It has been a known method since the 50's and lost out to enriched Uranium reactors mainly because back then we did not have the materials to handle the 800 degree F temperatures over extended periods of time ( I am being kind as much of the opposition is based on ego and GE/Westinghouse have already based their designs on Uranium). Those temperatures are no longer a problem.
IF, and I restate IF, the waste is 1% of a Uranium based reactor (and can consume waste from those light water reactors) and if Thorium is in much greater supply than Uranium, and if the waste drops to background levels of radiation in 300 years rather than thousands, and if the reactors are intrinsically safe as their design would seem to be and tested in existing reactors, if after all these ifs why is this technology not in the forefront?
No weapons grade material can be generated by these reactors.
No huge containment structure is needed as in a light water reactor.
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ has some simple videos plus a wealth of links to other sources of information.
Thorium LFTRs have been included in some recent legislation however as it is over 2000 pages and our representatives admit they have not read it and the media sure as hell is not doing their job we have to rely on a UK based news source.
Let’s jump right to dilithium crystals.
Sounds like another FDR program to rebuild this country... didn’t we run that experiment 75 years ago?
That's why the invented greenhouse gases and global warming... so they could have a mechanism of artificially making energy prices "skyrocket" (to borrow King Barry's description) and force the peasants to live like 12th century serfs.
They will NEVER allow a practical "renewable" energy source to see the light of day.
Why not? A 300 year half life is still potent.
Lots of advantages cited, but it's hard enough to restart the LWR industry, let alone license a plant based on new technology.
“...If Barack Obama were to marshal America’s vast scientific and strategic resources behind a new Manhattan Project,...”
Er, the Dung-Beetle-in-Chief wouldn’t understand the following words....America, scientific, strategic, and Manhatten Project...”
Interesting, but has anyone actually built and operated a thorium reactor? I spent a little time looking but did not see a proof of concept device. I did find a description of the Aker Solutions concept here:
http://www.akersolutions.com/Internet/IndustriesAndServices/Nuclear+Services/NovelThoriumReactor.htm
The Th to U233 production is pretty much understood with little problems.
Gamma ray emissions from U233 seems to be the problem as it makes loading fuel assemblies dangerous.
U235/U238 are only alpha emitters and simple gloves are enough protection.
They can turn on a light switch is all.
From the article:
After the Manhattan Project, US physicists in the late 1940s were tempted by thorium for use in civil reactors. It has a higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed.
Bombarding thorium with neutrons is how uranium 233 is generated. This was investigated back in the 1980's;
Scientists would like to find a way to use this process to make uranium-233 economically. Thorium is much more abundant than uranium. It would be far cheaper to make nuclear bombs and nuclear power plants with thorium than with uranium.
Unfortunately, no one has figured how to make the process work on a large scale. One nuclear reactor using thorium was built near Platteville, Colorado, in 1979. However, a number of economic and technical problems developed. After only ten years of operation, the plant was shut down. The promise of thorium fission plants has yet to become reality.
Also:
"They were really going after the weapons," said Professor Egil Lillestol, a world authority on the thorium fuel-cycle at CERN. "It is almost impossible make nuclear weapons out of thorium because it is too difficult to handle. It wouldn’t be worth trying." It emits too many high gamma rays.
All of the common isotopes of thorium are alpha or beta emitters. None emit gamma rays.
FWIW..here’s an interesting technology..
That's why we have seen these spring up in other countries, but not here. Unfortunately, political roadblocks can be more daunting to remove than technical ones.
I have perused the thread and did not see any reference to the July-August issue of the American Scientist which had an article “Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors”. It is available from their web site, but costs money. They state that “Thorium is not currently under consideration for the DOE’s development attention”. They do not appear to be very optimistic that anything positive will happen soon.
They reference an online forum at http://energyfromthorium.com/ which may have some information of interest. The forum’s mission statement is: “Devoted to the discussion of thorium as a future energy resource, and the machine to extract that energy–the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor.” The authors call the forum, “an energetic, international gathering of scientists and engineers probing the practical potential of this fuel.”