Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

http://goalforthegreen.com/2009/02/lets ... Feb-8-2009 By Barbara Rae



We have been conditioned to believe that we are in the midst of a severe energy shortage. Yet, if we were to take a closer look at Thorium, element # 90 on the Periodic Table, we would discover that we have more energy available than we will ever use.

Until he died, Dr. Petr Beckmann, ( Czech refugee from the Nazis) spent much of his career in America promoting nuclear power. Unfortunately, he was treated as demon by the environmental movement, and much of his work was ignored.

Many green leaders are now admitting to the mistake of rejecting this clean, safe and relatively cheap technology. President Obama, has promised to make energy conservation and the environment among his top priorities. He has chosen several “climate change” activists to serve as his top officials. Among them is, Harvard physicist, John Holdren as his presidential science advisor. He could have a huge impact on our country’s future energy policies. In his career he has focused on climate change, nuclear disarmament, and next generation nuclear energy.

As we know it today, nuclear power is obsolete. Currently our light water reactors use uranium-235. Not only is this fuel expensive, but it’s byproducts create political problems. The byproducts are a hot topic, because they can be used to create nuclear weapons. The very reason we adopted uranium-235, was because America needed the materials for nuclear weapons. Our power plants at the time, provided those materials, thus pushing aside the more superior fuels such as thorium.

Pluses for thorium, is that it is by far more abundant than uranium-235. Thorium reactors do not produce hazardous waste materials that are useful in manufacturing nuclear weapons. The waste is far less hazardous and much cheaper and easier to dispose of. In general, thorium reactors are safer to operate because they produce little radioactive threat outside their shielding. In fact, thorium reactors cannot experience a catastrophic meltdown. The fact that thorium plants can’t melt down, suggests that the total energy cost to operate would be much lower.

Another plus, is that thorium reactors can be almost any size. There have been prototypes made small enough for military aircraft. This fact alone, makes them more feasible for developing countries to afford, saving the cost of a large-scale infrastructure. They would also be much more appealing internationally, because they cannot be used to manufacture nuclear weapons. To learn more about thorium energy, read this.

It is my hope that the Obama administration, will reduce reduce barriers to the production of thorium, by taking a serious look at the positive impact it can make. A shift to thorium as a source of energy, could help create “green jobs”, facilitate economic recovery, and help environmental and nonproliferation causes.

Tags: believer, cleaning, closer look, create, element, Energy, enrgy, environment, experience, green, midst, Politics, problems, reading, safe, save, savings, severity, time, uses, wikipedia

What, LFTRs don't have decay heat?

This kind of statement is a reflection of our society: gullible, desperate, snatching wildly at loose ideas. The reporters who write this garbage are no better than the general population they serve, and don't show evidence of aspiring to do better. Evidence like, asking around, finding credible people to educate them, and then writing a careful and factual article.

I realize we have to reach out to these people and help them understand better, but the problem is just so big... ugh.

-Iain

Of course they don't !

We take it out, and put it somewhere else...

I'm sorry to say I'm one of the less educated. I didn't notice the error but I felt the article at least accomplished the basic goal of saying the way we make nuclear energy has changed. I would like to read a well researched article that attempts to inform the uneducated public. The problem is how do the well educated dumb down and avoid saying too much?

The main reason that the core cannot melt down is that it's already molten.

The safety comes from continuously removing the volatile fission products. Conversely, in conventional LWRs the melting of the fuel releases a large fraction of the volatile fission products, most importantly iodine and cesium, and these vaporized fission products recondense upon reaching cooler parts of the reactor system, either on surfaces or, of primary concern, as small, mobile aerosol particles that can remain airborne for substantial periods of time. LWRs also have large amounts of stored energy, due to their use of a volatile, high pressure coolant, and this provides an energy source that has the potential to fail the containment and disperse radioactive material. In molten salt reactors there are no sources of stored energy that can pressurize the containment or mobilize radioactive materials, because the coolant is inert and has extremely low volatility. One of the reasons that molten salt reactors use an intermediate loop is to separate the primary system from the power conversion system, which will have significant stored energy in its high-pressure working fluid. Liquid-salt cooled, solid (TRISO) fueled reactors also have this desirable characteristic.

rmaltese,

Okay, now Per has given you a factual response. Feels good, doesn't it? It gives you something you can really hang an argument on.

The trouble is, he used acronyms like PWR, which aren't meaningful to someone unfamiliar with the lingo. He also said things like "the potential to fail containment and disperse radioactive material" instead of "the energy in the high pressure coolant water must be prevented from driving a steam explosion which blows the fission products out of the containment vessel". Hmm. Mine isn't better.

Since you are more familiar with being new to this stuff, I nominate you to rewrite Per's statement in a way which is not confusing to you. The challenge is to be accurate without being either verbose or cryptic.

