Posted on 05/02/2015 10:21:16 AM PDT by all the best
Here’s another, more recent one: The thorium-turbine powered car.
Heat energy from the thorium – a weakly radioactive element (named after the Norse god Thor) that is estimated to be 3-4 times more naturally abundant than uranium and which contains 20 million times the energy as an equivalent lump of coal – is used to generate steam, which is then used to power a small turbine, which provides the motive force. The beauty of the system is that – like a nuclear submarine – the fuel lasts almost forever. Well, longer than you will last, probably.
How’s 100 years sound?
No more stopping for “gas”… ever.
This alone would make current IC cars seem as wasteful of time (and energy) as current IC cars make electric cars look wasteful of time and energy.
But wait, there’s more.
Well, less.
No emissions at all. Because nothing’s being burned, there’s no exhaust. Water to steam, expansion and contraction – and back again. Closed (and clean) loop. The Algoreans ought to be ecstatic. Yet there is dead silence.
You can hear the crickets chirping.
Is it because thorium is radioactive? The word is third rail to scientifically illiterate homo Americanus – who fears it in the same way a savage fears the voices coming out of the Talk Box (radio). The mere mention of the word is sufficient to incite a panic. It’s why the nuclear power grid is dead in the water; or rather, as old as a Betamax copy of Saturday Night Fever.
But it’s not even the same thing. Thorium is mildly radioactive. Dr. Charles Stevens, CEO of Laser Power Systems – which is developing the technology, or at least, trying to – says: “The radiation can be shielded by a single sheet of aluminum foil.” thorium two
(Excerpt) Read more at ericpetersautos.com ...
“Stevens told Mashable that “the automakers don’t want to buy them””
Given that there is not even a working model ....
“You might know how to monitor a reactor, but you have shown little ability to think independently”
Unlike the good ‘doctor’ my thinking is not independent of established science.
I will do some more reading on this. Thanks. btw - I have always though the Thorium Cadillac was an interesting think item. Not much more.
Why have you made no comments about the MSRE and that technology?
“Why have you made no comments about the MSRE and that technology?”
The MSRE was a small experimental reactor. It was not capable of producing electricity and was not intended for long term operation.
The technology was proven as a concept but would have been much more expensive to put into commercial operation compared to pwr’s. Additionally, several operational and fueel cycle issues would have to be resolved.
At MSRE they just left the fuel their and if you do some research you can see some of the problems they had.
“Thorium Cadillac”
I hadn’t seen that one.
http://energyfromthorium.com/2014/04/13/mythology-thorium-car-thorium-plasma-batteries/
So LWR “spent” rods contain too much PU240 that makes bombs fizzle because an LWR burn rate is too high. However, rods within a LWR core for a short time may contain weapons grade PU239. Do I understand that correctly?
I haven’t done reading on this recently, but tell me what I misunderstand here:
There are issues of removing decay products, which I guess would not suspend well or solve into the molten salt, but I don’t really know. Some of these byproducts, may have great resale value in nuclear medicine. They can be chemically separated I gather.
The MSRE fuel in Oak Ridge would be solidified salts. If it has sat there all this time, that kind of indicates that separating out the U-233 is not so easy, therefore the fuel is a minor proliferation exposure.
I understand the Hastaloy piping disposal is an issue. A lot of plumbing issues with an MSR.
Yes, the MSRE did not have a heat exchanger of means to generate steam to turn a turbine. But it produced a lot of heat. Yes it was small.
But why can’t you go really small?
” Do I understand that correctly?”
I think you are starting to see the light. Since LWR’s were never used to produce bomb grade material, one cannot say that the industry uses LWR’s because the were used to make bomb grade material!
“But why can’t you go really small?”
As in eight grams? Because you have to have a critical mass and eight grams ain’t gonna get it done.
Doubly for the MSR since the fuel is dispersed in the cooling medium the total amount is going to be multiple of a critical mass.
See the below. Note the thick concrete walls around the entire plant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
“The MSRE fuel in Oak Ridge would be solidified salts.”
The fuel is U-233 suspended in molten salts.
But, you can drop a plug of pellets into an LWR core for a short time and have weapons grade plutonium? So ANY of our 40 or so PWR can be put to into sue for weapons grade PU239, right?
“But, you can drop a plug of pellets into an LWR core for a short time and have weapons grade plutonium? So ANY of our 40 or so PWR can be put to into sue for weapons grade PU239, right?”
But, But, But. Remember your statement?
‘We use LWR’s because they make weapon’s grade materials’
Given that they have never been used for that, your original statement if false. I don’t know why you don’t just accept that fact.
