Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 12:57 PM
Original message
Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke

The thick hardbound volume was sitting on a shelf in a colleague’s office when Kirk Sorensen spotted it. A rookie NASA engineer at the Marshall Space Flight Center, Sorensen was researching nuclear-powered propulsion, and the book’s title — Fluid Fuel Reactors — jumped out at him. He picked it up and thumbed through it. Hours later, he was still reading, enchanted by the ideas but struggling with the arcane writing. “I took it home that night, but I didn’t understand all the nuclear terminology,” Sorensen says. He pored over it in the coming months, ultimately deciding that he held in his hands the key to the world’s energy future.

Published in 1958 under the auspices of the Atomic Energy Commission as part of its Atoms for Peace program, Fluid Fuel Reactors is a book only an engineer could love: a dense, 978-page account of research conducted at Oak Ridge National Lab, most of it under former director Alvin Weinberg. What caught Sorensen’s eye was the description of Weinberg’s experiments producing nuclear power with an element called thorium.

At the time, in 2000, Sorensen was just 25, engaged to be married and thrilled to be employed at his first serious job as a real aerospace engineer. A devout Mormon with a linebacker’s build and a marine’s crew cut, Sorensen made an unlikely iconoclast. But the book inspired him to pursue an intense study of nuclear energy over the next few years, during which he became convinced that thorium could solve the nuclear power industry’s most intractable problems. After it has been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind minuscule amounts of waste. And that waste needs to be stored for only a few hundred years, not a few hundred thousand like other nuclear byproducts. Because it’s so plentiful in nature, it’s virtually inexhaustible. It’s also one of only a few substances that acts as a thermal breeder, in theory creating enough new fuel as it breaks down to sustain a high-temperature chain reaction indefinitely. And it would be virtually impossible for the byproducts of a thorium reactor to be used by terrorists or anyone else to make nuclear weapons.

Weinberg and his men proved the efficacy of thorium reactors in hundreds of tests at Oak Ridge from the ’50s through the early ’70s. But thorium hit a dead end. Locked in a struggle with a nuclear- armed Soviet Union, the US government in the ’60s chose to build uranium-fueled reactors — in part because they produce plutonium that can be refined into weapons-grade material. The course of the nuclear industry was set for the next four decades, and thorium power became one of the great what-if technologies of the 20th century.

Today, however, Sorensen spearheads a cadre of outsiders dedicated to sparking a thorium revival. When he’s not at his day job as an aerospace engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama — or wrapping up the master’s in nuclear engineering he is soon to earn from the University of Tennessee — he runs a popular blog called Energy From Thorium. A community of engineers, amateur nuclear power geeks, and researchers has gathered around the site’s forum, ardently discussing the future of thorium. The site even links to PDFs of the Oak Ridge archives, which Sorensen helped get scanned. Energy From Thorium has become a sort of open source project aimed at resurrecting long-lost energy technology using modern techniques.

And the online upstarts aren’t alone. Industry players are looking into thorium, and governments from Dubai to Beijing are funding research. India is betting heavily on the element.

The concept of nuclear power without waste or proliferation has obvious political appeal in the US, as well. The threat of climate change has created an urgent demand for carbon-free electricity, and the 52,000 tons of spent, toxic material that has piled up around the country makes traditional nuclear power less attractive. President Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, have expressed general support for a nuclear renaissance. Utilities are investigating several next-gen alternatives, including scaled-down conventional plants and “pebble bed” reactors, in which the nuclear fuel is inserted into small graphite balls in a way that reduces the risk of meltdown.

Those technologies are still based on uranium, however, and will be beset by the same problems that have dogged the nuclear industry since the 1960s. It is only thorium, Sorensen and his band of revolutionaries argue, that can move the country toward a new era of safe, clean, affordable energy.

