http://theconversation.com/should-australia-consider-thorium-nuclear-power-37850

Quote:

Australia has developed something of an allergic reaction to any mention of uranium or nuclear energy. Blessed as we are with abundant reserves of coal, oil and gas, we have never had to ask the hard questions many other nations have had to ask – questions the answer to which has been “nuclear” for many of those nations. Yet with the looming spectre of climate change and greater calls for a shift away from fossil fuels, nuclear power is once again on the agenda. The South Australian government has even called for a royal commission to investigate the plausibility of nuclear power in this country. With discussion of uranium seeming to be out-of-bounds in some quarters, a growing community of devotees has sprung up around an alternative nuclear fuel: thorium. But is it right for Australia? The call for thorium power is not without precedent worldwide. India has pursued thorium technology for decades. And China is revisiting a molten salt reactor design mothballed by the USA in the 70’s. Recently, several companies have sought to commercialise thorium energy, including an Australian-Czech alliance. Thorium: critically different Thorium (atomic number 90) shares several similarities with its neighbour two doors down on the periodic table, uranium (atomic number 92). Both elements are silvery metals and are mildly radioactive as ores. They are each moderately abundant in the Earth’s crust, and can release prodigious amounts of energy under the right conditions. One critical difference is that thorium, in its natural state, is resistant to fission. This is the process whereby the atomic nucleus splits apart, thus releasing energy that can then be harnessed to generate electricity. Uranium can undergo fission relatively easily, but for thorium to undergo fission – and be useful in a nuclear power plant – it must first be converted into a usable form. This is done via a process known as “breeding”, where the thorium absorbs a neutron, thus transmuting into a heavier element that can later undergo fission. Thorium was first studied as an energy source during the Manhattan project, but uranium proved much easier to work with. During the post-war commercialisation of nuclear energy this dominance was reinforced. Engineers identified myriad paths to design reactors based on uranium, while the added complexities of thorium meant that alternatives didn’t get much of a look in. Today, advocates of thorium typically point to a variety of advantages over uranium. These include fail-safe reactor operation, because most thorium reactor designs are incapable of an explosion or meltdown, as was seen at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Another is resistance to weapons proliferation, because thorium reactors create byproducts that make the fuel unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons. Other advantages include greater abundance of natural reserves of thorium, less radioactive waste and higher utilisation of fuel in thorium reactors. Thorium is often cast as “good nuclear”, while uranium gets to carry the can as “bad nuclear”. Not so different While compelling at first glance, the details reveal a somewhat more murky picture. The molten salt architecture which gives certain thorium reactors high intrinsic safety equally applies to proposed fourth-generation designs using uranium. It is also true that nuclear physics technicalities make thorium much less attractive for weapons production, but it is by no means impossible; the USA and USSR each tested a thorium-based atomic bomb in 1955. Other perceived advantages similarly diminish under scrutiny. There is plenty of uranium ore in the world and hence the fourfold abundance advantage of thorium is a moot point. Producing less long-lived radioactive waste is certainly beneficial, but the vexed question remains of how to deal with it. Stating that thorium is more efficiently consumed is the most mischievous of the claimed benefits. Fast-breeder uranium reactors have much the same fuel efficiency as thorium reactors. However, they weren’t economic as the price of uranium turned out to rather low

Quote:

Peering into the crystal ball None of these factors are reasons to ignore thorium, which may yet prove to have a significant role to play. New thorium-based reactors under construction in India and China will focus attention once again on the viability of thorium power. However, only time will tell whether thorium can strike a disruptive path forward. From a national perspective, the development of thorium technology would be a major boost. Australia possesses around 10-15% of the world’s thorium reserves, in addition to its 30% share of uranium reserves. Developing a market for thorium would also solve a serious problem for the green-technology rare earth industry. Thorium is an unwelcome contaminant in rare earth ores, making the tailings slightly radioactive. This leads to social and political problems in the processing phase as seen recently in the licensing struggles of Australian-owned Lynas Corporation in Malaysia. Having an avenue to sell the extracted thorium would change the whole dynamics of rare earth processing. As for whether thorium might reframe the discussion of nuclear power in Australia, the question comes too soon. The engineering and economics of thorium must first be demonstrated. No thorium reactors operate commercially worldwide, whereas 430 operating uranium reactors produce 11% of global electricity. If Australia does eventually decide to build nuclear power plants, the best choice would almost certainly be a proven design based on existing third-generation uranium technology. Such a decision is, however, a long way down the road. As a nation we haven’t even managed to figure out the best way to handle slightly radioactive gloves in hospitals, let alone have a mature conversation about nuclear power. The real question is whether Australia can find a way forward to have a civilised discussion about how to generate non-fossil baseload power. And so, by all means, we should talk about thorium, but let’s not demonise uranium at the same time.

