U.S. AEC, forerunner of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States Department of Energy spoke of electricity in the future being "too cheap to meter, this might be what's holding us back.

Cant impose a tax on what doesn't exist, ETS wise, now can we.


We could always impose a fresh air tax (FAT) or something I guess...

Ironically, since 2007, we have seen a sharp decline in new nuclear plants being added to the grid, 2008 being the first year ever whereby none were added, and only 1 or two (from memory) were added to the grid during 2009.

Even stranger, some countries formerly pro-nuclear appear to be closing their plants down, for no apparent reason at all.

8-)

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 8:47pm:

Ironically, since 2007, we have seen a sharp decline in new nuclear plants being added to the grid, 2008 being the first year ever whereby none were added, and only 1 or two (from memory) were added to the grid during 2009. Even stranger, some countries formerly pro-nuclear appear to be closing their plants down, for no apparent reason at all. 8-)

It's not strange - it's obvious. It is too expensive and unpredictable and more advanced countries than us are embracing green technology. Even China is making an effort.

Besides the nuclear lobbyists aren't getting the financial support they're used to since the sub-prime crisis hit the US.

Let's hope it's a dying industry.

With a determination to go green and cut emissions the USA has resumed development of nuclear power generation after thirty years of no new stations.

And why not.

Pres Obama says a few kilograms of uranium is  better than 30 million barrels of oil and there are no emissions at all.

Who could argue with that.

Fads come and go Mantra, i'm guessing nuclear will make a come back just as soon as our wells of prosperity all but dry up, I mean what's a gallon or two of oil spilled over our barrier reef, this or increasing dioxin levels in our marine life and produce between friends?

Nuclear is both New and Clear...hence nuclear Mantra ...(grinz)

This said, I can imagine you sitting here in 50 years time friction powering your laptop by means of um, er...exercise bike?  ;)

deepthought wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 9:31pm:

With a determination to go green and cut emissions the USA has resumed development of nuclear power generation after thirty years of no new stations. And why not. Pres Obama says a few kilograms of uranium is  better than 30 million barrels of oil and there are no emissions at all. Who could argue with that.

Not me, thats for sure.

8-)

Tell me Mellie, is France which is the biggest user of nuclear power are also shutting down there nuclear reactors one by one . ??

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 9:32pm:

Fads come and go Mantra, i'm guessing nuclear will make a come back just as soon as our wells of prosperity all but dry up, I mean what's a gallon or two of oil spilled over our barrier reef, this or increasing dioxin levels in our marine life and produce between friends?

You could be right Mel, but some of us can live in hope that less toxic methods of power will be used in greater volume here in the near future.


Quote:

Nuclear is both New and Clear...hence nuclear Mantra ...(grinz) This said, I can imagine you sitting here in 50 years time friction powering your laptop by means of um, er...exercise bike?  ;)

Haha. I should be so lucky.


Quote:

Pres Obama says a few kilograms of uranium is  better than 30 million barrels of oil and there are no emissions at all. Who could argue with that.

He's following in the path of his predecessor - the same as our leader/s are doing.

Obama makes a good argument obviously, but NP stations dotted all over the planet aren't going to stop Texas Oil going out of business.

Quote:

Obama makes a good argument obviously, but NP stations dotted all over the planet aren't going to stop Texas Oil going out of business.

by -Mantra

No, but it will sure throw a spanner in the works.

8-)

mantra wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 9:47pm:

He's following in the path of his predecessor - the same as our leader/s are doing.

Derek is a George Bush sock puppet?

And Jules is operated by remote by Johnny?

Following in the path of their predecessors, doesn't mean that previous leaders weren't being led by the World Order down that path also.  As much as I hate using the term World Order - there's no other way to describe these organisations. Howard was as much of a puppet as Gillard or Rudd, the difference being Howard had a more important role to fulfill because his co-operation was needed in the instigation of wars and trade agreements.

Certainly it has been noted that 12 of Obama's appointments to the Whitehouse are members of the Trilateral Commission.

mantra wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 10:28pm:

Following in the path of their predecessors, doesn't mean that previous leaders weren't being led by the World Order down that path also.  As much as I hate using the term World Order - there's no other way to describe these organisations. Howard was as much of a puppet as Gillard or Rudd, the difference being Howard had a more important role to fulfill because his co-operation was needed in the instigation of wars and trade agreements. Certainly it has been noted that 12 of Obama's appointments to the Whitehouse are members of the Trilateral Commission.

