Why are you hearing so much about thorium?

[kristopher]

According to MIT's review of technologies it is no better overall than what is now in place. Perhaps in 30 years new as yet undeveloped designs can change the dynamics, but current conditions and currently available technologies do NOT provide a set of problems that thorium can magically solve.

So what is behind all the hype? Nothing more than a PR blitz by a small group of technophiles tryiing to keep the nuclear dream alive...

The End of the Nuclear Renaissance
John Quiggin | January 3, 2012

...Meanwhile, after an initial rush of enthusiasm proposals for new nuclear plants ran into economic reality. When the deadline set under the Nuclear Power 2010 program expired, twenty-six proposals had been received by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But by the beginning of 2011, more than half of these had been abandoned, and ground had been broken on only two sites, with a total of four reactors.

The nuclear renaissance was already tottering, but the disaster of Fukushima was the coup de grâce. It’s true, as nuclear advocates have argued, that the plants at Fukushima were old and that a disaster as big as the March tsunami was hard to plan for. No doubt the failures in cooling and containment systems that gave rise to the present crisis can be overcome and reactor designs modified to improve safety.

But safety doesn’t come cheap, and redesigns mean delays. With no prospect of any further increases in subsidies and loan guarantees, it seems likely that most of the proposals for new nuclear-power plants in the United States will be abandoned. And, if only for reasons of diversification and speed of construction, the lost Japanese reactors will probably be replaced by gas-fired plants, with some renewables. Meanwhile the Europeans, who were reconsidering nuclear power, have moved decisively in the other direction. Even China has scaled back its targets for nuclear construction and extended the timescale, effectively halving the proposed rate of construction. Such a modest program will not produce the scale economies and operating experience needed to generate a substantial reduction in the cost of nuclear power over the next two decades.

Meanwhile, the cost of PV has already fallen well below that of nuclear and is set to fall further. The average retail price of solar cells as monitored by the Solarbuzz group fell from $3.50/watt to $2.43/watt over the course of the year, and a decline to prices below $2.00/watt seems inevitable. For large-scale installations, prices below $1.00/watt are now common. In some locations, PV has reached grid parity, the cost at which it is competitive with coal or gas-fired generation. More generally, it is now evident that, given a carbon price of $50/ton, which would raise the price of coal-fired power by 5c/kWh, solar PV will be cost-competitive in most locations.

The declining price of PV has ...

http://nationalinterest.org/commentary/the-end-the-nuclear-renaissance-6325?page=1

[Gregorian]

1. That's what I thought.

Thanks for doing the searching I should have done myself.

Lots of rebar and concrete and massive infrastructure. Anyone who has spent time in a nuclear plant knows. I've seen Diablo. It's a monster.

[wtmusic]

2. More bullshit.

Show me where "MIT's review of technologies" says "it is no better overall than what is now in place"...

[Maslo55]

3. Which MIT study says

that thorium MSR - molten salt reactor, with Th+FLiBe salt fuel (LFTR) is "no better overall than what is now in place"? No thorium LWR and no solid fueled MSR or AHTR, but LFTR. I will wait.

[kristopher]

4. There is no "thorium MSR - molten salt reactor, with Th+FLiBe salt fuel (LFTR) "

It is nothing but one more in a long line of "paper reactors".

Paper Reactors, Real Reactors (5 June 1953);
Stating they were comments from the early 1950's Rickover read some of these statements as part of his testimony before Congress, published in AEC Authorizing Legislation: Hearings Before the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy (1970), p. 1702

It is incumbent on those in high places to make wise decisions and it is reasonable and important that the public be correctly informed.

An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:
(1) It is simple.
(2) It is small.
(3) It is cheap.
(4) It is light.
(5) It can be built very quickly.
(6) It is very flexible in purpose.
(7) Very little development will be required. It will use off-the-shelf components.
(8) The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now.


On the other hand a practical reactor can be distinguished by the following characteristics:
(1) It is being built now.
(2) It is behind schedule.
(3) It requires an immense amount of development on apparently trivial items.
(4) It is very expensive.
(5) It takes a long time to build because of its engineering development problems.
(6) It is large.
(7) It is heavy.
(8) It is complicated.

