|
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
 Posted - 04/23/2014 : 18:01:59
|
|
While no one source of information should never be considered sufficient, I would like to present this video here and hopefully Boron10 might have the time to view it and give a comment on the value of the "facts" presented and if this video is presenting the case as realistically and unbiased as possible based on the scientific facts available today.
|
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2014 : 08:46:36 [Permalink]
|
I took a look at several pages and associated sources.
It is a valid reactor and was first tested in the 1960's. However, it did not produce the Pu that the bomb makers were looking for.
It is a breeder reactor and poses a risk to violating the non-proliferation treaty. U-233 isn't as bad as Pu but is still bad.
It's also a reactor that has more maintanance issues. Such as, you have to feed it and remove waste products more often. (Although handling and availability of fuel is better compared to on line reactors.)
The major issue that one runs into is the EPA and the NRC. NRC hasn't approved a new reactor design is a very long time. The anti-nuclear forces have been adamant in trying to block NRC and EPA approval of new reactors.
Boron would be knowledgeable about reactors in general and shipboard reactors are (according to my research of nearly 30 years ago) Cobalt reactors.
I am quite curious to see what Boran has to say. There may be some disadvantages or additional risks with this reactor type. Otherwise, I would have thought to see them pushed by energy companies (as they are far cheaper to feed than traditional reactors). |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
 |
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/24/2014 : 11:15:33 [Permalink]
|
So I've heard a lot about Thorium reactors, but haven't had much reason to investigate them until now.
I'll get back to you with something more substantial later, but here are my initial thoughts:
Other than VD's comments about nonproliferation, there appears to be very little difference between a Thorium and a Uranium reactor.
I have only watched (so far) the first few minutes of the video, but it seems to confirm my above assertion.
Any fission-based reactor (as opposed to the currently impractical fusion-based reactors) will have radioactive byproducts and potential environmental concerns. The engineering solution proposed for this thorium reactor is only formally different (that is, not substantially different) from those currently in use in Uranium reactors, which are the vast majority in the world.
The speaker's criticism of Fukushima is unfounded, since the same arguments can be applied to his proposed Thorium reactor.
The physics looks sound, but it may take a little while to really understand the engineering. I'll keep looking. |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2014 : 00:02:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
The speaker's criticism of Fukushima is unfounded, since the same arguments can be applied to his proposed Thorium reactor.
|
I don't understand. During the first 5 minutes Fukushima was mentioned once at 1:00 to 1:17. Is that what your referencing? All he says about Fukushima was that all though they had multiple backup generators to keep the cooling water circulating, the tsunami took all out and the three cores melted down. The LFTR reactor he describes doesn't have them because they aren't needed. If I got that right. At 2 hours long I can understand you'll need some time. Anyway thanks for the look see and comment for now. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
sailingsoul
SFN Addict
2830 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2014 : 00:14:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
I took a look at several pages and associated sources.
It is a valid reactor and was first tested in the 1960's. However, it did not produce the Pu that the bomb makers were looking for.
It is a breeder reactor and poses a risk to violating the non-proliferation treaty. U-233 isn't as bad as Pu but is still bad.
It's also a reactor that has more maintanance issues. Such as, you have to feed it and remove waste products more often. (Although handling and availability of fuel is better compared to on line reactors.)
The major issue that one runs into is the EPA and the NRC. NRC hasn't approved a new reactor design is a very long time. The anti-nuclear forces have been adamant in trying to block NRC and EPA approval of new reactors.
Boron would be knowledgeable about reactors in general and shipboard reactors are (according to my research of nearly 30 years ago) Cobalt reactors.
I am quite curious to see what Boran has to say. There may be some disadvantages or additional risks with this reactor type. Otherwise, I would have thought to see them pushed by energy companies (as they are far cheaper to feed than traditional reactors).
|
Thanks for the comments. I know basically nothing on this. |
There are only two types of religious people, the deceivers and the deceived. SS |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 04/25/2014 : 08:44:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by sailingsoul
I don't understand. During the first 5 minutes Fukushima was mentioned once at 1:00 to 1:17. Is that what your referencing? |
Yes.| All he says about Fukushima was that all though they had multiple backup generators to keep the cooling water circulating, the tsunami took all out and the three cores melted down. |
That was somewhat disingenuous of him. A more honest assessment would have been to point out that two of the six cores melted down, and it is very likely that a third did, too.| The LFTR reactor he describes doesn't have them because they aren't needed. If I got that right. |
That does seem to be what he's saying, and it seems like a good idea; however, fission reactions burn hot. I assume he plans to use a molten salt for the coolant, similar to some solar plants. So his point that thorium is already a fluid at operation temperatures and pressures is similarly disingenuous. You still need to worry about containment, radioactivity, and cooling.| At 2 hours long I can understand you'll need some time. Anyway thanks for the look see and comment for now. |
Of course, this is very interesting!
Despite this guy's seemingly liberal interpretation of the truth (sadly necessary for any sales pitch, it seems), there might be great value in investigating this engineering. |
|
|
|
 |
|
LFTR Energy (Liquid-Floride-Thorium-Reactor)
