Thorium Nuclear Reactors could be a cheap future source of energy

[Still_Small_Voice]

I have been studying Thorium. There is so much potential in this power source. We have a plentiful source of Thorium in the United States. Uranium nuclear reactors are much harder to run and far more dangerous than Thorium nuclear reactors.

Thorium reactors could produce energy that could be cheaper than coal power plants and produce zero air emissions. These power plants produce about 3% of the waste of a nuclear light water reactor of the same power and much of this "waste" can be extracted and sold within 10 years. Moreover, this waste need only be contained from the environment for 300 years, a far less daunting task than the 300,000 years required for todays nuclear waste.

Watch this video with Kirk Sorensen explaining Thorium and it's future potential and visit the below website:

The Energy From Thorium Foundation Thorium » The Energy From Thorium Foundation

[Irishcolleen]

The town adjacent to us had a company, Kerr McGee, that dumped thorium. The thorium contaminated soil was used for fill around home foundations. there were clusters of aplastic anemia and blood/lymphatic cancers around the site. Several decades later we are still dealing with the effects. The EPA has had to "remake" the river running through several towns because of the spread of the thorium laced soil. The water is diverted into pipes and the river bed is scraped to remove contaminated soil and rocks. Many homes have had to be lifted off the foundation to remove the soil.

I am a supporter of nuclear power, but there needs to be a way to ensure the providers are meticulous about safety and to make sure they have good integrity.

[Still_Small_Voice]

That is horrible Irish Colleen. The Thorium waste does need to be handled properly to insure incidents like this do not happen. I hope the company was sued and destroyed for doing this irresponsible damage.

[Irishcolleen]

That is horrible Irish Colleen. The Thorium waste does need to be handled properly to insure incidents like this do not happen. I hope the company was sued and destroyed for doing this irresponsible damage.

They will never be able to pay all the costs. There have been many law suits. I miss how pretty our river used to be. The worst part is that they used soil they knew was contaminated for fill around the houses.

There are some companies that are responsible. I have a friend who is an engineer at a power company. She is involved in decommissioning old nuclear plants. She has helped me understand real vs. perceived risks of nuclear power. It is a clean, efficient way to provide electricity. It just needs to done in a responsible way.

People know so much more than they did before about radiation. I collect glass and one of my favorite pieces is a green water bottle that glows under a black light because uranium is embedded in the glass. We would never think of putting uranium in food storage items now, but it was common in the 1930-1950's. My friend the engineer says the glass is stable enough to be in the house, but I'm not going to serve water in it!

[Still_Small_Voice]

One point also the video did not make is Uranium has to go through quite the painstaking refinement process to be used in a nuclear reactor. Thorium does not have to go through very much refinement as Uranium to be used to generate power.

[Vort]

The hold-up for thorium fission reactors has nothing to do with technical points and everything to do with politics. Good luck getting past that roadblock.

[Still_Small_Voice]

I wanted to spread information about Thorium. Knowledge is power. If enough people know about it something could get done in the future.

[Vort]

I agree with you. I am perhaps a tiny little eensy weensy bit cynical about this topic, along with others that are purely politically controlled. Forgive me. I fight against my inner cynic on a daily basis.

[Traveler]

I agree with you. I am perhaps a tiny little eensy weensy bit cynical about this topic, along with others that are purely politically controlled. Forgive me. I fight against my inner cynic on a daily basis.

I am cynical of technology as well as invisible politics blocking something from going into production when there is no working example. Think cold fusion. I realize that things can look good on paper but I am thinking there are some reasons more than politics preventing a working prototype.

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

Norway is running working a Thorium nuclear reactor now. Read the below article:

Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins, could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy | ExtremeTech

[Vort]

I am cynical of technology as well as invisible politics blocking something from going into production when there is no working example. Think cold fusion. I realize that things can look good on paper but I am thinking there are some reasons more than politics preventing a working prototype.

Two things:

1. Thorium fission is nothing at all like "cold fusion". Thorium fission works. It is a demonstrated technology. It is only a blind (read: stupid, politically motivated) commitment to solid-fuel, transuranic-producing, dangerous light-water uranium reactors that prevents moving forward on the thorium front. (1.1 For all their stupidity, such light-water reactors are an order of magnitude safer and several orders of magnitude less polluting than any "fossil fuel" reactor, especially coal.)

