Let's get the thread that I promised, started with a short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors



Ross Clements
Published on Mar 10, 2012
A short video of Kirk Sorensen taking us through the benefits of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, a revolutionary liquid reactor that runs not on uranium, but thorium. These work and have been built before. Search for either LFTRs or Molten Salt Reactors (MSR).

FAQ
The main downsides/negatives to the LFTR are technology, politics, corrosion and the general public being scared of nuclear radiation. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors were created 50 years ago by an American chap named Alvin Weinberg, but the American Government realised you can't weaponise the by-products and so they weren't interested.

Another point, yes it WAS corrosive, but these tests of this reactor were 50 years ago, our technology has definitely improved since then so a leap to create this reactor shouldn't be too hard.

And nuclear fear is extremely common in the average person, rather irrational though it may be. More people have died from fossil fuels and even hydroelectric power than nuclear power.

No, it would not collapse the economy (yes, people actually ask this question)... just like the use of uranium reactors didn't... neither did coal... This is because you wouldn't have an instant transition from coal... oil... everything else to thorium. We could not do that. Simply due to the engineering. Give it 50 years we might be using thorium instead of coal/oil (too late in terms of global warming, but that's another debate completely), but we certainly won't destroy the earth's economy. Duh.

And yes he said we'd never run out. Not strictly true... bloody sceptics ... LFTRs can harness 3.5 million Kwh per Kg of thorium! 70 times greater than uranium, 10,000 greater than oil... and there is over 2.6 million tonnes of it on earth...  Anyone with a calculator, or a brain, will understand that is a lot of energy!!

Any more questions I will try and answer.

If it's that good and easy why hasn't private enterprise already commercialized it?

Perhaps Australians are not up to the technology and will require Homer Simpson training.

I can just imagine denizens Gnads and Yadda running a reactor and denizen Gordon shoveling the spent fuel.

We will have to wait until China or India perfects and sells us the technology and the Thorium.


Quote:

Up and coming nuclear reactor powerhouses China and India both have substantial reserves of Thorium-bearing minerals and not as much Uranium. So, expect this energy source to become a big deal in the not-too-distant future…

Don't thank Trump! The poms have urinated on your parade Bobby.

They have poo-pooed Thorium.

https://youtu.be/H6mhw-CNxaE

dear Unforgiven,
I suggest you watch the entire video.
It actually promotes Thorium.

forgiven

namaste रति

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kBCMEUuSNw


Thorium Summary - "Th" Documentary


gordonmcdowell
Published on Jul 29, 2013
http://patreon.com/thorium Dissolving thorium into molten salts allows more efficient conversion into energy than today's uranium oxide fuel rods.

The amount of waste generated, the amount of energy generated, and the expanded versatility of this new "Molten Salt Reactor" call into question our perception of nuclear power.

How safe can a nuclear reactor be, if we free ourselves from the "technological lock-in" of uranium oxide solid fuel?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woNU2Vgl7j0

Modular Thorium Reactor

Raw Science
Published on Nov 6, 2014
Dr. Frank Shu is a celebrated astrophysicist and Shaw Prize winner now dedicated to making an impact on climate change. He has developed a process that converts biomass to carbon neutral (or negative) coal that can be enhanced by a molten salt nuclear reaction.

Sponsored by: National Tsing Hua University
Executive Producer: Mitchell Block
Producer: Keri Kukral, Donald Goldsmith
Director/Editor: Brian Weidling
Presenter: Brian Heater
Music: Brian Allen Simon




Bobby
5 months ago

Quote:

Great video & answers to questions. How does the cleaning process work? What stops the delicate graphite reactor from crumbling to pieces?

FShu,

Quote:

Sir Bobby, excellent questions to which my answers are given in detail below. Cleaning the salt: To complete the breeding cycle, there are two salts that require cleaning.  The fuel salt requires the removal of fission products that would absorb neutrons needed to maintain the chain reaction, with an excess of neutrons from each fission of U-233 that goes toward the conversion of Th-232 into Th-233.  The last species becomes U-233 after two beta-decays.   The most important  fission product to remove is Xe-135, which has a huge cross section (2 million times greater than normal) for capturing neutrons.  The isotopes of Kr are also abundantly represented in fission products and are important to remove for the same reason.  Fortunately, both are noble gases that will bubble out of the liquid salt if we sparge a carrier noble gas like helium into the pump bowl.  Next, the fissile U-233 needs to be reclaimed before further cleaning of the fuel salt.  Sparging fluorine gas, F2, into small samples of fuel salt will convert UF4 into UF6.  While UF4 is a liquid at temperatures characteristic of the fuel salt, UF6 is a gas and will, if encouraged, bubble out of the molten salt.  This step also removes compounds of volatile fission products like dangerous I-131 with an 8-hr half-life .  To separate the UF6 from the other volatile species, the vapor is passed through a powder of NaF-BeF2, which will adsorb the UF6 while letting the other gases through to be bottled and stored as radioactive nuclear waste.  By then passing hydrogen gas, H2, though the powder, the trapped UF6 is converted back to UF4 with the release of 2 molecules of HF gas for each molecule of UF4 or UF6.  The NaF-BeF2-UF4 can be put back into the reactor core as clean fuel salt, while the 2HF can be converted by electrolysis to F2 + H2.  The recycled F2 can be used to convert a new batch of UF4 to UF6 that is trapped in fresh NaF-BeF2, while the recycled H2 can be used to convert the UF6 trapped in NaF-eF2-UF6 into a new batch of cleaned fuel salt, NaF-BeF2-UF4. Where does the fresh NaF-BeF2 come from?  The small samples of fuel salt into which we sparge fluorine gas, F2, has not only NaF-BeF2, but also non-volatile fission products, some of which are extremely radioactive.  The high radioactivity will steadily try to increase the temperature of the fuel salt.  If we pump down the pressure above the contaminated fuel salt, we can vacuum-distill the fuel salt so that NaF-Be2 boils away as a gas once the temperature gets above 1000 C.  This vacuum distillation produces gaseous NaF-BeF2, which will become a liquid and then a solid as it cools down.  The pure solid NaF-BeF2 is what is made into a powder to capture the UF6 in the previous paragraph.  The non-volatile fission products left behind need to be divided into very small parcels, so that their large surface-to-volume ratios allow them to be cooled, and then converted from fluoride forms into safer oxide or silicate forms.  We put the parcels of solid oxide or silicate fission products into cold storage for up to five years, before fusing them with non-radioactive glasses to be buried for, say, three hundred years until the radioactivity decays to safe background levels. Blanket salt When we write UF4 or UF6 in the above, the U we are assuming is mostly U-233 (with a little accompanying U-232).  Natural uranium is mostly U-238 with a little U-235 mixed in.  Where do we get the U-233? The answer is from the blanket salt, which is either NaF-BeF2-ThF4 or, more simply, NaF-ThF4, with natural thorium being almost pure Th-232.  When Th-232 is irradiated by neutrons generated in the reactor core in excess of what is needed to maintain the chain reaction, the Th-232 can capture a neutron and become Th-233.  After two beta decays, the Th-233 turns into U-233.  In the blanket salt, the U-233 is in the form of UF4.  To separate the UF4 from the rest of the blanket salt, we remove a small batch of the blanket salt from the pool for off-line processing.  The processing consists of sparging F2 into the small sample, whiich converts the UF4 into UF6 that bubbles out of the blanket salt.  Unlike uranium, thorium does not have any valence state higher than +4, so the thorium stays as ThF4 and remains as a liquid in the cleaned blanket, salt which can be put back into the pool. As before, a powder of NaF-BeF2 can capture the UF6, with the combination turned into fuel salt by the methods described earlier.  Indeed, to prevent the cleaned fuel salt from dropping in U-233 concentration, we should add the UF6 extracted from the blanket salt as a supplement to the UF6 that comes from cleaning the fuel salt to make up whatever was lost by fission reactions in the core. In this way, the reactor becomes a breeder, which is self-sustaining in its fuel requirements as long as we have enough thorium in the blanket salt.

FShu,

Quote:

Strength of Graphite Your other question concerns how to prevent the "delicate" graphite reactor from crumbling into pieces? It is true that the graphite in pencils is delicate and will crumble into pieces if one removes it from its wooden or metal casing.  However, reactor-grade graphite is made from much larger coherent pieces and has much greater physical integrity.  Such graphite is composed of a stack of 2-D sheets (called graphene), which are very strong in the lateral directions, hundreds of times stronger than structural steel of the same weight.  They are not very strong in the direction perpendicular to the 2-D sheet; indeed, sheets of graphene can be lifted away from other sheets by scotch tape (the method used by the team that won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2010).  But if one compresses the reactor-grade graphite in the perpendicular direction, rather than try to pull it apart -- as is case with the modular construction shown in our video -- then the configuration is very strong, and can easily withstand the conditions present in a molten salt reactor.  Indeed, a peculiarity of graphite, in contrast to metals, is that its mechanical strength increases with increasing temperature.  Well above the temperature where even the most refractory metals melt or vaporize, reactor-grade graphite remains an intact strong solid. In particular, the mechanical macroscopic strength of graphene in the lateral direction translates on a microscopic level to a resistance against chemical attack by all elements other than extremely reactive oxygen.  The reason is that each carbon atom in graphene connects to three other carbons by a strong double bond, known to chemists as a sigma bond.  It is very difficult for any other atom to insert itself between any two carbons held together by a sigma double-bond.  The only way for even an oxygen atom to attack a sheet of graphene is at the edges, where by definition the carbon atoms do not have other carbons with which they are bonded on the empty side of the edge.  This is why reactor-grade graphite burns very slowly, even if you apply a blowtorch to it (as we and others have done as demonstration tests).  As soon as you remove the torch, the flames go out because the graphite can burn only at the edges.  The corrosion resistance of graphite means that it is an ideal material with which to build nuclear reactors, where fission products are generated with chemical positions that span all the columns (but not all the rows) of the periodic table. The only problem is that even reactor-grade graphite is porous, and one must be able to seal the pores if one wants to build a two-fluid molten-salt reactor, where the molten fuel salt and blanket salt do not mix inside the reactor.  This is a problem we solved by extending techniques discussed by the Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s.  We subsequently realized that the sealing is easier if we constructed the reactor out of carbon-fiber-reinforced-carbon (CFRC) tubes rather than blocks of reactor-grade graphite.  (SpaceX seems to have subsequently made the same discovery in its construction of carbon-fiber tanks to hold liquid rocket fuel.)  Carbon fibers are basically yarns made of long strands of graphene.  If one rolls up a sheet of graphene into a long cylinder, the result is called a carbon nanotube, which is one of the strongest materials ever constructed by humans.  If one folds and connects the ends of a short carbon nanotube in the third dimension, so that there are no edges anywhere, the result is a buckyball or fullerence, which is the strongest 3-D structure per unit mass in nature, except for diamonds, where each carbon is double-bonded with, not three, but four other carbons.  Thus, contrary to everyday experience, carbon-based materials, when they are made properly, are the least likely in nature to "crumble into pieces."

Bobby
5 months ago

Quote:

Thank you Dr. Frank Shu for that very detailed reply. The cleaning process is very complicated & the graphite construction is not easy either.

FShu
5 months ago

Quote:

Sir Bobby, "complicated" is in the eye of the beholder; however, I agree with your basic point that 2F-MSBRs are not for novices. Given that current fission-reactor technology has no solution to the problem of high-level nuclear waste, the proposed steps are relatively simple and involve no processes that are not already practiced by industry (e.g., fluoride volatility or sparging gases into liquids). Likewise, carbon-fiber composites are already used to build airplanes like the Boeing 787 (Dreamliner) to save on weight without sacrificing strength.   Sealing the graphite-based materials against intrusion by liquids or gases is the only novel step in its use for nuclear reactors.

So in summary -

the cleaning process is vital to the operation of a molten salt Thorium reactor.
Think of it as like a kidney in your body.
The kidney cleans out the waste from the blood.
If left alone a Thorium reactor will slowly poison itself & fail to cause fission & heat.
Therefore the molten salt must be removed a small amount at a time -
cleaned & returned to the cycle.

This involves complex industrial processes.
Although it's a considerable drawback it also makes the Thorium reactor very safe as
a situation like Chernobyl of Fukushima cannot happen.
A meltdown is impossible.
in fact - at worst case it's walk away safe.

So the question remains -

why hasn't Australia invested even one penny into a Thorium research reactor?

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:35pm:

So the question remains - why hasn't Australia invested even one penny into a Thorium research reactor?

aussies can't even make pulverised sheep sh.t let alone a nuclear reactor. In this months Silicon Chip magazine there is a whole article on the latest reactor technologies

http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2018/March/Generation+IV+Nuclear+Power+%E2%80%93+making+their+own+fuel?res=nonflash

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 4:48am:

dear Unforgiven, I suggest you watch the entire video. It actually promotes Thorium. forgiven namaste रति

Rubbish.  At what point in that video does it endorse/promote Thorium power?

Sir lastnail wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:40pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 7:35pm: So the question remains - why hasn't Australia invested even one penny into a Thorium research reactor? aussies can't even make pulverised sheep sh.t let alone a nuclear reactor. In this months Silicon Chip magazine there is a whole article on the latest reactor technologies http://www.siliconchip.com.au/Issue/2018/March/Generation+IV+Nuclear+Power+%E2%80%93+making+their+own+fuel?res=nonflash

It's almost a crime that we haven't looked into Thorium.
I believe 600 nuclear scientists are working on it in China.

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:55pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 4:48am: dear Unforgiven, I suggest you watch the entire video. It actually promotes Thorium. forgiven namaste रति Rubbish.  At what point in that video does it endorse/promote Thorium power?

almost the whole video - try 42:44
or 50:00

At least have the courtesy to watch the video before calling it rubbish.
You're getting worse than Monk.

Just goes to prove that you have no idea what you are posting.  The whole video is a Thorium Debunk.

Carry on selling snake oil Bobby.

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:24pm:

Just goes to prove that you have no idea what you are posting.  The whole video is a Thorium Debunk. Carry on selling snake oil Bobby.

Have you watched the entire video because I have.
If you're just going to be a troll then don't bother posting.

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:24pm:

Just goes to prove that you have no idea what you are posting.  The whole video is a Thorium Debunk. Carry on selling snake oil Bobby.

Oh? You mean a Mar 2017 video showing 2014 and 2015 analyses? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

August 22, 2017 A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608712/a-thorium-salt-reactor-has-fired-up-for-the-first-time-in-four-decades/

China spending US$3.3 billion on molten salt nuclear reactors for faster aircraft carriers and in flying drones

https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/12/china-spending-us3-3-billion-on-molten-salt-nuclear-reactors-for-faster-aircraft-carriers-and-in-flying-drones.html

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 8:24pm: Just goes to prove that you have no idea what you are posting.  The whole video is a Thorium Debunk. Carry on selling snake oil Bobby. Have you watched the entire video because I have. If you're just going to be a troll then don't bother posting.

Is that a threat, Bobby?  I'm not allowed to refer to your posts as selling snake oil?

