patrick.net

They had working prototypes back in the 60's. I have no clue why they aren't pursing thorium based reactors more now.

Other info:


Don't have any more info. on the subject to add unfortunately.

I suspect the uranium industry which supplies both civil and weapons needs, would sabotage all such efforts. After all, they make good money mining and refining uranium into fuel rods.

Thorium requires much less of MIC behind it.

PersainCAT says

tts says

They had working prototypes back in the 60's. I have no clue why they aren't pursing thorium based reactors more now.

government red tap.

No. R&D was killed back in the 60's by nuclear power lobbyists. The information is buried in studies from that time period that are available on the internet but are almost impenetrable to the layman due to the language and technical issues discussed.

Google LFTR Evaluation WASH 1222 and LFTR Evaluation ORNL TM 3063 if you want to directly read the documents which are actual studies done on the working test reactor in the pic I posted above. That particular reactor was a prototype that was basically thrown together on what amounted to a shoestring budget for that sort of research.

Right now the NRC isn't interested in anything with LFTR's and it will likely stay that way for a long time which is the main reason not much work was being done in the field all this time. No chance to make money as long as that is true. There supposedly are some companies looking to make a "battery type" self contained LFTR that could be fit on a tractor trailer for rapid deployment for the military which doesn't need the NRC's permission at all.

For more info. on that: nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/thorenco-llc-presents-little-40-mw.html

For more info. on LFTR's in general: www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/

FWIW the main problem with that prototype reactor supposedly were the salts used as coolant/working fluid. They're effective but highly corrosive to most materials. This was the excuse used to kill LFTR's back then. The reality is though that the R&D team working on the reactor also developed variants of an ally called Hastelloy-N that mostly fixed that issue. Their work was ignored when the report was given, and that was that.

This is a good composite of the Google Tech talk series about Thorium over the last few years. It certainly looks like something that should be explores further.

http://rjsteinert.com/content/google-tech-talk-thorium-energy

tts says

No. R&D was killed back in the 60's by nuclear power lobbyists. The information is buried in studies from that time period that are available on the internet but are almost impenetrable to the layman due to the language and technical issues discussed.

I just love the America is the center of the universe theme. Thorium reactors have been studied around the world for decades. There are very tough technical issues involved, especially containment. There all the usual nuclear issues as well. Weapons grade byproduct u233, operating safety, really nasty chemical byproducts, and nuclear waste. The waste is shorter lived, but still must be dealt with.

So there is no grand conspiracy to deprive the world of limitless energy "too cheap to meter" as nuclear boosters used to say. China has just recently committed to a major program to try to create a workable thorium reactor, so there may be some real world operating experience of thorium reactors in the near future. Until someone actually operates one on a large scale for a good amount of time all the theoretical benefits are meaningless. Nuclear energy has always had huge technical challenges.

Anyone interested in how tough nuclear energy is to produce should find a copy of a book called "We almost lost Detroit" which chronicles many of the trials and tribulations of nuclear power. It is anti nuclear in theme but has great technical insight. It's just stunning how tricky handling reactors really is. The title of the book refers to the madness of building a large scale sodium filled (sodium explodes violently on contact with air or water) fast breeder reactor just outside of Detroit that partially melted down and came within a hair of exploding Chernoble style. Actually much worse than Chernoble.

The one point the book makes that should be considered is that there has never been private insurance for a nuclear reactor. Look up Price-Anderson act. You the taxpayer are insuring all the reactors in the US. If reactors were as safe as claimed then they should be insurable. Just a thought. Side note, nuclear accidents are not covered by your homeowners because of this in case you live close to a plant.

I'm not anti nuclear. Nuclear power works and provides 20% of electricity in the US. I just believe that people should be aware of how heavily subsidized the nuclear industry is as well how difficult and potentially dangerous it will always be. On the subject of subsidies for the nuclear industry it would pay to read a book called "Take the rich off Welfare". They estimate the subsidy to the nuclear industry at 7 billion dollars a year. If you add this to the cost of the 800 tw generated a year nuclear generated electricity would be a lot less competitive.

bob2356 says

I just love the America is the center of the universe theme.

If you read what I posted and have somehow managed to infer this from it than that is your perception, which says more about you then me, and not my intention.

bob2356 says

Thorium reactors have been studied around the world for decades.

Sure but only in relatively small table top experiments. Outside the US and several other first world countries no one has the money to do large scale experiments like the reactor you can see in the pic a ways up the page. FWIW I've heard of China starting some large scale R&D up on LFTR's but know almost nothing else about it, and that was only in the last few years IIRC.

bob2356 says

There are very tough technical issues involved, especially containment.

Did you even read my previous post at all? Especially the part regarding the alloy variants of Hastelloy-N? I even the mentioned the exact reports by name so you can google them and see the results your self.

bob2356 says

Until someone actually operates one on a large scale for a good amount of time all the theoretical benefits are meaningless.

The half assed prototype in the pic up a ways ran for 4 years FYI. The issues with LFTR's are already fairly well known and plenty of research papers exist on the subject. The problems are a)political push back from monied interests and b)developing a mass manufacture LFTR for relatively rapid (10 years or so) and cheap roll out to replace existing nuclear and other power plants.

bob2356 says

If reactors were as safe as claimed then they should be insurable. Just a thought.

Insurance companies won't insure them because the event of a major melt down is too large for any insurance company to insure, only a government is big enough to do it. Also you should read up more on LFTR's and 3rd and 4th gen nuclear reactors, they physically can't melt down. Only the old nuclear designs from the 60's and 70's have that issue and LFTR's can't melt down at all.

Yes I read your comment, you talk about all the US studies, "nuclear power lobbiests" and us nuclear politics, so I would consider that US based view. There was considerable work done elsewhere that never panned out either. The big bad nuclear power lobby again?

