News ArticleUK nuclear industry gets green light from government inspector
My Comments
19 May 2011 10:25AMAlvin Weinberg, the inventor of and patent holder for Light Water Reactors (LWRs), of which the Fukushima Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) is one type, railed against their use for civil electrical and process heat generation, because he foresaw the likelihood of loss-of-coolant/meltdown accidents. The shear speed at which Fukushima’s 3 core meltdowns occurred, shows that all reactors requiring active safety operations, whereby coolants have to be delivered to the core, should be phased out by civil authorities with all possible urgency.
Weinberg wanted widespread use of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), with their perfect passive safety characteristics. If the core overheats or all electrics are lost or the reactor vessel leaks or is breached, the hot salts drain into a non-critically configured dump-tank, designed to safely and continuously disperse the decay heat. This crisis would not have occurred had LFTRs faced the same circumstances.
News Article
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/utility-fukushima-cores-more.html?ref=hp
Utility: Fukushima Cores More Damaged Than Thought
My Comment
Colin Megson
Blogger
Alvin Weinberg, the inventor of and patent holder for LWRs railed against their use for civil electrical and process heat generation, because he foresaw the likelihood of loss-of-coolant/meltdown accidents. Active safety, whereby coolants have to be delivered to the core, should be phased out by civil authorities urgently.
Weinberg wanted widespread use of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), with their perfect passive safety characteristics. If the core overheats or all electrics is lost or the reactor vessel leaks or is breached, the hot salts drain into a non-critically configured dump-tank, designed to safely and continuously disperse the decay heat
News Article
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/18007/eti-project-90-m-offshore-wind-turbine-blades/
ETI project: 90 m offshore wind turbine blades
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
17 May 2011
At £8750/kW and 34% capacity factor, about 30 of these (+ CCGT backup) are needed to reliably supply 100 MW, at a cost of £260,000,000. Installation, oversized (under-utilised) grid connection must take it over £½ billion. And ETI are investing £10 million of our taxes - are they mad?
Dear Mr. David Clarke,
Why don't you spend valuable tax payers money on the first-of-a-kind 100 MWe Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? It should cost around £300 million and thereafter, factory made, production-line LFTRs should cost around £150 million each.
If you want to do the UK's technology base any good and create manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity, not seen in the UK for 2 generations, get a lot of your resources into promoting LFTRs.
News Article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8514233/EDF-Energy-poised-to-begin-nuclear-push.html
EDF Energy poised to begin nuclear 'push'
My Response
lftrsuk Everyone reading this article and thinking their comments worthy of publication should research Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs). LFTRs are hundreds of times safer and 300 times more efficient than Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the UK's reactor of choice for new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium.
Thorium 232 being thrown away? Well throw it in the direction of the nearest LFTR - that's what they use for fuel.
With the inevitability of natural gas prices rising in the medium term, LWR nuclear will then become the cheapest way to produce power. But - LFTRs are half the price of an equivalent LWR and so, watt-for-watt, will be massively cheaper than any other power production method.
For those who deplore ecosystem destruction and species extinction, relationships are simple: Cost = Labour + Resource Use = Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
News Article
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246765
WIND FARM CRAZE BLIGHTING COUNTRYSIDE AND ECONOMY
My Response
WHICH SERVICES WILL WE SACRIFICE FOR WIND POWER?
15.05.11, 1:38pm
All renewables are highly expensive. Watt-for-watt, Wind Power is 3 times and Solar PV 15 times more expensive than nuclear. Also, Wind Power is only available 34% of the time and Solar PV 25% of the time; for the other 66% and 75% of the time, greenhouse gas emitting Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) are switched on - what's the point?
These crazy Governmantal decisions will leech funds away from - the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc.. Which would you choose to degrade, to pay for renewables?
If you're worried about nuclear safety or green forms of energy, you should research Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are hundreds of times safer than, and 300 times more efficient than Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the ones selected for the UK's new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium.
• Posted by: lftrsuk • Report Comment
News Article
News Article
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/18007/eti-project-90-m-offshore-wind-turbine-blades/
ETI project: 90 m offshore wind turbine blades
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
17 May 2011
At £8750/kW and 34% capacity factor, about 30 of these (+ CCGT backup) are needed to reliably supply 100 MW, at a cost of £260,000,000. Installation, oversized (under-utilised) grid connection must take it over £½ billion. And ETI are investing £10 million of our taxes - are they mad?
