems are virtually eliminated
> >from LFTRs fission reactors...

See
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/  and
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/NSE_moltenFluorides.pdf
for all the documentation you need. Fuel use isn't even *debated* by
phsycists dude. You gotta get on the same page. NO ONE goes after
LFTRs/MSRs because they use the SAME fuel quantity. Th -- > Pa -->
U233 is well understood. The documentation (and he's a simple one for
you which is presented in nice  clearity:
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2006/04/welcome-and-introduction.html
and, ORNL paper on the same subject:
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/WASH-1097.pdf
1 Ton of Thorium equals 1 GW year in U233 production. You don't like
it, but live with it, it's all documented.

> Prove it.. you'e got no data..

See above...

>    Fission in any form still produces lots of radioactive isotopes
> and other nasties.

Yes it does. And since a LFTR runs on liquid fuel, all the
nasties...ALL of them can be decanted out. With a 99% burn up of the
Th the total WEIGHT of these nasties is .9 ton for the same 1GW year.
That's smaller than a desk. And it only lasts 300 years. Ergo, it's
totally manageble. As opposed to the 30,000 people dead every year
from coal alone in the US. (google "dirty coal" and see what you get).
Nuclear kills no one.
>
>
> >> LFTR is a non starter..
>
> >Started already.
>
> Oh.. really .... Care to list any of them currently in operation???
>    Answer you can't ... none have been built in last 40 years.

The ORNL reactor ran for over a year. It was shut down for the same
reasons I explained previously. As was the Aircraft Reactor
Experiment. MSRs shutdown because they wanted to use uranium for WMDs.

> What was built in the early 60's where very small scale prototypes..

Yes, that's how it starts. How much wind is there in the US? 1%!
"Wow..only 1%, let's not use it...". We have to decide...*politics* to
develop the LFTR. It's an answer with a clear road map, we should use
it. Better than solar and wind (which can't provide base load anyway).

> >You don't understand what a breeder is Keating. It doesn't have to
> >produce a vast surplus of fuel, only enough to keep it going with the
> >addition of thorium. It is not the "coolant chosen" that inhibits
> >breading, it's that the intrinsically safe LFTR runs in a 'thermal'
> >spectrum, not a "fast spectrum".
>
> Which cuts down on the breeding ratio.

Yes, but keeps above 1. That's the whole point. Even solid fuel LWRs
that run on Thorium usually end up with MORE fuel than they started,
the Shippingsport (another THORIUM reactor, BTW) after it ran for 10
year has more fuel than what was put in there. All reactors breed
some. The LFTR/MSRs breed  slightly better than 1.09. Fast Reactors
breed like 1.4 but they are dangerous.

<snip>

> >Not from an LFTR it isn't. There too much U232 and non-weaponized Pu
> >involved. It's essentially proliferation resitance. go to left-
> >atomics.blogspot.com to show why it's easier NOT to use a reactor. In
> >fact, no civilian/commerical reactor has EVER been used for WMD
> >production.
>
> U232 does not exist in a natural state.. (70 year half life).

Correct.

> U233 also does not occur naturally..

Correct.

>  when manufactured it has been used to fuel and test several
> n-weapons. (google Operation Teapot)

No, it "has to be used" where you want it. U233 is a terrible weapons
fuel...it's far too hot. Just like all the MSR byproducts which are
way to hot and mixed up with crap like U232 (by dedign, BTW) so that
it *can't* be used. See the latest blog posting on
nucleargreen.blogspot.com or left-atomics.blogspot.com to see HOW
reactors actually are used to make weapons grade U235 and Pu.


> Obviously you didn't look at the link..

> >>http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf13.html

Yeah, I did. It can and should be used for starter fuel for LFTRs. But
you don't see the forest for the trees Keating: it's USED to produce
electricity. You've now avoided answering the point TWICE: what do you
think it should be used for??? How do YOU think it should be gotten
rid of???

> >Exactly. See all the papers there on this. Look for "Megatons to
> >Megawatts". Are you FOR WMD or AGAINST it? On nuclear power provides
> >the solution to get rid of it forever.
>
> "Plutonium and MOX

Yes.