-Iain

LWR did throw me. I recall the term "heavy water". Now the layman knows this expression.

So by rephrasing:

The trouble with current and traditional light water reactors is that they produce heavy water which contain volatile and toxic chemicals in the form of x?6^^jsg and &uhv6yhc and &ybvrbu as well as air born particles that contain iodine and cesium that are also extemely toxic. Molten Salt Reactors are a proposed alternative for fourth generation nuclear reactors that eliminates most of these problems. LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors) has become the reactor of choice for the scientific community. Many supporters of this technology feel Generation IV nuclear reactors commonly accepted to begin around 2025 could begin as soon as 20?? with proper funding and widespread support.

Is this close? Feel free to correct it.

I think a little clarification on how the high heats are achieved in each case (most people imagine water to reach boiling point and then it evaporates - heavy water must boil too - what temperature?) and how molten salt ( most people think of lava rock which is very destructive so dispelling this is also important) is easier to manage than "heavy water" followed by a description of which toxic substances have been eliminated. Is molten salt caused by chemical reactions or is it heated from an external source? Is the external source the reactor? Or is the molten salt "the" main component of the reactor. Also the question of what amount and form the waste products take on. I can see a simple comparison table being useful here.

rmaltese

The safety comes from continuously removing the gaseous fission products. Conversely, in current generation nuclear plants the melting of the fuel releases a large fraction of the gaseous fission products, most importantly 2 particularily nasty ones that the body absorbs very readily, and these vaporized fission products recondense upon reaching cooler parts of the reactor system, either on surfaces or, of primary concern, as small, mobile aerosol particles that can remain airborne for substantial periods of time. Current generation nuclear plants also have large amounts of stored energy, due to their use of high temperature water held under high pressure as a core coolant, and this provides an energy source that has enough internal stored energy alone if released to break the containment and disperse radioactive material. In molten salt reactors there are no sources of stored energy that can pressurize the containment or mobilize radioactive materials, because the coolant is inert and has an extremely low ability to turn into a gas with it's own internal energy. One of the reasons that molten salt reactors use an intermediate loop is to separate the primary system from the power conversion system, which will have significant stored energy in its high-pressure working fluid. Liquid-salt cooled, solid (TRISO) fueled reactors also have this desirable characteristic.

How was mine? I took it as a game sorta.

Yes that helps.



Just a small but important addition the word "human"

2 particularily nasty ones that the human body absorbs very readily

Also


To me a layman this is a contradiction. It would appear that the power conversion
is the primary purpose so how is the primary system different and why mention it?

The reactor makes heat. The power conversion system turns some of that heat into work and rejects the rest to the environment. The electrical generators turn that work into electricity.

Also, cesium is not volatile in a fluoride reactor. On the contrary, it is exceptionally stable as cesium fluoride.

You're saying the primary system is the reactor that makes heat? Got it. That causes the Fluoride powder to heat up and melt to Molten Fluride which I assume surrounds the Thorium which is in granules too or are they rods. Does the graphite act as a barrier/separator? Well maybe the average public doesn't care about these details. Non-nuclear scientists and engineers would probably be interested. Senators such as Harry Reid and Orrin Hatch are already swayed but do they have the ability to communicate the message.

Another point how would the smaller amount of waste be disposed? As a mixture in the cooled salt?




Also what about a ball park year for 20??. It's gotta happen sooner than 2025 when some of us will be gone. Sorry if this is repetitive to you. I realize it's probably on another thread somewhere.

So in the end of a laymans article the obstacles to success could be laid out.

The Senator Hatch team release statement


The notion of the rod remaining longer is interesting but is this LFTR? These tiny pieces of information are pretty inadequate. And is LFTR too theoretical to mention or are there camps with vested interest preventing LFTR from emerging.

One of the more important errors is a misunderstanding of the term 'heavy water'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_water

Only tiny amounts of heavy water are produced from light water by neutron absorbtion & that is harmless. What is dangerous is that radioactive materials can dissolve in the reactor coolant water.

I've been looking through the old ORNL documents about iodine and cesium and it would appear that a modification to this statement is in order. The safety comes from the fact that cesium and iodine both form chemically stable and non-volatile chemical compounds in a fluoride reactor, whereas in a conventional LWR they are volatile in the event of an accident. In a fluoride reactor cesium exists as cesium fluoride (very stable) and iodine exists as an iodide (analogous to fluoride and bound to some cation, probably cesium!).

There's a good thread going on this topic.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=977

Suffice it to say that those who wrote the legislation are not nuclear scientists nor pretend to me. They have been briefed on LFTR but only after the legislation was written.

This is not true, in some meltdown test they have found an Iodine quantity in the containment lower than which would be expected. So there must be some containment mechanism in the core.