Australian Politics Forum - Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?

Pho Huc

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #45 - Sep 16^th, 2015 at 2:37pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My 2C

Back to top

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)

IP Logged

Pho Huc

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #46 - Sep 16^th, 2015 at 2:42pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your knowledge of science is poor -

there is very little vacuum energy.

forgiven

namaste

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

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

Back to top

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 122444
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #47 - Sep 16^th, 2015 at 9:19pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My 2C

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

It's rarer than platinum.

Back to top

IP Logged

Pho Huc Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 985 Victoria Gender:	Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power? Reply #48 - Sep 16^th, 2015 at 9:30pm But you only need 3% U 235 for fission. I'm not saying you can get it at the milk bar, but there is enough uranium for worldwide demand if you tap seawater, and approx 50 years on known land based deposits. That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.
Back to top	The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying) IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 122444
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #49 - Sep 16^th, 2015 at 9:51pm

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

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

That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Pho Huc

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #50 - Sep 17^th, 2015 at 11:53am

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

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

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

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

Back to top

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)

IP Logged

Sir lastnail

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 30923
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #51 - Sep 17^th, 2015 at 3:37pm

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

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

That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.

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

Back to top

"If you take out Saddam, I guarantee you that it will have enormous positive reverberations on the region..." - Benjamin Netanyahu in 1995

IP Logged

Pho Huc

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #52 - Sep 17^th, 2015 at 7:31pm

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

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

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

That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.

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

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

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

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

Back to top

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 122444
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #53 - Sep 17^th, 2015 at 7:40pm

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

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

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

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

That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

Pho Huc

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 985
Victoria
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #54 - Sep 17^th, 2015 at 9:54pm

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

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

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

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

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

That reserve allows producing 15K TWHRS annually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Id love to see what happened if you threw a whole heap of Indian and Chinese scientists together on a project.
Providing its not my project

Chinese and Indians probably get on worse than Chinese and Japanese!

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

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

Back to top

The law locks up the man who steals the goose from the common, but leaves the greater criminal loose who steals the common from the goose (convict saying)

IP Logged

Bobby.

Gold Member

Online

Australian Politics

Posts: 122444
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power?
Reply #55 - Sep 17^th, 2015 at 10:09pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thorium doesn't have a chain reaction.

Back to top

IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 122444 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power? Reply #56 - Sep 19^th, 2015 at 11:02pm Can Turnbull turn our country around & get some Thorium science happening?
Back to top	IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 51474 Gender:	Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power? Reply #57 - Sep 19^th, 2015 at 11:20pm Mal loves coal.
Back to top	OzPolitic needs a >real< Environment MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Food MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Health MRB now! OzPolitic needs a >real< Economics MRB now! Topics in the right MRB! IP Logged

Bobby. Gold Member Online Australian Politics Posts: 122444 Melbourne Gender:	Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power? Reply #58 - Sep 20^th, 2015 at 9:13am Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 19^th, 2015 at 11:20pm: Mal loves coal. I hope not - we need something to replace all the coal & iron - which used to fetch a high price - now it's hardly worth mining.
Back to top	IP Logged

Gnads Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 34125 Gender:	Re: Should AUST consider thorium nuclear power? Reply #59 - Sep 20^th, 2015 at 9:37am I say nay to nuclear anything. You seem to be proponents of the "Nuclear Insanity of our Time".
Back to top	"When you are dead, you do not know you are dead. It's only painful and difficult for others. The same applies when you are stupid." ~ Ricky Gervais IP Logged

Poll
Question: Should Australia consider thorium nuclear power?
Yes 10 (58.8%) No 7 (41.2%) Total votes: 17 « Created by: Swagman on: Sep 12^th, 2015 at 11:52am »