Jump to 45:40 in the video.


https://youtu.be/H6mhw-CNxaE

You'll see this picture.
Notice the tiny red sliver on the Uranium pie chart?
That's all we are using of Uranium - U235.
Most of the Uranium is unusable as U238.
It's the only fissile part - just 0.7% of the mass - a tiny amount compared to the amount of Thorium in Green that is available.
U235 is as rare as platinum!

---

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 8:43pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 8:36pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 8:24pm: Just goes to prove that you have no idea what you are posting.  The whole video is a Thorium Debunk. Carry on selling snake oil Bobby. Have you watched the entire video because I have. If you're just going to be a troll then don't bother posting. Is that a threat, Bobby?  I'm not allowed to refer to your posts as selling snake oil?

Aussie - I refer you to the rules:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1517021871/0#0


Quote:

I can add that at least a modicum of respect is to be shown to other posters.

Why did France and Japan abandon thorium, Bobby?  Why is China so slow in using it, Bobby?  How is India going?  The USA, the UK....anywhere?

You did not tell me about this vvvvvvv.

Am I not allowed to say that you are posting snake oil gibber?  You have zero qualifications in the area, you are solely reliant on dumb YouTube videos like those produced by Debuyne.

Bobby, I have given you the benefit of a modicum of respect.....I have zero respect for what you post.  It is gibber.

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Why did France and Japan abandon thorium, Bobby?  Why is China so slow in using it, Bobby?  How is India going?  The USA, the UK....anywhere? You did not tell me about this vvvvvvv. Am I not allowed to say that you are posting snake oil gibber?  You have zero qualifications in the area, you are solely reliant on dumb YouTube videos like those produced by Debuyne. Bobby, I have given you the benefit of a modicum of respect.....I have zero respect for what you post.  It is gibber.

Then I suggest you refrain from posting here anymore.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:14pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:10pm: Why did France and Japan abandon thorium, Bobby?  Why is China so slow in using it, Bobby?  How is India going?  The USA, the UK....anywhere? You did not tell me about this vvvvvvv. Am I not allowed to say that you are posting snake oil gibber?  You have zero qualifications in the area, you are solely reliant on dumb YouTube videos like those produced by Debuyne. Bobby, I have given you the benefit of a modicum of respect.....I have zero respect for what you post.  It is gibber. Then I suggest you refrain from posting here anymore.

Suggest as much as you like.  I'll continue posting unless I am appropriately banned, as per the Rules.

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Why did France and Japan abandon thorium, Bobby?

Couldn't get it to work.


Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:10pm:

Why is China so slow in using it, Bobby?

You have to engineer it? Do you understand engineering?


Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:10pm:

How is India going?

India Has Almost Finished The World’s First Advanced Thorium Nuclear Reactor
2:35 PM 07/10/2017

http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/10/india-has-almost-finished-the-worlds-first-advanced-thorium-nuclear-reactor/


You do understand Google, don't you?

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:20pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:10pm: Why did France and Japan abandon thorium, Bobby?  Couldn't get it to work. Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:10pm: Why is China so slow in using it, Bobby?  You have to engineer it? Do you understand engineering? Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:10pm: How is India going? India Has Almost Finished The World’s First Advanced Thorium Nuclear Reactor 2:35 PM 07/10/2017 http://dailycaller.com/2017/07/10/india-has-almost-finished-the-worlds-first-advanced-thorium-nuclear-reactor/ You do understand Google, don't you?

Yes, that is exactly why I asked the question.

;)

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:25pm:

Yes, that is exactly why I asked the question.

And yet you didn't seem to arrive at a conclusion. ;)

Apart from a tired old "debunked".

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:25pm: Yes, that is exactly why I asked the question. And yet you didn't seem to arrive at a conclusion. ;) Apart from a tired old "debunked".

And he didn't comment on the graph either.
Best to ignore strong evidence when you're a troll.

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:39pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:25pm: Yes, that is exactly why I asked the question. And yet you didn't seem to arrive at a conclusion. ;) Apart from a tired old "debunked".

I did.  I told Bobby he was posting gibber, and got threatened for my efforts.  Seems we are not allowed to be critical of what he posts.

Why has the most advanced advanced technologies like USA, the UK, 'Europe,' etc etc not embraced Thorium?  I guess Bobby will tell us.

:) :) :) :) :) :)

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 9:47pm:

lee wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:39pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:25pm: Yes, that is exactly why I asked the question. And yet you didn't seem to arrive at a conclusion. ;) Apart from a tired old "debunked". I did.  I told Bobby he was posting gibber, and got threatened for my efforts.  Seems we are not allowed to be critical of what he posts. Why has the most advanced advanced technologies like USA, the UK, 'Europe,' etc etc not embraced Thorium?  I guess Bobby will tell us. :) :) :) :) :) :)

https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608712/a-thorium-salt-reactor-has-fired-up-for-the-first-time-in-four-decades/

A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

The road to cleaner, meltdown-proof nuclear power has taken a big step forward. Researchers at NRG, a Dutch nuclear materials firm, have begun the first tests of nuclear fission using thorium salts since experiments ended at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1970s.

Thorium has several advantages over uranium, the fuel that powers most nuclear reactors in service today. First, it's much harder to weaponize. Second, as we pointed out last year in a long read on thorium-salt reactors, designs that call for using it in a liquid form are, essentially, self-regulating and fail-safe.

The team at NRG is testing several reactor designs on a small scale at first. The first experiment is on a setup called a molten-salt fast reactor, which burns thorium salt and in theory should also be able to consume spent nuclear fuel from typical uranium fission reactions.

The tests come amid renewed global interest in thorium. While updated models of uranium-fueled power plants are struggling mightily to get off the ground in the U.S., several startup companies are exploring molten-salt reactors. China, meanwhile, is charging ahead with big plans for its nuclear industry, including a heavy bet on thorium-based reactors. The country plans to have the first such power plants hooked up to the grid inside 15 years. If they pull it off, it might just help usher in a safer future for nuclear power.



https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145535-thorium-could-power-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/

Short Sharp Science

25 August 2017
Thorium could power the next generation of nuclear reactors

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:02pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:47pm: lee wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:39pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 9:25pm: Yes, that is exactly why I asked the question. And yet you didn't seem to arrive at a conclusion. ;) Apart from a tired old "debunked". I did.  I told Bobby he was posting gibber, and got threatened for my efforts.  Seems we are not allowed to be critical of what he posts. Why has the most advanced advanced technologies like USA, the UK, 'Europe,' etc etc not embraced Thorium?  I guess Bobby will tell us. :) :) :) :) :) :) https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608712/a-thorium-salt-reactor-has-fired-up-for-the-first-time-in-four-decades/ A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades The road to cleaner, meltdown-proof nuclear power has taken a big step forward. Researchers at NRG, a Dutch nuclear materials firm, have begun the first tests of nuclear fission using thorium salts since experiments ended at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1970s. Thorium has several advantages over uranium, the fuel that powers most nuclear reactors in service today. First, it's much harder to weaponize. Second, as we pointed out last year in a long read on thorium-salt reactors, designs that call for using it in a liquid form are, essentially, self-regulating and fail-safe. The team at NRG is testing several reactor designs on a small scale at first. The first experiment is on a setup called a molten-salt fast reactor, which burns thorium salt and in theory should also be able to consume spent nuclear fuel from typical uranium fission reactions. The tests come amid renewed global interest in thorium. While updated models of uranium-fueled power plants are struggling mightily to get off the ground in the U.S., several startup companies are exploring molten-salt reactors. China, meanwhile, is charging ahead with big plans for its nuclear industry, including a heavy bet on thorium-based reactors. The country plans to have the first such power plants hooked up to the grid inside 15 years. If they pull it off, it might just help usher in a safer future for nuclear power. https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145535-thorium-could-power-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/ Short Sharp Science 25 August 2017 Thorium could power the next generation of nuclear reactors

More snake oil gibber!  Did it ever get going Bobby...that Dutch one.  Where is it Bobby?

Here it is Aussie:

https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145535-thorium-could-power-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/


https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/25194236/108906_hvdh.jpg

And as for India.....why is Adani proposing to spend billions on Australian coal if they have this thorium thing nailed?

Let's see your answers Bobby, not YouTube stuff.  Aren't you the expert with appropriate qualifications?  I sure am not, but I can do a basic Google.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:09pm:

Here it is Aussie: https://www.newscientist.com/article/2145535-thorium-could-power-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-reactors/ https://d1o50x50snmhul.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/25194236/108906_hvdh.jpg

I did not bother beyond:


Quote:

Thorium could power the next generation of nuclear reactors.

*My embolding.*

I reckon there could be a real Santa Claus, and even fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:10pm:

And as for India.....why is Adani proposing to spend billions on Australian coal if they have this thorium thing nailed? Let's see your answers Bobby, not YouTube stuff.  Aren't you the expert with appropriate qualifications?  I sure am not, but I can do a basic Google.

Coal is needed for all the currently open coal fire power stations.

A large scale Thorium reactor has not been built yet -
only small experimental reactors.
They are still ironing out some technical problems.


Look at the graph Aussie:

That little red line is all we use now.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Thorium_verus_Uranium_quantity.jpg

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:14pm:

I reckon there could be a real Santa Claus, and even fairies at the bottom of the garden.

Is that the same as there COULD be CAGW? ;)

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:10pm:

And as for India.....why is Adani proposing to spend billions on Australian coal if they have this thorium thing nailed?

You do realise the scare stories about nuclear? That expands the time frame for the approvals process.

You have to get building approval first.

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:22pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:14pm: I reckon there could be a real Santa Claus, and even fairies at the bottom of the garden. Is that the same as there COULD be CAGW? ;)

What has that got to do with this Thread?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:25pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:10pm: And as for India.....why is Adani proposing to spend billions on Australian coal if they have this thorium thing nailed? You do realise the scare stories about nuclear? That expands the time frame for the approvals process. You have to get building approval first.

Also - there is a lot of investment in Uranium.
Those investors must be terrified of Thorium which is so much safer
and could put them all out of business.
This is big -
we're talking about unlimited, cheap, safe power for everyone.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:28pm:

lee wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:25pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:10pm: And as for India.....why is Adani proposing to spend billions on Australian coal if they have this thorium thing nailed? You do realise the scare stories about nuclear? That expands the time frame for the approvals process. You have to get building approval first. Also - there is a lot of investment in Uranium. Those investors must be terrified of Thorium which is so much safer and could put them all out of business. This is big - we're talking about unlimited, cheap, safe power for everyone.

Ah!  So.....it is all a conspiracy theory Bobby?  And right here at OzPol, we have the Messiah who is exposing it!

Give it up Bobby, next minute you'll be telling me the the Earth could be flat and you probably bung up some You Tube stuff in support.

What is the view of it is the light on this Thorium snake oil Bobby?

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:38pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:28pm: lee wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:25pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:10pm: And as for India.....why is Adani proposing to spend billions on Australian coal if they have this thorium thing nailed? You do realise the scare stories about nuclear? That expands the time frame for the approvals process. You have to get building approval first. Also - there is a lot of investment in Uranium. Those investors must be terrified of Thorium which is so much safer and could put them all out of business. This is big - we're talking about unlimited, cheap, safe power for everyone. Ah!  So.....it is all a conspiracy theory Bobby?  And right here at OzPol, we have the Messiah who is exposing it! Give it up Bobby, next minute you'll be telling me the the Earth could be flat and you probably bung up some You Tube stuff in support. What is the view of it is the light on this Thorium snake oil Bobby?

Is Thorium Power Being Suppressed?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_9ldMw--HI


The Thorium Conspiracy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se83QjgU1Eo

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:26pm:

lee wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:22pm: Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:14pm: I reckon there could be a real Santa Claus, and even fairies at the bottom of the garden. Is that the same as there COULD be CAGW? ;) What has that got to do with this Thread? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;) ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Because you believe the COULDS of CAGW, but deny the COULDS of Thorium power.

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:38pm:

Ah!  So.....it is all a conspiracy theory Bobby?

Just like the Big Oil conspiracy? ;)

lee wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 10:58pm:

Aussie wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 10:38pm: Ah!  So.....it is all a conspiracy theory Bobby? Just like the Big Oil conspiracy? ;)

Almost exactly like the big oil conspiracy.
You know - how they suppressed battery technology.
They crushed battery cars.

I watched the first snake oil crap video Bobby, but (even though I am not in bed asleep and am watching cricket Aus v SA) I'll be stuffed if I am going to 'invest' over two hours on the second which will probably be more of the same in the first crap video.

Bobby....the first video had a series of images, and the only one I saw which had any connection with a thorium reactor was some miniature (said to be) thorium reactor thing on a desk.  The rest was rubbish and the script was fancifull snake oil gibber, and that is exactly what you post.

I am out of this Thread......unless you put some other crap up.....which is likely, but I have made my point.  You post gibber.

Are you it is the light?

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 11:05pm:

Are you it is the light?

Are you Dumb or Dumber?

Aussie wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 11:05pm:

I watched the first snake oil crap video Bobby, but (even though I am not in bed asleep and am watching cricket Aus v SA) I'll be stuffed if I am going to 'invest' over two hours on the second which will probably be more of the same in the first crap video. Bobby....the first video had a series of images, and the only one I saw which had any connection with a thorium reactor was some miniature (said to be) thorium reactor thing on a desk.  The rest was rubbish and the script was fancifull snake oil gibber, and that is exactly what you post. I am out of this Thread......unless you put some other crap up.....which is likely, but I have made my point.  You post gibber. Are you it is the light?

thanks
I'd be more than happy for you to go and not come back.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AptxNrQpGA4


The Thorium Conspiracy


According to numerous sources, there's an alternative to uranium. Though thorium isn't perfect, it's more plentiful and arguably safer than uranium. So why aren't we using it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9e64AFieCM


Thorium: The power of the 21st century

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 7:35pm:

So the question remains - why hasn't Australia invested even one penny into a Thorium research reactor?

good job sir bobby !

you have become quite a powerhouse , and a real blessings

to humanity .. I am very proud of who you have become

many blessings!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/yabbfiles/avatars/UserAvatars/it_is_the_light.jpg

namaste

╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

it_is_the_light wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2018 at 8:27am:

good job sir bobby ! you have become quite a powerhouse , and a real blessings to humanity .. I am very proud of who you have become many blessings! namaste ╰დ╮ॐ╭დ╯

Thanks master Light,
you are welcome to contribute too.
Imagine safe, cheap, unlimited power, forever!
The figure in one video was 3 cents per kilowatt hour.

cheers
Bobby.

If we only learn one thing about Thorium look at this graph:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Thorium_verus_Uranium_quantity.jpg

Most of the Uranium in the world is the BLUE circle.
Only 0.7% of it is useful - yes - that tiny RED sliver on the graph.
U235 is as rare as platinum.

However the GREEN circles represent the amount
of Thorium in the world
that can be made to fission and produce energy.
Thorium is abundant and cheap.
It's only very weakly radioactive.
You could have a brick of it on your coffee table at home and it wouldn't hurt you.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium


Quote:

The most stable isotope, 232Th, has a half-life of 14.05 billion years, or about the age of the universe; it decays very slowly via alpha decay, starting a decay chain named the thorium series that ends at stable 208Pb. In the universe, thorium and uranium are the only two radioactive elements that still occur naturally in large quantities as primordial elements.[a] It is estimated to be over three times more abundant than uranium in the Earth's crust, and is chiefly refined from monazite sands as a by-product of extracting rare-earth metals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6BXvw6mxtw


Thorium power would exceed all other forms of energy used by man today, that includes, nuclear, wind, solar, oil, gas, coal, bio, geothermal combined!

anything...

anything.. is better than renewables right now...

anything!!!


