Grassroots Motorsports

Register Log in to GRM
- Community

Birthdays
Recently on the Classic Motorsports forums

Subscribe get a full year for only $23.95 Sample Free Test Drive—no strings attached

Login to post Forums » Off-topic discussion » Can Nuclear Power Be Saved - Thorium Reactors

March 21, 2011 6:33 p.m. aircooled SuperDork

An interesting possibility for nuclear power. Current events may have killed this off forever though. What they need is good marketing, they need to remove the words nuclear and reactor from any common description.

Quick cliff notes: Only reactive when bombarded. A mechanical based automatic shutdown system. Lots of available fuel. Spend fuel less dangerous, and can't be used to make bombs.

What's not to like.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html

Here is some more info:

http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_reactor/thorium_reactor_1.php
March 21, 2011 6:40 p.m. EastCoastMojo SuperDork

They are still referring to part of it as the Reactor Core, so I don't think it will fly.
March 21, 2011 6:52 p.m. Rob_Mopar HalfDork

Replace Reactor Core with Fluffy Nougat Center, and Shielding with Milk Chocolate Coating and you might be able to sell it.
March 21, 2011 7:20 p.m. madmallard Reader

to be fair, the reactor in Japan survived a quake that exceeded its design specification by ALOT. The core was completely intact when it automatically shut down afaik.

Thats impressive in my book. What cause the problem was the tsunami destroyed the coolant system.

The reactors being proposed in this day an age from what I'm told are being designed with a passive failsafe cooling cycle, no backup power needed.
March 21, 2011 8:04 p.m. aussiesmg SuperDork

Actually there would have been no issue of the wiring was on the third floor instead of in the basement. the tsunami waters flooded the basement shorting the pump electronics.

And still nobody has even got sick, like 3 Mile Island. Helps the media sell advertising and that's about it.
March 21, 2011 8:40 p.m. aircooled SuperDork

The current nuclear situation is bit of irony (or a bit of a conspiracy if you go that way).

The current reactors in the US are so old they are inherently less safe then they could be, but the reason the are like that is because the people that fear nuclear power won't allow new ones to be build because they are unsafe!

Oh and one more thing I read (before someone blames a certain someone) about the current state nuclear plant development. One of the primary reason why new reactors aren't being built, despite an easier regulating process, is that there is currently a surplus of electrical generation (probably mostly because of the economic situation) so there is no demand.
March 21, 2011 9:57 p.m. townsend7 Reader

Rob_Mopar wrote:

Replace Reactor Core with Fluffy Nougat Center, and Shielding with Milk Chocolate Coating and you might be able to sell it.

Mmmmmmmmm nuclear candy. /Homer
March 21, 2011 10:41 p.m. imirk Reader

If we ever want to use more energy than the sun sends(or has sent) to our planet we need to go nuke, anything other than Fusion/Fission is solar energy.
March 22, 2011 8:38 a.m. T.J. SuperDork

link

I'd like to see the TerraPower Traveling Wave Reactor come to fruition. It uses depleted Uranium as fuel.
March 22, 2011 8:46 a.m. Giant Purple Snorklewacker SuperDork

Rob_Mopar wrote:

Replace Reactor Core with Fluffy Nougat Center, and Shielding with Milk Chocolate Coating and you might be able to sell it.

Something with cute and fuzzy bunnies might work as well.
March 22, 2011 11:40 a.m. tuna55 Dork

Giant Purple Snorklewacker wrote:

Rob_Mopar wrote:

Replace Reactor Core with Fluffy Nougat Center, and Shielding with Milk Chocolate Coating and you might be able to sell it.

Something with cute and fuzzy bunnies might work as well.

So we burn the cute and fuzzy bunnies for fuel? Does that mean some sort of a steam turbine as well?
March 22, 2011 12:11 p.m. aircooled SuperDork

tuna55 wrote:

So we burn the cute and fuzzy bunnies for fuel?......

Yes, it has been done:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/rabbits-burned-fuel-sweden/story?id=8824540
March 22, 2011 12:18 p.m. ransom Reader

imirk wrote: If we ever want to use more energy than the sun sends(or has sent) to our planet we need to go nuke, anything other than Fusion/Fission is solar energy.

