By 361 to 10, a bipartisan approval of modernising nuclear power.

https://www.energy.gov/articles/president-trump-signs-bill-boost-advanced-nuclea...

I am convinced that global warming is a direct result of human industry carbon emissions over the last century and a half.  We need renewable energy, power storage, and EVs, but here is where I break with the general attitude of environmentalists.

A practical solution to overheating our atmosphere and poisoning the planet will have to include nuclear power. This is not the 1970s, we should be studying how to use new technologies to assure safety. Apparently, both Republicans and Democrats agree.

The fact is, that even with old nuclear technologies, nuclear power is safer and cleaner than coal or gas power generation. 

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2019 at 5:11am:


It's all here:
the start of the Thorium age:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

juliar wrote on Apr 8^th, 2019 at 7:12am:


I do not vote Green. You should have that hair-lip attended to.

juliar wrote on Apr 8^th, 2019 at 8:13am:

knowing you vote for Liberals Jules makes me want to vote for Labor

Well they do that thing called dispatchable power.

lee wrote on Apr 8^th, 2019 at 5:06pm:

nuke isn't easily dispatchable Lee, maybe the new ones will be, but if you are relying on liquids being heated they usually are not good for DP

juliar wrote on Apr 9^th, 2019 at 7:39am:

so where am I wrong jules

DonDeeHippy wrote on Apr 8^th, 2019 at 3:39pm:



Thorium is the answer.
Imagine having so much energy that people don't know what to do with it?

juliar wrote on Apr 10^th, 2019 at 7:39am:


how about all the poisons and pollution that coal and fossil fuels produce when burnt Jules 

how about the new cases in Australia of Black lung, would you like to mine coal ?

I thought you like the idea of Hydrogen ?

juliar wrote on Apr 11^th, 2019 at 9:20am:

and what did that rant have to do with Nuk power the USA jules…… old crazy uncle jules is getting worse

What's our current progress on nuclear fusion power and what problems remain ?
Robert Steinhaus Updated Jan 9

Why is nuclear fusion still not working?

Mankind currently is in possession of a practical working fusion technology.


(A laser irradiates and implodes a D-T filled beryllium micro-sphere on the left, which initiates a D-T fusion burst which in turn launches a shock detonation wave down a cylinder of pressurized liquid deuterium)

It is widely perceived that commercial forms of nuclear fusion are currently ~50 years away (and always will be) - but the reality is that such widespread and excessive pessimism about fusion is not justified.

Mankind came into possession of a practical way of generating energy from fusion over 50 years ago with the Ivy-Mike nuclear test of 1952 that produced fusion energy from pure Deuterium via DD fusion while using nuclear fission to reliably bring Deuterium fusion plasma to fusion conditions.

There is an existing practical fusion technology that efficiently produces large industrially significant amounts of fusion energy on demand - we just do not choose to develop it and commercially use it.

The energy needed to ignite an inertially confined thermonuclear fusion reaction in liquid (or solid) deuterium-tritium (DT) is not that large; it is on the order of not more than 20 MJ or about the same amount of chemical energy stored in about 2.5 cups of automotive gasoline.

The problem is that this energy must be compressed in space (focused down to an area less than a 2 mm) and in time (to less than 3 nanoseconds).

“So why aren’t ICF power plants being built?”

Pure Inertial Confinement Fusion that does not use nuclear fission to produce the conditions for fusion is today driver limited.

It is still not experimentally possible to build a laser (or ion particle accelerator) large enough to produce DT fusion ignition. Still, many people, including Congress, would like to know for certain if inertial confinement fusion will ultimately work and actually produce net energy from fusion. To answer this question, in the final few years of underground nuclear testing, both LANL and LLNL designed a series of test shots called Halite-Centurion. Halite-Centurion series shots were fusion related add on shots piggy-backed onto shots already on the schedule. These shots were designed to utilize a small portion of the X-rays produced from the primary of an experimental device through a line of sight to a remote fusion experiment housed some distance away in the underground experimental test canister. Lasers and Ion-beam fusion drivers such as were available at that time (1984 - 1988) could not provide the driver energy required to produce fusion ignition - but X-rays from a remotely ignited fission device could provide the driver energy needed (>20 MJ energy delivered into a spot of about 2 mm in a time of less than 3 nanoseconds) .

Halite-Centurion fusion experiments in the Nevada desert worked reliably and repeatedly and produced full fusion ignition of small sub-gram samples of DT fuel (in small filled spheres). These experiments were once classified but DOE allowed senior scientist Dr. John Lindl to declassify and reveal about half of the fusion related project information.