Quote:

Terry McCrann says the wind on election day is why green-mad South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill had to go:  On Saturday, as South Australian voters headed for the polls, the wind was blowing strong and continuously... The real time data from the market operator AEMO showed more than 1000MW were being pumped out by wind in SA alone... Alas, it didn’t last. As the vote counting got underway and Weather-dill’s prospects of leading SA into an even more committed North Korean-Gaian future dribbled away like power out of a listless wind-deprived windmill, wind generation in SA dropped to just 200MW. The electricity price in SA — just to stress, at night, when you actually need the lights to be on, to, if nothing else, count the votes turfing Weather-dill out — spiked to over $100 a MW hour. That’s what the price generally is when the wind don’t blow and the sun don’t shine at a minimum; it often spikes to over $1000 for a whole day when the wind don’t blow. No wonder, there were enough sane South Australians wanting Weather-dill out. The $100 price, by the way, is about four times what it used to be when SA had sane politicians and was getting most of its power from reliable coal-fired stations. Do the math: the $1000 that it often gets to in SA is 40 times the “old” price.

but renewables are cheaper... just ask the loons of the Climate Church...  :D :D :D

Thanks Mechanic ,
my bet is that Thorium will win the race.

Imagine cheap, pollution free, emission free power for everyone.

Thorium is such an interesting subject.
If global warming is true then Thorium is the pollution free answer
that will save the world and also take 3rd world countries out of poverty.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2yZGcr0mpw0


Thorium - Periodic Table of Videos

Jovial Monk wrote on Mar 30^th, 2018 at 7:26pm:

Ha! 61% say the world is warming. In line with my poll that Booby deleted. Of course, the dupe can’t think for himself and realise nobody believes his idiotic ice age rubbish. No, it is all a dastardly plot by members of my board  ::) Quit as Mod so a reasonable person can run Environment, Bobby! You are not trusted as a Mod so nobody will post in your Dubyne MRB. And Thorium was thrashed out earlier, a teensy bit better than uranium is all.

Monk,
Yes I have suspicions that in your secret members room -
a plot was cooked up to vote for global warming.
Why was I not allowed to see the members room?   :-[

If you would have watched the Thorium videos you'd at least be informed.
The only reason that Uranium reactors got all the research funds
was because they could help to produce atomic bombs -
not because Uranium is better.

Look at the graph again.
This is perhaps the most important graph you'll ever see in your life.
We've all been dudded by the nuclear powers insatiable appetite for
nuclear weapons.
We're all the much poorer for it.
Thorium has the capability to give us safe electric power for 3 cents per kilowatt hour for 10s of 1000s of years.
Thorium is a miracle.
All we use of Uranium is that tiny red sliver!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/album/forum-attachments/Thorium_verus_Uranium_quantity.jpg

I was reading about some designs of the 4th gen reactors running close to salt boiling and have enough heat for hydrogen creation, could solve mobility issues as well.

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 2:57pm:

I was reading about some designs of the 4th gen reactors running close to salt boiling and have enough heat for hydrogen creation, could solve mobility issues as well.

Thanks Hippy,
Thorium is a game changer and
the theory is proven scientific fact.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 3:23pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 2:57pm: I was reading about some designs of the 4th gen reactors running close to salt boiling and have enough heat for hydrogen creation, could solve mobility issues as well. Thanks Hippy, Thorium is a game changer and the theory is proven scientific fact.

I've been hearing this for years and years and years....

there's no development...

there's no interest in developing this power...

australia is too stupid to develop such power...

until highly developed countries have an interest in this power nothing will ever change..

Thorium will never get off the ground...

I heard some years ago that China was trying to develop This Tech....

but so far they are still Building Clean Coal power stations...

and thats what we should be doing RIGHT NOW>>>> 

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 3:23pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 2:57pm: I was reading about some designs of the 4th gen reactors running close to salt boiling and have enough heat for hydrogen creation, could solve mobility issues as well. Thanks Hippy, Thorium is a game changer and the theory is proven scientific fact. I've been hearing this for years and years and years.... there's no development... there's no interest in developing this power... australia is too stupid to develop such power... until highly developed countries have an interest in this power nothing will ever change.. Thorium will never get off the ground... I heard some years ago that China was trying to develop This Tech.... but so far they are still Building Clean Coal power stations... and thats what we should be doing RIGHT NOW>>>>

Well China’s coal use have been going down every year since 2014 and in 2016 about 6%, last year 150 new power plants where cancelled and thair coal power is about 60% of total power, they r also upgrading the existing plants to clean them up, but hey don’t let that ruin your story

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:29pm:

last year 150 new power plants where cancelled

Yes. But they were building more than that.

But don't let us ruin your story. ;)

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 3:23pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 2:57pm: I was reading about some designs of the 4th gen reactors running close to salt boiling and have enough heat for hydrogen creation, could solve mobility issues as well. Thanks Hippy, Thorium is a game changer and the theory is proven scientific fact. I've been hearing this for years and years and years.... there's no development... there's no interest in developing this power... australia is too stupid to develop such power... until highly developed countries have an interest in this power nothing will ever change.. Thorium will never get off the ground... I heard some years ago that China was trying to develop This Tech.... but so far they are still Building Clean Coal power stations... and thats what we should be doing RIGHT NOW>>>>

Well China’s coal use have been going down every year since 2014 and in 2016 about 6%, last year 150 new power plants where cancelled and thair coal power is about 60% of total power, they r also upgrading the existing plants to clean them up, but hey don’t let that ruin your story

China has announced plans to cut 100-150 coal fired plants

However China announced plans to build 700 plants, most in China but about one fifth outside.  So cancelled 100-150 out of 460 plants.

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 8:48pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 3:23pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 2:57pm: I was reading about some designs of the 4th gen reactors running close to salt boiling and have enough heat for hydrogen creation, could solve mobility issues as well. Thanks Hippy, Thorium is a game changer and the theory is proven scientific fact. I've been hearing this for years and years and years.... there's no development... there's no interest in developing this power... australia is too stupid to develop such power... until highly developed countries have an interest in this power nothing will ever change.. Thorium will never get off the ground... I heard some years ago that China was trying to develop This Tech.... but so far they are still Building Clean Coal power stations... and thats what we should be doing RIGHT NOW>>>>

australia is too stupid to develop such power  -


we would have to import the Chinese & Indian scientists
in order to work on this project.

lee wrote on Apr 15^th, 2018 at 9:49pm:

China has announced plans to cut 100-150 coal fired plants However China announced plans to build 700 plants, most in China but about one fifth outside.  So cancelled 100-150 out of 460 plants.

this is what the Greens have always used as propaganda...

"China are shutting down Coal Fired Power Plants"

but never mention that they are building 3 Times as many as they are shutting down...

they are shutting down old style coal fired plants to build more "Efficient" and "Clean" Coal fired power plants...

and thats EXACTLY what australia should be doing right now....

as other Tech is just not ready...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 6:02am:

lee wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 9:49pm: China has announced plans to cut 100-150 coal fired plants However China announced plans to build 700 plants, most in China but about one fifth outside.  So cancelled 100-150 out of 460 plants. this is what the Greens have always used as propaganda... "China are shutting down Coal Fired Power Plants" but never mention that they are building 3 Times as many as they are shutting down... they are shutting down old style coal fired plants to build more "Efficient" and "Clean" Coal fired power plants... and thats EXACTLY what australia should be doing right now.... as other Tech is just not ready...

What if a giant Thorium power station was just 2 years away
& could give us power for 3 cents per kilo watt hour?

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 4:34pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 16th, 2018 at 6:02am: lee wrote on Apr 15th, 2018 at 9:49pm: China has announced plans to cut 100-150 coal fired plants However China announced plans to build 700 plants, most in China but about one fifth outside.  So cancelled 100-150 out of 460 plants. this is what the Greens have always used as propaganda... "China are shutting down Coal Fired Power Plants" but never mention that they are building 3 Times as many as they are shutting down... they are shutting down old style coal fired plants to build more "Efficient" and "Clean" Coal fired power plants... and thats EXACTLY what australia should be doing right now.... as other Tech is just not ready... What if a giant Thorium power station was just 2 years away & could give us power for 3 cents per kilo watt hour?

it would not be that cheap....

but they are getting closer to production...

if I were the Australian Government I would ask this company to set up a 10MW for a start

then build it up to 100MW Plus...

if all works out... then put them all over australia...

http://www.thoriumpowercanada.com

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 7:25pm:

it would not be that cheap.... but they are getting closer to production... if I were the Australian Government I would ask this company to set up a 10MW for a start then build it up to 100MW Plus... if all works out... then put them all over australia... http://www.thoriumpowercanada.com

A scientific study needs to be done on Thorium power for Australia.


So far we haven't even spent one dollar on it.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16^th, 2018 at 7:37pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 16th, 2018 at 7:25pm: it would not be that cheap.... but they are getting closer to production... if I were the Australian Government I would ask this company to set up a 10MW for a start then build it up to 100MW Plus... if all works out... then put them all over australia... http://www.thoriumpowercanada.com A scientific study needs to be done on Thorium power for Australia. So far we haven't even spent one dollar on it.

thats because our governments are idiots and spend our money to pay scientists to fudge temperatures etc to try and keep the global warming lie alive...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 17^th, 2018 at 6:15am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16th, 2018 at 7:37pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Apr 16th, 2018 at 7:25pm: it would not be that cheap.... but they are getting closer to production... if I were the Australian Government I would ask this company to set up a 10MW for a start then build it up to 100MW Plus... if all works out... then put them all over australia... http://www.thoriumpowercanada.com A scientific study needs to be done on Thorium power for Australia. So far we haven't even spent one dollar on it. thats because our governments are idiots and spend our money to pay scientists to fudge temperatures etc to try and keep the global warming lie alive...

Thorium cannot be ignored any longer.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AF5MHrp1IlA



A 6 year old video - we've been thinking about Thorium for a long time.

Undercurrent - s04e08 - Thorium

Is this thread important enough to be pinned?

No but if u wanted to do a 4th gen nuc thread and not one on 1 type of fuel for them I’d be supportive  ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Oct 29^th, 2018 at 10:19pm:

No but if u wanted to do a 4th gen nuc thread and not one on 1 type of fuel for them I’d be supportive  ;)

I honestly believe that we have ended the fossil fuel age &
are about to enter the Thorium age.
It will last for 10,000 years or more -
there is just so much Thorium on this Earth.

Why nobody uses it, same as p-B11?

Българин wrote on Nov 7^th, 2018 at 8:20pm:

Why nobody uses it, same as p-B11?

Fusion might just be a dream.

We know that Thorium works as a reactor was working for 3 years till 1969.
The Yanks didn't want cheap power - they wanted plutonium for making bombs
so Thorium wasn't used.


I honestly believe that we have ended the fossil fuel age &
are about to enter the Thorium age.
It will last for 10,000 years or more -
there is just so much Thorium on this Earth.

A Thorium reactor was working for 4 years:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment


The Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was an experimental molten salt reactor at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) researching this technology through the 1960s; constructed by 1964, it went critical in 1965 and was operated until 1969.[1]

The MSRE was a 7.4 MWth test reactor simulating the neutronic "kernel" of a type of inherently safer epithermal thorium breeder reactor called the liquid fluoride thorium reactor. It primarily used two fuels: first uranium-235 and later uranium-233. The latter 233UF4 was the result of breeding from thorium in other reactors. Since this was an engineering test, the large, expensive breeding blanket of thorium salt was omitted in favor of neutron measurements.

In the MSRE, the heat from the reactor core was shed via a cooling system using air blown over radiators. It is thought similar reactors could power high-efficiency heat engines such as closed-cycle gas turbines.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaeSGZu_KlA


World’s First Thorium Molten Salt Experiment in over 45 Years



Thorium Energy


Published on Aug 17, 2017


Europe have begun the world’s first thorium molten salt reactor experiment in over 45 years. With this, Europe has entered the Thorium Energy race!
Who will be next?

Read the full article here: http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/new...

Thorium is a natural element that can power the world for thousands of years with clean energy!


You can hold your entire life’s energy supply in the palm of your hand with thorium.
It has been estimated that 30 times more thorium than what is required to power the entire world’s energy demand is mined as a by-product and thrown away every year.
The race to commercialise thorium is on with China in the lead followed by India, Indonesia and now Europe.
At ThoriumEnergyWorld.com we strive to power the world with Thorium Energy!

Thorium - Target for 2080 maybe.

Sorry but that is where it is going.

Good idea - Yes.

Going to happen - No.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 24^th, 2018 at 6:39am:

Thorium - Target for 2080 maybe. Sorry but that is where it is going. Good idea - Yes. Going to happen - No.

In happened in the late 70s & it's happening again.

This is the start of the Thorium age.
It will last for 10,000 years.

The coal & oil age is finished.

Bobby. wrote on Nov 24^th, 2018 at 6:41am:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 24th, 2018 at 6:39am: Thorium - Target for 2080 maybe. Sorry but that is where it is going. Good idea - Yes. Going to happen - No. In happened in the late 70s & it's happening again. This is the start of the Thorium age. It will last for 10,000 years. The coal & oil age is finished.

Still no commercial product in the near future. 2 or 3 companies looking at development. One committed to having something by 2030 which they very likely will not meet.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 24^th, 2018 at 7:20am:

Bobby. wrote on Nov 24th, 2018 at 6:41am: Dnarever wrote on Nov 24th, 2018 at 6:39am: Thorium - Target for 2080 maybe. Sorry but that is where it is going. Good idea - Yes. Going to happen - No. In happened in the late 70s & it's happening again. This is the start of the Thorium age. It will last for 10,000 years. The coal & oil age is finished. Still no commercial product in the near future. 2 or 3 companies looking at development. One committed to having something by 2030 which they very likely will not meet.

The Indians & Chinese have massive efforts costing $billions -
it won't take that long.

This thread needs to be bumped up to the top.
maybe I should make it a sticky thread?

Thorium is a way to save our planet.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 4:17pm:

Thorium is a way to save our planet.

as long as you stick it in your backyard

John Smith wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 4:25pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:17pm: Thorium is a way to save our planet. as long as you stick it in your backyard

Read the thread and check the evidence before mouthing off.
Thorium is safe.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:22pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:17pm: Thorium is a way to save our planet. as long as you stick it in your backyard Read the thread and check the evidence before mouthing off. Thorium is safe.

so you'll have no problem with it in your backyard then  ::) ::)

John Smith wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:23pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 5:22pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:17pm: Thorium is a way to save our planet. as long as you stick it in your backyard Read the thread and check the evidence before mouthing off. Thorium is safe. so you'll have no problem with it in your backyard then  ::) ::)

No problem at all.
Thorium is so safe that reactors could exist close to suburbs
right in cities.

you're full of poo.

You'd cry like a banshee if one was proposed to go into your backyard

John Smith wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:27pm:

you're full of poo. You'd cry like a banshee if one was proposed to go into your backyard

I'd welcome a Thorium power station.
It's the only proven technology that can save our planet.

Thorium Disadvantages?
It seems that there are few.

The molten fluoride salt only makes heat when it is inside
the graphite reactor assembly because only the slow
neutrons caused by the graphite will cause a nuclear reaction.
If there's a fault the molten salt is drained away into a tank
where it is safe & will cool down.
Not only that - the Thorium reactor can only continue if the
molten salt is constantly chemically cleaned of pollutants
which stop the reaction.
In short - a molten salt Thorium reaction is walk away safe
unlike a Uranium reactor which is at 70 atmospheres of pressure,
surrounded by water  & will explode if
all the cooling systems fail as in Chernobyl & Fukushima.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAiHtrWHxK0


Gordon McDowell
Published on Aug 6, 2017

Uranium-233 is a fissile isotope of uranium that is bred from thorium-232 as part of the thorium fuel cycle. Uranium-233 was investigated for use in nuclear weapons. Uranium-233 is produced by the neutron irradiation of thorium-232. Thorium-232 absorbs a neutron, becomes thorium-233, then quickly decays into protactinium-233. Protactinium-233 has a half-life of 27 days and before decaying into uranium-233.

This protactinium has a large cross-section and can absorb neutrons needed to sustain fission. Because uranium-233 releases so few neutrons in thermal-spectrum, and because 2 neutrons are needed to sustain a chain reaction, existence of protactinium would stop fission.

Protactinium-233 is a challenge unique to thorium reactors.

Low breeding ratio is a challenge unique to breeder reactors fueled by thorium, which operate in thermal-spectrum.

The 5,000 tpy figure of Thorium assumes a 50,000 tpy Rare Earths facility that primarily utilizes monazite as its feed-stock.

Thorium is a companion element to Monazite.  Monazite runs at +50% REE and about 7% Th.  So if you processed 50,000 tons of monazite you would get about 3,500 tpy of Th.  However, monazite would not be the only feed-stock. You would use many other mineralizations. like apatite running at 3% REE and .002% Th (but with lots of heavy REE).  So it would be a mix and tend toward the 5,000 tpy range.

Here's a good beginners video on Uranium.

How to enrich Uranium - Periodic Table of Videos.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69UpMhUnEeY



U235 is fissionable.
Seems like that with more neutrons the U238 is better stabilised then U235.
The atomic number of Uranium is 92 which means there are 92 protons.
U238 has 146 neutrons and U235 has 143 neutrons.

Uranium 238. ... U is a fissionable isotope, but is not a fissile isotope. 238. U is not capable of undergoing fission reaction after absorbing thermal neutron, on the other hand 238U can be fissioned by fast neutron with energy higher than >1MeV.

What elements can undergo fission?
Several heavy elements, such as uranium, thorium, and plutonium, undergo both spontaneous fission, a form of radioactive decay and induced fission, a form of nuclear reaction.

juliar wrote on Apr 15^th, 2019 at 7:25pm:

The intellectually handicapped Tweedledee's feeble mind is confused. Typical Greeny trying to turn it all into some childish personal attack. Preacher Bobby, You are probably correct but you cannot ignore the wealth of FACTS working against the wide spread take up of Thorium which has a lot of things going against it as the several relevant articles I have found attest. And your thread is full of doubts and negativity and not a lot of actual factual info. Developers are still trying but it will be many moons before thorium reactors become common place. India is hellbent on them as India has a lot of thorium and little uranium. And even the Netherlands are having a go with little practical design success so far. New Molten Salt Thorium Reactor Powers Up for First Time in Decades By Ryan Whitwam on August 28, 2017 at 1:30 pm 228 Comments https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/thorium-640x353.jpg Nuclear power was headed for something of a resurgence a few years back, but then the 2011 meltdown at Japan’s Fukushima reactor happened. Governments and investors around the world got cold feet, but there’s now renewed interest in a type of nuclear power that’s potentially much safer. A team from the Nuclear Research and Consultancy Group (NRG) the Netherlands has built the first molten salt reactor powered by thorium in decades. There are several basic facts of nuclear power that have made it a tough sell around the world. For one, the uranium needed for nuclear power plants is rare and expensive. The uranium used in power plants can also be turned into weapons-grade material, requiring tight regulation. The other waste byproducts of nuclear energy are less useful, but still extremely dangerous. We don’t even know what to do with all that waste yet. Lastly, a nuclear power plant, no matter how well designed, could experience meltdown under certain circumstances. You need different fissile material if you’re going to change any of that, and now we come to thorium (atomic number 90). Unlike uranium, thorium is abundant, and it’s not nearly as dangerous. Enrichment is not necessary, and thus it’s extremely difficult to create nuclear weapons with a thorium-based reactor. Most importantly, meltdowns aren’t possible with thorium reactors because the reaction is not self-sustaining. That last safety advantage is also the main drawback of thorium. You need a little uranium and a neutron source to get the reaction kickstarted. Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran molten salt thorium reactor experiments from the 1960s until 1976. Now, the European team is giving it another shot. https://www.extremetech.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/thorium-salt.png Pure thorium salt being loaded into a sample container. When bombarded by neutrons, thorium becomes radioactive uranium-233, which is shorter-lived and less dangerous than the uranium-235 used in conventional reactors. The molten salt design being developed at NRG is known as the Salt Irradiation Experiment (SALIENT). This radioactive slurry could potentially reach very high temperatures, which translates to a lot of energy generation. However, the molten salt isn’t just the fuel; it’s the coolant as well. There are still several problems that need solving before NRG’s thorium reactor designs will be scaled up to industrial levels. While the waste is safer, scientists still need to figure out how much of it there will be and what can be done with it. The environment inside a molten salt reactor is also extremely corrosive. So, some creative materials might be needed. If it works, we could generate more power without pumping more carbon into the atmosphere — a win for everyone. https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/254692-new-molten-salt-thorium-reactor-first-time-decades

Post taken from here:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1554606310/40#40

So - JuLiar admits that Thorium is the answer?

Some more from Juliar,



juliar wrote on Apr 15^th, 2019 at 7:37pm:

Thorium initially seems fantastic but the gloss soon wears off in actual attempts at producing a practical design. THORIUM VS. MOLTEN SALT REACTOR MARKET INTELLIGENCE | 12/18/2018 | BY CANON BRYAN To a limited group of technophiles and nuclear technology enthusiasts, thorium has become a unicorn. But does thorium really represent nuclear innovation? Back in the 1950s and 1960s, the scientists at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the USA developed the Molten Salt Reactor design – a liquid salt fueled and cooled nuclear reactor system. They designed it, they prototyped it, and they operated it. The experiment was called the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, or MSRE. The MSRE used a thorium fuel cycle.  It used a lithium beryllium fluoride coolant salt mixture, called FLiBe. It used a graphite moderator. It used a special material called Hastelloy N – a nickel alloy developed specifically to withstand the harsh environment. The experiment was a great success. It proved that this liquid fuel system could facilitate nuclear fission, and that it was tremendously stable, and easy to operate. Dick Engel, the project manager, even called it “boring” because the engineers had virtually nothing to do while it operated. At the rudiments of the technology lay the liquid fuel. Liquid nuclear fuel-coolant, the MSRE discovered, was a much more efficient mechanism for capturing the immense heat from fission than solid fuel/water coolant. Salt coolant was a much more versatile coolant, with a huge thermal range, compared to a water coolant, and capable of storing and easily conveying that immense heat from fission. The thorium-232/uranium-233 fuel cycle that was used in the MSRE was a departure from the uranium-235/uranium-238/plutonium-239 fuel cycle that was being used in the Light Water Reactor design, also invented by the Americans. The LWR was being used in the US Navy submarine program, and by the mid-1950s, started to be used in commercial power plants. Thorium, it was projected, could have some advantages over uranium, particularly in a liquid fuel application. In order to make thorium fuel, Th232 must either be blended with U235 or Pu239, or it must be bombarded with neutrons to make a supply of U233, which is also fissile. The Th232 and U233 is then blended to create a fuel that is capable of achieving criticality. Since the dawn of the atomic age, there have been a small handful of commercial applications of a thorium fuel cycle. In order to make commercial nuclear fuel, U235, which is about 0.7% of naturally-occurring uranium, must be concentrated to between 3% and 5% of the uranium fuel element. This is not so easily achieved either, but there is a multi-decade legacy of uranium enrichment. The fuel cycle is well-understood by regulators, operators and the supply chain. What are the advantages of thorium? Thorium is abundant. That is certainly an advantage it has over uranium. It is abundant and broadly geographically dispersed and easy to extract from nature. Unlike uranium, thorium is found in great concentrations right on the surface of the earth, most commonly, in black sand beaches. Thorium is not fissile, which means that thorium by itself could never possibly be weaponized. However, because it is not fissile, it means that thorium always requires fissile material to make fuel, and that creates new proliferation risks. This is where the actual advantages of thorium end. All the other advantages commonly attributed to thorium are actually advantages of a Molten Salt Reactor – not of thorium itself. These virtues became conflated with the Molten Salt Reactor design. Because of the fact that thorium fuel was used, enthusiasts rediscovering this technology 40 years later have misplaced the rudiments of the innovation. Molten Salt Reactors have tremendous safety, waste and proliferation virtues, which translate into substantial commercial virtues.  The following is a non-exhaustive list: Fluoride salts have an approximately 1,000C range in which they stay liquid – neither freezing nor boiling; Fluoride salts operate naturally at high temperature, obviating the need for immense pressure in a reactor vessel; Fluoride salts are chemically very stable and inert, eliminating the risk of chemical explosions in a reactor system; A liquid fuel is inherently easier and cheaper to chemically process, thereby creating a pathway for total nuclear waste elimination. There are many others. These advantages are specific to Molten Salt Reactors, and not to thorium fuel. The thorium enthusiasts will certainly find this controversial. However, if the goal is eliminating energy poverty and pollution, one must accurately assess the source terms of nuclear innovation.  The mystical nature of thorium has served its purpose by attracting all walks of life to develop an interest in advanced nuclear technology – including myself.  Now the market must focus on the most pragmatic way of commercializing true nuclear innovation. https://4thgeneration.energy/thorium-vs-molten-salt-reactor/

And some more:


juliar wrote on Apr 15^th, 2019 at 7:52pm:

It might take another nuclear disaster to swing the spotlight onto thorium. Or if India has a lot of success. It is extremely unlikely to ever happen here in Australia mainly due to the very hostile intense opposition to any development here by the Lunatic Extremist Greenies. The Thing About Thorium: Why The Better Nuclear Fuel May Not Get A Chance Energy Source Marin Katusa Feb 16, 2012, 06:59pm https://thumbor.forbes.com/thumbor/210x0/https%3A%2F%2Fblogs-images.forbes.com%2Fenergysource%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F02%2F300px-Thorium.svg_.jpg Thorium is a chemical element with the symbol ...Image via Wikipedia The Fukushima disaster reminded us all of the dangers inherent in uranium-fueled nuclear reactors. Fresh news this month about Tepco's continued struggle to contain and cool the fuel rods highlights just how energetic uranium fission reactions are and how challenging to control. Of course, that level of energy is exactly why we use nuclear energy – it is incredibly efficient as a source of power, and it creates very few emissions and carries a laudable safety record to boot. This conversation – "nuclear good but uranium dangerous" – regularly leads to a very good question: what about thorium? Thorium sits two spots left of uranium on the periodic table, in the same row or series. Elements in the same series share characteristics. With uranium and thorium, the key similarity is that both can absorb neutrons and transmute into fissile elements. That means thorium could be used to fuel nuclear reactors, just like uranium. And as proponents of the underdog fuel will happily tell you, thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium, is not fissile on its own (which means reactions can be stopped when necessary), produces waste products that are less radioactive, and generates more energy per ton. So why on earth are we using uranium? As you may recall, research into the mechanization of nuclear reactions was initially driven not by the desire to make energy, but by the desire to make bombs. The $2 billion Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb sparked a worldwide surge in nuclear research, most of it funded by governments embroiled in the Cold War. And here we come to it: Thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, which is what you need to make a nuke. How ironic. The fact that thorium reactors could not produce fuel for nuclear weapons meant the better reactor fuel got short shrift, yet today we would love to be able to clearly differentiate a country's nuclear reactors from its weapons program. In the post-Cold War world, is there any hope for thorium? Perhaps, but don't run to your broker just yet. The Uranium Reactor The typical nuclear-fuel cycle starts with refined uranium ore, which is mostly U238 but contains 3% to 5% U235. Most naturally occurring uranium is U238, but this common isotope does not undergo fission – which is the process whereby the nucleus splits and releases tremendous amounts of energy. By contrast, the less-prevalent U235 is fissile. As such, to make reactor fuel we have to expend considerable energy enriching yellowcake, to boost its proportion of U235. Once in the reactor, U235 starts splitting and releasing high-energy neutrons. The U238 does not just sit idly by, however; it transmutes into other fissile elements. When an atom of U238 absorbs a neutron, it transmutes into short-lived U239, which rapidly decays into neptunium-239 and then into plutonium-239, that lovely, weaponizable byproduct. When the U235 content burns down to 0.3%, the fuel is spent, but it contains some very radioactive isotopes of americium, technetium, and iodine, as well as plutonium. This waste fuel is highly radioactive and the culprits – these high-mass isotopes – have half-lives of many thousands of years. As such, the waste has to be housed for up to 10,000 years, cloistered from the environment and from anyone who might want to get at the plutonium for nefarious reasons. The Thing about Thorium Thorium's advantages start from the moment it is mined and purified, in that all but a trace of naturally occurring thorium is Th232, the isotope useful in nuclear reactors. That's a heck of a lot better than the 3% to 5% of uranium that comes in the form we need. Then there's the safety side of thorium reactions. Unlike U235, thorium is not fissile. That means no matter how many thorium nuclei you pack together, they will not on their own start splitting apart and exploding. If you want to make thorium nuclei split apart, though, it's easy: you simply start throwing neutrons at them. Then, when you need the reaction to stop, simply turn off the source of neutrons and the whole process shuts down, simple as pie. More here https://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/#9c199c51d803

JuLiar is bombarding us with a lot of information.
It would take weeks to go through and analyse it all.
I don't have time now.

John Smith wrote on Mar 17^th, 2019 at 5:23pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 5:22pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:17pm: Thorium is a way to save our planet. as long as you stick it in your backyard Read the thread and check the evidence before mouthing off. Thorium is safe. so you'll have no problem with it in your backyard then  ::) ::)

what about you? Happy with a coal fired power station in your backyard? Muppet.

rhino wrote on Apr 15^th, 2019 at 10:39pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 5:23pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 5:22pm: John Smith wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:25pm: Bobby. wrote on Mar 17th, 2019 at 4:17pm: Thorium is a way to save our planet. as long as you stick it in your backyard Read the thread and check the evidence before mouthing off. Thorium is safe. so you'll have no problem with it in your backyard then  ::) ::) what about you? Happy with a coal fired power station in your backyard? Muppet.

