Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor in 5 minutes

Another excellent article on the pro's and con's of molten salt reactors:

www.whatisnuclear.com...

Problems with Molten Salt Reactors All those wonderful benefits can’t possibly come without a slew of problems. Lots of people promote these reactors without acknowledging the issues, but not us! A reactor concept has to stand on its two feet even in the face of disadvantages (and we think the MSR can do this). Let’s go through them.

More at the above linked article.

originally posted by: Aazadan

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.

Did you know that the waste product from coal plants is radioactive? It's also extremely carcinogenic, contact with it for a second can almost guarantee you develop cancer in your lifetime. There have even been serious proposals made to gather the topsoil downwind of coal plants, they put out so much uranium that simply harvesting the topsoil provides more nuclear material than uranium mines.

You say nuclear plants are dangerous, and maybe they are but the health issues and environmental effects of them when weighted for the power produced rates them as safer than coal plants by a factor greater than 1000:1. That makes them the least bad of our options.

Here's the deaths per tWh of various electricity generation
Coal – world average 161
Coal – China 278
Coal – USA 15
Oil 36
Natural Gas 4
Biofuel/Biomass 12
Peat 12
Solar (rooftop) 0.44
Wind 0.15
Hydro 0.10
Nuclear 0.04

That's funny.... no matter how many times I read the topic of this thread... I can't seem to find anywhere in it where it says anything about coal plants,,, I do see thorium reactors though... I guess I need new glasses.

In other words, quit trying to derail the thread and stay on topic.... thorium reactors please.

I am not trying to beat anyone down, all I am saying is do some research before you start jumping on the latest bandwagon to come down the street.

Molten salt reactors are not a new fangled idea, they have been around for quite some time now. There are reasons why they haven't become main stream, and you should really investigate those reasons before blindly promoting a technology.

Most people won't research it and will just read a thread like this and go wow.... thorium is the way to go!.. All I am doing is trying to get them to take a little deeper look at the technology and the problems that are unique to it, before they make a decision one way or the other.

If you walk onto the nuclear reactor car lot, are you just simply going to buy what the salesman is pitching to you? It's not even a new car, it just an old car that has been refurbished to look like a new car. Or are you going to do some research and found out about the safety record, gas mileage, environmental aspects of your new car before you actually purchase it?

I am not telling you what car to buy. Just kick the tires once in a while.

originally posted by: RickinVa
That's funny.... no matter how many times I read the topic of this thread... I can't seem to find anywhere in it where it says anything about coal plants,,, I do see thorium reactors though... I guess I need new glasses.

In other words, quit trying to derail the thread and stay on topic.... thorium reactors please.

Thorium is safer than existing nuclear power plants. It's death print is far lower than all other sources.

Lets grant your point for a moment though. If thorium isn't safe enough, what are we supposed to use for energy? That's why I brought up deathprints. All of the alternatives are higher.

a reply to: Aazadan

I am only concerned in this thread with molten salt thorium reactors....

1. Molten salt reactors have been around now for approximately 60 years.

2. Since Fukushima, there has been a push to promote thorium reactors as a "safer" alternative.

3. The same industry who are pushing molten salt reactors as a safer alternative, is the exact same industry who promoted normal nuclear reactors as safe and green decades ago.

4. How can you possibly trust an industry who for over 60 years has promoted one type of reactor as safe, but must have known decades ago that there was a "safer" way? Do you honestly think they just recently discovered that a thorium reactor would be "safer"?

There is no solution to the world's energy problems currently available, just like there is no solution to the mess at Fukushima. It is what it is.

Trying to solve the worlds energy problems in a way that doesn't destroy as much as it creates is just like today's modern Presidential elections in the USA. There is no choice that is better than the other, the only choice is which is the least bad out of a bunch of bad choices.

So as you said "Thorium is safer than existing nuclear power plants. It's death print is far lower than all other sources." That very statement is a smoking gun within itself...Since thorium has been around for 60 plus years... who lied all these years about all the other nuclear reactors, or in the best case scenario, simply failed to mention that there might be a "safer" alternative? The same people telling you that Thorium is a now a better choice, that's who.


I don't buy it for a minute. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck... there is an excellent chance that it is a.... well you know.

We will never agree, so I will just let it go at that. 99% of the sheeple could care less anyways.

originally posted by: RickinVa
3. The same industry who are pushing molten salt reactors as a safer alternative, is the exact same industry who promoted normal nuclear reactors as safe and green decades ago.

4. How can you possibly trust an industry who for over 60 years has promoted one type of reactor as safe, but must have known decades ago that there was a "safer" way? Do you honestly think they just recently discovered that a thorium reactor would be "safer"?

It costs a lot of money to develop the technology to the point it's usable. The US and the Soviets both put all of the research money into uranium and plutonium which left thorium as a theoretical alternative but something that would still require billions in order to bring to market.

