why not thorium? It strikes me as odd

[Baruch Menachem]

I am pro nuke, but I recognize that most folks are not. It has lots of problems, and disasters like Chernobyl and Fukashima make even pro nukes like me anxious to see it, but not close to me. I am in Oregon, so nuke plants in florida are quite close enough.

Thorium supposedly does not have the run away reactor problems that uranium has. It is more abundant, the products of reactions are a whole lot safer, and the reactions take place in a safer vessel. All in all a much better system. So why not? Supposedly China is big on Thorium reactors, they have thousands of phd candidates working on it, but they haven't built one. We nave built one, and took it down.

The Chinese can't be worried about safety. They just aren't. That isn't the problem. They desperately need some alternative power source. You can't call what they are breathing air. Despite that, they still build coal plants.

I read and see all these you tube videos. If it is so good (I have't seen anything to the contrary ) why ever not? Cheaper, safer, no pollution...what is the deal?

 

[Tom Sweetnam]

The problem is that nuclear makes too much sense, Baruch, thus we'll never see broad support from the American left. They're too busy chasing some Holy Grail called "the alternative to petroleum". They probably won't find it for another century, but in no way do they see that as an impediment to tearing down our existing infrastructure.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

if there were some form of energy that took polution and made sweet air out of it, the left would oppose that. It would cause global cooling. that is a given. My question is, what mysterious problem with thorium is out there? what painfully obvious problem for the nuke industry stops it that I am missing. Is it expensive? does it have some safety issue that I am missing?

 

[Old Rocks]

An unproven technology, and the past cost of the nuclear dream has soured most people on nuclear. Simply, like coal and gas, but more so, it loses on economics.

 

[martybegan]

An unproven technology, and the past cost of the nuclear dream has soured most people on nuclear. Simply, like coal and gas, but more so, it loses on economics.

Wind and solar lose on economics as well without massive government subsidies.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Wind, at present, is just about half the cost of coal. Solar is only a half cent from being on parity with coal, and the price of solar is dropping as we post. Economics will drive the switch from fossil fuels to renewables.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Wind doesn't get any subsidies, except when they're getting subsidies:
Austin Energy pursuing 558M wind energy deal - Austin Business Journal

The larger purchase is intended to take advantage of the federal production tax credit, which provides wind projects a tax credit of 2.3 cents per kilowatt hour.

But that isn't a subsidy, because it's a subsidy. And that's different.

 

[martybegan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Wind, at present, is just about half the cost of coal. Solar is only a half cent from being on parity with coal, and the price of solar is dropping as we post. Economics will drive the switch from fossil fuels to renewables.

Your costs don't include the required backup generating capacity or storage when wind/solar lose their wind/sun. For a fair comparison if you desire wind/solar to be considered part of the base load, those costs must be included as a ratio based on the downtime of the wind/solar portion.

 

[RGR]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/b...-win-on-price-vs-conventional-fuels.html?_r=0

According to a study by the investment banking firm Lazard, the cost of utility-scale solar energy is as low as 5.6 cents a kilowatt-hour, and wind is as low as 1.4 cents. In comparison, natural gas comes at 6.1 cents a kilowatt-hour on the low end and coal at 6.6 cents. Without subsidies, the firm’s analysis shows, solar costs about 7.2 cents a kilowatt-hour at the low end, with wind at 3.7 cents.

Right up until....the sun goes down. Or the wind stops blowing. Then folks are swearing in the dark, really wishing they had paid that slightly higher price TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT WORKS ALL THE TIME.

It is as stupid as buying a car for $19G, congratulating yourself over having saved $1000 over that car you could have bought for $20G....except the cheaper car only runs between the hours of 10AM and 6PM during the summer (less during the winter) and will sometimes run at night...sometimes...but it won't tell you when..and you might drive it across town, turn it off, go to the store, get back in it...and then it won't run.

Then that $1000 savings just looks like what it is...not a very good solution to the problem. Can it be done? Sure. Some people love being stranded on the wrong side of town...waiting for the sun to come up or the wind to start blowing, hey, maybe they didn't have anything better to do.

 

[Old Rocks]

LOL. However, the largest utility in Texas is planning on making solar and wind 24/7.

Oncor proposes giant leap for grid batteries Dallas Morning News

“Everyone assumed the price point was five to six years out. We’re getting indications from everyone we’ve talked to they can get us to that price by 2018,” he said in an interview Wednesday.

