Long term test of Thorium-Plutonium fuel started

Excellent. It doesn't solve any of the problems with costs of new nuclear plants, since fuel cost is such a minor consideration, but if it works it will definitely help with the spent fuel pollution problem.

 

Waste-free? Nuclear? Oh, be serious.

 

lol. It said almost waste free

Think France, China, India that are going to build these things anyway. If they can be made safer and produce less waste its a good thing.

Anouther thorium related stories
Thorium reactors could soon power Indonesia, Chile | SmartPlanet

 

World Reserves:
Uranium: 5,404,000 tonnes.
Thorium: 1,913,000 tonnes.
[source: Wikipedia]

 

Very interesting and exciting, thanks for sharing.

DBCassidy

 

I am not in favor in new nuclear power plants in the US, but if new plants are being built we should understand thorium. The first is it takes a lot less thorium to produce power than uranium.


The Thing About Thorium: Why The Better Nuclear Fuel May Not Get A Chance - Forbes

 

Nuclear power is needed to help curb GHG and the increasing electrical demands of the world.

DBCassidy

 

I still think if nuclear's the answer, we're asking the wrong questions.

 

...you sold me on Thorium, but then we blended 10% Plutonium in there. That's when you lost me.

Also I was a little upset to learn recently that the US idea of a small modular reactor is 250-300 MW...gee I would call that a medium-to-large size modular reactor. It not utility size (mega-humongous) but still big...

 

anyone who has looked up to the top of a huge mountain of coal ash (prior to it washing down into your property) can appreciate anything less foul that the mountain they're staring at



but hey - the industry says it's no big deal ... so I'll just trust them, too. Safe? we'll see.

.

 

What does that have to do with my comment?

 

When this came up in 2011, I wrote:

"World resources of Thorium: 6 million tons (US resources 440,000 tons)
Energy available: 3.6 Billion kWh / ton
Total energy: 2.1 x 10^16 kWh
World energy usage (2008): 1.3 x 10^14 kWh/ year
is 164 years (at today's usage rates. ha!)
at a 2.2% growth rate it should last until 2077."

The usual caveats apply.

 

I hope your not suggesting that we tear down all our wind turbines, solar panels, and natural gas ccgt plants and build thorium reactors. When people try to say we shouldn't build solar because if we needed to be 100% it would take up too much land. The same faulty reasoning is here. What is you use 20% thorium instead for the next 100 years, how much would be used up until hopefully fusion power plants or other technology becomes viable.

From the Forbes article I linked, many more uranium powered nuclear plants are being built today. They may be safer and less polluting if they were one of the thorium technologies, especially molton salt. If they get built as uranium light water reactors though, this tech may allow them to reduce plutonium pollution by using thorium/plutonium fuel that is consumed. I am not for all the new nuclear plants going up in china and india, but they are going to be built, and this technology may make them less polluting.

There are many remote places where there is not good wind or sun and no natural gas pipelines. That leaves the choice to mainly diesel, coal, or nuclear. none of these are good, but I linked an article about small modular thorium possibly being used here. We will run out of oil and coal before we run out of thorium, and small coal plants produce a great deal of pollution. If small thorum reactors can be built safely, without costs a huge amount more per kwh than oil or coal, these may be better choices.

 

I would rather have gen-4 nuclear plants dotting the landscape than the big coal and natural gas ones that are most common around here now.

 

If we're going to put choices on the table, I'd like to suggest geothermal. It's independent of weather, emission-free, limitless, and has a very long payback period.

 

And do you think it is cost competitive everywhere? For these remote sites geothermal is not really an option. Even in California where it is plentiful and relatively inexpensive, the state imports more coal power than it has built geothermal. If geothermal is there, and people have the money, sure, I agree. I even had an energy conversation with a company trying to set up geothermal in alaska, where it may be viable.

The small thorium reactor that might be piloted in Kalimantan, Indonesia, in the article I linked. A large part of the island is a protected rain forest, . Unlike more heavily populated java there is little risk of an earthquake. The indonesian government is not rich like the US. Should they be forced to choose fossil fuel plants that may hurt the rain forests some other scheme. It seems like a good plan for them. Also using small modular thorium means that there won't be a question of them attempting to build a bomb. Do you think the US and/or Canada should dictate to the Indoneasians they need to pay for green power, when neither government is shutting down coal quickly?

 

Not everywhere, no. Hydroelectric doesn't work everywhere, either, but it's a vital part of the mix. For the portion of the world's population that lives near the 'ring of fire', geothermal sounds like a viable option.

Didn't you just say an option didn't have to be 100% to be viable? Let's have some consistency here.