> Disarmament will also give rise to some 150-200 tonnes of
> weapons-grade plutonium (Pu). Weapons-grade plutonium has over 93% of
> the fissile isotope, Pu-239, and can be used, like reactor-grade Pu,
> in fuel for electricity production. Options for its disposal include:
>
>     * Immobilisation with high-level waste - treating plutonium as
> waste,
>     * Fabrication with uranium oxide as a MOX fuel for burning in
> existing reactors,
>     * Fabrication with thorium as a fuel for existing Russian
> reactors,
>     * Fuelling fast-neutron reactors.
>
> In 1994 the USA announced that 52.5 tonnes of its military plutonium
> stockpile was surplus to military requirements. This included non-pit
> material, and about 20 tonnes of it was of such quality that it might
> not be possible to utilise it for MOX.
>
> In June 2000, the USA and Russia agreed to dispose of 34 tonnes each
> of weapons-grade plutonium by 2014."

And so, let me get this...you are *opposed* to this???? Dude...ANSWER
the question...what to do with the Pu now sitting on tops of nuclear
missiles??? I have an answer and in part it's already working. What's
YOUR solution?

 >> Breeders don't a good track record ... most of them operated for
just
> >> a couple of years before suffering a major incident.
>
> >You are confusing fast breeders which is only subset of breeders. In
> >fact, ALL LWRs breed upto about 50% of their fuel.
>
> Not enough.. Pu doesn't grow on trees..   It is quite limited in
> supply.    Recoverable U are going to be mined out by the end of this
> century.

You don't need Pu...you can use it but we can use U235.

> If you need 50% of your fuel from LWR's your going to be limited to a
> relativity small number of GWe size reactors.. (less than 200)..

So...I'll take 200 for FREE anyday. Every 9 years there will be
*double* the supply. I expect it would start off slow anyway, so what?
It's meant to displace Gen III reactors being built now, not stop
their construction.

> And once the LWR are shut down.. so goes your fuel supply.

Most LWRs that are shut down have lots of Pu and U235 left. We'll use
that. Breed more. And, we have the same source for U235 that LWRs
have. Plus...the cool thing is that a LFTR 'core' can be used out to
infinity...that is, after, say, 60 to 80 years of use...you still have
the same amount of usable U233 you started with...and it can be used
in another LFTR!

> >> The last thing you want is liquid reactor fuel especially in the
> >> cooling system.
>
> >Gawwwddd...! You have no idea, do you? The cooling system relates to
> >energy transfer. But perhaps you could explain why you don't want
> >this?
>
> Your promoting a design that has limited practicality and is quite
> dangerous.,    It does not scale up and is highly dependant on LWR
> reactors.. (Which also have a limited future.)

Sorry? We discussed practicality: 5 MW to 1.8 GW reactors,  cracking
water for H2, desalinating seawater, process heat for synthtic fuels.
Practicality??

> "Reactor cleanup making progress
> Nuke material removal at Molten Salt almost done after much delay "
>
> http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/mar/17/reactor-cleanup-making-progr...
> Monday, March 17, 2008
<snip>

Shouldn't be thrown away should be used for next starter load. Oh
well.

> Note:  No.. ..Fluorine salts....

Different reactor. At any rate, it was a sodium reactor and sodium
reactors are by nature more volatile. Fluoirde salts are far more
stable. ORNL came out with a list of practical salts to use. Doesn't
matter. Fluoride is the most stable.

> "We've run into some unexpected problems. We thought we'd be done here
> at the end of January," said Paul Divjak, the president of Bechtel
> Jacobs Co., DOE's cleanup manager. "You've got to do it safely."

That's because it's been sitting there forever and no one knew how to
do it. It's not a LFTR which is the main issue since a LFTR has a
built in, inline processor that fluoridates the "wastes" and
nuetralizes them for continual burn up. This reactor, a test reactor,
didn't have that capability.

> "There's much work left to be done, including the removal of nine tons
> of fuel salts stored in a series of tanks and, ultimately, demolition
> of the reactor building itself."

In a Thorium Economy, you wouldn't have to worry...almost all of it
can be recylced.

David

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:45:51 -0700 (PDT), dave.walters@comcast.net
wrote:

Snip... 

The technology claim is feasible based on many flawed premises.. 
  You're wrong on  almost every count.. 
   Hot Graphite burns when exposed to our atmosphere.  Obviously.. 