Dear Mr. David Clarke,
Why don't you spend valuable tax payers money on the first-of-a-kind 100 MWe Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? It should cost around £300 million and thereafter, factory made, production-line LFTRs should cost around £150 million each.
News Article
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/17985/uk-government-should-be-upfront-about-nuclear-subsidies/
UK Government should be upfront about nuclear subsidies
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
16 May 2011
All renewables are highly expensive. Watt-for-watt, Wind Power is 3 times and Solar PV 15 times more expensive than nuclear. Also, Wind Power is only available 34% of the time and Solar PV 25% of the time; for the other 66% and 75% of the time, greenhouse gas emitting Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) are switched on - what's the point?
These crazy Governmental decisions will leech funds away from - the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc.. Which services would you choose to degrade, to pay for renewables?
If you're worried about nuclear safety or green forms of energy, you should research sustainable Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are hundreds of times safer, 300 times more efficient than and half the price of Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the ones selected for the UK's new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium (there's plenty of in in coal-fired, power station fly-ash).
For those who deplore ecosystem destruction and species extinction, relationships are simple:
Cost = Labour + Resource Use
= Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/japan-to-abandon-nuclear-plans-and-embrace-re/blog/34708
Japan to abandon nuclear plans and embrace renewable energy - who's next?
My Response
Colin says:
Cost = Labour + Resource Use = Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
Don't you want the form of energy to power our planet to cause the least Ecosystem Destruction and the fewest Species Extinctions?
Then you want - TaDa - LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors)
Watt-for-watt, LFTRs cost one quarter of the price of Wind Power and one-twentieth of the price of Solar PV.
Why don't Greenpeace Council Members invite Kirk Sorensen to do a LFTRs Presentation for them. What's to lose? After all, Kirk is only perpetuating the message of Arnold Weinberg, who, because of their safety frailties, railed against Light Water Reactors (LWRs), for civil use, even though he invented and held LWR patents.
Weinberg believed that LFTRs were orders of magnitude safer than LWRs. And, that they could supply every person on the planet with all of their energy requirements (at developed-world standards) forever, from the inexhaustible availability of ubiquitous thorium.
News Article
My Comment
News Article
Offshore wind farm plans 'are a costly mistake': Climate experts demand rethink on turbines and more nuclear power
My Comment
Nuclear safety is paramount in the public's mind and offering a reactor many times safer than widely used LWRs would secure the future of the nuclear industry and pave the way for a safe, green future for coming generations.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) operate at atmospheric pressure, using stable fluoride salts of low reactivity. So there is no pressure or high chemical-reactivity 'driver' to expel radioactive substances into the environment. The fissioning fuel is in liquid form and is 'used up' 100%, so there is no need for cooling pools and subsequent fuel reprocessing. The amount of waste produced is less than one-thirtieth of that from an LWR and decays to background radiation levels in 300 years (easily, cheaply and safely storable).
LFTRs can 'burn-up' existing nuclear waste, as start-up fuel and therefore will get rid of the need for storage of such waste for hundreds of thousands of years.
Sell the safety improvements that can secure our green future.
News Article
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-eu-nuclear-safety-accused-soft-pedalling.html
EU nuclear safety sweep accused of soft-pedalling
My Comment
Lftrsuk
Nuclear safety is paramount in the public's mind and offering a reactor many times safer than widely used LWRs would secure the future of the nuclear industry and pave the way for a safe, green future for coming generations.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) operate at atmospheric pressure, using stable fluoride salts of low reactivity. So there is no pressure or high chemical-reactivity 'driver' to expel radioactive substances into the environment. The fissioning fuel is in liquid form and is 'used up' 100%, so there is no need for cooling pools and subsequent fuel reprocessing. The amount of waste produced is less than one-thirtieth of that from an LWR and decays to background radiation levels in 300 years (easily, cheaply and safely storable).
LFTRs can 'burn-up' existing nuclear waste, as start-up fuel and therefore will get rid of the need for storage of such waste for hundreds of thousands of years.