This discussion has taken a strange twist.

Johnny cooperated with wars and trade agreements?

Jules and Kev, equally, are puppets?

I need to know more.

Let us hope we have enough natural resources left to power our own nuclear plants if/when the time comes.


Bare in mind, we have been supplying the world with uranium for decades now.

It would be a bummer to learn that we don't even have enough to sustain our own clear future, for when the time comes.


:)

mantra wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 10:28pm:

Following in the path of their predecessors, doesn't mean that previous leaders weren't being led by the World Order down that path also.  As much as I hate using the term World Order - there's no other way to describe these organisations. Howard was as much of a puppet as Gillard or Rudd, the difference being Howard had a more important role to fulfill because his co-operation was needed in the instigation of wars and trade agreements. Certainly it has been noted that 12 of Obama's appointments to the Whitehouse are members of the Trilateral Commission.

Now, this is interesting....

:)

Has anyone here considered a Thorium Reactor for Australia?
The Indians are well ahead of us.

See link:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/qa-thorium-reactor-designer-ratan-kumar-sinha

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 10:37pm:

Let us hope we have enough natural resources left to power our own nuclear plants if/when the time comes. Bare in mind, we have been supplying the world with uranium for decades now. It would be a bummer to learn that we don't even have enough to sustain our own clear future, for when the time comes. :)

Uranium is abundant in the earth's crust.

We will have developed fusion reactors before there is much chance of running out.

Deepthought

Quote:

We will have developed fusion reactors before there is much chance of running out.

Fusion may turn out to be uneconomic.
Thorium reactors will be a good contender.

deepthought wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 10:49pm:

Uranium is abundant in the earth's crust. We will have developed fusion reactors before there is much chance of running out.

No it isn't abundant, nor is thorium a viable replacement at present. The technology hasn't progressed past theory. Fusion reactors still need more energy to run than they produce. We can't base our future energy supplies on theories.


Quote:

The world uses 67,000 tons of mined uranium a year. At current usage, this is equal to about seventy years of supply. The World Nuclear Association says demand is projected to grow by 33 percent in the next decade to correspond with a 27 percent projected growth in nuclear reactor capacity. However, more efficient nuclear reactors, such as "fast-reactor" technology, could extend those supplies by more than two thousand years. http://www.cfr.org/publication/14705/global_uranium_supply_and_demand.html

Bobby. wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 10:41pm:

Has anyone here considered a Thorium Reactor for Australia? The Indians are well ahead of us. See link: http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/nuclear/qa-thorium-reactor-designer-ratan-kumar-sinha

There are a few concerns with it however...one being the technology isn't quite ready for commercial use here in Australia, also the potential for weapon mobilisation concerning it's by products as the thorium fuel cycle creates 233U, which, if separated from the reactor's fuel, can be used for making nuclear weapons
and it's ongoing interests in countries currently investing more research into it than others such as India where there's more of it than any other place in the world, (we being second most abundant) abundance of it is of interest, China again missing out, so they are pretty well stuffed, and would be in pursuit of this substance I would assume.

It's worth a thought, but has our technology advanced enough for commercial use? No not in the foreseeable future, least not for another 20 or so years+.

India are still only in the research/test phase of commercial production.

Thorium continues to be a tanatalising possibility for use in nuclear power reactors, though for many years India has been the only sponsor of major research efforts to use it. Other endeavours include the development of the Radkowsky Thorium Reactor concept being carried out by US company Thorium Power (now Lightbridge Corporation) with Russian collaboration.

In mid-2009, AECL signed agreements with three Chinese entities to develop and demonstrate the use of thorium fuel in the Candu reactors at Qinshan in China. Another mid-2009 agreement, between Areva and Lightbridge Corporation, was for assessing the use of thorium fuel in Areva's EPR, drawing upon earlier research. Thorium can also be used in Generation IV and other advanced nuclear fuel cycle systems.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

With uranium beginning to deplete, it's hardly surprising why China want to invest in our country.

8-)

Not even a centuries worth left of uranium hu!!

::)

Mantra

Quote:

nor is thorium a viable replacement at present.