Poll

no

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 12:04pm:

no

Is that a considered no or an unconsidered no?

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:00pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 12:04pm: no Is that a considered no or an unconsidered no?

either way the answers the same.

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:01pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 1:00pm: Johnsmith wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 12:04pm: no Is that a considered no or an unconsidered no? either way the answers the same.

no it isn't

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:03pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 1:01pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 1:00pm: Johnsmith wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 12:04pm: no Is that a considered no or an unconsidered no? either way the answers the same. no it isn't

yes it is. I'll show you

Considered  = NO
Unconsidered = NO

same answer

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:05pm:

yes it is. I'll show you Considered  = NO Unconsidered = NO same answer

ah not really Smithy....

A considered 'no' means that you considered the question, and then decided 'no'.

So thereby by considering the question, you actually did consider that AUST consider thorium nuclear power? So a considered 'no' is really a 'yes'.  :D  Which is not the same answer.  :D

Rather a Gen3/4 nuke than bloody Hazelwood still operating.

Put it near Pt Augusta but on the craton, seawater for cooling.

Bury the worlds nuclear waste deep in disused Broken Hill mines—and charge 2 arms and 2 legs for so doing.

I'm in favor of Australian research into Thorium reactors.

see here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439940798/105



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZf6e0ntFrw


And a comment from the above video:


Quote:

Here's the real reason Thorium Generators where scraped. Thorium is a fuel you can't monopolize, its' everywhere it will be like trying to monopolize sunshine. The energy cartels (barons) didn't like this at all because it would put them out of business and their globalist aspirations will be destroyed because if you don't control the power supply you don't control the world. Thorium fuel is also much easier to process you don't need complicated nuclear processing plants so all nations on Earth will have the necessary expertise to use Thorium energy to power their civilizations. The only way to stop Thorium energy from becoming a reality is to abort it, to kill it in the womb because once it's developed the genie is out of the bottle and there will be no stopping it from people have thorium energy. Thorium energy is also super cheap it will be a 2nd revolution, imagine all people of Earth having cheap clean power you could turn deserts into gardens it will end starvation and poverty. The globalists can't have this they can't control people who are independent and free. So Thorium was killed.

Bruce and Sheila have not yet mastered fossil fuels. What hope for technological leap?

It would be like Homer Simpson being appointed CEO of USA's space program.

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:36pm:

Bruce and Sheila have not yet mastered fossil fuels. What hope for technological leap? It would be like Homer Simpson being appointed CEO of USA's space program.

We'd have to buy up the top Chinese & Indian scientists to do it.

They are already decades ahead.

Thorium Yes. Uranium a big No !

But don't expect Australia to be leading the race in any sort of technology because they are too busy with sports and flipping houses :(

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 11:17am:

Thorium Yes. Uranium a big No ! But don't expect Australia to be leading the race in any sort of technology because they are too busy with sports and flipping houses :(

How true but sad sir Nail.