Sell the safety improvements that can secure our green future.
News ArticleUK nuclear industry gets green light from government inspector
My Comments
19 May 2011 10:25AMAlvin Weinberg, the inventor of and patent holder for Light Water Reactors (LWRs), of which the Fukushima Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) is one type, railed against their use for civil electrical and process heat generation, because he foresaw the likelihood of loss-of-coolant/meltdown accidents. The shear speed at which Fukushima’s 3 core meltdowns occurred, shows that all reactors requiring active safety operations, whereby coolants have to be delivered to the core, should be phased out by civil authorities with all possible urgency.
Weinberg wanted widespread use of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), with their perfect passive safety characteristics. If the core overheats or all electrics are lost or the reactor vessel leaks or is breached, the hot salts drain into a non-critically configured dump-tank, designed to safely and continuously disperse the decay heat. This crisis would not have occurred had LFTRs faced the same circumstances.
News Article
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/utility-fukushima-cores-more.html?ref=hp
Utility: Fukushima Cores More Damaged Than Thought
My Comment
Colin Megson
Blogger
Alvin Weinberg, the inventor of and patent holder for LWRs railed against their use for civil electrical and process heat generation, because he foresaw the likelihood of loss-of-coolant/meltdown accidents. Active safety, whereby coolants have to be delivered to the core, should be phased out by civil authorities urgently.
Weinberg wanted widespread use of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), with their perfect passive safety characteristics. If the core overheats or all electrics is lost or the reactor vessel leaks or is breached, the hot salts drain into a non-critically configured dump-tank, designed to safely and continuously disperse the decay heat
News Article
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/18007/eti-project-90-m-offshore-wind-turbine-blades/
ETI project: 90 m offshore wind turbine blades
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
17 May 2011
At £8750/kW and 34% capacity factor, about 30 of these (+ CCGT backup) are needed to reliably supply 100 MW, at a cost of £260,000,000. Installation, oversized (under-utilised) grid connection must take it over £½ billion. And ETI are investing £10 million of our taxes - are they mad?
Dear Mr. David Clarke,
Why don't you spend valuable tax payers money on the first-of-a-kind 100 MWe Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? It should cost around £300 million and thereafter, factory made, production-line LFTRs should cost around £150 million each.
If you want to do the UK's technology base any good and create manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity, not seen in the UK for 2 generations, get a lot of your resources into promoting LFTRs.
News Article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8514233/EDF-Energy-poised-to-begin-nuclear-push.html
EDF Energy poised to begin nuclear 'push'
My Response
lftrsuk Everyone reading this article and thinking their comments worthy of publication should research Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs). LFTRs are hundreds of times safer and 300 times more efficient than Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the UK's reactor of choice for new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium.
Thorium 232 being thrown away? Well throw it in the direction of the nearest LFTR - that's what they use for fuel.
With the inevitability of natural gas prices rising in the medium term, LWR nuclear will then become the cheapest way to produce power. But - LFTRs are half the price of an equivalent LWR and so, watt-for-watt, will be massively cheaper than any other power production method.
For those who deplore ecosystem destruction and species extinction, relationships are simple: Cost = Labour + Resource Use = Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
News Article
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246765
WIND FARM CRAZE BLIGHTING COUNTRYSIDE AND ECONOMY
My Response
WHICH SERVICES WILL WE SACRIFICE FOR WIND POWER?
15.05.11, 1:38pm
All renewables are highly expensive. Watt-for-watt, Wind Power is 3 times and Solar PV 15 times more expensive than nuclear. Also, Wind Power is only available 34% of the time and Solar PV 25% of the time; for the other 66% and 75% of the time, greenhouse gas emitting Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) are switched on - what's the point?
These crazy Governmantal decisions will leech funds away from - the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc.. Which would you choose to degrade, to pay for renewables?
If you're worried about nuclear safety or green forms of energy, you should research Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are hundreds of times safer than, and 300 times more efficient than Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the ones selected for the UK's new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium.
