
Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video) - japaget
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LeM-Dyuk6g
======
rmason
I've studied this for years and haven't found any credible reason why we
couldn't do this today.

But there are a lot of forces allied against Thorium in both the government,
energy companies and the current nuclear industry.

Senator Hatch (R) Utah with support from Harry Reid (D) Nevada has introduced
a bill annually for five years to fund $200 million to research to
commercialize Thorium power. Yet every year the bill never even gets voted on.

[http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=releases&Cont...](http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=releases&ContentRecord_id=25d9273f-1b78-be3e-e03d-75506902df40&ContentType_id=7e038728-1b18-46f4-bfa9-f4148be94d19)

What is stopping Google itself from funding this I don't know? Our country
should make this a major initiative similar to the race to the moon and get us
off coal, oil and gas.

~~~
shailesh
Another data point:

Even in India (which has 25% of world's Thorium reserves), it is a mystery to
many, as to why the Govt. chose not to invest more heavily in Thorium based
research, rather than going for traditional ones.

Edit: grammar.

~~~
goombastic
India seems to only go for technologies that foreign companies have developed.
Guess why? Kick backs are a nice way of living the good life. This, even as
recent hikes in fuel prices across the country are putting paid to the dreams
of a growing economy.

~~~
vamsee
You guys must be kidding: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk>

~~~
goombastic
I would love to see this being scaled up and put into production. I've been
hearing about thorium reactors for the last 20 years.

------
Create
This is project pursued by many[1]. The main hurdles are:

1\. political [2], which Kirk mentions (it is no coincidence, that the pellets
that the rods contain are as standard as the NATO bullet) -- the industry and
power has a very different interest

2\. technical: Kirk always mentions, that the fuel is not solid. It is liquid.
The latter means, that you do have higher concerns about corrosiveness, hence
(useful) reactor lifetime...

Also, the issue of scale, which tends to lie between 1. and 2. Uranium "won",
because you got the real stuff with it (weapons as in actual projection of
power, or the capability of threat to project power) and because you could
make it work on a massive scale (current reactors are an order of magnitude
larger than any LFTR design, and capitalism is based on the leverage of and
concentration of power).

[1] <http://energyfromthorium.com/>

<http://www.thorenergy.no/>

<http://thoriumenergy.com.au/>

... besides China, India, France and (even) Czechs.

[2]
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....](http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html)
-> see Seaborg interview part

~~~
DennisP
Corrosion is one of the main objections people bring up, given that the fuel
is a liquid salt. Sorenson says there's an alloy that solves the problem.

~~~
Create
I do not think that corrosion is the showstopper.

It rather seems to be the lack of irresponsible megalomania, which actually
fuelled the GE/Westinghouse frenzy. And I can hardly blame anybody for the
lack of it, because for all the better... Our planet has became smaller in the
last 50 years, and running (tea)pot operations would be a tough sell, even on
Fox. But obviously (offshore) oils rigs and gas are no better either, though
people are still happy with oil running their cars and data-centres.

But useful lifetime/economics of scale/TCO does matter, because ROI in the
strict and sole monetary sense is the only metric of success. Note, that most
reactors have been rubber-stamped to operate beyond their design lifetime.

~~~
Create
Watch Seaborg and some engineers from ex-USSR above before downvoting without
reasoning.

And imagine the powerlines in a play, where Seaborg himself feels he can only
act as a puppet -- randian rationalism doesn't work in society. (I do not
agree/disagree with all of the comments above, just note)

~~~
Create
Thanks for your argument. Case closed.

you see now too -- the alloy is not the problem.

------
api
I hear a lot about the LFTR, and I wonder what the problem is. Is there a
major technical hurdle that prevents this from seeing widespread use?

Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes a really good idea never
gets used because... well... because nobody really picks it up and runs with
it. It's that simple sometimes.

But sometimes there's some hidden gotcha.

~~~
jpk
My understanding is that building the reactors are significantly more
expensive. So until the price of Uranium increases enough to justify the total
cost of the Thorium reactors, we won't see many of them outside research
settings.

The other issue is building a new reactor of any type right now is a giant
pain in the ass, which doesn't help either.

~~~
DennisP
Thorium reactors should be quite a bit cheaper. Light-water reactors operate
at 160 atmospheres of pressure. They need a very strong reactor vessel, which
currently can only be forged by a single facility in Japan. They need a large
containment dome because if a pipe breaks, that high-pressure water will flash
into steam with a thousand times the volume. They use lots of redundant
emergency active cooling mechanisms. Some of them have giant slabs of ice
inside the containment dome, which reduce the volume of steam if it's released
but have to be constantly refrigerated, to keep them frozen in close proximity
to a nuclear reactor core.