The tools of the academic designer are a piece of paper and a pencil with an eraser. If a mistake is made, it can always be erased and changed. If the practical-reactor designer errs, he wears the mistake around his neck; it cannot be erased. Everyone sees it.

The academic-reactor designer is a dilettante. He has not had to assume any real responsibility in connection with his projects. He is free to luxuriate in elegant ideas, the practical shortcomings of which can be relegated to the category of "mere technical details." The practical-reactor designer must live with these same technical details. Although recalcitrant and awkward, they must be solved and cannot be put off until tomorrow. Their solution requires manpower, time and money.
Unfortunately for those who must make far-reaching decision without the benefit of an intimate knowledge of reactor technology, and unfortunately for the interested public, it is much easier to get the academic side of an issue than the practical side. For a large part those involved with the academic reactors have more inclination and time to present their ideas in reports and orally to those who will listen. Since they are innocently unaware of the real but hidden difficulties of their plans, they speak with great facility and confidence. Those involved with practical reactors, humbled by their experiences, speak less and worry more.

Yet it is incumbent on those in high places to make wise decisions and it is reasonable and important that the public be correctly informed. It is consequently incumbent on all of us to state the facts as forthrightly as possible.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Hyman_G._Rickover

[Maslo55]

5. As I have thought

no MIT study that says what you claim about LFTR, so you lied. Copypasting 60 year old quotes wont save it, kristopher

[kristopher]

7. That's pretty strong language to use for someone not following your red herring.

I wrote, "Why are you hearing so much about thorium? According to MIT's review of technologies it is no better overall than what is now in place. Perhaps in 30 years new as yet undeveloped designs can change the dynamics, but current conditions and currently available technologies do NOT provide a set of problems that thorium can magically solve."

You asked, "Which MIT study says that thorium MSR - molten salt reactor, with Th+FLiBe salt fuel (LFTR) is "no better overall than what is now in place"? No thorium LWR and no solid fueled MSR or AHTR, but LFTR. I will wait."

To which I replied that "there is no "thorium MSR - molten salt reactor, with Th+FLiBe salt fuel (LFTR). It is nothing but one more in a long line of "paper reactors"."

Since there is, in fact, no thorium MSR - molten salt reactor, with Th+FLiBe salt fuel" in existence it is most definitely a "paper reactor" with all the phony accompanying claims listed by Rickover.

MIT did indeed make the statements as I related them. Perhaps you should reconsider your personal attack.

[wtmusic]

8. Saying someone lied is not a personal attack.

You specifically quoted MIT but have nothing to show for it. You're either mistaken, or you lied - so run along and find your source. If you can't, you lied.

End of story.

[kristopher]

9. The quote has been posted several times lately and you've ignored it each time.

1. our analysis of thorium versus uranium fuel cycles (appendix a) found advantages and disadvantages for both fuel cycles—but the differences were not sufficient to fundamentally alter conclusions.
pg 17 The Future of the Nuclear Fuel Cycle — Overview, Conclusions, and Recommendations MIT 2010

[wtmusic]

10. And it shows MIT intended exactly the opposite of what you claim:

Their conclusion:

"Integrated system studies and experiments on innovative reactor and fuel cycle options should be undertaken in the next several years to determine the viable technical options, define timelines of when decisions need to be made, and select a limited set of options as the basis for the path forward."

So nice to hear you're on board.

[kristopher]

12. That is exactly what I wrote in the OP

They rule out the existing thorium systems as not having any significant advantages. There may be something in the future but all that is being suggested is continued funding of research.

You owe an apology.

[wtmusic]

13. I'm looking for where MIT thought it might take 30 years to change the dynamics

or did you just make that up?

[kristopher]

15. Perhaps you should read the papers.

They make the point any number of times that a change in fuel cycles requires between 50-100 years. They specify decades for development of the gen4 technologies. That means to me about a 30 year time frame for deployment to begin in earnest, if it eventually proves itself able to get off the drawing board.

[PamW]

24. BALONEY!!!!

They make the point any number of times that a change in fuel cycles requires between 50-100 years.
=========================================================

Why would a change in fuel cycle require 50-100 years?

After all, the whole industry is only about 50 years old. We went from NOTHING to the present fuel cycle in less than 50 years; so why would it take more time than that to make a change?

