The Thorium Dream

[wtmusic]

"The Thorium Dream explores the growing grassroots movement in the United States behind the element thorium and the powerful forces that could keep it buried in the dustbin of history. After the Fukushima disaster, nuclear energy faces its biggest questions in decades. But a ragtag band of energy enthusiasts is on a mission to spread their answer: more nuclear power than Walt Disney could have dreamed up, green enough to save the climate (the energy secretary and NASA’s chief climate scientist are curious) and safe enough that if you walked away from the reactor, it would calmly turn itself off. There’s just one problem: the idea was already killed by the government 40 years ago. Bringing it back won’t be easy, but some are staking their whole livelihoods on it. That’s just what life’s like ... with the thorium dream."

http://www.vice.com/motherboard/thorium-dream

[Gregorian]

1. This gets shot down every time it's posted here.

What are the negatives with thorium reactors? Anyone? India has one now, supposedly.


Just guessing here, but I'll bet it's more expensive than photovoltaic.

[wtmusic]

2. They run at around 1200ºF so they're hard on materials

- pumps, piping, etc. Separating out various fission products is complicated.

Those are the big problems, and few believe they're insurmountable. But watching the whole video is highly recommended.

[Fledermaus]

15. Thorium has highest melting point of all oxides at 3,182° F.

U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
By Keith Nuthall
WardsAuto.com, Aug 11, 2011 9:21 AM

The key to the system developed by inventor Charles Stevens, CEO and chairman of Connecticut-based Laser Power Systems, is that when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, becomes it is so dense its molecules give off considerable heat.

Small blocks of thorium generate heat surges that are configured as a thorium-based laser, Stevens tells Ward’s. These create steam from water within mini-turbines, generating electricity to drive a car.

A 250 KW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.

...

Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline Stevens says. So, using just 8 gm of thorium in a car should mean it would never need refueling.
Thorium has highest melting point of all oxides at 3,182° F.

[Maslo55]

16. this is fake

there is no thorium laser car.

[kristopher]

18. He knows that...

It is a prototypical example of all the claims regarding thorium.

[Maslo55]

19. I am yet to see any credible

technical reason why our or Kirk Sorensens claims regarding LFTR are not true. Not one of you critics has provided even a single one. Citing long ago debunked blogs or studies regarding solid fueled reactors and not LFTRs wont cut it.

Thorium laser car is against laws of physics. LFTR is not.

I was also sceptical when I first heard all the claims about LFTR. But after further research I found I was unable to debunk them, instead, all the arguments against it seemed to be based on misunderstandings or lumping together different (not MSR liquid fuel) reactors with LFTR.

[wtmusic]

22. The fact that thorium is an element, not an "oxide", should have made this article suspect.

Not to mention the thorium is never melted - it's the lithium or beryllium salt it's floating in.

You were just joking, right? Heh heh.

[kristopher]

4. "Thorium dreams"? Apt title...

It has more in common with "opium dreams" than just sounding similar.

This overview seems fairly comprehensive and looks to be dedicated to separating fact from hype.

Sample:

...One other misconception on the internet is the view that a LFTR reactor will produce almost no nuclear waste, as the following You-tube video implies (or see this “activists” banner here). This is not the case. All the while during the plant’s operating life that chemical plant will be producing nuclear waste material, and as discussed earlier some of that is pretty “nasty stuff”. Not a lot of it per day, but it all adds up! Also the supporters of the LFTR seem to assume that this CPP can operate with 100% efficiency (i.e remove all the radioactive poisons). This would be very technically challenging, especially in the LFTR case given the importance about separating out of U-232 (and its Thallium-208 payload) from U-233 or indeed removal of protactinium-233 as well as a host of other nuclear “poisons” discussed. Build up of these in the core both leads to increased irradiation of the core as well as the eventual shutdown of the nuclear reaction process altogether.

An CPP facility capable of that level of operating efficiency would likely be physically very large. Given that it will be working with radioactive materials, and the real radiological hazard is a pipe burst (an all too common occurrence and any chemical plant, and especially likely at these sort of working temperatures and radiation levels), we would thus need to put the CPP underneath our concrete containment dome. Obviously a large CPP will not only be expensive to build and maintain but greatly increase the size of this containment structure, further increasing reactor construction costs as well as increasing construction time (and reducing the number of said reactors we comission in any given time period).

