Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video) • Hacker News Board

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

#21

Post by ChuckMcM » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 4:17 PM UTC

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 most common 'gotcha' is that you can't make a thorium reactor critical with just thorium. It needs 'boost' neutrons. The most way that was done in the past was a small bit of uranium or plutonium that was critical to provide the neutrons. A more innovative way is to use a small particle accellerator to provide the thorium with neutrons [1].

[1] http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-pint-sized-particle-nucl...

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

#22

Post by demian » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 4:40 PM UTC

ugh wrote: post #9

Any plans to build a reactor somewhere? I fear that mere engineering heavy talking has no chance solving nuclear’s PR problem. Actually building a reactor might help. Maybe. Maybe not.

Maybie with the generational shift things will change. For USA's sakes, let's hope it won't be too late.

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

#23

Post by Symmetry » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 4:58 PM UTC

edkennedy wrote: post #14

jpk wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bur…

It might be that you could make a thorium reactor much safer than current light-water reactors for cheaper, but the laws regulating our nuclear power were written under the assumption that all reactors were light-water reactors - so in practice you would end up with all the fancy 100% reliable control systems needed to keep the positive feedback loops in a traditional reactor from blowing themselves up as well as the special metallurgy needed by Thorium reactors.

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

#24

Post by daniel-cussen » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 5:09 PM UTC

I read an American company is trying to make one in the north of Chile. It's because they really need energy (they're currently using coal and diesel to keep the lights on in the north) and there's not a whole lot of bio-anything to protect there. I think it's a great idea, but a lot of people don't.

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

#25

Post by DennisP » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 5:26 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #23

edkennedy wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bur…

It might be that you could make a thorium reactor much safer than current light-water reactors for cheaper, but the laws regulating our nuclear power were written under the assumption that all reactors were light-water reactors - so in practice you would end up with all the fancy 100% reliable control systems needed to keep the positive feedback loops in a traditional reactor from blowing themselves up as well as the…

That is the case, and it's a big problem. NRC regulations for example require "fuel integrity," which doesn't exist with liquid fuel.

Sorenson's company plans to market initially to the military, which has need of compact energy sources for remote bases and isn't constrained by the NRC.

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

#26

Post by rmason » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 5:28 PM UTC

I've studied this for years and haven't found any credible reason why we couldn't do this today.

But there are a lot of forces allied against Thorium in both the government, energy companies and the current nuclear industry.

Senator Hatch (R) Utah with support from Harry Reid (D) Nevada has introduced a bill annually for five years to fund $200 million to research to commercialize Thorium power. Yet every year the bill never even gets voted on.

http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=releases&Cont...

What is stopping Google itself from funding this I don't know? Our country should make this a major initiative similar to the race to the moon and get us off coal, oil and gas.

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

#27

Post by DennisP » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 5:31 PM UTC

iwwr wrote: post #16

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

In theory you can, but nobody makes bombs with U233 because it's easier to make bombs in other ways.

It seems to me that the real question for proliferation is not "is it theoretically possible to make bombs with this," but rather "if you wanted to make bombs and you had this technology, would you use it to make your bombs, or would you still prefer other methods?"

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

#28

Post by moreati » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 5:36 PM UTC

mrothe wrote: post #3

This cutted version feels like none of these persons said anything that is in the video, because the statements (or even words) are "out of context". I just can assume the author of the video has good intentions and did not change the context.

Here are the original videos:

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8

Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Problems http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ

Lessons for the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (from history) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

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

#29

Post by shabble » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 5:39 PM UTC

DennisP wrote: post #27

iwwr wrote: post #16

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

In theory you can, but nobody makes bombs with U233 because it's easier to make bombs in other ways. It seems to me that the real question for proliferation is not "is it theoretically possible to make bombs with this," but rather "if you wanted to make bombs and you had this technology, would you use it to make your bombs, or would you still prefer other methods?"

It's easier to make them other ways at the moment, because U233 isn't common. But popularize and reduce the cost of this cycle, as well as claiming it's "proliferation resistant" and hence suitable for export to non-members of the we-got-nukes club, may well lead to weapons being made out of it.

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

#30

Post by DennisP » Sun, Jul 03, 2011, 5:41 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #21

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 most common 'gotcha' is that you can't make a thorium reactor critical with just thorium. It needs 'boost' neutrons. The most way that was done in the past was a small bit of uranium or plutonium that was critical to provide the neutrons. A more innovative way is to use a small particle accellerator to provide the thorium with neutrons [1]. [1] http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-06-pint-sized-particle-nucl...

It's actually U233 that fissions. The neutrons convert thorium to U233, and when U233 fissions it produces neutrons that convert more thorium. So once you get the reaction started, you don't need an external neutron source.

LFTR proponents figure the simplest approach is to just go ahead and use U233 to seed the reaction. The U.S. has one ton of U233, which it currently plans to dispose of.