These are also referred to as LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor), in case you want more information.
4 out of 5 dentists recommend it.
Bump!
I’ve read quite a bit of positive info on thorium salt reactors. They’ve been around for decades. There has to be some serious drawbacks. I’ve read none (major). Nuclear energy is worldwide, someone should have had to taken that route by now. Strange. I feel I’m missing something regarding the drawbacks of an operational system.
If this works as described, why hasn’t someone put one online and sold the generated power?
Generating 300x the amount of today’s reactor would yield big money
We have been FOOLISH not to pursue this technology!
Ping to you.
OK. That’s the good news. What’s the down side?
The comparison of gigawatt hours per metric ton is versus natural uranium, which is 0.7% U235, the fissile isotope. The U238 can be cooked to form Pu239, however, that is also bomb material.
This reactor turns Th232 into U233, another fissile isotope of uranium. There would still need to be some U235 fission involved to get things going, unless the initial fuel load has U233 in there.
Unlike what the article says, control rods are needed.
There would also need to be an auxiliary heating plant for startup and for outages to keep the salt liquid. With a 600 degree melting point, using superheated steam (pipes, jacketing) might be feasible - however you do not want the steam to come in contact with the salt.
Is there any of these built as a real world test?
1. Thorium is far more abundant than fuel-grade uranium.
2. The fuel for a LFTR doesn't need to be made into pellet form and then formed into fuel rods at considerable expense.
3. You can use plutonium from dismantled nuclear weapons and even spent uranium fuel rods as fuel for a LFTR.
4. LFTR's by its design are essentially meltdown-proof.
5. The radioactive waste from an LFTR is a tiny fraction of the waste from a uranium reactor--and the radioactive half-life is only a few hundred years. That means the waste could be dumped safely into a disused salt mine or salt dome for permanent disposal at very low cost.
So what are we waiting for?
I have been looking into this every since the Japan Disaster.
Here is a real good source of info on it and there are always updates:
http://www.facebook.com/EnergyFromThorium
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.
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.
Safe, cheap nuclear energy for the United States does not fit with the Progressive worldview.