Good reply, thanks.

You write: "All will require long cycles of development
and testing before they can be certified and licensed
for production."

Why is this? Is it necessarily so? I presume you are
talking about government channels and hoops -- the
certifications and licenses. Are those channels and
hoops truly necessary? (If they are, fine; I'm just
asking.)

Also, why do you say that long cycles of development
will be required? Again, I'm not saying you're wrong;
just wondering what the basis is for the statement.
Are the "long cycles" secondary to bureaucratic
crap that could (at least theoretically) be quickly
cleared away? Or are there substantive engineering
issues that really will, inevitably, take a long time to
work out?

Alan

PS: I loved your last paragraph. Yes, "how we're going
to save the planet if depletion of fossil fuels isn't
going to do if for us." And I suppose next thing
you're going to expect us to start THINKING.
Damn! Slave-driver! ;-)



--- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Roger Arnold" <roger.arnold@...> wrote:
>
> > Perhaps someone closer to the technicalities than me could critique this.
> > <..>
>
> I can't do so as well as I'd like -- meaning I haven't been able to discover
> as much information about the Thorium LFTR cycle as I'd like -- but I'll
> give you what I know.
>
> The claims are valid in terms of the very high energy production per ton of
> fuel ore, the very low amount of waste produced, and the relative abundance
> of Thorium for fuel. That much has been validated in experimental reactors,
> detailed modeling, and extensive geological surveys of the abundance of
> elements within the earth's crust. If this type of reactor proves a tenth
> as cheap to build and operate as its proponents believe then any worries
> about running out of energy resources should be laid to rest.
>
> But that's nothing new; there are at least half a dozen competing reactor
> designs that should in principle accomplish the same thing. None, however,
> are ready for commercial deployment. All will require long cycles of
> development and testing before they can be certified and licensed for
> production. And that's where I run into trouble getting good information; I
> don't know much about the specific problems that need to be overcome. I
> therefore can't say much of anything about the time and effort that will be
> needed to bring the various designs to the point that they can start
> contributing to our energy needs.
>
> I think, however, it would be prudent if all those who are currently
> expecting the "end of cheap energy" to bring down industrial civilization
> and save the planet from the ravages of humans' abuse .. it would be prudent
> if they would start giving some thought to how we're going to save the
> planet if depletion of fossil fuels isn't going to do if for us. How do we
> deal with the *real* problems we still face, that are consequences of our
> socioeconomic system and the institutions it has spawned?
>
> Roger Arnold
> Sunnyvale, CA
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Alan
> To: energyresources@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 10:31 AM
> Subject: [energyresources] Re: Revolutionary Thorium Reactor
>
> Further details here:
> http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/search/label/LFT%20LFTR%20costs
>
> Perhaps someone closer to the technicalities than me could
> critique this.
>
> --- In energyresources@yahoogroups.com, "Walker Bennett" <vladilyich@>
> wrote:
> >
> > By Christopher Calder
> >
> >
<http://www.opednews.com/articles/Revolutionary-Thorium-Reac-by-Christopher-Cald\
er-090628-214.html>
> > Revolutionary Thorium Reactor -
> >
> > The most
> > environmentally beneficial power source on earth
> >
> > Limitless, low cost energy is now possible through a revolutionary new
> > fission reactor that provides all of the benefits of pure fusion power,
> > but with a simpler and more practical design. This will change the world
> > like television, the discovery of DNA, and the Internet.
> >
> > <http://ca.geocities.com/vladilyich/> Walker
> >
> > Guelph, ON
> >
> > <..>
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>