Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I implied above, it's a problem in particular jurisdictions, not necessarily everywhere. China for one is aggressively pro-nuclear. If thorium reactors are everything their advocates think they are, countries that throw too many obstacles in their path will disadvantage their economies. Aside from that, nuclear reactors don't necessarily have to be gigawatt-size. Even in the U.S., smaller reactors are starting to…
China matters, and it can bypass procedural democracy. Large, slow-to-deploy nuclear still has to compete with quick-deploying, cost-decreasing solar and wind (and serious efficiency measures) while it is on the costs-rising-due-to-learning part of its rollout curve. Procedural democracy will not allow new nuclear of any kind in most of the rich democracies. We need everything, but solar PV, wind, and efficiency are…
World’s First Thorium Reactor Designed
51–55 of 55 posts
Re: World’s First Thorium Reactor Designed
#52Earlier quoted context omitted.
The big problem with a molten salt LFTR is the materials necessary for the plumbing. Any metal will become brittle as it is exposed to the radiation emitted from the reactor core. And manufacturing ceramics into the precision pieces called for is not a solved problem. LFTR designs are fantastic, amazing, and solve a lot of problems. There is a lot of materials science to be done to make them viable, though.
You're confusing issues from pressurized reactors with LFTRs. The reason manufacturing ceramics for pressurized reactors is hard is the pressure and size involved. LFTR can be run at normal pressure at small scale; you can use a kiln as the pressure vessel if you want to. Also, no, not any metal gets brittle; inconel and hastelloy handle radiation quite well for decades at a time, as does good old fashioned nickel. B…
Everything at Oak Ridge did _not_ provide our grandparents with insignificant technical challenges. Not only for the points (in my other response) about neutron bombardment making the Hastelloy N brittle, but also:
- The cooling circuit glowed red hot. This indicates that it was close to its thermal creep zone; we didn't know much about thermal creep back then. [0]
- The MSRE reactor spent a good portion of its life down for maintenance. [0]
- The tritium release is not a small problem: of an estimated 2.0TBq of tritium produced, 6-10% diffused from the fuel system into the containment cell atmosphere, and another 6-10% was released from the heat removal system. And these were lower than expected. You really don't want your LFTR to be leaking tritium everywhere. [1]
- The decontamination of the experiment was really, really hazardous. Not only were they dealing with nuclear waste; they were dealing with nuclear waste and fluorine gas. You really don't want to be anywhere near elemental fluorine gas. This was all because ORNL didn't defuel and store the salts correctly; it's mostly been rectified in modern designs[1]. But it goes to show how horrifyingly dangerous the components are. As bad as a nuclear spill would be, you have to remember that these aren't your run of the mill molten salts. They're highly toxic salts spewing out gamma, beta, and alpha radiation. I'm trying to imagine what it would be like if Chernobyl released these kinds of chemicals in its radiation plume. I don't think I can imagine something that horrifying. Toxic rain over Germany doped with uranium hexafluoride and plutonium? I'd rather have coal power. And I hate coal power.
Of course, all of this is me being extraordinarily cautious. I was really, really excited about LFTR design when I first heard about it. But the more I learn, the more I'm convinced that we really don't have the materials to safely operate one of these things on a commercial scale.
0. http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/ 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment#... (throughout)
Re: World’s First Thorium Reactor Designed
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
There were/are religious conflicts in communities where it's impossible to tell the belligerents apart -- ethnically, economically, you name it. "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." Inequality is definitely a contributing factor, perhaps even _the_ contributing factor, but don't count out religion.
Inequality is the wrong diagnosis. As msandford pointed out, it's more likely to be a minimum standard of living issue and having enough to lose. If inequality was a main factor, you would expect Pakistan to have similar crime rates as Sweden, when in reality they're not even close. (PG has an essay on inequality being a boon to a nation's economy: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html ) You could also look at th…
There is also a big difference between inequality as a ratio of rich to poor, and actual conditions. The poor in Sweden are better off relative to the rich than the poor in Pakistan.
Re: World’s First Thorium Reactor Designed
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're confusing issues from pressurized reactors with LFTRs. The reason manufacturing ceramics for pressurized reactors is hard is the pressure and size involved. LFTR can be run at normal pressure at small scale; you can use a kiln as the pressure vessel if you want to. Also, no, not any metal gets brittle; inconel and hastelloy handle radiation quite well for decades at a time, as does good old fashioned nickel. B…
>You're confusing issues from pressurized reactors with LFTRs. Nope, pretty sure I'm not. I'm well aware that LFTRs run at low (even sub-atmosphere) pressures. >We built and ran LFTRs commercially in the 1950s in New York State and Pennsylvania We never ran LFTRs commercially. If you know otherwise, please cite. I only know of two experimental reactors at the Oak Ridge facility: the Aircraft Reactor Experiment and th…
In the meantime, it refers to hypotheticals as its only criticisms, many of which are mutually contradictory, many in ways as obvious as the above.
On top of that, one of the best bullshit detectors that has ever existed is watching for basic quality of language, and this guy has not yet mastered the wily apostrophe.
With apologies, I'm not going to be your unpaid research assistant tonight. You made a claim without evidence. I dismissed it without evidence. You seem to believe the burden of proof is now on me. Sorry; I have other things to do which are more important to me, and you flat out ignored several of the things I said, so I'm comfortable doing the same (like when you claimed that building ceramic housings was a challenge, and I thought you were confused about Japan Steelworks; you have provided no explanation for believing that ceramic containers, which Hitachi uses extensively, are out of our reach.)
Similarly, your story about grain boundaries is compelling, at least if you don't consider lining the reactor. But then you go on to observe that a 50s reactor ran for four years without a problem on 50s metallurgy, and don't seem to think that that's a problem for your concern.
Finally, that's true, you don't want to be around irradiated fluorine. But if you would rather be near a failed coal plant than a failed lftr, my interpretation is that you don't know much about what happens in either a fluorine leak or a coal plant explosion. Fluorinated uranium rain two countries away? Buddy, not even six blocks away. What makes that shit dangerous is how violently and universally it reacts. There would be less uranium and fluorine in the rain than in to day's seawater.
Helen Caldicott off, please. Either do the envelope math or stop pretending it's anything more than blog fuelled FUD.
Re: World’s First Thorium Reactor Designed
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You're confusing issues from pressurized reactors with LFTRs. Nope, pretty sure I'm not. I'm well aware that LFTRs run at low (even sub-atmosphere) pressures. >We built and ran LFTRs commercially in the 1950s in New York State and Pennsylvania We never ran LFTRs commercially. If you know otherwise, please cite. I only know of two experimental reactors at the Oak Ridge facility: the Aircraft Reactor Experiment and th…
You are quoting verbatim as fact from an unsourced blog post you provide in another comment. That blog post says what you're claiming as fact are /rumors/. It points out beside the issue things like that a heat generation experiment that wasn't hooked up to dynamos didn't generate electricity, in literally the same paragraph as claiming they produced too much heat (so use some of it?) In the meantime, it refers to hy…
So did you :)