Is Thorium the Biggest Energy Breakthrough Since Fire? Possibly.

Originally posted by Ghostinshell
the comments, in the article are very good. and also debunk this. so while, it may be cool, and maybe somewhat better than what we have...

its not a game changer

GhostInShell

Make sure that any thorium power criticisms are actually aimed at liquid fluoride reactors, which are ideal for thorium. Thorium can be used in conventional reactors, and in this case, the usual problems are still present. But that not what thorium power advocates have in mind. And many of the comments in the article are relevant only for thorium cycle in conventional reactors.

Originally posted by Hellmutt
reply to post by Maslo

 

A spot on the moon has 2 weeks of daylight and 2 weeks of night.

In the polar regions, there are peaks of eternal light.

reply to post by muzzleflash

One major drawback for example LFTR's is that the salts are highly corrosive and this forces us to make the machinery from materials capable of withstanding this corrosion, which is very difficult but not impossible.

It is possible, the pipe material (Hastelloy-N) corrosion was described as "negligible" in the MSRE, even without the titanium / niobium addition which would further reduce it.

The MSRE confirmed expectations and predictions.[13] For example, it was demonstrated that: the fuel salt was immune to radiation damage, the graphite was not attacked by the fuel salt, and the corrosion of Hastelloy-N was negligible.

The reactor makes small amounts of tellurium as a fission product. In the MSRE, this caused some small amounts of corrosion at the grain boundaries of the special nickel alloy, Hastelloy-N used for the reactor. 1974 metallurgical studies showed that this grain-boundary corrosion could be prevented by adding small amounts of Titanium or Niobium to the Hastelloy.[7]

reply to post by muzzleflash

Sure, it's LESS dangerous than most current in-service reactors.

Which according to accepted science isn't very dangerous at all. So it would be going from something that's not very dangerous at all to something that's many orders of magnitude less dangerous which makes it practically harmless.

I think people are spreading somewhat misleading propaganda without realizing it,

The major players in the nuclear industry are companies like Areva, General Electric, Hitachi, Westinghouse and Rosatom. Many of which offer products and services in fossil fuels, and all of which offer significant uranium fuel cycle services. Given how well LFTR would destroy the uranium fuel cycle and perhaps destroy the fossil fuel industry, to these companies it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense to go to LFTR given it would kill their existing products and services. None of which have said a word on LFTR.

Please review this Wiki

They want you to think this process is safe and clean. It's Not!

For the most part the wikipedia article is talking about adding Thorium to relatively conventional fuel forming a MOX fuel that could be used as fuel in conventional reactors. Use in a closed fuel cycle in a reactor like LFTR is a completely different animal.

This is just a fancy way to dress up playing with radioactive material, creating dangerous waste products, all just to boil a vat of water...

Well actually since LFTR could operate at such high temperatures of almost 1000C, it would likely use a Brayton, carbon dioxide medium in order to spin a turbine at a thermal efficiency of over 45%.

Don't buy the hype, look into this yourself.

Link 1

Your link has "#foot284" at the end, pointing to a footnote. I don't know why you wanted me to look at that footnote so I looked at the source to find where it came from.

As we have seen, a reactor based on the Th-U cycle can operate as
a converter either with fast neutrons or with thermal neutrons. Let
us examine how these differ in the actinides they generate. A reaction
which we have not yet mentioned because its probability is very low
has a significant incidence on actinide production. It is a so called
"threshold" reaction, because it can occur only
if the energy of the captured neutron is large (larger than a few
MeV). It is the (n,2n) reaction, in which the nucleus, having captured
a neutron, emits 2 neutrons. This reaction is a cause for additional
actinide production in a fast neutron reactor9.

Why were you referencing this?

link 2

A pro-thorium link from the american nuclear society doesn't exactly help your point.

Fact : This is using Thorium as a nuclear fuel, and although it is less dangerous than Uranium it still poses a significant hazard if not contained properly.

Then contain it properly. FLiBe boils at extremely high temperatures and can be used at low pressure and solidifies as a salt at low temperatures. It's not exactly difficult.

It is claimed that the waste byproducts of these types of reactions will be 'less radioactive than thorium ore in 300 years", but no one has proven that, because 300 years hasn't passed yet.

LOL.

Are you claiming that half lives vary over time? If that's your argument then I won't say anything else other than "I rest my case".

One major drawback for example LFTR's is that the salts are highly corrosive and this forces us to make the machinery from materials capable of withstanding this corrosion, which is very difficult but not impossible.

Hastelloy-N worked well. If something better is required then develop it, like we.. uhm... do for everything else.

Thorium-232 is now classified as carcinogenic.

Yes, like most heavy metals Thorium is carcinogenic. Just like a lot of elements in your uhm... computer. Or some of the elements in uhm... solar panels. Or the exhaust gases that dangerous explosive fossil fuels pump into the atmosphere 24/7.

In the form of Thorotrast, a thorium dioxide suspension, it was used as contrast medium in early X-ray diagnostics.

Luckily we are not talking about injecting Thorium Dioxide into people, but rather using Thorium as a fuel.

Oh and you can use U^233 to create nuclear bombs as well.

Not with U-232 and its daughter products in it.

Sure replace all the current reactors with this.
But I will still be here to point out that we are going to have issues with radioactive waste byproducts that will remain hazardous for hundreds of years. Hundreds of Years!

An engineered repository that lasts hundreds of years is not exactly difficult.

If you want my assessment - I am still promoting Solar, Geothermal, Wind, etc as sources of electric generation. I just cannot entertain the idea of continuing nuclear reactors even if they are 10,000 times less dangerous, because that's still a few thousand times more dangerous than what I would be happy with.

What happens when the sun isn't shining on a cloudy day and the wind isn't blowing? Do you suggest transporting electricity over huge distances to get the energy where it's needed? What about countries like Japan? Do you suggest they build solar panels in China and then have under-sea cables to transport the power to Japan? Or do you suggest building massive amounts of batteries which are uhm... toxic, or pumped storage which has all the disadvantages of hydro? Or do you simply think we should use dangerous explosive fossil fuels to give us our power on cloudy, still, days?

You like energy sources which are politically correct, even if they are neither economically viable or technically viable. This clearly indicates to me that like most anti-nukes, you are absolutely not serious about this topic and have taken an extremely simplistic view of it because it's what you want to hear and it supports your preconceived opinions about nuclear power. Like most anti-nukes, you included as much fear mongering as possible as well like the mention of LFTR waste lasting hundreds of years. Well, uhm, many toxic wastes from industries are not radioactive and thus are toxic not only for hundreds of years but for... uhm... forever.