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:16pm:

Johnsmith wrote on Sep 12th, 2015 at 1:05pm: yes it is. I'll show you Considered  = NO Unconsidered = NO same answer ah not really Smithy.... A considered 'no' means that you considered the question, and then decided 'no'. So thereby by considering the question, you actually did consider that AUST consider thorium nuclear power? So a considered 'no' is really a 'yes'.  :D  Which is not the same answer.  :D

yes, thank you for that Swag, I was well aware of what the terms meant but thanks for burying your head up your arse just the same

The answer is still the same. Australia should not consider thorium nuclear power

*

I'm in favor of Australian research into Thorium reactors.

see here:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1439940798/105



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZf6e0ntFrw


And a comment from the above video:


Quote:

Here's the real reason Thorium Generators where scraped. Thorium is a fuel you can't monopolize, its' everywhere it will be like trying to monopolize sunshine. The energy cartels (barons) didn't like this at all because it would put them out of business and their globalist aspirations will be destroyed because if you don't control the power supply you don't control the world. Thorium fuel is also much easier to process you don't need complicated nuclear processing plants so all nations on Earth will have the necessary expertise to use Thorium energy to power their civilizations. The only way to stop Thorium energy from becoming a reality is to abort it, to kill it in the womb because once it's developed the genie is out of the bottle and there will be no stopping it from people have thorium energy. Thorium energy is also super cheap it will be a 2nd revolution, imagine all people of Earth having cheap clean power you could turn deserts into gardens it will end starvation and poverty. The globalists can't have this they can't control people who are independent and free. So Thorium was killed.

Of course we should consider thorium. But that does not mean I would support it for energy production without a lot of proof of its safety. Someone may say X is a fact; that is no reason to believe them, and that is what we have here so far.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 13^th, 2015 at 10:26pm:

Of course we should consider thorium. But that does not mean I would support it for energy production without a lot of proof of its safety. Someone may say X is a fact; that is no reason to believe them, and that is what we have here so far.

I am only saying that we should build a research reactor.

Let's find out.

We could sell the Thorium & the technology.

We have to come up with something better than flipping houses
to make ourselves feel wealthy in a ponzi scheme leading no where.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 7:04am:

We could sell the Thorium & the technology. We have to come up with something better than flipping houses to make ourselves feel wealthy in a ponzi scheme leading no where.

The banks love flipping houses. The more debt there is in housing the more interest the bank gets which is why there are 5 banks in the top 20 Australian companies and not companies like General Electric or Westinghouse etc. These banks are only interested in property and personal credit and not much else. Aussies also have a big part to play in this with their obsession with owning as many houses as they can and then expecting some foreign corporation to setup here and give them a job.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 10:49am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 7:04am: We could sell the Thorium & the technology. We have to come up with something better than flipping houses to make ourselves feel wealthy in a ponzi scheme leading no where. The banks love flipping houses. The more debt there is in housing the more interest the bank gets which is why there are 5 banks in the top 20 Australian companies and not companies like General Electric or Westinghouse etc. These banks are only interested in property and personal credit and not much else. Aussies also have a big part to play in this with their obsession with owning as many houses as they can and then expecting some foreign corporation to setup here and give them a job.

Hear hear sir Nail,
No wonder Abbott is toast - what has he done for science?

he wrecked the CSIRO.

We have no Thorium technology.

You realise that Thor was just a movie right?

miketrees wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 7:41pm:

You realise that Thor was just a movie right?

Can you make an intelligent post?

We need something like the Manhattan Project but
devoted to peace & infinite energy.

We need at least 10,000 scientists working around the clock
&  $billions poured into it.

Whatever country which cracks the secrets of Thorium will rule this planet.

We have to devise a means to make thorium attractive to house flippers. It can then ride the housing boom.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14^th, 2015 at 11:02pm:

We need something like the Manhattan Project but devoted to peace & infinite energy. We need at least 10,000 scientists working around the clock &  $billions poured into it. Whatever country which cracks the secrets of Thorium will rule this planet.

Your right Sir Bobby - well almost.
A thorium reactor ran for 5 years at Oak Ridge, Tn, 50 years ago. Our knowledge is much greater now - I assume.
Although ultimately over - unity generators that can tap the infinite and inexhaustible quantum/vacuum field is better.

Richdude wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 1:19am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:02pm: We need something like the Manhattan Project but devoted to peace & infinite energy. We need at least 10,000 scientists working around the clock &  $billions poured into it. Whatever country which cracks the secrets of Thorium will rule this planet. Your right Sir Bobby - well almost. A thorium reactor ran for 5 years at Oak Ridge, Tn, 50 years ago. Our knowledge is much greater now - I assume. Although ultimately over - unity generators that can tap the infinite and inexhaustible quantum/vacuum field is better.

