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

51–60 of 106 posts

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

#51

Post by Create »

Create wrote: post #45
Create wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do not think that corrosion is the showstopper. It rather seems to be the lack of irresponsible megalomania, which actually fuelled the GE/Westinghouse frenzy. And I can hardly blame anybody for the lack of it, because for all the better... Our planet has became smaller in the last 50 years, and running (tea)pot operations would be a tough sell, even on Fox. But obviously (offshore) oils rigs and gas are no better…

Watch Seaborg and some engineers from ex-USSR above before downvoting without reasoning. And imagine the powerlines in a play, where Seaborg himself feels he can only act as a puppet -- randian rationalism doesn't work in society. (I do not agree/disagree with all of the comments above, just note)

Thanks for your argument. Case closed.

you see now too -- the alloy is not the problem.

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

#52

Post by te_chris »

DennisP wrote: post #41
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.

Thorium reactors should be quite a bit cheaper. Light-water reactors operate at 160 atmospheres of pressure. They need a very strong reactor vessel, which currently can only be forged by a single facility in Japan. They need a large containment dome because if a pipe breaks, that high-pressure water will flash into steam with a thousand times the volume. They use lots of redundant emergency active cooling mechanisms.…

"Misguided government regulation is the main problem, but Sorenson's company plans to get around that by selling to the military first."

Sorry but is this subtle irony? My apologies if it's not, I don't know anything about this field. It just seems weird that the military wouldn't be subject to the same regulations that the govt. sets? Or in the US are the military able to ignore some of the regulations around this?

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

#53

Post by InclinedPlane »

rmason wrote: post #26

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 bi…

We could start scaling up research today, which we should, but it's a bit much to say we could start building Thorium power reactors today. Other reactor designs are far, far more developed and generally have had full-scale pilot reactors built and operated, the same is not true for Thorium reactors.

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

#55

Post by InclinedPlane »

shailesh wrote: post #37
rmason wrote: post #26

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 bi…

Another data point: Even in India (which has 25% of world's Thorium reserves), it is a mystery to many, as to why the Govt. chose not to invest more heavily in Thorium based research, rather than going for traditional ones. Edit: grammar.

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

"The country is involved in the development of nuclear fusion reactors through its participation in the ITER project and is a global leader in the development of thorium-based fast breeder reactors."

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

#56

Post by speleding »

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 "advantage" that the LFTR doesn't produce fissile material was probably considered a disadvantage by most governments, at least until about a decade ago.

Now that we have decades of experience with light water reactors it simply is a challenge to propose a solution that unproven on a commercial scale. It may look good on paper but it would be a multi-billion dollar project with multi-billion dollar risks. Visionary politicians who would want to take such risks are in short supply.

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

#57

Post by uvdiv »

jackpirate wrote: post #46
DennisP wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mainly it's historical reasons. Light-water reactors were developed first, for nuclear submarines. Once they had those working, everybody went with what they knew, and thorium advocates got fired. Then people forgot about thorium. At this point, NRC regulations assume solid fuel, and the nuclear industry makes most of its money from selling complex fabricated fuel rods. However, there was a small liquid-fluoride reac…

The first reactors were actually heavy water for producing plutonium for nuclear weapons. Light water reactors were developed next because they could still produce plutonium, were cheaper, and could be put on a submarine. But their usefulness on subs was secondary. The USSR built Pb moderated reactors for some Alfa class subs that didn't require anyone working in the engine room. For lots of reasons, this is obviousl…

The first reactors were not heavy-water, but graphite moderated (and light-water cooled). Nazi Germany intended to build heavy-water reactors, but they did not succeed.

Pb (actually Pb-Bi eutectic) isn't a moderator, just a coolant. Alfa-class submarines' reactors were fast reactors (no moderator).

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

#58

Post by InclinedPlane »

iwwr wrote: post #16

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

The non-proliferation aspects of Thorium reactors are a bit overstated. Consider that the easiest way to create fissile fuel for nuclear weapons is to merely have access to an abundant neutron source, such as any fission reactor (Thorium or not). If you have an LFTR you can just place natural Uranium-238 near the reactor core and use the neutron flux to breed Pu-239, easy peasy.

As far as producing materials that could be stolen and used for nuclear weapons manufacture, that at least is a little bit better with a Thorium fuel cycle. Presumably the U-233 would simply be left to burn up in the reactor, rather than being separated out and kept in storage. If someone happened to obtain some used fuel they could potentially separate out the U-233 and use it to make weapons, although it would require substantial engineering. Also, since U-233 is very much more radioactive than U-235 or Pu-239 it requires handling with remote manipulators. Any organization that had the ability to separate U-233, engineer the appropriate modified bomb design, then process and machine the U-233 using only remote manipulation is extremely likely to have a sufficient level of technology and industry to build reactors or separators on their own (meaning, able to build nuclear weapons independent of having access to used Thorium fuel).

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

#59

Post by InclinedPlane »

shabble wrote: post #18
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 Teapo…

The MET test was not a pure U-233 design, it was a mixture of Pu-239 and U-233, it also had 1/3 lower yield than the equivalent design using U-235.

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

#60

Post by uvdiv »

shailesh wrote: post #37
rmason wrote: post #26

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 bi…

Another data point: Even in India (which has 25% of world's Thorium reserves), it is a mystery to many, as to why the Govt. chose not to invest more heavily in Thorium based research, rather than going for traditional ones. Edit: grammar.

Not sure how you figure that, India's whole research program is geared toward a pure-thorium future.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India%27s_three_stage_nuclear_p...

Post reply on HN