Are you shilling stock for thorium reactors or something? I pointed out the problems and to each one you say yes that's true but.

No one has run a full scale production reactor period. Your so called half assed experiment doesn't mean anything. Until a full scale reactor gets run under full scale load for a long period of time the economics are strictly theory period. All the solutions are theory. The can't melt down is theory. There have been plenty of so called fail safe designs in every field that failed quite nicely thank you. Don't ever underestimate the ability for people to foul up.

Lewis Lichtenstein Strauss, chairman of
the US Atomic Energy Commission, said in 1954:
"It is not too much to expect that our children will enjoy in their
homes electrical energy too cheap to meter"

That theory hasn't panned out so well either. Thorium could be a valuable addition to the production of energy or it could be a bust. No one will know until it gets tried in real life.

bob2356 says

There was considerable work done elsewhere that never panned out either. The big bad nuclear power lobby again?

Did you miss the part about the associated R&D costs too and how few countries can afford to do that sort of research?

bob2356 says

I pointed out the problems and to each one you say yes that's true but.

That is what happens when you only look at certain facts to support your pre formed premise rather than looking at all the facts and then forming a conclusion.

bob2356 says

No one has run a full scale production reactor period.

What is the exact definition of "a full scale production reactor"? I'm not aware of one that exists.

bob2356 says

Your so called half assed experiment doesn't mean anything. Until a full scale reactor gets run under full scale load for a long period of time the economics are strictly theory period.

That reactor ran for 4 years nearly uninterrupted at all sorts of loads and quite a bit of data was collected during that time period. If that isn't a long period of time in your opinion then I'd say your opinion isn't worth much. It also isn't consistent with the complaints the commission had against LFTR's BTW. Their reports do talk about the economics of those reactors FYI. You haven't been reading them at all have you? I mean can understand if you don't understand everything in them, I sure don't, but you're not even trying.

tts says

bob2356 says

No one has run a full scale production reactor period.

What is the exact definition of "a full scale production reactor"? I'm not aware of one that exists.

That's the whole issue one doesn't exist only a prototype run under controlled conditions, what part of that don't you get. Full scale production model is self defining. Full/Large scale is usually over 50 megawatts. Production means putting out electricity into the grid day in and day out. No amount of prototyping on a small scale can simulate building and operating in real life. I would think the history of nuclear power generation so far would have made that simple truism abundantly clear.

I read the stuff. I don't have any pre formed conclusions. You keep ignoring where I say Thorium reactors could be great or terrible or somewhere in the middle but no one will know until it happens in real life. You don't know, I don't know, scientists don't know. What part isn't clear about that?

I repeat why are you so hyped about this, are you selling something?

bob2356 says

No amount of prototyping on a small scale can simulate building and operating in real life.

Does that reactor look small scale to you? I'm not a nuclear expert but it sure doesn't to me.

bob2356 says

I repeat why are you so hyped about this, are you selling something?

I have no stock or money at all in thorium or LFTR's. I'm hyped about it because it seems like a good viable solution to most of our energy needs even in the very long term while also being safe and potentially very cheap and clean. Most people informed on the subject have reach similar conclusions too, which is why its weird to me for you to say that the data presented here doesn't prove anything.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Can-Thorium-Generate-Safer-Nuclear-Power/

tts says

I'm hyped about it because it seems like a good viable solution to most of our energy needs even in the very long term while also being safe and potentially very cheap and clean. Most people informed on the subject have reach similar conclusions too, which is why its weird to me for you to say that the data presented here doesn't prove anything.

Why is my point so hard to make? Many very informed people said that light water reactors and breeder reactors would provide safe, potentially very cheap (not necessarily clean) energy. It didn't work out like that at all. Until a technology in actual production is proven then the word potential means nothing. There is many slip between the cup and lips. Why is that concept complicated and unacceptable to you?

bob2356 says

It didn't work out like that at all. Until a technology in actual production is proven then the word potential means nothing.

Actually the word potential means exactly what it means. Nothing more, but importantly, nothing less.

I don't disagree with your point. But I like the point made by one guy on the video. "We aren't happy to stick with 1950s technology in cars or in computers, why are we satisfied with 1950s technology for nuclear energy?"

ALso while I don't fully disagree with you, I believe that scientists and engineers should be very capable of predicting the success of new nuclear reactors.

And definitely they can predict the lower risks.

Seems less challenging than something like this ?
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-205_162-20072118.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider

Were you one of those who said, "until they get this thing running, we don't really know whether it might create a black hole."

Hey, maybe it did in most universes, and this is just one of those where that didn't happen....

Makes you think, right ?

Gentle Readers,
We have 7 billion people on this planet and are moving toward 9 billion. We will need good food, clean water, and good living conditions for everyone. I've read recently that MIT is now predicting a major environmental collapse in about 20 years or thereabouts. Yes, I know the popular media does not understand enough science and so gets little of these stories correct. Still, it is clear that we need energy and lots of it. We've never really had enough, actually.

I don't see any alternative to nuclear power under these circumstances. Yes, I think climate change is instigated by mankind's activities and is real and a danger. I personally know climate scientists that have no professional doubts on this matter. None.

If anyone has an alternative to nuclear energy, I'm all ears. Yes, it is dangerous.

Regards,
Roidy

Roidy says

Yes, it is dangerous

The people that are excited about Thorium Reactors explain why it is WAY less dangerous. I believe it.

Unfortunately (or not) fuel for nuclear weapons in not a byproduct of Thorium reactors, and in fact the radioactive residue is far less. Which Presidential candidate is going to get on the bandwagon first? Probably neither, there aren't enough campaign contributions in it.