The Dallas-based transmission company is proposing the installation of 5,000 megawatts of batteries not just in its service area but across Texas’ entire grid. That is the equivalent of four nuclear power plants on a grid with a capacity of about 81,000 megawatts.

Ranging from refrigerator- to dumpster-size, the batteries would be installed behind shopping centers and in neighborhoods. Statewide, Oncor estimates a total price tag of $5.2 billion. A study commissioned by Oncor with the Brattle Group, a Massachusetts consulting firm that provides power market analysis for state regulators, says the project would not raise bills. Revenue from rental of storage space on the batteries, along with a decrease in power prices and transmission costs, should actually decrease the average Texas residential power bill 34 cents to $179.66 a month, the report said.

 

[mamooth]

I read and see all these you tube videos. If it is so good (I have't seen anything to the contrary ) why ever not? Cheaper, safer, no pollution...what is the deal?

Money.

Contrary to the "thorium is a miracle!" videos, it's not easy. Thorium doesn't fission. It first has to first be turned into U-233 in a breeder reactor.

One way is too blanket a standard reactor with thorium, let it absorb neutrons for some years and turn into U-233, then take the thorium blanket off and process the U-233 out of it. Very slow and clunky.

The more efficient way requires an extremely complex molten salt reactor. Thorium, dissolved in molten salt, is bombarded with neutrons and turned into U-233 inside the reactor, and then fissioned inside the same reactor. Working technology for that doesn't exist yet. Molten salt reactors have been done before, but they just used the salt as coolant. They didn't have the fission fuel dissolved in the salt.

So, it's totally new technology. Teams are working on it, including the Chinese. Prototypes are planned, but nobody has gotten even that far yet. And there's not much drive for it worldwide. There's no shortage of uranium for conventional nukes now, so there's no financial incentive to make a new more expensive process.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Thank you! I was wondering about that. There is always something the drumbeaters don't tell you.

 

[elektra]

I read and see all these you tube videos. If it is so good (I have't seen anything to the contrary ) why ever not? Cheaper, safer, no pollution...what is the deal?

Money.

Contrary to the "thorium is a miracle!" videos, it's not easy. Thorium doesn't fission. It first has to first be turned into U-233 in a breeder reactor.

One way is too blanket a standard reactor with thorium, let it absorb neutrons for some years and turn into U-233, then take the thorium blanket off and process the U-233 out of it. Very slow and clunky.

The more efficient way requires an extremely complex molten salt reactor. Thorium, dissolved in molten salt, is bombarded with neutrons and turned into U-233 inside the reactor, and then fissioned inside the same reactor. Working technology for that doesn't exist yet. Molten salt reactors have been done before, but they just used the salt as coolant. They didn't have the fission fuel dissolved in the salt.

So, it's totally new technology. Teams are working on it, including the Chinese. Prototypes are planned, but nobody has gotten even that far yet. And there's not much drive for it worldwide. There's no shortage of uranium for conventional nukes now, so there's no financial incentive to make a new more expensive process.

maMOOT, your are an idiot.

We had a Thorium Reactor in the 1960's.

maMOOT, how come you did not mention turning Thorium into its Fluoride? How come maMOOT does not mention research in India or China?

You know why we do not make Thorium reactors? Because the would work, they would provide cheap reliable Energy, hardly the Third World vision of the USA that the Democrats and Liberals have.

Nuclear Power would make us strong, powerful, and rich. Everything maMOOT and the Democrats are against.

 

[Mr. H.]

Balthorium G is the only way to go...

 

[Old Rocks]

I read and see all these you tube videos. If it is so good (I have't seen anything to the contrary ) why ever not? Cheaper, safer, no pollution...what is the deal?

Money.

Contrary to the "thorium is a miracle!" videos, it's not easy. Thorium doesn't fission. It first has to first be turned into U-233 in a breeder reactor.

One way is too blanket a standard reactor with thorium, let it absorb neutrons for some years and turn into U-233, then take the thorium blanket off and process the U-233 out of it. Very slow and clunky.

The more efficient way requires an extremely complex molten salt reactor. Thorium, dissolved in molten salt, is bombarded with neutrons and turned into U-233 inside the reactor, and then fissioned inside the same reactor. Working technology for that doesn't exist yet. Molten salt reactors have been done before, but they just used the salt as coolant. They didn't have the fission fuel dissolved in the salt.

