Thorium nuclear reactors

[GostHacked]

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

Thorium was successfully used as an alternative nuclear fuel to uranium in the molten-salt reactor experiment (MSR) from 1964 to 1969 to produce thermal energy, as well as in several light-water reactors using fuel composed of a mixture of 232Th and 233U, including the Shippingport Atomic Power Station (operation commenced 1957, decommissioned in 1982). Currently, officials in the Republic of India are advocating a thorium-based nuclear program, and a seed-and-blanket fuel utilizing thorium is undergoing irradiation testing at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow.[2][3] Advocates of the use of thorium as the fuel source for nuclear reactors state that they can be built to operate significantly cleaner than uranium based power plants as the waste products are much easier to handle.[4]

I watched a neat bit on Youtube about this last night after reading another forum where it was posted. I thought, wow too good to be true. But it seems the science checks out at we should be going with these thorium reactors. I simply can't see the drawback from using this technology. The science has already been proven and tested. But politics and a world war got in the way.

http://www.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm

It's been tested and proven. To me this is the fuel of the future. Eliminate coal and current nuclear power plants. Thorium reactors can be that power generation cleanly and we could move forward with battery driven vehicles.

If you can sit through the 1h22m session it will be worth it.

What am I missing?

Clean efficient energy.

More abundant that uranium.

Waste is easily stored and has a small fraction of the radioactivity of nuclear waste we produce now.

No usable waste material for nuclear weapons.

Completely scalable. Large to small reactor sizes.

Self regulating mechanisms to ensure safety and efficiency.

No risk of a Chernobyl Scenario. No meltdown.

Long lasting fuel, little maintenance on reactors and they can be placed almost anywhere without concerns.

This is like one of those too good to be true scenarios. But I just can't see a drawback to any of this.

[Oleg Bach]

Apparently there is a little bit of future radiation sickness about to rear it's glowing cell destroying head..did you hear that there was a little accident regarding repairing some broken fuel bundles? You would assume that experts run the place- but then again they can't even create a safe luge run let alone a safe nuclear facility.

[Michael Hardner]

Do we have any nuclear scientists on MLW ? Or will it be, as with climate science, that we'll all have to become qualified experts in the field ?

[Oleg Bach]

Do we have any nuclear scientists on MLW ? Or will it be, as with climate science, that we'll all have to become qualified experts in the field ?

It does not take an expert to understand violent and in your face weather caused by climate disruption..nor does it take a scientists to understand that nuclear power is so intense that the smashing of a mini-universe and the release of that quantum energy is almost uncontrolable.

[Michael Hardner]

It does not take an expert to understand violent and in your face weather caused by climate disruption..nor does it take a scientists to understand that nuclear power is so intense that the smashing of a mini-universe and the release of that quantum energy is almost uncontrolable.

Most people (and pets) have an instinctive understanding of weather. That's why so few of us wear Bermuda Shorts in January in Canada, and so many of us war coats.

Also, many of us have an idea that a nuclear explosion is the kind of thing you want to avoid - at least to drive around one if it's in the way of your weekend trip to the in-laws.

But GH's original post calls for a bit of a deeper understanding.

[Oleg Bach]

Bring in the experts or go do your homework...I don't want to be the research department at Mapleleaf....find a sparky student and send him out on a mission..to get information..in the mean time I am going out to enjoy my day in the acedemic part of town- might even attend a political event--if I promise to behave myself- If I do - I will send you are report..as for nuclear science..find a scientist.

[GostHacked]

But GH's original post calls for a bit of a deeper understanding.

Exactly. It would be interesting to see this thing take off, if the testing shows everything is as is. I feel that there is something more to it. But, if this is true, and we start converting to these reactors, this will change energy production on a global scale. It will revolutionize how we create and even how we use energy. It will allow countries that want to get into peaceful nuclear production without the concern of an eventual nuke bomb.

It's interesting and I am going to investigate this more myself.

[Oleg Bach]

Exactly. It would be interesting to see this thing take off, if the testing shows everything is as is. I feel that there is something more to it. But, if this is true, and we start converting to these reactors, this will change energy production on a global scale. It will revolutionize how we create and even how we use energy. It will allow countries that want to get into peaceful nuclear production without the concern of an eventual nuke bomb.

It's interesting and I am going to investigate this more myself.

MAKE IT SO.

[DogOnPorch]

Exactly. It would be interesting to see this thing take off, if the testing shows everything is as is. I feel that there is something more to it. But, if this is true, and we start converting to these reactors, this will change energy production on a global scale. It will revolutionize how we create and even how we use energy. It will allow countries that want to get into peaceful nuclear production without the concern of an eventual nuke bomb.

It's interesting and I am going to investigate this more myself.

If I recall, the process involved using salt reactors creates by-products that corode even stainless steel and such. Not to mention poisonous gases being created out of the salts used. This makes the reactor have an unacceptably low life-span as well as being dangerous to work on when shut down. Thorium itself ignites when exposed to pure oxygen which is also a pickle. Thorium in particle form, the oxygen concentration need not be 100% to get the fires burning. The thorium cycle also produces some nasty stuff like protactinium which is very radioactive (more radioactive than plutonium and nearly useless).

Very interesting stuff mind you...but I suppose the bottom line is why you don't see these reactors in common use.

[bush_cheney2004]

If I recall, the process involved using salt reactors creates by-products that corode even stainless steel and such. Not to mention poisonous gases being created out of the salts used. This makes the reactor have an unacceptably low life-span as well as being dangerous to work on when shut down. Thorium itself ignites when exposed to pure oxygen which is also a pickle. Thorium in particle form, the oxygen concentration need not be 100% to get the fires burning. The thorium cycle also produces some nasty stuff like protactinium which is very radioactive (more radioactive than plutonium and nearly useless).