Inertial confinement fusion is the only form of fusion that has to date been proven to work in actual field experiments (not just theoretically predicted in computer simulations).

Once classified Halite-Centurion test shots experimentally proved that small DT filled spheres could be ignited and brought to full fusion ignition using an intense beam of X-rays.

ICF fusion is different from Magnetic Confinement Fusion and other forms of fusion as ICF fusion has been PROVEN experimentally to work.

If fusion drivers are designed that sufficiently resemble the characteristics and performance of X-ray driver used in Halite-Centurion experiments, there is no question that full fusion ignition with fusion energy gain will be practically achieved. Practical fusion is not a matter of guesswork or conjecture but has already been PROVEN in actual field experiments by both LANL and LLNL National Labs in the last years of underground nuclear testing at the Nevada Nuclear Security Site.

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

The first Ivy shot, Mike, was the first successful full-scale test of a multi-megaton thermonuclear weapon ("hydrogen bomb") using the Teller-Ulam design. Unlike later thermonuclear weapons, Mike used deuterium as its fusion fuel, maintained as a liquid by an expensive and cumbersome cryogenic system. It was detonated on Elugelab Island yielding 10.4 megatons, almost 500 times the yield of the bomb dropped on Nagasaki. Eight megatons of the yield was from fast fission of the uranium tamper, creating massive amounts of radioactive fallout. The detonation left an underwater crater 6,240 ft (1.9 km) wide and 164 ft (50 m) deep where Elugelab Island had been.

The experiment you are quoting Jules was a big bomb that totally destroyed a island..... how is this safe fusion ?? Maybe research a bit before you show us how a safe fusion was produced in the 50's 

Now some FACTS which the Greeny types ABHOR. They much prefer their impractical fictional fantasies while they hum KumBaYa sitting lotus fashion on the toadstools.


Fusion vs fission: clean, green nuclear energy technologies explained
ABC Science By Stuart Gary Posted 8 February 2016 at 12:52 pm


A picture of the inside of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory nuclear fusion reactor
New developments in laser technology could see nuclear fusion as a viable power source within 15 years. (Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)

Clean, cheap nuclear energy is often touted as a means to battle climate change. But how close are we to having nuclear plants that fit the clean, green bill? What are the different technologies and what do they offer?

More than 10 per cent of the world's electricity currently comes from nuclear power plants. These existing plants all rely on nuclear fission — a chain reaction where uranium atoms are split to release extraordinary amounts of energy and, unfortunately, high levels of radioactive waste.

But a different type of nuclear reaction — nuclear fusion — has been the focus of research to develop nuclear power without the radioactive waste problem.

Nuclear fusion is the reaction that powers the Sun. It involves smashing hydrogen atoms together under extraordinary temperature and pressure, fusing them together to form helium atoms and releasing a large amount of energy and radioactive waste. But unlike fission, this radioactive waste is short-lived, quickly decaying to undetectable levels.

Nuclear fusion happens readily in stars like the Sun, because their cores reach extreme temperatures of over 15 million degrees Celsius, and pressures billions of times greater than our atmospheric pressure on Earth.

Fusion reactors would need to recreate these extreme conditions on Earth, and researchers are using two different approaches to achieve this: tokamak reactors and laser fusion.

Tokamak reactors
Separate groups of scientists in Germany and China have recently announced they have made breakthroughs in nuclear fusion using tokamak reactors.

Tokamak reactors use a doughnut-shaped ring to house heavy and super-heavy isotopes of hydrogen, known as deuterium and tritium.

Normal hydrogen — which is also known as protium — consists of a single proton in its nucleus orbited by an electron. Deuterium differs in that the nucleus also contains a neutron, and tritium has a proton and two neutrons in its nucleus.

These isotopes are heated to 100 million degrees Celsius by powerful electric currents within the ring.

At these extreme temperatures electrons are ripped off their atoms, forming a charged plasma of hydrogen ions.


An artist's impression of a cutaway view of the ITER tokamak fusion reactor in operation. (ITER)

Magnets confine the charged plasma to an extremely small area within the ring, maximising the chance that the superheated ions will fuse together and give off energy. The heat generated can be used to turn water into steam that spins turbines, producing electricity.

Over 200 experimental tokamaks have been built worldwide, but to date they have all consumed more energy than they produce.

A massive international tokamak project — the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor (ITER) — aims to turn that situation around.

