Possibly the Break Through Power Source

[DanelMadr]

TEDxYYC - Kirk Sorensen - LiFTR

Help to spread the message.

Compared to water cooled (standard) reactor:

Much much Safer
at least 50% more efficient
Compact
No good for n. weapons
Can burn old n. waste
Main fuel - Thorium - is abundant - cheaper
Produces important isotopes for medicine

Cons:
Huge first investment
in vastly gov. Regulated industry

Hippies go nuts still preferring (political pressure to spend tax $ on) inefficient, expensive and environment unfriendly solar,bio,wind, tide.

If there is not some big problem...like salts being too corrosive....it's gonna be huge.

LFTR vs Global Warming

 

[synergy1]

the downsides to PWRs are overstated, although the risks are real. Fukashima is a black eye on the nuclear community, but the flaws were obvious ; their backup systems to remove decay heat were located in stupid locations. They were called out on this and did nothing. As for Chyernobyl, that was a BWR with an inherit instability - a positive reaction coefficient. All nuclear reactors in the US, and probably elsewhere have a negative coefficient of reactivity ( this means the reaction rate decreases with increasing temperature). Basically what we build are very stable compared to other primitive reactors.

However, thorium poses an interesting supplement to current nuclear reactors. Its more abundant, it has a slightly larger microscopic cross section ( the likilihood a fission could occur). there are a few downsides. First, you need to add uranium to make it fissionable. Secondly, the decay products are significant neutron inhibitors (poisons), which will actually hurt the nuclear process. You'd need to combine the materials. I also dont know how'd I'd feel about a liquid reaction - how could you control criticality? Currently, you use neutron absorbers in fuel rods....if your talking liquid, than you'd need to constantly add/dilute the mixture to control reaction rates. that sounds like a pain in the ass.

Personally the challenges seem worthwhile to pursue. As always, one must remember there is a downside to everything , and we would have to learn via experience the downsides of thorium based nuclear power plants..

 

[DanelMadr]

the downsides to PWRs are overstated, although the risks are real. Fukashima is a black eye on the nuclear community, but the flaws were obvious ; their backup systems to remove decay heat were located in stupid locations. They were called out on this and did nothing. As for Chyernobyl, that was a BWR with an inherit instability - a positive reaction coefficient. All nuclear reactors in the US, and probably elsewhere have a negative coefficient of reactivity ( this means the reaction rate decreases with increasing temperature). Basically what we build are very stable compared to other primitive reactors.

However, thorium poses an interesting supplement to current nuclear reactors. Its more abundant, it has a slightly larger microscopic cross section ( the likilihood a fission could occur). there are a few downsides. First, you need to add uranium to make it fissionable. Secondly, the decay products are significant neutron inhibitors (poisons), which will actually hurt the nuclear process. You'd need to combine the materials. I also dont know how'd I'd feel about a liquid reaction - how could you control criticality? Currently, you use neutron absorbers in fuel rods....if your talking liquid, than you'd need to constantly add/dilute the mixture to control reaction rates. that sounds like a pain in the ass.

Personally the challenges seem worthwhile to pursue. As always, one must remember there is a downside to everything , and we would have to learn via experience the downsides of thorium based nuclear power plants..

Watch some of longer more detailed videos. I think they would answer your questions better than me. But they definitely explain criticality control by auto-regulation/expansion etc.

I'm definitely not a fanatical fan, I know that everything looks good on paper but implementation can be rather difficult with many obstacles.
I like the idea bc proponents use reason and on paper it looks even too good and there is no criticism of concept so far, except anti-atom mob.

I'm very skeptical person but I like this. I'm not a nuclear pro or educated as you (you raised good questions), though.

Hopefully nuclear energy will go through renascence. This renewable BS going on is hopeless. Even uneducated me can do the math.

 

[synergy1]

glad to hear it man. People who can do the basic math can clearly see the 'renewables' are just a fad; usually a stunt to get loan guarantees or grants. They just dont add up in a few basic imperatives: cost, abundance, energy density.

I see thorium fuels as a supplement to nuclear processes. There are advantages to BWR, just as there appear to be advantages to thorium. By providing both at a low cost, we ensure a prosperous nation for years to come.