Forum menu
Well, it seems that there is finally some progress in this area:
No risk of melt-down, if there is a problem, the reaction stops, and much less waste than uranium.
Just a pity it appears that we're still locked into uranium in the UK...
One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine.
Nice quote 🙂
FWIW Molten Salt research has been going on in the UK for most of those reasons.
Sounds like the only reason we don't use it today is because it's useless for making bombs out of.
If only they would have a go at safe coal, safe construction and safe human rights as they are responsible for more deaths and injuries than nuclear energy.
The nuclear waste problem from uranium reactions is because we choose not to burn it in subsequent cycles. We've opted for a "once through" process - like burning 5% of the diesel in your car and then complaining that the 95% makes a mess when you dump it.
The technology is there to do so - we've done something similar with excess weapons plutonium. The economics don't make sense to do so at the moment because uranium is cheap.
I'm no expert but I'm sure I read that there are issues with Thorium. It requires uranium to start the reaction and that it is hugely dangerous whilst in use. It has a very short half life which would make any containment breach would be even more disastrous than if Uranium was being used. This is why it would make such deadly dirty bombs.
IIRC, no one has submitted satisfactory plans for a Thorium reactor generally because it’s so much more reactive/deadly whilst in use.
A short half life is good in the event of a leak. Never understood the fuss over nuclear waste, just wrap it in concrete and lob it into the sea over a subduction zone. It's not as if the mantle isn't radioactive.
Towen, did you read the article linked? A thorium reactor is much much safer than any uranium design, and if there is a breach, the reaction stops, unlike uranium where it can get even more excited... The only things really that connect the two are the fact that it's a fission process, and both use the word "nuclear" that everyone seems so het up about
The other advantage for the UK would be the energy security aspect, which given the current dash for (Russian) gas, would be quite useful.
It requires uranium to start the reaction and that it is hugely dangerous whilst in use. It has a very short half life which would make any containment breach would be even more disastrous than if Uranium was being used. This is why it would make such deadly dirty bombs.
[off top of head]
When you stop the liquid-salt-fuel cycling (either deliberately or due to a break or power cut), it melts the salt-plug at the bottom of the reactor vessel and pours out into separators on the floor of the container. It's not reacting as soon as it pours out the vessel because it's being at volume inside the vessel is what keeps it critical. It then solidifies. To re-start you melt it and begin cycling through the vessel again. It then needs a bit of Plutonium poked into the vessel to restart reaction. At Oakridge they just cut the power on Friday at 5pm and re-start at 9am Monday (postgrad students, what are they like eh!).
Managing liquid fuels are safer than solids like Uranium rods and pellets whos integrity depends on them staying solid. Liquid Thorium salt is it's own primary coolant. Spent thorium is dangerous for just a few hundred years. Re-processing the old coal tips in the UK may provide enough fuel to power the UK for a couple of hundred years. It doesn't make bomb material. It's a very attractive solution.
There are downsides:
* The complex part is that you have to do some chemical processing on the liquid salt as part of the cycling.
* It's less energy dense than Uranium
* You can't make bomb materials - arguably the main reason why the Uranium reactor technology we have today was developed instead
BTW. UK Uranium reactors ARE SAFE.
I'm no expert but I'm sure I read that there are issues with Thorium. It requires uranium to start the reaction and that it is hugely dangerous whilst in use.
No it can be started using a small particle accelerator. Carlo Rubbia at CERN patented that method and that patent has now been sold to the Chinese. The Indians are also putting money into Thorium fission too. It beggars belief that the west is the process of handing technology leadership in what could be a vital future energy source to the Chinese and Indians.
The reactor is much safer than a uranium reactor for the reasons above.
We all know nuclear power is inefficient and responsible for millions of deaths every week.
This thread would have been at 500 posts back in the day...
We all know nuclear power is inefficient and responsible for millions of deaths every week.
That's cos the workers in the stations all wear helmets.
[img] 
[/img]
We all know nuclear power is inefficient and responsible for millions of deaths every week.This thread would have been at 500 posts back in the day...
470 would have been TJ getting wound up though.
Nah we need to invest on Renewables, a windfarm the size of Wales and turning the whole of the Severn Estuary into a tidal power station is the answer 😀
Seriously though new nuclear tech is the way forward, particularly fusion.
If we can nail Deuterium to Deuterium fusion we really do have a limitless source of power
this looks really interesting, thanks for posting it up.
Now how do I build one at home?
It beggars belief that the west is the process of handing technology leadership in what could be a vital future energy source to the Chinese and Indians.
This is a fair point. Perhaps there is a strategic advantage to having to buy gas from russia or licence technology we could have had ourselves to use the fuel under our feet 🙄
If we can nail Deuterium to Deuterium fusion we really do have a limitless source of power
which is itself a cause for worry; if we have limitless power, then we'll just carry on knackering the planet. Caring even less about efficiency and resource conservation.
which is itself a cause for worry; if we have limitless power, then we'll just carry on knackering the planet. Caring even less about efficiency and resource conservation.
Not necessarily. It might in fact make recycling materials more economically viable. It would certainly stop us needing to burn dead dinosaurs.
Interesting statistics from http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmenvaud/584/584we34.htm
[img] 
[/img]