Sellafield clean-up cost reaches £67.5bn

MS1950

Wookster wrote: »

I think the muppets in Brussels have banned thorium reactors.

From the UK's DECC:
‘Thorium and uranium fuel cycles: comparison by the National Nuclear Laboratory’ - Department of Energy & Climate Change, Published: 4 September 2012


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thorium-and-uranium-fuel-cycles-comparison-by-the-national-nuclear-laboratory


"Overall, the conclusion is reached that the thorium fuel cycle at best has only limited relevance to the UK as a possible alternative plutonium disposition strategy and as a possible strategic option in the very long term for any follow-up reactor construction programme after LWR new build. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that world-wide there remains interest in thorium fuel cycles and as this is not likely to diminish in the near future. It may therefore be judicious for the UK to maintain a low level of engagement in thorium fuel cycle R&D by involvement in international collaborative research activities. This will enable the UK to keep up with developments, comment from a position of knowledge and to some extent influence the direction of research. Participation will also ensure that the UK is more ready to respond if changes in technology or market forces bring the thorium fuel cycle more to the fore".

grizzly1911

MS1950 wrote: »

From the UK's DECC:
‘Thorium and uranium fuel cycles: comparison by the National Nuclear Laboratory’ - Department of Energy & Climate Change, Published: 4 September 2012


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thorium-and-uranium-fuel-cycles-comparison-by-the-national-nuclear-laboratory


"Overall, the conclusion is reached that the thorium fuel cycle at best has only limited relevance to the UK as a possible alternative plutonium disposition strategy and as a possible strategic option in the very long term for any follow-up reactor construction programme after LWR new build. Nevertheless, it is important to recognise that world-wide there remains interest in thorium fuel cycles and as this is not likely to diminish in the near future. It may therefore be judicious for the UK to maintain a low level of engagement in thorium fuel cycle R&D by involvement in international collaborative research activities. This will enable the UK to keep up with developments, comment from a position of knowledge and to some extent influence the direction of research. Participation will also ensure that the UK is more ready to respond if changes in technology or market forces bring the thorium fuel cycle more to the fore".

Why have they reached this conclusion?

Any ideas?

MS1950

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Why have they reached this conclusion?

Any ideas?

Well, there's a lot in the report - but it appears to boil down to timescales and costs. This quote from the 'Discussion' section probably sums it up:

"It could be argued that the main priority for the UK is to ensure the momentum that the new build programme currently has built up is maintained, in order that the new build plants will be available in good time to meet the projected shortfalls of low carbon electrical capacity. This only permits existing reactor designs with the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle. Innovative thorium fuelled reactors will not be a viable alternative for at least 20 to 30 years and definitely cannot meet the new build timescales. A limited role for thorium fuels in new build LWRs might be possible at a later date, with perhaps a partial transition to thorium-U233 fuels later in their lifetimes and any major shift towards the thorium fuel cycle would only be realistic in a follow-on programme of reactor construction".

PaulF81

No harm plugging r+d for thorium with a view to use the actinide waste generated to fuel them. They cold even offset a lot of the supposed 60 something billion cleanup cost of sellafield against this r and d budget. Far too intelligent and far sighted for today's generation of politicians perhaps?

Either way, we need to tread water with respect to our energy policy until fusion is a realistic prospect. Does make you wonder what ey could have achieved if the us of a had spent three trillion on thorium and fusion research as opposed to p£sing it up the wall in Iraq. I dare say without the reliance on Middle East oil, the world would have been a much safer place.