   The reactor was not designed to produce electricity and was quite a
mess to cleanup.. (40 years after being shutdown.)   So much for
reprocessing the fuel in near real time. 
 
You claim only thermal neutron breeding. 
     That's not going to yield a breeding ratio anywhere near
approaching one(1).   (which is not necessary goal for military
purposes.) 

Only a fast breeder is going to reach those goals.  

Therefore  you will NEVER EVER be free of the requirements for fresh
inputs of Pu or HEU.    Base case you've only extended the supply of
fuel by 30 to 40%.    Most of which will  be gone by the end of this
century.  

End of story..

On Aug 18, 7:36 pm, T. Keating  wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:45:51 -0700 (PDT), dave.walt...@comcast.net
> wrote:
>
> Snip...
>
> The technology claim is feasible based on many flawed premises..
>   You're wrong on  almost every count..
>    Hot Graphite burns when exposed to our atmosphere.  Obviously..
>
>    The reactor was not designed to produce electricity and was quite a
> mess to cleanup.. (40 years after being shutdown.)   So much for
> reprocessing the fuel in near real time.
>
> You claim only thermal neutron breeding.
>      That's not going to yield a breeding ratio anywhere near
> approaching one(1).   (which is not necessary goal for military
> purposes.)
>
> Only a fast breeder is going to reach those goals.
>
> Therefore  you will NEVER EVER be free of the requirements for fresh
> inputs of Pu or HEU.    Base case you've only extended the supply of
> fuel by 30 to 40%.    Most of which will  be gone by the end of this
> century.
>
> End of story..

When you can find a physicist that agrees with you please do. The
neutron splitting of thorium into Pa and Pa decay rate into U233 is
well known. That's why YOU have no data to disprove the breeding ratio
of a LFTR. There are 600,000 tons of high grade (50% purity) thorium
in Idaho. Enough to power ALL of the US energy needs to 1000 years.
Comeback again T. when you understand the subject under discussing.
Oh, please don't forget some documentation that shows the breeding
ration. I provided links from esblished experiments. You haven't, and
can't.

LFTRs are the future. If we don't deploy them we will have to rely on
less efficient, more complex uranium fission.

David

[From World Nuclear News]

Chinese power plant plans sprint ahead
11 August 2008

As Electricit¨¦ de France (EdF) finalises a joint venture with the
China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company enabling it to co-own and
operate two nuclear reactors at Taishan, the China National Nuclear
Corp has announced work will start on another nuclear power station in
Hainan by the end of 2009.


EdF and China Guangdong Nuclear Power Company (CGNPC) signed the final
agreements to create the Guangdong Taishan Nuclear Power Joint Venture
Co Ltd (TNPC) in Beijing. The company is being set up to oversee the
building of, then own and operate, two Areva-designed Evolutionary
Pressurized Reactors (EPRs) at Taishan in Guangdong province, modelled
on the EPR currently being built at Flamanville in France. EdF will
hold 30% of the joint venture company for 50 years, the maximum
permitted for a Chinese joint venture. The creation of the joint
venture company is still subject to approval by the Chinese
authorities.


Contracts were signed with Areva for the construction of the two units
in November 2007. Preliminary site work has already started, with
first concrete  scheduled for the autumn of 2009 and the units
scheduled to startup in 2013 and 2015, respectively. A contract worth
$310 million has also recently been signed with Alstom to supply
turbine islands for the two 1650 MWe EPRs.

Pierre Gadonneix, EdF's chairman and CEO, described the development as
part of EdF's strategy to be a "leader" in the worldwide nuclear
renaissance, "as an investor and an operator, possibly beside local
partners."

2009 construction start at Changjiang

Meanwhile, the China National Nuclear Corp (CNNC) has announced that
work will start by the end of 2009 on a 1300 MWe nuclear power plant
at Changjiang in the southern island province of Hainan. Initial
approval for plant construction was granted by the country's National
Developmental and Reform Commission (NDRC£©on 18 July.

CNNC gave 2014 as the target date for commercial operation of the
plant, which according to CNNC will comprise two 650 MWe pressurized
water reactors (PWR), with over 70% of the plant's equipment made in
China. China's operating nuclear power plants include French, Canadian
and Russian designs. However, three reactors built to Chinese designs
and construction are operating at Qinshan.