The ITER is designed to produce 10 times as much energy as it takes to run, becoming the first ever net energy producing fusion reactor. It is currently being built in the south of France, but with the first fusion experiments scheduled for 2027 it will be some time before we know if that goal has been reached.


In the meantime, physicists in Germany are using a variant of the tokamak, known as the Wendelstein 7-X stellarator. This uses a twisting ring design with changes in geometry and differing magnetic fields to control the plasma for longer periods of time compared to the short bursts tokamaks achieve.

Last week, physicists at the stellarator announced they had created a hydrogen plasma using two megawatts of microwave radiation to heat hydrogen gas to 80 million degrees Celsius for a quarter of a second.

At the same time, scientists in China said they had achieved temperatures of 50 million degrees Celsius (three times hotter than the core of the Sun) for 102 seconds at their experimental tokamak fusion reactor called the Experimental Advanced Superconducting Tokamak (EAST).

VIDEO: How the Wendelstein 7X stellarator works (Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics)

This factual account of nuclear fusion continues overleaf

ITER project: Australian physicists enlisted for fusion experiment to help clean energy research
ABC Radio Canberra Updated 7 May 2015, 4:03pm


PHOTO: An artist's impression of the ITER 'tokamak', which holds the plasma. The plasma is represented in this image by the purple donut segment. (Supplied: ITER, Design Integration Section)

A multi-million-dollar fusion energy experiment in France has brought Australian experts onboard as part of research that could one day help supply the world with clean, carbon-free energy.

The ITER project, currently under construction in France, promises carbon-free clean power, by fusing hydrogen nuclei to form helium in high-temperature plasmas like the sun.

The experiment is a collaboration between the European Union, the United States, India, Japan, China, Korea and Russia.

However Australian experts from the Australian Plasma Fusion Research Facility at the Australian National University were asked to design a system to monitor heat that escapes from the reactor.

Asked to explain how the ITER works, ANU Professor John Howard told 666 ABC Canberra's Genevieve Jacobs the simplest example of a nuclear fusion reactor was the sun.

"The material making up the sun is called a plasma. And a plasma is the fourth state of matter," he said.

Professor Howard said the other three states of matter are solid, liquid and gas.

"So if you take ice, and add heat, you get water, add more heat you turn it into steam, add more heat again and you turn it into plasma," he said.

"Basically, the atoms of the water break up into their constituent nuclei and electrons, and they're positively and negatively charged. They hold together like a plasma because of the electrical attraction.

"In the sun, that's all held together by gravity ... we have to use big containers with giant magnetic fields, that hold these charged particles together.

"We add a lot of heat, as much heat as we can, as much heat as this plasma can tolerate until the pressure inside gets so much that we reproduce the reactions that make the sun burn."

"During unexpected turbulence the fusion plasma can inflict power fluxes onto the walls [of the reactor] comparable to those at the sun's surface.", ANU Professor John Howard

At the core of the ITER machine, temperatures will reach up to 200 million degrees Celsius.

"Because the centre is so hot, there is a lot of leakage across the magnetic field boundary. And that flows down then into the walls," Professor Howard said.

"One of the problems is to try and keep the walls sufficiently cool. In order to understand how to keep the walls cool, we also need to understand how fast the plasma - the escaped heat - is flowing into those walls."

Which is where the ANU's expertise comes in.

"At the ANU we've developed some interesting imaging technologies that are now being used on other fusion reactors around the world, for looking at the flows and the temperature of the exhaust plasma," Professor Howard said.

"In the past, this was done using fairly expensive equipment [that was] only able to make measurements at a small number of points."


'This has been a missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle'


PHOTO: Construction underway at the ITER project site in France in April 2015. (Supplied: ITER)

Professor Howard said the ANU Australian Plasma Fusion Research Facility's systems enabled them to use advanced camera technology to do two-dimensional imaging.

The hope is that this technology can be used to photograph plasma temperature and flow in ITER.

"And once you can do two-dimensional imaging that opens up the possibility to do things like CT [computed tomography] scanning, in human medicine for example, where you get so much information you can work backwards to figure out exactly what's going on in detail," Professor Howard said.

"Once we can understand that, then we can understand how to control the heat."

Michael Walsh, head of diagnostics at ITER, said the project hoped to build stronger links to the ANU and its technology.


PHOTO: Australian National University (ANU) Australian Plasma Fusion Research Facility director Prof John Howard. (ABC News)

"This has been a missing piece of the jigsaw puzzle for some time," he said.

The system developed by ANU focuses on the floor of the fusion reactor, known as the diverter.