Rubbish - there are already working reactors:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html


Quote:

Power reactors Much experience has been gained in thorium-based fuel in power reactors around the world, some using high-enriched uranium (HEU) as the main fuel: The 300 MWe THTR (Thorium High Temperature Reactor) reactor in Germany was developed from the AVR and operated between 1983 and 1989 with 674,000 pebbles, over half containing Th/HEU fuel (the rest graphite moderator and some neutron absorbers). These were continuously recycled on load and on average the fuel passed six times through the core. The Fort St Vrain reactor was the only commercial thorium-fuelled nuclear plant in the USA, also developed from the AVR in Germany, and operated 1976-1989. It was a high-temperature (700°C), graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor with a Th/HEU fuel designed to operate at 842 MWth (330 MWe). The fuel was in microspheres of thorium carbide and Th/U-235 carbide coated with silicon oxide and pyrolytic carbon to retain fission products. It was arranged in hexagonal columns ('prisms') rather than as pebbles. Almost 25 tonnes of thorium was used in fuel for the reactor, and this achieved 170,000 MWd/t burn-up. Thorium-based fuel for PWRs was investigated at the Shippingport reactor in the USA (discussed in the section below on the Light Water Breeder Reactor). In India, thorium has been used for power flattening in the initial cores of the two Kakrapar pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs). The 60 MWe Lingen Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) in Germany utilised Th/Pu-based fuel test elements.

Mantras right, it's not a viable commercial prospect at present, is more a generation IV fuel.

Far time Australia caught up with it's own mineral technology though, because if we don't, some other nation will, and we will be deplete supplying the rest of the world their generation IV fuels, whilst rubbing sticks together trying to generate our own in kangaroo skins.

8-)

Bob...

Power reactors

Much experience has been gained in thorium-based fuel in power reactors around the world, some using high-enriched uranium (HEU) as the main fuel:
#The 300 MWe THTR (Thorium High Temperature Reactor) reactor in Germany was developed from the AVR and operated between 1983 and 1989 with 674,000 pebbles, over half containing Th/HEU fuel (the rest graphite moderator and some neutron absorbers). These were continuously recycled on load and on average the fuel passed six times through the core.
#The Fort St Vrain reactor was the only commercial thorium-fuelled nuclear plant in the USA, also developed from the AVR in Germany, and operated 1976-1989. It was a high-temperature (700°C), graphite-moderated, helium-cooled reactor with a Th/HEU fuel designed to operate at 842 MWth (330 MWe). The fuel was in microspheres of thorium carbide and Th/U-235 carbide coated with silicon oxide and pyrolytic carbon to retain fission products. It was arranged in hexagonal columns ('prisms') rather than as pebbles. Almost 25 tonnes of thorium was used in fuel for the reactor, and this achieved 170,000 MWd/t burn-up.
#Thorium-based fuel for PWRs was investigated at the Shippingport reactor in the USA (discussed in the section below on the Light Water Breeder Reactor).
#In India, thorium has been used for power flattening in the initial cores of the two Kakrapar pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs).
The 60 MWe Lingen Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) in Germany utilised Th/Pu-based fuel test elements.
--------------------------------------------------

So Bob, it's still in it's relative infancy, and not quite commercially viable in it's entirety yet.  

In India, thorium has  only been used for power flattening in the initial cores of the two Kakrapar pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs)...so....  not quite there yet.

Had we planned on burning coal for the next 70 years until our uranium depleted, then convert to this then "hopefully" commercially-ready thorium reactor?
8-)

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 11:24pm:

Mantras right, it's not a viable commercial prospect at present, is more a generation IV fuel. Far time Australia caught up with it's own mineral technology though, because if we don't, some other nation will, and we will be deplete supplying the rest of the world their generation IV fuels, whilst rubbing sticks together trying to generate our own in kangaroo skins. 8-)

Whatever you want to believe.
We should be building & learning about Thorium reactors here in Australia.
Instead India is way ahead.
The science is OK - it's engineering problems that can be overcome
with enough time & money.

We have great reserves of Thorium in Australia.
If we also have the technology - we could have it all.
The world will be paying us.
It could also end coal fired power stations.

We aren't leaders in it because our governments are all useless.
The amount of money labor wasted on the BER could have
paid for many safe Thorium reactors.

If we owned the Thorium & the technology we'd be incredibly rich
in Australia.

But thanks for introducing us to thorium none the less Bob, and yes, it's definitely something to think about, this and work towards commercial use  and HOPEFULLY preserve/hoard, this opposed to depleting it before we have even started using it like we did our uranium.

::)...Perhaps another 20/30 years?

I cant believe I have just spent a Saturday night (sick in bed) sniffling with you guys discussing viable energy alternatives.

You guys are absolutely addictive...  my brand of crack!

:D..

Thanks

.....or perhaps it's the Codral... hahah  na, I cant take codral these days unfortunately, of which is a contraindication with respects to my now regular medication. Most disappointing, but you guys took my mind off being sick.

Why am I sick... well I went caving last Saturday, then to a BBQ lunch with friends on Sunday, which turned into a cold evening affair without heating in my friends backyard (school reunion kinda thingy)...

The diseased people that they be, obviously caught it off one of them.

>:( I will put the pics up of my caving tomorrow, in the chat thread, why not.

Well guys & gals.
We need people with vision in Australia.
WE need to start a Thorium reactor & mining industry which
we can sell to the world.
This is hard to organise - it would be like the Manhatten Project.

Certainly people like labor who couldn't organise some
school buildings & some Pink Batts couldn't do it.

We would need to buy up the best scientists from India & elsewhere
to help us.
It could be done but we need vision.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 12:04am:

Well guys & gals. We need people with vision in Australia. WE need to start a Thorium reactor & mining industry which we can sell to the world. This is hard to organise - it would be like the Manhatten Project. Certainly people like labor who couldn't organise some school buildings & some Pink Batts couldn't do it. We would need to buy up the best scientists from India & elsewhere to help us. It could be done but we need vision.

I thoroughly agree, and given by the time we get our finger out and rub two pieces of uranium together to generate electricity, we will definitely require an alternative, as like Mantra said, we are already close to being depleted, no thanks to our wasteful archaic ways.

It's definitely a viable future reactor fuel, perhaps we should start now, this opposed to being left behind again?


::) I just wish we could make the switch now, (over to uranium-nuclear until the time comes to make the switch to thorium)...because by then, our nuclear plants will be due for replacing anyway, and perhaps with your suggested alternative?

.... Can our environment wait another 30 years of our burning coal is what I'm asking?

Personally, I think it will come at a cost if we do.

Mellie

Quote:

I just wish we could make the switch now, (over to uranium-nuclear until the time comes to make the switch to thorium)

Why not make a huge leap & go straight to Thorium?
Imagine safe supplies of electricity at affordable prices
with zero green house gases.
Thorium reactors can't go critical.
They are inherently safe &  the science is proven - you can get
energy from Thorium.

mellie wrote on Aug 14^th, 2010 at 11:24pm:

Mantras right, it's not a viable commercial prospect at present, is more a generation IV fuel. Far time Australia caught up with it's own mineral technology though, because if we don't, some other nation will, and we will be deplete supplying the rest of the world their generation IV fuels, whilst rubbing sticks together trying to generate our own in kangaroo skins. 8-)

It's probably more viable than the never ever clean coal technology ;)

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 12:04am:

Well guys & gals. We need people with vision in Australia. WE need to start a Thorium reactor & mining industry which we can sell to the world. This is hard to organise - it would be like the Manhatten Project. Certainly people like labor who couldn't organise some school buildings & some Pink Batts couldn't do it. We would need to buy up the best scientists from India & elsewhere to help us. It could be done but we need vision.

Vision is something you won't get from labor or liberal. They would prefer to train up trades people instead of engineers and scientists. It makes you wonder what on earth they are trying to achieve with this so called education revolution. Educating people to do what ?? Change tap washers :(

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 12:21am:

Mellie Quote: I just wish we could make the switch now, (over to uranium-nuclear until the time comes to make the switch to thorium) Why not make a huge leap & go straight to Thorium? Imagine safe supplies of electricity at affordable prices with zero green house gases. Thorium reactors can't go critical. They are inherently safe &  the science is proven - you can get energy from Thorium.

Because there are only 4 or so thorium plants in the world, all of which are in their relative infancy, phase of combined fuel production/development (power generating wise), this and it will be difficult convincing Australians to go with a less tested product than a more tried and tested Uranium fuelled reactor.