Your knowledge of science is poor -

there is very little vacuum energy.

forgiven

namaste

Bobby. wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 6:47am:

Richdude wrote on Sep 15th, 2015 at 1:19am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:02pm: We need something like the Manhattan Project but devoted to peace & infinite energy. We need at least 10,000 scientists working around the clock &  $billions poured into it. Whatever country which cracks the secrets of Thorium will rule this planet. Your right Sir Bobby - well almost. A thorium reactor ran for 5 years at Oak Ridge, Tn, 50 years ago. Our knowledge is much greater now - I assume. Although ultimately over - unity generators that can tap the infinite and inexhaustible quantum/vacuum field is better. Your knowledge of science is poor - there is very little vacuum energy. forgiven namaste

  Really? Evidence please.

Richdude wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 8:48am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 15th, 2015 at 6:47am: Richdude wrote on Sep 15th, 2015 at 1:19am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:02pm: We need something like the Manhattan Project but devoted to peace & infinite energy. We need at least 10,000 scientists working around the clock &  $billions poured into it. Whatever country which cracks the secrets of Thorium will rule this planet. Your right Sir Bobby - well almost. A thorium reactor ran for 5 years at Oak Ridge, Tn, 50 years ago. Our knowledge is much greater now - I assume. Although ultimately over - unity generators that can tap the infinite and inexhaustible quantum/vacuum field is better. Your knowledge of science is poor - there is very little vacuum energy. forgiven namaste   Really? Evidence please.

ZPM  :D

Unforgiven wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 12:56am:

We have to devise a means to make thorium attractive to house flippers. It can then ride the housing boom.

Make kitchen tops out of thorium ;)

Can thorium produce 1.21 gigawatts of power for time travel?
http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls52r5jUDz1r0vpqg.jpg

There is a whole universe of vacuum. There is also a renewable vacuum source in the minds of the Australian public.

No to nuclear.

https://video-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hvideo-xaf1/v/t42.1790-2/1295130_10201324988959353_13845_n.mp4?efg=eyJybHIiOjU1OSwicmxhIjozNDUyfQ%3D%3D&rl=559&vabr=311&oh=ef58dc299037d23120e2e42cf91a770f&oe=55F7B83C

Think that they have looked at it, the answer was NO thanks.

Silly poll, the only answer is yes even if you don't think it a good idea you have to say yes to look at it before rejecting it, otherwise there is no reason for rejecting it.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 3:07pm:

Silly poll, the only answer is yes even if you don't think it a good idea you have to say yes to look at it before rejecting it, otherwise there is no reason for rejecting it.

Quite right.

I don't think enough money has been spent on it by anyone
I've spent months studying it  it has to be the answer.
They put too much money into fusion instead
but you see how rich the Arabs are from selling energy?
We could sell Thorium energy & be 1000 times richer -
we're just too dumb or poorly led.
Thorium is so cheap that we could make fuel out of CO2 in the air & water -
sell synthetic petrol  & aviation fuel  !!!!
It's better than a gold mine &
we could put all the oil companies out of business.
Imagine if we could sell synthetic petrol cheaper than they can get it out of the ground?

Will Turnbull pick up on Thorium?

Quote:

