<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:s="http://www.bnet.com/search" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"  xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
    <title><![CDATA[Discussion on Safe nuclear: India's thorium reactor ]]></title>
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361]]></link>
    <atom:link rel="hub" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" />
    <atom:link rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" href="http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361/rss" />

    <description><![CDATA[]]></description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <lastBuildDate>2013-05-22T14:12:05-07:00</lastBuildDate>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Doubtful that it is already in use.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-96082]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The value of such an energy source would be far more valuablein implementation as an energy source for things like tanks, planes, etc.The removal of the need to stock pile and refuel would reduce vulnerabilitiesand cost related to supply lines. Use in a mere drone would be wasteful.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-96082]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[babaluuu]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 17 Mar 2013 20:09:26 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[White House &quot;We the People&quot; Petition for LFTR Reactors]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-91789]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Hello! I have created a &quot;We the People&quot; White House Petition for a Study to be conducted over the next six months on the efficacy of a plan I adapted from a plan for Australia to convert its energy economy to LFTR reactors.My adaptation is for the conversion of all USA 572 Coal Fire Plants to LFTR reactors. The original study was done a few years ago. I am hoping for a Manhattan style project to convert these reactors while taking note of the lessons gleaned from the India reactor that is going live. The plan would have a huge impact on global warming and would only have a capital cost of 1.6 Trillion which would serve to extend the life of the Coal Fire Plants to 80 years. Amortizing it over half that period would be a conservative move. I think its worth a 6 month study to actually look into my figures and the original proposal.I want the study to be a fully public end-to-end cost study completed within no more than 1 year preferably 6 months. Here is the petition: Please Sign! It's not public till I reach 150 signatures!http://wh.gov/VZM5 I need to get the now required 100,000 signatures in a month to make it happen!See my math figures at http://rawcell.com]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-91789]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wanfuse123]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:26:55 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[most versatile]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-86482]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Most versatile, in terms of variety of usable fuel types (because heavy water conserves neutrons).  Safest, probably not.  But they are safe enough.  There has never been a CANDU core failure in many decades.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-86482]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[madboy_heterodyne]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:49:49 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Energy storage a possible solution for wind]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-86475]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I agree that fission is well ahead of solar and wind in terms of providing a cost-effective replacement for fossil fuels.  Wind is currently almost cost-competitive with peak-load power, and could be more useful if we had energy storage systems on an enormous scale.  The cost of the storage system of course would make the wind no longer cost-competitive with nuclear fission.  However, if large numbers of drivers switch to battery-powered electric vehicles in the next two decades, and charge their vehicles from a smart-grid that regulates power distribution according to source and load (eg wind variability), then the consumers would inadvertantly provide the &quot;subsidy&quot; (actually not a subsidy it's a free market mechanism after all) for the enormous energy-storage system.  In this way wind could get above 20% of the total energy source in some nations, and would displace petroleum (auto fuel) instead of coal (electricity generation).  So there is one scenario in which wind in the near future would compete economically with nuclear fission, but it wouldn't have to: with fission providing baseload electricity and wind charging batteries to offset petroleum consumption, they would actually complement each other very well.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-86475]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[madboy_heterodyne]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:44:15 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I look forward to the time when India sells reactors to the USA]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-86481]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Although I probably won't live long enough to see it, I can well imagine a time 50 years from now when India is selling thorium-fueled breeder reactors to the USA to help the USA get out of its &quot;fossil fuels crisis.&quot;]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-86481]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[madboy_heterodyne]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:37:36 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[I don't think you have calculated the costs]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-86474]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[I have attended both solar energy and nuclear engineering conferences in the past year.  The best-practices solar power plants are still 3x to 4x more expensive per unit electricity produced than conventional nuclear fission, and there is no evidence to suppose that solar research in the West will reduce solar costs any faster than fission research in India and China will reduce fission costs over the next few decades.  Wealthy places like Germany and California can choose solar over fission because it makes them feel good, but parts of the world where 40% of the population does not even HAVE electricity will naturally feel differently. And those are the parts of the world where the carbon footprint is growing fastest...]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-86474]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[madboy_heterodyne]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 12 Dec 2012 01:33:47 -0800</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Interesting and Exciting]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-79080]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Looking at a problem differently is always a good idea.  