Safe, Cheap Nuclear: Thorium Fluoride Reactors

RealClearScience ^ | May 19, 2011 | Joseph Archer

[SeeSac]

A “marble” sized core of Thorium Flouride would power a steam turbine car for its entire lifespan, plus power your home when it was parked.

Thank you for exposing you total ignorance of engineering and technology.

[GSWarrior]

Safe, cheap nuclear energy for the United States does not fit with the Progressive worldview.

[SeeSac]

Our orginal plants were designed to produce energy and also plutonium for nuclear weapons. If we just wanted energy, the thorium salt would have been the way to go.

Uh, you missed it. It was used to convert THORIUM to U-233!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Kellis91789]

You’re obviously an asshat.

The amount of Thorium necessary is derived directly from the article, moron, unless basic math is beyond you. Building a mobile reactor and generator was done with 1960’s technology, and yet it can’t be done today ? You’re an idiot.

[SeeSac]

You’re obviously an asshat. The amount of Thorium necessary is derived directly from the article, moron, unless basic math is beyond you. Building a mobile reactor and generator was done with 1960’s technology, and yet it can’t be done today ? You’re an idiot.

Do you even know what the critical mass required is?

[SeeSac]

“Because you can’t have a weapons program using Thorium. “

A thorium cycle, it is sometimes argued can avoid this fear by avoiding any production of plutonium 239. But the thorium cycle does produce U 233, and bomb experts assure us that a bomb can easily be made from U 233, and since there are no neutrons from spontaneous fission of U 233, U 233 can also be used easily in a gun-type nuclear bomb. The advantages of a thorium cycle are not therefore as large as often claimed.

http://phys4.harvard.edu/~wilson/publications/ppaper703.html

[SeeSac]

The amount of Thorium necessary is derived directly from the article, moron, unless basic math is beyond you.

Thorium does not undergo fission. It has to be converted to U-233 using either plutonium or uranium. Assuming you have enough U-233 converted, the ideal geometry critical mass is about 15 kilograms. Given that the U-233 is diluted in the Thorium and molten salt, the critical mass size would be at least twice the size of your ego.

Building a mobile reactor and generator was done with 1960’s technology, and yet it can’t be done today ?

How big was it?

You’re an idiot.

I am a nuclear engineer.

[RinaseaofDs]

The waste turns to U232, which you actually need a bit of to make a LFTR run.

Problem is that with Uranium reactors, if you put a cup of Uranium in one end, you get 3/4 cup of Plutonium out the other, so to speak.

It’s like saying “If I put a cup of silver in one side, I get 3/4 cup of gold out the other, plus I get power.”

The original financial analysis on Uranium reactors was that they literally paid for themselves in Plutonium yield. Plutonium is used to make Hydrogen bombs.

[SeeSac]

“Because you can’t have a weapons program using Thorium.”

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf

[SeeSac]

The waste turns to U232, which you actually need a bit of to make a LFTR run

U232 is the waste. It is not used to make a LFTR run. Thorium is not fissionable. It has to be transmuted to U-233 which does fission.

[allmost]

A more detailed burn/waste/recapture cycle would be appreciated. I'm not interested in rehashing talking points. I'd like some facts.

Tell me about the waste (not wikipedia) recycle please.

[SeeSac]

Problem is that with Uranium reactors, if you put a cup of Uranium in one end, you get 3/4 cup of Plutonium out the other, so to speak. It’s like saying “If I put a cup of silver in one side, I get 3/4 cup of gold out the other, plus I get power.” The original financial analysis on Uranium reactors was that they literally paid for themselves in Plutonium yield.

Problem? I am not sure what your point is. Thermal uranium reactors use low enriched uranium as fuel BUT much of the U-238 is transmuted to PU-239 which then fissions to produce energy.

In fast breeder reactors, natural uranium is used and most of the energy comes from the U-238 > PU-239 > fission route.

[SeeSac]

Plutonium and/or Uranium is used to make Hydrogen bombs.

[SeeSac]

A single ton of Thorium will produce a MILLION horsepower continuously for a YEAR.

A single ton of Thorium will barely produce enough energy to toast your bread ...

[SeeSac]

OK. That’s the good news hype.

[SeeSac]

I'm a big proponent of liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR's) for the following reasons:

Most of which are more hype than fact.

[SeeSac]

Our son is fascinated by this design, and even called the NRC to inquire about individuals building one for home use. ;o)

I hope they didn't laugh too hard.

[SeeSac]

tic tock tic tock tic ...

[aruanan]

Safe, Cheap Nuclear: Thorium Fluoride Reactors

Even regular old breeder reactors would be a lot safer and cleaner than coal. But nuclear is to coal what gun deaths are to automobile deaths.

[SeeSac]

You’re obviously an asshat. The amount of Thorium necessary is derived directly from the article, moron, unless basic math is beyond you. Building a mobile reactor and generator was done with 1960’s technology, and yet it can’t be done today ? You’re an idiot.

Why won't you respond to my question?