Named for the Norse god of thunder, thorium is a lustrous silvery-white metal. It’s only slightly radioactive; you could carry a lump of it in your pocket without harm. On the periodic table of elements, it’s found in the bottom row, along with other dense, radioactive substances — including uranium and plutonium — known as actinides.

Actinides are dense because their nuclei contain large numbers of neutrons and protons. But it’s the strange behavior of those nuclei that has long made actinides the stuff of wonder. At intervals that can vary from every millisecond to every hundred thousand years, actinides spin off particles and decay into more stable elements. And if you pack together enough of certain actinide atoms, their nuclei will erupt in a powerful release of energy.

To understand the magic and terror of those two processes working in concert, think of a game of pool played in 3-D. The nucleus of the atom is a group of balls, or particles, racked at the center. Shoot the cue ball — a stray neutron — and the cluster breaks apart, or fissions. Now imagine the same game played with trillions of racked nuclei. Balls propelled by the first collision crash into nearby clusters, which fly apart, their stray neutrons colliding with yet more clusters. Voilè0: a nuclear chain reaction.

Actinides are the only materials that split apart this way, and if the collisions are uncontrolled, you unleash hell: a nuclear explosion. But if you can control the conditions in which these reactions happen — by both controlling the number of stray neutrons and regulating the temperature, as is done in the core of a nuclear reactor — you get useful energy. Racks of these nuclei crash together, creating a hot glowing pile of radioactive material. If you pump water past the material, the water turns to steam, which can spin a turbine to make electricity.

Uranium is currently the actinide of choice for the industry, used (sometimes with a little plutonium) in 100 percent of the world’s commercial reactors. But it’s a problematic fuel. In most reactors, sustaining a chain reaction requires extremely rare uranium-235, which must be purified, or enriched, from far more common U-238. The reactors also leave behind plutonium-239, itself radioactive (and useful to technologically sophisticated organizations bent on making bombs). And conventional uranium-fueled reactors require lots of engineering, including neutron-absorbing control rods to damp the reaction and gargantuan pressurized vessels to move water through the reactor core. If something goes kerflooey, the surrounding countryside gets blanketed with radioactivity (think Chernobyl). Even if things go well, toxic waste is left over.

When he took over as head of Oak Ridge in 1955, Alvin Weinberg realized that thorium by itself could start to solve these problems. It’s abundant — the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff — and doesn’t require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind.

Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab’s finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.

In 1965, Weinberg and his team built a working reactor, one that suspended the byproducts of thorium in a molten salt bath, and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.

That proved to be “the most pivotal year in energy history,” according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was the year the Arab states cut off oil supplies to the West, setting in motion the petroleum-fueled conflicts that roil the world to this day. The same year, the US nuclear industry signed contracts to build a record 41 nuke plants, all of which used uranium. And 1973 was the year that thorium R&D faded away — and with it the realistic prospect for a golden nuclear age when electricity would be too cheap to meter and clean, safe nuclear plants would dot the green countryside.

continued>>>
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/all/1
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
GreenPartyVoter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 01:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. I am not normally a fan of nuclear energy, but if this new system is
truly cleaner and safe then I think it shows a lot of promise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 01:50 PM
Response to Reply #1
6. Yes indeed.
If it really as promising as it sounds then it could be a very green energy source.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 11:33 AM
Response to Reply #6
17. This article is full of errors
For example, it says, "Nuclear energy now accounts for 9 percent of India’s total energy"
That's not even close.
Nuclear only provides about 2% of India's electricity, and much less of its total energy.
From the IAEA PRIS database:
http://www.iaea.org/cgi-bin/db.page.pl/pris.powrea.htm?country=IN&sort=Reactor.Status,&sortlong=By%20Status

India, Republic of : Nuclear Power Reactors - By Status
Under Construction 5 Operational 18

Annual Electrical Power Production for 2008
Total Power Production (including Nuclear) Nuclear Power Production
649935.647 GWh(e) 13168.451448 GWh(e)

13,168.451448 / 649,935.647 = 0.020261162 = 2%

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. I know and few others as well but we were all
happy it even mentioned LFTR.

