Thorium

[sjw]

[BaalChatzaf]

When do we get started?

I have been pushing for liquid salt cooled breeder reactors for years. The waste by product problem is manageable and the design is inherently safe. When left alone the fuel goes into a relatively safe holding state. No melt down, no China Syndrome. And from a security p.o.v. nasty people cannot make nuclear or "dirty" bombs from the by products. So, like I asked, when do we get started?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[equality72521]

I want, I want, I want, I want!!!! Gime, Gime, Gime. If I cant have John Galts moter can I have Thorium please?

[BaalChatzaf]

I want, I want, I want, I want!!!! Gime, Gime, Gime. If I cant have John Galts moter can I have Thorium please?

A thorium reactor is even better. It does not violate the laws of thermodynamics.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Reidy]

Just keep it away from Superman.

[Jules Troy]

If all governmental stumbling blocks were cast aside and R&D commenced how long would it take to build a running unit?

[BaalChatzaf]

If all governmental stumbling blocks were cast aside and R&D commenced how long would it take to build a running unit?

Within ten years. Financing would have to be private.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

I saw one article that mentioned America needs to shit or get off the pot. It will probably be built by the Chinese first using American tech that was developed over 40 years ago.

It makes noooo sense at all nottttt to develope it as the US has vasttttt thorium reserves. A bowling ball sized ball of thorium has more energy in it than an oil super tanker.

[BaalChatzaf]

I saw one article that mentioned America needs to shit or get off the pot. It will probably be built by the Chinese first using American tech that was developed over 40 years ago.

It makes noooo sense at all nottttt to develope it as the US has vasttttt thorium reserves. A bowling ball sized ball of thorium has more energy in it than an oil super tanker.

The major energy producers are in no big hurry to speed along development of nuclear energy sources and generating plants.

There is too much money to be earned from petroleum and natural gas.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

I know this as I live in Alberta and have worked in the oil patch for the last 26 years.

However the Thorium plants would probably be built before the Keystone Excel pipeline! I have also worked on the keystone project on the Canadian side. I can tell you from experience this thing will be the most comprehensive and safe pipeline that has ever been constructed in the history if the world. The QCC on this is extremelyyyyyyyyyyyy demanding.

Sorry back to Thorium. I think it would be wise to build them on so many different facets. Fukushima being one.

"Environmental LFTR Advantages

1.The LFTR produces energy cheaper than from coal.

2.The LFTR produces about 3% of the waste of a light water reactor of the same power and much of this "waste" can be extracted and sold within 10 years. Moreover, this waste need only be sequestered from the environment for 300 years, a far less daunting task than the 300,000 years required for todays LWR waste.

3. The LFTR uses an inexhaustible supply of inexpensive thorium fuel."

http://energyfromthorium.com/thorium/

I think that oil companies really don't have a whole lot to worry about. The coal industry for coal fired electrical generation plants on the other hand would cry. Well ok maybe the oil companies would shit their pants because with coal and biomass fuel can be synthetic.

It is really maddening that the global warming alarmists completely overlook or are completely against this. It is the closest thing to green sustainable on demand power that we have.

[Ellen Stuttle]

It is really maddening that the global warming alarmists completely overlook or are completely against this. It is the closest thing to green sustainable on demand power that we have.

I don't know of alarmists who overlook it. Some are even pro-nuclear. Those are the small percentage of alarmists who actually believe there is reason for alarm but who aren't against technological growth and who genuinely want a solution to what they think is a real problem. Some alarmists don't really believe that there's cause for alarm, but they're getting money for carbon-sequestration projects or other "environmentally sustainable" projects, hence they aren't going to admit that there isn't cause for alarm, nor are they going to push nuclear as the way to go. Some alarmists are Green religionists who consider humans a blight on the planet and want to cut back technology and are very opposed to anything nuclear. And some of course are politicians and crony capitalist pals seeking power and/or financial bonanzas from carbon trading. They don't want the applecart of the scare upset.

Ellen

[Jules Troy]

Good points.

Carbon credits, the biggest redistributive scam of the 21at century.

[BaalChatzaf]

I saw one article that mentioned America needs to shit or get off the pot. It will probably be built by the Chinese first using American tech that was developed over 40 years ago.

It makes noooo sense at all nottttt to develope it as the US has vasttttt thorium reserves. A bowling ball sized ball of thorium has more energy in it than an oil super tanker.

Since when has "good sense" applied in the regulation of power generating utilities.

See what happened to Samuel Insull, the American entrepreneur who made the integrated electric power grid the main delivery system for bringing power at lower rates to ordinary folks. He operated mostly in the 1920s and 1930s and by the time the New Deal got through with him (he operated his business by leveraged holding companies) he had to go back to England and lived the rest of his life their in relative poverty.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Derek McGowan]

If all governmental stumbling blocks were cast aside and R&D commenced how long would it take to build a running unit?

probably never.

Remember even though government regulations have gotten in the way of more nuclear plants, at the same time the only reason that nuclear plants have ever been built it because government backs the insurance on them. Without proper insurance, there is no way that a private company would build something nuclear and without governmental backing, there is no way an insurance company would insure the project.

[Jules Troy]

Yet another reason government needs to get out of " The Economy".

As for insurance underwriting it would be a matter of "pay the right premiums".

Possibly as a transition the government could build the first one or two and run them for 5 years to prove the technology and give it a fair trial run with the intention of selling it off to private interests after.

France never stifled their programs and is the largest exporter of electricity in Europe.