I mean, we are bad enough 'levitating' to something other countries have been safely using for decades, can you imagine the blood draining from the sceptics faces and financial backing from our investors wallets if we start talking futuristic generation IV Thorium reactors without the technology being power-generating commercially ready?

We haven't even evolved to uranium yet, and it's only just now we are taking a shine to the idea.

They will flip, and rightfully so, because having it commercially ready could take another 20 to 30 years, when we could just go uranium nuclear tomorrow if we liked.

I think India would like us to go for it, because it will mean our developing the technology for them to take advantage of with their own thorium resources when the time comes...  I think we should bare this in mind also.

Till then, we should work towards investing in a variety of renewable alternatives, along with uranium I think, because like uranium, eventually thorium will deplete eventually also, this is if we don't sell it to China first.
See, we are a slow people here in Oz... well, a majority of us are anyway.

I guess what i'm saying is why place all our eggs in the one basket, when eventually, this basket wont last anyway?
8-)

Quote:

Change tap washers

Well, someone's got to do it, and if we are going to stop immigrating at the rate we are, (I hope so) then we are going to need home-grown tradies willing to work for peanuts, changing washers in the future.

This and those willing to mine our thorium also.

Don't knock tradies, because applying a stigma to their craft might result in a tradie complex, and I don't particularly feel like nor do I even know how to change my own toilet roll, much less a washer, do you?

;)

Mellie

Quote:

eventually thorium will deplete eventually also

Do I have to work out how many years supply we have to convince you?


http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/348/new-age-nuclear?page=0%2C3



Quote:

It's also an element in which Australia is well blessed - we have the largest known thorium reserves in the world. Thorium mining is also less complex than uranium mining; and the ore doesn't even require enrichment before use in an ADS reactor.

Quote:

Do I have to work out how many years supply we have to convince you?

No, but have you taken our Chinese/foreign investors into consideration since then?

Of which have an endless appetite for our Western Australian republic mining industry, apparently.

...We need to put something into our constitution to stop irresponsible governments depleting/selling off our crucial resources at their will...whenever they need to make up the budget deficit fast.

8-)

Mellie

Quote:

No, but have you taken our Chinese/foreign investors into consideration since then?

Wouldn't the Chinese love to buy Thorium pebbles ready to go
in Australian designed Thorium reactors with power cheaper
& safer than coal?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 1:32am:

Mellie Quote: No, but have you taken our Chinese/foreign investors into consideration since then? Wouldn't the Chinese love to buy Thorium pebbles ready to go in Australian designed Thorium reactors with power cheaper & safer than coal?

No, they would just rather buy Australia and be done with it.

8-)

mellie wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 1:10am:

Quote: ...We need to put something into our constitution to stop irresponsible governments depleting/selling off our crucial resources at their will...whenever they need to make up the budget deficit fast. 8-) That's why we need a resource tax - and a decent one. The quicker we realise that we can't continually rely on mining for our export dollars - the quicker this country will start being innovative. [quote]Why not make a huge leap & go straight to Thorium?

Because we haven't got the time to waste - nor the money.


Quote:

It's probably more viable than the never ever clean coal technology

True.

Quote:
Quote:

Bobby[quote]Why not make a huge leap & go straight to Thorium?

Mantra

Quote:

Because we haven't got the time to waste - nor the money.

[/quote]

That is a shallow answer.
We found plenty of money which was borrowed for sub-standard school halls
& pink batts - installed incorrectly.
I would rather pour money into technology.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 8:28am:

Quote: Quote: Bobby[quote]Why not make a huge leap & go straight to Thorium? Mantra [quote]Because we haven't got the time to waste - nor the money.

[/quote]

That is a shallow answer.
We found plenty of money which was borrowed for sub-standard school halls
& pink batts - installed incorrectly.
I would rather pour money into technology.[/quote]

Thorium is a smart solution, but the technology is 30 years down the track, especially accelerator based technology.

Uranium fission reactors are already avaliable as packages. They are tried and tested. If we are going to go this way, we need to build one new reactor for every mainland state every 5 years from 2020.  

One of the advantages of Thorium for Australia is that we have the world's biggest Thorium reserves. Thorium has far fewer waste issues than Uranium, and could be a replacement technology for Uranium by 2050.


