Timeline for What would it take to make thorium a prominent energy source?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
6 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Oct 11, 2016 at 17:21 | comment | added | kingledion | @gandalf3 Come talk in chat and I can explain (chat.stackexchange.com/rooms/17213/the-factory-floor). | |
Oct 11, 2016 at 16:58 | comment | added | gandalf3 | @kingledion I wouldn't want a reactor of any kind in my town (or any town, really), but I understood that one of the advantages of thorium is that, when something goes wrong, the reactions slows and stops rather than going critical. Is this not true? | |
Oct 11, 2016 at 16:13 | comment | added | kingledion | @Nelson That is also not true. Efficiency is only one component of nuclear power; by far more important is safety. American nuclear power plants accept significant losses in efficiency to increase safety. The pressurized (light) water reactors (PWR) used in the United States are by far the safest designs in the world. It is very relevant to note that neither Chernobyl nor Fukushima were PWR reactors; while Three Mile Island was. Which reactor would you prefer to have an accident in your town? | |
Oct 11, 2016 at 13:43 | comment | added | kingledion | This is not really true. Thorium has concrete disadvantages, most notably, the lack of a naturally occurring fissile isotope. The problems of breeding and reprocessing Thorium into fuel are significantly larger than the problems of enriching Uranium. Uranium was chosen because of economy and safety, the same reasons that pressurized LWRs were chosen over molten salt and other reactor types. | |
Oct 11, 2016 at 10:15 | comment | added | Nelson | I remember reading the history of our modern nuclear reactors. There are actually more efficient versions but our versions won out because they create weapons grade fission material. The power generation was a side effect... | |
Oct 10, 2016 at 21:45 | history | answered | Thucydides | CC BY-SA 3.0 |