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

71–80 of 106 posts

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

#71

Post by dennisgorelik »

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…

Google is not in nuclear energy business.

It would be better for all of us if Google stays focused in software development.

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

#72

Post by brianbreslin »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #71
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…

Google is not in nuclear energy business. It would be better for all of us if Google stays focused in software development.

Google is in the renewable energy business. They have devoted well over $400Million US to solar, hydro, and wind power startups. They see energy as their biggest cost point in the next decade (powering data centers is not trivial).

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

#73

Post by brianbreslin »

Slightly off topic, but could thorium be used for vehicle propulsion? as in nuclear submarines or even better: space craft? if the payload is efficient enough, it could solve the issues we have with getting rockets into space (fuel is heavy, and costly to transport).

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

#74

Post by Detrus »

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.

I watched one of the videos and seems accurate enough. The cut left out an important bit from the end of that video. Developing those kinds of thorium reactors would take the US five years with a Manhattan Project style investment. Ten or more years at a slower pace and lower price.

This is by no means cheap and easy, "it's not THAT hard" is a quote that made the cut. I imagine the effort would be comparable to making uranium reactors for power stations which took around thirty years.

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

#75

Post by shabble »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #59
shabble wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, thanks, I didn't notice the 'mixed U/Pu' bit originally.

On the second point, not only was it 1/3 of the equivalent (and specified) 235 design, it was also 1/3 less than predicted for itself, if I'm reading it correctly. I wonder if that was an error in the prediction, or a fault of the weapon/design.

I've forgotten most of the nuclear chemistry involved in producing Pu, but iirc it can be done with natural uranium and a neutron source. But then again, if you have those, and can produce plutonium, why not just use that? Maybe it'd be helpful as a filler if you've got some, and only limited Pu resources, or to simplify weapon design (Any idea if the MET was gun-type or implosion-type, sources being unsurprisingly hard to find)?

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

#76

Post by pedalpete »

dennisgorelik wrote: post #71
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…

Google is not in nuclear energy business. It would be better for all of us if Google stays focused in software development.

The response said what is stopping google from 'funding' this, not 'creating' this. Of course, they would benefit too.

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

#77

Post by InclinedPlane »

shabble wrote: post #75
InclinedPlane wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ah, thanks, I didn't notice the 'mixed U/Pu' bit originally. On the second point, not only was it 1/3 of the equivalent (and specified) 235 design, it was also 1/3 less than predicted for itself, if I'm reading it correctly. I wonder if that was an error in the prediction, or a fault of the weapon/design. I've forgotten most of the nuclear chemistry involved in producing Pu, but iirc it can be done with natural urani…

The MET test was odd, the military wanted a highly dialed in yield to test effects of nuclear weapons but somehow there was a miscommunication and they ended up using U-233 as a replacement for U-235 as an experiment. We really don't have enough information about how well U-233 might work in a nuclear weapon to make a judgment on the subject.

Anywho, in regards to the larger point, I discussed the issue in another comment, here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2723675

Basically, proliferation concerns transition entirely to the honor system once someone is operating any sort of fission based reactor, even one powered by Thorium. Since it is quite easy to breed Plutonium merely by placing natural (and readily available) U-238 in a high neutron flux environment. Simply remove your Uranium samples every 90 days or so and chemically separate out the Plutonium.

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

#79

Post by dennisgorelik »

pedalpete wrote: post #76
dennisgorelik wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not in nuclear energy business. It would be better for all of us if Google stays focused in software development.

The response said what is stopping google from 'funding' this, not 'creating' this. Of course, they would benefit too.

"Funding" requires focus too.

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

#80

Post by dennisgorelik »

brianbreslin wrote: post #72
dennisgorelik wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google is not in nuclear energy business. It would be better for all of us if Google stays focused in software development.

Google is in the renewable energy business. They have devoted well over $400Million US to solar, hydro, and wind power startups. They see energy as their biggest cost point in the next decade (powering data centers is not trivial).

Google is in search business.

I think focusing on power is a mistake for Google (unless founders are having fun toying with power).

Post reply on HN