• Posted by: lftrsuk • Report Comment
News Article
News Article
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/18007/eti-project-90-m-offshore-wind-turbine-blades/
ETI project: 90 m offshore wind turbine blades
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
17 May 2011
At £8750/kW and 34% capacity factor, about 30 of these (+ CCGT backup) are needed to reliably supply 100 MW, at a cost of £260,000,000. Installation, oversized (under-utilised) grid connection must take it over £½ billion. And ETI are investing £10 million of our taxes - are they mad?
Dear Mr. David Clarke,
Why don't you spend valuable tax payers money on the first-of-a-kind 100 MWe Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? It should cost around £300 million and thereafter, factory made, production-line LFTRs should cost around £150 million each.
News Article
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/17985/uk-government-should-be-upfront-about-nuclear-subsidies/
UK Government should be upfront about nuclear subsidies
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
16 May 2011
All renewables are highly expensive. Watt-for-watt, Wind Power is 3 times and Solar PV 15 times more expensive than nuclear. Also, Wind Power is only available 34% of the time and Solar PV 25% of the time; for the other 66% and 75% of the time, greenhouse gas emitting Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) are switched on - what's the point?
These crazy Governmental decisions will leech funds away from - the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc.. Which services would you choose to degrade, to pay for renewables?
If you're worried about nuclear safety or green forms of energy, you should research sustainable Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are hundreds of times safer, 300 times more efficient than and half the price of Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the ones selected for the UK's new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium (there's plenty of in in coal-fired, power station fly-ash).
For those who deplore ecosystem destruction and species extinction, relationships are simple:
Cost = Labour + Resource Use
= Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-reaction/japan-to-abandon-nuclear-plans-and-embrace-re/blog/34708
Japan to abandon nuclear plans and embrace renewable energy - who's next?
My Response
Colin says:
Cost = Labour + Resource Use = Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
Don't you want the form of energy to power our planet to cause the least Ecosystem Destruction and the fewest Species Extinctions?
Then you want - TaDa - LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors)
Watt-for-watt, LFTRs cost one quarter of the price of Wind Power and one-twentieth of the price of Solar PV.
Why don't Greenpeace Council Members invite Kirk Sorensen to do a LFTRs Presentation for them. What's to lose? After all, Kirk is only perpetuating the message of Arnold Weinberg, who, because of their safety frailties, railed against Light Water Reactors (LWRs), for civil use, even though he invented and held LWR patents.
Weinberg believed that LFTRs were orders of magnitude safer than LWRs. And, that they could supply every person on the planet with all of their energy requirements (at developed-world standards) forever, from the inexhaustible availability of ubiquitous thorium.
News ArticleUK nuclear industry gets green light from government inspector
My Comments
19 May 2011 10:25AMAlvin Weinberg, the inventor of and patent holder for Light Water Reactors (LWRs), of which the Fukushima Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) is one type, railed against their use for civil electrical and process heat generation, because he foresaw the likelihood of loss-of-coolant/meltdown accidents. The shear speed at which Fukushima’s 3 core meltdowns occurred, shows that all reactors requiring active safety operations, whereby coolants have to be delivered to the core, should be phased out by civil authorities with all possible urgency.
Weinberg wanted widespread use of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), with their perfect passive safety characteristics. If the core overheats or all electrics are lost or the reactor vessel leaks or is breached, the hot salts drain into a non-critically configured dump-tank, designed to safely and continuously disperse the decay heat. This crisis would not have occurred had LFTRs faced the same circumstances.
News Article
http://news.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2011/05/utility-fukushima-cores-more.html?ref=hp
Utility: Fukushima Cores More Damaged Than Thought
My Comment
Colin Megson
Blogger
Alvin Weinberg, the inventor of and patent holder for LWRs railed against their use for civil electrical and process heat generation, because he foresaw the likelihood of loss-of-coolant/meltdown accidents. Active safety, whereby coolants have to be delivered to the core, should be phased out by civil authorities urgently.
Weinberg wanted widespread use of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), with their perfect passive safety characteristics. If the core overheats or all electrics is lost or the reactor vessel leaks or is breached, the hot salts drain into a non-critically configured dump-tank, designed to safely and continuously disperse the decay heat
News Article
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/18007/eti-project-90-m-offshore-wind-turbine-blades/
ETI project: 90 m offshore wind turbine blades
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
17 May 2011
At £8750/kW and 34% capacity factor, about 30 of these (+ CCGT backup) are needed to reliably supply 100 MW, at a cost of £260,000,000. Installation, oversized (under-utilised) grid connection must take it over £½ billion. And ETI are investing £10 million of our taxes - are they mad?