Don't be such a party poop!

Don't remind them of accelerated corrosion, metal embrittlement, or intergranular surface cracking.

That's somebody else's problem!

[DogOnPorch]

Don't be such a party poop!

Don't remind them of accelerated corrosion, metal embrittlement, or intergranular surface cracking.

That's somebody else's problem!

Does the US Navy use 'em? That'd be the telling point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Does the US Navy use 'em? That'd be the telling point.

Nope...but not for lack of trying new designs compared to good 'ole pressurized water. Superheater tubes were compromised so fast that it was a guessing game as to which ones to plug next, in order to prevent primary to secondary coolant leaks.

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

Edited February 18, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[DogOnPorch]

Gosh...that'd be scary 500ft down. Not to mention red-hot mercury or sodium/potasium spilling all over the deck.

[bush_cheney2004]

Gosh...that'd be scary 500ft down. Not to mention red-hot mercury or sodium/potasium spilling all over the deck.

Well, we have to make a distinction between the nuclear fuel cycle for the reactor, cooling system design, and secondary steam generation loop. But as you have indicated, in the practical world, they are all related. The main submarine propulsion interest was higher power densities compared to conventional design, and quieter main coolant circulation, which as you already know, can be opposing design goals! That's why the Soviet Alphas were blazing fast but louder than a freight train.

Coolant leak drills were common, but not actual leaks. Except for the sample sink, which was used to keep water chemistry in balance.

Thorium is not a new idea at all, and is just another metal oxide (MOX) "blend". It does have the two advantages wrt comparative abundance and weapons proliferation, but that cat is already out of the bag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fuel_cycle#Thorium_cycle

Edited February 18, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Oleg Bach]

Don't be such a party poop!

Don't remind them of accelerated corrosion, metal embrittlement, or intergranular surface cracking.

That's somebody else's problem!

DON'T forget the storage and containment of waste...whats a million years among friends eh?

[bush_cheney2004]

DON'T forget the storage and containment of waste...whats a million years among friends eh?

...apparently they are more afraid of CO₂ than nuclear waste....go figure!

[Oleg Bach]

...apparently they are more afraid of CO₂ than nuclear waste....go figure!

CO2 is natural, smashing down atomic matter and releasing an barely containable wirl wind is not.

[DogOnPorch]

Thorium cameras come to mind...not sure how much they are used these days. The lenses were coated in the stuff which produces really sharp images. Seeing how much they set off the gieger counters, I'm not sure if putting one up to one's eyeball is a good idea. Sort of like radium watches...

Here's an example from YouTube...

[bush_cheney2004]

Thorium cameras come to mind...not sure how much they are used these days. The lenses were coated in the stuff which produces really sharp images. Seeing how much they set off the gieger counters, I'm not sure if putting one up to one's eyeball is a good idea. Sort of like radium watches...

I think I have one of those "thoriated" lenses...Asahi Pentax SMC f/1.4 from this list....bought it used with an H-3 (Honeywell) body in 1971. Thorium connection described here:

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/cameralens.htm

[DogOnPorch]

I think I have one of those "thoriated" lenses...Asahi Pentax SMC f/1.4 from this list....bought it used with an H-3 (Honeywell) body in 1971. Thorium connection described here:

http://www.orau.org/ptp/collection/consumer%20products/cameralens.htm

Yes, they seem to agree that they are a health hazard if used regularly. But I'm sure thorium oxide is still used in many applications.

[GostHacked]

From what I understand is the waste from Thorium has a total storage life of about 100 years. Then it should be as safe as a rock. Current nuclear material needs to be stored for thousands of years.

Dog

It's always in retrospect of using certain materials we find out that it was not a good idea. Asbestos comes to mind, lead paint.

All the points raised against a Thorium reactor would be the same reasons to not go with the technology we are currently using.

[DogOnPorch]

I think that Salt Reactors aren't used is testimony in itself. As mentioned, they corrode all too readily.

Kerosene lamps apparently also use thorium oxide...so if you have one...keep it in the garage.

Edited February 18, 2010 by DogOnPorch

[GostHacked]

Could that be solved by using ceramic for pipes? Or a two ply? Metal pipe with a ceramic liner? Does salt corrode ceramic like it does metal? I think by lining the metal tubes with something that it cannot corrode would solve that issue quick.

[DogOnPorch]

Could that be solved by using ceramic for pipes? Or a two ply? Metal pipe with a ceramic liner? Does salt corrode ceramic like it does metal? I think by lining the metal tubes with something that it cannot corrode would solve that issue quick.

Possibly (the use of ceramic)...but I think the US Navy or Oak Ridge would have tried that. The creation of protactinium and hydrofluoric acid seem to be the major reasons for their non-use. As well natural thorium isn't fissile on its own and need to be bombarded by a radiation source like plutonium in order to be used in a reactor which adds a step to the process.

[GostHacked]

From the google vid, it seems like the issue of protactinium was resolved. It does not last that long in that state and quickly turns into uranium. All of this stuff seems to have a much shorter half-life than plutonium or uranium.

I don't know how it could be worse than the current nuclear waste that is produced from nuclear reactors. The cleanest run ones are the CANDU reactors by far. They still create waste, not as much, and no weapons grade materials to work with. But it is still highly radioactive.

The saftey record of nuclear powerplants around the world has been quite top notch though. Only a couple incidents, like 3-mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind. But a mistake like Chernobyl got all our attention on the dangers of using this fuel for power generation.

Thorium should not be taken lightly in terms of safety, just like any other power plant or facility with a lot of heavy machinery or dealing with dangerously toxic and radioactive materials.