2. "Cold fusion" was certainly not fusion, but may have been a real phenomenon. Rather than being an example of a strong nuclear force energy release (fusion), it may well have been an example of an electroweak force energy release. The theory is that ultrahigh resonance, on the order of terahertz, forced hydrogen from the water into the palladium matrix enough that the hydrogen atom (proton + electron) becomes a neutron. (This actually requires an antineutrino as well, but whatever.) This neutron then joins a palladium atom, and the new palladium isotope, being unstable, decays through "beta decay" into the next-heavier element -- in this case, silver. And with that decay comes energy release.

If this reaction proved to be true, you could turn palladium into silver and release enormous energy doing it. You could also turn platinum into gold, which is a bit like turning wine into water, but the energy you would get would be well worth the difference. OR -- you could turn nickel into copper. How amazingly cool would that be? Turn common nickel into harder-to-find copper, and get scads of energy in the process!

[Traveler]

Two things:

1. Thorium fission is nothing at all like "cold fusion". Thorium fission works. It is a demonstrated technology. It is only a blind (read: stupid, politically motivated) commitment to solid-fuel, transuranic-producing, dangerous light-water uranium reactors that prevents moving forward on the thorium front. (1.1 For all their stupidity, such light-water reactors are an order of magnitude safer and several orders of magnitude less polluting than any "fossil fuel" reactor, especially coal.)

2. "Cold fusion" was certainly not fusion, but may have been a real phenomenon. Rather than being an example of a strong nuclear force energy release (fusion), it may well have been an example of an electroweak force energy release. The theory is that ultrahigh resonance, on the order of terahertz, forced hydrogen from the water into the palladium matrix enough that the hydrogen atom (proton + electron) becomes a neutron. (This actually requires an antineutrino as well, but whatever.) This neutron then joins a palladium atom, and the new palladium isotope, being unstable, decays through "beta decay" into the next-heavier element -- in this case, silver. And with that decay comes energy release.

If this reaction proved to be true, you could turn palladium into silver and release enormous energy doing it. You could also turn platinum into gold, which is a bit like turning wine into water, but the energy you would get would be well worth the difference. OR -- you could turn nickel into copper. How amazingly cool would that be? Turn common nickel into harder-to-find copper, and get scads of energy in the process!

In the early 70's I was involved in a research project for sustainable nuclear fusion reaction at BYU using a magnetic containment model similar to a donut - we also added high energy lasers to the mix. It worked on paper and we were sure we were within 10 years of creating a new energy source - but it did not work out - obviously .

I was also involved with Roger Billings (also at BYU) in converting several gasoline engines (lawn mower, cars and buses) to Hydrogen. Roger solved 99% of hydrogen problems by using a metal hydride. He has been somewhat successful but the costs of his fuel and fuel distribution has been prohibitive (along with a few other issues).

I am also aware that the use of carbon nano-tubes in solar panels will triple their efficiency but no one has figured out how to mass produce nano-tubes. This little fact is devastating the solar panel industry because investors are hesitant to invest in other solar technology that is already greatly obsolete fearing a breakthrough with nano-tubes would destroy their ROI (return on investment).

I have also been involved is several government projects that did not turn out as planned and have ended up abandoned. Strangely one military project worked out so well that President Carter canceled it within a week of the initial test and demonstration.

In short - I have learned in life that nothing actually works until it is completely tested. Not that it won't or cannot work - just that it will not happen and work out until it is tested. In fact so much has this colored my understanding that in scripture in talking about the creation where it says "and G-d saw that it was good" is just the scripture way of saying G-d tested his creations before releasing his efforts for use.

The Traveler

[Vort]

In short - I have learned in life that nothing actually works until it is completely tested.

True enough, but you seem not to realize (or to be ignoring) the central fact: Thorium fission IS tested. They built a thorium (solid-fuel) reactor and ran it for years. Turned it off over the weekend and then fired it up on Monday. Try THAT with a uranium reactor.

There is plenty of basic testing and development yet to be done, but the prototyping and proof-of-concept was all completed more than forty years ago.

[Traveler]

True enough, but you seem not to realize (or to be ignoring) the central fact: Thorium fission IS tested. They built a thorium (solid-fuel) reactor and ran it for years. Turned it off over the weekend and then fired it up on Monday. Try THAT with a uranium reactor.

There is plenty of basic testing and development yet to be done, but the prototyping and proof-of-concept was all completed more than forty years ago.

I saw some initial (sometimes called pretesting) has been done and seems promising but I have not seen any functional testing. Though it appears some functional testing is planned in the near future.