"Where the [plasma] edges touch the diverter it's like a welding arc," Professor Howard said.

"During unexpected turbulence, the fusion plasma can inflict power fluxes onto the walls comparable to those at the sun's surface."

Prof Howard said figuring out how to manage this heat flow was a major problem for ITER to solve.

"No other system can meet ITER's requirements for measuring and understanding the flows in this region of the experiment," he said.

From every 50 megawatts of power put in, the ITER machine is designed to produce 500 megawatts of fusion power.

The ITER machine will test fusion reactor technologies and is a first step towards the creation of a power plant capable of capturing fusion energy for commercial use.

Prof Howard will travel to France in June to meet with the ITER team.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-07/iter-enlist-anu-physicists-for-fusion-ene...

Article continues...


Why Is Fusion Better Than Fission?
There are a couple of problems with fission reactors. First, the staring material. I think Marty McFly said it best in Back to the Future in regards to plutonium:

"Doc, you don't just walk into a store and-and buy plutonium! Did you rip that off?"

These starting materials aren't just laying around. In fact, if you went looking for some natural plutonium you wouldn't find any. The only way to get plutonium is to make it. The other problem with fission is the products. After this nuclear fission reaction, you have this left over stuff that can be both radioactive as well as chemically active. It's just nasty stuff that you have to deal with.

Nuclear fusion would solve both of these problems. It starts with simpler stuff—although deuterium isn't always so easy to find, you don't have to make it. After fusion, you get something like helium (or helium-3). Think of all the balloons you could blow up.

https://www.wired.com/2015/11/nuclear-fission-works-fine-but-not-fusion-heres-wh...

The story of the Thorium atomic bomb continues...

In 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned commercial reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, citing concerns with the proliferation of technology that could be used to make nuclear weapons. And with the high startup costs of developing new reactors, there would be no place for the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor in the energy market. With the end of research on thorium reactors came the end of ambitious research on protactinium separations. Over time, the role of protactinium in obtaining weaponizable uranium 233 from thorium was largely forgotten or dismissed by the thorium community.

Thorium reactors born again. Fast forward to 2018. Several nations have explored thorium power for their nuclear energy portfolios. Foremost among these is India. Plagued by perennial uranium shortages, but possessing abundant thorium resources, India is highly motivated to develop thorium reactors that can breed uranium 233. India now operates the only reactor fueled by uranium 233, the Kalpakkam Mini reactor (better known as KAMINI).

Thorium reactors have other potential advantages. They could produce fewer long-lived radioactive isotopes than conventional nuclear reactors, simplifying the disposal of nuclear waste. Molten salt reactors offer potential improvements in reactor safety. Additionally, there is the persistent perception that thorium reactors are intrinsically proliferation-resistant.

The uranium 233 produced in thorium reactors is contaminated with uranium 232, which is produced through several different neutron absorption pathways. Uranium 232 has a half-life of 68.9 years, and its daughter radionuclides emit intense, highly penetrating gamma rays that make the material difficult to handle. A person standing 0.5 meters from 5 kilograms of uranium 233 containing 500 parts per million of uranium 232, one year after it has been separated from the daughters of uranium 232, would receive a dose that exceeds the annual regulatory limits for radiological workers in less than an hour. Therefore, uranium 233 generated in thorium reactors is “self-protected,” as long as uranium 232 levels are high enough. However, the extent to which uranium 232 provides adequate protection against diversion of uranium 233 is debatable. Uranium 232 does not compromise the favorable fissile material properties of uranium 233, which is categorized as “highly attractive” even in the presence of high levels of uranium 232. Uranium 233 becomes even more attractive if uranium 232 can be decreased or eliminated altogether. This is where the chemistry of protactinium becomes important.

Protactinium in the thorium fuel cycle. There are three isotopes of protactinium produced when thorium 232 is irradiated. Protactinium 231, 232, and 233 are produced either through thermal or fast neutron absorption reactions with various thorium, protactinium, and uranium isotopes. Protactinium 231, 232, and 233 are intermediates in the reactions that eventually form uranium 232 and uranium 233. Protactinium 232 decays to uranium 232 with a half-life of 1.3 days. Protactinium 233 decays to uranium 233 with a half-life of 27 days. Protactinium 231 is a special case: It does not directly decay to uranium, but in the presence of neutrons it can absorb a neutron and become protactinium 232.

