/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4354098]

Here is the deal /sci/

My father is a congressman in my country, and he is part of an energetic committee that has the aim of reaching energy independence for our country in the long term.

So far, our country is a prime candidate for geothermal and solar energy, but those two in their current state aren't enough.

I've heard /sci/ tout the greatness of thorium reactors and the lack of development it suffers, so I offer to forward all relevant info posted here to my father, in hopes it manages to reach approval.

PS: Environmental impact is a big factor as well, so any hard data on that will be highly appreciated.

What say you?

[Anonymous No.4354105]

Bump regardless of troll possibility

[Anonymous No.4354142]

I know troll posts are common occurrence here, but I'm being honest.

Any and all information would be really useful.

[Anonymous No.4354152]

Everything /sci/ is going to tell you will be copy/paste from wikipeida, anyway. You should start there.

[Anonymous No.4354162]

is throium really an actual alternative?

I always thought they were troll threads.

[Anonymous No.4354180]

Clue: One Congressman isn't going to overcome the UMIC (Uranium Military-Industrial Complex). It would have to take a significant Congressional minority at least, to start making a dent in it. You know what the chance is of forming that? ZERO. It's the difference between [0.999...] and [1.000...], guy.

[Anonymous No.4354190]

>>4354180

OP here.

I'm not from the USA.

[Anonymous No.4354191]

>>4354098

Read the advantages of the reactor mentioned in this wiki article:

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

Mention the fact that there is enough thorium to satisfy all energy (not just electricity) needs of humanity for centuries at least, probably even millenia. 10000 tons is enough to supply humanity for a year, and thorium is as common as lead.

Include some info from here:

energyfromthorium.com

http://energyfromthorium.com/plan/

Mention that the Chinese are working on it.

[Anonymous No.4354194]

>>4354180

Are you fucking trying to get mathgenius to talk about politics now?

I fucking hate you.

[Anonymous No.4354243]

[Anonymous No.4354249]

[Anonymous No.4354252]

[Anonymous No.4354256]

[Anonymous No.4354267]

[Anonymous No.4354271]

[Anonymous No.4354278]

>>4354191
>>4354243
>>4354249
>>4354252
>>4354256

Thank you.

This is what I needed.

Keep it coming.

[Anonymous No.4354283]

[Anonymous No.4354292]

[Anonymous No.4354298]

>>4354194

The facts of Thorium's validity as a power source are not in any real dispute. What's left is politics.

Uranium's usefulness in weapons is what dominates the discussion, no matter what you say to the politicians. Uranium trumps Thorium on that basis, therefore it must trump Thorium for power production.

Thorium development can only advance in a First World nation that doesn't have a fucking HARD ON for nuclear weapons. That's a rare beast indeed. Thorium's potential for cheap, long-lasting and fairly clean nuclear power should have ALREADY caused much of the world to flock to it as a power source. And yet there's almost ZERO interest in it. Arguably there's a lot more interest in and funding for fusion, but that's just a boondoggle.

[Anonymous No.4354302]

[Anonymous No.4354314]

[Anonymous No.4354335]

>>4354298

then, the only hope lies in planting the seed in a developing country.

[Anonymous No.4354346]

Hey OP, what country are you from?

[Anonymous No.4354364]

>>4354298

Weapon production was indeed one of the factors that helped to entrench the current uranium paradigm, but I dont think it is keeping us from developing thorium power today. Weapon production and power production are not much related except common descent from uranium nuclear.

The main factor responsible for current slow progress is simple - there is no pressing need. We have fossil fuels ad conventional nuclear covering our energy demand well for now, people dont really care about emmisions that much, and contrary to renewables, any nuclear has negative image in public.
So in the end, little gets done, despite all the potential and advantages.

[Anonymous No.4354384]

>>4354346

Not a first world country, but we're doing surprisingly well.

And as I said, this is a long term R&D funding program, so any results would take decades.

[Anonymous No.4354394]

[Anonymous No.4354419]

>>4354335

But countries in development are complete shitholes...