Once it's all worked out -
Thorium reactors would be safe enough to have close to large cities.
Whereas Uranium reactors work under an enormous 70 atmospheres of pressure - and could explode at any time -
Thorium molten salt reactors work at a standard  1 atmosphere of pressure.

A Thorium nuclear reaction needs 2 things:
(1) a supply of neutrons from something which can even be normally unused nuclear waste - very handy!
A Thorium reactor eats nuclear waste for breakfast.

(2)  the Thorium needs to be close to graphite tubes - inside those tubes which slows the neutrons down & allows the reaction to take place. Take it away from the graphite tubes & the reaction stops. That's great for safety - It cannot melt down!


Thorium is our great hope for the future of mankind:
unlimited, cheap, safe energy.

Thorium is everywhere - there is plenty above ground in old mine tailings -
we don't even have to mine it -
it would be as cheap as dirt.
Uranium 235 is as expensive as platinum and just as rare.

Thorium is abundant - there is heaps of it in your backyard.

There is 26 grams of thorium in each cubic meter of the average crust of the Earth.

https://energyfromthorium.com/cubic-meter/

The value of the energy produced by the thorium in an average cubic meter of the Earth’s crust in a LFTR is worth ($11000 to $17000)/(630) = 17 to 27 cubic meters of Texas light sweet crude.

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 4:48am:

dear Unforgiven, I suggest you watch the entire video. It actually promotes Thorium. forgiven namaste रति

,

There is no magic bullet Goober, No free lunches. If it sounds to good to be true , then it is,, :P

The problem here is that this topic is not a discussion between people sharing an opinion, Its a bunch of no nothing peeps cutting and pasting crap off the internet , Go to a science forum if you are truly interested in having a discussion on this subject

BigP wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 3:36pm:

Bobby. wrote on Mar 1st, 2018 at 4:48am: dear Unforgiven, I suggest you watch the entire video. It actually promotes Thorium. forgiven namaste रति , There is no magic bullet Bobby, No free lunches. If it sounds to good to be true , then it is,, :P

In this case it is a free lunch.
We can do better than cave men from 100,000 years ago
who burnt bits of wood to make fire.
Now we burn coal to make fire - not much advancement.

Thorium is there for the taking - almost free energy forever.

Jules agreed with you for about 2 days until his masters reminded him that if thorium starts to get used they wont use fossil fuels anymore and he wont get paid... ;D ;D

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 4:15pm:

Jules agreed with you for about 2 days until his masters reminded him that if thorium starts to get used they wont use fossil fuels anymore and he wont get paid... ;D ;D

You have a point -
it would turn the world's industries upside down.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16^th, 2019 at 6:46pm:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 4:15pm: Jules agreed with you for about 2 days until his masters reminded him that if thorium starts to get used they wont use fossil fuels anymore and he wont get paid... ;D ;D You have a point - it would turn the world's industries upside down.

That is an absolute croc of sh1t, The twenty minutes i put into researching it last night I will never get back, You spend to much time watching the vids that suit your argument, Its goint nowhere fast for a variety of reasons,

BigP wrote on Apr 17^th, 2019 at 11:20am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 6:46pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 4:15pm: Jules agreed with you for about 2 days until his masters reminded him that if thorium starts to get used they wont use fossil fuels anymore and he wont get paid... ;D ;D You have a point - it would turn the world's industries upside down. That is an absolute croc of sh1t, The twenty minutes i put into researching it last night I will never get back, You spend to much time watching the vids that suit your argument, Its goint nowhere fast for a variety of reasons,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

Thorium is only a part of the puzzle, just for a started course this wiki is a good place to read about the new Gen4 nuk reactors, still look like they are 10-20 years away though, IF they work as promised and the engineer's finally get it right, they could be a safe replacement for our energy needs. ;)

BigP wrote on Apr 17^th, 2019 at 11:20am:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 6:46pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 4:15pm: Jules agreed with you for about 2 days until his masters reminded him that if thorium starts to get used they wont use fossil fuels anymore and he wont get paid... ;D ;D You have a point - it would turn the world's industries upside down. That is an absolute croc of sh1t, The twenty minutes i put into researching it last night I will never get back, You spend to much time watching the vids that suit your argument, Its goint nowhere fast for a variety of reasons,

No - it's all true.
There was a working Thorium reactor in 1967.
It's real science  - it really works.
It's the ultimate dream come true.

We are at the start of the new Thorium age.
Now - anything is possible.

Bobby. wrote on Apr 17^th, 2019 at 2:39pm:

BigP wrote on Apr 17th, 2019 at 11:20am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 6:46pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 4:15pm: Jules agreed with you for about 2 days until his masters reminded him that if thorium starts to get used they wont use fossil fuels anymore and he wont get paid... ;D ;D You have a point - it would turn the world's industries upside down. That is an absolute croc of sh1t, The twenty minutes i put into researching it last night I will never get back, You spend to much time watching the vids that suit your argument, Its goint nowhere fast for a variety of reasons, No - it's all true. There was a working Thorium reactor in 1967. It's real science  - it really works. It's the ultimate dream come true. We are at the start of the new Thorium age. Now - anything is possible.

Charge up your De Lorean and back to the future with you Bobbi.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Apr 17^th, 2019 at 2:56pm:

Bobby. wrote on Apr 17th, 2019 at 2:39pm: BigP wrote on Apr 17th, 2019 at 11:20am: Bobby. wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 6:46pm: DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 16th, 2019 at 4:15pm: Jules agreed with you for about 2 days until his masters reminded him that if thorium starts to get used they wont use fossil fuels anymore and he wont get paid... ;D ;D You have a point - it would turn the world's industries upside down. That is an absolute croc of sh1t, The twenty minutes i put into researching it last night I will never get back, You spend to much time watching the vids that suit your argument, Its goint nowhere fast for a variety of reasons, No - it's all true. There was a working Thorium reactor in 1967. It's real science  - it really works. It's the ultimate dream come true. We are at the start of the new Thorium age. Now - anything is possible. Charge up your De Lorean and back to the future with you Bobbi.

If we had unlimited energy we could even use it to extract CO2 from the atmosphere.
We could control our climate!

Now just for Bobby to bring him back down to terra firma and to cast the ructious rabble asunder - a very good article which covers just about all the PRACTICAL aspects of reactors both uranium AND thorium.

What a welcome change some well researched FACTUAL info is from their shallow uninformed waffle.


http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx


https://nsspi.tamu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/p15_img1.jpg


A small extract which mentions the Fast Breeder Reactor being developed in India:-

India's plans for thorium cycle

With huge resources of easily-accessible thorium and relatively little uranium, India has made utilization of thorium for large-scale energy production a major goal in its nuclear power program, utilizing a three-stage concept first proposed at the University of Chicago in 1944:

Pressurised heavy water reactors (PHWRs) and light water reactors fuelled by natural uranium producing plutonium that is separated for use in fuels in its fast reactors and indigenous advanced heavy water reactors.

Fast breeder reactors (FBRs) will use plutonium-based fuel to extend their plutonium inventory. The blanket around the core will have uranium as well as thorium, so that further plutonium (particularly Pu-239) is produced as well as U-233.

Advanced heavy water reactors (AHWRs) will burn thorium-plutonium fuels in such a manner that breeds U-233 which can eventually be used as a self-sustaining fissile driver for a fleet of breeding AHWRs.

The final core of the Shippingport reactor in the USA demonstrated this.

In all of these stages, used fuel needs to be reprocessed to recover fissile materials for recycling.India is focusing and prioritizing the construction and commissioning of its fleet of 500 MWe sodium-cooled fast reactors in which it will breed the required plutonium which is the key to unlocking the energy potential of thorium in its advanced heavy water reactors.

This will take another 15-20 years, and so it will still be some time before India is using thorium energy to any extent. The 500 MWe prototype FBR under construction in Kalpakkam was expected to start up in 2014, but 2018 is now the target date.In 2009, despite the relaxation of trade restrictions on uranium, India reaffirmed its intention to proceed with developing the thorium cycle.

It never rains but it pours - now a fascinating FACTUAL article about India's very long term thorium endeavors.


https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/fbr-600-indias-next-gen-commercial-fast-breeder-reactor-cfbr.402857/


And another article about India:-

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-50ptnub7uSY/VhCelOOpiGI/AAAAAAAAMVY/f738EHgdMQs/FBR-600-Design-Improvement-India-Fas%25255B2%25255D%25255B1%25255D.jpg

http://www.aame.in/2015/10/fbr-600-india-next-gen-commercial-fast.html

Hi JuLiar,
thanks for your posts.
It looks like a commercial Thorium reactor is very near.

Lots of hope about thorium but it is elusive to actually capture any of it. India has been trying for about 40 years.

An attractive thorium use could be the using up of stored plutonium.




Large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium could be disposed of using Thorium reactors
on: January 24, 2018In: ThoriumNo Comments Print Email

https://i1.wp.com/www.innovationtoronto.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/liquid_thorium_reactor_s.jpg

Scientists from the School of Nuclear Science & Engineering of Tomsk Polytechnic University are developing a technology enabling the creation of high-temperature gas-cool low-power reactors with thorium fuel.

TPU scientists propose to burn weapons-grade plutonium in these units, converting it into power and thermal energy. Thermal energy generated at thorium reactors may be used in hydrogen industrial production. The technology also makes it possible to desalinate water.

The results of the study were published in Annals of Nuclear Energy (IF 1.312; Q2).

Thorium reactors provide for their application in areas where there are no large water bodies and rivers, the presence of which is an obligatory condition to build a classical reactor. For example, they can be used in arid areas, as well as in remote areas of Siberia and the Arctic.

Associate Professor Sergey Bedenko from the School of Nuclear Science & Engineering tells: ‘As a rule, a nuclear power plant is constructed on the riverside. Water is taken from the river and used in the active zone of the reactor for cooling. In thorium reactors, helium is applied, as well as carbon dioxide (CO2) or hydrogen, instead of water. Thus, water is not required.’

The mixture of thorium and weapons-grade plutonium is the fuel for the new kind of reactors.

Sergey Bedenko continues: ‘Large amounts of weapons-grade plutonium were accumulated in the Soviet era. The cost for storing this fuel is enormous, and it needs to be disposed of. In the US, it is chemically processed and burned, and in Russia, it is burned in the reactors. However, some amount of plutonium still remains, and it needs to be disposed of in radioactive waste landfills. Our technology improves this drawback since it allows burning 97% of weapons-grade plutonium. When all weapons-grade plutonium is disposed of, it will be possible to use uranium-235 or uranium-233 in thorium reactors.’

Notably, the plant is capable of operating at low capacity (from 60 MWt), the core thorium reactors require a little fuel and the percentage of its burnup is higher than that at currently used reactors. The remaining 3% of processed weapons-grade plutonium will no longer present a nuclear hazard. At the output, a mixture of graphite, plutonium and decay products is formed, which is difficult to apply for other purposes. These wastes can only be buried.

Sergey Bedenko summarizes: ‘The main advantage of such plants will be their multi-functionality.

Firstly, we efficiently dispose one of the most dangerous radioactive fuels in thorium reactors, secondly, we generate power and heat, thirdly, with its help, it will be possible to develop industrial hydrogen production.’

The authors of the study inform that the advantage of such reactors is their higher level of security in comparison with traditional designs, enhanced efficiency (up to 40-50%), absence of phase transitions of the coolant, increased corrosion resistance of working surfaces, possibility of using different fuels and their overload in operation, and simplified management of spent nuclear fuel.

Thorium fuel can be used both in thorium reactors and widely spread VVER-1000 reactors. The scientists expect these reactors to function at least 10-20 years, and when this fuel is spent, the core reactor may either be reloaded or disposed of. In addition, water can be desalinated at thorium reactors.

http://www.innovationtoronto.com/2018/01/large-amounts-of-weapons-grade-plutonium-could-be-disposed-of-using-thorium-reactors/

It is unlikely the thorium dream will be realized anytime soon as it is a very long difficult road to travel particularly as the USA prefers uranium and built and abandoned a thorium reactor years ago.

India and Holland are both trying to build one but their research is not in the same street as that of the USA.




Why India wants to turn its beaches into nuclear fuel
By Edd Gent 18 October 2018

For decades, India has planned to fuel a carbon-free future with its thorium-rich sands. Is the country any closer to reaching its goals?

The tropical beaches of India probably bring to mind sun-dappled palms, fiery fish curries and dreadlocked backpackers, but they also hold a surprising secret. Their sands are rich in thorium – often hailed as a cleaner, safer alternative to conventional nuclear fuels.

The country has long been eager to exploit its estimated 300,000 to 850,000 tonnes of thorium – quite probably the world’s largest reserves – but progress has been slow.  Their effort is coming back into focus amid renewed interest in the technology. Last year Dutch scientists fired up the first new experimental thorium reactor in decades, start-ups are promoting the technology in the West and last year China pledged to spend $3.3bn to develop reactors that could eventually run on thorium.

Proponents say it promises carbon-free power with less dangerous waste, lower risk of meltdowns and a much harder route to weaponisation than conventional nuclear. But rapid advances in renewables, a costly development path and question marks over how safe and clean future plants would really be mean its journey to commercialisation looks uncertain.

India’s pursuit of thorium is driven by unique historical and geographic conditions, which have given it considerable staying power. Some see a quixotic quest unlikely to live up to its promise, but the country’s nuclear scientists see a long-term strategy for carbon-free energy security in a country whose population could peak at 1.7 billion in 2060.

“We are a power hungry nation,” says Srikumar Banerjee, secretary of India’s Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) until 2012. “Eventually we need to rely on indigenous raw materials for the long-term sustainability of a country which is going to support one fifth of humanity.”

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/976_549/images/live/p0/6n/zw/p06nzwd8.jpg
India is pouring vast sums into its nuclear programme, which includes the four heavy water reactors at Kaiga, Karnataka (Credit: Getty Images)

The West’s development of nuclear energy was inextricably linked to the development of atomic bombs

Today all commercial nuclear plants run on uranium, a fact at least partly down to geopolitics. The West’s development of nuclear energy was inextricably linked to the development of atomic bombs and uranium’s by-products are much easier to weaponise. “In a different era maybe a different choice would be made and we'd have headed down the thorium route in the 1950s instead, but we are we are where we are,” says Geoff Parks, a nuclear engineer at Cambridge University.

India’s strategy was governed by different calculus. The country’s meagre uranium deposits convinced the founding father of its nuclear programme, Homi Bhabha, that any long-term strategy must exploit thorium, its most abundant fuel, which inspired a three-stage programme that is still the central plank of India’s nuclear energy policy.

Thorium doesn’t spontaneously undergo fission – when an atom’s nucleus splits and releases energy that can generate electricity. Left to its own devices it decays very slowly, giving off alpha radiation that can’t even penetrate human skin, so holidaymakers don’t need to worry about sunbathing on thorium-rich beaches.

To turn it into nuclear fuel, it needs to be combined with a fissile material like plutonium, which releases neutrons as it undergoes fission. These are captured by thorium atoms, converting them into a fissile isotope of uranium called U233. An isotype is a variant of an element with a different number of neutrons.

