
Thorium - jasim
http://austinmeyer.com/project/thorium/
======
apendleton
This article perpetuates a common misunderstanding about radioactive half-
lives, which is that shorter ones are better because the waste isn't dangerous
as long. Actually, isotopes with short half-lives are undergoing radioactive
decay very quickly, and are thus much more highly radioactive than substances
with longer half-lives. There are radioactive isotopes in dirt, vegetables,
etc., but they pose us no risk because their half-lives are so long as to not
radiate significantly enough for it to matter. Fission byproducts with
300-year half-lives are actually super dangerous.

Interestingly, most thorium proponents point to this danger inherent in the
thorium fuel cycle as a selling point, because it makes thorium waste so
difficult to handle as to be a hindrance to proliferation.

In general, even speaking as someone who's generally pretty excited about
thorium power, I'm not a huge fan of this article because I don't get the
sense that this author has a super-solid handle on the science.

~~~
mapt
Not the best direct source, but this is asserted to be from Nuclear
Engineering International magazine in November 2009

[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/community_images/88/...](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/community_images/88/2288/98676_156425.jpg)

via

[http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclea...](http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/nuclear-
reaction/the-mythologies-of-thorium-and-uranium/blog/48625/)

Thorium waste appears substantially less radioactive at shorter timescales we
care about. On really long (10^4 - 10^6 years) timescales the proactinium-231
becomes an issue and uranium waste pulls ahead of thorium waste slightly. As
we don't really have any idea how to plan on those timescales anyway (it's not
like they're still going to be sitting in casks in a pool of water in New
Jersey in 10^4 years), I think thorium is a lot better candidate from this
perspective.

~~~
thelonecabbage
I'm not sure exactly why a non-fissile material with a half life this long is
a "problem". By definition it's not.

Beside these are the burnup rates for Once-Through solid fuel cycles. In
Uranium reactors this is only recommended if you are actively trying to create
weapons material, and in Throium it simply doesn't work. Not sure what the
relevance of these articles is.

------
gusgordon
The government didn't say "give us the one we can make bombs with" or anything
like that. In a review [1] they discuss groups working on thorium reactors who
find that these reactors are potentially cheaper than water cooled reactors,
but there are uncertainties and a demonstration plant is needed. They
basically state that thorium reactors might work well, but their potential
benefits don't outweigh the existing industrial commitments. Sure, the reason
for the existing infrastructure was for the ability to more easily make bombs.
But when this was reviewed, it was possible to make bombs with Thorium, too.
[2]

There are advantages and disadvantages to thorium over common reactors, but
it's definitely not a magic bullet.

[1]: WASH-1222 (p. 49)
[http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/WASH-1222.pdf](http://www.energyfromthorium.com/pdf/WASH-1222.pdf)

[2]:
[https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html)

------
ajkjk
This writing style makes me actively distrust anything written in it. It's the
opposite of convincing.

~~~
coldtea
Don't know what you lot are talking about.

It's very easy to read the article, get the basic argument down, and search
for more information for everything that didn't sound convincing to you.

It's an article that has a point -- right or wrong. Not everything has to be
written as some journal submission.

~~~
kevinwang
I also thought it was easy to read and had no strong qualms with the style.

~~~
mcguire
I'd like to sell you some BEAUTIFUL, SCENIC land in Florida, perfect for
raising you're children in a CLEAN, WHOLESOME environment free from the
HECTIC, DANGEROUS modern world.

------
merraksh
Previous discussions on HN:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4912187](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4912187)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2723675](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2723675)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7734867](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7734867)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2401498](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2401498)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4857053](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4857053)

~~~
tptacek
In particular this thread:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4913976](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4913976)

------
lpage
The litany of contradictory or bad information on thorium reactors (and
nuclear in general) is astounding. That's probably a function of both how
polarizing nuclear energy is as a topic, and how nuanced the science actually
is.

First off, note that thorium is not the fissile material - it's the fertile
material. Thorium 232 is transmuted into something else like Uranium 233 via a
breeder reactor, so saying that these reactors use thorium "instead" of
uranium is about like saying your gas powered automobile burns crude oil.

As others have pointed out there's also a ton of bad information in this about
fuel cycles and half life being the biggest driver of clean vs dirty nuclear,
but lest I perpetuate more bad information...

Here's a detailed look at the science: [http://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/current-and...](http://www.world-
nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/thorium.aspx)

Thorium or otherwise, it's tilting that the public perception of nuclear
energy is based on dated technology. Almost as tilting as electric cars being
marketed as zero emission. We as a society have to figure out better answers
to power production. When you sell bad science or buzz words to people who
really take them as such without realizing that the power still has to come
from somewhere, there's less support for funding the research that gets us
end-to-end clean power.

Also, FWIW, the only reference I found to "war time politics" being the main
driver was [http://discovermagazine.com/2014/june/3-ask-
discover](http://discovermagazine.com/2014/june/3-ask-discover). I'm guessing
the full history was far more complex and nuanced than that.

------
carlob
The timeline is all wrong:

> In 1945, theory was turned into practice. (I can’t even WRITE that without
> my skin crawling, but nevertheless, it can’t be un-done now). Immediately,
> the scientists saw that if they just slowed down the reaction a bit, they
> could get controlled power. Power almost without limit. Power without
> pollution.

The first controlled chain reaction was achieved by Fermi in 1942, 3 years
before Hiroshima.

~~~
27182818284
Yeah this article is garbage and has a middle-school understanding of the
history of things at best.

------
shaqbert
And what the author handily omits: Since the Thorium fuel cycle is based
around transmuting Thorium into U-233, which is fissionable, Thorium reactors
can be a less complicated that Uranium enrichment pathway to the bomb.

True, not the one the military likes because of U-232 impurities, but good
enough for rogue states and other malicious actors to blow up a couple of
blocks of a city.

And that is why Thorium is actually tightly controlled. And why there won't be
a Thorium revival.

------
legulere
Searched for THTR-300 [1] in the article and nope doesn't come up. It was a
commercial size thorium reactor and showed that with a different reactor
design you simply have to fight with other problems which the German wikipedia
article lists [2]. In the end it didn't offer any of the magical advantages
often claimed for thorium reactors and the project ran out of money. Now the
government has to pay to clean up.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300)
[2]
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#Problem...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#Probleme_und_St.C3.B6rf.C3.A4lle)

------
dyeje
Interesting note, this is the same person as the recently popular "I am being
sued, in East Texas, for using Google" video.

~~~
dnautics
Has a similar tone. I find the tone to work better with video than text.

------
nathan_f77
Oh man, it's time for the annual thorium post.

It doesn't need to be evangelized. Don't worry, the scientists and the energy
companies are already aware of thorium.

------
skc
Reads like a typical Thorium article.

They always seem to imply that there is some worldwide government conspiracy
against Thorium based energy.

And they always gloss over the fact that this is an old idea that to this day
still hasn't managed to prove any of its claims even as a proof of concept.

Throw in the fact that renewable energy is picking up steam and you have a
recipe for some very unhappy Thorium proponents indeed.

~~~
neutronicus
> And they always gloss over the fact that this is an old idea that to this
> day still hasn't managed to prove any of its claims even as a proof of
> concept.

This isn't true. There's been proof of concept.

It's just that people who actually develop Thorium power make more reasonable
claims, and its actual advantages aren't that compelling.

Waste storage is next millenium's problem, and the cost of nuclear power is
dominated by amortized infrastructure, so the economic advantage of thorium
(fuel is more abundant, hence cheaper) just isn't very exciting.

------
tim333
There's quite a good article debunking Thorium misconceptions here:
[https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html](https://whatisnuclear.com/articles/thorium_myths.html)

I found it interesting that the reactors can actually be quite good for making
bombs.

>In the case of the molten-salt U-233 breeder reactor, it was proposed to have
continual chemical processing of a stream of liquid fuel. Such an arrangement
also offers a way to completely bypass the U-232 contamination problem because
27-day half-life Pa- 233 could be separated out before it decays into U-233.

And apparently U-233 works fine in bombs:

>because of its low rate of spontaneous-neutron emission, U-233 can, unlike
plutonium, be used in simple gun-type fission-weapon designs without
significant danger of the yield being reduced by premature initiation of the
fission chain reaction

------
SCAQTony
Newport Tower was built in America in the year 1670. Now read this quote about
how long Thorium will remain dangerous.

"... And now, finally, the really big one: A Thorium Nuclear reactor would
make much less radioactive waste than a convention Nuclear Power Plant, and
most of the waste that it DOES make would only be dangerous for…. 300 years.
..."

We could totally manage a Thorium nuclear waste site in a 300-year time frame!

*Newport Tower: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_buildings_i...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_oldest_buildings_in_the_United_States)

------
ridgeguy
The post minimizes the utility of a thorium reactor for making fission
weapons.

Neutron irradiation of the most abundant isotope of thorium (Th232) produces
U233. The US, the USSR and India have successfully tested U233 in fission
weapons. [1] BTW, India has ~ the world's second largest known thorium
reserves. [2]

Also, I'd be concerned about the long-term corrosion effects of molten
fluorides on pipes, pumps, etc., especially those parts that are in a high
neutron flux environment.

Not saying that Th reactors wouldn't be a better choice than what we've
fielded to date, but the posted article doesn't lead me to that conclusion.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-233)
[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurrence_of_thorium](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occurrence_of_thorium)

------
known
The ratio of plutonium needed to seed and convert thorium into fissionable
uranium-233 is very high (4:5)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-
based_nuclear_power](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-
based_nuclear_power)

------
maerF0x0
iirc Flibe Energy is working on a LIFTR reactor [http://flibe-
energy.com/](http://flibe-energy.com/)

------
27182818284
"We can give you TWO kinds of reactors: URANIUM-based, where the by-product
will be PLUTONIUM, which you can use to make bombs..."

Countries aren't like "Oops I guess we have to make a bomb now," with the
plutonium. They are very much happy with that possibility.

