Timeline for What would it take to make thorium a prominent energy source?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2020 at 11:03 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Oct 12, 2016 at 3:40 | comment | added | Mazura | "...there are no physics barriers to thorium reactors: there is an existence proof for thorium reactors. [However] There are economic, engineering, social, political, technical, and institutional barriers; and large quantities of hype and incorrect information on the subject; but none of those are relevant to [ Physics.SE ]." | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 20:52 | comment | added | MolbOrg | @ThalesPereira That is whole point of thorium, by them self with U-233 they produce just barely enough neutrons to burn. So neutron economy is important part the process for them, you have to be careful where and how neutrons are wasted, this is not how with uranium reactors where you have significant excess of neutrons. Th reactor can be best friend of conventional reactors. One man's trash is another man's treasure. They can be standalone or as part of system. China is pretty active in developing them, so will see. There is lot of different videos on youtube about TR, pretty popular topic. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 20:27 | comment | added | Mermaker | @MolbOrg I was looking at that rigth now! That's really interesting - "After the second year, the CANDU reactor begins to operate practically as a thorium burner." Plutonium is neither proposed as a main fuel or as a constant additive, just a kickstarter for the thorium reaction. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 20:22 | comment | added | MolbOrg | from your plutonium link: The criticality starts by k∞ = ∼1.48 for both fuel compositions. A sharp decrease of the criticality has been observed in the first year as a consequence of rapid plutonium burnout. The criticality becomes quasi constant after the second year and remains above k∞ > 1.06 for ∼20 years. After the second year, the CANDU reactor begins to operate practically as a thorium burner. Cite END; Also I do not understand that wish to extract that U-233, let that radioactive pile burn, use ADS if neutron economy isn't so good, eventually they all break up and give energy | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 20:12 | comment | added | Mermaker | I second @MatthewWhited 's words - Thorium reactors are not theoretical anymore. They work. You just don't have people willing to pay for them. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 17:46 | comment | added | Matthew Whited | They've already been done in test reactors. And no thanks on the chat. I perfer the comments section of these sites. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 17:45 | comment | added | kingledion | @MatthewWhited Those are the theoretical benefits, but there are significant engineering and safety barriers between now and that eventual solution. Feel free to discuss in chat if you would like. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 17:42 | comment | added | Matthew Whited | No one is saying that they would be thorium only. But thorium would be the primary fuel source once they are started. better still you could take all the nuclear trash sitting in cooling ponds around existing reactors and use it as fuel instead of an environmental disaster waiting to happen. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 17:41 | comment | added | Matthew Whited | "My primary reference is personal expertise" ... | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 16:21 | comment | added | kingledion | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 16:03 | comment | added | Mermaker | It seems we have a different understanding of what that plutonium is used for. What I gathered from both articles is that the uranium/plutonium would just provide an ignition of sorts (the same way we need some fissile material to start a fusion bomb), while the Thorium would sustain the reaction. In this case, the plutonium is more of a seed than a fuel. Or, did I miss something? | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 15:58 | comment | added | Mermaker | I'll check those. I do have a limited expertise on the field, but it's nothing professional (I'm just a hobbist with a very dangerous sense of fun). Thanks for the new info! | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 15:55 | comment | added | kingledion | @ThalesPereira My primary reference is personal expertise. I already linked a paper talking about use of plutonium; here is an article that mentions a ratio of 880kg plutonium to 1100kg thorium for the Indian plants. Here is one talking about using low-enriched uranium. Thorium only reactors have not gotten off the drawing board; don't let Wikipedia fool you. | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 15:45 | comment | added | Mermaker | as far as my reference goes, it says that those power plants are able to use thorium as a fuel. Could you please reference your claims? Maybe you have resources different from mine! | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 15:38 | comment | added | kingledion | @ThalesPereira Not true. Thorium can be utilized under not-tested-for-commercial-application circumstances. Thorium alone cannot be used as fuel, instead it must be mixed with another fissile source. One of those proposed sources is Plutonium. That is how both CANDU and the Indian plants propose to operate. That is not a Thorium rector, since Thorium does not provide criticality. That is a sustained Plutonium reactor that uses Thorium in increase power output (granted, by an order of magnitude). | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 15:30 | comment | added | Mermaker | Also, Canada is already able to use Thorium as a fuel source! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 15:27 | comment | added | Mermaker | Except that Thorium power plants are already a thing. There were a few working prototypes around the world, and India is about to put a few major Thorium power plants in use. Check this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… | |
| Oct 11, 2016 at 13:58 | history | edited | kingledion | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 44 characters in body
|
| Oct 11, 2016 at 13:38 | history | answered | kingledion | CC BY-SA 3.0 |