cancel2 2022
Canceled
No it isn't sonny, it was replaced by yttrium. No doubt because of the "tremendous risk" from thorium.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Thorium, yay or nay?
- Thread starter Cancel 2018.2
- Start date
Sent from my iPhone 10S
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Great, even before there is even a working reactor, health and safety come along to piss in the porridge. No wonder Bill Gates got fed up with all the jobworths in the US. If you guys had been around on the 40s the Manhattan Project would have been buried in red tape and Hitler would have sent a V3 over to New York with a 20 kiloton warhead.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
The number that are already in the books means that some will have the unintended consequence of hindering this. Add to this that america is a very tort happy society and they will take experimental technology like this to india and china where they are freer.
If I recall correctly india and china account for most of the pollution the church of climate change is warning about as well.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Thorium does need a neutron source like uranium-235 or plutonium-239 to initiate a chain reaction but once it has started it is self-sustaining.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You need a very small amount of U235 or P239 to initiate the reaction!! You speak as if thorium reactors have never been tried and tested. There was a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) built at Oak Ridge back in the 50s. It was only shut down because it couldn't produce plutonium for weapons production.
https://eic.rsc.org/feature/is-thorium-the-perfect-fuel/2000092.article
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Althea
Althea told me...
But you still have those nagging disposal of spent fuel issues.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Spent fuel is a misnomer, it is still very usable in a molten salt reactor. So in fact thorium reactors will be able to utilise spent fuel as a feedstock.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Last edited:
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
So are you for or against Thorium? Also, I was told thorium is abundant and is available everywhere in the world and is actually a harmless element.
How can the technology be decades away when they already have plans and diagrams for it? Also, if it is so abundant, how would be ever obsolete.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
NUCLEAR ROCKETS TO SPACE
cancel2 2022
Canceled
Because he is talking bollocks, that's why. The US military built a working molten salt thorium based reactor over 60 years ago. It was abandoned because it wouldn't produce plutonium for weapons.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Last edited:
cancel2 2022
Canceled
India has vast amounts, but it is all over the world. There are huge deposits in Utah and Montana.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Reminded me of something from some time back.
They use white rats to determine if something will give the rats cancer; because then they come to the conclusion that the substance will also cause cancer in humans.
But what if nature uses cancer to keep the white rat population in check??
I am not for or against any metal, except for given purposes.
Like many metalworkers I use thorium every day.
As I said it would be appropriate for India.
Once thorium is converted in a reaction it is far from inert; some of the many byproducts have a halflife of hundreds of thousands years.
Yes, less radioactive waste is produced but there is still a significant stream of waste which must be safely stored for 300,000 years. We already have an abundance of such matter to deal with forever.
Since it isn't the only option it would be
obsolete compared to a fuel free source
because the dangerous waste stream continues.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
You just cannot refrain from spouting bollocks, please read and learn for once!!
Much Less Nuclear Waste
"LWR uses ~2% of the fuel, because fission products trapped in the fuel pellets block fission, and the pellets get damaged by radiation and pressure. The rest of the uranium is considered “waste”, to be stored for over 100,000 years. Well, that is waste only if we only use LWR, or other solid fueled types of nuclear reactors. There are several types of nuclear reactor possible, that can fission All that uranium, plutonium, and other transuranic elements. (God didn’t make useful uranium and defective uranium; it’s the reactor design that only uses ~2% of the fuel.)
MSR has molten fuel, no fuel pellets, no fuel rods. Some of the fission products, that block fission the most, are gasses — in LWR they are carefully trapped in the pellets, in MSR they bubble right out of the fuel salt and are collected. Most other fission products are easily chemically separated from the circulating fuel salt. Most MSR designs, including LFTR, use over 99% of the fuel.
A LFTR’s waste is safe (radiation levels below the original uranium ore and below background radiation) within 350 years. To produce 1 gigawatt electricity for a year, takes 800kg to 1000kg of thorium or uranium/plutonium waste. 83% of the fission byproducts are safe in 10 years, 17% (135 kg, 300 lbs) within 350 years, no uranium or plutonium left as waste. After that, radiation is below background radiation levels. (Compare to 250,000kg uranium to make 35,000kg enriched uranium for a solid-fueled reactor like LWR, for that same gigawatt-year electricity, all needing storage for 100,000+ years.)
No uranium, plutonium, or other long-term elements in LFTR waste, since they are simply left in the reactor until they either fission or decay to short-term waste. (Standard industrial processing inefficiency of 0.1% leaves 1kg uranium; we can do better than that, but still much less per gigawatt-year than the 5500 kg uranium left from an average USA coal plant!)
Most of the fission products are valuable for industrial use. After a few years, radioactive decay brings them below background radiation, ready for use."
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
I'll be damned, Rune gave an intelligent response.
I thank you for your points and I will discuss them with my friend who brought up the issue of thorium. I am very interested in this topic and you seem highly knowledgeable in this area.
Too bad you're dumb in everything else.
I'll be damned, Rune gave an intelligent response.
I thank you for your points and I will discuss them with my friend who brought up the issue of thorium. I am very interested in this topic and you seem highly knowledgeable in this area.
Too bad you're dumb in everything else.
Not according to Tom, lol.
Doesn't matter.
We have vast amounts of everything.
We should just modify bullshit into a flammable gas.
cancel2 2022
Canceled
cancel2 2022
Canceled
One of the major selling points of molten salt reactors is their ability to almost completely use thorium and leave very few, if any, actinides behind with half lives measured in millions of years. They are also able to utilise spent fuel from conventional reactors so potentially solving the waste problem.
Sent from my iPhone 10S
Last edited: