Topic: Thorium power, how is it going in the US? - page 5. (Read 11262 times)

Do a little reading on the thorium fuel cycle. Most of that "other stuff" that gets created is gone quick. Don't get me wrong, while it's there, it's hideously dangerous, but because of that, it's gone quickly. Perhaps hours was hyperbole, but so was the plum tree. In even a tiny reactor, there's going to (need to) be significant amounts of shielding. Plum tree wouldn't do jack but crack the plastic cover. But in the event that (something) does crack the shielding, I'd rather it be a LFTR than a BWR. A radioactive puddle of goo that quickly solidifies is much easier to handle than a (formerly highly pressurized) radioactive cloud of steam. (and let's not forget all that hydrogen)

You understand that thorium is safe to hold in your hand, right? An accident such as you describe will be quite dangerous... for a few hours, while the fast stuff burns off, but then will be relatively easy to clean up. Imagine a similar situation with a traditional nuclear plant. Dude wouldn't be there to make the phone call, nor would his neighbors, or theirs...

Were you guys exposed to 50s futurist brochures or something? 


Hello is this HomeThorium support? yes!

During this nights storm my Plum-tree fell over and hit my power module. After I let my dog out this morning it came back with the eyes bleeding!!!
Is the neutron source exposed? What do you mean that can't happen? No I won't leave the house....
You gonna help me!!!

... at slicing birds to bits while applying a braking force to the earth. Also really poor at generating power where there are chaotic winds, such as inside the city, where power generation is most efficient, because that's where it's needed.

Tiny little thorium reactor in your back yard, powers the whole building.

I was told that.

So clarify for me:
1. Thorium reactors could be built TODAY using the old 50ies blueprints (no research needed).
2. These thorium reactors would generate MORE J/$ compared to uranium reactors.

Yes?

See otherwise wind turbines already fulfill both of these requirements - competitive with coal, no radioactive waste, killing fewer birds than our windows and doesn't take up farm land like solar.

During the Fukushima meltdown only one wind turbine out of ALL the thousands they had fell down - hurting absolutely no one.

Maybe its because you are american and GE has been blocking progress with stolen patents over there, but a real wind turbine is huge, advanced and effective.

Right, because surrounding the neutron emitters by flammable metals and a convienient source of hydrogen gas is a much better idea than storing it in chemically and radiologically stable salts.

Granted, I'm not a nuclear engineer, but I have it on good authority that it actually solves several problems.

vv like those vv

Oh, I see.  You're talking about a molten salt reactor.  While I agree that a 'meltdown' is meaningless in this context, I'm not sure that I would agree that a molten salt reactor is a good idea.  Deliberately keeping a neutron emmittor in a liquid state is just asking for problems, in my opinion.

That's not exactly true. There will be some plutonium produced but it won't accumulate in large quantities.

Everything the online reprocessing doesn't remove stays in the fuel salt until it either fissions, decays or get transmuted into something that either fissions or decays. Transuranics will be present in small quantities but once the removal rate matches the production rate they will stay at that equilibrium concentration until the reactor is shut down. Presumably the fuel salt would be reused in the replacement reactor so there is never a need to put transuranics in long term storage.

Correct, the greater issue with the spent fuel in uranium fueled civilian reactors is that the fuel isn't permitted to be concetrated greater than 20%, and the reactions are unsustainable once U235 drops below 3-5% depending upon the reactor design.  The rest of the core is mostly U238, and some is transmutted into plutonium.  It's the plutonium that has the long & hot half life, not the actinide wastes, and a thorium reactor doesn't produce plutonium.  A thorium reactor does produce U233, but it's 'burned' in the normal running process of the reactor so there is never much buildup there.  Also, since nearly 100% of the core is breedable fuel, a given core can stay in the reactor for much longer.  Therefore, not only are the actinide hazards reduced simply because of the time they spend safely sequestered in the reactor itself (and their much shorter half lives) but they also tend to be reduced due to ongoing neutron capture transmuttation.

Yes, that's a pebble bed reactor.  But his complaint about generation of consumer electricity is valid, the goal of making a inherently safe pebble bed core and one of efficiently producing power are at odds with each other.  However, a pebble bed style reactor, with each pebble encased into steel & corrosion resistant casings, would be ideal for lower level process heating or centralized apartment block heating.  Israel could make the desert bloom with a pebble bed reactor intended to de-salinate & pump seawater.  Russia & Canada could diverte many tons of natural gas and heat oil to other productive uses, even power generation.  This is the primary design use of the CANDU reactors that I mentioned, and the USSR had been using smaller (and notablely safer) reactors as downtown municipal heating systems in many of their more northern cities for a long time.

