Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On Edit: ZOT -- Thorium used is innert? Than that might work...
Hi,
You can find out about salt reactors here - Molten salt reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia more specifically thorium reactors here - Liquid fluoride thorium reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia these seem to hold great potential. Unfortunately adapting these as power generation devices would upset our entire culture, all solar and fossil fuel electric production would instantly become obsolete, many vehicles would become battery powered for local / short distance driving and really good electric energy storage systems (great batteries) would become more of a holy grail than ever as once discovered virtually all mobile transit would run on them.
Thorium IS inert in that it won't be fissionable with itself, BUT it is fertile, which means it fissions in presence of very low quantities (far lower than critical mass) of uranium or plutonium. Thus thorium becomes a fuel, in the presence of low quantities of self fissionable material. http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.o...Foundation.pdf
From the above link -
Quote:
Thorium is not fissile and therefore cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction on its own. However, it is fertile, which means that if it is bombarded by neutrons from a separate fissile driver material (Uranium-233, Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239) or from a particle accelerator it will transmute into the fissile element Uranium-233 (U-233) which is an excellent nuclear fuel.
The thorium fuel cycle has been successfully demonstrated in over 20 reactors worldwide4, including the UK’s ‘Dragon’ High Temperature Gas Reactor which operated from 1966 to 1973.
Figure 1:
Thorium with a small seed of uranium or plutonium or other neutron creator will transmute from thorium 232 to thorium 233, then fission to over time to uranium 233, which will continue the cycle. Thus once seeded, thorium reactors are self sustaining, and only have a relatively small quantity of self fissioning material at any time.
Under about 400 to 600 degrees Celsius (depending on which salt is used) the liquid salt in a reactor will solidify, meaning a leak will self repair, and even a catastrophe will result in easy to detect solid pieces of salt sitting largely inert in the area. Because salt is used as a heat conductor, high pressure is avoided (making containment buildings unnecessary, it can't explode, it will just cool down and stop producing energy).
Personally I like the concept, and hope to see it implemented. Mass production of these reactors would destroy our current energy system, it would disrupt economies in greater way than the Internet did imo.
We were discussing "Wind Power cuts US CO2 emissions AND water usage".
Yes, exactly. The topic of THIS thread is the reduction of CO2 emissions and water usage due to the increased deployment of wind turbines in the US.
If you want to discuss thorium power, the price of legumes in China, or any other random thought that might occur to you, please take it to a new thread instead of hijacking this one. Thank you.
What I personally find interesting about THIS topic, and the reason I posted the article, is that it represents a growth in the wind industry in the US that finally charts up on its own, rather than being lumped together with "other renewables." Despite our having abundant wind resources we've fallen behind other industrialized countries in developing those resources. Even China exceeds us in wind energy development. So I see this as a sign of progress.
And to see such a big offset in water usage as a co-result with the reduction of CO2 emissions is quite exciting. It's another big plus for the technology that I don't recall coming up before.
And to see such a big offset in water usage as a co-result with the reduction of CO2 emissions is quite exciting. It's another big plus for the technology that I don't recall coming up before.
A lot of people fail to understand that nuclear, coal, natural gas power plants use huge amounts of water since what they do is generate heat to boil water to create steam to move the blades of a turbine. What a wind farm is just, a bunch of turbines that use wind to move and generate electricity. So it doesn't require fuel nor water to do all the intermediate steps of generating what is needed to move the blades of a turbine. It just uses the naturally occurring wind.
If you want to discuss thorium power, the price of legumes in China, or any other random thought that might occur to you, please take it to a new thread instead of hijacking this one. Thank you.
You make a fair point, I think thorium as Denmark was introduced to the thread by others, though I did reply to their posts. I'll try to keep a tighter focus on the thread theme if that is the protocol for this forum. My apology.
Nuclear forum? Nuclear not green? I AM confused, could you explain this to me a bit more?
It produces hazardous waste the has to be stored for decades. When the nuclear plant reaches the end of it's life it has to be torn apart and a large number of pieces namely about four which each weigh more then 150 tons have to be taken to a toxic waste dump and stored for centuries.
The supposed recycling of nuclear waste in fact generates waste that lasts for millions of years requiring expensive deep earth storage. This long lasting nuclear waste which is highly radioactive and dangerous that lasts for millions of years has to be blended into glass then this molten glass is poured into stainless steel casks, which are then placed inside steel barrels. Otherwise you will contaminate water supplies which would sicken and kill millions. France is spending billions on the construction of each of these storage sites because other European countries are tired of taking the waste that has been created by the French nuclear industry.
It produces hazardous waste the has to be stored for decades. When the nuclear plant reaches the end of it's life it has to be torn apart and a large number of pieces namely about four which each weigh more then 150 tons have to be taken to a toxic waste dump and stored for centuries.
Recycling of nuclear waste is done well in Europe, we don't do it well in the U.S. With salt reactors, there is a lot (A LOT) less waste, the very hot type of waste we get from water nuclear plants is virtually non-existent. Salt reactors can be used to process existing hot nuclear fuel and make it much safer while delivering power.
I agree we have a nuclear mess, but it's been brought upon somewhat by ourselves. Eventually fusion may present the ultimate unlimited clean energy, time will tell.
Mod warning: please stay on topic "Wind Power cuts US CO2 emissions AND water usage"
Please feel free to open another thread to continue discussing thorium, salt reactors, and/or whether nuclear power can be considered "green" power.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
