These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Out of Pod Experience

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Thorium reactor
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liam Mirren
#1 - 2012-03-30 22:33:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2012-03-30 22:51:40 UTC
hopefully a company pursues this and puts a hurting on other companies.
Shivus Tao
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2012-03-31 02:20:46 UTC
I'll buy eight!
Selinate
#4 - 2012-03-31 02:27:14 UTC
Want companies to look into it?

Call your congressman and tell them to stop dicking around. It's incredibly expensive, lengthy, and considered uneconomic to license new fuels. That in addition to a completely new reactor design? Bleh. Not to mention the fact that it's not exactly the most intelligent being recruited by the NRC. This isn't a new idea either, it's been around since basically around the time that nuclear energy first came into existence.

It has it's own problems also, though. Note that there are pretty big corrosion problems when using a liquid salt reactor like that. There are also other smaller problems, but the biggest ones are always going to be regulatory (like with most reactors).

This video is a little half baked in it's assessment of the current generation of nuclear reactors also, considering it's mainly based off technology designed 50-60 years ago (which is still being used today, but there are much better new designs out there now).
Whitehound
#5 - 2012-04-01 08:28:17 UTC
If it was as simple and genius as the video wants you to believe it then why is the technology not here yet? It sounds like it could sell pretty much like sliced bread, which would make every politician jump onto it and every major energy corporation would want to sell it for big money to governments and housewives.

I think it is dodgy as hell and important details of this technology have been left out, but maybe the clue is in the video itself and they did not manage to hide it well. I am still wondering why they only ever talk about thorium and not fluorine when it needs thorium fluoride to make it work, you know?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#6 - 2012-04-01 08:56:01 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
If it was as simple and genius as the video wants you to believe it then why is the technology not here yet? It sounds like it could sell pretty much like sliced bread, which would make every politician jump onto it and every major energy corporation would want to sell it for big money to governments and housewives.

I think it is dodgy as hell and important details of this technology have been left out, but maybe the clue is in the video itself and they did not manage to hide it well. I am still wondering why they only ever talk about thorium and not fluorine when it needs thorium fluoride to make it work, you know?


The technology is as old as nuclear fission itself, but it had a serious drawback that prevented to invest in it: unlike fission reactors, thorium reactors can't be used for war. They are too heavy and complex to be put in a submarine or even a carrier; and also they don't naturally manufacture plutonium for nuclear weapons.

In a way, the USA had to choose between atoms for peace and atoms for war and peace, and naturally chose the bigger bang per buck.
Whitehound
#7 - 2012-04-01 17:42:11 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
The technology is as old as nuclear fission itself, but it had a serious drawback that prevented to invest in it: unlike fission reactors, thorium reactors can't be used for war. They are too heavy and complex to be put in a submarine or even a carrier; and also they don't naturally manufacture plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Maybe so, but we then do not use submarines to power out cities. And I doubt that the military gives out the plans of their technologies to just any official of their government. So how come we have nuclear power plants across the country?

Whatever the truth is the video is not telling it.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Selinate
#8 - 2012-04-01 18:35:35 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
If it was as simple and genius as the video wants you to believe it then why is the technology not here yet?


Because, like I JUST said, the problem is by far mostly regulatory.

Also, uranium-235 can be used for nuclear weapons also, not to mention that neither I nor you probably know exactly what kind of fuel is used on submarines or aircraft carriers specifically, since this is classified information.

Also, thorium reactors are also fission reactors.
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#9 - 2012-04-01 19:30:01 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
The technology is as old as nuclear fission itself, but it had a serious drawback that prevented to invest in it: unlike fission reactors, thorium reactors can't be used for war. They are too heavy and complex to be put in a submarine or even a carrier; and also they don't naturally manufacture plutonium for nuclear weapons.

Maybe so, but we then do not use submarines to power out cities. And I doubt that the military gives out the plans of their technologies to just any official of their government. So how come we have nuclear power plants across the country?

Whatever the truth is the video is not telling it.


In a sense, we use submarine power plants to power our cities. Fission reactors were chosen because they were compact and relatively easy to build; they used enriched uranium, which was a byproduct of military grade uranium, and they turned uranium into plutonium, which is AAA bomb stuff.

Of course, they do have some nasty habits; like, going on continuously until they burn out all fuel, can barely be trimemd out (they work at 98 to 100% power always), the chance of a runaway fission, and of course anyone using them is gonna get plutonium want it or don't, which means they must be closely checked so nobody steals plutonium.

Meanwhile thorium reactors can be easily trimmed; they need a power supply to work, which means they can just be shut off without consequence, whereas an emergency shutdown of a fission plan is likely to spoil the fuel, and there's a lot more thorium than uranium, and once "burned" doesn't becomes any military grade byproduct.

But, with 50's technology, a thorium reactor would had weighted about 15,000 tons, would had been some 1,000 feet long, and would had required one hell of a powerplant to start it up. Nothing wrong for a ground installation, but completely useless as a sea power plant. And, of course, was a complex beast on its own, whereas a fission reactor is but a glorified nuclear pile.
Buzzmong
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2012-04-02 00:05:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzzmong
Interesting video, I was aware of the fluoride cooled reactors, but not too clued up on details.

Thank the Anti-Nuclear lobby who sadly don't seem to realise their bleating means we've got 50 year old Generation 2 reactors in use which should all be immediately decommissioned due to the newer designs (Gen III is current, Gen IV is on the way) being more efficient and also a metric fuckton safer.

That's just for Uranium or Plutonium (fast breeder) reactors using Pressurised Water.

Liquid metal (normally Sodium), which thanks to their design, are a bugger load safer than even the newest PWR reactors using either heavy or light, is another technology which was designed in the late 50's(!) and fully tested by the US, that is sadly not the standard for reactor cooling, again, thanks to anti-nucelar stance (and price to some extent, pipework that stands up to molten sodium is expensive). Although there are a few in operation, Japan is notable for having at least one commercial unit.

Thorium as a nuclear fuel is the way foward though, and has been since the 90's. Just needs a massive funding kick from a first world Government to get the ball rolling.

I hope, considering here in the UK need to start building some new reactors by 2015, that development of them will commence in earnest soon.
Whitehound
#11 - 2012-04-02 08:27:11 UTC
Selinate wrote:
Because, like I JUST said, the problem is by far mostly regulatory.

That does not mean a thing. See, there is hardly any cash to be made by going into space. It all needs to be paid through tax money. Yet, there are people who try to commercialise it and go into space without the help of governments. I am talking about private business men. If this is possible then why is it this old technology that thorium reactors are does not get a hell lot more support?

As I said, it sounds as if it could be sold like sliced bread! Money then rules the world and wars are fought over resources every day. And nobody has so far cared about this magic, world saving technology?

People said the same things about solar cells. Yet the problem was their efficiency. This video tries to paint a bad image of solar technology, because people can fall of their roofs when trying to mount it ... Seriously? Wtf?!?

It sounds pretty much like the ideas of a single scientist who never got much out of his lab.

There is a down side to everything and the video is not showing it. Life saving medicine needs to list each and every side effect even when those who need the medicine could not give a damn about any of it, because it lets them live. It is a result of regulatory, too.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.
Suzu Fujibayashi
Happy Dudes
#12 - 2012-04-02 09:27:41 UTC
People should at least read the wikipedia article on this reactor design before making any assumptions. Seems that the main problem is funding and time. If you don't believe wikipedia then you have an other problem, ofc.
Mirajane Cromwell
#13 - 2012-04-02 15:03:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Mirajane Cromwell
This reminds me about news article that I read last year ie. India is one step ahead as they already got plans to build a prototype thorium reactor:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/india-thorium-nuclear-plant
Selinate
#14 - 2012-04-03 01:04:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Selinate
Whitehound wrote:

That does not mean a thing. See, there is hardly any cash to be made by going into space. It all needs to be paid through tax money. Yet, there are people who try to commercialise it and go into space without the help of governments. I am talking about private business men. If this is possible then why is it this old technology that thorium reactors are does not get a hell lot more support?

You don't know a god damn thing about nuclear power and this statement makes it VERY obvious. Please, go try and research just how long it takes to get new reactor designs alone licensed. Then go research how expensive and how long it takes to license a new fuel type. It's the regulation, not the design aspects, and if I even tried to explain the design differences and the reason U-235 was originally chosen as a fuel and why it's a moot point now, like most people who like to speculate on everything nuclear, you'd never understand it.

Quote:

As I said, it sounds as if it could be sold like sliced bread! Money then rules the world and wars are fought over resources every day. And nobody has so far cared about this magic, world saving technology?

Not since anyone who would try to build the reactor right now in the U.S. would literally get put in prison due to the laws surrounding using, you guessed it, new fuels and new reactor types that aren't licensed, and it is cheaper to simply continue running reactors that burn U-235.

Quote:

People said the same things about solar cells. Yet the problem was their efficiency. This video tries to paint a bad image of solar technology, because people can fall of their roofs when trying to mount it ... Seriously? Wtf?!?

Comparing solar power to any type of nuclear power and the issues that come with nuclear power is about the most asinine thing anyone could ever do.

Quote:

It sounds pretty much like the ideas of a single scientist who never got much out of his lab.

No. Just... wow. "SOUNDS TO ME LIKE DEM DER REACTOR MAKE HOT WATER WITH HOT ROCKS". Granted this isn't what you said, but it sounds just as stupid.
Quote:

There is a down side to everything and the video is not showing it. Life saving medicine needs to list each and every side effect even when those who need the medicine could not give a damn about any of it, because it lets them live. It is a result of regulatory, too.


The downside is the regulation. Other than that? Nothing that's any worse than the current generation of nuclear power. Comparing medical regulation to nuclear regulation... That's another absolutely stupid comparison considering the HUGE differences in cost and time put into licensing new reactors compared to new medicines.