Dear Mr. David Clarke,
Why don't you spend valuable tax payers money on the first-of-a-kind 100 MWe Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? It should cost around £300 million and thereafter, factory made, production-line LFTRs should cost around £150 million each.
If you want to do the UK's technology base any good and create manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity, not seen in the UK for 2 generations, get a lot of your resources into promoting LFTRs.
News Article
All renewables are highly expensive. Watt-for-watt, Wind Power is 3 times and Solar PV 15 times more expensive than nuclear. Also, Wind Power is only available 34% of the time and Solar PV 25% of the time; for the other 66% and 75% of the time, greenhouse gas emitting Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) are switched on - what's the point?
These crazy Governmantal decisions will leech funds away from - the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc.. Which would you choose to degrade, to pay for renewables?
If you're worried about nuclear safety or green forms of energy, you should research Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are hundreds of times safer than, and 300 times more efficient than Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the ones selected for the UK's new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium.
• Posted by: lftrsuk • Report Comment
News Article
All renewables are highly expensive. Watt-for-watt, Wind Power is 3 times and Solar PV 15 times more expensive than nuclear. Also, Wind Power is only available 34% of the time and Solar PV 25% of the time; for the other 66% and 75% of the time, greenhouse gas emitting Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) are switched on - what's the point?
These crazy Governmental decisions will leech funds away from - the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc.. Which services would you choose to degrade, to pay for renewables?
If you're worried about nuclear safety or green forms of energy, you should research sustainable Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are hundreds of times safer, 300 times more efficient than and half the price of Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the ones selected for the UK's new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium (there's plenty of in in coal-fired, power station fly-ash).
For those who deplore ecosystem destruction and species extinction, relationships are simple:
Cost = Labour + Resource Use
= Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
At £8750/kW and 34% capacity factor, about 30 of these (+ CCGT backup) are needed to reliably supply 100 MW, at a cost of £260,000,000. Installation, oversized (under-utilised) grid connection must take it over £½ billion. And ETI are investing £10 million of our taxes - are they mad?
Dear Mr. David Clarke,
Why don't you spend valuable tax payers money on the first-of-a-kind 100 MWe Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? It should cost around £300 million and thereafter, factory made, production-line LFTRs should cost around £150 million each.
If you want to do the UK's technology base any good and create manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity, not seen in the UK for 2 generations, get a lot of your resources into promoting LFTRs.
News Article
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8514233/EDF-Energy-poised-to-begin-nuclear-push.html
EDF Energy poised to begin nuclear 'push'
My Response
lftrsuk
Everyone reading this article and thinking their comments worthy of publication should research Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs). LFTRs are hundreds of times safer and 300 times more efficient than Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the UK's reactor of choice for new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium.
Thorium 232 being thrown away? Well throw it in the direction of the nearest LFTR - that's what they use for fuel.
With the inevitability of natural gas prices rising in the medium term, LWR nuclear will then become the cheapest way to produce power. But - LFTRs are half the price of an equivalent LWR and so, watt-for-watt, will be massively cheaper than any other power production method.
For those who deplore ecosystem destruction and species extinction, relationships are simple: Cost = Labour + Resource Use = Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium.
Thorium 232 being thrown away? Well throw it in the direction of the nearest LFTR - that's what they use for fuel.
With the inevitability of natural gas prices rising in the medium term, LWR nuclear will then become the cheapest way to produce power. But - LFTRs are half the price of an equivalent LWR and so, watt-for-watt, will be massively cheaper than any other power production method.
For those who deplore ecosystem destruction and species extinction, relationships are simple: Cost = Labour + Resource Use = Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
News Article
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/246765
WIND FARM CRAZE BLIGHTING COUNTRYSIDE AND ECONOMY
My Response
WHICH SERVICES WILL WE SACRIFICE FOR WIND POWER?