If you'd take the time to browse the Wikipedia page on LFTR you might discover that some of your assumptions about it may not be accurate.

Where do you guys come up with this stuff?  Thorium fuel cycles are much more economical than a uranium fuel cycle, the only advantage that uranium had in the start was the desire of the DOD to create weapons fuel, and now because all of the nuclear industry is setup to process and handle uranium.  And yes, the tech has been known for decades, so it does "exist" even if it's not used.

Gamma rays do not 'induce' radioactivity, only neutron capture does that.  And no, you don't need uranium or plutonium.  One can make a primary neutron source with a spalation excelerator, such as in an energy amp reactor design; or from an Alpha emitter and a sheet of aluminum, as the 'nuclear boy scout' did in the 90's.

I dare you of actually doing the math of your electrical energy consumption vs the amount of energy actually received for a full stack of solar panels.

You won't be able to run a large bitcoin mining operation or grow lots of pot but it will let you drive things like lights, your pc, tv. hifi. dishwasher, washing machine and even a AC if your house is insulated enough.
All that for effective zero space requirement. Or do you have a rooftop garden or something.

Granted not everybody lives in an owned home may people live in apartments that's why we still need other forms of generating electricity. But claiming that you can't power a house with rooftop solar is nonsense. The reason this is so ridiculous is that the sun is earths sole power source.

The nantenna efficiency is both theoretical and specious in its calculation. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nantenna#Advantages_of_nantennas


However the efficiency of energy conversion is not the problem, the problem is the energy density one starts with. That amount is a maximum of about 100 watts per square foot. No matter what you do with it, you will not get any more due to an even more basic law of thermodynamics, conservation of energy, otherwise known as the no free lunch law.

Averaged out to 24 hours per day, 365 days per year actual yield would be no better than 25 watts per sq. ft. Cloud cover knocks it down even more. Every time its form is changed conversion inefficiencies knock it down still more.

In the end it will be energy density and convenience which determine the winners and losers, and solar in most cases performs poorly by both measures.

Metal coated aerogel would be unable to dissipate heat and would thus overheat and melt - at least the metal surface that is...


I am sure safe and responsible nuclear IS possible, but I KNOW that corporations and governments will fuck it up. What happens with the fuel pools and the nuclear plants once they aren't profitable to EvilCorp CO. anymore?

We get to pay OR walk around in it. Thorium might solve some issues, but its also less economical and it doesn't exist yet :s


Solar and wind please, keep the radiation.

Take a look at this (I have seen modern wind turbines with numbers at 70!):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_returned_on_energy_invested

No, for that I'd need a degree in nuclear physics, or at least a lot more data than I am able to get with a 5 minute Google search. However, consider that liquids expand when heated, and that how close together the various reactants are to one another is a factor in the speed of a nuclear reaction. A fuel that expanded when heated would have a self limiting tendency to avoid overheating from the reactions.

I know what Carnot efficiency is an that only applies to thermal processes. A antenna is not.


I guess you could do a tongue in cheek estimation with the color temperature of the sunlight (6500K) and the temperature of the solar cell lets say 300K for gods sake. Now you do the math...


So what any concrete number for a thorium reactor?

Don't get me wrong, I fully support forms of micro energy production utilizing conventional sources including solar and wind, and less conventional sources such as motion, vibration, etc. There are even a few people claiming to have successfully harnessed energy from the Tesla effect (Earth's magnetic field). But those forms will be used largely for mobile devices where the most important feature is decoupling from the cord, not efficient energy production.

For residential use your numbers are way high for a number of reasons. First even single homes are not all conducive to the use of solar panels. They may be too far north, too much cloud cover, too much shade from trees and other foliage, etc. For example, many people are already getting energy benefits from trees and other foliage because they provide shade in the warmest times of year but let the sun in during the colder times. All of that would have to be cut down in order to use solar panels, and not to mention the negative aesthetics in doing so.

Secondly, even where these problems do not occur the homes are not self sufficient unless they can sell excess energy back to the power company to balance out times when they are not producing enough energy to be self sufficient. The conversion losses are still too great to balance production with demand on an individual basis. The only reason people can do this is because the energy companies are both required to by law and because it is subsidized. It would never exist in a free market and simply evil to impose it by force, not that governments won't try.