So, it's totally new technology. Teams are working on it, including the Chinese. Prototypes are planned, but nobody has gotten even that far yet. And there's not much drive for it worldwide. There's no shortage of uranium for conventional nukes now, so there's no financial incentive to make a new more expensive process.

maMOOT, your are an idiot.

We had a Thorium Reactor in the 1960's.

maMOOT, how come you did not mention turning Thorium into its Fluoride? How come maMOOT does not mention research in India or China?

You know why we do not make Thorium reactors? Because the would work, they would provide cheap reliable Energy, hardly the Third World vision of the USA that the Democrats and Liberals have.

Nuclear Power would make us strong, powerful, and rich. Everything maMOOT and the Democrats are against.

Lordy, lordy. Thorium turning into its Flouride. Lordy, lordy. LOL

 

[mamooth]

maMOOT, your are an idiot.

Before you embarrass yourself again, do your homework first.

We had a Thorium Reactor in the 1960's

No, we did not. We had an experimental reactor that used U233 dissolved in molten salt as a the fuel. It was considered a predecessor to a molten salt thorium breeder reactor that was never built.

Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

maMOOT, how come you did not mention turning Thorium into its Fluoride?

Thorium tetraflouride? Because there was no point in going that deep into how thorium is dissolved in molten salt.

How come maMOOT does not mention research in India or China?

Next time, how about you actually read my post?

You know why we do not make Thorium reactors? Because the would work, they would provide cheap reliable Energy, hardly the Third World vision of the USA that the Democrats and Liberals have.

Bug-eyed conspiracy theories won't magically make the technology work. They will make you look delusional and pathetic.

It's not enough to simply make the technology work. It has to work relatively cheaply at a large scale. Standard reactors are a known quantity, and uranium is plentiful.

Nuclear Power would make us strong, powerful, and rich. Everything maMOOT and the Democrats are against.

What's the point of "maMOOT"? It makes no sense.

 

[elektra]

I read and see all these you tube videos. If it is so good (I have't seen anything to the contrary ) why ever not? Cheaper, safer, no pollution...what is the deal?

Money.

Contrary to the "thorium is a miracle!" videos, it's not easy. Thorium doesn't fission. It first has to first be turned into U-233 in a breeder reactor.

One way is too blanket a standard reactor with thorium, let it absorb neutrons for some years and turn into U-233, then take the thorium blanket off and process the U-233 out of it. Very slow and clunky.

The more efficient way requires an extremely complex molten salt reactor. Thorium, dissolved in molten salt, is bombarded with neutrons and turned into U-233 inside the reactor, and then fissioned inside the same reactor. Working technology for that doesn't exist yet. Molten salt reactors have been done before, but they just used the salt as coolant. They didn't have the fission fuel dissolved in the salt.

So, it's totally new technology. Teams are working on it, including the Chinese. Prototypes are planned, but nobody has gotten even that far yet. And there's not much drive for it worldwide. There's no shortage of uranium for conventional nukes now, so there's no financial incentive to make a new more expensive process.

maMOOT, your are an idiot.

We had a Thorium Reactor in the 1960's.

maMOOT, how come you did not mention turning Thorium into its Fluoride? How come maMOOT does not mention research in India or China?

You know why we do not make Thorium reactors? Because the would work, they would provide cheap reliable Energy, hardly the Third World vision of the USA that the Democrats and Liberals have.

Nuclear Power would make us strong, powerful, and rich. Everything maMOOT and the Democrats are against.

Lordy, lordy. Thorium turning into its Flouride. Lordy, lordy. LOL

simple fluorination, flouride salts, I am sure Old Crock, you have zero understanding of this, as Old Crock has continually displayed a lack of knowledge beyond "cut/paste".

Enlighten us Old Crock, go ahead.

 

[elektra]

maMOOT, your are an idiot.

Before you embarrass yourself again, do your homework first.

We had a Thorium Reactor in the 1960's

No, we did not. We had an experimental reactor that used U233 dissolved in molten salt as a the fuel. It was considered a predecessor to a molten salt thorium breeder reactor that was never built.

Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

maMOOT, how come you did not mention turning Thorium into its Fluoride?

Thorium tetraflouride? Because there was no point in going that deep into how thorium is dissolved in molten salt.

How come maMOOT does not mention research in India or China?

Next time, how about you actually read my post?