Two items:

A) The sun sends a lot of energy to the Earth. Using it is the tricky part.

B) What about Geothermal energy?
March 22, 2011 12:51 p.m. fast_eddie_72 HalfDork

Really sucks that the Japan thing happened just when I thought there might be hope for Nuclear. Not holding my breath now.

There is solar technology that could be great and could get the job done - space based cells and micorwave transmission Earth - space elevator for cerws, etc. But the cost is so far off the chart and the technology that would need to be developed so massive I don't think I'll live to see anything like it.
March 22, 2011 1:04 p.m. aircooled SuperDork

ransom wrote:

B) What about Geothermal energy?

That would be big bang energy (or god energy, depending on which way you go on that) that is left over from the creation of the planet.
March 22, 2011 2:28 p.m. Teh E36 M3 HalfDork

The idea of decentralizing power generation with smaller nuke reactors like that are very intriguing to me. Not quite big enough to cause widespread damage if attacked, hard to attack because (at least the ones I read about) they are underground, stabilizes and terror/natural disaster-proofs the grid. Cool stuff. Combined with solar panels on our roofs, this could be the future.
March 22, 2011 2:40 p.m. ransom Reader

aircooled wrote:
ransom wrote: B) What about Geothermal energy?
That would be big bang energy (or god energy, depending on which way you go on that) that is left over from the creation of the planet.

Perzackly. I was pointing it out in response to imirk's assertion that everything that isn't nuclear is essentially solar.
March 22, 2011 3:07 p.m. imirk Reader

The engineer in me wants to calculate how much energy is stored in the earth's core as heat. but I think we can agree that removing a significant amount of heat without returning any is a poor idea, and any we return comes from the sun.
March 22, 2011 6:18 p.m. mad_machine SuperDork

I see nothing wrong with the newest generation of nuke generators.. but like above.. they are caught in a nice catch-22.

around here the local gas company is investing in solar fields
March 22, 2011 7:11 p.m. killerkane Reader

Nuclear reactors take about 6 years to build, they only have an effective lifetime of 25 years, after that they are too outdated to be safe, though technically they can be run about 40 years. Less than ideal. It takes decades to recoup the intitial cost of building the plant.

I think the Japan incident, 3 Mile Island, and Chernobyl are good examples of how safe nuclear power really is.
March 22, 2011 7:52 p.m. tuna55 Dork

killerkane wrote:

Nuclear reactors take about 6 years to build, they only have an effective lifetime of 25 years, after that they are too outdated to be safe, though technically they can be run about 40 years. Less than ideal. It takes decades to recoup the intitial cost of building the plant.

I think the Japan incident, 3 Mile Island, and Chernobyl are good examples of how safe nuclear power really is.

46:1 in deaths in nuclear accidents vs wind power accidents... except that wind accidents kill 46 for every 1 killed in nuclear... oops.
March 22, 2011 8:01 p.m. Jamesc2123 Reader

killerkane wrote:

Nuclear reactors take about 6 years to build, they only have an effective lifetime of 25 years, after that they are too outdated to be safe, though technically they can be run about 40 years. Less than ideal. It takes decades to recoup the intitial cost of building the plant.

I think the Japan incident, 3 Mile Island, and Chernobyl are good examples of how safe nuclear power really is.

Remember that mine explosion in WV a few years ago? What about the one before that, and the one before that, and the....

Here, this link shows that deaths per Terawatt Hour for each type of energy we use, and coal and oil DWARF nuclear for people it kills. Its really not even close.

I would love for us to get all our energy from truly renewable sources, I really do, but the fact is that we cannot possibly afford to do so for a while. How long? Well, 25-40 years seems like enough time to make the transition, and I know just the source!
March 22, 2011 8:12 p.m. Toyman01 SuperDork

Here are a couple of good reads.

WSJ Nuclear Overreactions A pretty good article on the screwed up media.

Idaho State U RISKS OF NUCLEAR POWER A paper by a physics professor on deaths caused by man made radiation exposure.

Idaho State The Radiation Information Network Lots of information on nuclear radiation.

You'll need to log in to post.