New nuclear fuel source would power human race until 5000AD

Thorium cycle a strong option

The alternative thorium cycle nuclear power system has an even more abundant fuel source, and generates less waste, with a much shorter half-life. China is investing heavily in this, and the US ought to as well.

I suspect the heavily invested reactor companies are pushing an agenda to stay with Uranium, since they won't need to change much, and I suspect DoE goes along with that as being short-term pragmatic, and also they are heavily invested. Still, we need to look. It may make nuclear power more acceptable to the Greens.

Nuclear power is the only way to go. Wind power is out. It's way too expensive, and subject to the weather. Coal and oil are out, because they'll run out (long before AWG fries us, incidentally). Fusion is still science fiction. And sun power doesn't work for Britain.

Since the Fukushima meltdown - as a result of which, not a single person is set to be measurably harmed by radiation - we know that nuclear power is safe

Is that the same reactor where the people in charge told the people working inside the plant after the incident to hide their radiation detection devices because otherwise the detector would go off pretty darn quickly and the workers would have to stop working? So not a single person? Really?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-18936831 <-- workers covering detectors with lead

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19245818 < -- butterflies with severe mutations caused by the radiation, insects were generally considered to be more resistant to radiation

http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/TenHoeveEES12.pdf < -- finally a scientific report stating the number of deaths from the incident will be between 15 and 1,350, including people who died during the evacuation as it was too strenuous for their bodies (old people, sick people etc.)

So that figure for "not a single person", did you pull it at random to suit your article?

Errr wrong.

Many plant workers have surpassed the maximum reasonable radiation levels. By far!!

Therefore, many will die.

Coal is way more dangerous (and radioactive), but nuclear power does have its problems.

As for best energy source, I agree with you: go nuclear, and go breeder/thorium/heavy metal.

Get the numbers right

Select avg(nuclear)/avg(wind) from day;

+------------------------+

| avg(nuclear)/avg(wind) |

+------------------------+

| 6.03873279596952 |

+------------------------+

So nuclear power on average is 6 times higher than wind.

select avg(nuclear)/avg(demand) from day;

+--------------------------+

| avg(nuclear)/avg(demand) |

+--------------------------+

| 0.201886008883179 |

+--------------------------+

and is exactly 20% of our average demand, over a year and a half of 5 minute samples

htt[://gridwatch.templar.co.uk

we know that nuclear power is safe

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20305-caesium-fallout-from-fukushima-rivals-chernobyl.html

"The bigger worry concerns caesium-137, which has a half-life of 30 years and could pose a health threat for far longer"

Stanford study contests "harmlessness" of Fukishima

A Stanford study has found that, contrary to the findings of a U.N. study group, more than 1000 people can expect to die prematurely due to exposure to radiation from Fukishima. Since some of the workers at the plant did not even HAVE dosimeters, the threats to their health cannot be determined. Let's not celebrate just yet.

We need cheaper steel

The limit on building nuclear power plants is the application process and accompanying paperwork.

The mass of paperwork needed to build a plant is larger than the mass of the final plant, the mass of paper clips and staples in the paper work is larger than the mass of fuel it will use during it's life.

If we can reduce the cost of the steel used in the paperclips and staples we can make nuclear power profitable again !

Quick political question

Will this energy be available to everyone?

Say - Iran and North Korea?

Oh God, it's Page again.