As far as nuclear being safe and green goes, look at the death print. It's very safe. Look at the waste produced compared to any other system. Nuclear produces very little waste per twh and very few harmful side effects. The only negative to nuclear is the cost, which thorium also shares.

" The only negative to nuclear is the cost"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah

/wipes tear and walks away from thread..... thank you for the much needed laugh.

a reply to: RickinVa

In a nutshell, molten salt reactors should be called molten high-level-radioactive-corrosive-waste chemical processing plants in an intense neutron bombardment.

I do NOT want a profit-seeking utility ever to be running one of those. Liquids + radioactivity + corrosion = NOPE.

I want my radioactive waste heavily encapsulated, stable and solid and not going anywhere. A MSR reactor is already pre-melted down---you know, the disaster end state of a regular fission reactor.

Quite a number of accident scenarios historically in the weapons complexes in USA and USSR came out of combinations of radioactivity, fissiles & liquids.

General public generally heavily overestimates the danger of the radioactive waste from conventional power reactors. Let's not make their feels real.

Somebody, will sometime, specify the lowest bidder for making some pipe or valve, and there Will Be Leaks. Something will break. Now, how would you replace it? A human couldn't possibly enter the reactor room for 5 years. What happens when the liquid stuff starts pouring onto the ground. What happens when fire suppression sprinklers, or a flood or a roof crack and rain come in, and water dissolves all the completely mobile radioactives?

Today, they are stuck in zirconium-steel cladding. Breaking through that in any degree is a major accident. Why build a reactor in a post-accident state.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: ChesterJohn

ugh you had to say Trump. But you're right and he absolutely hates wind generators. A massive project as per the full length video, would cost in the billions however. But clearly the end result is worth all that more. I wonder how much money would be needed to raise to build a small one?

You may need to a reactor design, then have an engineer look at it and he could probably give an estimated cost and then add 25% contingencies on top of that and 40% more for labor that should put you in the ball park as to the cost.

originally posted by: RickinVa
" The only negative to nuclear is the cost"

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahah

/wipes tear and walks away from thread..... thank you for the much needed laugh.

High power generation, low land usage, low pollution, very low deathprint.

What are the negatives? That some land occasionally gets irradiated? Have you looked into how much harm our other power generation sources create?

a reply to: Aazadan

"What are the negatives? That some land occasionally gets irradiated?"


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Holy crap, usually I have to pay money to get a laugh like this.....


please please please continue on my friend... your are doing more to support my case than I could ever do alone... I love it lol lol lol.

a reply to: RickinVa

1. Molten salt reactors have been around now for approximately 60 years.

They have not "been around" for approximately 60 years. A couple of prototypes were built decades ago, neither of which operated for a significant amount of time. Further development is needed to realize them.

2. Since Fukushima, there has been a push to promote thorium reactors as a "safer" alternative.

The push for a safer alternative has existed well before Fukushima, the guy in the video, Kirk Sorensen started his website (energyfromthorium.com) around 2007 and has been doing talks from around that time. Obviously Fukushima increased the popularity for alternatives, as it should have.

web.archive.org...*/energyfromthorium.com...

3. The same industry who are pushing molten salt reactors as a safer alternative, is the exact same industry who promoted normal nuclear reactors as safe and green decades ago.

The big traditional nuclear power companies such as Westinghouse, General Electric, and Areva have absolutely nothing to do with LFTR. Large nuclear power operators such as Exelon and EDF also have nothing to do with LFTR. LFTR poponents today have tended to be outsiders. Kirk Sorsensen is a former NASA scientist.

Thinking LFTR is the same industry as conventional nuclear, is like saying that rooftop solar panels are from the same industry as massive hyro-electric dams, just because they both happen to be "renewable".

4. How can you possibly trust an industry who for over 60 years has promoted one type of reactor as safe, but must have known decades ago that there was a "safer" way? Do you honestly think they just recently discovered that a thorium reactor would be "safer"?

Many decades ago, the nuclear establishment in the US decided to go with Fast Reactors as the "alternative". Fast Reactors were attempted to be built, but they have tended to have there own problems (google Integral Fast Reactor, PRISM, S-PRISM, BN-800, Monju, Phenix, Superphenix).

Thorium needs significant investment to realize the potential. That's why it isn't currently used. If you want it to work then be prepared to throw money at it and cross your fingers.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Aazadan

"What are the negatives? That some land occasionally gets irradiated?"


Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Holy crap, usually I have to pay money to get a laugh like this.....


please please please continue on my friend... your are doing more to support my case than I could ever do alone... I love it lol lol lol.

You have yet to answer the question. What is the downside of nuclear power that's worse than other known methods?

a reply to: Aazadan

Why can't you understand that this thread is only about thorium reactors? Can't seem to answer any questions about those, but instead you continually try to derail the thread.