In addition to the two Changjiang reactors, work is expected to begin
on a further 14 units in China over the next two years. Seven units
are currently under construction.

Early reactor plan given OK by regulatory group...

A proposal to add two new reactors to Plant Vogtle cleared a major
hurdle Monday with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's finding that
there are no environmental impacts to prevent issuing an early site
permit.
Sign up for breaking news alerts from The Chronicle

Southern Nuclear filed its Vogtle early site permit application Aug.
15, 2006. The company has also applied for a Combined Operating
License to build and operate two AP1000 reactors on the site on the
Savannah River 26 miles downstream from Augusta.

Full:
http://chronicle.augusta.com/stories/081908/met_469933.shtml

On Aug 18, 7:36 pm, T. Keating  wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 18:45:51 -0700 (PDT), dave.walt...@comcast.net
> wrote:
>
> Snip...
>
> The technology claim is feasible based on many flawed premises..
>   You're wrong on  almost every count..
>    Hot Graphite burns when exposed to our atmosphere.  Obviously..
>
>    The reactor was not designed to produce electricity and was quite a
> mess to cleanup.. (40 years after being shutdown.)   So much for
> reprocessing the fuel in near real time.

I got a book that detailed the aftermath of the MSBR. The reactor
wasn't any problem to clean up, it was the fuel salt. The problem was
radiolysis of the salt after they just let the uranium and thorium
tetraflourides sit in vats for several years. Its fairly simple to
prevent. There werent any other incidents with the entire MSBR program
and its widely viewed as one of the most successful breeder reactor
programs. It accomplished all of its stated goals, and encountered
only a couple of problems that were solved with engineering at the
time (tellurium reacting with the hastelloy being the most notable of
them)

> You claim only thermal neutron breeding.
>      That's not going to yield a breeding ratio anywhere near
> approaching one(1).   (which is not necessary goal for military
> purposes.)
>
> Only a fast breeder is going to reach those goals.  
>
> Therefore  you will NEVER EVER be free of the requirements for fresh
> inputs of Pu or HEU.    Base case you've only extended the supply of
> fuel by 30 to 40%.    Most of which will  be gone by the end of this
> century.  

That would come as news to anyone who worked on the MSBR experiment,
the Light water breeder reactor at shippingport, or any of the heavy
water breeder reactor variants out there. Thorium breeders work in the
thermal regime because U233 produces more than enough neutrons per
fission at thermal energies to operate as a breeder in the thermal
regime.

wrote:

> > LFTR is a non starter..
> 
> Started already.

Amusing when the nuclear skeptics find themselves in deep waters.

-- 
- Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain

A Human Being  wrote:

> On Aug 18, 4:49 am, nada  wrote:

snip

> >
> > 8. S. Korea
> > S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their
> > geneation (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being
> > planned.
> 
> I sincerely hope they come to their senses soon....
> Nuclear power is not the answer.

So sure of that, are you?

NE may not be THE answer, but it is a damn good one amongst a number of
them.

-- 
- Peter *** http://titancity.com/blog/
"Don't go around saying the world owes you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." - Mark Twain

Found an interesting paper from UC at Berekly:

http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html

This is a sodium cooled IFR (integral fast reactor) reactor that uses
sodium. It's been demonstrated that one could use other salts as well
but the method is the same. Most notably only 1700 lbs of fission
products for a year for 1GW. All the long lived stuff...the
transuranic elements that give current LWR the 10s of thousands of
years of danger, would be burned up completely and the little waste
there is would last only 200 years. Not bad. I'll have to reexamine my
opposition to fast reactors now.

Oh, and for Mr. Keating, the actual gov't document on the IFR (try
reading it this time):

http://www.inl.gov/publications/...ns/d/ebr- ii.pdf

David

On Aug 21, 10:06 am, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:
> A Human Being  wrote:
>
> > On Aug 18, 4:49 am, nada  wrote:
>
> snip
>
>
>
> > > 8. S. Korea
> > > S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their
> > > geneation (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being
> > > planned.
>
> > I sincerely hope they come to their senses soon....
> > Nuclear power is not the answer.
>
> So sure of that, are you?
>
> NE may not be THE answer, but it is a damn good one amongst a number of
> them.
>

It is, but it is important to put this into some perspective.