Neutron absorption reactions only occur in the presence of a neutron flux, inside or immediately surrounding the reactor core. Radioactive decay occurs whether or not neutrons are present. For irradiated thorium, the real concern lies in separating protactinium from uranium, which may already have significant levels of uranium 232. Production of protactinium 232 ceases as soon as protactinium is removed from the neutron flux, but protactinium 232 and 233 continue to decay to uranium 232 and 233, respectively.

The half-lives of the protactinium isotopes work in the favor of potential proliferators. Because protactinium 232 decays faster than protactinium 233, the isotopic purity of protactinium 233 increases as time passes. If it is separated from its uranium decay products a second time, this protactinium will decay to equally pure uranium 233 over the next few months. With careful attention to the relevant radiochemistry, separation of protactinium from the uranium in spent thorium fuel has the potential to generate uranium 233 with very low concentrations of uranium 232—a product suitable for making nuclear weapons.

The story of the Thorium atomic bomb continues overleaf

Yes JuLiar,
U233 is a fissile material that has actually been used to make an atomic bomb by the Indians.
But what is your point of contention?
Maybe you are just trying to educate us?

Thorium is the answer to all our problems.
Cheap unlimited energy.
I am sure that the next 10,000 years will be called the Thorium age.

As I suggested, the Lunatic Extremist Greenies are campaigning already to BAN the evil Thorium Devil Juice!!!!



"How do I know if my preferred "green" organization, or group, or leader... is infected by the 'thorium church' trojan horse?". How to protect yourself from malicious propaganda of Thorium Church or from related compromised group or organizations.

Thorium Church: a trojan horse in the "green" movements. Here the Removal Tool.
By Massimo Greco (June 2015)


     
What are trojan horses?

Trojan horses, otherwise known as trojans, are programs or applications that are inadvertently opened by the user, who expects the file to be something else..  by the same way "thorium supporters" are infecting forums, mailing list, debacts and environmental organizations.

It's a strategy that is working in progress from some year. In few years they infected large part of the web.

Like any malware, thorium's priests are insinuated through any open space or open port .. and they are able to act at different levels. Mutating depending on the circumstances, improvising them selves as technicians or economists with the sole purpose of creating deviationism which in practice consists of annoying redirect to their cause that is regularly touted as a "green" solution or, even, "pacifist" or as a miraculous solution for the "salvation of the climate".

Their function is aggressive, especially when you try to contradict them. They always want to have the last word in any discussion, obsessively, and only when it is too late you will realize how they can make you loosing your precious time. At that point you will no more than take note that they have achieved their goal. The infection has taken place and yours space is compromised. Whether it on youtube, any social network, forums or in any blog ... it makes no difference: the malware is mutant. And in this, their behavior is very reminiscent of the deviationist hysteria typical of the fanatics of "chemtrails". And this is not a "coincidence". In fact one of several strategies, probably the most important, of the priests of thorium, has been to adopt the method of the conspiracy. Internet is full of delusions offering thorium as ecological way prevented by the famous NWO .... This was the most successful strategy in the work of proselytism in previous years, because it could involve a considerable number of idiots on the net.

Read the rest of the Lunatic Extremist Greenies' plot to keep Australia energy poor here

http://www.nonukes.it/rna/news326.html

An oldy but a goody which explains in easy terms why there are almost no thorium reactors.

Thorium is far from being a benign Gift from God having its private share of hazards just like uranium reactors.





Don't believe thorium nuclear reactor hype
By Noel Wauchope | 27 January 2013, 5:33pm

Thorium reactors are the latest big thing in nuclear spin. Noel Wauchope says: don't believe the hype.


Thorium pie in sky

Thorium reactors are the latest flavor in nuclear power hype.

According to their enthusiastic proponents, these reactors will be “smaller, safer, cheaper, cleaner”, will take over the energy market in great numbers, and

...will  reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years.

Yet the present situation of thorium nuclear reactors is a confusing one. While on the one hand, thorium as a nuclear fuel, and thorium reactors are being hyped with enthusiasm in both mainstream media and the blogosphere, the nuclear lobby is ambivalent about this.

The explanation becomes clearer, when you consider that the nuclear industry has sunk $billions into new (uranium or plutonium fuelled) large nuclear technologies, as well as into lobbying governments and media.  Would big corporations like Hitachi, EDF Westinghouse, Toshiba, Areva, Rosatom be willing, or indeed able, to withdraw from the giant international operations that they already have underway? Would they, could they, tolerate a mass uptake of the new thorium nuclear reactors — which is what would be needed, to make the thorium market economical?

Yet, the nuclear lobby, in Australia and overseas, doesn’t just tolerate the thorium hype, they participate in it — although with not as much enthusiasm as the diehard thorium fans.