When thorium is ingested, 99.98% does not remain in the body. Out of the thorium that does remain in the body, three quarters of it accumulates in the skeleton. While absorption through the skin is possible, it is not a likely means of thorium exposure.[98] Powdered thorium metal is pyrophoric and often ignites spontaneously in air.[4] Natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the alpha radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as a gas mantle, is considered safe.[98] Because 232Th is only mildly radioactive, but decays to more dangerous radionuclides such as radium and radon, emitting alpha and gamma radiation, a proper assessment of the radiological toxicity of 232Th must include the contribution of its daughters such as 228Ra.[99] Exposure to an aerosol of thorium, however, can lead to increased risk of cancers of the lung, pancreas, and blood, as lungs and other internal organs can be penetrated by alpha radiation.[98] Exposure to thorium internally leads to increased risk of liver diseases. Thorium is radioactive and produces a radioactive gas, radon-220, as one of its decay products. Secondary decay products of thorium include radium and actinium. Because of this, there are concerns about the safety of thorium mantles. Some nuclear safety agencies make recommendations about their use.[100] Production of gas mantles has led to some safety concerns during manufacture. The chemical toxicity of thorium is low because thorium and its most common compounds (mostly the dioxide) are poorly soluble in water.[101] Nevertheless, some thorium compounds are chemically moderately toxic. People who work with thorium compounds are at a risk of dermatitis. It can take as much as thirty years after the ingestion of thorium for symptoms to manifest themselves.[96]

Another asbestosis in the making.

Gnads wrote on Sep 16^th, 2015 at 6:56am:

Quote: When thorium is ingested, 99.98% does not remain in the body. Out of the thorium that does remain in the body, three quarters of it accumulates in the skeleton. While absorption through the skin is possible, it is not a likely means of thorium exposure.[98] Powdered thorium metal is pyrophoric and often ignites spontaneously in air.[4] Natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the alpha radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as a gas mantle, is considered safe.[98] Because 232Th is only mildly radioactive, but decays to more dangerous radionuclides such as radium and radon, emitting alpha and gamma radiation, a proper assessment of the radiological toxicity of 232Th must include the contribution of its daughters such as 228Ra.[99] Exposure to an aerosol of thorium, however, can lead to increased risk of cancers of the lung, pancreas, and blood, as lungs and other internal organs can be penetrated by alpha radiation.[98] Exposure to thorium internally leads to increased risk of liver diseases. Thorium is radioactive and produces a radioactive gas, radon-220, as one of its decay products. Secondary decay products of thorium include radium and actinium. Because of this, there are concerns about the safety of thorium mantles. Some nuclear safety agencies make recommendations about their use.[100] Production of gas mantles has led to some safety concerns during manufacture. The chemical toxicity of thorium is low because thorium and its most common compounds (mostly the dioxide) are poorly soluble in water.[101] Nevertheless, some thorium compounds are chemically moderately toxic. People who work with thorium compounds are at a risk of dermatitis. It can take as much as thirty years after the ingestion of thorium for symptoms to manifest themselves.[96] Another asbestosis in the making.

The difference is that you don't end up with huge piles of waste when you use Thorium compared to Uranium.

Australia runs on coal, and is coal shed to the world. I believe this is a bigger obstacle to Thorium consideration than public opinion.

issuevoter wrote on Sep 16^th, 2015 at 7:16am:

Australia runs on coal, and is coal shed to the world. I believe this is a bigger obstacle to Thorium consideration than public opinion.

Thorium has the potential to make us all millionaires -

much more than coal ever did.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 15^th, 2015 at 6:47am:

Richdude wrote on Sep 15th, 2015 at 1:19am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:02pm: We need something like the Manhattan Project but devoted to peace & infinite energy. We need at least 10,000 scientists working around the clock &  $billions poured into it. Whatever country which cracks the secrets of Thorium will rule this planet. Your right Sir Bobby - well almost. A thorium reactor ran for 5 years at Oak Ridge, Tn, 50 years ago. Our knowledge is much greater now - I assume. Although ultimately over - unity generators that can tap the infinite and inexhaustible quantum/vacuum field is better. Your knowledge of science is poor - there is very little vacuum energy. forgiven namaste

How do you know what my science knowledge is?
And you have not answered my question.
All energy originates from the vacuum according to Kepler and earlier physicists and these theories are just re-emerging now. 

India is probably the leading research country because Thorium is the only fuel India has in abundance.

I still don't understand why you would bother trying to develop thorium reactors commercially. 
Uranium has many technical advantages over thorium in regards to pile engineering, and its not like uranium is rare.
Using conventional reactor tech we have enough uranium to power the planet for the next 6000 years approximately.

It also leaves you with the major issues of waste disposal and electron embrittlment that conventional reactors have, as well as new safety issues arising from the use of molten salts instead of solid rods.