15.05.11, 1:38pmAll renewables are highly expensive. Watt-for-watt, Wind Power is 3 times and Solar PV 15 times more expensive than nuclear. Also, Wind Power is only available 34% of the time and Solar PV 25% of the time; for the other 66% and 75% of the time, greenhouse gas emitting Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) are switched on - what's the point?
These crazy Governmantal decisions will leech funds away from - the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc.. Which would you choose to degrade, to pay for renewables?
If you're worried about nuclear safety or green forms of energy, you should research Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are hundreds of times safer than, and 300 times more efficient than Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the ones selected for the UK's new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium.
• Posted by: lftrsuk • Report Comment
News Article
News Article
http://www.reinforcedplastics.com/view/18007/eti-project-90-m-offshore-wind-turbine-blades/
ETI project: 90 m offshore wind turbine blades
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
17 May 2011
At £8750/kW and 34% capacity factor, about 30 of these (+ CCGT backup) are needed to reliably supply 100 MW, at a cost of £260,000,000. Installation, oversized (under-utilised) grid connection must take it over £½ billion. And ETI are investing £10 million of our taxes - are they mad?
Dear Mr. David Clarke,
Why don't you spend valuable tax payers money on the first-of-a-kind 100 MWe Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)? It should cost around £300 million and thereafter, factory made, production-line LFTRs should cost around £150 million each.
News Article
http://www.renewableenergyfocus.com/view/17985/uk-government-should-be-upfront-about-nuclear-subsidies/
UK Government should be upfront about nuclear subsidies
My Comment
Lftrsuk says:
16 May 2011All renewables are highly expensive. Watt-for-watt, Wind Power is 3 times and Solar PV 15 times more expensive than nuclear. Also, Wind Power is only available 34% of the time and Solar PV 25% of the time; for the other 66% and 75% of the time, greenhouse gas emitting Combined Cycle Gas Turbines (CCGTs) are switched on - what's the point?
These crazy Governmental decisions will leech funds away from - the NHS, Education, Law and Order, Defence, etc.. Which services would you choose to degrade, to pay for renewables?
If you're worried about nuclear safety or green forms of energy, you should research sustainable Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), which are hundreds of times safer, 300 times more efficient than and half the price of Light Water Reactors (LWRs), which are the ones selected for the UK's new-build.
Alvin Weinberg invented and patented concepts of the LWR and railed against their use for civil purposes, because of their safety frailties, in terms of loss of coolant and meltdown accidents. He did however, believe that LFTRs would be able to supply all of the energy requirements of every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever - from inexhaustible and ubiquitous sources of thorium (there's plenty of in in coal-fired, power station fly-ash).
For those who deplore ecosystem destruction and species extinction, relationships are simple:
Cost = Labour + Resource Use
= Ecosystem Destruction + Species Extinction.
Don't you want the form of energy to power our planet to cause the least Ecosystem Destruction and the fewest Species Extinctions?
Then you want - TaDa - LFTRs (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors)
Watt-for-watt, LFTRs cost one quarter of the price of Wind Power and one-twentieth of the price of Solar PV.
Why don't Greenpeace Council Members invite Kirk Sorensen to do a LFTRs Presentation for them. What's to lose? After all, Kirk is only perpetuating the message of Arnold Weinberg, who, because of their safety frailties, railed against Light Water Reactors (LWRs), for civil use, even though he invented and held LWR patents.
Weinberg believed that LFTRs were orders of magnitude safer than LWRs. And, that they could supply every person on the planet with all of their energy requirements (at developed-world standards) forever, from the inexhaustible availability of ubiquitous thorium.
News Article
My Comment
News Article
Offshore wind farm plans 'are a costly mistake': Climate experts demand rethink on turbines and more nuclear power
My Comment
Nuclear safety is paramount in the public's mind and offering a reactor many times safer than widely used LWRs would secure the future of the nuclear industry and pave the way for a safe, green future for coming generations.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) operate at atmospheric pressure, using stable fluoride salts of low reactivity. So there is no pressure or high chemical-reactivity 'driver' to expel radioactive substances into the environment. The fissioning fuel is in liquid form and is 'used up' 100%, so there is no need for cooling pools and subsequent fuel reprocessing. The amount of waste produced is less than one-thirtieth of that from an LWR and decays to background radiation levels in 300 years (easily, cheaply and safely storable).