As for your above, you don’t just drop some pellets in. It takes days to open up and reseal the reactor vessel.
Not quite what I was talking about - the salt is the fuel, u233 us not suspended in it. With a LFTR, once the LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4 fuel leaves criticality it will cool into a solid that contains both U233 and TH232 salts. U233 is fissile, but not the material of choice for bombs - we have exploded only one if I recall correctly.
So in solid form, it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible to separate U233 salts from with TH salts. Not only that, U233 is a gamma emitter, and therefore easy to find if it walks away. So my point is there is a very low proliferation risk for this tech.
Also, the U233 that starts the reaction is not fuel that sustains the reaction. TH232 caputues a neutron and decays to Pa233, then U233. There is also Yes and not for the U233 being the fuel. So the MSRE technology or LFTR's are poor choices to easily convert to produce bomb material, right?
So fine, pick fly sheet out of pepper and make a semantic argument. I am looking at the policy decision made by the Nixon administration to pick the PWR as the winning design. You cannot argue that is not what they did.
The did so because any PWR can be put into service to manufacture PU239. They picked the PWR for this reason. I stand by my opinion it is a stupid design, if tour goal is to efficiently produce electricity. Electricity is a side show.
Ok 8 grams is ridiculous - I'll bite. Why is the mass of the fuel a factor for criticality? I thought the primary factor in achieving criticality was the proximity of the fuel materials, not the volume.
“Not quite what I was talking about - the salt is the fuel, u233 us not suspended in it. With a LFTR, once the LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4 fuel leaves criticality it will cool into a solid that contains both U233 and TH232 salts. U233 is fissile, but not the material of choice for bombs - we have exploded only one if I recall correctly.”
The salt remains molten as it is pumped around the loop. The most efficient design incorporates continuous recycling of fuel and byproducts.
“So in solid form, it is exceedingly difficult if not impossible to separate U233 salts from with TH salts. Not only that, U233 is a gamma emitter, and therefore easy to find if it walks away. So my point is there is a very low proliferation risk for this tech.”
1. See the above.
2. U-233 is not a strong gamma emitter.
“Also, the U233 that starts the reaction is not fuel that sustains the reaction. TH232 caputues a neutron and decays to Pa233, then U233. There is also Yes and not for the U233 being the fuel. So the MSRE technology or LFTR’s are poor choices to easily convert to produce bomb material, right?”
Any dedicated group of scientists and engineers could convert the U-233 in a MSR to bomb material.
I accept it - you are probably right. American PWR's do not manufacture bomb material, at least as far as we have been told. But they CAN manufacture bomb material. And whether they have is something we will likely never know. Agree?
A person at Los Alamos explained it to me this way...
“Imagine in your wildest Science Fiction dreams what technology we possess. Add 100 years and you will be close.
“The problem is that the world has become a complex, interconnected place. Let’s say we could put a reactor of some sort in everyone’s house and make the power grid a thing of the past. The economic repercussions both domestically and internationally would be severe and likely lead to war as many national economies collapsed.
“Our technological advantage is our ace in the hole. Should a foreign power threaten the existence of the United States, not only do we have the capability of destroying the aggressor, but we can do so in ways you can’t even imagine.
“The rise of non-state hostiles is an outgrowth of the awareness of this situation on the international stage. No country dares to directly challenge us. They are reduced to attacks by proxy. Annoying, and in the case of 9/11 costly, but hardly an existential threat.
“Our threat now comes from within. Should we lose the will to use the power at our disposal, we are just as doomed as if we didn’t have it all.
“Just because they used that much concrete in an experiment does not mean that you need that much shielding material. So please.”
Please see the below link. It shows the shielding studies for the MSRE.
“Ok 8 grams is ridiculous - I’ll bite. Why is the mass of the fuel a factor for criticality? I thought the primary factor in achieving criticality was the proximity of the fuel materials, not the volume.”
Please see the below link. It contains the criticality studies for the MSRE.
http://web.ornl.gov/info/reports/1964/3445606043171.pdf
I will be happy to entertain questions after you have had time to absorb the material.
“I accept it - you are probably right. American PWR’s do not manufacture bomb material, at least as far as we have been told. But they CAN manufacture bomb material. And whether they have is something we will likely never know. Agree?”
I am glad you accept it. As for as making bomb material ...
1. Why? The government has a monopoly on bomb material already so the idea of a secret government plot is foolish.
2. Thousands of people would have knowledge that ‘something’ was going on so it could not be carried out in secret. Hundreds would know exactly what was going on.
3. The government has inspectors on-site to monitor operations so the utility could not do it on their own.
4. Rate payers and investors would be irate at the low efficiency of the power plant for electrical generation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.