1. Attachments are working again! Check out this thread for more details and to report any other bugs.

Long term test of Thorium-Plutonium fuel started

Discussion in 'Environmental Discussion' started by Trollbait, Jul 8, 2013.

  1. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,595
    11,220
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy | ExtremeTech

    The company just started up a reactor with this fuel to supply steam to a paper mill, and it will run for 5 years. This is to study the fuel's life cycle within a reactor. After this, they hope to start commercial production.

    Another article: This Thorium Reactor Has the Power of a Norse God
     
    austingreen and Eclipse1701d like this.
  2. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A

    Excellent. It doesn't solve any of the problems with costs of new nuclear plants, since fuel cost is such a minor consideration, but if it works it will definitely help with the spent fuel pollution problem.
     
  3. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Waste-free? Nuclear? Oh, be serious.
     
  4. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    lol. It said almost waste free:)

    Think France, China, India that are going to build these things anyway. If they can be made safer and produce less waste its a good thing.

    Anouther thorium related stories
    Thorium reactors could soon power Indonesia, Chile | SmartPlanet

     
  5. Corwyn

    Corwyn Energy Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    2,171
    659
    23
    Location:
    Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    World Reserves:
    Uranium: 5,404,000 tonnes.
    Thorium: 1,913,000 tonnes.
    [source: Wikipedia]
     
  6. dbcassidy

    dbcassidy Toyota Hybrid Nation, 8 Million Strong

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    1,581
    290
    3
    Location:
    Middlesex County, MA
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    Very interesting and exciting, thanks for sharing.:)

    DBCassidy
     
  7. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    I am not in favor in new nuclear power plants in the US, but if new plants are being built we should understand thorium. The first is it takes a lot less thorium to produce power than uranium.


    The Thing About Thorium: Why The Better Nuclear Fuel May Not Get A Chance - Forbes

     
  8. dbcassidy

    dbcassidy Toyota Hybrid Nation, 8 Million Strong

    Joined:
    May 13, 2008
    1,581
    290
    3
    Location:
    Middlesex County, MA
    Vehicle:
    2008 Prius
    Model:
    Two
    Nuclear power is needed to help curb GHG and the increasing electrical demands of the world.

    DBCassidy
     
  9. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,595
    11,220
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    Wikipedia also says, "Thorium is several times more abundant in Earth's crust than all isotopes of uranium combined and thorium-232 is several hundred times more abundant than uranium-235."

    It's actually a by product of rare earth metal mining. Have an issue with radon in your basement, you can thank thorium. Radon is a decay product. The International Atomic Energy Agency estimates add another 900,000 tonnes to the world reserves. The stuff has little value right now, so it isn't something prospectors regularly look for.

    While not inert, the radiation thorium emits can't penetrate skin. Just don't go eating and snorting the stuff. I'm sure part of this project is to determine what type and how much waste the reactor will produce.
     
    VicVinegar likes this.
  10. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    I still think if nuclear's the answer, we're asking the wrong questions.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  11. wjtracy

    wjtracy Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2006
    11,309
    3,586
    1
    Location:
    Northern VA (NoVA)
    Vehicle:
    Other Hybrid
    Model:
    N/A
    ...you sold me on Thorium, but then we blended 10% Plutonium in there. That's when you lost me.

    Also I was a little upset to learn recently that the US idea of a small modular reactor is 250-300 MW...gee I would call that a medium-to-large size modular reactor. It not utility size (mega-humongous) but still big...
     
  12. hill

    hill High Fiber Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2005
    19,605
    8,036
    54
    Location:
    Montana & Nashville, TN
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    IV
    anyone who has looked up to the top of a huge mountain of coal ash (prior to it washing down into your property) can appreciate anything less foul that the mountain they're staring at
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]
    but hey - the industry says it's no big deal ... so I'll just trust them, too. Safe? we'll see.
    ;)
    .
     
  13. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A
    What does that have to do with my comment?
     
  14. Trollbait

    Trollbait It's a D&D thing

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2006
    21,595
    11,220
    0
    Location:
    eastern Pennsylvania
    Vehicle:
    Other Non-Hybrid
    There isn't one solution to the question.
    This is exciting because there are already nuclear plants in operation, and they aren't going to just shut down tomorrow. The thorium and plutonium fuel is a replacement for the uranium in these reactors. Instead of making more plutonium, we'll be using the stuff already sitting in waste storage. Plus a material that is a by product mining operations already going on.

    Well, we stick the plutonium in a sealed reactor, and let it work for us, or we just leave it where it is at in waste storage, and hope no one with ill intentions gets to it.

    The waste products of thorium fuel aren't weaponizable, and are short lived. What affect plutonium will have in terms of the waste I think is a question to be answered by this study.

    That is big. I think the Toshiba one that an Alaskan town wants is only 30MW.

    I thought he was agreeing with you, but now I'm not sure.
     
    austingreen likes this.
  15. Corwyn

    Corwyn Energy Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2011
    2,171
    659
    23
    Location:
    Maine
    Vehicle:
    2007 Prius
    Model:
    II
    When this came up in 2011, I wrote:

    "World resources of Thorium: 6 million tons (US resources 440,000 tons)
    Energy available: 3.6 Billion kWh / ton
    Total energy: 2.1 x 10^16 kWh
    World energy usage (2008): 1.3 x 10^14 kWh/ year
    is 164 years (at today's usage rates. ha!)
    at a 2.2% growth rate it should last until 2077."

    The usual caveats apply.
     
  16. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A

    I hope your not suggesting that we tear down all our wind turbines, solar panels, and natural gas ccgt plants and build thorium reactors. When people try to say we shouldn't build solar because if we needed to be 100% it would take up too much land. The same faulty reasoning is here. What is you use 20% thorium instead for the next 100 years, how much would be used up until hopefully fusion power plants or other technology becomes viable.

    From the Forbes article I linked, many more uranium powered nuclear plants are being built today. They may be safer and less polluting if they were one of the thorium technologies, especially molton salt. If they get built as uranium light water reactors though, this tech may allow them to reduce plutonium pollution by using thorium/plutonium fuel that is consumed. I am not for all the new nuclear plants going up in china and india, but they are going to be built, and this technology may make them less polluting.

    There are many remote places where there is not good wind or sun and no natural gas pipelines. That leaves the choice to mainly diesel, coal, or nuclear. none of these are good, but I linked an article about small modular thorium possibly being used here. We will run out of oil and coal before we run out of thorium, and small coal plants produce a great deal of pollution. If small thorum reactors can be built safely, without costs a huge amount more per kwh than oil or coal, these may be better choices.
     
    Trollbait likes this.
  17. 2k1Toaster

    2k1Toaster Brand New Prius Batteries

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2010
    6,035
    3,854
    0
    Location:
    Rocky Mountains
    Vehicle:
    2006 Prius
    Model:
    Three
    I would rather have gen-4 nuclear plants dotting the landscape than the big coal and natural gas ones that are most common around here now.
     
  18. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    If we're going to put choices on the table, I'd like to suggest geothermal. It's independent of weather, emission-free, limitless, and has a very long payback period.
     
  19. austingreen

    austingreen Senior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    13,525
    4,057
    0
    Location:
    Austin, TX, USA
    Vehicle:
    2018 Tesla Model 3
    Model:
    N/A

    And do you think it is cost competitive everywhere? For these remote sites geothermal is not really an option. Even in California where it is plentiful and relatively inexpensive, the state imports more coal power than it has built geothermal. If geothermal is there, and people have the money, sure, I agree. I even had an energy conversation with a company trying to set up geothermal in alaska, where it may be viable.

    The small thorium reactor that might be piloted in Kalimantan, Indonesia, in the article I linked. A large part of the island is a protected rain forest, . Unlike more heavily populated java there is little risk of an earthquake. The indonesian government is not rich like the US. Should they be forced to choose fossil fuel plants that may hurt the rain forests some other scheme. It seems like a good plan for them. Also using small modular thorium means that there won't be a question of them attempting to build a bomb. Do you think the US and/or Canada should dictate to the Indoneasians they need to pay for green power, when neither government is shutting down coal quickly?
     
  20. hyo silver

    hyo silver Awaaaaay

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2005
    15,232
    1,562
    0
    Location:
    off into the sunset
    Vehicle:
    2004 Prius
    Model:
    N/A
    Not everywhere, no. Hydroelectric doesn't work everywhere, either, but it's a vital part of the mix. For the portion of the world's population that lives near the 'ring of fire', geothermal sounds like a viable option.

    Didn't you just say an option didn't have to be 100% to be viable? Let's have some consistency here. ;)