Are Thorium Reactors Better?

Michaelangelica · 11-24-2006

I have read that Thorium Nuclear Reactors are better becuse the used fuel cannot be used for weapons.

Is this true?

Are they as safe as say a pebble bed reactor?(can pebble-bed technology be used?)

Are they more expensive to run?

How do they compare with coal electricity?

Jay-qu · 11-24-2006

Its not just that the spent fuel cant be used for weapons, Thorium is much more abundant in nature than Uranium and can be put through a cycle of uses that ends up producing much less nuclear waste.

Thorium reactors are also apparently more safe, but I cant find the scientific reason behind it.. They are more expensive to run but I am sure they would compare very well with coal fired stations, Im not sure how you want them compared.. but they are more efficient than Uranium reactors.

I am not sure if you can use it in combination with a PBMR but I do not see why not.

Michaelangelica · 11-30-2006

Thanks Jay
just found this interesting article on it.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/3...FQloYAodpU7PkA

Quote:

Magazine feature
New age nuclear
Issue 8 of Cosmos, April 2006
by Tim Dean

Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, but it has many drawbacks. Now a radical new technology based on thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste.

What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles?
And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands?
It may sound too good to be true, but such a reactor is indeed possible, and a number of teams around the world are now working to make it a reality. What makes this incredible reactor so different is its fuel source: thorium.

Named after Thor, the warlike Norse god of thunder, thorium could ironically prove a potent instrument of peace as well as a tool to soothe the world's changing climate

This was an especially interesting comment

Quote:

But wait, there's more: thorium has another remarkable property.
Add plutonium to the mix - or any other radioactive actinide - and the thorium fuel process will actually incinerate these elements.
That's right: it will chew up old nuclear waste as part of the power-generation process. It could not only generate power, but also act as a waste disposal plant for some of humanity's most heinous toxic waste.

gribbon · 01-03-2007

That bit is interesting, Michaelangelica. Quite interesting....

Michaelangelica · 01-10-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by fxzeu

That bit is interesting, Michaelangelica. Quite interesting....

Thanks I think it changes the whole nuclear debate
Are there any thorium reactors existing now?

Quote:

New age nuclear
Issue 8 of Cosmos, April 2006
by Tim Dean
New age nuclear
Image: Justin Randall

Nuclear energy produces no greenhouse gases, but it has many drawbacks. Now a radical new technology based on thorium promises what uranium never delivered: abundant, safe and clean energy - and a way to burn up old radioactive waste.

What if we could build a nuclear reactor that offered no possibility of a meltdown, generated its power inexpensively, created no weapons-grade by-products, and burnt up existing high-level waste as well as old nuclear weapon stockpiles? And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands? It may sound too good to be true, but such a reactor is indeed possible, and a number of teams around the world are now working to make it a reality. What makes this incredible reactor so different is its fuel source: thorium.

Named after Thor, the warlike Norse god of thunder, thorium could ironically prove a potent instrument of peace as well as a tool to soothe the world's changing climate.

New age nuclear | COSMOS magazine

MORE here:-

Quote:

Update 2 Thorium - The Better Nuclear Fuel?

Quote:

Thorium: Is It the Better Nuclear Fuel?
It may turn out to be a quantum leap in the search for economy and safety.
Carlo Rubbia won a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1984 for the discovery of two elusive high energy particles, called the W and the Z. The discovery was a feat not only of physics, but of engineering. He is good at both, and now has another idea which could revolutionize the methods we use to retrieve nuclear energy.
You may never have heard of thorium. It is a plentiful element; there is more of it in the earth's crust than uranium. No, it is not fissionable. But it can be made into a low weight isotope of uranium that is fissionable. Rubbia thinks it may be worth the trouble to do that, even if it is a roundabout route to nuclear fission. countries.
A good introduction to Rubbia's idea is in "Megawatts and Megatons," (pp153-163) by Richard Garwin and Georges Charpak, Knopf, NY 2001 (originally published in 1997 in French). Another summary, just 3 pages long, is in the CERN Courier, a publication of the European collider laboratory, of April 1995, available on the web at The Energy Amplifier . The CERN report closes with this sentence: "With the heavy ecological implications of present nuclear and conventional energy sources, it is surprising how little R&D work is being invested anywhere in this potentially rewarding alternative energy solution."
What is special about thorium?
(1) Weapons-grade fissionable material (uranium233) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from the thorium reactor than plutonium is from the uranium breeder reactor.
(2) Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste than uranium or plutonium reactors.
(3) Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U235.
(4) Because thorium does not sustain chain reaction, fission stops by default if we stop priming it, and a runaway chain reaction accident is improbable.
Besides, the priming process is extremely efficient: the nuclear process puts out 60 times the energy required to keep it primed. Because of this, the device is also called, (quite inappropriately) an "Energy Amplifier."
Naturally occurring thorium is in the form of the stable isotope, 90Th232. Notice that thorium is just two places removed on the periodic table from Uranium. In a sequence of nuclear processes exactly like those by which the non-fissionable isotope, 92U238 is bumped up through Neptunium to Plutonium, 94Pu239, Thorium can be bumped up to a light weight isotope of Uranium, 92U233. (See p 135, Eq 15.01 and 15.02 of "A serious but not ponderous book about Nuclear Energy".) In each case, a non-fissionable isotope is converted to a fissionable one.

