The Thorium Dream

Motherboard TV's 30-minute film on the grassroots movement to make Liquid fluoride thorium reactor a reality.

After the Fukushima disaster, nuclear energy faces it’s biggest questions in decades. But a ragtag band of Internet enthusiasts is on a mission to spread their answer: more nuclear power than Walt Disney could have dreamed up, green enough to save the climate (the energy secretary and NASA’s chief climate scientist are curious) and safe enough that if you walked away from the reactor it would calmly turn itself off. There’s just one problem: the idea was already killed by the government forty years ago. Bringing it back won’t be easy. But some are staking their whole livelihoods on it. That’s just what life’s like with the thorium dream.

An interesting documentary about a grassroots movement promoting a technology that could very well be our energy silverbullet which would finally free us from fossil energy. Imagine where could the world be now if molten salt reactor program was not irrationaly killed decades ago.

More info:
EnergyFromThorium
Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium

Existing thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by buddhasystem


That thread is 5 years old lol This documentary is new, released now.

reply to post by Maslo


The last page contains some fresh posts,

of course I don't imply you should it in any case, that's up to you.

And the government 'killed' that FORTY YEARS AGO, WHY?

Originally posted by P-M-H
And the government 'killed' that FORTY YEARS AGO, WHY?

That's why I put in a reference to that other thread, so that we don't have to replay it here.

reply to post by Maslo


This thread is needed, I don't care if a similar one exists elsewhere. The documentary is high quality and looks promising. I am watching it now. S&F.

reply to post by BIGPoJo


Yeah, and there is also this one, looks like its going to be even more awesome when finished:
www.thoriumdocumentary.com...

reply to post by Maslo


Dood, what a nonsensical video.

Yeah, a thorium piece the size of a golf ball can provide more energy than I'm currently consuming in my life.

Equally, a golf ball sized piece of coc aine can provide more kick than I will get from Starbucks throughout my life.

Duh.

Originally posted by buddhasystem
reply to post by Maslo

 

Dood, what a nonsensical video.

Yeah, a thorium piece the size of a golf ball can provide more energy than I'm currently consuming in my life.

Equally, a golf ball sized piece of coc aine can provide more kick than I will get from Starbucks throughout my life.

Duh.

???

Which part of the video do you disagree with and why?

reply to post by buddhasystem


1 t of thorium in a LFTR produces 8,76 TWh of electricity (it is enough to fuel 1 GW reactor for a year).



Now I have not found exact figure for lifetime energy consumption of 1 person, but it is certainly FAR less than 8,76 TWh.

reply to post by Maslo


Very interesting video, I've heard about thorium and the liquid reactor before but I never really payed much attention to it. This video was a real eye opener, it's clear that the thorium technology is viable and ready to use, and it's much safer than typical uranium reactors. Their only excuse is that it will be too hard to shift over to using thorium based reactors when we already have an infrastructure built around uranium. That is complete BS, and if it's true I want to know why they have 60 new uranium reactors that are under construction, with over 150 reactors planned and over 340 more proposed (as of August 2011) - source.

It's obvious why they have squashed out this idea of thorium reactors, the fuel is too cheap and easy to find. Between 1960 and 1980 the price of Thorium was under $50 per kilogram (yes in today's dollars) - source. It is now more expensive only because demand has died off and it isn't mined en masse. Thorium is also 4 times as abundant as Uranium and it doesn't need to be enriched, the price of enriched uranium in the form of uranium oxide reactor fuel is more than 1.6 thousand dollars per kg - source. Now we can begin to see why they prefer uranium.

Now take a look at what the Government of Australia has to say about Uranium:

Uranium is a naturally occurring radioactive element which is a mixture of several forms, or ‘isotopes’, of uranium.2 Of these isotopes, uranium-235—referred to symbolically as 235U—is capable of sustaining a nuclear chain reaction. A chain reaction can be controlled to release large amounts of energy which can be used to generate heat.3 The heat energy released is used to generate steam which drives turbines which in turn generate electricity. Although other elements are also capable of sustaining chain reactions, uranium is the cheapest and most abundant.4 Hence 235U is of importance as a fuel in the nuclear reactors used to produce electricity in a number of countries worldwide.

Australia’s uranium (reissued 11 September 2009) - Parliament of Australia

Now tell me they aren't outright LYING about the facts!

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


Exactly. I find the 40 years of mainstream ignorance of thorium MSR technology very strange. Not just among nuclear engineers, but among energy researchers as a whole. This technology is essetialy what fusion wanted to be, but without the significant obstacles. Yet fusion research received billions and much publicity, and LFTRs are developed only now, by private startups. I never really believed all those energy conspiracy theories, but this almost screams about some kind of coverup.

reply to post by Maslo

This technology is essetialy what fusion wanted to be, but without the significant obstacles. Yet fusion research received billions and much publicity, and LFTRs are developed only now, by private startups.

That's a really good point, it just seems like cold fusion is a big distraction, knowing that we already have the technology to build remarkably safe thorium reactors that are very inexpensive to fuel. So if we can suddenly start building a bunch of fusion reactors why would it be so hard to build a bunch of thorium reactors?

reply to post by Maslo


Golf balls have a minimum diameter of 42.67 mm which corresponds to a volume of 40.68 cubic centimeters. The density of thorium is 11.7 grams per cubic centimeters, hence a golf ball of Thorium has a weight of 476 grams. Atomic weight of Thorium is 232.0381 g/mol, so a golf ball of thorium has 2.05 mol of Thorium inside. Each fission of U-233 releases 197.9 MeV of energy. A LFTR with proper recycling processes can fission over 99% of all the thorium, therefore the total amount heat released by a golf ball made of thorium is about 39 TJs. About half of that can be turned into electricity if used with a 50% efficient brayton turbine leaving 19.5 TJ of electrical energy from a golf ball of thorium. The rest can be utilized as heat.

Average life expectancy of the average human is 67.2 years with an average energy use of 75 GJ per year, meaning the average person on earth will need about 5 TJ of energy. So a golf ball of thorium is enough for between four and eight average humans depending on what proportion of electricity and heat they need. Of course, I would rather raise living standards of the average person, so they will need a lot more energy. The average (inefficient) american lives 78.3 years and consumes about 4 times the energy of the average human, so they will need about 26 TW of energy. A golf ball of Thorium is therefore enough for 0.75 to 1.5 american lifetimes depending on the ratio of electrical energy to thermal energy they need.

Also 19.5 TJ is equivalent to 5.4 gigawatt-hours, at the average retail price of electricity in the USA that's worth about 620,000 dollars. 1000kg is Thorium is enough for a power station to produce 1.3 gigawatts for an entire year, worth about 750 million dollars.

The math is correct. (and I'm bored)

Both uranium and plutonium are pretty similar to thorium in terms of energy density, current reactors just don't utilize either properly and extract less than 1% of the total possible energy. Speaking of uranium, plutonium, and thorium, there are other reactors similar to LFTR that utilize uranium/plutonium that are much earlier in their development process and could be built by 2020. Thorium is where these technologies were in 1975.

The IFR vs the LFTR: An Exchange of Emails

bravenewclimate.com...

George Stanford and Per Peterson know what they're talking about, as you can see from their backgrounds.

reply to post by C0bzz

1000kg is Thorium is enough for a power station to produce 1.3 gigawatts for an entire year, worth about 750 million dollars.

That's interesting. Lets assume the price of thorium was $50 per kilogram, which is about what it would be if we mined it like uranium (and if you see my first post in this thread thorium was actually less than $50 per kg for several decades). So at $50 per kg, 1000kg of thorium would cost only 50 thousand dollars. Obviously we aren't taking into account the cost of converting it onto electrical energy, but I imagine electricity generated by thorium reactors would be extremely cheap.

EDIT: however if we use the price given for enriched uranium from my 3rd source in my first post ($1633/kg) it would cost 1.6 million for 1000kg of enriched uranium.

EDIT: so 1.6 million dollars worth (1000kg) of enriched uranium actually produces roughly 750 million dollars worth of electricity. That's like a 469 times increase. If you increase the cost of 1000kg of thorium by 469 times you get 23.5 million dollars, compared to 750 million.

reply to post by C0bzz

reply to post by ChaoticOrder


The cost of building 1 GW nuclear power plant is now about 2 billion (based on GE ABWR). LFTR powerplant can cost 30-50% less, according to Kirk Sorensens presentation, that is cca 1,2 bn. So if it produces 750 million worth of electricity per year, with fuel cost of only 50 000, thats return time of less than 2 years! Invest in Flibe Energy, guys! (of course there is also paying for staff and maintenance, but thats not going to be high).

Originally posted by ChaoticOrder
reply to post by C0bzz

 

1000kg is Thorium is enough for a power station to produce 1.3 gigawatts for an entire year, worth about 750 million dollars.

That's interesting. Lets assume the price of thorium was $50 per kilogram, which is about what it would be if we mined it like uranium (and if you see my first post in this thread thorium was actually less than $50 per kg for several decades). So at $50 per kg, 1000kg of thorium would cost only 50 thousand dollars. Obviously we aren't taking into account the cost of converting it onto electrical energy, but I imagine electricity generated by thorium reactors would be extremely cheap.

EDIT: however if we use the price given for enriched uranium from my 3rd source in my first post ($1633/kg) it would cost 1.6 million for 1000kg of enriched uranium.

edit on 19-11-2011 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)

Conventional reactors are somewhat different to these ones: the fuel needs to be enriched and fabricated into fuel rods instead of dissolved into a salt. They run at lower temperatures so there is more waste heat. While in current reactors about 1000kg of fuel per gigawatt-year of electricity will actually undergo fission, it will actually use a lot more fuel since most of it will not actually be fissioned. Most of the "waste" can be used again if reprocessed but the current reactors just aren't able to (long story) - this is also the reason why nuclear waste at the moment is radioactive for such a long period of time. The real waste is that the "waste" isn't utilized properly. About 20-25 tonnes of enriched uranium dioxide is required each year for an existing reactor. U-238 will be discarded during the enrichment process as well. All in all, they're less than 1% as efficient as a LFTR or IFR.

Still, operating cost (fuel, maintenance) of existing nuclear reactors is extremely cheap, the average in the United States is just above 2 cents per kilowatt hour (for coal it's 3 cents per kilowatt hour and for combined cycle natural gas it's about 4.5 cents per kilowatt hour). Believe it or not, the LFTR being 100 times more efficient isn't a large economic advantage. The economic problem with current reactors is they are extremely expensive to build and difficult to finance, which is why although few people in the USA want to build new reactors, yet everyone that already has payed for theirs wants to run them as long as possible (60 years. they're trying to figure out how to get them to run to 80 years). The possible economic advantage of LFTR is is scales down well and doesn't need expensive safety features since they are no longer required, and it also doesn't require enormous pressure vessels since the reactor isn't pressurized. So cheaper to build, but maybe not significantly so to operate.

reply to post by Maslo

if it produces 750 million worth of electricity per year, with fuel cost of only 50 000

Well they obviously wouldn't be able to sell it for 750 million because the thorium is much cheaper.

According to my estimate above they would sell the same amount of electricity produced by thorium for roughly 23.5 million dollars.