Nuclear isn't going to be a lot of help in parts of the world without
a stable grid, or where the regime that would be the regulator is
politically unstable, its bureaucracy churning.

There are also significant equity issues because if, effectively, the
demands associated with running nuclear mean dependance on expensive
outside assistance and imported nuclear fuel and parts, the overheads
for a small nation might be crippling. Nuclear doesn't come cheap. It
doesn't scale down all that well either.

For some countries more prosaic solutions may make more sense. Wind
and solar will suit many rather better. In North Africa, solar thermal
opens the prospect of using the highly insolated desert regions as a
source of hard currency and cheap desal. In other places wind or tidal
may serve very well.

For a group of small villages in a rural area near good wind, a single
wind turbine could be the very best solution.

We're not just talking the developing world here either. Last night,
listening to talk back on local radio, a person rang in who wasn't
that far from Sydney but couldn't afford to put the electricity on --
$290,000 to run the line the 6 km from the grid. She was heating her
water with a solar heater on the roof and given where she was, for a
few thousand dollars, she could have had a wind turbine and battery
that would have given her pretty much everything she needed.

There are a couple of places in Victoria that have put together a
community wind project for their hamlets.

Fran

Flan  wrote
> no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote
>> A Human Being  wrote
>>> nada  wrote

>>>> 8. S. Korea
>>>> S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their geneation
>>>> (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being planned.

>>> I sincerely hope they come to their senses soon....
>>> Nuclear power is not the answer.

>> So sure of that, are you?

>> NE may not be THE answer, but it is a damn good one amongst a number of them.

> It is, but it is important to put this into some perspective.

You didnt do that.

> Nuclear isn't going to be a lot of help in parts of the world without a stable grid,

Wrong. It works fine in India and China and Nth Korea, etc etc etc.

> or where the regime that would be the regulator
> is politically unstable, its bureaucracy churning.

Wrong again, it works fine in India.

> There are also significant equity issues because if, effectively,
> the demands associated with running nuclear mean dependance
> on expensive outside assistance and imported nuclear fuel and
> parts, the overheads for a small nation might be crippling.

And they might not be too with so much of the first and the second world interested in doing that.

> Nuclear doesn't come cheap.

Neither does the alternatives.

> It doesn't scale down all that well either.

Mindlessly silly. It scales down so well that its fine in submarines and ships and even satellites.

> For some countries more prosaic solutions may make more sense.

And may not too.

> Wind and solar will suit many rather better.

Nope, cant provide base load power.

> In North Africa, solar thermal opens the prospect of using the
> highly insolated desert regions as a source of hard currency

Mindlessly silly.

> and cheap desal.

Nukes do that MUCH better.

> In other places wind or tidal may serve very well.

Bet you cant list even a single one that has done that.

> For a group of small villages in a rural area near good
> wind, a single wind turbine could be the very best solution.

Not a chance. Nowhere is the wind anything like reliable enough.

A small packaged nuke like is used in submarines and ships makes a hell of a lot more sense.

Specially with it controlled from a modern first world country remotely.

> We're not just talking the developing world here either. Last night,
> listening to talk back on local radio, a person rang in who wasn't
> that far from Sydney but couldn't afford to put the electricity on --
> $290,000 to run the line the 6 km from the grid. She was heating her
> water with a solar heater on the roof and given where she was, for a
> few thousand dollars, she could have had a wind turbine and battery
> that would have given her pretty much everything she needed.

She'd need a lot more than 'a few thousand dollar'

You've obviously never used a wind turbine in that situation.

> There are a couple of places in Victoria that have put
> together a community wind project for their hamlets.

And that makes absolutely no sense when the grid is available. Pure wank.

On Aug 21, 3:06 pm, "Rod Speed"  wrote:
> Flan  wrote
>
> > no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote
> >> A Human Being  wrote
> >>> nada  wrote
> >>>> 8. S. Korea
> >>>> S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their geneation
> >>>> (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being planned.
> >>> I sincerely hope they come to their senses soon....
> >>> Nuclear power is not the answer.
> >> So sure of that, are you?
> >> NE may not be THE answer, but it is a damn good one amongst a number of them.
> > It is, but it is important to put this into some perspective.
>
> You didnt do that.
>

Ah Mr Speedy Bot ...


