/sci/ - Science & Math

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3609321]

Well /sci/, since Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) are commonly touted around here as the cure to the energy crisis, oil dependency, AIDS and homosexuality, I have decided to make a thread where you can post questions you'd like to ask one of the main proponents of Thorium energy, Kirk Sorensen.

Recently a friend of mine informed me that soon he will have an interview with Mr. Sorensen for his research project, and that he would appreciate any extra questions he could ask him.

So, the most relevant questions will be passed on to my friend to ask Kirk, and when he's done that I'll post the answers he gave to those questions later on.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3609349]

You sound more serious than usual. Is there something wrong?

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3609356]

>>3609349
>>3609321

Hey friends.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3609359]

>>3609349
Nothing wrong whatsoever, though I appreciate your concern CCM.

[Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q No.3609363]

>>3609359

No problem, you know I'll always look after you.

[Anonymous No.3609369]

Can't think of much that isn't wankery.

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3609394]

Bump 1/5

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3609453]

Bump 2/5

I'll be on later to bump to 3/5 if it isn't up on Page 0, assuming it hasn't 404'd

[resident /sci/ economist !!0CqB7P/574e No.3609468]

5 bumps? Thats a lot of bumps. I usually only give myself 1, maybe 2

3/5

[Anonymous No.3609492]

Since I am not intelligent, I would just ask how he plans to address the issues listed on the wikipedia page about thorium energy.

[Anonymous No.3609498]

I have a question, OP: I've read in a thread about thorium that it had many benefits, such as being much more efficient, abundant and environment friendly. Is all of this true? If so, why aren't we using Thorium right now?

[Anonymous No.3609531]

>>3609498
>more efficient, abundant and environment friendly
Read: more than uranium and/or fossil fuels

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3611990]

Bump 4/5

[Anonymous No.3612029]

>>3609321
>Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) are commonly touted around here as the cure to, AIDS and homosexuality

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3612037]

>>3612029

[Anonymous No.3612044]

>>3609531
you can't just stick thorium into a uranium power plant or so i'm told. also thorium, while more abundant, isn't all clustered up in the same place. it's spread out over everywhere.
>not really an expert, just somethings i've read

[Anonymous No.3612049]

What are the main remaining technical and economic obstacles to practical usage of LFTRs, and when can we expect first reactors online?
How current designs compare to american experimental reactors from the 60s?

IS THERE A CONSPIRACY AGAINST THORIUM POWER? WHY ARE WE NOT USING THEM RIGHT NOW?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3612056]

>>3612044
>you can't just stick thorium into a uranium power plant
For the usual light-water reactors you're right, but I've heard that modern CANDU reactors can use thorium. But the advantages of thorium only become apparent when used in a molten salt reactor. Here's a video on how it works.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

>also thorium, while more abundant, isn't all clustered up in the same place. it's spread out over everywhere.
Only about 0.6% of the uranium mined is the stuff they can use, U-235. Whereas I think all of Thorium found can be used in a MSR/LFTR. As for spread out everywhere, you're right, but there are areas of much higher concentration. You have to do a lot less mining in comparison with Thorium. I wrote an article on LFTRs recently if you'd like to flip through it.
Link as picture

[Anonymous No.3612061]

>>3612056

Yes. While thorium is more spread out, there is 4x more of it, its a byproduct of rare earths mining, and contrary to uranium, ALL thorium can be used in LFTR, whereas only 0.6% of uranium is usable isotope (which requires huge enrichment plants to separate).

[Anonymous No.3612064]

Tell him to inquire how small and light one could make the reactor.

[Anonymous No.3612065]

>>3612056
your link doesnt work. the file is empty

[Anonymous No.3612076]

Why are the chinese claiming it will take 20 years to develop the reactors, when we had experimental molten salt reactors running without issues in the 60s?

[Anonymous No.3612082]

>>3612076
Everybody who had hands on experience with them is either dead by now or would rather be dead than work with chinese.

[Anonymous No.3612086]

>>3612076
Cause it's the Chinese so if it will take them 20 years in their minds its gonna take everyone 20 years.

[Anonymous No.3612095]

>>3612049

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3612110]

>>3612065
Ffffffffffffffffuck. Pic related, new link

>>3612076
I remember reading the first experimental LFTRs will be online sometime next year. I may be mistaken though.

[Anonymous No.3612132]

>>3612110
oh... the link is case sensitive. wtf? that's prolly why no work

[Anonymous No.3612139]

oh god why post links in a picture?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3612141]

>>3612139
I'm not sure why but 4chan doesn't like links from that particular site. Perhaps previous spam issues?

['The Friend' No.3612143]

India is the other reactor up and running next year, although that uses Thorium as a solid fuel. Main reason we are not using it now is because in the 60's all Amerifags wanted was Nukes. Also, as soon as you mention the word 'nuclear', the general consensus is 'bad', even before reasoning

['The Friend' No.3612150]

Might not be able to post answers, thanks to ethics... And as this IS a school project...

