Thorium / LFTR Reactors - the cheaper and safer nuclear technology

Seems that somewhere in the 60's & 70's, lots of scientists and politicians stuck their heads in the sand and blindly forged ahead with the WRONG nuclear energy technology

...... leaving the world "driving around" in the product equivalent of the AMC Gremlin or Reliant Robin while the Ford Mustang / Ferrari Daytona was left parked on the drawing board!

Safety, cost, size, risks and logic were all somewhat ignored.

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and Molten Salt Reactors

Don't be lead into thinking this is Thorium Fuel as the subject. The subject is NOT using Thorium with existing technology.

The subject is using Thorium in a completely different type of reactor;

LFTR (said as "lifter") are;

- MUCH much safer plant.

- Much smaller (and cheaper) plants

- MUCH cheaper fuel (Thorium is actual very common)

- Simpler fail-safe design

- No Bombs! Waste is generally useless for weapons

- Consumes waste! Can also run on decommisioned wareheads and Nuke Plant waste product

- Secondary products in high demand e.g. Medical

And the technology is already here, now. In fact the US was running such a plant in the 60's, without incident, which can't be said for all the other nuke experients at that time.

Oak Ridge Molten Salt Reactor Experient - 1965

Believe it or not, this experient was commissioned because the US Air Force wanted Nuclear Powered Bombers ! :eek:

Heres one summary of today's situation;

Or if you're time poor, do the 5min Super-Summary below.

N2vzotsvvkw

"WHAT ! This is amazing. So why aren't we doing this NOW?" you ask.

The long but very interesting explanation here;

bbyr7jZOllI

A very long but really amazing round up here.

Do yourself a favour; At least look-listen to the first 5 min Super-Summary.

P9M__yYbsZ4

And yes, the Chinese are already chasing this technology! :rolleyes:

.

It's obvious why we chose the other nuclear option (the one we use now). Nuclear weapons. It's that simple.

I'm always for further development in the field of nuclear energy. Problem is most "green" groups view any sort of nuclear tech as something bad.

Problem is most "green" groups view any sort of nuclear tech as something bad.

Yes, very true.

Sad that many facts get lost on them.

Most coal plants actually product MORE radioactive dust than any Nuke has.

Coal mines kill 100's of people each year.

The fossile fuels used / polution created to just dig and transport coal are 1000's of times more than any reactor fuel equivelent.

Even less for Thorium

@Dwarden

Yep, Big-Oil has its money firmly hooked into EVERY aspect of our lives, from a plastic bottle through to a politician "swing".

This is one bad habit humanity has to start drying out from.

@Madus_Maximus

Yeh, I suspect it played a big part.

Most coal plants actually product MORE radioactive dust than any Nuke has

Do you have a good source for that Gnat?

I recently heard this statement corrected in a documentation - I think it was PBS Frontline, but not quite sure unfortunately.

Fact of the matter is that pro nuke people often loose even more facts.

A sensible discussion and an informed general public is required and essential.

Guess what who made sure this is not to happen in almost every country.

A fully educated and informed populace is the politician's worst enemy.

"Coal" is never simply coal. Coal from different mines have different trace elements spread through it.

Some mines are not bad, but many are not. "Dirty" coal is usually cheap.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

In fact, the fly ash emitted by a power plant—a by-product from burning coal for electricity—carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_the_coal_industry

When comparing the radiation impact of coal and nuclear plants on the surrounding environment, however, coal-plant wastes are more radioactive than the waste generated by nuclear plants producing the same amount of energy

http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html

Americans living near coal-fired power plants are exposed to higher radiation doses than those living near nuclear power plants that meet government regulations.

The irony vs this thread subject: This situation is mostly because Thorium is such a common element (eg with the coal being dug up)!

@Hellfire

Yes, definately. Whole point of my thread. Spread some knowledge.

any power plant burning brown-coal ejects within 1 year into atmosphere more radioactivity than normal safe nuclear powerplant in 25 years ...

As long as it doesn't explode.

