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



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.

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



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

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-r...


And another article about India:-



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

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



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-plutoniu...

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.



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-...

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.

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?""


No such thing as a free lunch Julie