Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: MillCreek on September 15, 2011, 04:42:48 PM
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/09/11/is-thorium-the-biggest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/
I knew the nuclear gearheads here at APS would find this interesting.
-
http://www.forbes.com/sites/williampentland/2011/09/11/is-thorium-the-biggest-energy-breakthrough-since-fire-possibly/
I knew the nuclear gearheads here at APS would find this interesting.
Yeah, Thorium reactors have been cropping up in the news more and more lately.
Although it's not exactly "new". AFAIK, it was known or at least theorized that Thorium could be used as fuel in a chain reaction as long as Uranium was, but since the Uranium reactor got it's start because of the Manhattan Project to build a bomb, the whole world just went the "Uranium Way".
I think the first real concept for a molten salt Thorium reactor came up in the mid-50's when some work was being done on the possibility of a nuclear powered plane because of it's significant weight savings (?) and safety factors. In the event of a crash, the otherwise very chemically stable molten Fluoride salts would "splash" and immediately disperse into non criticality? (dunno.. ??? )
Commissioner Gordon gave me keys to the roof, and I'm firing up the ol' signal now...
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi156.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Ft33%2FAJ_Dual%2Fbirdman.jpg&hash=60aaa5616c3264a46378805f045a8262e1ac2852)
-
(Christian bale batman voice). You called?
I don't have too much time, so a few tidbits (until tomorrow, I want to see where this leads)
Caveat, I am cur rely working on some thorium systems. (and thus can't go into some details due to NDA material)
1. Thorium isn't fissile (with thermal neutrons), it's fertile (excess neutrons from a normal chain reaction of fissile stuff can turn it into a fissile material) you need to irradiate (to make u-233) before it is fissile, so all thorium reactors use a "startup" fuel of conventional uranium or plutonium
2. Thorium eliminates nearly all proliferation aspects except for the aforementioned startup fuel)
3. The nuclear airplane wouldn't (and didn't) use thorium, (both for reason number 1, and the fact that a thorium system needs more fuel per unit power, but generates more energy per unit fuel)
4. Uranium was the main first choice because of the fertile/fissile aspect--the bomb part was secondary (the first reactor was uranium, even though thorium was easier to get)--basically, neutrons are precious (especially in inefficient designs) so you need every last one to keep the fissile chain reaction going ("critical") and can't spare any to make new fuel.
5. Uranium/plutonium breeder reactors (uses initial startup of uranium to turn depleted uranium into plutonium which is then consumed, similar to the thorium/uranium-233 way) are more efficient and more compact...but have the P word...hence, the current fascination with thorium
6. Google THTR--the Germans built a BIG thorium reactor in the 70's/80's that yielded most (along with AVR) of the current thorium fuel information
Okay, that's all for now, more tomorrow after I see where this leads.
-
Tagged.
-
holy hot fission batman, this birdman is smarter than the riddler! (aside from using the christian bale bat-voice)
-
Interestingly enough, in the early 20th century, thorium was used as an additive in optical glass to increase the refractive index. Unfortunately, over time it caused degradation of the glass, turning it yellow. Thorium glass lenses are now considered toxic radioactive waste.
-
Interestingly enough, in the early 20th century, thorium was used as an additive in optical glass to increase the refractive index. Unfortunately, over time it caused degradation of the glass, turning it yellow. Thorium glass lenses are now considered toxic radioactive waste.
Uranium was used as well. However, "toxic radioactive waste" is a matter of degree. An older (the brighter ones) Coleman lantern mantle, or a piece of orangeware are more radioactive (thorium and uranium, respectively) than thoriated glass...and all three in the category of "not much"
Toxicity...well, maybe? Glasses tend to have extremely low diffusion of dopants, (that's why vitrified glass is looked at for nuclear waste disposal), so YMMV. I dont worry :)
-
Birdman: without going into specifics if you can't, how accurate would you say the article is? I always assume journos get the science wrong...
-
Uranium was used as well. However, "toxic radioactive waste" is a matter of degree. An older (the brighter ones) Coleman lantern mantle, or a piece of orangeware are more radioactive (thorium and uranium, respectively) than thoriated glass...and all three in the category of "not much"
Toxicity...well, maybe? Glasses tend to have extremely low diffusion of dopants, (that's why vitrified glass is looked at for nuclear waste disposal), so YMMV. I dont worry :)
I doubt any of the items mentioned were as radioactive as some luminus "radium" dials on things like old radios . . .
-
Birdman: without going into specifics if you can't, how accurate would you say the article is? I always assume journos get the science wrong...
