This is the 'Briefing' document authored by Oliver Tickell, April/May 2012. Thorium: Not ‘green’, not ‘viable’, and not likely
This is a facebook comment, by a staunch LFTR enthusiast, whose sagacity on matters scientific and, in particular, nuclear is evident from every utterance:
Robert Steinhaus
Thorium (dis)information - (Semi-informed Thorium hit-piece from a strong, unshakable, renewables only point of view).
The report is semi-informed, and raises many challenges, economic and technical, to Thorium molten salt technology. While most (all) of the disinformation could be rebutted by a skillfull informed advocate , it would require a fairly lengthly document/presentation to do so. As it stands, all of the document's many claims based on half-informed disinformation and untruths serve to "muddy the water" and introduce fear and uncertainty into public discussion of future nuclear energy planning.
You could try to do a point by point rebuttle of all of the false claims but I am not sure the public would want to read that. Maybe combining a point by point rebuttle document with a public debate might be more effective at dispelling this misinformation.
This is a Claverton Energy piece, and it is obvious that, editorially, they are also vehemently opposed to nuclear energy: Claverton Energy Article
This is a comment I tried to tack on to the Claverton Energy piece, but it seems to be in suspended animation, awaiting moderation (I fear it will never see the light of day):
This Briefing just can't get away from continually mentioning the benefits of LFTRs over 'conventional' nuclear - that's PWRs for all of the soon-to-be 'New Nuclear'.
This is a Claverton Energy piece, and it is obvious that, editorially, they are also vehemently opposed to nuclear energy: Claverton Energy Article
This is a comment I tried to tack on to the Claverton Energy piece, but it seems to be in suspended animation, awaiting moderation (I fear it will never see the light of day):
This Briefing just can't get away from continually mentioning the benefits of LFTRs over 'conventional' nuclear - that's PWRs for all of the soon-to-be 'New Nuclear'.
There is tacit acknowledgement of
explosion-free operation, impossibility of core meltdowns and minuscule amounts
of waste, which decays to background radiation levels in 300 years. Now don't
these three benefits pull the rugs from under the vitriolic anti-nukes? And,
wouldn't these same facts quell the very doubts, among the public at large,
that hold back widespread acceptance of nuclear energy?
In a world of declining hydrocarbon
resources, where developing nations will fight (let us hope diplomatically) to
improve their standards of living (meaning energy use) and developed nations
will fight (ditto) to maintain or improve their standard of living (ditto), it
is imbecilic to believe that a spaghetti-like interconnection of windmills and
squares of plastic will maintain peace, stability and law and order.
Such conditions could be rushing
headlong towards the children of today's young parents. The decision makers of
that generation need to appreciate that, in simple arithmetic terms, it is
possible for breeder reactors to supply all of the energy needs (including
carbon-neutral liquid fuels and ammonia - as feed stock for nitrate fertilisers
to feed 9 billion) of every individual on the planet (at developed world
standards), until the end of time (from inexhaustible sources of thorium and
uranium fuels).
The only conclusion those decision
makers will need to reach is - will those reactors be LMFBRs or MSBRs? Breeder Reactors it is - but will it be---Fast or----Thermal?