LFTRs can 'burn-up' existing nuclear waste, as start-up fuel and therefore will get rid of the need for storage of such waste for hundreds of thousands of years.
Sell the safety improvements that can secure our green future.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-eu-nuclear-safety-accused-soft-pedalling.html
EU nuclear safety sweep accused of soft-pedalling
My Comment
Lftrsuk
Nuclear safety is paramount in the public's mind and offering a reactor many times safer than widely used LWRs would secure the future of the nuclear industry and pave the way for a safe, green future for coming generations.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) operate at atmospheric pressure, using stable fluoride salts of low reactivity. So there is no pressure or high chemical-reactivity 'driver' to expel radioactive substances into the environment. The fissioning fuel is in liquid form and is 'used up' 100%, so there is no need for cooling pools and subsequent fuel reprocessing. The amount of waste produced is less than one-thirtieth of that from an LWR and decays to background radiation levels in 300 years (easily, cheaply and safely storable).
LFTRs can 'burn-up' existing nuclear waste, as start-up fuel and therefore will get rid of the need for storage of such waste for hundreds of thousands of years.
Sell the safety improvements that can secure our green future.
News Article
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2068896/committee-climate-change-calls-renewable-energy-revolution#disp
Committee on Climate Change calls for renewable energy revolution
My Response
Believe in Fairies? Renewables are for you!
Renewable - 3 to 15 times the cost of nuclear. And, with all of the CCGT back up needed and the volatility of gas prices, who knows what the ultimate cost penalty could be?
Which services do you want all of this extra cost extracted from - NHS, Law and Order, Education, Defence????
Every single politician espousing the prospects of high percentages of our energy coming from renewables, knows it's a pipe dream. They are doing what politicians do best - courting the popular, head-in-the-clouds view of forms of renewable energy.
Posted by Colin Megson, 10 May 2011
News Article
My Response
Dear Charles, Sir Richard, David and Henry,
How about a quick whipround between you to invest in the first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). The world will forever be in your debt, because LFTRs have the potential to solve many of the worst problems facing humankind, within 2 or 3 decades.
The sum involved is a piddling £300 million and the first LFTR could be ready in 5 years - well ahead of the Chinese threat to exploit and capture all of the intellectual property of this uniquely green and beneficial technology.
Invite Kirk Sorensen, the world's leading authority on LFTRs, to do a presentation to all of you and your advisors; it would be the best few quid you have ever invested, not just for you but for your families and future generations.
News Article
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/ferguswalsh/2011/05/childhood_leukaemia_not_linked_to_nuclear_plants.html
16. At 14:13pm 8th May 2011, cwm66 wrote:
Can't you tell an Anti-Nuke from a mile off, by the content of their comments, .
They're always full of:
Supposition.
Hyperbole.
Inuendo.
Tendentiousness.
Why can't they stick to the facts?
News Article
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703937104576302491683180176.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#articleTabs%3Darticle
Wall Street Journal.
Virgin's Branson: Down on Boeing, up on bin Laden News
My Response
Dear Sir Richard,
I wonder if you ever sit back and think how many people you send to early graves, because of the pollution your airliners and trains cause. After all, air pollution and particulates are responsible for the premature deaths of between 1 and 2 million people every year, and your businesses must have been polluting for 20 years now; I bet if you got one of your mathematicians to do the sums, it would be quite disturbing to you and your family.
How about making up for all of the family tradgedies left in the wake of your money-making obsession, by making a few 'phone calls to rake together the piddling £300 million needed to get the first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) made. Alvin M. Weinberg confessed in his autobiography: "I became obsessed with the idea that humankind's whole future depended on the breeder"; he was talking about breeding thorium into fissile uranium in a LFTR.
Why don't you talk to Kirk Sorensen, the world's leading authority on LFTRs, to avail yourself of the opportunity to change from being one of the worst polluters on the planet, to the person who just about saved humanity from itself?