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/wwfeatures/wm/live/976_549/images/live/p0/6n/zv/p06nzv77.jpg
Fukushima still casts a long shadow over any new nuclear plans, but proponents of thorium power plants argue that they would be less prone to meltdowns (Credit: Getty Images)

“Thorium is like wet wood,” says Ratan Kumar Sinha, who succeeded Banerjee as DAE secretary before leaving the post in 2015. He explains that wet wood is no good at starting a fire, but once it’s placed in a furnace burning dry wood, it can catch light. The first two stages of India’s strategy are therefore aimed at converting its abundant thorium reserves into fissile material.

First, conventional uranium-fuelled reactors produce plutonium as a by-product. The next stage combines this with more uranium in ‘fast breeder’ reactors that generate more plutonium than they use. That’s used to build more breeder reactors, and once the fleet is large enough they switch to converting thorium into U233. The final stage combines U233 with more thorium to kick-start self-sustaining ‘thermal breeder’ reactors that can be refuelled using raw thorium.


Read the interesting rest here

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20181016-why-india-wants-to-turn-its-beaches-into-nuclear-fuel

Don't hold your breath waiting for the thorium revolution. The biggest problem is that the USA is not interested as they went with uranium to produce plutonium for bombs.





Is Thorium the Fuel of the Future to Revitalize Nuclear?
By Sameer Surampalli 11/05/2018

Nuclear energy produces carbon-free electricity, and the United States has used nuclear energy for decades to generate baseline power.

Nuclear energy, however, carries a dreaded stigma. After disasters such as Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, and Fukishima, the public is acutely aware of the potential, though misguided, dangers of nuclear energy. The cost of nuclear generation is on the rise–a stark contrast to the decreasing costs of alternative energy forms such as solar and wind, which have gained an immense amount of popularity recently.

This trend could continue until market forces make nuclear technology obsolete. Into this dynamic comes a resurgence in nuclear technology: liquid fluoride thorium reactors, or LFTRs (“lifters”). A LFTR is a type of molten salt reactor, significantly safer than a typical nuclear reactor. LFTRs use a combination of thorium (a common element widely found in the earth) and fluoride salts to power a reactor.

https://aemstatic-ww2.azureedge.net/content/dam/pe/online-articles/2018/11/Thorium%20Figure%201.png

A typical arrangement for a modern thorium-based reactor resembles a conventional reactor, albeit with notable differences. First, thorium-232 and uranium-233 are added to fluoride salts in the reactor core. As fission occurs, heat and neutrons are released from the core and absorbed by the surrounding salt. This creates a uranium-233 isotope, as the thorium-232 takes on an additional neutron. The salt melts into a molten state, which runs a heat exchanger, heating an inert gas such as helium, which drives a turbine to generate electricity. The radiated salt flows into a post-processing plant, which separates the uranium from the salt. The uranium is then sent back to the core to start the fission process again.

Thorium reactors generate significantly less radioactive waste, and can re-use separated uranium, making the reactor self-sufficient once started. LFTRs are designed to operate as a low-pressure system unlike traditional high-pressure nuclear systems, which creates a safer working environments for workers who operate and maintain these systems. Additionally, the fluoride salts have very high boiling points, meaning even a large spike in heat will not cause a massive increase in pressure.

Both of these factors greatly limit the chance of a containment explosion. LFTRs don’t require massive cooling, meaning they can be placed anywhere and can be air-cooled. If the core were to go critical, gravity would allow the heated, radiated salt to spill into passive via underground fail-safe containment chambers, capped by an ice plug that melts upon contact.

LFTRs provide numerous benefits. Any leftover radioactive waste cannot be used to create weaponry. The fuel cost is significantly lower than a solid-fuel reactor. The salts cost roughly $150/kg, and thorium costs about $30/kg.

If thorium becomes popular, this cost will only decrease as thorium is widely available anywhere in the earth’s crust. Thorium is found in a concentration over 500 times greater than fissile uranium-235. Historically, thorium was tossed aside as a byproduct of rare-earth metal mining. With extraction, enough thorium could be obtained to power LFTRs for thousands of years. For a 1 GW facility, material cost for fuel would be around $5 million. Since LFTRs use thorium in its natural state, no expensive fuel enrichment processes or fabrication for solid fuel rods are required, meaning the fuel costs are significantly lower than a comparable solid-fuel reactor. In an ideally working reactor, the post chemical reprocessing would allow a LFTR to efficiently consume nearly all of its fuel, leaving little waste or byproduct unlike a conventional reactor. Lastly, a thorium plant will operate at about 45 percent thermal efficiency, with upcoming turbine cycles possibly improving the overall efficiency to 50 percent or greater, meaning a thorium plant can be up to 20 percent more efficient than a traditional light-water reactor.

LFTRs do present a few challenges. There are significant gaps in the research and necessary materials for LFTRs. The post-processing chemical facilities, which would separate uranium from the molten salts for re-use, haven’t been viably constructed yet.

Each reactor would require some highly enriched uranium (such as uranium-235) to start the reactor, which is very expensive.

Scientists suggest a $5 billion investment over the next five years could net a viable reactor solution in the United States, but with limited funding for thorium, it is difficult to see this vision come to fruition. Other countries have made preliminary investments towards building thorium reactors.

See the rest here

https://www.power-eng.com/articles/2018/11/is-thorium-the-fuel-of-the-future-to-revitalize-nuclear.html

Thanks JuLiar - the future looks bright for the world.
Cheap, safe, unlimited power will answer nearly all our problems.

Nuclear power is carbon neutral, right? And Thorium reactors are safer and cleaner (produce less dangerous waste, as I understand.) So, what are we waiting for?
Mikel Syn, Mechanical Engineer by degree.

Because the facts of the case are so muddled that both advocates and opponents are equally confused about what is correct.

Let’s get the two points you misunderstood out of the way.

Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. No product of any process performed by any human has been carbon neutral since the advent of civilisation. Nuclear power plants consist of large amounts of cement and steel, and producing either produces lots of CO2. At the same time, mining is carbon intensive, and so is the enriching of uranium to produce nuclear fuel.

However (I bold and italic this because some nutcase is bound to get triggered by the last paragraph, or quote mine me), nuclear power plants also produce a humongous amount of energy, as a result of it having high capacity, capacity factor, as well as extremely long lifespan.

If you take both factors into consideration, the sheer amount of electricity wins out and you end up with approximately 12gCO2/kWh.

This is roughly comparable with wind, and a factor of 2 lower than the next lowest emitter. For the purposes of p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ ease of understanding, we classify all power generation sources that do not produce CO2 during operation as zero emission sources.

A corollary to the above paragraph is this. We are far beyond the point where we can be slightly carbon positive. We need to be carbon neutral right now, or we will have to start being intensely carbon negative in the near future. We will need to start using low carbon sources to directly capture and store CO2 that has already been released into the air.

Thorium reactors are not safer and cleaner than Uranium reactors. The unfortunate blessing from Kirk Sorensen’s famous LFTR presentation is that the nuclear reactor design, the Molten Salt Reactor, is now a favourite of the new age nuclear advocate, but has been conflated with the fuel, Thorium.

Every advantage that has been touted for the LFTR actually comes from the MSR design, and not the Thorium Fuel. It is entirely possible to manufacture fuel rods that contain a mix of high assay LEU or reactor grade plutonium and Thorium that fits right in our current LWRs with minor design modifications.

These reactors will be no safer than they were before. Shippingport Atomic Power Station was precisely that: a modified LWR that ran on thorium. On the other hand, Terrestrial Energy’s iMSR, Moltex Energy’s SSR, and TerraPower’s MCFR, among others are MSRs that run on Uranium, all as safe, if not safer than the LFTR design by Kirk Sorensen.

Now to answer your question: What are we waiting for? We aren’t. The previously mentioned companies, plus other MSR companies that run thorium like Thorcon Power are already seeking licensing in their respective countries to build their first demonstration reactors.

The processes have already been kicked off, with 50 other companies right on their heels. This is happening right now, with or without our help, whether or not green movements like it.

Bobby. wrote on May 2^nd, 2019 at 6:49pm:

Thanks JuLiar - the future looks bright for the world. Cheap, safe, unlimited power will answer nearly all our problems.

And then you awoke from your dream lol

juliar wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 6:42am:

Nuclear power is carbon neutral, right? And Thorium reactors are safer and cleaner (produce less dangerous waste, as I understand.) So, what are we waiting for? Mikel Syn, Mechanical Engineer by degree. Because the facts of the case are so muddled that both advocates and opponents are equally confused about what is correct. Let’s get the two points you misunderstood out of the way. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. No product of any process performed by any human has been carbon neutral since the advent of civilisation. Nuclear power plants consist of large amounts of cement and steel, and producing either produces lots of CO2. At the same time, mining is carbon intensive, and so is the enriching of uranium to produce nuclear fuel. However (I bold and italic this because some nutcase is bound to get triggered by the last paragraph, or quote mine me), nuclear power plants also produce a humongous amount of energy, as a result of it having high capacity, capacity factor, as well as extremely long lifespan. If you take both factors into consideration, the sheer amount of electricity wins out and you end up with approximately 12gCO2/kWh. This is roughly comparable with wind, and a factor of 2 lower than the next lowest emitter. For the purposes of p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ ease of understanding, we classify all power generation sources that do not produce CO2 during operation as zero emission sources. A corollary to the above paragraph is this. We are far beyond the point where we can be slightly carbon positive. We need to be carbon neutral right now, or we will have to start being intensely carbon negative in the near future. We will need to start using low carbon sources to directly capture and store CO2 that has already been released into the air. Thorium reactors are not safer and cleaner than Uranium reactors. The unfortunate blessing from Kirk Sorensen’s famous LFTR presentation is that the nuclear reactor design, the Molten Salt Reactor, is now a favourite of the new age nuclear advocate, but has been conflated with the fuel, Thorium. Every advantage that has been touted for the LFTR actually comes from the MSR design, and not the Thorium Fuel. It is entirely possible to manufacture fuel rods that contain a mix of high assay LEU or reactor grade plutonium and Thorium that fits right in our current LWRs with minor design modifications. These reactors will be no safer than they were before. Shippingport Atomic Power Station was precisely that: a modified LWR that ran on thorium. On the other hand, Terrestrial Energy’s iMSR, Moltex Energy’s SSR, and TerraPower’s MCFR, among others are MSRs that run on Uranium, all as safe, if not safer than the LFTR design by Kirk Sorensen. Now to answer your question: What are we waiting for? We aren’t. The previously mentioned companies, plus other MSR companies that run thorium like Thorcon Power are already seeking licensing in their respective countries to build their first demonstration reactors. The processes have already been kicked off, with 50 other companies right on their heels. This is happening right now, with or without our help, whether or not green movements like it.

"""Nuclear power is carbon neutral, right? And Thorium reactors are safer and cleaner (produce less dangerous waste, as I understand.) So, what are we waiting for?""


No such thing as a free lunch Julie

What are the downsides of Thorium?
We don’t have as much experience with Th. The nuclear industry is quite conservative, and the biggest problem with Thorium is that we are lacking in operational experience with it. When money is at stake, it’s difficult to get people to change from the norm.

Thorium fuel is a bit harder to prepare. Thorium dioxide melts at 550 degrees higher temperatures than traditional Uranium dioxide, so very high temperatures are required to produce high-quality solid fuel. Additionally, Th is quite inert, making it difficult to chemically process. This is irrelevant for fluid-fueled reactors discussed below.

Irradiated Thorium is more dangerously radioactive in the short term. The Th-U cycle invariably produces some U-232, which decays to Tl-208, which has a 2.6 MeV gamma ray decay mode. Bi-212 also causes problems. These gamma rays are very hard to shield, requiring more expensive spent fuel handling and/or reprocessing.

Thorium doesn’t work as well as U-Pu in a fast reactor. While U-233 an excellent fuel in the thermal spectrum, it is between U-235 and Pu-239 in the fast spectrum. So for reactors that require excellent neutron economy (such as breed-and-burn concepts), Thorium is not ideal.

BigP wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:02am:

Bobby. wrote on May 2nd, 2019 at 6:49pm: Thanks JuLiar - the future looks bright for the world. Cheap, safe, unlimited power will answer nearly all our problems. And then you awoke from your dream lol

Listen Buddy - it's true - I heard one estimate
that the cost would be below 3 cents per kilowatt hour
for Thorium power.
What do we pay now?
30 cents?

BigP wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:03am:

juliar wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 6:42am: Nuclear power is carbon neutral, right? And Thorium reactors are safer and cleaner (produce less dangerous waste, as I understand.) So, what are we waiting for? Mikel Syn, Mechanical Engineer by degree. Because the facts of the case are so muddled that both advocates and opponents are equally confused about what is correct. Let’s get the two points you misunderstood out of the way. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. No product of any process performed by any human has been carbon neutral since the advent of civilisation. Nuclear power plants consist of large amounts of cement and steel, and producing either produces lots of CO2. At the same time, mining is carbon intensive, and so is the enriching of uranium to produce nuclear fuel. However (I bold and italic this because some nutcase is bound to get triggered by the last paragraph, or quote mine me), nuclear power plants also produce a humongous amount of energy, as a result of it having high capacity, capacity factor, as well as extremely long lifespan. If you take both factors into consideration, the sheer amount of electricity wins out and you end up with approximately 12gCO2/kWh. This is roughly comparable with wind, and a factor of 2 lower than the next lowest emitter. For the purposes of p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ ease of understanding, we classify all power generation sources that do not produce CO2 during operation as zero emission sources. A corollary to the above paragraph is this. We are far beyond the point where we can be slightly carbon positive. We need to be carbon neutral right now, or we will have to start being intensely carbon negative in the near future. We will need to start using low carbon sources to directly capture and store CO2 that has already been released into the air. Thorium reactors are not safer and cleaner than Uranium reactors. The unfortunate blessing from Kirk Sorensen’s famous LFTR presentation is that the nuclear reactor design, the Molten Salt Reactor, is now a favourite of the new age nuclear advocate, but has been conflated with the fuel, Thorium. Every advantage that has been touted for the LFTR actually comes from the MSR design, and not the Thorium Fuel. It is entirely possible to manufacture fuel rods that contain a mix of high assay LEU or reactor grade plutonium and Thorium that fits right in our current LWRs with minor design modifications. These reactors will be no safer than they were before. Shippingport Atomic Power Station was precisely that: a modified LWR that ran on thorium. On the other hand, Terrestrial Energy’s iMSR, Moltex Energy’s SSR, and TerraPower’s MCFR, among others are MSRs that run on Uranium, all as safe, if not safer than the LFTR design by Kirk Sorensen. Now to answer your question: What are we waiting for? We aren’t. The previously mentioned companies, plus other MSR companies that run thorium like Thorcon Power are already seeking licensing in their respective countries to build their first demonstration reactors. The processes have already been kicked off, with 50 other companies right on their heels. This is happening right now, with or without our help, whether or not green movements like it. """Nuclear power is carbon neutral, right? And Thorium reactors are safer and cleaner (produce less dangerous waste, as I understand.) So, what are we waiting for?"" No such thing as a free lunch Julie

Listen to JuLiar,
he/she is posting some very good articles.