Michaelangelica · 01-20-2007

Quote:

Malignant mesothelioma has also been linked to therapeutic radiation using thorium dioxide and zeolite, a silicate in the soil.

Oncology: Mesothelioma

Quote:

Just recently an interesting German report was issued on uranium. It makes a number of conclusions worth pondering,

… Any forecast of the development of nuclear power in the next 25 years has to concentrate on two aspects, the supply of uranium and the addition of new reactor capacity. At least within this time horizon, neither nuclear breeding reactors nor thorium reactors will play a significant role because of the long lead times for their development and market penetration.

Science and Global Security - China Uranium Deal Ratified: This Is Heavy Man!!

Michaelangelica · 03-13-2007

Sign Up

Quote:

Print Edition : California

Radioactive metal found at Oxnard site
EPA closes the Ormond Beach wetlands after thorium from nearby slag piles turns up.

By Gregory W. Griggs, Times Staff Writer
March 7, 2007

Following the recent discovery of radioactive material nearby, the Environmental Protection Agency has restricted public access to Ormond Beach wetlands in Oxnard while it oversees the stabilization of massive waste piles generated by a shuttered metal recycling plant.

The radioactive metal thorium, which was found about 100 feet southwest of the slag piles, is considered a health risk after direct or prolonged exposure, officials said. After confirming the contamination last week, EPA contractors fenced off the site Friday and blocked its entrance.

Thorium enters the body through inhaling or swallowing and while most of it is expelled as waste, small amounts can get into the bloodstream or be deposited in bone. The EPA said studies show that inhaling thorium dust causes increased risk of developing bone, lung or pancreatic cancers.

Last month, the EPA began a multimillion-dollar stabilization of the towering piles of recycled waste at the former Halaco Engineering Co. smelting plant.

The EPA's goal is to reshape the slag piles — higher than 45 feet in some places — to make them less susceptible to erosion.

Robert Wise, on-scene coordinator with the EPA's emergency response section, said he discovered what appeared to be a strange clay-like substance near the bridge that leads to a walking trail at the end of Perkins Road. Further examination revealed that it was thorium

.

jungjedi · 03-13-2007

how did it get out?

Michaelangelica · 03-14-2007

Quote:

Originally Posted by jungjedi

how did it get out?

"Dr. Karl's" reaction to coal power stations
In his book "Sensational Moments in Science", ABC Press, 2001.
He has an interesting take on coal power:-

"In 1982, some 111 (US)nuclear-fired power plants consumed about 540 tonnes of nuclear fuel.
In the same year, coal-fired power plants released over 800 tonnes of uranium." into the atmosphere.
"If a single nuclear-fired plant released 8K of uranium into the bio-sphere. there would be . .an enormous outcry."

He says the nuclear content of coal has not yet reached general public awareness in the same way that the greenhouse effect AIDs, or the ozone hole have.
There are no nuclear regulations about the disposal of coal ash

Coal apparently contains a heap of uranium and thorium
He concludes that you will get three times more radiation from a coal fired power plant than a nuclear fueled power plant! That's if you include the complete nuclear fuel cycle mining, processing operating, disposal(!?)
If you don't include these your average coal-fired power plant puts out 100 times more radiation than a nuclear-fired plant.
p103-104

I wonder how much radioactive junk is floating about from coal powered electricity plants. Does anyone ever test this?

jungjedi · 03-14-2007

theres a closed down nuclear plant here in south fl that i ride my bike through occassionally.they have a nature trail with mangroves and a boardwalk through it.ide assume it was part of some ecological rehab thingy they did after the plant closed.and the concrete plant itself is clean as a wisle and still looks operational.i dont seee why they dont have more nuclear power stations

Are Thorium Reactors Better?

Hypography?

Share the love!

Sponsors

Friends