Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years
source: http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-...
-
-
- pjacobs51
- added this
Thorium, named for the Norse god of thunder, is much more abundant than uranium and has 200 times that metal's energy potential. Thorium is also a more efficient fuel source -- unlike natural uranium, which must be highly refined before it can be used in nuclear reactors, all thorium is potentially usable as fuel.
The Telegraph says thorium could be used as an energy amplifier in next-generation nuclear power plants, an idea conceived by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, former director of CERN.
Known as an accelerator-driven system, it would use a particle accelerator to produce a proton beam and aim it at lump of heavy metal, producing excess neutrons. Thorium is a good choice because it has a high neutron yield per neutron absorbed.
Thorium nuclei would absorb the excess neutrons, resulting in uranium-233, a fissile isotope that is not found in nature. Moderated neutrons would produce fissioned U-233, which releases enough energy to power the particle accelerator, plus an excess that can drive a power plant. Rubbia says a fistful of thorium could light up London for a week.
The idea needs refining, but is so promising that at least one private firm is getting involved. The Norwegian firm Aker Solutions bought Rubbia's patent for this thorium fuel cycle, and is working on his design for a proton accelerator.
The Telegraph says this $1.8 billion (£1.2 billion) project could lead to a network of tiny underground nuclear reactors, producing about 600 MW each. Their wee size would negate the enormous security apparatus required of full-size nuclear power plants.
After a three-decade lull, nuclear power is enjoying a slow renaissance in the U.S. The 2005 energy bill included $2 billion for six new nuclear power plants, and this past February, Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants.
But nuclear plants need fuel, which means building controversial uranium mines. Thorium, on the other hand, is so abundant that it's almost an annoyance. It's considered a waste product when mining for rare-earth metals.
Thorium also solves the non-proliferation problem. Nuclear non-proliferation treaties (NPT) prohibit processes that can yield atomic bomb ingredients, making it difficult to refine highly radioactive isotopes. But thorium-based accelerator-driven plants only produce a small amount of plutonium, which could allow the U.S. and other nations to skirt NPT.
The Telegraph says Obama needs a Roosevelt moment, recalling the famous breakfast meeting when Albert Einstein convinced the president to start the Manhattan Project. A thorium stimulus could be just what the lagging economy needs.
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-wor...
-
- groups:
- Community, News and Politics, Green, Current Tonight, 5 more
-
-
Wetdog
-
Thorium can not work as a nuclear fuel without the addition of uranium---it does not contain enough fissile material.
Bombarding Thorium with neutrons causes some of it to capture neutrons and transmutate into Uranium 233---which then becomes the fuel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
It does appear to me that thorium reactors would produce less long lived waste than a straight uranium reactor.
However, I fail to see the great advantage in reactors that produce waste that will fry you to a crispy critter for only 20,000 years over reactors that produce waste that will fry you to a crispy critter for 200,000 years.
Either way, you are still fried.
- 1 year ago
-
Wetdog
-
-
Elevator
-
This article was brought to you by the Thorium Miners Association.
- 1 year ago
-
Elevator
-
-
kennymotown
-
We are in luck! I have found several maps of thorium mines and where to find them.
http://www.thenoobschool.com/worldofwarcraft/wow-thorium-mining-guide - 1 year ago
-
kennymotown
-
-
toyotabedzrock
-
1. Solar power is already cheaper.
2. Thorium can be used for dirty bombs.
3. It is counter intuitive to believe that many small plants would be easier to secure. You have to hire addition personnel which means unwanted people are more likely to slip threw and get a job. It is multiplying the risks.
4. This tech will require years before its ready to be tested.The only good part is that the US is running short on rare earth metals because all of our deposits are mixed with radioactive material. We have no rare earth mines.
http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/08/use-of-rare-earth-metals-outstrippin...
- 1 year ago
-
toyotabedzrock
-
-
shpilk
-
The article does not address cost, safety and proliferation issues properly. To consider and understand the full potential impact of thorium based power, please see this article.
http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf
To read the press hype about small scale thorium based reactors, one would think this was 'just discovered'. It's been a known technology from the early in the Atomic Age. There are serious safety and cost issues involved with this process, and countries like India have been working on [unsuccessfully] a commercially viable plan for many decades.
Thorium 232 is extremely hazardous to human health, many times more so than uranium, and Thorium 233 can be used to create fission bombs.
It would be nice to think some new magical technological solution will allow us to continue our wasteful habits. Thorium based reactors are probably not going to be it. Security/safety is tough enough with the roughly 400 working nuclear reactors in the US [commercial, educational/research, military]; I can't begin to imagine the problems and costs we'd see with thousands or tens of thousands of them.
- 1 year ago
-
shpilk
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
sweet!
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
-
-
Teomat
-
This is awesome! Although I doubt anyone would use thorium on a large enough scale. They will probably start using it when it's too late.
- 1 year ago
-
Teomat
-
-
JanforGore
-
Unfortunately I think it is going to take Peak Oil to wean people off it. And this source doesn't pollute water and landscapes? Why do we have to keep mining when the sun is right above us?
- 1 year ago
-
JanforGore
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
JanforGore:
so close, yet so far away
it seems like in our society if you ever bring up solar energy you're some commie hippie
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
-
-
MizPiz
-
So nuclear energy with a metal that's more efficient than uranium... I can dig it.
- 1 year ago
-
MizPiz
-
-
NiceN
-
Whatever you got to get off the oil is good with me.
- 1 year ago
-
NiceN
-
-
EmperorThan
-
Good post.
- 1 year ago
-
EmperorThan
-
-
Gravity_Man
-
Virginia has lots of uranium so if Thorium is found near uranium then I imagine they'll kill all of us in the western part of the Commonwealth }hahaha} to supply the eastern and Richmond-Prince George areas with the monies they need to finish building their Space Port on the coast.
The Space Port. For the Rich People.
- 1 year ago
-
Gravity_Man
-
-
wellhunggimp
-
Science is cool.
- 1 year ago
-
wellhunggimp
-
-
Elevator
-
So you could run cars on it?
- 1 year ago
-
Elevator
-
-
Username6555
-
Elevator:
we could use the reactors to make electricity then use that to power cars. So yea
- 1 year ago
-
Username6555
-
-
Elevator
-
Username6555:
Batteries do not have the storage capacity to replace gasoline
- 1 year ago
-
Elevator
-
-
donkeyfly69
-
Elevator:
says who? the gas company?
- 1 year ago
-
donkeyfly69