Many of the early reactor failures were related to the sodium cooling systems they used, which were phased out in favour of safer water cooling.  Thorium reactors need a sodium based heat transfer mechanism, and the extra risk that come with it.

I'm a huge fan of developing technology to help humanity, but Thorium reactors are not the solution globally. They may have there place in Uranium poor energy hungry countries like china and India, but that is due to political forces, not technical superiority.

Fusion. Hugely expensive, and perennially 20 years away is the future. Everything else is just a way of keeping the lights on till we get that working properly.

There have been huge gains in the last 10 years in the fields of plasma confinement and high energy composites which show that finally, we may be the in 20 years that actually gets the job done.

Lockheed Martin have been banging on about a new miniature magnetic bottle technique that they say is awesome, but I think the best bet is ITER.
Its cost a bazillion dollars, but the Germans and the Swiss are involved so it'll do something! 

Rather than investing in an offshoot of a non-satisfactory energy generation technique we would be much better putting our research dollars into technology compatible with the energy generation needs of the future. I.e, Higher temperature superconductors, super high temperature resistant materiel's and efficiency improvements in existing devices.

Also, batteries. Someone needs to get aluminium air tech working properly so we can have 100% electric cars and piss off that thermodynamically nonsensical hybrid stuff.

My 2C    

Richdude wrote on Sep 16^th, 2015 at 11:45am:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 15th, 2015 at 6:47am: Richdude wrote on Sep 15th, 2015 at 1:19am: Bobby. wrote on Sep 14th, 2015 at 11:02pm: We need something like the Manhattan Project but devoted to peace & infinite energy. We need at least 10,000 scientists working around the clock &  $billions poured into it. Whatever country which cracks the secrets of Thorium will rule this planet. Your right Sir Bobby - well almost. A thorium reactor ran for 5 years at Oak Ridge, Tn, 50 years ago. Our knowledge is much greater now - I assume. Although ultimately over - unity generators that can tap the infinite and inexhaustible quantum/vacuum field is better. Your knowledge of science is poor - there is very little vacuum energy. forgiven namaste How do you know what my science knowledge is? And you have not answered my question. All energy originates from the vacuum according to Kepler and earlier physicists and these theories are just re-emerging now.

It look like we are much closer to fusion than quantum manipulation of underspace for energy generation. While theoretical mathematics predict it to be possible, we have not even got the technology to prove the maths, let alone actually harnessing energy from the foam. 

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 16^th, 2015 at 2:37pm:

I still don't understand why you would bother trying to develop thorium reactors commercially.  Uranium has many technical advantages over thorium in regards to pile engineering, and its not like uranium is rare. Using conventional reactor tech we have enough uranium to power the planet for the next 6000 years approximately. It also leaves you with the major issues of waste disposal and electron embrittlment that conventional reactors have, as well as new safety issues arising from the use of molten salts instead of solid rods. Many of the early reactor failures were related to the sodium cooling systems they used, which were phased out in favour of safer water cooling.  Thorium reactors need a sodium based heat transfer mechanism, and the extra risk that come with it. I'm a huge fan of developing technology to help humanity, but Thorium reactors are not the solution globally. They may have there place in Uranium poor energy hungry countries like china and India, but that is due to political forces, not technical superiority. Fusion. Hugely expensive, and perennially 20 years away is the future. Everything else is just a way of keeping the lights on till we get that working properly. There have been huge gains in the last 10 years in the fields of plasma confinement and high energy composites which show that finally, we may be the in 20 years that actually gets the job done. Lockheed Martin have been banging on about a new miniature magnetic bottle technique that they say is awesome, but I think the best bet is ITER. Its cost a bazillion dollars, but the Germans and the Swiss are involved so it'll do something!  Rather than investing in an offshoot of a non-satisfactory energy generation technique we would be much better putting our research dollars into technology compatible with the energy generation needs of the future. I.e, Higher temperature superconductors, super high temperature resistant materiel's and efficiency improvements in existing devices. Also, batteries. Someone needs to get aluminium air tech working properly so we can have 100% electric cars and piss off that thermodynamically nonsensical hybrid stuff. My 2C

Uranium 235 is very rare - only 0.7% of Uranium metal.

It's rarer than platinum.

But you only need 3% U 235 for fission.
I'm not saying you can get it at the milk bar, but there is enough uranium for worldwide demand if you tap seawater, and approx 50 years on known land based deposits.

That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 16^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

But you only need 3% U 235 for fission. I'm not saying you can get it at the milk bar, but there is enough uranium for worldwide demand if you tap seawater, and approx 50 years on known land based deposits. That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.

But you don't understand:
95% of Thorium is fissionable if it's bombarded with neutrons.

Also it stops it's fission as soon as you stop the neutrons - it can't melt down -
it doesn't need a 70 atmosphere pressure water reactor.

It's walk away safe if something goes wrong - not like Fukushima.

I'm not saying that thorium reactors don't have advantages over uranium reactors, Just pointing out that diverting energy to research a marginally superior technology is less efficient than figuring out an infinity superior technology.

My understanding of current design thorium reactors is that they rely on uranium 235 as a neutron source, so you can still get a meltdown if the neutron source is not controlled.  Much less likely than a uranium based reactor but still possible.

Another disadvantage of thorium reactors is the difficulty reprocessing fuel. This is a plus from a non proliferation standpoint, but a big negative from a reactor efficiency perspective.
A uranium based reactor only consumes a small amount of the uranium in a fuel rod, with uranium the fuel rods can be reprocessed(which also creates nuclear weapon fuel) and reused.
With thorium reactors this process doesn't work, which reduces their fuel economy relative to uranium.

Its not that thorium reactors are terrible, just they don't have enough advantages over uranium to justify the development expense, unless you cant access uranium(which is why India and China are interested).   

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 16^th, 2015 at 9:30pm:

But you only need 3% U 235 for fission. I'm not saying you can get it at the milk bar, but there is enough uranium for worldwide demand if you tap seawater, and approx 50 years on known land based deposits. That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.

It's a dirty and potentially unsafe technology and the reactors need reconditioning after 30 years at the cost of billions. There are no free lunches with Uranium.

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 17^th, 2015 at 3:37pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: But you only need 3% U 235 for fission. I'm not saying you can get it at the milk bar, but there is enough uranium for worldwide demand if you tap seawater, and approx 50 years on known land based deposits. That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually. It's a dirty and potentially unsafe technology and the reactors need reconditioning after 30 years at the cost of billions. There are no free lunches with Uranium.

Uranium is dirty and unsafe. Thorium is marginally cleaner and safer.  Both produce nasty radioactive waste. There are plusses and minuses to both technologies.
Thorium waste decays much faster, should be safe after 1000 years.
Uranium produces 97% less waste if its reprocessed, but lasts half a million years.


Both technologies suffer from neutron embrittlment of the reactor cores and need periodic replacement of said item (so will fusion cores when we get that far).

I think thorium reactors are theoretically better than uranium reactors, but not so much better that it justifies diverting research from other more worthwhile technologies.

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 17^th, 2015 at 7:31pm:

Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 17th, 2015 at 3:37pm: Pho Huc wrote on Sep 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: But you only need 3% U 235 for fission. I'm not saying you can get it at the milk bar, but there is enough uranium for worldwide demand if you tap seawater, and approx 50 years on known land based deposits. That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually. It's a dirty and potentially unsafe technology and the reactors need reconditioning after 30 years at the cost of billions. There are no free lunches with Uranium. Uranium is dirty and unsafe. Thorium is marginally cleaner and safer.  Both produce nasty radioactive waste. There are plusses and minuses to both technologies. Thorium waste decays much faster, should be safe after 1000 years. Uranium produces 97% less waste if its reprocessed, but lasts half a million years. Both technologies suffer from neutron embrittlment of the reactor cores and need periodic replacement of said item (so will fusion cores when we get that far). I think thorium reactors are theoretically better than uranium reactors, but not so much better that it justifies diverting research from other more worthwhile technologies.

Thorium is much safer by at least 3 orders of magnitude.