Sir lastnail wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 12:23am:

It's probably more viable than the never ever clean coal technology ;)

Clean coal is a pipe-dream that nobody really believed in. We need to look at other things we can do with coal, such as chemical manufacture.

Mantra

Quote:

Thorium is a smart solution, but the technology is 30 years down the track, especially accelerator based technology.

A 300 Mega Watt Thorium reactor was already used for 6 years
and was shut down in 1989 due to engineering problems.
See Link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

Thorium was already providing electricity 21 years ago.
Going on your figures of 30 years required to get the engineering right
we could have a viable reactor in 9 years time.

It would still require something akin to the Manhatten project but
we could do it if we hire the right people.
Our future needs to be based on technology & value adding not
just digging stuff out of the ground & letting others
make money out of it.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 8:51am:

It would still require something akin to the Manhatten project but we could do it if we hire the right people. Our future needs to be based on technology & value adding not just digging stuff out of the ground & letting others make money out of it.

It might come to that, but the Manhattan project and the Apollo program (which is the other analogy often used) cost megabucks.

It's the most expensive option, but as I said, it might just come to that as a result of 'democratic inertia'. I'll explain what I mean by that if you like.

Mantra.

Quote:

I'll explain what I mean by that if you like.

It's a free world so if it's relevant yes.

I would dearly love Australia to be holding the Aces.
I want us to have a monopoly over the raw materials
& the technology.
I want to see every other country looking up to us
as world leaders.
I want them to be jealous of us.
I want a prosperous future for Australia.

No reply as yet. ???

Australia should move to nuclear power generation, esp or first in Vic and SA where very dirty brown coal is burned. But with Gen 4 fast breeder reactors.

Secondly, we could make a motza taking the world’s high grade nuclear waste for storage in the exhausted Broken Hill lead mines. would benefit Pt Pirie where the stuff can be unloaded and Broken Hill.

Eventually we will need more renewable energy: nuclear fusion would be good but when will it be commercially rolled out? Secondly, solar energy but collected in space where we can get intense, uninterrupted sunlight.

Uranium is not that abundant. If every country switched to nuclear there is maybe 30 years supply and no guarantee fusion will be ready then.

Thorium is a much better bet as are breeder reactors.

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 9:27am:

Mantra. Quote: I'll explain what I mean by that if you like. It's a free world so if it's relevant yes. I would dearly love Australia to be holding the Aces. I want us to have a monopoly over the raw materials & the technology. I want to see every other country looking up to us as world leaders. I want them to be jealous of us. I want a prosperous future for Australia.

Where we could shine is in storing and eventually reprocessing of waste.

Oh and world leaders? Our MRRT and the NBN make us the frontrunner there. Other countries are now looking at running out FTTH and other reource-rich countries are considering levying their own MRRT.

Darwin

Quote:

Where we could shine is in storing and eventually reprocessing of waste. Oh and world leaders? Our MRRT and the NBN make us the frontrunner there. Other countries are now looking at running out FTTH and other reource-rich countries are considering levying their own MRRT.

The Mineral Resource Rent Tax and the National Broadband Network  &   Fiber To The Home
have nothing to do with Thorium reactors.
What the hell are you talking about?

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2010 at 10:35pm:

Darwin Quote: Where we could shine is in storing and eventually reprocessing of waste. Oh and world leaders? Our MRRT and the NBN make us the frontrunner there. Other countries are now looking at running out FTTH and other reource-rich countries are considering levying their own MRRT. The Mineral Resource Rent Tax and the National Broadband Network  &   Fiber To The Home have nothing to do with Thorium reactors. What the hell are you talking about?

According to what I've just read, there is a method available to 'recycle' spent nuclear fuel rods and use them in a type of Nuclear reactor to generate power....
Either a Faster Breeder Reactor or Nuclear reprocessing ...which appears to use 'spent fuel rods' as a Mixed Oxide or MOX fuel...

Wouldn't that be at least a partial answer to the nuclear waste problem???

Gizmo.

Quote:

Wouldn't that be at least a partial answer to the nuclear waste problem???

I am not a nuclear reactor expert but apparently Thorium
reactors can use U233 & do lots of other tricks to cause
a fission reaction in certain elements.
They are useful for reprocessing spent fuel.

see link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233