India is shooting for 50% of their projected 2030 load to be nuclear, or 450 GWs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 12:56 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Sad that in a "science" forum people fall for this fluff.
We've heard India's plans for a long time - since the 1950's:

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache%3AiU1101arvysJ%3Awww.npec-web.org%2FEssays%2FRamana-NuclearPowerInIndia.pdf+india+nuclear+power+history&hl=en&gl=us

Nuclear Power in India: Failed Past, Dubious Future
M. V. Ramana

<snip>

The other justification often offered was a grand three stage program, first
announced in 1954, for the development of nuclear energy in the country. The three stage
program was, for example, the proffered justification for the early acquisition of
reprocessing technology. The first stage of the three phase strategy involves the use of
uranium fuel in heavy water reactors, followed by reprocessing the irradiated spent fuel
to extract plutonium. In the second stage, the plutonium from reprocessed spent fuel from
PHWRs is used in the nuclear cores of fast breeder reactors. These nuclear cores could be
surrounded by a “blanket” of either (depleted) uranium or thorium to produce more
plutonium or uranium-233 respectively. So as to ensure that there is adequate plutonium
to fuel these second stage breeder reactors, a sufficiently large fleet of such breeder
reactors with uranium blankets would have to be commissioned before thorium blankets
are introduced. The third stage involves breeder reactors using uranium-233 in their cores
and thorium in their blankets.

On the basis of this plan and assuming optimistic development times, Bhabha
announced that there would be 8000 MW of nuclear power in the country by 1980. As
the years progressed, these predictions were to increase. By 1962, the prediction was that
nuclear energy would generate 20-25,000 MW by 1987 and by 1969 the AEC predicted
that by 2000 there would be 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity. All of this was
before a single unit of nuclear electricity was produced in the country.

Reality was quite different. Installed capacity in 1979-80 was about 600 MW,
about 950 MW in 1987, and 2720 MW in 2000. The only explanation that the AEC has
offered for its failures has been to blame the cessation of foreign cooperation following
the 1974 nuclear weapons test. At the same time, these sanctions also provided the DAE
with an opportunity: each development, no matter how small or routine, could be
portrayed as a heroic success, achieved in the face of staunch opposition by other
countries and impossible odds, while any failures could be passed off as a result of the
determination of other countries to block and prevent India achieving technological
advancement.

Such continued failures were not because of a paucity of resources. Practically all
governments have favored nuclear energy and the DAE’s budgets have always been high.
The only period when the DAE did not get all that they asked for and therefore consider
the dark years were the early 1990s, a period marked by cutbacks on government
spending as part of an effort at economic liberalization. But this trend was reversed with
the 1998 nuclear weapons tests: since then the DAE’s budget has increased from Rs. 18.4
billions in 1997-98 to Rs. 55 billions in 2006-07, i.e., more than doubled even in real
terms.1

<snip>

Conclusions

The experience of over fifty years of experimentation with nuclear power, in India
and elsewhere, demonstrates that it cannot be considered a safe, economical, or
environmentally sustainable source of electricity. Despite continued government
patronage and much media hype, atomic energy is unlikely to be a major source of
electricity for India. There are many who believe India and other countries would be
better off giving up this costly and dangerous technology and finding ways of generating
electricity that do not threaten their future or their environment.

<snip>

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #21
24. Ramana is an ex-nuke who was pushed asside
by the industry. He has a huge axe to grind.

This is a very old prediction based on reports out of the 60s (the US predicted 1,000 nukes by 1978).

What is difference to day from then is that whereas in the past these were simply 'talks', chatter, and dreaming, now the money is flowing and they ARE building new nuclear power plants. His report is notable for it's total failure to prove *any* of his assertions (I read the whole PDF previously).