> > Nuclear isn't going to be a lot of help in parts of the world without a stable grid,
>
> Wrong. It works fine in India and China and Nth Korea, etc etc etc.
>

<Rod Speed>

Mindlessly ignorant. This proves you've never ever had a f***king clue
about anything ever.

</Rod Speed>


> > or where the regime that would be the regulator
> > is politically unstable, its bureaucracy churning.
>
> Wrong again, it works fine in India.
>

<Rod Speed>

Mindlessly ignorant. This proves you've never ever had a f***king clue
about anything ever.

</Rod Speed>



> > There are also significant equity issues because if, effectively,
> > the demands associated with running nuclear mean dependance
> > on expensive outside assistance and imported nuclear fuel and
> > parts, the overheads for a small nation might be crippling.
>
> And they might not be too with so much of the first and the second world interested in doing that.
>


Your point being? Oh that's right. You've got no point.


> > Nuclear doesn't come cheap.
>
> Neither does the alternatives.
>

Neither *do* Rod.

But in some cases it will be cheaper.


> > It doesn't scale down all that well either.
>
> Mindlessly silly. It scales down so well that its fine in submarines and ships and even satellites.
>

Consider the lifecycle cost Rod

> > For some countries more prosaic solutions may make more sense.
>
> And may not too.
>

Your point being? Oh that's right. You've got no point.

> > Wind and solar will suit many rather better.
>
> Nope, cant provide base load power.
>


Yes it can. Google David Mills on Solar Thermal.

Baseload power isn't essential everywhere anyway.

> > In North Africa, solar thermal opens the prospect of using the
> > highly insolated desert regions as a source of hard currency
>
> Mindlessly silly.
>

They don't think so.

> > and cheap desal.
>
> Nukes do that MUCH better.
>


They do it no better and not at such a low cost. They don't have to
spend billions decommissioning either. They make use of a resource
delivered free -- insolation.

> > In other places wind or tidal may serve very well.
>
> Bet you cant list even a single one that has done that.
>

Bay of Fundy, Severn,. La Rance

> > For a group of small villages in a rural area near good
> > wind, a single wind turbine could be the very best solution.
>
> Not a chance. Nowhere is the wind anything like reliable enough.
>

The latest US Report on Windpower says otherwise, In Hawaii, CF of 45%
has been established.

> A small packaged nuke like is used in submarines and ships makes a hell of a lot more sense.
>

A mindlessly silly claim.


> Specially with it controlled from a modern first world country remotely.
>


Yes, most countries like to be dependent on their neighbours.

> > We're not just talking the developing world here either. Last night,
> > listening to talk back on local radio, a person rang in who wasn't
> > that far from Sydney but couldn't afford to put the electricity on --
> > $290,000 to run the line the 6 km from the grid. She was heating her
> > water with a solar heater on the roof and given where she was, for a
> > few thousand dollars, she could have had a wind turbine and battery
> > that would have given her pretty much everything she needed.
>
> She'd need a lot more than 'a few thousand dollar'
>

Nope --- small turbines come reasonably cheap.


> You've obviously never used a wind turbine in that situation.
>

No, but I know of people who have.


> > There are a couple of places in Victoria that have put
> > together a community wind project for their hamlets.
>
> And that makes absolutely no sense when the grid is available. Pure wank.

Actually it's going to work out well for them and save emissions

Fran

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Flan  desperately attempted to bullshit its way
out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

No surprise that the best it could ever manage is 'teacher'

On Aug 20, 7:26 pm, nada  wrote:
> Found an interesting paper from UC at Berekly:
>
> http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html
>
> This is a sodium cooled IFR (integral fast reactor) reactor that uses
> sodium. It's been demonstrated that one could use other salts as well
> but the method is the same.

The IFR was a sodium cooled solid fuel liquid metal fast breeder
reactor. It didn't use any salts.

> Most notably only 1700 lbs of fission
> products for a year for 1GW. All the long lived stuff...the
> transuranic elements that give current LWR the 10s of thousands of
> years of danger, would be burned up completely and the little waste
> there is would last only 200 years. Not bad. I'll have to reexamine my
> opposition to fast reactors now.