There needs too be many people looking at a problem in many different ways and eventually a unique creative solution will present itself and we will all be better for it.www.devoteskeptic.com]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-79080]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[DevotedSkeptic]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Tue, 18 Sep 2012 19:25:46 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Yes GO INDIA]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-75165]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[From risk reward!]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-75165]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Altotus]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:54:48 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[The work must commence soon]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-75164]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Yes time to lay the plans of the responsible and aware energy/material balances for the planet.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-75164]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Altotus]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:52:27 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Synergy for energy and environment.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-75149]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Thorium is a  waste product of rare earth refining and this is the reason that China has a virtual monopoly on rare earths as at other deposits in other locations the thorium is not economically attractive to deal with. If the Thorium were in demand perhaps the rare earth mining situation could turnaround? I am not going to run the numbers for that but it could be good. Its a good thing to be a bit clever and avoid waste and contamination. The rare earths are getting grubbed up anyway and the contamination could be avoided if there was a market.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-75149]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Altotus]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:46:19 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Oh not so fast reexamine your microwave flux assumption.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-75163]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The microwave flux at the Earth side is to low to be a weapon. There are much much better weapons at hand already ready to be used. Your just sewing unfounded fear with an imagined microwave nightmare. Oil will always be a valuable commodity for chemical feedstock even if it was replaced by cleaner energy. In fact the energy would be better used in space without return to earth. The solar flux in orbit is 8 times that of the surface so space energy is practical and mirrors made of super lightweight films (films impractical on earth) could be a solution that is high power and light weight.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-75163]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Altotus]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 25 Jul 2012 15:29:38 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[CANDU and reality]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-73330]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[Frog - Nothing personal, but in the interest of minimizing the vast amount of misinformation already out there, I feel the need to deconstruct your comment:&quot;The so called 'Canadian' CANDU Reactors&quot;Not &quot;so-called&quot; - the CAN in the name stands for Canada, where it was conceived, designed, and developed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor &quot;can use yellow cake (natural uranium)&quot;The fuel is natural (unenriched) uranium, but in the form of sintered uranium dioxide (UO2), not the refined ore known as yellowcake (mostly U3O8). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellowcake &quot;thorium&quot;Could potentially use Th as a fertile add-on, but not stand-alone, as it is not fissile.&quot;old 'spent' fuel rods from light water reactors&quot;Reprocessing would be required, unless you are referring to DUPIC (Direct Use of spent PWR fuel In CANDU), which is still under limited development.&quot;(the ones that have to be kept in cooling ponds that blew up so nicely at Fukushima&quot;This is totally incorrect although it is a myth that was propagated by the disgraced outgoing NRC Chairman - those pools never lost inventory and are fine. http://atomicinsights.com/2012/05/debunking-the-fukushima-spent-fuel-fable.html &quot;can be refueled on the go&quot;Yes.&quot;can use weapons grade uranium&quot;Yes, after it has been blended down (unenriched).&quot;really the most versatile and safest reactors out there&quot;Maybe, but considering that fleets of LWRs have been deployed for 60 years worldwide on land and sea with no fatalities, that is a hard record to beat.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-73330]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[Atomikrabbit]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Sun, 24 Jun 2012 12:04:56 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[So called?]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70627]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[They were designed by the Canadian government. The publicly owned corporation, Atomic Energy of Canada Limited was sold last year by the Conservative government to SNC-Lavalin (the company under investigation for funnelling over $50 million to Gadafi and smuggling out his son.) for $15 million including all plans and rights to the CANDU reactors.I don't think they're in safe hands any more.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70627]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[shaunehunter]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 13:54:43 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Thorium Reactor]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70610]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The so called &quot;Canadian&quot; CANDU Reactors can use yellow cake (natural uranium), thorium, old &quot;spent&quot; fuel rods from light water reactors (the ones that have to be kept in cooling ponds that blew up so nicely at Fukushima, can be refueled on the go, can use weapons grade uranium, etc....really the most versatile and safest reactors out there. This is a bit of &quot;old news&quot; really....]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70610]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[halfafrog]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Fri, 11 May 2012 08:29:08 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[nitpick]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70558]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[&quot;While thorium is 400 times more abundant on the planet than uranium, ...&quot;Thorium is three or four times more abundant than uranium; that figure is about right for the abundance relative to uranium's rare fissile isotope, U-235.