The basis for optimism on India's very ambitious *real* nuclear program now is the huge expansion of the nuclear component manufacturing business including heavy ingot presses and melt shops going up around India. An extremely objective report is the manufacturing sector of the WNA report on India here:

http://world-nuclear.org/info/inf53.html

In the next two years, through 2012, the Indians have *planned* about 2 dozen new nuclear plants, maybe more. This period will be the judge of whether or not they are serious enough to give lie to the Ramana report, or not. Stay tuned.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 05:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
32. Yeah, there's a lot of ex-nukes, aren't there?
Here's another one, Carlo Rubbia: "The nuclear error, the future is the sun"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=228x60525
Maybe in 10 or 20 years, you and Kirk Sorenson will be ex-nukes, too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
LearnedHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 01:11 PM
Response to Original message
2. Wow. This is amazing.
I used to work at ORNL, and occasionally I walked past the old Molten Salt Reactor at lunch. Who knew it was such an exciting and promising experiment? Here's hoping Chu will recognize its promise!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 01:15 PM
Response to Original message
3. Very interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hav Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 01:43 PM
Response to Original message
4. Interesting.
This reminds me of Brian Arthur who used the nuclear reactors that were common back then as an example for his theory of increasing returns or positive feedback in economics and how one (rushed) decision in the one direction can cause an inferior idea gain the upper hand against models that in this case were actually superior and safer. Once the decision was made and investments were done, there was no going back. It's tragic how often people, and great minds, who offer better alternatives get pushed aside like it happened to Weinberg in this example.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 01:50 PM
Response to Original message
5. By 1977, Weinberg had written "Can the sun replace uranium?" in which he considers
the prospects for uranium or thorium fission and solar energy. Weinberg took the view, still corroborated by experience to date, that fusion will never be viable. He also dismisses geothermal energy sources as inadequate. It is clear from "Can the sun replace uranium?" that the global warming issue associated with CO2 from fossil carbon was already appreciated in those days. Among the issues associated with fission, he notes wastes disposal, remarking that nobody really considered the long-term issues in the early days of fission power; after some discussion, he concludes that 7000 working reactors would be needed worldwide, and that 150 would be built every year for replacement purposes; he considers the waste disposal problem formidable

The paper can be downloaded in pdf format here: http://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/5248737-yrhSb1/

<xpost from E/E>
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 04:53 PM
Response to Reply #5
31. He seriously underestimated available wind power
and he also underestimated the costs of nuclear power.
Either wind or solar alone could power civilization:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power

The most comprehensive study As of 2005<96> found the potential of wind power on land and near-shore to be 72 TW, equivalent to 54,000 MToE (million tons of oil equivalent) per year, or over five times the world's current energy use in all forms.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 06:01 PM
Response to Reply #31
33. That's possible. I wasn't pushing his little 1977 study as the absolute final word on anything,
but it was written somewhat after the molten salt thorium reactor studies, and he is clearly not optimistic about the waste problem. His conclusion in 1977 was to keep all options open, which (coming from ORNL's top man) is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the nuclear prospects
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
qazplm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 02:11 PM
Response to Original message
7. so basically all the benefits of fusion
power without carbon or other ecologically damaging stuff including radioactive material (that we can't deal with easily and safely), without the technologically immense hurdle of making fusion happen.

Sign me up if it works. Someone get this to Obama.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tech9413 Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 02:33 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. I read about this a few times over the last few weeks
Check out this post
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/16/037/54953

Uranium:

1. It takes 250 tons of natural uranium with 1.7 tons of U-235 for a gigawatt year of energy. We do this by turning this uranium into 35 tons of enriched uranium containing 1.15 tons of U-235. This is the actual fissionable fuel.

2. This leaves about 215 tons of "depleted uranium", the stuff called "DU" used in weapons. It has very low radioactivity but is dangerous as a heavy metal. This 35 tons of enriched uranium creates 1 gigawatt year of power.

3. It leaves after generation of this power with the current crop of Generation II reactors (all the commercial reactors now used in the US) about 35 tons of spent fuel or what people who oppose nuclear energy call "waste".

Thorium:

1. For the same 1 GW year of energy, we use 1 ton of natural thorium. This Th is introduced into the liquid fluoride core of a LFTR and is turned into U-233 which is the actual fuel that is burned in this type of reactor. ONE ton folks, or about 7 lbs a day. That's it...equals 1 GW a year of electricity.

2. This one ton of Th turns produces 1 ton, in a year, of waste. This waste can be isolated from the fuel salt and contains no uranium, plutonium or other long-lived actinides.

3. Within 10 years, 83% of this waste can be sold to metal recyclers and used in other products. In only 10 years. The remaining fission products can be stored for 300 years after which it is less radioactive than natural uranium ore.

4. There are 3200 metric tons of thorium nitrate, already processed, sitting buried in the Nevada desert. This Th can be used as is in a LFTR. It is enough to power 32 1 GW LFTRs for 100 years each. In other words, the fuel is already available to start the initial phase of converting our economy to a thorium energy economy.

5. There are at least 160,000 metric tons of economically usable thorium in the US. This, however, are 'old' numbers, left over from when the last experimental thorium reactor was shutdown in the 1970s. Thorium Energy Corp owns, according to its own in-house geologists, reserves of up to 600,000 to 3 million tons. Are you all seeing the picture here? What this represents if exploited?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hav Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 06:12 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. Thanks for the infos.
If true, environmentally and economically it really seems to be a no-brainer, doesn't it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #8
12. LFTR blogs
If you look at most of my diaries over on the DK, you will see
other articles and links to LFTR development.

davidwalters.dailykos.com
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 02:54 PM
Response to Original message
9. This article appears to have moments of political cleansing...
Here's one suspected black hole:

"That proved to be 'the most pivotal year in energy history,' according to the US Energy Information Administration. It was the year the Arab states cut off oil supplies to the West, setting in motion the petroleum-fueled conflicts that roil the world to this day. The same year, the US nuclear industry signed contracts to build a record 41 nuke plants, all of which used uranium. And 1973 was the year that thorium R&D faded away — and with it the realistic prospect for a golden nuclear age when electricity would be too cheap to meter and clean, safe nuclear plants would dot the green countryside." --from the OP

The importance of electricity that would be "too cheap to meter" is almost lost in the poor sentence construction. I had to read it three times before I understood that it was not saying "when electricity would be too cheap to meter and clean...". (The sentence should read: "And 1973 was the year that thorium R&D faded away — and with it the realistic prospect for a golden nuclear age when electricity would be too cheap to meter and when clean, safe nuclear plants would dot the green countryside.").

In any case, "too cheap to meter" rings all sorts of predatory, privatizing, global corporate monster alarm bells. If there is one thing that predatory, privatizing, global corporate monsters don't want is something "too cheap to meter." It's bad enough that this safer nuclear fuel and a virtually free electricity source was not used in the burgeoning nuclear industry because Hyman Rickover (& other war profiteers) wanted to be able to incinerate Russia. But you gotta wonder who had lots shares in extraction/development of the exceedingly dangerous substance, uranium.

When the world is made that much more dangerous--chernobyl-dangerous, armageddon-dangerous--somebody is hugely profiting from the danger. This article treats that decision passively--it was just "the breaks" for poor Weinberg. It's like when the corp-fascist 'news' says: "Protests produce clashes with police," when all the violence was caused by the police rioting and beating up, tear gassing and shooting at peaceful protestors. It was not the protests that caused the "clashes." Peaceful protest is a right guaranteed by the Constitution. It was the state's reaction that caused the bloodied heads and tear gas and "rubber bullet" victims. Similarly, this decision to abandon the cleaner, cheaper, more abundant and much more efficient fuel was not likely an accident of history but the work of evil, greedy men, who, in addition to hugely profiting from a rare and dangerous substance, wanted to make the U.S. more violent, wanted to instill fear around the world and wanted to bully the world into global corporate predator rule--as they have done.