News Article
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/european-nuclear-companies-join-forces-with-unions-to-improve-safety-standards-2277281.html
European nuclear companies join forces with unions to improve safety standards
Sunday, 1 May 2011
My Response
News Article
http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/news/2046209/huhne-applauds-rise-global-climate-change-legislation
Huhne applauds rise in global climate change legislation
Energy and climate change secretary says rise in domestic legislation can kick-start talks on an international deal
27 Apr 2011
My Response
China has declared it will develop Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) within the next couple of decades.
Although LFTRs are the safest, cheapest and greenest way to provide every person on the planet, for tens of thousands of years, with all of their energy (electrical, transport and process heat), the UK, on Chris Huhne's watch, will have none of it (Sir John Beddington says so).
Instead Mr. Huhne will continue pouring our taxes into inconsequential renewables and CC&S, at the expense of the NHS, education and law-and-order. Wind: 34% Capacity Factor (so CCGTs turned on for 66% of the time); Solar PV: 25% capacity Factor (so CCGTs turned on for 75% of the time). Watt-for-watt, LFTRS are a quarter of the price of Wind Turbines and one twentieth of the price of Solar PV.
Dear Mr. Huhne, from the £1 billion subsidies per annum for renewables, which you secretly add to all our electricity bills, please extract the piddling £300 million needed to get the first-of-a-kind LFTR built and get UK manufacturing jobs, growth and prosperity up to levels not seen in 2 to 3 generations.
Posted by Lftrsuk, 29 Apr 2011
News Article
http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/story/2011/04/British-adventurer-Branson-tackles-space-ocean-with-a-smile/46548852/1?loc=interstitialskip
British tycoon Branson tackles space, ocean with 'a smile'
By Charisse Jones, USA TODAY
My Response
Branson needs to conquer his obsession with fossil fuel burning as he finds filthier and more efficient ways of polluting the environment and destroying ecosystems and species.
He could make two 'phone calls and raise the £300 million needed to produce the first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), which is the greenest, cheapest and safest way to produce electricity and process heat for every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever.
LFTRs could deliver the kiss which would turn Polluting Branson Frog into Prince Richard The Green.
He could make two 'phone calls and raise the £300 million needed to produce the first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), which is the greenest, cheapest and safest way to produce electricity and process heat for every person on the planet (at developed-world standards) forever.
LFTRs could deliver the kiss which would turn Polluting Branson Frog into Prince Richard The Green.
News Article
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=16343:&catid=136&Itemid=89#JOSC_TOP
Childhood leukaemia: 'not linked to nuclear
plants'
My Response
Mon 9 May 2011
Charles Dunstone named Britain’s
first digital billionaire
Japanese nuclear crisis adds to the urgency of dealing with radioactive used fuel, and may raise cost of new plants, MIT study says
David L. Chandler, MIT News Office
today's news
April 26, 2011
My Response
""One important factor that might help counter the erosion of public support for a renewal of nuclear power as a result of the Japanese crisis is to put clear policies in place now for dealing with the spent fuel, Moniz said. “Solving the nuclear waste problem does influence public attitudes,” he said"".
Title: Why not do away with the problem of spent fuel storage?
Why not do away with the problem of spent fuel storage by getting the first-of-a-kind Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) built? A factory manufacturing programme, to mass produce, say, 100 MWe units could replace fossil fuel burning power stations, with load-following LFTRs in two decades.
Why no spent fuel problem? - because LFTRs are uniquely green, being thermal spectrum breeder reactors, which burn up all of the thorium fuel, leaving only 1 tonne of nuclear 'waste' per GWyear (with 30 year half-lives - easily and cheaply stored until it decays to background radiation levels) as opposed to 30 tonnes of partially burned 'waste' from the uranium cycle with half lives in the tens-of-thousands of years.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs) operate at atmospheric pressure, using stable fluoride salts of low reactivity. So there is no pressure or high chemical-reactivity 'driver' to expel radioactive substances into the environment. The fissioning fuel is in liquid form and is 'used up' 100%, so there is no need for cooling pools and subsequent fuel reprocessing. The amount of waste produced is less than one-thirtieth of that from an LWR and decays to background radiation levels in 300 years (easily, cheaply and safely storable).
LFTRs can 'burn-up' existing nuclear waste, as start-up fuel and therefore will get rid of the need for storage of such waste for hundreds of thousands of years.
Sell the safety improvements that can secure our green future.