Now, why is this?

The answer lies in just one concept — time. It is going to take many decades to  get the thorium fuel cycle happening. The global nuclear industry has the twin goals of prolonging the life of currently operating nuclear reactors, and of building new ones. Their rationale for this is often that, eventually, the energy solution will be nuclear fusion. So in the meantime, the world needs nuclear power — or so they argue.

But nuclear fusion is still little more than  a super-expensive glint in the eye of nuclear boffins. Some other dream is needed — something  that looks a bit more like it might happen. The thorium excitement fits the bill as, once again, the public can be made to believe that, after all the disasters and disappointment, now there really is safe, cheap  nuclear power.

The thorium advocates usually promote thorium reactors as a solution to both climate change and energy needs. But in reality, thorium nuclear energy is irrelevant to both.

Again, the first reason is time. Although there are current designs that could be established in 10 to 15 years, the most favored design – the  Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) – is estimated to have, for a significant deployment, a lead time of 40 to 70 years.

In the meantime, renewable energy – notably wind and solar technologies – are being developed and deployed at a fast rate.

Read the enlightening but depressing rest here

https://independentaustralia.net/environment/environment-display/dont-believe-th...

juliar wrote on Apr 15^th, 2019 at 3:00pm:



That's rubbish JuLiar,
there was already a working Thorium reactor in 1967.
Read my thread about it.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0
make you comments there!

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/

Hi JuLiar,
I have copied your last 3 posts here:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/90#95

as I want to go into this in more detail.
It will take a long time and I don't know if the readers would appreciate it?.

A very good summing up of the thorium dream:-

Thorium enthusiasts are fringe techno-fantasists who have convinced a bunch of other people that thorium is a silver bullet. It's not even a thorium bullet.

Thorium is like trying to get to a mirage in the desert - it just stays always far away.

It will be interesting to see how India goes as they have been trying for probably about 30 years and they have lots of thorium.

Years ago the USA built a successful thorium reactor but it was neglected thru lack of interest compared to the uranium lobby. If the USA assists India with the design then India might well be successful.


Hope springs eternal



Michael Barnard, Chief Strategist, TFIE Strategy Inc.
Updated Apr 27, 2017

No one is remotely close to a viable commercial product that would pass regulatory controls in multiple countries.

Thorium reactors would make it easier to create weapons grade radioactive material, produce long-lived radioactive waste, haven't resolved technical challenges for decades and would be likely more expensive than nuclear, which is already one of the most expensive forms of generation on the planet.




Thorium doesn't solve the proliferation problem, and in fact makes it worse.
The authors note that, from previous experiments to separate protactinium-233, it is feasible that just 1.6 tonnes of thorium metal would be enough to produce 8kg of uranium-233 which is the minimum amount required for a nuclear weapon. Using the process identified in their paper, they add that this could be done "in less than a year."

https://phys.org/news/2012-12-thorium-proliferation-nuclear-wonder-fuel.html#jCp


Not a Waste Solution
Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight, and long-term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uranium-only fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long-lived fission products like technetium-99 (half-life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository.

https://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/11/why-thorium-nuclear-isnt-featured-on-cleant...


Ongoing Technical Problems
Research and development of thorium fuel has been undertaken in Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK, and the U.S. for more than half a century. Besides remote fuel fabrication and issues at the front end of the fuel cycle, thorium-U-233 breeder reactors produce fuel (“breed”) much more slowly than uranium-plutonium-239 breeders. This leads to technical complications. India is sometimes cited as the country that has successfully developed thorium fuel. In fact, India has been trying to develop a thorium breeder fuel cycle for decades but has not yet done so commercially.

https://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/11/why-thorium-nuclear-isnt-featured-on-cleant...


Not an Economic Solution
Thorium may be abundant and possess certain technical advantages, but it does not mean that it is economical. Compared to uranium, the thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once-through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly.

https://cleantechnica.com/2012/09/11/why-thorium-nuclear-isnt-featured-on-cleant...

The intellectually handicapped Tweedledee comes out of the shadows to display her shocking ignorance and inability to understand anything. What a dumb coot she is but then she is a Greeny Tesla Fan Girl.

I can't be bothered with specious comments from Greeny types that express personal jealousy and gross ignorance and that are simply there to make a noise but say nothing.

But as always what Tweedledee wants to see is another unsafe Tesla prang and there are plenty of them.


Tesla S looks like it just came out of the showroom. Pity 'bout the lousy brakes.

BH in a tech section ?? Lost your way again BH ?