I want to see us buy up all the Chinese & Indian scientists
who are already nearly there & develop it ourselves.

Thorium reactors could be so safe that we could have them in our suburbs.
There is no pressure vessel with 70 atmospheres of pressure.
They can't melt down.
I see all uranium reactors as ticking time bombs that should never have been built.

We wouldn't need 1000s of miles of transmission lines -
make the power where it's needed.

Bobby. wrote on Sep 17^th, 2015 at 7:40pm:

Pho Huc wrote on Sep 17th, 2015 at 7:31pm: Sir lastnail wrote on Sep 17th, 2015 at 3:37pm: Pho Huc wrote on Sep 16th, 2015 at 9:30pm: But you only need 3% U 235 for fission. I'm not saying you can get it at the milk bar, but there is enough uranium for worldwide demand if you tap seawater, and approx 50 years on known land based deposits. That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually. It's a dirty and potentially unsafe technology and the reactors need reconditioning after 30 years at the cost of billions. There are no free lunches with Uranium. Uranium is dirty and unsafe. Thorium is marginally cleaner and safer.  Both produce nasty radioactive waste. There are plusses and minuses to both technologies. Thorium waste decays much faster, should be safe after 1000 years. Uranium produces 97% less waste if its reprocessed, but lasts half a million years. Both technologies suffer from neutron embrittlment of the reactor cores and need periodic replacement of said item (so will fusion cores when we get that far). I think thorium reactors are theoretically better than uranium reactors, but not so much better that it justifies diverting research from other more worthwhile technologies. Thorium is much safer by at least 3 orders of magnitude. I want to see us buy up all the Chinese & Indian scientists who are already nearly there & develop it ourselves. Thorium reactors could be so safe that we could have them in our suburbs. There is no pressure vessel with 70 atmospheres of pressure. They can't melt down. I see all uranium reactors as ticking time bombs that should never have been built. We wouldn't need 1000s of miles of transmission lines - make the power where it's needed.

Id love to see what happened if you threw a whole heap of Indian and Chinese scientists together on a project.
Providing its not my project :)
Chinese and Indians probably get on worse than Chinese and Japanese!

Seriously though I do like the idea of a distributed energy generation grid, transmission losses are a killer.

I think you may be wasting your time looking for such a solution from thorium power though, even with the greater safety you still have radiation dramas and all the NIMBY, fuel transport and capital intensive facility problems that you get with conventional uranium fueled power plants.    

Dear Pho,
I think the idea would catch on eventually.

e.g. you could start off with a small country town of say 10,000
people all supplied by one safe Thorium reactor.
Let's say it produced really cheap power at 1/10 of the price we pay now.
Let's say it went on for 10 years or more -
other towns & cities would soon get the idea & it would spread.

You'd get places like Geelong - out of Melbourne supplied by one Thorium reactor.
Soon enough - whole city suburbs in larger places like Melbourne would get theirs too.
It would be a revolution.

Uranium reactors like Chernobyl & Fukushima have given nuclear power a bad name.
Once Thorium is proven as safe people would accept it.

Any radiation could be easily shielded so that the normal background level
would be maintained only 100 meters away from the reactor.

One possible problem:
the molten salt  - if it ever escaped would cause a radiation hazard
but I'm sure the design could be made to prevent that.

It's quite amazing that more uranium reactors haven't blown up as
they are really highly pressurised ticking time bombs.
The chain reaction from Uranium is scary & get get out of control.

Thorium doesn't have a chain reaction.

Can Turnbull turn our country around & get some Thorium science happening?

Mal loves coal.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 11:20pm:

Mal loves coal.

I hope not -

we need something to replace all the coal & iron -

which used to fetch a high price -
now it's hardly worth mining.

I say nay to nuclear anything.

You seem to be proponents of the "Nuclear Insanity of our Time".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTuqy6RpFQ

Gnads wrote on Sep 20^th, 2015 at 9:37am:

I say nay to nuclear anything. You seem to be proponents of the "Nuclear Insanity of our Time". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8hTuqy6RpFQ

Helen doesn't understand Thorium

she is forgiven

namaste

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b76/timbo2530/thorium.jpg