Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

thoriumenergyworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 170 posts

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#111

Post by jessriedel »

Sukotto wrote: post #76

I think we're making a serious PR mistake calling these "Thorium Reactors" even though the term is accurate. "Reactor" evokes "Nuclear Reactor". For many people, "nuclear reactor" is a deeply loaded term. Likewise "Thorium" (and other words that end in "-ium") sounds dangerously like "plutonium" and "uranium". It doesn't matter how much better/safer this technology is. Don't expect the public to respond positively wh…

It was widely considered a good move to rename "nuclear magnetic resonance" to "magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)" to avoid patient fears. That said, the "nuclear" in that case really was being misinterpreted by the public to refer to fission/fusion, unlike molten salt reactors where the name is being interpreted accurately, at least in a formal sense.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#112

Post by aidenn0 »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #109
pizza wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ah yes the renewable nuclear

Backstory on the debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_rene... Regardless, renewable is a less important concept than clean (how do you renew the sun which is a big nuclear reaction?).

The sun will burn out at a fixed time regardless of how much or little energy we harvest from it.

Assuming energy demand growth of 5% per year, we have enough land-based actinates for less than a century of energy usage in fast breeder reactors (if you prefer 2% annual demand growth, it's enough for about 2 centuries).

Seawater uranium buys you more time, depending on how you extract it, but hundreds of years and the sun burning out are two very different timelines.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#113

Post by knowThySelfx »

ece wrote: post #68

India has the most thorium reserves, according to USGS: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurrence_of_thorium And they have had the plans and motivation to build domestic reactors for the past two decades: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%27s_three-stage_nuclear_... NSG membership keeps getting held up by someone or the other and would provide more energy security for India. http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/…

India's Thorium rich sands are being mined and exported. Not many people are aware though. Hope it isn't too late. Scandals have throttled many efforts to grow indigenous techs. The ridiculous ISRO spy case is one such example. Cui bono?

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#114

Post by hedora »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #91
Sukotto wrote: post #76

I think we're making a serious PR mistake calling these "Thorium Reactors" even though the term is accurate. "Reactor" evokes "Nuclear Reactor". For many people, "nuclear reactor" is a deeply loaded term. Likewise "Thorium" (and other words that end in "-ium") sounds dangerously like "plutonium" and "uranium". It doesn't matter how much better/safer this technology is. Don't expect the public to respond positively wh…

A bunch of people have tried to rebrand our most energy-dense fuels (uranium and thorium). "Terrestrial Energy" comes to mind. And the unofficial Thorium PR lead, Kirk Sorensen, rebranded the Thorium-Molten Salt Reactor (T-MSR) as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) because "lifter" sounds better. As an engineer I'm a stickler on accurate naming so this suggestion bothers me, and I think the opposing forces wi…

Reactor -> plant

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#115

Post by thomastjeffery »

dabockster wrote: post #49

> charged particles traveling faster than the speed of light in water What did I just read?

I would have phrased it, "charged particles traveling faster than light through water" or some way that did not include "the speed of light" which people quickly assume to be 1c, rather than .75c (the speed that light travels through water).

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#116

Post by [deleted] »

wil421 wrote: post #81
nnfy wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At least this way you convince the educated public that you are credible. We should avoid names inspired by what amounts to political correctness, because people who see through the names may distrust us further. However, I do appreciate your point, and I agree that it is a problem. I think the attitude, at least from young white collar professionals, is warming up to nuclear.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance was the original name for the imaging technique we call MRI. Patients were scared so they changed the name.

[deleted]

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#117

Post by caf »

Sukotto wrote: post #85
manicdee wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you suggesting that thorium molten salt reactors get their energy from a source other than nuclear fission?

No. I'm saying that how you name things matters.

One of the ways it matters is that giving something an overly euphemistic name leads people to wonder exactly what it is that you're hiding.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#118

Post by atdt »

Sukotto wrote: post #76

I think we're making a serious PR mistake calling these "Thorium Reactors" even though the term is accurate. "Reactor" evokes "Nuclear Reactor". For many people, "nuclear reactor" is a deeply loaded term. Likewise "Thorium" (and other words that end in "-ium") sounds dangerously like "plutonium" and "uranium". It doesn't matter how much better/safer this technology is. Don't expect the public to respond positively wh…

The OECD periodically studies trends in public opinion regarding the use of nuclear power. Their most recent study is from 2010, and its conclusions largely refute any cynicism you may hold regarding public understanding of nuclear energy.

From the executive summary:

"In 6 out of 7 of the countries considered, public opinion has been growing more supportive of nuclear energy in the energy mix. The data show that countries where nuclear energy is already present have populations that are generally much more supportive of its use. They also show that these publics are generally better informed and more knowledgeable on nuclear issues and there is a clear positive correlation between knowledge and support."

(https://www.oecd-nea.org/ndd/pubs/2010/6859-public-attitudes...)

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#119

Post by adrianN »

candiodari wrote: post #99
chrisallenlane wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> in the US you could imagine an insurance company that competed on lower premiums conditional upon certain gene edits being applied to covered children. On one hand, this sounds entirely economically reasonable (and even humanitarian). On the other hand, I fear this would inevitably produce unintended consequences that would shape our society in distopian, sci-fi/horror-flavored ways. I have no idea how it would act…

Given the economics, I feel pretty confident predicting that these edits will be mandatory before most people on this site die.

At least you'd probably have to pay a lot more of the bills if you chose not to have genetic problems corrected before birth.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#120

Post by adrianN »

aidenn0 wrote: post #112
WillPostForFood wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backstory on the debate: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_proposed_as_rene... Regardless, renewable is a less important concept than clean (how do you renew the sun which is a big nuclear reaction?).

The sun will burn out at a fixed time regardless of how much or little energy we harvest from it. Assuming energy demand growth of 5% per year, we have enough land-based actinates for less than a century of energy usage in fast breeder reactors (if you prefer 2% annual demand growth, it's enough for about 2 centuries). Seawater uranium buys you more time, depending on how you extract it, but hundreds of years and the…

A hundred years would give us plenty of time to develop alternative energy sources (fusion?). The fossil fuel age also last(s/ed) for about that long.
Post reply on HN