dwreid
Google sponsored some lectures on LIFTR (LIquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) technology a few years back. You can find them on YouTube if you do a search. Some very good (and technical) information there. Almost all upside. Almost no downside. (Nothing is perfect) Significantly greener than oil, gas or the current state of nuclear. If you take into account the massive amount of pollution created by the production of photo-voltaic it\'s even greener than that and doesn\'t consume thousands of acres of delicate desert land. Have a look.
Windmaster Hiroaki
This ain\'t new, the idea has been around for some time... but it\'s time someone build one using Thorium rather than Uranium...
Earl Leonard
What\'s the environmental impact of the mining process like compared to uranium? And where are the main deposits of the stuff located, internationally speaking? (as in, what countries would stand to gain/lose from a Thorium reactor revolution mining wise).
Patrick McGean
A nuke dummy I almost fell for the hook. The grid is the issue. Individual power no grid no stock holders, no officers to drive the cost of energy up so the sale of planes, boats and fast cars can continue unabated. The Grid comes down, get ready with individual power sources, Red Dawn is the model, and the Grid makes us vulnerable to Canadians looking for a beach. The fossil fuel revolution comes to an end before we all suffocate. Nuke ends before we cook ourselves to death, Fukushima is a four letter for GE.
The Agents of the Crystalline Matrix
Dawg
Get a grip guys. This is just old hogwash: In 2008 a report from the Norwegian Radiation Protection Authority (NRPA) revealed that thorium-based nuclear energy plants - once vaunted as a clean alternative type of nuclear energy - have the same negative environmental consequences as their uranium-based cousins do. The NRPA report dealt with the environmental consequences of potential thorium related industry in Norway. The report takes on various aspects of the thorium fuel cycle from mining and extraction, fuel production, reactor operation and waste handling. The report concludes that the environmental consequences of using thorium-based nuclear power will result in the same problems the world faces today with uranium bases reactors. "The NRPA invalidated that thorium is kind nuclear power, as many have earlier asserted," said Nils Bohmer, nuclear physicist with Bellona, a Norwegian based environmental organization. "Using thorium leads to highly radioactive nuclear waste and the risk of accidents will always be present." According to the NRPA, thorium-based nuclear energy, uncontrolled chain reactions and, in the worst case, meltdowns can occur. The NRPA also asserts that thorium-based nuclear energy will produce long-lasting radioactive waste that will demand the same handling as highly radioactive waste from current nuclear reactors. The NRPA report also points out that it is impossible to give a full value oversight of all potential environenmental consequences of thorium-based nuclear energy. The report shows that each form of thorium extraction, whether by open-pit mining or underground mining, will lead to negative burdens on the environment. Extraction will produce radioactive waste in the form of slag heaps that can lead to an escalation of radiation for humans and the environment, and the spread of radioactivity. Earlier, many had asserted that thorium technology cannot be used for weapons purposes. Even though this would be more difficult than with current technology, the NRPA report shows that this will continue to be possible. In the 1950s, the United States accomplished its first test explosion with uranium 233, which is the material thorium-based energy production produces. Additionally, highly enriched or plutonium is required as an additive to thorium to produce a chain reaction. These are materials that can be abused for weapons grade purposes.
Griffin
Go,Thor! HAMMER DOWN! {^,^}
Fabrizio Pilato
Thorium is highly abundant and easily attainable. It runs on a low pressure system, so much safer than present day high pressure Nuclear reactors. It\'s also nearly 100% efficient. Here are some figures from Kirk Sorenson\'s Google presentation:
6600 tonnes of thorium (500 quads) is equal to one of the following in the list below:
- 5.3 billion tonnes of coal (128 quads) - 31.1 billion barrels of oil (180 quads) - 2.92 trillion m3 of natural gas (105 quads) - 65,000 tonnes of uranium ore (24 quads)
more figures.
6 kg of thorium metal in a liquid-fluoride reactor has the energy equivalent (66,000 MW*hr electrical*) of:
- 230 train cars (25,000 MT) of bituminous coal or, - 600 train cars (66,000 MT) of brown coal or, - 440 million cubic feet of natural gas (15% of a 125,000 cubic meter LNG tanker), - or, 300 kg of enriched (3%) uranium in a pressurized water reactor.
Kirk Sorenson is an expert on the matter, check his site for how things are developing: http://energyfromthorium.com/about/
Michael Mantion
Um the grid does need a serious upgrade. but the grid is good silly rabbit. If you live on a farm and don\'t have a family sure you can have some wind mills, most people live in burbs or cities.. What then? No one wants solar panels even with subsidies they are 30-40 cents per kwh, and then you have to charge something to get through the night.. then it gets to a $1 per kwh. No thanks I think we will keep the grid and just build more nuclear plants.
Michael Mantion
Thorium is very abundant. but then again so is uranium, especially all the spent fuel that could be reprocessed.
Eletruk
One of the promising things about Thorium reactors is that they can be built significantly smaller than current Uranium based reactors. It\'s possible that a town could purchase and install their own reactor rather than relying on grid power. There even is a proposal for a portable reactor designed for remote site power and heat generation. http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/05/thorenco-llc-presents-little-40-mw.html