Don't. The IFR was an interesting way to waste government funds if you
view spent fuel as the one ring of Sauron that must be extinguished in
the fires of a fast reactor. The problem with the IFR was that it was
like any other LMFBR regime: expensive, as compared to LWRs, and
unnecissary given how vast the uranium resource base is. The LFTR is
an elegant approach because it offers the opportunity of far lower
capital costs. The experience we've had with LMFBR regimes indicate
that they are unlikely to be able to compete with LWRs, and so they're
a dead end.

I once found them interesting because of their ability to incinerate
spent fuel. But thats a rather small benifit when you consider how
tiny the volume of spent fuel from LWRs actually is.

Liquid chloride fluid fuel reactors offer far more promise (and far
more passive safety features) for fast reactor regimes than LMFBRs.
They're less mature as they dont have the luxury of several operation
prototypes as the fluoride thermal reactors did, but we wont need any
fast reactors this side of fifty years anyways so we might as well do
it right if we do it at all.

For more information on liquid chloride reactors:

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/LCFRbiblio.html

Rod Speed wrote:
> Flan  wrote
>> no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote
>>> A Human Being  wrote
>>>> nada  wrote
> 
>>>>> 8. S. Korea
>>>>> S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their geneation
>>>>> (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being planned.
> 
>>>> I sincerely hope they come to their senses soon....
>>>> Nuclear power is not the answer.
> 
>>> So sure of that, are you?
> 
>>> NE may not be THE answer, but it is a damn good one amongst a number of them.
> 
>> It is, but it is important to put this into some perspective.
> 
> You didnt do that.
> 
>> Nuclear isn't going to be a lot of help in parts of the world without a stable grid,
> 
> Wrong. It works fine in India and China and Nth Korea, etc etc etc.
> 
>> or where the regime that would be the regulator
>> is politically unstable, its bureaucracy churning.
> 
> Wrong again, it works fine in India.
> 
>> There are also significant equity issues because if, effectively,
>> the demands associated with running nuclear mean dependance
>> on expensive outside assistance and imported nuclear fuel and
>> parts, the overheads for a small nation might be crippling.
> 
> And they might not be too with so much of the first and the second world interested in doing that.
> 
>> Nuclear doesn't come cheap.
> 

The regulations and wasteful government bureaucratic and superfluous 
bullshit that runs up the cost of Nuclear power, it's whining Liberals 
wanting to spend endless streams of money. It's forcing the power co. to 
buy the locals a new EOC.... and pay and pay.... it's like paying bribes 
every block you walk in the third world.

> Neither does the alternatives.
> 
>> It doesn't scale down all that well either.
> 
> Mindlessly silly. It scales down so well that its fine in submarines and ships and even satellites.
> 
>> For some countries more prosaic solutions may make more sense.
> 
> And may not too.
> 
>> Wind and solar will suit many rather better.
> 
> Nope, cant provide base load power.
> 
>> In North Africa, solar thermal opens the prospect of using the
>> highly insolated desert regions as a source of hard currency
> 
> Mindlessly silly.
> 
>> and cheap desal.
> 
> Nukes do that MUCH better.
> 
>> In other places wind or tidal may serve very well.
> 
> Bet you cant list even a single one that has done that.
> 
>> For a group of small villages in a rural area near good
>> wind, a single wind turbine could be the very best solution.
> 
> Not a chance. Nowhere is the wind anything like reliable enough.
> 
> A small packaged nuke like is used in submarines and ships makes a hell of a lot more sense.
> 
> Specially with it controlled from a modern first world country remotely.
> 
>> We're not just talking the developing world here either. Last night,
>> listening to talk back on local radio, a person rang in who wasn't
>> that far from Sydney but couldn't afford to put the electricity on --
>> $290,000 to run the line the 6 km from the grid. She was heating her
>> water with a solar heater on the roof and given where she was, for a
>> few thousand dollars, she could have had a wind turbine and battery
>> that would have given her pretty much everything she needed.
> 
> She'd need a lot more than 'a few thousand dollar'
> 
> You've obviously never used a wind turbine in that situation.
> 
>> There are a couple of places in Victoria that have put
>> together a community wind project for their hamlets.
> 
> And that makes absolutely no sense when the grid is available. Pure wank. 
> 
>

Fran wrote:
> On Aug 21, 10:06 am, no...@jose.com (PeterBP) wrote:
>> A Human Being  wrote:
>>
>>> On Aug 18, 4:49 am, nada  wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>
>>
>>>> 8. S. Korea
>>>> S. Korea has plans to also boost their nuclear to 50% of more their
>>>> geneation (stated goals are 67%). Right now there are 11 pants being
>>>> planned.