And of course the supporters of the LF reactor concept have yet to come up with a functional design of an CPP. I’ve seen various dusty line drawings of the 1970’s ORNL proposal, you can see them yourself here and here, but that’s it. I would firstly note that materials science and chemical processing technology has moved on hugely in the last 40 years, so I doubt it would be sensible to build an CPP as shown in these plans. A new one would have to be redesigned (all but) from scratch.

The LFTR supporters have tried to counter this by coming up with designs of their own, but I’ve yet to see an actual working schematic, one that specifically discusses cycle efficiencies and above all else ENERGY INPUTS! The designers of this reactor seem to be assuming that this CPP, which will involve various stages of pumping, sparging, vacuum processing and filtering of the working fluid, often at a variety of set temperatures or pressures will operate with no net energy input and achieve 100% separation efficiency! In science we have a technical term for such a belief.

As the working fluid will be ...

http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/

[wtmusic]

6. Anonymous, uninformed, barely comprehensible idiocy.

Also the supporters of the LFTR seem to assume that this CPP can operate with 100% efficiency LIE
Build up of these in the core both leads to increased irradiation of the core as well as the eventual shutdown of the nuclear reaction process altogether LIE and or sheer stupidity
An CPP facility capable of that level of operating efficiency would likely be physically very large LIE

z-z-z-z boring

[kristopher]

7. Poor feller's having his own personal meltdown, aren't ya?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11273055

[wtmusic]

8. Actually I'm very optimistic

because nobody who matters is listening to rabid antinukes and their nonsense anymore.

It's a wonderful new year.

[kristopher]

9. thorium has a "cult following on line" ...with "aspects of a Scientific Cargo Cult"

Yes, I suppose "optimistic" could be one word describing your state of mind.

http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/

[wtmusic]

10. LOL same anonymous, uninformed blogger.

Hard to find any detractors with credentials, isn't it?

S'okay...take your time.

[wtmusic]

23. Tick, tick. Like watching paint dry. nt

[Maslo55]

17. Not much of a critique

He seems to completely misunderstand the technology, and is biased against it. It has been thoroughly debunked here:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/07/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/08/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/07/very-strange-technical-critique-of.html

"To those of you, here's a quick summary of some of the things in this critique which are complete nonsense, so you can judge for yourselves (I'll go into a bit more detail after the summary):
Summary of some of the biggest howlers:
-Claims MSRs have "Isotope Separation Plants" which separate 233U and 232U (the trace contaminant)
-Warns of hazardous fission products, such as thorium isotope "T-232" , which supposedly is a disadvantage of thorium-fuelled reactors because of its 14 billion year half-life
-Warns that electrolyzing nuclear fuel salts is energy-intensive
-Warns that heat inputs in fluoride reprocessing are energy-intensive
-Asserts that thorium MSRs are constrained to a lower temperature limit of 1,110 °C, the melting point of pure ThF4. Concludes MSRs must be built entirely from ceramics
-"Obviously, once we exhaust the world’s U-235 stockpiles, LFTR’s and any other Thorium fuelled reactors will cease to function."
-Argues against using molten fuel salt as a working fluid in a gas turbine(!?)"

[kristopher]

21. So the people who are being debunked think the debunker needs debunkiing...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11273055#post4

[OKIsItJustMe]

3. Thorium Reactors

http://www.etec.energy.gov/history/Major-Operations/AETR.html

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Advanced Epithermal Thorium Reactor[/font]

[font size=3]The Advanced Epithermal Thorium Reactor (AETR) was housed in Building 4100. The AETR was used to study twenty different nuclear reactor core configurations by using an apparatus which supported a range of geometries

The tests conducted at the AETR measured the results of nuclear criticality which took place when key components were arranged in different ways. The tests conducted under low power conditions so researchers could easily study the experiments. Despite the word "Reactor" within the facility name, the tests did not produce a sustainable nuclear fission reaction and so the facility is more accurately described as a "critical" facility.

Early fuels used in the AETR were thorium or uranium; later tests with high-energy (fast) neutrons were conducted and the name was changed to the Fast Critical Experiment Laboratory (FCEL). The program was completed in 1974.

…[/font][/font]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Point_Energy_Center#Unit_1

[font face=Times, Serif]
[font size=3]…

Indian Point 1, built by Consolidated Edison, was the first of three reactors at this location. It was a 275-megawatt pressurized water reactor and was issued an operating license on March 26, 1962 and started operations on September 16, 1962. The first core at the Indian Point power station used a thorium-based fuel, but it did not live up to expectations. The plant was operated with uranium oxide fuel for the remainder of its operations.

…[/font][/font]

[wtmusic]

5. Both were light-water reactors with solid-fuel cores

and thus had all of the disadvantages and none of the advantages of using thorium dissolved in a molten salt.

[waddirum]

11. keep dreaming

Public acceptance of nuclear is now dead. No utility will invest in it. No private insurer will insure it. No one wants it in their backyard.

And the general public will no longer accept "Trust us... this new one is inherently safe, and won't melt down like the last one." It ain't gonna fly.

[wtmusic]

12. Unfortunately repeating that mantra doesn't make it true.

"Contrary to the conventional wisdom, and despite Fukushima, a solid majority of Americans still view nuclear energy favorably. According to a survey conducted in late September by Bisconti Research and GfK Roper, 62% of respondents say they approve the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to provide electricity in the United States.

Those strongly favoring nuclear energy outnumber those strongly opposed by a 2-1 ratio. Eighty-five percent of respondents believe that current operating licenses should be renewed when they expire, as long as the plants meet federal safety standards. "

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11272292

[kristopher]

13. So why do you keep using that strategy?

Americans oppose building more nuclear power plants in the United States, by a margin of 2-1

The question facing us is where do we spend our money going forward. An overwhelming majority of both experts and the public say renewable energy and energy efficiency.

US poll:

"Opposition is not merely a not-in-my-back-yard phenomenon. The survey, conducted for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, finds that 67 percent of Americans oppose construction of a nuclear plant within 50 miles of their home – not significantly different than the number who oppose it regardless of location."

“Strong” opposition outstrips strong support, 47-20 percent. Opposition is up from 53 percent in a 2008 poll, and strong opposition is up even more, by 24 points.

This ABC News-Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone April 14-17, 2011, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points....

Still, there are differences among groups; opposition is higher among Democrats (75 percent, vs. 59 percent of Republicans and independents combined), women (73 percent, vs. 53 percent of men) and liberals (74 percent, vs. 60 percent of moderates and conservatives).

http://texasvox.org/2011/04/21/nuclear-power-poll-shows-a-spike-in-u-s-opposition-after-fukushima


International poll



Poll wording
http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbc2011_energy/demoquest.html#quest

Globalscan questions:

01
We should use the nuclear power plants that we already have, but we should not build new ones.

02
Nuclear power is dangerous and we should close down all operating nuclear power plants as soon as possible.

03
Nuclear power is relatively safe and an important source of electricity, and we should build new nuclear power plants.

Here is the nuclear industry spin clearly identified for you
01 + 03 = Level of strong support for nuclear power.

Reality
03 = Level of strong support for nuclear power.

The question facing us is where do we spend our money going forward. An overwhelming majority of both experts and the public say renewable energy and energy efficiency.

[waddirum]

20. Keep Waiting for Godot

The last nuclear power plants to be built in the U.S. completed construction by the mid 1980s. This was before the use of computer spreadsheets or AutoCADD. Everything was done on paper (mimeograph), including the drafting and calculations. All 3D modeling was done physically with balsa wood and foam core.

All of those engineers are now in their 60s and 70s. Current nuclear engineering programs don't really have many graduates. It's been so long since a new plant has been built in the U.S., there are very few remaining manufacturers of Class 1 (seismically tested) components. There are less than 3 foundries in the world (none in the U.S.) that are capable of manufacturing the steel for a pressure vessel.

There was a chance of a nuclear renaissance as late as last year. However, the Fukushima catastrophe put the final nail in the nuclear coffin. Licenses will be extended and power uprated on existing plants. But outside of China, Iran, and a few other countries, no new nuclear plants will be constructed.

[Fledermaus]

14. U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium

U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium
By Keith Nuthall
WardsAuto.com, Aug 11, 2011 9:21 AM

The key to the system developed by inventor Charles Stevens, CEO and chairman of Connecticut-based Laser Power Systems, is that when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, becomes it is so dense its molecules give off considerable heat.

Small blocks of thorium generate heat surges that are configured as a thorium-based laser, Stevens tells Ward’s. These create steam from water within mini-turbines, generating electricity to drive a car.

A 250 KW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.

...

Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline Stevens says. So, using just 8 gm of thorium in a car should mean it would never need refueling.
Thorium has highest melting point of all oxides at 3,182° F.

[hunter]

24. youtube link...

[FSSF]

25. A better name would be..

"Chasing Rainbows - The next 'perfect' nuclear technology"