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612159]

Also, this:
http://energyfromthorium.com/
And:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

This vid. is a basic intro

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612162]

Also (again) the problems on wikipedia primarily relate to Thorium as a solid fuel

[Anonymous No.3612168]

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612185]

>>3612168
5 weeks research, 1 image :(

[Anonymous No.3612188]

>>3612162

Why wont we make dedicated Molten Salt Fueled Reactors or LFTR page on Wikipedia? Many people cite disadvantages of only molten salt cooled or solid thorium fueled reactors when it comes to LFTR, because the page is messy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612205]

>>3612188
You are now in charge. Go.

[Anonymous No.3612212]

Ask him if he thinks he's downplaying risks or sugarcoating facts,w hen he tells people the fuel will be save after 300 years, when it will clearly contain still contain radioactive isotopes that have activities in the range of Gigabequerel, and will continue to do so for millions of years.
Or if it is honest to claim that it will only take a few years, when the most critical part of the whole thing, ie the separation of the breed fuel and fission products was literally never tried in practice, and will probably take a very long time to figure out and control decently.

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612221]

>>3612212
Indeed, if I have time

[Anonymous No.3612266]

>>3612212
Second

[Anonymous No.3612265]

>>3612212

So this is incorrect?

"Waste--In theory, LFTRs would produce far less waste along their entire process chain, from ore extraction to nuclear waste storage, than LWRs. A LFTR power plant would generate 4,000 times less mining waste (solids and liquids of similar character to those in uranium mining) and would generate 1,000 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste than an LWR. Additionally, because LFTR burns all of its nuclear fuel, the majority of the waste products (83%) are safe within 10 years, and the remaining waste products (17%) need to be stored in geological isolation for only about 300 years (compared to 10,000 years or more for LWR waste). Additionally, the LFTR can be used to "burn down" waste from an LWR (nearly the entirety of the United States' nuclear waste stockpile) into the standard waste products of an LFTR, so long-term storage of nuclear waste would no longer be needed."

Thorium and anything heavier will be recycled to their daughter products (from alpha decay), they will also never enter the waste stream. In the charts that identify the specific elements any Pb, Ra, Th, Pu, U, Np, Pu, Am, Cm will be vastly reduced (by a million fold). So what is left is the fission products - in particular 137Cs, 90Sr, 99Tc, and 129I. 137Cs and 90Sr have half-lives of 30 years and by 10 half-lives (300 years) the radioactivity from them is mostly gone. 99Tc has low level radioactivity for a very long time. However, the radiation from it is not energetic and is blocked by almost anything. 129I is produced in very small amounts but is still a concern because biological systems tend to concentrate it. It should definitely be isolated from the environment and we should study transmuting it.

[Anonymous No.3612273]

Why not start with fast breeders?
We have the tech and it still works with uranium, so no change to infrastructure here.

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612274]

>>3612265
Sounds about right.
Also, Inurades found this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/Inurdaes?feature=mhee#p/f/20/6-uxvSVIGtU
Tells a bit more

[Mike No.3612281]

I reckon we should just do it, whats been stopping us beofrehand anyway? Fuck, i mean sometimes we can be dumb. (stopping the apollo project, nuclear warfare, cutting SETI, possibly James Webb and new 2020 mission to the moon)

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3612286]

>>3612274
>posts my Youtube channel
Thanks man.

Meh, it was discovered by a few /sci/borgs beforehand, a few more won't hurt.

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612288]

>>3612281,
See: >>3612143

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612294]

>>3612273
It is happening:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
The article is 2 pages

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612413]

Bump?

[Anonymous No.3612450]

>>3612294

>mormon

Tell him he's retarded and he should feel bad.

[Anonymous No.3612481]

Why don't we drop nuclear waste at subduction zones?

[The Friend !hLSzjKn3pk No.3612494]

>>3612450
Thanks...

[Secure Tripcodes are for Jerks !!hCv7l+JC5Up No.3613527]

>>3612481

that's a good idea.. but most of them are pretty deep...you would have to take special precautions to make sure they got to the right spots......

[Anonymous No.3614925]

How much money does he need to restart the LFTR research of the 60s and develop a power plant design? $100M? $500M?

What are some of the leftover questions from the Oak Ridge research?

If you were allowed to start a LFTR research project today, what would be the first subproject? Which pieces of the current paper LFTR power plant designs carry the most technical risk?

What are the political obstacles to be overcome before LFTR research can begin? (I've heard that even if we had funding and a design ready to go, it would be impossible to gain approval to build it from the NRC because they don't grasp the technology. Sort of a catch-22.)

How are negotiations with the military proceeding?