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

Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 47 posts

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#23

Post by eleitl »

nnq wrote: post #20

I see this as the main takeaway from the article instead: > One or two 233U bombs were tested in the Nevada desert during the 1950s and, perhaps ominously, another was detonated by India in the late 1990s. [...] intense gamma radiation 233U produces fries the triggering circuitry ...this only shows that military use is possible! For someone less concerned about safety and more concerned about having a nuclear weapon…

Not just the proliferation resistance is a myth, but there are several others making the round: http://www.whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#24

Post by barrkel »

willvarfar wrote: post #17

Am I the only one who can't actually read the article? All I get is a "sign-up" floater :(

I got it without (to my knowledge) overflowing any limits for any reasonable time period.

Do a Google search for the headline and click on the article that way. Or forge the 'Referer' header.

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#26

Post by alephnil »

einrealist wrote: post #10

What about the radioactive waste? All nuclear reactors produce waste (finally when disassembled after the reactors' end of life). I find it strange to search for more efficient reactor styles, while the waste problem is not solved.

There is waste with thorium reactors as well, so they need to be well run by competent people just as a conventional reactors. That said, the waste is easier to handle for several reasons, particularly in the liquid fuel type.

The waste in conventional reactors are of two types, fission procucts and higher actinides. The fision products are the result of splitted uranium atoms. These are intensively radioactive, with halflives from milliseconds to about 30 years.

Then there are higher actinides, with halflives up to tens of thousands of years. These are less radioactive, but still radioactive enough that they have to be safely stored. This storage must be safe for hundred of thousands of years, something that it is hard to guarantee. Fision products only need to be stored for about 600-800 years before they are no more radioactive than uranium ore. Thorium rectors produce virtually no higher actinides, so it is easier to find storage that is safe for the period it must stay out of reach. It is also less volume of the waste (but more concentrated, as the amount of radioactivity is about the same), since the fission products are not mixed with U238 as in conventional reactors. This means that less storage is needed, which also makes it easier to handle.

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#28

Post by twic »

archgoon wrote: post #4

Coincidentally, ASGARD is also a horrible backronym for another nuclear related project. A dvanced fuel S for G eneration IV re A ctors: R eprocessing and D issolution http://asgardproject.eu/publications

The new thorium design should be the Mega-Joule Operationally Limited Nuclear Incident Reactor.

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#30

Post by einrealist »

alephnil wrote: post #26
einrealist wrote: post #10

What about the radioactive waste? All nuclear reactors produce waste (finally when disassembled after the reactors' end of life). I find it strange to search for more efficient reactor styles, while the waste problem is not solved.

There is waste with thorium reactors as well, so they need to be well run by competent people just as a conventional reactors. That said, the waste is easier to handle for several reasons, particularly in the liquid fuel type. The waste in conventional reactors are of two types, fission procucts and higher actinides. The fision products are the result of splitted uranium atoms. These are intensively radioactive, with…

I do not mean the fission products. I mean every thing else, starting from the clothes for the staff, to maintanance materials and finally the reactor itself. A reactor produces far more waste than just the fission products.
Post reply on HN