Fukushima is not secure type of plant nor reactor type ...

in fact they ones of most oldest and most insecure ones ...

the real problem is that in most cases no real innovation, upgrades and replacement for 'old' nuclear-plants happened ...

on other hand gas, coal, oil and similar plants gets replaced, upgraded and improved all the time

Yep, my country is covered with nuclear plants, hence electric power is cheap. I only hope that security is better than in Japan, which i'm absolutely not convinced of. I'm sure Japanese were convinced that nuclear security was perfect before Fukushima, given their nuclear history.

The truth is, all this paranoia about nuclear disasters makes one more likely to happen. By placing excessive regulations on nuclear companies you encourage them to operate obsolete reactors instead of building newer, safer ones.

Also, on a side note, I'm not a nuclear engineer so I don't know the answer to this: why not simply build the plants deep underground, away from subsurface water? That way, if something happens you can just evacuate that "chamber" and fill it with concrete or something. If they're deep enough then there shouldn't be any radiation leaking to the surface.

this type of reactor will still produce many radioactive waste in the end, so in the end of the day it is just switching problem to another area

any power plant burning brown-coal ejects within 1 year into atmosphere more radioactivity than normal safe nuclear powerplant in 25 years ...

Is this taking into account the handling of used radioactive material? As far as I know (and I may be very wrong here), this is probably the biggest issue with nuclear power (aside from disaster resilience), what to do with used nuclear material, as we don't have capacity currently to handle it, apart from "bury it somewhere". So, is this calculation of radioactivity ejected by "normal safe nuclear power-plant in 25 years" only taking into account radioactivity measured around the power-plant itself, or also calculating radioactivity produced by its nuclear wastes "buried somewhere"? I'm very afraid it's the former.

The very fact that today, 2 areas of the world are deemed unfit for living for several decades or centuries if not more should be indicative enough that something is wrong with current nuclear technology, and a replacement should be found.

In net death count, nuclear power is responsible for far less than the rest, but when a coal, or dam, breaks out, the area can be inhabited back in the months after the disaster. Fewer numbers can't be a justification for something affecting the land so strongly.

again with new reactor generations and safer types it become moot point

Because we can 100% guarantee zero nuclear material release, for centuries to come?

"just case of cost and logistic", as you put it, is exactly what is going to make using such nuclear material, with such big impact for long period, so dangerous. Nobody, absolutely nobody, in an industrial environment, is going to leave "cost and logistic" aside.

this type of reactor will still produce many radioactive waste in the end, so in the end of the day it is just switching problem to another area

No, from the FAQ.

Q: What is nuclear waste and how does a liquid-fluoride reactor address this issue?

A: So-called “nuclear waste†or spent-nuclear fuel is produced in conventional (solid-core) nuclear reactors because they are unable to extract all of the nuclear energy from their fuel before they have to shutdown. LFTR addresses this issue by using a form of nuclear fuel (liquid-fluoride salts of thorium) that allow complete extraction of nuclear energy from the fuel.

The truth is, all this paranoia about nuclear disasters makes one more likely to happen. By placing excessive regulations on nuclear companies you encourage them to operate obsolete reactors instead of building newer, safer ones.

Also, on a side note, I'm not a nuclear engineer so I don't know the answer to this: why not simply build the plants deep underground, away from subsurface water? That way, if something happens you can just evacuate that "chamber" and fill it with concrete or something. If they're deep enough then there shouldn't be any radiation leaking to the surface.

$Money$

Building something underground is possible but very expensive

The very fact that today, 2 areas of the world are deemed unfit for living for several decades or centuries if not more should be indicative enough that something is wrong with current nuclear technology, and a replacement should be found.

In net death count, nuclear power is responsible for far less than the rest, but when a coal, or dam, breaks out, the area can be inhabited back in the months after the disaster. Fewer numbers can't be a justification for something affecting the land so strongly.

Actually, I would argue the opposite. Chernobyl didn't even have a containment building, not to mention the fact that it was an obsolete RBMK design from the 50s.

At Fukushima, however, the problem was that the backup diesel generators were flooded, making it impossible to cool the reactors (which were also obsolete). All the Japanese had to do was put the generators in a watertight building like they did at Fukushima II and the disaster would never have happened.

