For those of you concerned about nuclear safety and waste products there is a much better alternative. Thorium based (rather than uranium based) nuclear power. This technology was demonstrate in the 50's and 60's but was abandoned because it was much harder to produce weapons grade material (compared to uranium). The military considerations favored the uranium fuel cycle.

More specifically LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) compared to uranium reactors burn fuel 100x more efficiently without reprocessing, result in ~100x less waste and are inherently safer and should cost less to build.

In addition, since LFTR is a high temp low pressure process it can use water or air cooling. Thus Ut/Nv etc, where water is scarce, could replace it's coal fired plants with low cost, clean thorium power plants. Much more cost effective and reliable than the wind and solar plants that California is building. (fyi, California's electricity currently costs 2x Utah's and they are on a path to keep it that way.)

Comparison: Uranium vs Thorium Based Nuclear Power

Uranium LWR : Thorium LFTR

Fuel Reserves (relative) __________________ 1 : 100 (1000s yrs)

Fuel Mining Waste Volume (relative) ____ 1000 : 1

Fuel Burning Efficiency _______________ ~1% : >95%

Radioactive Waste Volume (relative) ______ 40 : 1

Radioactive Waste Isolation Period __10000yrs : 80% 10yrs, 20% 300yrs

Plant Cost (relative) _____________________ 1 : <1

Plant Thermal Efficiency _____________ ~33% : ~50%

Cooling Requirements _______________ Water : Water or Air

Plant Safety _______________________ Good : Very Good

Weapons Grade Material Production ____ Yes : No(very hard)

Burn Existing Nuclear Waste ___________ No : Yes

Development Status _______ Commercial Now : Demonstrated

for more info see

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumVsUranium.pp...

charlesH (BS Physics)

Orem, Utah