Well, let's put it this way, im getting paid big bucks to design one. :).
So the "it's awesome and will make a big deal" part of the article is accurate. =D
Breakthrough? No--it's not "new" The thorium fuel cycle has been investigated for decades. Its just being pushed harder now for a variety of reasons. (proliferation resistance, shorter life waste, greater amount of fuel available, lower average enrichment requirements, cost, etc)
-
But here's the big question.....if I expose myself to it in large enough doses, will I get super powers?....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUtziaZlDeE&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUtziaZlDeE&feature=related)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIeM3A--C4M (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HIeM3A--C4M)
-
As I recall, India has some running thorium reactors. Have to, they're being embargoed under nonproliferation sanctions.
Yea, it's a big deal. No, it isn't new.
On the plus side, we theoretically have enough thorium in the US to make the US energy independent for 500 to 5,000 years. Lot of it in Utah. So when you hear a happy talking about the necessity of wasting tens of billions on solar and wind, remember to educate them on this notion as you fix bayonets.
-
Makes me wonder if investing a little into some thorium mines might not be a good idea...
-
Makes me wonder if investing a little into some thorium mines might not be a good idea...
I'm hoarding old lantern mantles.
-
Except for proliferation resistance; don't we get all the same benefits with a fast neutron reactor? (i.e. larger fuel supply, shorter waste life)
-
Except for proliferation resistance; don't we get all the same benefits with a fast neutron reactor? (i.e. larger fuel supply, shorter waste life)
Yes. And I like fast breeder reactors, however, the sea of idiots that comprise the population of this country think using plutonium in any way is evil.
-
How far can this scale down? Can we have a decentralized power grid based around, say,one unit per zip code or even neighborhood?
-
How far can this scale down? Can we have a decentralized power grid based around, say,one unit per zip code or even neighborhood?
One per 5-10000 homes (10-20MW) yes...beyond that, it becomes uneconomical...and fast. (believe me, I've tried) Of course, that will never happen, (see aforementioned idiots and their NIMBY voting habits) so even with small plants, you will see them clustered in large spaces with large govt mandated exclusion zones around them...regardless of actual safety.
Face it, nuclear power was safe and economical 40-50 years ago...but people are idiots. Now it's not any safer, and lots more expensive.
As I like to say...Ted kennedy's car killed more people than three mile island.
-
One per 5-10000 homes (10-20MW) yes...beyond that, it becomes uneconomical...and fast. (believe me, I've tried) Of course, that will never happen, (see aforementioned idiots and their NIMBY voting habits) so even with small plants, you will see them clustered in large spaces with large govt mandated exclusion zones around them...regardless of actual safety.
Face it, nuclear power was safe and economical 40-50 years ago...but people are idiots. Now it's not any safer, and lots more expensive.
As I like to say...Ted kennedy's car killed more people than three mile island.
Grew up half a mile from Three Mile Island. Birdman is correct. It is shocking how much propaganda is out there to convince folks that nuclear power is evil.
-
Face it, nuclear power was safe and economical 40-50 years ago...but people are idiots. Now it's not any safer, and lots more expensive.
Correction, it's lots more expensive, and of implemented, even safer. My original point was it was extremely safe even then.
As an important note the increase in cost has literally nothing to do with the technology, it is due to two (really one) things. First, regulatory overhead--in costing new plants, we usually assume nearly 30% of the generating cost is regulatory overhead. Second, cost of money, due to the myriad of agencies, lawsuits, etc, it takes years from initial investment (since that process doesn't start until money is on the table) to the first kilowatt....during that time, interest is being paid. (cost of money accounts for another 30% leaving 30% for actual capital, and 10% for fuel and O&M)
If those processes were streamlined, time to go operational could be reduced to 2-3 years (comparable to any other type of power installation), and cost reduced by 50%, making it cheaper than literally ANY other form of electricity.
-
Correction, it's lots more expensive, and of implemented, even safer. My original point was it was extremely safe even then.
As an important note the increase in cost has literally nothing to do with the technology, it is due to two (really one) things. First, regulatory overhead--in costing new plants, we usually assume nearly 30% of the generating cost is regulatory overhead. Second, cost of money, due to the myriad of agencies, lawsuits, etc, it takes years from initial investment (since that process doesn't start until money is on the table) to the first kilowatt....during that time, interest is being paid. (cost of money accounts for another 30% leaving 30% for actual capital, and 10% for fuel and O&M)
If those processes were streamlined, time to go operational could be reduced to 2-3 years (comparable to any other type of power installation), and cost reduced by 50%, making it cheaper than literally ANY other form of electricity.