The best way to guarantee safe nuclear power is to decommission all obsolete reactors, replacing them with new ones operating on the thorium cycle. Additionally, a centralized international code of safety standards should exist to ensure that all future reactors are built taking these things into consideration.

The problem (I hate to play the "blame corporations" game here) is that the oil and coal industries find it very profitable to keep people in fear of another meltdown.

Oh, and nuclear waste is actually handled very responsibly, believe it or not. "Just bury it" is working as a solution here, the waste is actually transported quite securely and there are numerous precautions to ensure that it is not compromised. And once it arrives on site, it can remain undisturbed for thousands of years.

France gets a large percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors and hasn't had any major incidents. I think other countries should follow in France's footsteps regarding safe implementation of atomic power.

France gets a large percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors and hasn't had any major incidents. I think other countries should follow in France's footsteps regarding safe implementation of atomic power.

Well, Japan didn't have major incident before the first one occurs.

Actually, I would argue the opposite. Chernobyl didn't even have a containment building, not to mention the fact that it was an obsolete RBMK design from the 50s.

At Fukushima, however, the problem was that the backup diesel generators were flooded, making it impossible to cool the reactors (which were also obsolete). All the Japanese had to do was put the generators in a watertight building like they did at Fukushima II and the disaster would never have happened.

The best way to guarantee safe nuclear power is to decommission all obsolete reactors, replacing them with new ones operating on the thorium cycle. Additionally, a centralized international code of safety standards should exist to ensure that all future reactors are built taking these things into consideration.

The problem (I hate to play the "blame corporations" game here) is that the oil and coal industries find it very profitable to keep people in fear of another meltdown.

Oh, and nuclear waste is actually handled very responsibly, believe it or not. "Just bury it" is working as a solution here, the waste is actually transported quite securely and there are numerous precautions to ensure that it is not compromised. And once it arrives on site, it can remain undisturbed for thousands of years.

France gets a large percentage of its electrical energy from nuclear reactors and hasn't had any major incidents. I think other countries should follow in France's footsteps regarding safe implementation of atomic power.

Mate, it's only a matter of time before "cost and logistics", as Dwarden put it, gets in the way. You blame obsolescence and lack of foresight, money, etc.... getting in the way of safe nuclear energy. But unfortunately, they will get in the way whatever law you try to enforce, whatever measure you take at moment X.

The question you have to ask, is what happens when somebody will make a mistake, will take the wrong decision (because of lazyness, lack of money, you name it)? What happens when some external, unexpected event happens? Contrary to what you seem to believe, we have had numerous nuclear incident here in France, which didn't have the enormous effect seen in Tcherno/Fukushima cases. Because they have been kept within control, sometimes just because the environmental conditions went back to normal, without them being controlled by EDF (the company controlling our nuclear power). Case in point, there has been a case of nuclear reactor getting at high temperature level during a warm summer with the local river going on very low level. They were counting on this river to cool the reactor, and the level were too low at that moment when the incident happen. We've been lucky enough the river got back to normal levels in time. This was, ultimately, out of human control, we just prayed for the best (I exagerate, but you get the point).

Now, with usual energy source, what happens when catastrophic events occur? When someone decides to cut costs and lower security? Well, people die, it's horrible, etc... but that's it. And it happens, for every energy source. There's no reason that it won't happen with nuclear power, absolutely no reason that miraculously, every cause of outage seen in every industry disappear in the nuclear industry. Catastrophic events will happen. Are the consequences worth it?

Well, I'd have to say Japan is a FAR from an ideal country to base ANY large plant in, nuke or otherwise, especially coastal.

- Very small size

- Very high population desity

- Earthquakes

- Typhoons

- Tsunamis

- Volcanos !

Not the best example.

Gnat;2100974']Well' date=' I'd have to say Japan is a FAR from an ideal country to base ANY large plant in, nuke or otherwise, especially coastal.

- Very small size

- Very high population desity

- Earthquakes

- Typhoons

- Tsunamis

- Volcanos !

Not the best example.[/quote']

- Godzillas

Sorry...:lookaround:

LOL .... yeh radioactive Godzillas