You mean a prang with no front anymore. These unsafe Tesla piles of junk have big acceleration but lousy brakes and that's why there are so many front end prangs.

Also anyone who hits the accelerator instead of the brakes is in for a crashing stop.

But BH as you like unsafe Tesla prangs


Slightly damaged Tesla S. Wonder why it caught fire ?

Uranium’s Ugly Step-Sister ? Sounds like a Greeny!!!! The thorium fantasy sort of reminds you of the Greenies' electric car in every garage fantasy.






Uranium’s Ugly Step-Sister
By Rick Mills | More Articles by Rick Mills



Most junior resource investors know uranium, and many got in on the action when NexGen Energy and Fission Uranium made their discoveries in the Athabasca Basin of Saskatchewan, the region with the highest grades of uranium in the world.

Smart, or lucky, shareholders of NXE enjoyed a cumulative share price rise of around 430% between 2014 and 2016, while Fission Energy – famous for its Patterson Lake South property that yielded the open-pittable Triple R deposit – jumped from 91 cents in November 2013 to $1.62 a share in April 2014, for a gain of 78%.

Uranium is the fuel needed to create the nuclear reaction that can either create nuclear power or nuclear weapons.

To make nuclear fuel from uranium ore, the uranium is first extracted from the rock, then enriched with the uranium-235 isotope, before being made into pellets that are loaded into assemblies of nuclear fuel rods.

In a nuclear reactor, several hundred fuel assemblies containing thousands of small pellets of uranium oxide are in the reactor core. The nuclear chain reaction that creates energy starts when U-235 splits or “fissions”, which produces a lot of heat in a controlled environment.

In a conventional nuclear reactor, the pressurized water reactor, fuel rods containing uranium pellets are placed in water. Visualized as a giant kettle, the heat generated from the pellets boils water to create steam, which turns turbines to generate electricity.

But the downside of conventional nuclear power stations is the nuclear reaction also produces plutonium, which is highly radioactive, and other wastes, causing a problem for disposal. Strontium-90 and cesium-137, contained in nuclear waste, have half-lives of about 30 years, but plutonium-239 takes 24,000 years to fully decay.

When it works well, the nuclear reaction is an efficient form of energy creation. One uranium pellet weighing just 6 grams is said to produce the same amount of energy as a tonne of coal. But it also leaves a lot of radioactive waste that needs to be incinerated, encased in concrete, or buried deep underground for centuries.

When nuclear power goes wrong, the fallout is catastrophic. Nuclear meltdowns like Chernobyl in Russia, Three Mile Island in the US, and Fukushima in Japan are burned into the collective consciousness and serve as constant reminders of the dangers of nuclear power that drive the anti-nuke movement.

While nuclear energy generation will never be without risks, proponents argue these are manageable and small compared to the risk of increased greenhouse gas emissions caused by the continued burning of fossil fuels for power, that are warming the planet.

For this reason, nuclear is always in the mix of energies required to make the transformation from an oil-based economy to one where renewable and nuclear energies make up a larger proportion of our global electricity.



Some scientists believe thorium is key to developing a new version of cleaner, safer nuclear power. So why hasn’t thorium entered the popular and investor lexicon like uranium has? The silvery-white metal has a fascinating history, and despite taking a back seat to uranium as the primary nuclear fuel, it is making a comeback.

This is the story of thorium, the wünder-fuel that wasn’t, but could be.

History
Thorium is named after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. It was first discovered in 1815 by Jöns Jakob Berzelius, a Swedish chemist, but a few years later it was determined that the mineral was actually yttrium phosphate.

In 1828 Berzelius was given a sample of a black mineral found on an island off the coast of Norway by Hans Esmark, a Norwegian mineralogist.

The mineral contained several known elements including lead, tin, iron, manganese and uranium, but 60% was an unknown substance that was subsequently named thorite.

Thorium was first isolated by mixing thorium oxide with carbon, creating thorium chloride. When reacted with potassium, the result was thorium and potassium chloride, according to Chemicool.

It took another 70 years for scientists to realize that thorium was radioactive. The discovery was made by Gerhard Schmidt, a German chemist, and Marie Cure, a Polish physicist, who are often credited with its discovery.

Thorium oxide (ThO2) has the highest melting point of all oxides (3300°C) so it’s not surprising that its early applications were in lantern mantles, arc-light lamps, welding electrodes and heat-resistant ceramics. Thorium oxide is also used in camera lenses and scientific instruments.