This does look interesting - especially for transportation and possibly the first nuclear power high altitude aircraft.

I also read some interesting spin off possibilities for this technology to create hydrogen for example. If this is applied to sea water with levels of H3 – it will produce hydrogen for such things as cars or to heat homes and other things with pure water as a byproduct. This water could be used to turn dessert (such as the Sahara) into large scale hydroponic gardening significantly increasing the world food supply.

The Traveler

[Still_Small_Voice]

Many people do not realize the effect Thorium nuclear reactors will have. It is a cheap energy source which could really boost the American economy. I find it pathetic that many entrenched powers are really resistant to this because it hits their wallets. This has the potential to affect everyone's lives in the United States and the world.

Norway will likely be successful in their efforts for Thorium power generation. India is also experimenting with Thorium but they are very far behind Norway.

[Vort]

Norway is fiddling with augmenting existing solid-fuel light-water reactors with thorium. Very incremental improvement, at best. Nothing to write home about, and certainly nothing resembling the ideal of low-pressure, high-temp molten salt thorium fission reactors. India, on the other hand, is going for the real thing. Their problem is that their bureaucracy will surely defeat their efforts. China is the only country doing real development that has a chance of making it work. Hope they do.

[yjacket]

Kirk!!! No way. He was one of my good friends before I went on my mission. Lost contact with him. I always wondered what happened to him.

[Blackmarch]

I have been studying Thorium. There is so much potential in this power source. We have a plentiful source of Thorium in the United States. Uranium nuclear reactors are much harder to run and far more dangerous than Thorium nuclear reactors.

Thorium reactors could produce energy that could be cheaper than coal power plants and produce zero air emissions. These power plants produce about 3% of the waste of a nuclear light water reactor of the same power and much of this "waste" can be extracted and sold within 10 years. Moreover, this waste need only be contained from the environment for 300 years, a far less daunting task than the 300,000 years required for todays nuclear waste.

Watch this video with Kirk Sorensen explaining Thorium and it's future potential and visit the below website:

The Energy From Thorium Foundation Thorium » The Energy From Thorium Foundation

If I recall right the main reason the US has not switched over to more efficient nuclear power plants is the increased opportunity/risk of more powerful nuclear weapon grade material in the system.

Personally I think the US should switch to breeder reactors, I think the reduction in waste material having to just be stored doing nothing would make up for it.

maybe it may be for similar reasons for thorium reactors... that and the huge costs that nuclear plants require at the outset are also pretty daunting.

[Vort]

If I recall right the main reason the US has not switched over to more efficient nuclear power plants is the increased opportunity/risk of more powerful nuclear weapon grade material in the system.

Personally I think the US should switch to breeder reactors, I think the reduction in waste material having to just be stored doing nothing would make up for it.

maybe it may be for similar reasons for thorium reactors... that and the huge costs that nuclear plants require at the outset are also pretty daunting.

A low-pressure, high-temp thorium reactor would produce far less weaponizable material than a light-water nuke. You could use it for such purposes, but it wouldn't be a trivial thing.

And a "thorium reactor" is by definition a breeder reactor, since thorium itself is unfissionable. Uranium/plutonium breeder reactors are designed specifically to produce weapons-grade plutonium (i.e. Pu-239 rather than Pu-238).

[Traveler]

A low-pressure, high-temp thorium reactor would produce far less weaponizable material than a light-water nuke. You could use it for such purposes, but it wouldn't be a trivial thing.

And a "thorium reactor" is by definition a breeder reactor, since thorium itself is unfissionable. Uranium/plutonium breeder reactors are designed specifically to produce weapons-grade plutonium (i.e. Pu-239 rather than Pu-238).

Actually there is a lot of weaponizable material created - but it is my understanding that the material begins to degrade within a single month which makes the use of the material beyond that date - unstable.

I have a close friend that works for Utah Power and Light - trust me if there was known RIO for a thorium reactor it would be happening already. The current risks and costs of transmission of high power electrical lines cuts a great deal into profits. Utilities are heavily regulated for cost as well as other things. Hydro-electrical plants are difficult to beat for costs and coal fired steam is the next cheapest which is a backup to every other system - especially solar, geothermal and wind.

I also have a friend in the gas refinery business. They are investing millions each year to alternative energy sources - trust me on this. It is not politics that is preventing mass profits in thorium somewhere in the world.

The Traveler