PamW

[wtmusic]

11. More from MIT on thorium/molten salt: "potentially promising economics"

"It has potentially promising economics because of the compact primary systems that operate at low pressures with large thermal margins and sufficiently high coolant temperatures to enable use of higher efficiency power cycles. Unlike other reactors, it naturally uses a combined uranium-thorium fuel cycle in a once-through mode and may have a conversion ratio near unity if operated with a closed fuel cycle. In the context of fuel cycles it is a radical departure because one variant can use flowing pebble-bed fuel to enable three dimensional optimization of the reactor core with time that creates new fuel cycle options that are today only partly understood. The reactor does not have any single technical issue that determines technical viability when operated at temperatures below 700 °C, but rather there has been insufficient work to date to understand the potential capabilities and limitations. Since the coolant freezes at several hundred degrees C, maintaining such high temperatures at all times in the coolant circuit is important to reliability." (p199)

[kristopher]

21. Have you figured out yet...

How you are conflating the characteristics and benefits of several different reactor designs?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11273730

[kristopher]

14. I guess things change then

1. A clear, concise version of the DU rules will be pinned to the top of the two General Discussion forums, and will appear whenever someone clicks "Alert".

We believe that most of the DU rules are just common decency and common sense, and if everyone just tried to participate in the spirit of mutual respect it would not be necessary to post a list of rules. Of course, that is just a dream. Here in the real world it is necessary to have some concrete standards so people understand what is expected of them.

With this in mind, we have "boiled down" the DU rules to remove all the explanatory filler and provide a straightforward list of violations. That list is below. This will hopefully make the rules much clearer for everyone -- members, moderators, and even administrators -- and get everyone on the same page. Unfortunately, there will always be some level of subjectivity when deciding what is within bounds and what is not. But we have made every reasonable effort to be both clear and concise, and remove unnecessary gray areas.

Here is the official "list of violations" from the DU rules:

LIST OF RULE VIOLATIONS

{ } Personal Attack - When discussing individual DU members, the following are considered personal attacks:
- Personal attacks, name-calling, or other insults.
- Telling someone to "shut up," "screw you," "go away," "fuck off," or the like.
- Calling someone a liar, or calling a post a lie.
- Calling someone a conservative, disruptor, or similar.
- Calling someone a bigot.
- Belittling someone for being new or having a low post count.
- Negatively "calling out" someone who is not participating in the discussion.

[Maslo55]

16. Your comment

is true about traditional solid fueled Th reactors. But since the people who speak about "thorium" always mean LFTR, it is not applicable to them. And you knew they dont mean solid fueled reactors when you created this topic, so it is a blatant strawman attempt from your side.

Whether LFTR is a paper reactor or not is irrelevant to the fact that that MIT study is not a valid criticism of it, since it does not deal with LFTR at all.

[kristopher]

17. You've done nothing but use false arguments and deception.

And then you have the gall to say the OP is a strawman? The thorium fuel cycle that you claim no one who speaks of thorium is talking about is an up-front part of the MIT series on the future of nuclear.

That is an "authoritative source" that is biased in favor of nuclear power that 1) examined and discussed viable thorium technologies and 2) found no reason to pursue them.

You want to promote a technology that was not seen as a viable technology. It it a speculative technology that is far from being ready for prime-time.

The primary source of original information regarding the potential for the paper reactor you are advocating for is the owner of a business that is trying to get funding for his company.

Why has Sorenson not published a paper in a reputable journal subjecting to peer review the claims you point to in wiki?

I relied on the best information - you relied on bullshit from a blogger trying to raise money. And you called ME a liar and now say that my use of MIT's position is a logical fallacy.

You are very, very confused.

[Maslo55]

18. stop the deception

Advanced technologies examined in the MIT paper ("Appendix B - Advanced Technologies" ):
1. High-conversion LWR
2. Once-through sustainable sodium-cooled
fast reactor
3. Lead-cooled fast reactor
4. Advanced high Temperature reactor (molten salt cooled, but solid fueled reactor - dont mistake with liquid fueled MSR such as LFTR)

Do you see LFTR or liquid fueled MSR in there somewhere? I dont.

[kristopher]

19. There are at least 4 papers in that series...

...that I know of.

[PamW]

26. Therea are A LOT MORE!!!

MIT has been studying this field for DECADES and has released a lot more than just 4 papers.

As with many great universities, they have many ongoing series of studies...

It's like that in general in science. We don't just do 4 papers and call it a wrap.

PamW

[PamW]

23. lack of knowledge begets poor interpretation

Do you see LFTR or liquid fueled MSR in there somewhere? I dont.
========================================

It's the old problem one has with people who don't understand something.

They can't interpret a paper because they don't know the technology. They lump things together that shouldn't be lumped together because they are not the same. Since they've erroneously lumped "A" and "B" together, and mistakenly believe that they are the same; when someone says there is no "A"; they erroneously conclude there's also "no B", because they've erroneously "think" that "A" and "B" are the same.

PamW

[PamW]

25. when you don't understand...

And you called ME a liar and now say that my use of MIT's position is a logical fallacy.
=============================================

It looks like you are relying on MIT's conclusions about the reactors they included in the study.

However, it appears that the MIT didn't include the LFTR in their study.

Since MIT's conclusion should only apply to reactors that MIT considered; then how can you apply MIT's conclusions to reactors that MIT says it didn't include in its study?

In fact, MIT says we should research those designs in order to get the necessary data to draw conclusions.

PamW

[kristopher]

27. Are you saying they are ignorant of the MSR avenue?

The MIT works being discussed are meta-analysis of all options going forward. The conclusions do not support the development of the thorium fuel cycle with current designs; they also describe a timeline for paper reactors like the LFTR as requiring decades of research placing deployment so far in the future as to be meaningless to the discussions about what we are to do today.

Your claim that MIT's lack of focus on the LFTR design means it was overlooked or ignored is simply not credible.

[PamW]

30. Where's this "decades" coming from...

The conclusions do not support the development of the thorium fuel cycle with current designs; they also describe a timeline for paper reactors like the LFTR as requiring decades of research placing deployment so far in the future as to be meaningless to the discussions about what we are to do today.
==================================

The reactors that we have in existence now didn't take decades!! The very first power plant reactor was in 1957.

The reactor vendors like Westinghouse and GE started gearing up in the '60s, and in the '70s, we built the plants that are in existence today.

The time scale was about 10 years from initial concepts to having working plants.

Today with the supercomputers and software that we have; design development goes MUCH, MUCH, FASTER than did the original developments which relied on building prototypes.

It's not going to take 20 years to do the development.

Consider the case of Argonne's Integral Fast Reactor. The IFR was started as Argonne's response to the cancellation of the Clinch River Breeder reactor in October 1983. As stated in Dr. Till's interview with Frontline:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

the test of the IFR prototype with an accident scenario that resembled the accident destroyed Chernobyl; that test was conducted about 2 weeks BEFORE Chernobyl. So that would be mid-April 1986. So from onset to working protype; it took Argonne about 2 1/2 years.

It doesn't takes decades and decades like the anti-nukes like to say.

As for quoting the MIT study, read this part:

http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/pdf/nuclearpower-ch1-3.pdf

In our view it would be a mistake at this time to exclude any of these four options from an overall carbon emission management strategy.

Option number 4 is increase use of nuclear power

You like to quote the MIT study so much; but you sure don't want to abide by the conclusions.

Additionally, IFR supporters have challenged the authors of the MIT study:

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/07/fast-reactor-advocates-throw-down-gauntlet-to-mit-authors.html

http://atomicinsights.com/2011/07/update-on-fast-reactor-group-challenge-to-mit.html

PamW

[PamW]

22. SOP

no MIT study that says what you claim about LFTR, so you lied. Copypasting 60 year old quotes wont save it, kristopher
==============================

That SOP - standard operating procedure.

The "paper reactor" charge is also false. Many of the systems were ACTUALLY BUILT like the MSRE - Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at Oak Ridge National Lab:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

and the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) at Argonne National Lab:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/interviews/till.html

Q: And you in fact ran an experiment that was comparable to what happened at Chernobyl?

A: Yes, yes. Let me go on a little bit about that, because it is a rather dramatic characteristic. The Chernobyl accident happened in April 26 of 1986. Earlier that month, the first week in April, with our test reactor in Idaho, in fact the same reactor control room where we're now sitting, we performed a demonstration of that characteristic, ...

Perhaps there needs to be some change to the policies. Most discussions on this board are political, so most of what people post are opinions and can't really be called lies no matter how ill-informed the opinion is. However, science is different. Mother Nature is our arbiter and what she says is factual. Additionally if someone says that a molten salt reactor was never built; when in truth Oak Ridge actually built and operated a molten salt reactor for some time; the MSRE - Molten Salt Reactor Experiment; then how can we characterize a statement that says a molten salt reactor was never built as anything other than a lie?

PamW

[kristopher]

28. The Molten Salt and Integral Fast Reactors are not the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor

You continue in the tradition of trying to portray them all the same when benefits are being discussed, but trying to draw distinctions when disadvantages present themselves.

It is a thoroughly dishonest approach by those in that circle of bloggers who are hyping both thorium in general and the LFTR design in particular.

[PamW]

29. Not dishonest at all

You continue in the tradition of trying to portray them all the same when benefits are being discussed, but trying to draw distinctions when disadvantages present themselves.
==========================

It's NOT dishonest at all. You see unlike you, I know this field.

I know when designs share commonalities and when they don't.

You don't have that ability because you don't know the technology.

I know it looks to you like I draw distinctions when it is advantageous; but when I do so it is based on science.

You don't know the science; so you don't know what you can lump together and what you can't.

PamW

[PamW]

31. Sound logic

It's NOT dishonest at all. You see unlike you, I know this field.
I know when designs share commonalities and when they don't.
===================================================

Perhaps an analogy would be helpful. A couple years ago, a Colgan Q400 commuter plane, a propeller driven plane, crashed in Buffalo during bad winter weather. Although the NTSB said ultimately the problem was bad response by the pilots to icing conditions, the icing was a contributing factor necessitating the proper response by the pilots.

The Q400 was preceded in the landing cue by a Boeing 767, which had no problem with the icing conditions, whereas the Bombardier Q400 did.

Suppose someone asks me how a Boeing 737, closer in size to the Q400 would fair in those conditions, and I would say it would fare more like the 767 than the Q400. Some member of DU who doesn't know much about aviation might question my conclusion. They would state that the 737 is closer in size to the Q400 than the 767 and that I was being dishonest by saying the small 737 would behave more like the big 767 than the similarly sized Q400.

The Q400 anti-icing system consists of inflatable rubber boots on the leading edges of the wings. When those boots are inflated, they break the ice formations off the wings. The 767, on the other hand, has a system that uses hot air blown though interior ducts in the wings to heat the leading edges so ice can't form in the first place. This is a much better system than the rubber boots.

Although the 737 is a small plane, it also has the hot air anti-icing system. The reason you know that is because the 737 is a jet. Jets have access to hot air, because they can tap off hot air from the high-pressure side of the jet engine compressors. Prop planes don't have the prodigious hot air source of a jet turbojet or turbofan engine.

The size of the aircraft is not what matters. It's the type of anti-icing system that matters; and jets have a better system than prop planes; even the turbo-props.

Therefore my conclusion that the 737 would fare better is not capricious. It is based on good science. I know the 737 is a jet, jet's use the hot air anti-icing system, and the hot air system works better than the rubber boots. It's all sound logic.

That's EXACTLY the type of logic I'm using with the various reactor designs. To someone who doesn't know nuclear technology, the choice looks capricious, when it is based on sound logic. The person that doesn't know aviation technology has the same problem with the above example.

Kris whines and cites forum rules when someone calls him a liar; but he calls me dishonest, i.e. a liar; when the true cause is that he doesn't know the technology like I do.

PamW

[wtmusic]

6. Busted. Nice try. nt

[kristopher]

20. Too bad you haven't the good grace to apologize.

[kristopher]

32. 2011 MIT meta-analysis on which nuclear technology is recommended

For the next several decades, light water reactors using the once-through fuel cycle are the preferred option for the U.S. (pg. 1)
(The "once-through fuel cycle" refers to uranium, not thorium - k)

LWRs (light water reactors) will be the primary reactor choice for many decades and likely the dominant reactor for the remainder of this century. (pg. 4)

Fuel cycle transitions require a half century or more. It is likely to be several decades before the U.S. deploys alternative fuel cycles. (pg. 5)

Our analysis of thorium versus uranium fuel cycles (appendix a) found advantages and disadvantages for both fuel cycles—but the differences were not sufficient to fundamentally alter conclusions. (pg. 17)