Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor in 5 minutes

a reply to: FlySolo

Little advertised fact: Thorium is energetic and can be used to build atomic weapons.

China used Thorium reactors to kick start its atomic weapons development. (it got the thorium sand-mined from Kurnell in Australia who provided it believing it would be used in the manufacture of gas-light mantles).

It is just that Thorium weapons themselves would be too bulky.

Thorium has also been used in fission-fusion atomic weapon designs.

Abstract:

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

Source: The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor :
Moving On from the MSBR L. Mathieu et. al. (2005)

For the interested reader.

a reply to: FlySolo

Not sure about China but I was under the impression India was leading the way in thorium power generation, I know they have a few thorium reactors, and they've taken a lot of the technology the US has pioneered and improved on it.

Anyways, thorium reactors are one of the big ways we can supply energy in the future. It and geothermal are our two most promising technologies, and both are already well enough developed that they can be used.

a reply to: FlySolo

Don't forget India. I forgot whether they have it or its in the works..

---

With all the talk and protest in Japan about nuclear and they having shut down all of their reactors, I am surprised nobody brings up Thorium.

There is still waste but much safer in terms of a melt down, I hear.

But what is wrong with everybody?!

There is already a solar solution. A Solar array that takes up a small percentage of a small state in the US can run the entire United States.

The entire world can already go solar, and these are real numbers with real equipment that is already in existence.

MoneyMoneyMoneyMoneyMoneyMoneyMoneyMoney

As long as ^ is ruling the world, we wont see anything
that doesnt cost much.....

This post is more so i can come back and watch
the movies

The U.S., Australia and India have the most thorium (India most likely at no.1, but a lack of pertaining information, compared to the other two nations, leaves only estimates). Brasil also have a bit.

Seems to me, that if the world did move over to thorium as a base load power generation source, it would benefit democracy as much as it would the planet...

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?

a reply to: Aazadan

yes, I just learned last night India has had these reactors for awhile.

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.

www.fukuleaks.org...

a reply to: RickinVa

Just so you know, 14 billion year half is less dangerous than 1 day half life.

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?

Solar and wind have very low generation capability. Solar has VERY low efficiency and is extremely expensive. Wind requires a large amount of land in order to produce power for a small number of homes. A combination of wind and solar can provide power for a few homes but isn't a solution for all. At best both of these technologies combined can make up less than 10% of our energy needs.

Geothermal on the other hand is proven, cheap, and reliable but has geographic restrictions. The best estimates are that it can supply 33% of our energy needs which means it replaces coal almost 1 for 1.

All of the above combined only covers ~43% of our energy needs. There are some proposed solar arrays that can provide larger amounts of power, but the best land we have for them largely conflicts with the land used for geothermal. There have been some tidal power generators suggested but so far nothing viable is built, though this is one area that may work long term as the US has a lot of coastline to use them.

Hydroelectric is another option, but the dam's in the US are in very bad shape right now, and power generation from this source is already at a virtual max capacity though it can cover 5% of our needs or so.

That gets us to 50%. Nuclear needs to make up some portion of that remaining 50%. Of the nuclear options thorium is the most inexpensive and the safest but we need other reactors as well because of the ability to make weapons material, which like it or not is a big factor (what good is all this power generation if we can't defend it?). A 60/40 split between thorium and uranium/plutonium is probably good.

That still leaves us with needing some power generation with greater pollution output but it cuts things down dramatically while keeping costly largely the same as they are now.

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?

Solar and wind have very low generation capability. Solar has VERY low efficiency and is extremely expensive. Wind requires a large amount of land in order to produce power for a small number of homes. A combination of wind and solar can provide power for a few homes but isn't a solution for all. At best both of these technologies combined can make up less than 10% of our energy needs.

Geothermal on the other hand is proven, cheap, and reliable but has geographic restrictions. The best estimates are that it can supply 33% of our energy needs which means it replaces coal almost 1 for 1.

All of the above combined only covers ~43% of our energy needs. There are some proposed solar arrays that can provide larger amounts of power, but the best land we have for them largely conflicts with the land used for geothermal. There have been some tidal power generators suggested but so far nothing viable is built, though this is one area that may work long term as the US has a lot of coastline to use them.

Hydroelectric is another option, but the dam's in the US are in very bad shape right now, and power generation from this source is already at a virtual max capacity though it can cover 5% of our needs or so.

That gets us to 50%. Nuclear needs to make up some portion of that remaining 50%. Of the nuclear options thorium is the most inexpensive and the safest but we need other reactors as well because of the ability to make weapons material, which like it or not is a big factor (what good is all this power generation if we can't defend it?). A 60/40 split between thorium and uranium/plutonium is probably good.

That still leaves us with needing some power generation with greater pollution output but it cuts things down dramatically while keeping costly largely the same as they are now.

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: RickinVa

Just so you know, 14 billion year half is less dangerous than 1 day half life.

And just exactly what does that have to do with the fact that waste from a thorium reactor requires a much longer waste disposal problem than the current reactors waste that are in use?

Nothing that I can see. Nice spin, but you are just turning the nuclear propaganda wheel.

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?

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?

We will just have to disagree if you honestly believe "because the amount of radioactivity is so small it wouldn't harm you."

The jury is still out on that one and you will never convince me that any amount of man made ionizing radiation is harmless.

No need spouting anything to the contrary, especially crap about bananas, potato chips, airplane flights, solar radiation, etc... that horse has been beat to death enough already. We will just disagree.

a reply to: RickinVa

Fine, not my problem. Just don't expect to post comments with no facts to go unnoticed.

a reply to: FlySolo

All I said was that long term storage of waste from a thorium reactor is a bigger problem than the waste from current reactors. That is a fact.

----------------------------------------------------

Anything else that goes into the realm of how much radiation is good or bad for a person is an entirely separate discussion that has been beat to death already in numerous discussion threads already on ATS and is entirely off topic of this thread.

----------------------------------------------------
Back on topic:

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.

Said what I have to say. cheers!!

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?

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?

Again:

www.fukuleaks.org...

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.

I let that article speak for me.... anything you want to disprove as stated in that article, knock yourself out.

Not everybody thinks Thorium reactors are the way to go.... they are just as dangerous as any other reactor, in their own way.

www.scientificamerican.com...

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.

Remember.... the people who are trying to sell you the idea that sodium reactors are safe are the same people that sold you the idea that nuclear power was safe and the way to go. Once bitten, twice shy.

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