I refuse to talk about anything other than thorium reactors and the inherent problems associated with them. If you want to talk about the benefits of nuclear power, start another thread... that topic has already been discussed numerous times on ATS.

Back to Thorium reactors, would you care to discuss how the molten salt is made? Do you think it magically appears out of thin air? Would you like to talk about the cleaning process for the molten salt? Would you like to discuss the beryllium problem associated with molten salt thorium reactors? Maybe you would like to discuss the chemical plant and all the toxins and radioactivity associated with molten salt thorium reactors?

You keep dodging discussion about molten salt thorium reactors....

There are pro's and con's to thorium reactors.... my job is to remind people of the con's when there is over abundance of people spouting pro's while ignoring the cons.

My job here is finished.

Even if thorium nuclear reactors isnt optimal with todays tech (wait, I mean the 50 year old tech), imagine if the US put just... say 10%... of its annual military budget in researching/implementing thorium reactors. In 10 years we would revolutionize energy production. But nope, there is obviously very strong forces working against it, no doubt the oil and coal industry. Not to mention the proponents of ineffective #ty "green" and "renewable" energy. They simple do not want this and are prepared to spend billions upon billions to ensure it doesnt happen in their lifetime.

a reply to: FlySolo


"There's just one draw back I'm afraid. You can't make weapons out of it."

Do you even research anything before you post it? Proliferation is one of the reasons that thorium reactors never got mainstream.

Look into in thorium reactors and you will quickly find that they will allow countries access to fissile materials to create nuclear weapons.

Your statement is dead wrong.

a reply to: RickinVa

I watched two hours about it then made my thread. There was mention that it can't be used. However, I stand corrected

I haven't posted in this thread for a day or so yet you seem to be bouncing around looking for a fight or something.**SNIP**

eta: Here wise guy

Alongside its abundance, one of thorium's most attractive features is its apparent resistance to nuclear proliferation, compared with uranium. This is because thorium-232, the most commonly found type of thorium, cannot sustain nuclear fission itself. Instead, it has to be broken down through several stages of radioactive decay. This is achieved by bombarding it with neutrons, so that it eventually decays into uranium-233, which can undergo fission.

And, there's no weapons grade byproduct
phys.org...

Why aren’t we using thorium in nuclear reactors, given the possibility of a meltdown is nearly zero and the waste cannot be used to make bombs?
— Dennis Dorando, Concord, Calif.
...
But the real reason we use uranium over thorium is a result of wartime politics. Cold War-era governments (including ours) backed uranium-based reactors because they produced plutonium — handy for making nuclear weapons.

discovermagazine.com...

**SNIP**

ALL MEMBERS: We expect civility and decorum within all topics.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: RickinVa

I watched two hours about it then made my thread. There was mention that it can't be used. However, I stand corrected

I haven't posted in this thread for a day or so yet you seem to be bouncing around looking for a fight or something.**SNIP**

eta: Here wise guy

Alongside its abundance, one of thorium's most attractive features is its apparent resistance to nuclear proliferation, compared with uranium. This is because thorium-232, the most commonly found type of thorium, cannot sustain nuclear fission itself. Instead, it has to be broken down through several stages of radioactive decay. This is achieved by bombarding it with neutrons, so that it eventually decays into uranium-233, which can undergo fission.

You mean, the way natural uranium-238 is transformed to highly fissionable plutonium-239 in nuclear reactors?

Yes, that's the normal way to make nuclear weapons. The fact that the base U-238 isn't easily fissionable (like the Thorium-232) is less relevant than what you can make of it.

And, there's no weapons grade byproduct
phys.org...

Why aren’t we using thorium in nuclear reactors, given the possibility of a meltdown is nearly zero and the waste cannot be used to make bombs?
— Dennis Dorando, Concord, Calif
...

What reactor designs are these? Are you talking about the liquid salt thorium reactors? They're already melted down from the beginning. Bad news.

But the real reason we use uranium over thorium is a result of wartime politics. Cold War-era governments (including ours) backed uranium-based reactors because they produced plutonium — handy for making nuclear weapons.

www.whatisnuclear.com...

Thorium hype is a great example of the time-honored quote:

For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

quoth the Barbie: Nuclear engineering is hard.

I'm in favor of new nuclear plant designs, in particular to retire greenhouse-gas emitting coal. The best bet is smaller modular reactors which can be made cost-effectively and efficiently in a factory and not site-built, and higher quality control. That's the main barrier to nuclear today: exploding construction costs.

I find it interesting that the USA dropped the ball on Thorium and China has picked it up and is running with it! It looks like China is going to go all in with Thorium, good for them. I hope to see this technology more and less uranium nuclear power plants in the future times to come.

Fukushima immune? China bets on 'safer nuclear fuel'