You know why we do not make Thorium reactors? Because the would work, they would provide cheap reliable Energy, hardly the Third World vision of the USA that the Democrats and Liberals have.

Bug-eyed conspiracy theories won't magically make the technology work. They will make you look delusional and pathetic.

It's not enough to simply make the technology work. It has to work relatively cheaply at a large scale. Standard reactors are a known quantity, and uranium is plentiful.

Nuclear Power would make us strong, powerful, and rich. Everything maMOOT and the Democrats are against.

What's the point of "maMOOT"? It makes no sense.

mamooth = maMOOT

MOOT

Moot Define Moot at Dictionary.com

2.of little or no practical value or meaning

Yes, we had a Thorium reactor, but as you say, why go into so much depth? Yes, maMOOT the Molten Salt Reactor used, U233 which was made from Thorium.

maMOOT, you seem to know everything, how about telling us that these reactors did not use Thorium, make another bold statement, after all you have a habit of embarrassing yourself.

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[mamooth]

Yes, we had a Thorium reactor, but as you say, why go into so much depth? Yes, maMOOT the Molten Salt Reactor used, U233 which was made from Thorium

No, there was no thorium reactor. The U233 was made previously in a thermal breeder reactor. Wrap a standard reactor with thorium, let it absorb neutrons for a couple years, then take the thorium out and separate out the U233. Essentially all U233 comes from thorium, but that doesn't mean reactors using U233 are "thorium reactors".

maMOOT, you seem to know everything, how about telling us that these reactors did not use Thorium, make another bold statement, after all you have a habit of embarrassing yourself.

Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Okay. That experimental reactor didn't use thorium either. Again, just because the U233 was made from thorium earlier does not make it a thorium reactor.

The Chinese are not doing so well with their program, constantly pushing back the date as to when the prototype will be ready. Elektra, are the Democrats also at fault for that?

If it was easy, it would have been done. It (a commercial-scale thorium reactor) hasn't been done because it's very difficult. No conspiracy theories necessary.

 

[elektra]

I guess the U. S. Government and China disagree with "moot".

SPECIAL REPORT-The U.S. government lab behind China s nuclear power push Reuters

SPECIAL REPORT-The U.S. government lab behind China's nuclear power push
BY DAVID LAGUE AND CHARLIE ZHU

HONG KONG Fri Dec 20, 2013 7:33pm IST

Dec 20 (Reuters) - Scientists in Shanghai are attempting a breakthrough in nuclear energy: reactors powered by thorium, an alternative to uranium.

The project is run by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, a government body with close military ties that coordinates the country's science-and-technology strategy. The academy has designated thorium as a priority for China's top laboratories. The program has a budget of $350 million. And it's being spearheaded by the influential son of a former Chinese president.

But even as China bulks up its military muscle through means ranging from espionage to heavy spending, it is pursuing this aspect of its technology game plan with the blessing - and the help - of the United States.

China has enlisted a storied partner for its thorium push: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The U.S. government institute produced the plutonium used for the Manhattan Project and laid important groundwork for the commercial and military use of nuclear power.

The Tennessee lab, as it happens, helped pioneer thorium reactors. The Pentagon and the energy industry later sidelined this technology in favor of uranium. The Chinese are now enthusiastically tapping that know-how, in an example of how the rising Asian superpower is scouring the world for all sorts of technology needed to catch up to America in a broad array of scientific fields.

Thorium's chief allure is that it is a potentially far safer fuel for civilian power plants than is uranium. But the element also has possible military applications as an energy source in naval vessels. A U.S. congressman unsuccessfully sought to push the Pentagon to embrace the technology in 2009, and British naval officers are recommending a design for a thorium-fueled ship.

In a further twist, despite the mounting strategic rivalry with China, there has been little or no protest in the United States over Oak Ridge's nuclear-energy cooperation with China.

"The U.S. government seems to welcome Chinese scientists into Department of Energy labs with open arms," says physicist and thorium advocate Robert Hargraves. He and other experts note that most of the U.S. intellectual property related to thorium is already in the public domain. At a time when the U.S. government is spending very little on advanced reactor research, they believe China's experiments may yield a breakthrough that provides an alternative to the massive consumption of fossil fuels.

The technology's immediate appeal for China, both Chinese and American scientists say, is that thorium reactors have the potential to be much more efficient, safer and cleaner than most in service today.