Bobby. wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:11am:

BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:03am: juliar wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 6:42am: Nuclear power is carbon neutral, right? And Thorium reactors are safer and cleaner (produce less dangerous waste, as I understand.) So, what are we waiting for? Mikel Syn, Mechanical Engineer by degree. Because the facts of the case are so muddled that both advocates and opponents are equally confused about what is correct. Let’s get the two points you misunderstood out of the way. Nuclear power is not carbon neutral. No product of any process performed by any human has been carbon neutral since the advent of civilisation. Nuclear power plants consist of large amounts of cement and steel, and producing either produces lots of CO2. At the same time, mining is carbon intensive, and so is the enriching of uranium to produce nuclear fuel. However (I bold and italic this because some nutcase is bound to get triggered by the last paragraph, or quote mine me), nuclear power plants also produce a humongous amount of energy, as a result of it having high capacity, capacity factor, as well as extremely long lifespan. If you take both factors into consideration, the sheer amount of electricity wins out and you end up with approximately 12gCO2/kWh. This is roughly comparable with wind, and a factor of 2 lower than the next lowest emitter. For the purposes of p̶o̶l̶i̶t̶i̶c̶s̶ ease of understanding, we classify all power generation sources that do not produce CO2 during operation as zero emission sources. A corollary to the above paragraph is this. We are far beyond the point where we can be slightly carbon positive. We need to be carbon neutral right now, or we will have to start being intensely carbon negative in the near future. We will need to start using low carbon sources to directly capture and store CO2 that has already been released into the air. Thorium reactors are not safer and cleaner than Uranium reactors. The unfortunate blessing from Kirk Sorensen’s famous LFTR presentation is that the nuclear reactor design, the Molten Salt Reactor, is now a favourite of the new age nuclear advocate, but has been conflated with the fuel, Thorium. Every advantage that has been touted for the LFTR actually comes from the MSR design, and not the Thorium Fuel. It is entirely possible to manufacture fuel rods that contain a mix of high assay LEU or reactor grade plutonium and Thorium that fits right in our current LWRs with minor design modifications. These reactors will be no safer than they were before. Shippingport Atomic Power Station was precisely that: a modified LWR that ran on thorium. On the other hand, Terrestrial Energy’s iMSR, Moltex Energy’s SSR, and TerraPower’s MCFR, among others are MSRs that run on Uranium, all as safe, if not safer than the LFTR design by Kirk Sorensen. Now to answer your question: What are we waiting for? We aren’t. The previously mentioned companies, plus other MSR companies that run thorium like Thorcon Power are already seeking licensing in their respective countries to build their first demonstration reactors. The processes have already been kicked off, with 50 other companies right on their heels. This is happening right now, with or without our help, whether or not green movements like it. """Nuclear power is carbon neutral, right? And Thorium reactors are safer and cleaner (produce less dangerous waste, as I understand.) So, what are we waiting for?"" No such thing as a free lunch Julie Listen to JuLiar, he/she is posting some very good articles.

He she is, but that doesnt change the fact that thorium may not be the silver bullet you are looking for bob, As i have posted it has some serious challenges, You can only hope that the science community give it a fair hearing

Bobby. wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:10am:

BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:02am: Bobby. wrote on May 2nd, 2019 at 6:49pm: Thanks JuLiar - the future looks bright for the world. Cheap, safe, unlimited power will answer nearly all our problems. And then you awoke from your dream lol Listen Buddy - it's true - I heard one estimate that the cost would be below 3 cents per kilowatt hour for Thorium power. What do we pay now? 30 cents?

Bobby even if it was 3 cents, the government would give it to big business, they would spin it as clean energy and we will pay 40 cents for the privilege…. ;)

BigP wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:21am:

He she is, but that doesnt change the fact that thorium may not be the silver bullet you are looking for bob, As i have posted it has some serious challenges, You can only hope that the science community give it a fair hearing

But it is the silver bullet.
It's not a dream - it's not pie in sky -
there was already a working reactor in 1967.
have a good look through this thread.

The science is real - it works.
Thorium is dirt cheap and is everywhere.
there is also plenty of nuclear waste out there
that can be used to provide the neutrons to fire up the Thorium.

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:24am:

Bobby. wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:10am: BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:02am: Bobby. wrote on May 2nd, 2019 at 6:49pm: Thanks JuLiar - the future looks bright for the world. Cheap, safe, unlimited power will answer nearly all our problems. And then you awoke from your dream lol Listen Buddy - it's true - I heard one estimate that the cost would be below 3 cents per kilowatt hour for Thorium power. What do we pay now? 30 cents? Bobby even if it was 3 cents, the government would give it to big business, they would spin it as clean energy and we will pay 40 cents for the privilege…. ;)

No they wouldn't -
the largest charge on you bill by far
would be to maintain the power lines.

Bobby. wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:27am:

BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:21am: He she is, but that doesnt change the fact that thorium may not be the silver bullet you are looking for bob, As i have posted it has some serious challenges, You can only hope that the science community give it a fair hearing But it is the silver bullet. It's not a dream - it's not pie in sky - there was already a working reactor in 1967. have a good look through this thread. The science is real - it works. Thorium is dirt cheap and is everywhere. there is also plenty of nuclear waste out there that can be used to provide the neutrons to fire up the Thorium.

If it was that simple Bob third world countries would be adopting it ,

BigP wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:40am:

Bobby. wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:27am: BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:21am: He she is, but that doesnt change the fact that thorium may not be the silver bullet you are looking for bob, As i have posted it has some serious challenges, You can only hope that the science community give it a fair hearing But it is the silver bullet. It's not a dream - it's not pie in sky - there was already a working reactor in 1967. have a good look through this thread. The science is real - it works. Thorium is dirt cheap and is everywhere. there is also plenty of nuclear waste out there that can be used to provide the neutrons to fire up the Thorium. If it was that simple Bob third world countries would be adopting it ,

Or indeed any country...... ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 7:41am:

BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:40am: Bobby. wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:27am: BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:21am: He she is, but that doesnt change the fact that thorium may not be the silver bullet you are looking for bob, As i have posted it has some serious challenges, You can only hope that the science community give it a fair hearing But it is the silver bullet. It's not a dream - it's not pie in sky - there was already a working reactor in 1967. have a good look through this thread. The science is real - it works. Thorium is dirt cheap and is everywhere. there is also plenty of nuclear waste out there that can be used to provide the neutrons to fire up the Thorium. If it was that simple Bob third world countries would be adopting it , Or indeed any country...... ;)

India and China are working day and night on it.
The first working reactor was only 1 megawatts.
They need to scale it up to at least 1 gigawatts.
They'll succeed whereas the Yanks are
stuck with 70 year old uranium technology
and are hampered by nuclear regulations.

Bobby. wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 8:32am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:41am: BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:40am: Bobby. wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:27am: BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:21am: He she is, but that doesnt change the fact that thorium may not be the silver bullet you are looking for bob, As i have posted it has some serious challenges, You can only hope that the science community give it a fair hearing But it is the silver bullet. It's not a dream - it's not pie in sky - there was already a working reactor in 1967. have a good look through this thread. The science is real - it works. Thorium is dirt cheap and is everywhere. there is also plenty of nuclear waste out there that can be used to provide the neutrons to fire up the Thorium. If it was that simple Bob third world countries would be adopting it , Or indeed any country...... ;) India and China are working day and night on it. The first working reactor was only 1 megawatts. They need to scale it up to at least 1 gigawatts. They'll succeed whereas the Yanks are stuck with 70 year old uranium technology and are hampered by nuclear regulations.

I  thought one of the vids I watched said they dont scale up very well ?

BigP wrote on May 3^rd, 2019 at 8:43am:

Bobby. wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 8:32am: DonDeeHippy wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:41am: BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:40am: Bobby. wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:27am: BigP wrote on May 3rd, 2019 at 7:21am: He she is, but that doesnt change the fact that thorium may not be the silver bullet you are looking for bob, As i have posted it has some serious challenges, You can only hope that the science community give it a fair hearing But it is the silver bullet. It's not a dream - it's not pie in sky - there was already a working reactor in 1967. have a good look through this thread. The science is real - it works. Thorium is dirt cheap and is everywhere. there is also plenty of nuclear waste out there that can be used to provide the neutrons to fire up the Thorium. If it was that simple Bob third world countries would be adopting it , Or indeed any country...... ;) India and China are working day and night on it. The first working reactor was only 1 megawatts. They need to scale it up to at least 1 gigawatts. They'll succeed whereas the Yanks are stuck with 70 year old uranium technology and are hampered by nuclear regulations. I  thought one of the vids I watched said they dont scale up very well ?

There are going to be problems to
make something 1000 times larger.

It is good to hear from both for and against to develop a genuine practical understanding of the thorium idea.

India and Holland are having go but progress is slow as there are so many technical problems to solve such as the molten salt is extremely corrosive.



What are the cons of thorium nuclear energy?
Answered Oct 16, 2012

Thorium molten salt reactors are extremely dangerous.

It's almost a joke among my nuclear engineer friends that this design has gotten so many advocates, and that people seem so to have hypnotized themselves to overlook the very obvious dangers.

An amazing example of how a few guys with good web argument skills can create a "movement".

Unlike solid fuel reactors, every molten salt reactor has built into it a system for separating weapons-grade material.  In a Thorium MSR, there is any any given time, enough U-233 already separated (decaying from Protactinium to U-233 in a special chamber) to build 2 nuclear weapons. 

The technical skills required to divert this 2 weapon's-worth of bomb-grade materials out of the reactor, and into a lead-lined truck for transport are completely trivial.  Once trucked away, you just let this mix sit for a couple years so it fully decays into U-233, do a little chemical separation, and voila, you have pure weapons-grade material.

Ok, let's make it even simpler.  The reactor has an accident.  Radiation spreads.  You have to shut it down.  2 years later, you have 2 bombs worth of purified U-233 sitting in a tank and piping of the reactor.  How exactly do you propose to protect this material?  How do you retrieve it?  What if the pipes break and the U-233 pools into a single mass?  Oh boy. 

Thorium advocates like to state that U-233 "can't be used to build weapons" which is utter nonsense.  There are published longstanding articles on the Internet that describe exactly how U-233 could (and would) be used to build terrorist bombs.  I won't describe the process here for obvious reasons.   

The only reason the big nations didn't historically use U-233 to build bombs was that it can't be stored for any period of time.  It's useless for nuclear arsenals, but perfectly good for terrorists.  U-233 is as powerful as Plutonium -- which is to say, very very powerful indeed.

Every single Thorium reactor is a weapons-grade material factory.  And we're going to build thousands of them across the world?  Huh?  You've gotta to be kidding me.

If you are one of the people who have invested in one of these Thorium reactor companies...well, sorry.   Trust me when I say, they will never *ever* be built, because every nuclear watchdog agency, joined by every qualified nuclear engineer in the world, would instantly shut down any such project.  End of discussion.

Meanwhile, there will be a lot of talk.  But none of it will materialize into anything except some cash for the promoters.

((Now, we'll see if my comment here survives.  Several other engineers have reported that their critique of Thorium reactors has been removed after the thorium fans voted them down or used the "offensive" buttons on the comments page.  Amazing how the internet can be manipulated to spread untruths.))

Quote:

Unlike solid fuel reactors, every molten salt reactor has built into it a system for separating weapons-grade material.  In a Thorium MSR, there is any any given time, enough U-233 already separated (decaying from Protactinium to U-233 in a special chamber) to build 2 nuclear weapons.

That's not true.
The U233 is dissolved into a large amount of fluoride salt.
It's only a state actor that would have the technical &
financial and industrial resources to separate it out.
I believe the Indian Govt. did it once.

Uranium reactors are far more dangerous -
they work at 70 atmospheres of pressure
& can melt down.
They create mountains of nuclear waste including plutonium -
perhaps the most poisonous substance known.
Thorium doesn't have those problems.

A broad discussion of the practical aspects of thorium.




Thorium
(Updated February 2017)

Thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium.
It is fertile rather than fissile, and can only be used as a fuel in conjunction with a fissile material such as recycled plutonium.
Thorium fuels can breed fissile uranium-233 to be used in various kinds of nuclear reactors.
Molten salt reactors are well suited to thorium fuel, as normal fuel fabrication is avoided.

The use of thorium as a new primary energy source has been a tantalizing prospect for many years. Extracting its latent energy value in a cost-effective manner remains a challenge, and will require considerable R&D investment.

This is occurring preeminently in China, with modest US support.

Nature and sources of thorium
Thorium is a naturally-occurring, slightly radioactive metal discovered in 1828 by the Swedish chemist Jons Jakob Berzelius, who named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder.

It is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils, where it is about three times more abundant than uranium. Soil contains an average of around 6 parts per million (ppm) of thorium.

Thorium is very insoluble, which is why it is plentiful in sands but not in seawater, in contrast to uranium.Thorium exists in nature in a single isotopic form – Th-232 – which decays very slowly (its half-life is about three times the age of the Earth). The decay chains of natural thorium and uranium give rise to minute traces of Th-228, Th-230 and Th-234, but the presence of these in mass terms is negligible.

It decays eventually to lead-208.When pure, thorium is a silvery white metal that retains its lustre for several months. However, when it is contaminated with the oxide, thorium slowly tarnishes in air, becoming grey and eventually black. When heated in air, thorium metal ignites and burns brilliantly with a white light.

Thorium oxide (ThO2), also called thoria, has one of the highest melting points of all oxides (3300°C) and so it has found applications in light bulb elements, lantern mantles, arc-light lamps, welding electrodes and heat-resistant ceramics. Glass containing thorium oxide has both a high refractive index and wavelength dispersion, and is used in high quality lenses for cameras and scientific instruments.

Thorium oxide (ThO2) is relatively inert and does not oxidise further, unlike UO2. It has higher thermal conductivity and lower thermal expansion than UO2, as well as a much higher melting point. In nuclear fuel, fission gas release is much lower than in UO2.

The most common source of thorium is the rare earth phosphate mineral, monazite, which contains up to about 12% thorium phosphate, but 6-7% on average. Monazite is found in igneous and other rocks but the richest concentrations are in placer deposits, concentrated by wave and current action with other heavy minerals. World monazite resources are estimated to be about 16 million tonnes,

12 Mt of which are in heavy mineral sands deposits on the south and east coasts of India. There are substantial deposits in several other countries (see Table below).

Thorium recovery from monazite usually involves leaching with sodium hydroxide at 140°C followed by a complex process to precipitate pure ThO2.

Thorite (ThSiO4) is another common thorium mineral.

A large vein deposit of thorium and rare earth metals is in Idaho.The IAEA-NEA publication Uranium 2014: Resources, Production and Demand (often referred to as the Red Book) gives a figure of 6.2 million tonnes of total known and estimated resources.

Data for reasonably assured and inferred resources recoverable at a cost of $80/kg Th or less are given in the table below, excluding some less-certain Asian figures. Some of the figures are based on assumptions and surrogate data for mineral sands (monazite x assumed Th content), not direct geological data in the same way as most mineral resources.

Read the rest here

http://www.world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx

Thanks Juliar.