What, no wind mills?  And why does North Korea want Nukes instead of 
turning out thousands of low tech wind mills?

Must be that even the Communists know that wind power is a pipe dream. 
It's bad when wasteful communist Governments think something like wind 
power is too expensive to work.

On 21/08/08 11:39, in article MHark.15304$vX2.11252@bignews6.bellsouth.net,
"Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:

> And why does North Korea want Nukes instead of
> turning out thousands of low tech wind mills?


There is the illusion that nobody will bother you if
you have nuclear weapons.  Wind mills do not accomplish
the same thing.

In that sense, both North Korea and the USA are
on the same wavelength.

Earl Evleth wrote:
> On 21/08/08 11:39, in article MHark.15304$vX2.11252@bignews6.bellsouth.net,
> "Poetic Justice" <@http://Poetic-Justice.Talk-n-Dog.com> wrote:
> 
>> And why does North Korea want Nukes instead of
>> turning out thousands of low tech wind mills?
> 
> 
> There is the illusion that nobody will bother you if
> you have nuclear weapons.  Wind mills do not accomplish
> the same thing.
> 
> In that sense, both North Korea and the USA are
> on the same wavelength.
> 

So the commie/Socialist want "power" not power.... surprise surprise 
surprise

nada wrote:
> Found an interesting paper from UC at Berekly:
> 
> http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html
> 
> This is a sodium cooled IFR (integral fast reactor) reactor that uses
> sodium. It's been demonstrated that one could use other salts as well
> but the method is the same.

Sodium is a salt? I thought it was a metal.

Cheers,

Rich

> Most notably only 1700 lbs of fission
> products for a year for 1GW. All the long lived stuff...the
> transuranic elements that give current LWR the 10s of thousands of
> years of danger, would be burned up completely and the little waste
> there is would last only 200 years. Not bad. I'll have to reexamine my
> opposition to fast reactors now.
> 
> Oh, and for Mr. Keating, the actual gov't document on the IFR (try
> reading it this time):
> 
> http://www.inl.gov/publications/...ns/d/ebr- ii.pdf
> 
> David

Rich wrote:
> nada wrote:
>> Found an interesting paper from UC at Berekly:
>>
>> http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/designs/ifr/anlw.html
>>
>> This is a sodium cooled IFR (integral fast reactor) reactor that uses
>> sodium. It's been demonstrated that one could use other salts as well
>> but the method is the same.
> 
> Sodium is a salt? I thought it was a metal.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Rich

There you go thinking again, getting yourself into trouble huh.
<chuckle>
you live longer....

> 
>> Most notably only 1700 lbs of fission
>> products for a year for 1GW. All the long lived stuff...the
>> transuranic elements that give current LWR the 10s of thousands of
>> years of danger, would be burned up completely and the little waste
>> there is would last only 200 years. Not bad. I'll have to reexamine my
>> opposition to fast reactors now.
>>
>> Oh, and for Mr. Keating, the actual gov't document on the IFR (try
>> reading it this time):
>>
>> http://www.inl.gov/publications/...ns/d/ebr- ii.pdf
>>
>> David

"Rod Speed"   wrote:

>Flan  desperately attempted to bullshit its way
>out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
>
>No surprise that the best it could ever manage is 'teacher'


       No, it was "V'ger, remember in the movie, the space probe Voyager
was intercepted by an alien who was looking for it's creator, 
and one of the crew accepted the blame/embrace
of the super-intellect that had the voice of a woman?

On Aug 21, 7:24 pm, "Rod Speed"  wrote:
> Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
> Flan  desperately attempted to bullshit its way
> out of its predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.
>
> No surprise that the best it could ever manage is 'teacher'

Thank you Mr Rod Bot

In a world that is in constant flux, where uncertainty elbows
certitude to the back as often as not, the posting pattern of Rod
Speed is a reassuring element of continuity.

Fran