[Derek McGowan]

You do realize that the french electrical supply is nationalized, right?

[Jules Troy]

Yes but France was not founded on an Idea like America was.

[dldelancey]

If all governmental stumbling blocks were cast aside and R&D commenced how long would it take to build a running unit?

probably never.

Remember even though government regulations have gotten in the way of more nuclear plants, at the same time the only reason that nuclear plants have ever been built it because government backs the insurance on them. Without proper insurance, there is no way that a private company would build something nuclear and without governmental backing, there is no way an insurance company would insure the project.

Yes, they would. The premiums might be very high, but someone would be willing to manage that risk.

[Derek McGowan]

Dldelancey, I would bet that someone would, certainly, but would the premiums be low enough to make the business sustainable, that's a different question. I personally would be very interested (shows so in my book) in a transition to such power sources but the insurance problem is a real one. The costs of building the plant would be high so servicing that debt AND sky high insurance premiums may be out of reach of all but the biggest companies. And as I've stated and has been stated here in this thread, the largest energy companies have little interest in changing their business models.

Jules, what does that have to do with anything? We are talking about government getting in the way of nuclear progress

[Derek McGowan]

Dldelancey, I would bet that someone would, certainly, but would the premiums be low enough to make the business sustainable, that's a different question. I personally would be very interested (shows so in my book) in a transition to such power sources but the insurance problem is a real one. The costs of building the plant would be high so servicing that debt AND sky high insurance premiums may be out of reach of all but the biggest companies. And as I've stated and has been stated here in this thread, the largest energy companies have little interest in changing their business models.

Jules, what does that have to do with anything? We are talking about government getting in the way of nuclear progress

[medius_man]

Boring! He left a lot of important issues out. He is offering this as an improved alternative to "regular" water cooled nuclear reactors. I noticed two big ways in which this wasn't an improvement.

1.The issue of the size of a Thorium reactor being less than a conventional reactor is not a concern on Earth. Transportation is cheap here! If we built this on the moon, that would be an issue because we would have to pay big for every nut and bolt to be moved.

2. Leftovers. It is currently impossible to completely convert matter into energy, so there will be wasted mass left over from the reactions in a Thorium reactor. The way I understand it, part of the reaction that occurs in any nuclear reactor is decay. A heavy reactive element decays into many lighter reactive element. Therefore we are left with radioactive waste. We have no way to recycle the radioactive waste from the traditional nuclear reactors we already have. It just gets stuffed into a lead box and thrown into the ocean. Assuming this Thorium reactor still produces waste like any other, how is it better? This issue of waste is the big one and its the reason few nations in the world use reactors.

I'm a big fan of new technologies, but no one technology fits every environment.

[Jules Troy]

The improvement is that the products of current reactors half life is 10000 years. The amount of radioactive waste from a thorium reactor is far less material being radioactive waste many of which for the first 12 years decay into readily usable products both in medical and industrial application. The half life of the end product radioactive waste has a half life of 300 years. So the bonus being far less waste and the waste generated will be easier to manage.

Of course I could be wrong. I believe India has been attempting to create a viable working model for years and has so far failed.

Another drawback is you still need Uranium or plutonium to initiate the thorium reaction until enough thorium has absorbed neutrons and is converted to uranium 233.

The other drawback being uranium 233 is 100% enriched which could make thorium reactors a larger target for terrorist attacks/theft or a governments proliferation of a nuclear arsenal.

Not really an issue with countries like the US as they already have a huge arsenal.

[BaalChatzaf]

The improvement is that the products of current reactors half life is 10000 years. The amount of radioactive waste from a thorium reactor is far less material being radioactive waste many of which for the first 12 years decay into readily usable products both in medical and industrial application. The half life of the end product radioactive waste has a half life of 300 years. So the bonus being far less waste and the waste generated will be easier to manage.

Of course I could be wrong. I believe India has been attempting to create a viable working model for years and has so far failed.

Another drawback is you still need Uranium or plutonium to initiate the thorium reaction until enough thorium has absorbed neutrons and is converted to uranium 233.

The other drawback being uranium 233 is 100% enriched which could make thorium reactors a larger target for terrorist attacks/theft or a governments proliferation of a nuclear arsenal.

Not really an issue with countries like the US as they already have a huge arsenal.

That is right. Thorium has no radioactive isotopes capable of initiation a chain reaction in thorium We would still need uranium or (god forbid!) plutonium to get the reaction started.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jules Troy]

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/blog/india-is-about-to-start-building-its-thorium-fueled-nuclear-power-plant

India?

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2014/03/china-moves-to-build-world-s-first-thorium-nuclear-reactor-within-a-decade.html

Or China? Who will be the first?

[BaalChatzaf]

http://motherboard.vice.com/en_ca/blog/india-is-about-to-start-building-its-thorium-fueled-nuclear-power-plant

India?

http://www.pennenergy.com/articles/pennenergy/2014/03/china-moves-to-build-world-s-first-thorium-nuclear-reactor-within-a-decade.html

Or China? Who will be the first?

I have some jitters about China doing the first thorium reactor. China is very bad on quality control and safety (as witnessed by the wreck of one of their TGVs.) If China builds Thorium - 1 and it goes badly this will raise safety concerns beyond the point of reason. The Eco-Phreaks will have a wonderful time telling us how nuclear power plants are double plus ungood.

If India builds Thorium - 1 it will be safer but I have grave doubts about the costs. India is not a leader in cost control.

Ba'al Chatzaf