MySwag.org The Off-road Camper Trailer Forum
General => General Discussion => Topic started by: kranky al on August 24, 2011, 11:51:00 AM
-
make no mistake -im not talking about normal nuclear plants using uranium products
thorium reactors - little waste - no meltdown risk - why are we not looking at this now - china are in the process of building them - some info and links below:
Warmers want energy that does not emit CO2 because they look at the climate data and conclude that CAGW is a credible threat that needs to be addressed. Their energy sources of choice are typically wind and solar.
Skeptics look at the same climate data and conclude the evidence for CAGW is just too weak to justify accepting the current high cost and unreliability of wind/solar. They look at Europe and notice that nuclear has given France the smallest carbon footprint and wind/solar has not been effective in any European country in keeping energy both low cost and low carbon.
What about nuclear? Some warmers support it (e.g. Dr. James Hansen) but others do not because of toxic waste streams, lingering concerns about safety, cost, and the potential for proliferation.
What if we could have nuclear power that was far “greener” than current technology, cost considerably less, was even safer and more proliferation resistant? What if this “greener” nuclear technology had already been proven in working prototypes?
Welcome to LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactors) technology. Demonstrated in the 60?s, the thorium/uranium fuel cycle molten salt reactor (LFTR) approach was abandoned to concentrate efforts on the uranium/plutonium fuel cycle pressurized water reactor (PWR) during the cold war bomb making era, an era when lots of plutonium was considered a good thing, not something to be worried about.
LFTR (compared to current PWR): A waste steam 10,000 times less toxic (some variations of LFTR can actually burn PWR waste). Cost <50%, thus competitive with coal. Even safer (no fuel rods to melt, no high pressure radioactive water to escape, passive criticality control ….). More proliferation resistant.
What about the politics? Replacing coal with LFTRs is far easier politically than imposing cap n trade or carbon taxes. $10B invested over 10 years could update this technology and make it ready for commercialization. LFTR is attractive to both Democrats/warmers and Republicans/skeptics. It is very green, cost competitive and can be put into production for a realively modest sum.
some linkies for ou to read more if you are interested
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/09/finding-an-energy-common-ground-between-%E2%80%9Cwarmers%E2%80%9D-and-%E2%80%9Cskeptics%E2%80%9D/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/01/30/china-announces-thorium-reactor-energy-program-obama-still-dwelling-on-sputnik-moments/
-
while I agree.. I can see this thread going bush real quick
I'll sit back.
(http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-wZDvVdRStUs/TfvNzQCgtqI/AAAAAAAAAQU/6lydnQY8jzs/s1600/MP900314309%255B1%255D%2B%25282%2529.jpg)
-
We got the most stable landmass on the planet.
Chinese have a nuclear/atomic power process that does not "meltdown" in an accidental loss of coolant
I dunno why, you tell me.
I want one to replace the motor in my car!!
-
thorium reactors - little waste - no meltdown risk - why are we not looking at this now - china are in the process of building them
Because they are built in China???
:cheers:
Dave
-
Not all their stuff is dodgy, especially in that field. here's a story for you.
Mrs B used to be a buyer (shoe fashion) and would travel the globe buying shoes, what a job!!!
For most goods the chinese will build to a standard that's equal to the price.
I remember one of her colleagues being presented with a beautifully made shoe as a sample, he haggled and haggled the price down - the Chinese rep said OK I will give you a shoe "like this" at the price you want....... Shoes arrived "looked like" the sample but missing the quality parts and looked exactly like a shoe at the haggled price should. ended up he could not retail them for the price he thought he could, what a hero.
That's how it is doing business with a Chinese manufacturer,
example OZtrail CT tents are chinese made, nothing wrong with them, they just cost more than others because they are better!
Check all the excellent electronics goods coming out of that place, nothing wrong with most of that stuff either.
PS back in the day if you pulled that kind of haggling stunt on an INDIAN shoe manufacturer you DO NOT want to know what natural organic substance they used to dye the leather for a pair of brown brogues! tip, it comes from something sacred
-
I agree, I am Nuclear 100%. That will cut greenhouse gass emissions.
-
Its not considered because the labor party is against it, the greens are against it and the coalition wouldn't have the balls to go against the nimby's.
Though I did read somewhere that if the world was to turn to nuclear power that it would be exhausted within the century (thinking nuclear for electric power for transport etc as well).
-
Its not considered because the labor party is against it, the greens are against it and the coalition wouldn't have the balls to go against the nimby's.
Though I did read somewhere that if the world was to turn to nuclear power that it would be exhausted within the century (thinking nuclear for electric power for transport etc as well).
this is not regular uranium based nuclear reactors - its completely different and there is enough easily accessible thorium to power the world for 30000 years
it is 1/10000th the toxicity of uranium based reactor waste - the waste has a life of 1-300 - it can even process waste from the current uranium reactors as part of the process.
coal being burnt releases a metric f$%^tonne more radiation into our air every day than the worst possible accident in one of these reactors could ever.
please - have a read of those links i supplied above - i think you will be unpleasantly surprised - i think that this being swept under the carpet - as NUKULAR AND THEREFORE BAD YOU WILL DIE AND KILL ALL THE CHILDREN NEVER TALK OF THIS AGAIN
will get you as angry as i am the more you read. this process can separate hydrogen from water - hydrogen cars - cheap pollution less fuel
-
Settle petal.
I am actually in favor of what you are proposing.
The fact is thorium or uranium, the govt wont buy it cause they want to stay in power, or get in power.
-
The fact is thorium or uranium, the govt wont buy it cause they want to stay in power, or get in power.
No Australian gov will go for nuclear power, because we have too much coal. Disregard the fact that if we're not using it ourselves we'll have more to export, it's simply a cry about costing potential jobs in that sector. Same reason why we dig up iron and coal, send them both overseas, and buy back steel. For some reason, Aus has an attitude against manufacturing - "we're a primary producer - we ride on the sheep's back!". But I digress...
Westinghouse have been building SMRs for a while, they're a conventional light-water reactor, but quite small and compact. South Africa had quite an interesting/promising design in the Pebble-bed reactor, but the government there basically shut down the research into it, which is a shame.
I can't remember who, but someone had a concept for a salt reactor that was not much bigger than a phone booth. The theory was that while electricity is common in the first world, there's no infrastructure for it in developing countries. So a little reactor that didn't make much power was what you needed - easy to fly in somewhere and bury, and provided enough power for a village to run lights/fridges. Not much else, but when you don't have either of those things, that's quite an achievement.
But I'm one of these weird people who don't mind Uranium-based reactors. If anything, what happened at Fukushima made me even more convinced they're quite safe. </my reputation>
while I agree.. I can see this thread going bush real quick
+1.
Thanks!
Matto :)
-
Wow, I'm stunned that this thread hasn't been flamed from all directions!
I am very much in favour of the promise of "Gen IV" nuclear power:
- safer than coal (IIRC more people die from a MWh or coal-generated power than from a MWh of nuclear-generated power)
- cleaner than coal
- "ash" rather than "waste" (far less volume, much shorter problem duration)
- burns waste from earlier generation plants
- creates electricity and hydrogen and desalinated water
- passively safe
So glad to see that I'm not alone here!
-
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
-
The idea of thorium is not new, in the early eighties I worked for a mining exploration company, as the time we were drilling for uranium, but I did a fair bit of aerial survey work, and thorium was one of the elements we were looking for and mapping it in for the future.
-
Like you say thorium reactors have been around since the 1960's, I don't know why you'd really want to get that excited by them.
Nuclear is an outdated technology in my opinion. Sure we can use it until better technologies get established, but it really is a short term solution rather than a long term one. I'd much rather look at things like geothermal to replace coal and nuclear for base load energy, and the other alternatives such as solar, wind, gas, and hydro for peak loads.
And that's coming from a coal miner.
-
thats all it needs to be - a stopgap till we find better ways - but what a stopgap.
want to end the war with the terrorists - prob help if the saudis werent getting eleventy trillion bucks a year in oil money.... hydrogen fueled cars from thorium reactors
i want the first hydrogen powered 60 series
-
One thing Fukashima did was it seriously ramped up the price forecasts for coal
-
Like you say thorium reactors have been around since the 1960's, I don't know why you'd really want to get that excited by them.
Nuclear is an outdated technology in my opinion. Sure we can use it until better technologies get established, but it really is a short term solution rather than a long term one. I'd much rather look at things like geothermal to replace coal and nuclear for base load energy, and the other alternatives such as solar, wind, gas, and hydro for peak loads.
And that's coming from a coal miner.
well said, nuclear power is only going to be a stop gap, and it still produces highly toxic waste that takes millennia to become safe. that's my 2c worth, now I'll sit back and wait for the dinner and a show to get started ;D
troy
-
well said, nuclear power is only going to be a stop gap, and it still produces highly toxic waste that takes millennia to become safe. that's my 2c worth, now I'll sit back and wait for the dinner and a show to get started ;D
troy
thorium doesnt produce highly toxic waste - its 1/10000th the toxicity of a regular uranium style reactor and the waste takes 200 years to lose its radioactivity. it also can be used to get rid of old nuclear fuel that otherwise would take thousands of years to break down and be highly toxic