It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A re-evaluation of the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor
concept has revealed problems related to its safety
and to the complexity of the reprocessing considered.
A reflection is carried out anew in view of finding
innovative solutions leading to the Thorium Molten
Salt Reactor concept. Several main constraints are
established and serve as guides to parametric evaluations.
These then give an understanding of the in-
fluence of important core parameters on the reactor’s
operation. The aim of this paper is to discuss this
vast research domain and to single out the Molten
Salt Reactor configurations that deserve further evaluation
One myth is that thorium is safe. Thorium-232 has a half life of 14 billion years (billions, not millions). Thorium-232 is also highly radiotoxic, with the same amount of radioactivity of uranium and thorium, thorium produces a far higher dose in the body. If someone inhaled an amount of thorium the bone surface dose is 200 times higher than if they inhaled the same amount of uranium. Thorium also requires longer spent fuel storage than uranium. With the daughter products of thorium like technetium‐99 with a half life of over 200,000 years, thorium is not safe nor a solution to spent fuel storage issues.
Thorium is unable to produce energy on its own. Something thorium cheerleaders frequently fail to mention is that it needs a fissile material like uranium-235 or plutonium-239 to operate the reactor. Uranium-235 and plutonium-239 are both considered bomb making materials and a proliferation risk. So now all the “safety” of thorium has been trumped by the need for weapons grade material to operate the reactor. The work involved to enrich the uranium-235 used in a thorium reactor to the percentage needed for a bomb is not a difficult process. The reprocessing cycle does not resolve the proliferation risk.
originally posted by: spav5
Makes absolutely no sense to invest in yet another unsustainable energy source. There are sustainable energies, sun wind, geothermal...they claim it is not feasible(now) because of the huge cost to change the underlying infrastructure. How would this be more feasible?
originally posted by: spav5
Makes absolutely no sense to invest in yet another unsustainable energy source. There are sustainable energies, sun wind, geothermal...they claim it is not feasible(now) because of the huge cost to change the underlying infrastructure. How would this be more feasible?
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: RickinVa
Just so you know, 14 billion year half is less dangerous than 1 day half life.
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: RickinVa
I'm only spinning the wheel back after you tried to give it a go. It's not a longer waste disposal problem because the amount of radioactivity is so small it wouldn't harm you. The whole half life thing is understood backwards. The shorter the half life, the more radioactive it is. Uranium has a half life of 4.47 billion years. Thorium 14 billion. Sooo? figure it out. Which of the two is more radioactive?
Next question?
There is no nuclear reactor that is safe and there never will be, nuclear power + nature + humans is a recipe for disaster that has happened numerous times in the past and will happen numerous times in the future until mankind figures out how to wean off the nuclear tit and find a viable alternative power source.
originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: RickinVa
There is no nuclear reactor that is safe and there never will be, nuclear power + nature + humans is a recipe for disaster that has happened numerous times in the past and will happen numerous times in the future until mankind figures out how to wean off the nuclear tit and find a viable alternative power source.
Then you haven't looked into Molten Salt Reactors at all then. The concept is actually quite impressive - and passive.
It doesn't involve water
It doesn't require to be manually shut down
It doesn't require a coolant
It will never melt down because it's already a liquid
It's 200x more efficient
4x more common than uranium
didn't you watch the video?
Another myth is that thorium reactors can run at atmospheric temperatures, in order to produce power they must be run differently and would not be at atmospheric temperatures.
Many of the thorium reactors use liquid sodium fluoride in the reactor process. This material is highly toxic and has its own series of risks.
The creation of thorium fuels is also not safer than creating uranium fuels. Thorium poses the same nuclear waste and toxic substance problems found in mining and fuel milling of uranium.
Liquid sodium is better than water at evacuating heat from the reactor core and its high boiling point of about 900 degrees Celsius allows SFRs to operate close to atmospheric pressure, negating the need for the thick, steel containment vessels at pressurized water reactors.
But sodium has significant disadvantages, too. On contact with air, it burns; plunged into water, it explodes.
originally posted by: RickinVa
There is no nuclear reactor that is safe and there never will be, nuclear power + nature + humans is a recipe for disaster that has happened numerous times in the past and will happen numerous times in the future until mankind figures out how to wean off the nuclear tit and find a viable alternative power source.