Uranium reactors are so dangerous.
they operate at 70 atmospheres of pressure:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqFVuUSrGws



Chernobyl's Massive Radiation Shield Is Preventing Nuclear Fallout


Published on Apr 6, 2017
The damaged Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant still holds 200 tons of nuclear fuel and if it were to leak into the atmosphere, the consequences would be catastrophic. So the world came together to find a way to seal the radiation and the result is a megastructure like we've never seen before.

and that's still 10 times less pressure that's need for hydrogen fuel cells. :D :D :D

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2019 at 8:27am:

and that's still 10 times less pressure that's need for hydrogen fuel cells. :D :D :D

I don't think so but then again that's irrelevant.
We're talking about nuclear power not chemical energy.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 4^th, 2019 at 5:47am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 8:27am: and that's still 10 times less pressure that's need for hydrogen fuel cells. :D :D :D I don't think so but then again that's irrelevant. We're talking about nuclear power not chemical energy.

any boiler type generator operates at high pressure, to get the steam to do its work, you do realize all of the next generation Nuk plants will have high pressures as well, so all thorium ones will have the same high pressures.... ;)

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 4^th, 2019 at 8:46am:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 5:47am: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 8:27am: and that's still 10 times less pressure that's need for hydrogen fuel cells. :D :D :D I don't think so but then again that's irrelevant. We're talking about nuclear power not chemical energy. any boiler type generator operates at high pressure, to get the steam to do its work, you do realize all of the next generation Nuk plants will have high pressures as well, so all thorium ones will have the same high pressures.... ;)

Liquid molten fluoride salt reactors don't run
at high pressures but of course the heat exchanger
pipes have to run at high temperature and pressure.

Bobby. wrote on Jun 4^th, 2019 at 11:02am:

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 8:46am: Bobby. wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 5:47am: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 8:27am: and that's still 10 times less pressure that's need for hydrogen fuel cells. :D :D :D I don't think so but then again that's irrelevant. We're talking about nuclear power not chemical energy. any boiler type generator operates at high pressure, to get the steam to do its work, you do realize all of the next generation Nuk plants will have high pressures as well, so all thorium ones will have the same high pressures.... ;) Liquid molten fluoride salt reactors don't run at high pressures but of course the heat exchanger pipes have to run at high temperature and pressure.

But the molten salt then boils water at very high pressure to steam drive the generators, so it will be working under 70 atmosphere's just like ever other steam generator....

DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 4^th, 2019 at 12:03pm:

Bobby. wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 11:02am: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 8:46am: Bobby. wrote on Jun 4th, 2019 at 5:47am: DonDeeHippy wrote on Jun 3rd, 2019 at 8:27am: and that's still 10 times less pressure that's need for hydrogen fuel cells. :D :D :D I don't think so but then again that's irrelevant. We're talking about nuclear power not chemical energy. any boiler type generator operates at high pressure, to get the steam to do its work, you do realize all of the next generation Nuk plants will have high pressures as well, so all thorium ones will have the same high pressures.... ;) Liquid molten fluoride salt reactors don't run at high pressures but of course the heat exchanger pipes have to run at high temperature and pressure. But the molten salt then boils water at very high pressure to steam drive the generators, so it will be working under 70 atmosphere's just like ever other steam generator....

You're wrong.
In a uranium reactor the whole assembly is
working at 70 atmospheres not just
the heat exchanger.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElulEJruhRQ

Thorium and the Future of Nuclear Energy


Energy too cheap to meter - that was the promise of nuclear power in the 1950s, at least according to Lewis Strauss chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. That promise has not come to pass - but with some incredible new technologies, perhaps it still could. The question is - should it? Hosted by Matt O'Dowd Written by Matt O'Dowd Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer Directed by Andrew Kornhaber Produced By: Kornhaber Brown If we want to convert mass into energy, fission gives the most bang for our buck. Unfortunately that “bang” can be literal. Use of nuclear energy may risk the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, and there’s also the problem of nuclear waste, and the specter of horrible accidents. This last one was painted in terrifying detail in the recent dramatization of the Chernobyl disaster. Nuclear reactors sound scary because the disasters are pretty epic. However the reality is that far, far more people die from straight up air pollution due to coal-fired power plants than ever died in a nuclear reactor accident. In fact the radioactivity around coal-fired plants is also higher due to the trace but completely uncontained radioactive products of coal burning. But the most compelling attraction is that nuclear power doesn’t directly produce carbon emissions. In fact nuclear power may be our most sure path to reducing carbon emissions and halting climate change. But can we do nuclear power safely enough? There are modern ideas – including the much-hyped thorium reactor – that suggest maybe we can. Before we can understand those we’ll need to review how nuclear reactors work.

To cheap hahahaha , Bob you know that is a crock of poo, ?

BigP wrote on Jul 4^th, 2019 at 4:17pm:

To cheap hahahaha , Bob you know that is a crock of poo, ?

forgiven

namaste

Thorium power got a mention on Q&A tonight.
It's a pity that none of them really knew about it.
It shows that these internet forums are where you'll find greater information.
The public has been misinformed by lawyers running the country
who don't understand technology.

The politicians should all be sacked & the Governor General
should appoint scientists to run this country.

Jump to 14:20.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL6uB1z95gA

Bobby. wrote on Aug 9^th, 2019 at 5:34am:

Jump to 14:20. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lL6uB1z95gA

Jump to 18:15

60 Thorium reactors by 2025 in India -

that's in only 5 years

Should Australia consider thorium nuclear power?


by Nigel Marks, The Conversation


https://phys.org/news/2015-03-australia-thorium-nuclear-power.html?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Phys.org_TrendMD_1


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.


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.

The short-lived Molten Salt Reactor Experiment is far from forgotten

https://www.ornl.gov/news/msres-50th


October 15, 2015

October 15, 2015 – The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE), which ran a brief four years in the 1960s but earned an enduring legacy as an innovative reactor technology concept, this year marks a half century since its June 1965 startup.

A workshop on molten salt reactor technologies, "From the MSRE to a New Emerging Class of Reactors 50 Years Later," is being held October 15-16 at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, which developed the reactor.

https://www.ornl.gov/sites/default/files/styles/main_image_style/public/news/images/AMW_6000hrs.jpg

Alvin Weinberg, then the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, marks 6000 power hours performance of his brainchild, the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, in October 1967.

The start of the glorious Thorium Age


The fact is that Thorium is all around us -
it's abundant in our soil - it's in bricks.
It's hardly radioactive at all -
even a banana is more radioactive however
Thorium is a fertile element & can be changed by neutrons into Uranium 233
which can undergo fission to produce massive amounts of energy.

Therefore we have all that untapped energy around us all the time but
instead we prefer to burn lumps of stinking coal.
We're primitive at the moment.
Mankind will look back in 1000 years from now at how we almost wrecked the entire planet until
the power of Thorium was discovered & used.

I really believe that we are at the start of a glorious
Thorium age that will produce wonders we can only dream of.
With unlimited power we could do almost anything - even control our climate.
We could make unlimited amounts of fresh drinking water
& water for agriculture.

Cheap & abundant energy is staring us in the face -
hidden in plain sight -
yet most people don't even know about it.

http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/pages/Thorium_Fuels.htm

Thorium Fuels


Uranium 233: a fissile nucleus made from thorium

Thorium is more abundant than uranium in the Earth's crust. Therefore, the possibilities of using thorium based fuels in reactors has been considered since the beginning of nuclear power. A major obstacle is that thorium, made of almost 100% thorium-232, is not fissile but only "fertile". The capture of a neutron by a thorium-232 nucleus does not induce fission but transforms later on this thorium-232 into a uranium-233 nucleus. that is fissile. This transformation is similar to that of uranium-238 nuclei into fissile plutonium-239 within the fuels of current reactors.

http://www.radioactivity.eu.com/site/images/Formation_Uranium233_En.jpg


Thorium fuel cycle reactors are one of the options considered for the Generation IV reactors that may replace in a far future today pressurized and boilling water reactors. Thorium is more abundant than uranium. A thorium cycle may ensure in principle the energy future of mankind for thousands of years. Furthermore, the long-term legacy of radioactive waste would be diminished by the absence of plutonium and actinides in thorium-uranium spent fuels. Thorium reactors may even be used to burn a part of the existings stocks of plutonium.

A future possibility but way off in time:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=68A_HPYGdlk

"If your car was powered by thorium, you would never need to refuel it.

The vehicle would burn out long before the chemical did. The thorium would last so long, in fact, it would probably outlive you. That's why a company called Laser Power Systems has created a concept for a thorium-powered car engine. The element is radioactive, and the team uses bits of it to build a laserbeam that heats water, produces steam, and powers an energy-producing turbine.*" Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian of The Young Turks discuss.

Molten-Salt Reactor Choices - Kirk Sorensen of Flibe Energy @ ORNL MSRW 2020

1,100 views
•Oct 16, 2020
150
1
Share
Save
gordonmcdowell
23.9K subscribers

Kirk Sorensen of https://flibe-energy.com/ spoke at ORNL's Molten Salt Reactor Workshop https://msrworkshop.ornl.gov/ in 2020.

Kirk argues on behalf of FLiBe salts, graphite moderator and the supercritical CO2 recompression cycle.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mz49CB8XGQo

Dissolving thorium into molten salts allows more efficient conversion into energy than today's uranium oxide fuel rods.

The amount of waste generated, the amount of energy generated, and the expanded versatility of this new "Molten Salt Reactor" call into question our perception of nuclear power.

How safe can a nuclear reactor be, if we free ourselves from the "technological lock-in" of uranium oxide solid fuel?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kBCMEUuSNw

LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) Defended by Kirk Sorensen


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2U9HVIFt2GE



Useful timecodes:
00:00​ DOE changes regarding Molten Salt Reactors.
01:34​ Multitude of Molten Salt Reactor companies and designs.
03:36​ Kirk analogy between PC revolution and pending MSR revolution.
04:36​ Why do some MSR use Thorium but most do not?
08:35​ How can academia help MSR effort? Research of value to everyone?
09:27​ We need students who have played with salt. Skills for students?
10:17​ Electromotive series. Separate Fission Products.
11:48​ Chloride salts vs Fluoride salts.
12:22​ MSRE experience with Fluoride Salts, Graphite, Hastelloy-N.
12:58​ Acquiring U233 (Uranium-233) to seed LFTR. 2 Inventories.
13:31​ Online chemical reprocessing embraced with LFTR. Proliferation?
16:07​ Multiple revenue streams, not just sale of electricity.
19:38​ Electricity generation seeing lack of innovation. (Time traveler.)
22:39​ Carbon tax challenges. Kirk sees energy remaining inexpensive.
25:20​ Wind and solar using grid as battery, the biggest subsidy.
26:51​ Biggest challenge is not engineering, is communication.
27:40​ Techno-optimism vs dystopia fiction.
30:10​ Positive messages: We live longer lives. Cancer challenge.
31:25​ Messages being heard that Thorium is not just energy.
32:07​ DOE meetings Advanced Energy means Molten Salt Reactors.
33:20​ Funding remains hardest challenge. DOE GAIN $2.6 Million PNNL.
33:56​ Nitrogen Tri-Fluoride. NF3. Extract Uranium from Molten Salt.
34:38​ Student? Exciting developments to work on.

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


Thorium and the Future of Nuclear Energy

1,333,776 views
•Jul 2, 2019


Energy too cheap to meter - that was the promise of nuclear power in the 1950s, at least according to Lewis Strauss chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. That promise has not come to pass - but with some incredible new technologies, perhaps it still could. The question is - should it?

Hosted by Matt O'Dowd
Written by Matt O'Dowd
Graphics by Leonardo Scholzer
Directed by Andrew Kornhaber
Produced By: Kornhaber Brown

If we want to convert mass into energy, fission gives the most bang for our buck. Unfortunately that “bang” can be literal. Use of nuclear energy may risk the proliferation of nuclear weaponry, and there’s also the problem of nuclear waste, and the specter of horrible accidents. This last one was painted in terrifying detail in the recent dramatization of the Chernobyl disaster. Nuclear reactors sound scary because the disasters are pretty epic. However the reality is that far, far more people die from straight up air pollution due to coal-fired power plants than ever died in a nuclear reactor accident. In fact the radioactivity around coal-fired plants is also higher due to the trace but completely uncontained radioactive products of coal burning.

But the most compelling attraction is that nuclear power doesn’t directly produce carbon emissions. In fact nuclear power may be our most sure path to reducing carbon emissions and halting climate change. But can we do nuclear power safely enough? There are modern ideas – including the much-hyped thorium reactor – that suggest maybe we can. Before we can understand those we’ll need to review how nuclear reactors work.

These Thorium Reactors Could Power Civilization
for Millions of Years


38,442 views
•May 21, 2021


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74iiaXIVtZI

It’s time to rethink Nuclear Power!

Limitless Green Thorium Energy is coming

101,376 views
Premiered Feb 13, 2022


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8

Thorium Update 2022-04: Uranium-233 Downblending
amid Scramble for Non-Russian HALEU

5,252 views
May 2, 2022


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


Legislators have begun asking questions as to why U233 (useful for a Thorium-MSR pilot SMR) CONTINUES to be downblended now that EVERY Advanced Reactor supported by DOE funding needs a non-Russian source of HALEU. (High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium.)

U233 is an alternate fissile. While America's supply of U233 is only 450kg, it can seed a pilot SMR capable of creating more U233... an alternate supply of fissile for Advanced Reactors and Small Modular Reactors.

Appearing in this video (in order of appearance):
REP. JEFF DUNCAN (R-SC)
SENATOR TOMMY TUBERVILLE
WILLIAM WHITE
SENATOR JOE MANCHIN
DR. KATHRYN HUFF
SEC. OF ENERGY GRANHOLM
SENATOR ROBERT MARSHALL
BOB OLSON

I've always been in favour of Thorium based nuclear fission, especially since a large percentage of the world's reserves are in Australia.

It's potentially zero carbon footprint. The main problem is the time required to develop the technology.

John_Taverner wrote on Jun 1^st, 2022 at 2:56pm:

I've always been in favour of Thorium based nuclear fission, especially since a large percentage of the world's reserves are in Australia. It's potentially zero carbon footprint. The main problem is the time required to develop the technology.

There are obviously a lot of technical problems otherwise
we'd have massive Thorium power stations already.
At least India and China are working on it.
I can't wait till they solve all the problems.

How Molten Salt Reactors Could Revive Nuclear Power


Arvin Ash

939K subscribers

146,950 views  Jan 28, 2024

CHAPTERS
0:00 World energy challenge
2:14 Soylent
3:31 How power plants work
6:43 How Conventional nuclear reactors work
10:23 How Molten Salt nuclear reactors work
15:06 Why are molten salt reactors not commercial
18:11 Bottom line and my opinion





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

I hereby order 6,000 kWh of Bobby's Thorium electrical energy.

Please propose a date for delivery.

Laugh till you cry wrote on Feb 13^th, 2024 at 12:21pm:

I hereby order 6,000 kWh of Bobby's Thorium electrical energy. Please propose a date for delivery.

see Reply #5  and #6.

It's not so easy.

Thorium Problem - Why it may never Happen.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BmWhS7g2ts