We both know that safe, clean, cheap energy is a significant threat to a lot of folks. It is a direct threat to our entire way of living. Imagine the US being energy independent. We could eliminate half of our diplomatic, military and intelligence assets. Manufacturing and transport costs would greatly fall. It would certainly not fix our problems but it would dramatically reduce costs across every aspect of our economy. Worse, it would remove dependency in a lot of areas.
Too many folks would lose power. They'd ultimately be richer, but never underestimate people that are willing to make their own life worse just so that they can control others.
-
Too many folks would lose power. They'd ultimately be richer, but never underestimate people that are willing to make their own life worse just so that they can control others.
Amen to that.....but then, if it wasn't so, we'd never have had Veerhooven's Robocop movies....
-
We both know that safe, clean, cheap energy is a significant threat to a lot of folks. It is a direct threat to our entire way of living. Imagine the US being energy independent. We could eliminate half of our diplomatic, military and intelligence assets. Manufacturing and transport costs would greatly fall. It would certainly not fix our problems but it would dramatically reduce costs across every aspect of our economy. Worse, it would remove dependency in a lot of areas.
Too many folks would lose power. They'd ultimately be richer, but never underestimate people that are willing to make their own life worse just so that they can control others.
Not right away. Unless we switch over to a nuclear-powered synthetic liquid fuel transportation fuel market, we will still need oil. Ironically, the bulk of our electricl power (over 90%) is purely domestically fueled--coal, nuclear and gas. Which is doubly ironic when policritters point to renewable energy as reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
That being said, if we did switch to a synthetic fuel market, our trade deficit would disappear instantly, as we currently import $300-400b/yr of oil (roughly our trade deficit), and we would become a net exporter of oil and gas...potentially to the tune of $500B/yr...more than enough to amortize the cost of the switch, and a net GDP growth of almost 10%!
-
Not right away. Unless we switch over to a nuclear-powered synthetic liquid fuel transportation fuel market, we will still need oil. Ironically, the bulk of our electricl power (over 90%) is purely domestically fueled--coal, nuclear and gas. Which is doubly ironic when policritters point to renewable energy as reducing our dependence on foreign oil.
That being said, if we did switch to a synthetic fuel market, our trade deficit would disappear instantly, as we currently import $300-400b/yr of oil (roughly our trade deficit), and we would become a net exporter of oil and gas...potentially to the tune of $500B/yr...more than enough to amortize the cost of the switch, and a net GDP growth of almost 10%!
Correct, not right away and never completely. We'd still need LOTS of oil for plastics and other "byproducts". And yep, majority of our electric is home grown. Has to be. Massive loss whenever you transport juice long distance. Sometimes it makes sense (Niagara Falls) because of location and whatnot.
Electricity is only part of our energy market.
-
Grew up half a mile from Three Mile Island. Birdman is correct. It is shocking how much propaganda is out there to convince folks that nuclear power is evil.
But you grew up there. And you are evil (in a good way of course). So therefore nuclear power must be evil.
-
Correct, not right away and never completely. We'd still need LOTS of oil for plastics and other "byproducts". And yep, majority of our electric is home grown. Has to be. Massive loss whenever you transport juice long distance. Sometimes it makes sense (Niagara Falls) because of location and whatnot.
Electricity is only part of our energy market.
I didn't mean it was generated local, I meant, unlike transportation fuels, even the fuels used for electrical production are domestically produced as we are a net exporter of coal and natural gas, which comprise 70% of our electrical capacity (leaving nuclear at about 20% and hydro and other renewables at 10%)
So even with a full conversion of the grid to nuclear, we would need to import petroleum, unless we switched to synthetics. Now, that process could be dome in stages as the nuclear side ramps up, first Fischer-tropsch to get liquid fuels from natural gas and coal, supplanted by fully synthetic syngas generation from atmospheric co2 and water once the power is available to do so. So during the 10-20 years (minimum) it would take to transition the power plants, we coud ramp up the chemical processes necessary at the same time.
I look at it this way. To fully transform our entire energy system to nuclear and synthetic fuels would cost about $15-20 trillion (3-5 TW average power) over about 20 years. The issue is one of capital and the govt staying out of the way, as the investment (private) is there, but doesn't want to risk putting in the $ if the government part could not only screw it up, but delay it into non-profitability.
Right now we spend close to $2 trillion a year on energy, and most of it isn't capital or transmission infrastructure, most of it is fuels. With the nuclear/synfuel combination, we could not only reduce our energy costs by a factor of two or more, but the export the resources we do have at a huge profit.