And that doesn't make the "10 Katrina per year" any more credible. Like i said. Read what the scientists say. Not what some Hollywood disaster move plot.

You just pulled that out of a place where the sun don't shine.

Oh yea its AGW, we are all gonna die. Everyone is dooomed i tell you. The end is nigh.

What a pile of crap. Do yourself a favor and read what the scientist say and not headlines from tabloids.

Who said anything about not doing something about it? Did you reply to the right post? I was addressing the "HUNDREDS or THOUSANDS of years" factoid. Which is wrong.

Well the ocean fisheries, as far as we can tell. Are decimated. Stocks that are no longer fished are not recovering. We don't know if they can. But the data at this point suggests they can't recover. Ocean fish will not last our lifetime.

So I hope you like jellyfish.

Run the numbers. The heat flow is so stupidly low, that geothermal power uses hot rocks that *cool* down since the heat from below cannot flow fast enough. The geothermal heat from under our feet is something like 1W/m2. Its tiny.

Every geothermal plant has a steady reduction in heat after opening. It is not sustainable on terms of decades and useful power densities.

However geothermal is based on stored heat in rocks. That stored heat is good a few decades at best. Try and at least run the numbers. If you don't believe that BOTE calculation, do your own.

If you cared about ocean ecology, you wouldn't be eating fish anyway ;)

Turns out that isotope separation (through mass difference) is easy or hard based on absolute difference of the isotopes, not the ratio. That is Tritium enrichment from hydrogen (2au) is harder than 235U from 238U (3au)! Or more to the point UF_6 with only 3au mass difference. However the real hard part is how dilute it is in the first place. This makes it much harder. 235U is .7% of naturally occurring uranium. Compared to the amounts of tritium everyone jumps up and down about this is much more dilute by many orders of magnitude. This is what makes it really hard.

There is this false belief that LFTR is some magical totally safe fixes all things wrong with nuclear.

This is quite false.

Lets start with the basics. 232Th is fertile and is not a fuel. It absorbs a neutron to become 233Pa which, appart from being a neutron poison, decays after about 26 days into 233U which is the fuel in a Thorium fuel cycle. So now if we compare with a U fuel cycle we can only do so with a reprocessing fuel cycle, not as is often done with a once through cycle which Th can't even do. Note that with reprocessing the waste stream is reduced by about a factor of 65. Also fuel usage goes up by about the same factor.

Now note we are burning 233U rather than 235U in a traditional reactor. Turns out that is about the same in terms of fission products they are about the same from a waste management perspective. Of course you get less actinides since there isn't all this U238 sitting around causing problems. However its not the same as none, and actinides can be dealt with in a reprocessing cycle.

Because we are dealing with plain old Uranium fission we have all the same issue. We have decay heat. That is turn it off and the fuel still produces significant amount of heat for some time. So you still get all the same issues if you can't maintain cooling after a scram with Th fuel cycles as with U fuel cycles. Sure you can have passive systems. That doesn't mean they work when you need them too. There is more than enough decay heat to melt significant amounts of concrete.

For the same reason as above any core breach (you don't get to plan these btw). Would also be similar to traditional PWR core breach. It could even be worse since many designs have graphite moderators which would burn on exposure to water or air.

Now we come to the implementation issues. Th breeding ratios are marginal at best. A breeding ratio of 1 has never been shown. The theoretical models and numerical results seem to show it can be done. But its very close and is a show stopper if can't be managed. Note that the only MSRs ever run did not do any breeding whatsoever. This creates a very tight neutron economy and makes design more difficult and even more expensive. Even small traces of some elements in the materials used would simply mean they don't work as a complete fuel cycle.

The only big advantage of these things is the MSR part.ie molten salt. This is part of a larger class of reactor called homogenous reactors where the primary coolant is also the fuel. There are quite a few nice features with this type of reactor, but none of it has anything to do with Th and using U reprocessed fuel cycles look basically the same. The features include negative void/thermal coefficients (boiling/hotter slows down the reaction), potentially simpler passive cooling and scram systems (but these exist for PWR too...), load following (quick power response). Not under pressure. No fuel elements to compromise. None of these things has anything to do with Th.

But its not all pancakes and picnics. In particular the salts are either reactive with water (fluorides) or soluble in water (chlorides). Fluorides are pretty corrosive and that restricts material choice. The neutron economy makes this even more difficult. Any off design issue can cause serious problems just like at a pwr. And don't start with the "it can't happen in this design". That is what they said about pebble bed reactors. See the prototype for how well that turned out!

And last but not least we have particular issues related to just Th. MSR was suggested to overcome the many problems that Th fuel cycle has. But it doen't remove them. The neutron economy issues are mitigated with constant reprocessing and pulling out the 233Pa. You still get some 234Pa and so you still get 234U which is a nasty gamma emitter. Its so nasty that Th proponents claim that prevents or inhibits proliferation. Well you can't have it both ways. It also prevents and inhibits reprocessing.

And lets be serious. Do you really think that a corner cutting penny pinching corporation or state is going to run a "safe" design safely?

This is being done.. sort of in england. The problem is that the oceans only turn over on very long time scales. On the order of a 1000 years or so. So your not mixing it with the ocean, but the local area, or at least a localized area which may or may not be that close to the dumping/dilution site.

There are other problems too. Some of the radioactive components bio accumulate. So that the waste is concentrated in the food chain.

A pretty standard "nuclear is scary" misleading and incorrect piece of truthiness. Most of the activity is gone after just a century. Its still not all that good for you in the same way lead is not good for you. But its not in the same league it was at the start.

Guess how long you have to wait for DDT or asbestos to become safe? Its over a few HUNDREDS of TRILLIONS of years. Along with many other very toxic and very poisons chemicals that we do in fact spill and contaminate local areas with all too frequently.

there is zero evidence that H5N1 causes a cytokine storm. In fact is was more mild than the previous strain from the previous year. Tamiflu however made a lot of money.

Is that 7x10^9 people or 7x2^30 people?

Properly written sparse matrix algos don't store things sparsly!

Well these in fact do that. Using more green in the bayer patten is using more area for luminance. Some bayer pattens even have "whites". The idea is that you get roughly full resolution luminance but lower resolution color information. Which is how we see. Which is why jpeg etc also do this.