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

Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

youtube.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 106 posts

Re: Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

#11

Post by jpk »

api wrote: post #7

I hear a lot about the LFTR, and I wonder what the problem is. Is there a major technical hurdle that prevents this from seeing widespread use? Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes a really good idea never gets used because... well... because nobody really picks it up and runs with it. It's that simple sometimes. But sometimes there's some hidden gotcha.

My understanding is that building the reactors are significantly more expensive. So until the price of Uranium increases enough to justify the total cost of the Thorium reactors, we won't see many of them outside research settings.

The other issue is building a new reactor of any type right now is a giant pain in the ass, which doesn't help either.

Re: Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

#13

Post by Create »

This is project pursued by many[1]. The main hurdles are:

1. political [2], which Kirk mentions (it is no coincidence, that the pellets that the rods contain are as standard as the NATO bullet) -- the industry and power has a very different interest

2. technical: Kirk always mentions, that the fuel is not solid. It is liquid. The latter means, that you do have higher concerns about corrosiveness, hence (useful) reactor lifetime...

Also, the issue of scale, which tends to lie between 1. and 2. Uranium "won", because you got the real stuff with it (weapons as in actual projection of power, or the capability of threat to project power) and because you could make it work on a massive scale (current reactors are an order of magnitude larger than any LFTR design, and capitalism is based on the leverage of and concentration of power).

[1] http://energyfromthorium.com/

http://www.thorenergy.no/

http://thoriumenergy.com.au/

... besides China, India, France and (even) Czechs.

[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.... -> see Seaborg interview part

Re: Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

#14

Post by edkennedy »

jpk wrote: post #11
api wrote: post #7

I hear a lot about the LFTR, and I wonder what the problem is. Is there a major technical hurdle that prevents this from seeing widespread use? Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes a really good idea never gets used because... well... because nobody really picks it up and runs with it. It's that simple sometimes. But sometimes there's some hidden gotcha.

My understanding is that building the reactors are significantly more expensive. So until the price of Uranium increases enough to justify the total cost of the Thorium reactors, we won't see many of them outside research settings. The other issue is building a new reactor of any type right now is a giant pain in the ass, which doesn't help either.

In the video he states that the cost would be 30-50% lower because the reactors are very simple. The cost for uranium based fuel is also significantly more expensive (watch the vide). He states that the reason people don't build these is because they don't know about them, or they are stuck in the existing structure of legacy reactor thinking.

The reason that anything new is a pain in the ass is simply because of bureaucracy.

Re: Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

#17

Post by api »

jpk wrote: post #11
api wrote: post #7

I hear a lot about the LFTR, and I wonder what the problem is. Is there a major technical hurdle that prevents this from seeing widespread use? Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes a really good idea never gets used because... well... because nobody really picks it up and runs with it. It's that simple sometimes. But sometimes there's some hidden gotcha.

My understanding is that building the reactors are significantly more expensive. So until the price of Uranium increases enough to justify the total cost of the Thorium reactors, we won't see many of them outside research settings. The other issue is building a new reactor of any type right now is a giant pain in the ass, which doesn't help either.

CANDU, one of the best uranium designs, has the same problem.

It's sort of like inkjet printers. Either it's cheaper up front and more expensive in the long run, or it costs a fortune up front but the ink is cheap.

Re: Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

#18

Post by shabble »

iwwr wrote: post #16

You can still make bombs from the thorium cycle, with U233.

Many people claim you can't, due to fact it's generally a mixture of U232 as well, which will decay rapidly and cook your detonator/firing mechanism, but a couple of interesting comments I found suggest a liquid fuel would be amenable to continuous separation:

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/03/question...

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2011/03/question...

The MET test of Operation Teapot being the first example of a successful U233 firing: http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Teapot.html

Re: Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

#19

Post by known »

api wrote: post #7

I hear a lot about the LFTR, and I wonder what the problem is. Is there a major technical hurdle that prevents this from seeing widespread use? Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes a really good idea never gets used because... well... because nobody really picks it up and runs with it. It's that simple sometimes. But sometimes there's some hidden gotcha.

The ratio of plutonium needed to seed and convert thorium into fissionable uranium-233 is very high (0.8:1)

Re: Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

#20

Post by vog »

api wrote: post #7

I hear a lot about the LFTR, and I wonder what the problem is. Is there a major technical hurdle that prevents this from seeing widespread use? Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes a really good idea never gets used because... well... because nobody really picks it up and runs with it. It's that simple sometimes. But sometimes there's some hidden gotcha.

> Is there a major technical hurdle ... ?

That's exactly my question, too. So I tried to find some alternative view on that topic. Unfortunately, I only found some criticism of questionable quality ...

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf

... as well as a rebuttal of questionable quality:

http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/03/23/sorensen-rebuttal/

Post reply on HN