I want to know more about this decision. I smell rats.

There are too many examples of global corporate predator-driven BAD decisions, solely based on who owned the relevant profitable resources--decisions to pollute the air and water, to addict Americans and others to gas powered vehicles with rubber tires, to rip out public transportation systems (as in Los Angeles), to de-fund trains, or to develop dangerous drugs and medical procedures with big side effects when gentler, less interventionist, more wholistic remedies would be much better for the patient and much less costly--and so on. The "war on drugs" also comes to mind--an entirely war profiteer-driven looting of the public coffers. This sounds like one of these decisions--by no means a passive act, but rather the act of profiteers.

---

Another black hole: "It was the year the Arab states cut off oil supplies to the West, setting in motion the petroleum-fueled conflicts that roil the world to this day."

The article leaves out that it wasn't the "Arab states" that precipitated the oil wars "that roil the world to this day." It was Israel and the Israel Lobby in the U.S.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis :

"The 1973 oil crisis started in October 1973, when the members of Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries or the OAPEC (consisting of the Arab members of OPEC, plus Egypt and Syria) proclaimed an oil embargo 'in response to the U.S. decision to re-supply the Israeli military' during the Yom Kippur war; it lasted until March 1974.<1> OAPEC declared it would limit or stop oil shipments to the United States and other countries if they supported Israel in the conflict. With the US actions seen as initiating the oil embargo, the long-term possibility of embargo-related high oil prices, disrupted supply and recession, created a strong rift within NATO; both European nations and Japan sought to disassociate themselves from the US Middle East policy."

----

Cleansed histories like this make me suspicious of the article--an effect that I don't imagine the authors wanted. There may be no reason to distrust the rest of the material--it's hard to know--but I have to say that a fuel whose dregs have to be stored for "hundreds of years" is not terribly comforting, even if the alternative--uranium's dregs--have to be stored for a hundred thousand years. Also, is this yet another effort to "save" the nuclear industry, as opposed to pouring resources into totally clean, and virtually free alternatives? There are no dangerous dregs at all from some of the available alternatives.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
yourout Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 11:33 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. Picture this....every car in the US with a tiny Thorium reactor that require no fossil fuels and..
the the Thorium Cells last for a year or more.

Think that would scare the crap out of big oil.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 06:04 PM
Response to Reply #13
34. That will certainly make auto accidents more exciting: a hazmat team for every crash
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #9
20. The article is so full of misinformation, half-truths, and outright lies
that anyone reading it and believing it will wind up in la-la land.
At the end of your post, you came to almost the correct conclusion:
Cleansed histories like this make me suspicious of the article--an effect that I don't imagine the authors wanted. There may be no reason to distrust the rest of the material--it's hard to know--but I have to say that a fuel whose dregs have to be stored for "hundreds of years" is not terribly comforting, even if the alternative--uranium's dregs--have to be stored for a hundred thousand years. Also, is this yet another effort to "save" the nuclear industry, as opposed to pouring resources into totally clean, and virtually free alternatives? There are no dangerous dregs at all from some of the available alternatives.

Your mistake is where your wrote, "There may be no reason to distrust the rest of the material--it's hard to know--".
As I posted up-thread, the article is factually incorrect about nuclear energy in India, it's easy to know if you know where to look; in this case, the IAEA website.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 01:49 PM
Response to Reply #20
23. Would you care to point out where the artilce "LIES" and not
just is inaccurate?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 02:05 PM
Response to Reply #23
26. I gave one example in post #17
They don't have editors checking these articles?
It's such a simple number to check.
They haven't updated the article or posted a correction or errata.
The article has been up for two weeks now.
At this point, it can be considered an outright lie.
Presumably, to make nuclear energy seem more important than it is.