LWRs are resupplied every year with expensive fabricated fuel rods, which are
non-standard and can only be purchased from the company that sold the reactor.
The fuel rods are complicated because they have to withstand a thousand-degree
temperature gradient, and the fuel pellets are prone to cracking from the
production of xenon gas. Xenon and other reaction products prevent the use of
more than one percent or so of the energy potential of the nuclear fuel,
another reason the rods are frequently replaced, and the reason we have so
much nasty nuclear waste.

The nuclear industry makes most of its revenue from selling those fuel rods.

LFTRs operate at atmospheric pressure. No super-strong steel, no containment
dome, no ice. It's a liquid fuel, so no proprietary fuel rods. Xenon just
bubbles out of it.

The fuel has a strong "negative coefficient," meaning the reaction slows down
as it gets hotter. If it nevertheless gets too hot, a salt plug melts and all
the fuel drains into a passive cooling tank. No need for all those active
cooling systems.

On top of that, LFTRs operate at higher temperature, so the turbine is more
efficient, and the waste heat can be used to desalinate seawater. They don't
require water cooling. As a bonus, marketable reaction products can be
separated from the liquid fuel (<http://flibe-energy.com/products/>).

Misguided government regulation is the main problem, but Sorenson's company
plans to get around that by selling to the military first.

~~~
te_chris
"Misguided government regulation is the main problem, but Sorenson's company
plans to get around that by selling to the military first."

Sorry but is this subtle irony? My apologies if it's not, I don't know
anything about this field. It just seems weird that the military wouldn't be
subject to the same regulations that the govt. sets? Or in the US are the
military able to ignore some of the regulations around this?

~~~
DennisP
The NRC has no authority over nuclear aircraft carriers and submarines. The
military's stuff is classified, and it does its own regulation.

------
zherbert
I go to school at Boston University and took an Energy class with a Nobel
Laureate in physics, Sheldon Glashow, last semester. He spoke in great depth
about Thorium reactors, and is very supportive of the technology.

One of the main hurdles is that we have poured money into our modern-day
reactors, and have constructed hundreds of plants. If we were to switch to
thorium, we would have to essentially start from scratch - new research, new
plant designs, new training, etc. It is very difficult to justify a complete
switch from uranium, as it would be incredibly costly.

In other countries, however, thorium reactors could be very beneficial.
Countries using thorium would not be able to produce nuclear weapons, which
would give the world great peace of mind. This could minimize risks in
unstable countries - we wouldn't worry if Iran was building a thorium reactor,
for example.

There are also other types of reactor designs that use nuclear waste to create
power. I believe our nuclear future lies with these types of reactors, rather
than with uranium or thorium.

~~~
DennisP
Don't switch from uranium. Switch from coal.

------
amalag
Since India has a lot of Thorium, they are actively pursuing it.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk&feature=related)

------
fleitz
Just use CANDU reactors, it will burn raw uranium, and can use the waste
product from PWR reactors, just leave the thorium in the raw uranium. It's
been working for years, no Yucca mountain, Yucca mountain is a purely US
phenomena, it doesn't exist in Canada or France. It's not a new technology,
it's 60 years old. All you need is a little heavy water, and in event of a
meltdown you just flood the tank with regular water and voila no reactions.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor>

Here's the fuel cycle for a CANDU reactor which will support the thorium cycle
as well. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CANDU_fuel_cycles.jpg>

------
DennisP
For anyone who wants to delve into this more deeply, Sorenson's videos
([http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/06/04/adventures-with-
gord...](http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/06/04/adventures-with-gordon/)) are
really great. I recently watched the two-hour one, which was edited from a
longer talk to cut out the pauses. It's a rapid-fire, passionate technical
introduction that I found very compelling.

------
ugh
Any plans to build a reactor somewhere?

I fear that mere engineering heavy talking has no chance solving nuclear’s PR
problem.

Actually building a reactor might help. Maybe. Maybe not.

~~~
demian
Maybie with the generational shift things will change. For USA's sakes, let's
hope it won't be too late.

------
earlyrise
If the world was serious about nuclear non-proliferation, we would have
thorium reactors everywhere already. They said a few times in the video that
thorium reactors can't be used for weapons, and so they are not built.
Governments have decided that we need nukes, so thorium reactors do not get
funding.

But if we are serious about non-proliferation, then switching to thorium
reactors and controlling which new reactors get built is a much more effective
strategy then the current weapon-counting efforts. Once a reactor is built and
starts creating fissile material, then it is difficult to keep track of and
control. But it is much harder to hide a reactor while you are building it -
Iran tried and failed.

So it seems to me that thorium reactors, in addition to their efficiency, low
cost and low amount of radioactive waste, could also be a useful tool in
enforcing nuclear non-proliferation. We've got these reactors that cannot be
used to make bombs - why don't we sign treaties saying that they are the only
reactors that can be built?

------
daniel-cussen
I read an American company is trying to make one in the north of Chile. It's
because they really need energy (they're currently using coal and _diesel_ to
keep the lights on in the north) and there's not a whole lot of bio-anything
to protect there. I think it's a great idea, but a lot of people don't.

------
mrothe
This cutted version feels like none of these persons said anything that is in
the video, because the statements (or even words) are "out of context". I just
can _assume_ the author of the video has good intentions and did not change
the context.

~~~
moreati
Here are the original videos:

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8>

Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Problems
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ>

Lessons for the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (from history)
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8>

------
mcritz
Thus video just gave me something to research for the next few days.

------
iwwr
You can still make bombs from the thorium cycle, with U233.

~~~
shabble
Many people claim you can't, due to fact it's generally a mixture of U232 as
well, which will decay rapidly and cook your detonator/firing mechanism, but a
couple of interesting comments I found suggest a liquid fuel would be amenable
to continuous separation:

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2011/03/question...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2011/03/question.html#comment-80043)

[http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2011/03/question...](http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-
static/2011/03/question.html#comment-80243)

The MET test of Operation Teapot being the first example of a successful U233
firing: <http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Tests/Teapot.html>

~~~
InclinedPlane
The MET test was not a pure U-233 design, it was a mixture of Pu-239 and
U-233, it also had 1/3 lower yield than the equivalent design using U-235.

~~~
shabble
Ah, thanks, I didn't notice the 'mixed U/Pu' bit originally.

On the second point, not only was it 1/3 of the equivalent (and specified) 235
design, it was also 1/3 less than predicted for itself, if I'm reading it
correctly. I wonder if that was an error in the prediction, or a fault of the
weapon/design.

I've forgotten most of the nuclear chemistry involved in producing Pu, but
iirc it can be done with natural uranium and a neutron source. But then again,
if you have those, and can produce plutonium, why not just use that? Maybe
it'd be helpful as a filler if you've got some, and only limited Pu resources,
or to simplify weapon design (Any idea if the MET was gun-type or implosion-
type, sources being unsurprisingly hard to find)?

~~~
InclinedPlane
The MET test was odd, the military wanted a highly dialed in yield to test
effects of nuclear weapons but somehow there was a miscommunication and they
ended up using U-233 as a replacement for U-235 as an experiment. We really
don't have enough information about how well U-233 might work in a nuclear
weapon to make a judgment on the subject.

Anywho, in regards to the larger point, I discussed the issue in another
comment, here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2723675>

Basically, proliferation concerns transition entirely to the honor system once
someone is operating any sort of fission based reactor, even one powered by
Thorium. Since it is quite easy to breed Plutonium merely by placing natural
(and readily available) U-238 in a high neutron flux environment. Simply
remove your Uranium samples every 90 days or so and chemically separate out
the Plutonium.

------
seamonster
Kirk Sorenson on Dr kiki’s Science Hour:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpnpyd-jbw>

------
ollybee
the UK National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) undertook a recent independent
assessment, in which it assessed a number of claims made by proponents of
thorium fuel. The report can be found at:
<http://www.nnl.co.uk/positionpapers>

~~~
bowyakka
I would be deeply skeptical about position papers from the UK, British Nuclear
Fuel are a massive, partly government owned company that makes a lot of money
from reprocessing. The government started dismantling BFNL into private
companies one of which is is the NNL.

------
brianbreslin
Slightly off topic, but could thorium be used for vehicle propulsion? as in
nuclear submarines or even better: space craft? if the payload is efficient
enough, it could solve the issues we have with getting rockets into space
(fuel is heavy, and costly to transport).

------
delinquentme
Tailor made idea for the "reverse VC pitch"

VC >> find engineers >> provide $$ >> GO.

------
softbuilder
Can I look forward to a Google thorium salt reactor in the near future?

------
zobzu
text > video

~~~
texas-saluki
I think the video is really interesting but it seems strange that it is highly
edited and sliced together? Whenever I see something so hacked together I
question the context that some of the message was cut out to benefit someones
agenda

------
u48998
I have a whole lot of related links here making the case for thorium:
[http://webwanderings.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/thorium-
based-...](http://webwanderings.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/thorium-based-energy-
is-the-answer/)