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70558]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[wwoods6]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 10:19:18 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[How plastic bottles can lighten up the darkness. [VIDEO]]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70555]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[This is a great short video on how people can use empty plastic bottles to create a &quot;free&quot; solar light and it is ideas like this that should be discussed and shared because every single additional &quot;free light&quot; helps both the Planet and everyone to think green instead of &quot;just&quot; more electric lights...http://wimp.com/lightenup/]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70555]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[CaptD]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Thu, 10 May 2012 07:39:10 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[my demonstrable basis was]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70550]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[the second law of thermodynamics which covers entropy.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70550]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[adam.freidin]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 22:43:49 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[True]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70541]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[We could also add the thermally enhanced air from those that offer non-specific critique without any demonstrable basis.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70541]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dduggerbiocepts]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 11:40:30 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Energy development complex and currently illogical.]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70532]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[While thorium is 400 times more abundant on the planet than uranium, dramatically cheaper - short and long term, dramatically safer in use and potential worst case risks than uranium will ever be, and a logical choice for immediate development as Mark points out - from 1960, we are neither a scientifically literate or logical society. Thorium faces an all but impossible battle in the US against a  60+ year old deeply entrenched uranium industry that owns much of Congress and the military power structure - MIC as Ike called it. No possibility of an unbiased scientific/logical decision to go to thorium in that environment.We are also currently both privately and publicly pissing away billions of dollars on biofuel development - without distinguishing between non-NPK biofuels and NPK dependent biofuels - and or the fact that NPK biofuels are dependent on the same petroluem industry products they're trying to replace. In addition NPK dependent biofuels threaten our food supply with the accelerated depletion of peak phosphates - for which we have no feasible replacements in sight and this simple and relatively un-discussed fact - trumps global warming, CO2, rising sea levels, and our energy problems. Fortunately, NASA through it's OMEGA program is currently pursuing non-NPK biofuels that will also clean up the coastal environments, do not use peak phosphate, but recover it from sewage instead - while producing biofuels and other products - though in comparatively modest amounts.Solar is economically here now and cheaper than fossil fuel generated power. Admittedly, practical electrical storage is not here - unless you consider Europe's model of using a nation wide electric auto fleet's collective battery capacity to store 40% of their wind and solar power and send it back to the grid at night. It also makes the auto consumer finance solar energy through the cost of their excess car battery capacity. That may not be all bad in the long run, but it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of traction in the current economic climate.Natural gas (NG) and natural gas liquids (NGL) while cleaner (less CO2, sulfur and particulates) than other fossil fuels (gasoline, diesel, heating oils and coal) can power our transportation (ground and aviation) and power generation for an extended period - with the penalty of diminished, but continued CO2 production.In any case, if we want to get off foreign oil independence we are going to have experience at least a transition period (30 years?) of multiple advanced energy sources - thorium, NG and NGL, solar, wind, tide, geo-thermal and non-NPK biofuels. The long term energy source of our future is likely to be beyond our imagination, but no matter, we need to be energy independent now if our economy and nation are going to survive.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70532]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[dduggerbiocepts]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 10:53:20 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
             

    <item>
        <title><![CDATA[Depends on regulations]]></title>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70493]]></link>
        <description><![CDATA[The cost advantage of using thorium will depend on the type of reactor you're using and how the regulatory commissions plan to deal with it. Generally thorium provides the immediate advantage of being accessible anywhere in the world even if you don't have concentrated deposits (terrestrial rock like granite contains 8-13 grams of thorium per tonne). Thorium is also dirt cheap rather than being a special grade of fuel that can only be produced by nations with centrifuge technology, like enriched uranium. So you should save some money with thorium reactors over enriched uranium reactors, but that's negligible compared to regulatory costs anyways.India's heavy water thorium reactors should be hit with similar safety regulations as any other water-cooled reactor depending on the country. The costs from regulations are arguably the biggest capital bottleneck to building new reactors today, even safer ones. Over 75% of nuclear costs in the US are attributed to regulatory processes rather than the actual material and technical costs of the reactors themselves.http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter9.htmlIn India and China however, you'll find nuclear reactors cheaper to build and decommission than coal plants, simply because their regulations are more cost and time efficient while still being very severe.Nuclear will also be required if one ever hopes to go fossil-fuel free in the future, as it is the only clean source of energy apart from hydroelectric dams that can supply reliable enough energy to cover baseload energy needs. Solar and wind simply cannot compete with coal in terms of cost-effective reliability because they are too intermittent.]]></description>
        <guid><![CDATA[http://www.smartplanet.com/forum/discussions/1-10361-70493]]></guid>
        <dc:creator><![CDATA[muffinmix]]></dc:creator>
        <pubDate>Wed, 09 May 2012 05:10:03 -0700</pubDate>
    </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