Since you acknowledged that there are other errors in the article, why don't you share them with the class?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #26
28. I don't think that is what is the issue. Wired is just
sloppy. I've seen this in a host of articles even in their printed edition I used to subscribe to. I think the point of the article is about thorium in general and LFTR in particular and in this regard there is nothing wrong with it, at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Orrex Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 10:13 PM
Response to Original message
11. My money is on cobalt thorium G
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-02-10 11:36 PM
Response to Original message
14. To read a lot more on this technology
go to energyfromthorium.com

On it, Kirk has links to the huge forum of nuclear thorium experts and, a document library that includes all the documentation from the 1960s and 70s on the Molten Salt Reactor/LFTR.

On the main blog page you will find links to video presentation of various length. I urge you to view them. I was at the one presented to the Google Tech crowd late last year.

The LFTR IS the future. It simply needs that ol' R&D money for full deployment since most the technology has already been demonstrated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Occulus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 04:20 AM
Response to Reply #14
16. I take it you're somehow involved or connected to this.
How do you feel about the Polywell project (internal electrostatic containment fusion)? That's another "old idea" that's getting some recent attention...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 11:43 AM
Response to Reply #16
18. I've stayed away from commenting too much
on fusion projects as they appear to be so far away even with the billions deployed to in 3 projects.

The more interesting fusion projects is "Focused Fusion" conducted by Eric Lerner in NJ. At any rate I will have to look up more about teh electrostaric containment. If this is the project at Sandia, I'm more familiar with it having just watched a documentary on it last night on the Planet Green channel. I've always been unclear how they collect the energy after it's made without melting down the entire complex. Focus Fusion is based on direct electrical output from plama to electrons.

I am very involved with energyfromthorium.com and provide... 'color commentary' as I'm a power plant operator and can give the view of someone who has been in the biz for 25 years.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 01:41 PM
Response to Reply #18
22. Polywell is what Bussard was working on
They're working out of a garage in Santa Fe, New Mexico.
Just kidding - but they are a small team.
Here's their website: http://www.emc2fusion.org/
Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polywell
Video of Bussard's talk at Google headquarters: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606
Navy funding: http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/2009/10/wb-8-contract-progress.html
Discussion board: http://www.talk-polywell.org/bb/index.php

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 01:59 PM
Response to Reply #22
25. Fascinating stuff, really.
I just don't get how they collect the energy. How do you collect energy from 20 million degrees? It's always bothered me that all this money goes into fusion (of any sort) but no energy collection scheme is demonstrated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 02:34 PM
Response to Reply #25
27. Temperature vs heat
A plasma doesn't have much mass, so the amount of heat isn't that incredible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tialsedov Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. Regardless...they obviously have a plan to
capture the heat (which is energy) but wit he degree of heat (temperature) so great, that makes it difficult. I'm actually asking a technical question because in the 3 models that I know of there doesn't appear to be cooling measures, such as liquid nitrogen or helium or water. I'm really quite curious how they are going to achieve this. It's as if 100% of all fusion discussions are over how to achieve fusion, not how to capture the resulting energy.

The LFTR using helium or nitrogen or any non-corrosive inert gas. You can't get radioactive carry over this way.

DW
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bananas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 04:12 PM
Response to Reply #29
30. I've always assumed it was radiant heat
The high-temperature plasma is contained by a magnetic field,
the only things getting out are neutrons and photons.
So whatever they enclose it in will absorb the radiant energy and get hot,
which could drive a steam turbine.
That's been my assumption, I really don't know.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scubadude Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-03-10 04:07 AM
Response to Original message
15. Kirk Sorenson gave a google talk which can be viewed here:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Commie Pinko Dirtbag Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-04-10 09:43 AM
Response to Original message
35. Delete please. Wrong thread. -nt
Edited on Mon Jan-04-10 09:45 AM by Commie Pinko Dirtbag
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Science Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC