Posted on 05/22/2011 6:04:55 PM PDT by neverdem
Now, following the release of radioactive material at the Fukushima plant in Japan, activists around the world threaten to eliminate nuclear power as an acceptable energy source. However, before governments indulge that knee-jerk response, they should consider the tremendous benefits of TFR.
The fuel is in the form of a fluoride salt with a melting temperature of approximately 600 degrees Fahrenheit. Because the system is not pressurized, any reactor breach leading to a release of fuel would be driven only by gravity. Thus, the fluoride salt, instead of being blown into the atmosphere, would cool and solidify. Hazardous radioactive material would be frozen into place in the shape of easily cleanable salt crystals.
To further guard against a catastrophic release of radioactive material, the TFR is designed to have fuel added and radioactive fission products (nuclear waste) removed on a continual basis. The fission products, therefore, do not concentrate within the fuel. This prevents the reactor from containing an excess of fuel reactivity at any given time. The most problematic waste products are gases, such as iodine and xenon, but the continual elimination of these gases and other radioactive fission products effectively eliminates the potential for catastrophe.
Additionally, far less radioactive material is needed to operate a TFR plant. Whereas conventional uranium plants create 35 gigawatt-hours of electricity per metric ton of uranium, TFR creates 11,000 gigawatt-hours of electricity per metric ton of thorium. The waste generated by TFR must be stored for only 300 years, as opposed to the thousands of years required for the waste generated by uranium plants.
In regard to expense, the TFR itself consists of little more than a low-pressure fluid circuit filled with a low-cost, molten fluoride salt. There is neither a massive high-pressure system nor thousands of fuel rods. There is also no need for a fallible decay heat removal system. Because the core essentially has no complex internal components, the power output of the reactor is limited only by how rapidly molten salt can be forced through the core. A single TFR, with the same size core as a conventional reactor, could produce literally tens of times as much energy. These two factors, simplicity of construction and an increased energy output, even suggest that TFR would be cheaper than coal-powered electricity.
If the goal of nuclear energy is to construct a failsafe, inexpensive facility, then energy policy analysts need look no further: The Thorium Fluoride Reactor is ready for business.
Joseph Archer is a professional engineer with a degree in nuclear engineering.
The Luddite leftists don't want cheap clean energy. And they are not going to allow it.
We have vast reserves of clean oil and coal. They are shutting down our production of energy. Doesn't matter what it is.
*If* one of their pet "green energies" actually turned out to provide vast amounts of cheap clean energy, they'd turn on it in a heartbeat. Guaranteed.
I am with you on that. I have been scratching my head.
Since we ‘needed’ to spend $800+ billion on a recovery package, why not put aside a coll $100b for this? WTF is wrong with our government
Thanks for posting. VERY interesting. Great, informative thread. Thanks to all posters/linkers/educators. Potential FANTASTIC news! BTTT!
Our son is fascinated by this design, and even called the NRC to inquire about individuals building one for home use. ;o)
Activists around the world are trying to destroy the status quo, no matter what the status quo is. The dangers, or lack thereof, of nuclear energy methods is unimportant. They are also against coal and oil and natural gas. They support solar and wind because neither produce enough electricity to matter. They pretend to care about the environment but they don't. They pretend to care about rare species of plants, animals and insects, but they don't. They care only about destruction.
If this method is safe and efficient that is very good. That will make it more difficult to prevent its use but they will try.
In a rational world, we’d have nuclear powered cars, trucks, trains, ships, and planes.
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. Surely we can build a containment vessel that would literally withstand anything that can happen to a vehicle that moves less than 200mph.
A single ton of Thorium will produce a MILLION horsepower continuously for a YEAR. That would power a cruise ship for ten years without refueling.
The smaller quantity of Thorium compared to Uranium needed plus its unsuitability for weapons might be key to expanding nuclear power beyond land based power generation and military naval use.
Which explains the TRUE goals of the "no-nuke" movements.
I wrote--but then erased--"Damn all of them to hell" but then remembered that I am supposed to pray for my enemies.
Man are my molars getting worn down!
Cheers!
We have to build more windmills. Duh.
The Fukishima reactor was a 50 year old design and never was intended to survive an earth quake of the magnitude that occurred. Newer technologies like thorium fluoride have been stifled by the scare mongering media and no nothing politicians. Instead we waste billions on dead ends like windmills and solar power that cannot possibly meet even a portion of our energy needs.
That $800+ billion was just one of the stimulus plans. If they had put a fraction into thorium instead of throwing it all to their buddies, we would have free energy, IMO.
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.
I can imagine small compact Thorium Fluoride Reactors producing electricity to cities, shopping centers and buildings, all over this nation. It would be the nuclear energy that would make us truly energy independent. It would reduce the cost of energy and make it safer to produce.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2491667
There has to be a better way. We need a solution that will last at least fifty years.
What if I told you that there is one?
It’s coal.
But not how you think of coal.
We think of coal as going into a power plant that makes electricity. But that’s wasteful, believe it or not.
Here’s the math on gasoline, diesel and coal.
1 lb of gasoline contains about 2.2 x 10^7 Joules of energy.
1 lb of coal contains about 1.1 x 10^7 Joules of energy.
These are reasonably-comparable; another way to look at this is that you need about 200% of coal (in pounds) as you do in gasoline for the same energy content.
Edit: Numbers vary on coal depending on type. Changed to reflect the most-pessimistic reasonable observed number - 4/1 1:44 pm
We currently consume 378 million gallons of gasoline a day. At 6lbs/gallon (approximately) this is 2,268 million pounds. Reduced to short tons (2,000 lbs) this is 1.134 million short tons of gasoline/day, or 414 million short tons a year. Converted to coal, this is 828 short tons.
The most-current value I can find for distillate (diesel fuel) is 3.794 million barrels a day. At 42 gallons to the barrel, this is 159 million gallons of diesel fuel. Diesel contains about 20% more BTUs per gallon than gasoline, but is about 17% heavier at 7lbs/gallon, so if we convert simply based on weight we get close. So we have 1,113 million pounds of diesel daily; reduced to short tons that’s 0.557 million short tons of diesel daily, or 203 million short tons a year. Converted to coal, this is 406 million short tons.
Yes, but I couldn't reemember what thread it was on, mine or someone else's. Fortunely, I checked thorium as a keyword, and someone gave me a Wikipedia reference, although I read it somewhere else. If you go down to Thorium as a nuclear fuel, then you'll find at the end of the first paragraph:
One of the early pioneers of the technology was U.S. physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, who helped develop a working nuclear plant using liquid fuel in the 1960s.P.S. Wikipedia is a decent source when the subject isn't political.
None of the uranium fueled power plant suppy the weapons program.
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.