Read the rest of the depressing reality of thorium here

https://www.sharecafe.com.au/2018/10/03/uraniums-ugly-step-sister/

Bobby,

do what you like.

Your thread is so full of spurious uninformed trash from those who don't have a clue but just want to make a noise that it is beyond repair.

This discussion is clearly TECHNICAL and this is the TECHNICAL SECTION.

Already this one here is full of actual factual articles describing the practical technical difficulties of swinging over to thorium that it leaves yours lost in space.

The dreamers who have not got a clue think thorium is the answer to a nation's prayer, a bit like the lulus who think there should be an electric car in every garage (Bill Shorten's NBN Mark 2!!!!).

Now some more useful factual discussion.

This is a fair but mild mannered discussion explaining why thorium is where it is - neglected.



Are Thorium Reactors the Future of Nuclear Energy?
Amanda Kay - November 26th, 2018

thorium reactors
Thorium reactors hold promise as an alternative for uranium in the nuclear energy sector, but are they really a viable option?

The world’s energy needs are expected to skyrocket thanks to population growth and higher demand from developing nations, making thorium reactors increasingly appealing.

While uranium-driven reactors are being built in large quantities around the world, these reactors are not without drawbacks. Nuclear meltdowns remain a concern, and uranium has some negative connotations due to its association with weapons. Some also claim that uranium’s low price makes it an unsustainable option, despite predictions of a price rally.

Thorium, on the other hand, is seen by some as a less dangerous, more environmentally friendly path. So how does thorium play into the future of global energy?


What is thorium?
Thorium is a slightly radioactive metal that occurs in rocks and soils. It is more abundant in nature than uranium and is fertile rather than fissile, meaning it can be converted into fissile material through radiation. It is meant to be used alongside fissile materials like recycled plutonium and uranium.

Despite its benefits, using thorium as a primary source of nuclear energy is challenging. The World Nuclear Association notes that extracting latent energy is still difficult to do in a cost-effective manner, and research into refinement technology will be needed if thorium is to be turned into a viable source.

That said, it’s worth noting that the question of whether thorium reactors work for energy production was answered in 2013, when privately owned Norwegian company Thor Energy began using thorium to produce power at its Halden test reactor in Norway. “It is the fundamental first step in the thorium evolution,” Thor Energy CEO Oystein Asphjell told Reuters at the time.

How thorium works
Thorium can’t split to make a nuclear chain reaction like uranium. In scientific terms, it isn’t fissile. However, if it is bombarded by neutrons from a fuel that is fissile — like uranium-235 or plutonium-239 — it is converted into uranium-233. The process creates energy and is self-sustaining after it begins; fission of uranium-233 turns more thorium nearby into the same nuclear fuel.

There are many more complex processes involved, but this relationship between thorium and fissile materials serves as the foundation for thorium reactor technology.

Thorium vs. uranium
It’s important to understand the differences between uranium and thorium when considering developments in nuclear energy. Here are a few key ways they differ.

Cost and efficiency
One reason thorium is an interesting alternative to uranium is that it is cheaper and more abundant. Thorium is also used more efficiently in the reaction process — thorium inputs are almost completely used up during a nuclear reaction, meaning waste is reduced to a minimum. That is especially important considering the longevity of nuclear waste in the environment.

Weapons and safety
The dangers of uranium — widely publicized in the wake of the Fukushima disaster in 2011 — are a key reason why experts are giving thorium reactors serious consideration. As thorium is not fissile on its own, reactions could be stopped in case of emergency, according to Forbes.

Thorium is considered a strong choice for non-proliferation when it comes to nuclear weapons, but it is also important to note that there have been occasions in history where nuclear weapons based off of thorium have been detonated. While that is a risk, the nature of these weapons makes them difficult to handle and easy to detect.

As a result, the use of thorium reactors could allow countries like Iran and North Korea to benefit from nuclear power by minimizing concerns that they are secretly developing nuclear weapons.

Thorium and uranium have an interesting relationship in that they are complements and competitors to each other. Thorium can be used together with conventional uranium-based nuclear power generation, meaning a thriving thorium industry would not necessarily make uranium obsolete.

Read the rest of this mild mannered discussion here

https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/energy-investing/uranium-inve...

Thorium remains tantalizingly out of reach despite, particularly India, trying for about 40 years.

While uranium reactors are now off the shelf thorium reactors are still in the Lab stage with no end in sight.

This well researched article is quite comprehensive and explains lots of aspects and why thorium won't hit the headlines anytime soon.







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 informative rest here

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

Still a fair way away juliar.