[Anonymous No.4354472]

>>4354419

and developed countries are completely gripped by the idea of having a nuclear arsenal.

it's a catch 22.

[Anonymous No.4354478]

>>4354472

No it isn't. It's just the principle of power. Suck it.

[Anonymous No.4354496]

>>4354478

>implying complete energetic independence would not give a country way more power than a nuclear arsenal ever could.

Gentlemen, the reason the world is like it is, right here.

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.4354497]

>>4354180
Why are you angry at Uranium based reactors, which are safe, proven and work over long periods without producing toxic gasses?

[Anonymous No.4354506]

>>4354497

We're not angry.

It's just that Thorium is the most optimal solution.

[Anonymous No.4354520]

>>4354497

No they're not.

Americium, a by product (just one of them). It's poisonous and radioactive. You would better know it as the element in your smoke detectors. That's right, it'll kill yo ass. We have stockpiles of by-products we don't want or can't use because of U.

[Anonymous No.4354523]

>>4354298
>Thorium development can only advance in a First World nation that doesn't have a fucking HARD ON for nuclear weapons.
Why didn't japan develop it ?

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.4354573]

>>4354523
Because it requires an entirely new chain of research, and changes out one element for another, liquid fluoride reactors have inherent... issues which is why they aren't used in say Submarine sources.
>>4354520
Its a minor issue we could trivially dispose of it in Yucca if we were allowed (and even with the ways laws are written, all radioactive waste is treated equally, so waste is waste)

[Anonymous No.4354595]

>>4354573

250 metric tons of fuel against one.

and the new fuel is monumentally more cheap/abundant.

that is a pretty strong argument.

[Anonymous No.4354618]

>>4354346

Chile.

[Anonymous No.4354724]

>implying Thorium reactors aren't a sham that trolls use on /sci/.

poor naive fools.

[Anonymous No.4354750]

>>4354523
> Why didn't japan develop it ?

WWII loser status. Their military may be restricted but they are ever intent on joining the Nuke Club.

[Anonymous No.4354759]

>>4354595
> that is a pretty strong argument.

And yet it never happens. What's happening is a continued subscription to the failed Uranium model. There's only ONE reason why a failed economic model prevails: Nationalistic desires. And that means MILITARY, hence NUCLEAR WEAPONS.

[Anonymous No.4354774]

>>4354098

Learn how to think critically and not get swept up in the over enthusiastic childish retard shit. Too bad you're the same samefag that constantly make Thorium threads with zero backing facts to support your argument.

[Anonymous No.4354805]

>>4354774

That is why I'm asking for more information.

Without being informed, you can't make a good decision.

[Anonymous No.4354807]

Here's all you need to know: every thorium reactor is necessarily a breeder reactor, and can easily be used to produce nuclear weapons.

This makes it unsuitable for low-proliferation-risk civilian applications, and for other reasons it is also an inferior choice for weapons-grade material production (the liquid metal fast reactor is a solved problem).

Basically, the only reasons to bother with a thorium reactor are if you have difficulty acquiring uranium, or for some very specialized theoretical applications (for instance, the nuclear reactor of a moonbase, so after taking the risk of sending up an initial critical mass, you could send up loads of thorium to refuel it, and if the rocket blows up the environmental effects will be negligible).

[Anonymous No.4354827]

>>4354807

And lower fuel cost.

And minimal waste.

And scaleability.

And minimal chance of meltdown.

And...

[Anonymous No.4354834]

>>4354827
>And lower fuel cost.
No. Thorium is far more expensive than uranium.

>And minimal waste.
This is true of breeder reactors in general. It's an inevitable trade-off with proliferation risk.

>And scaleability.
Utter bullshit.

>And minimal chance of meltdown.
This is theoretical at best. Engineers have little experience with thorium reactors. There are uranium reactors which are equally theoretically safe, and have more of an established track record of safety.

[Anonymous No.4354843]

>To sum up, it is clear that thorium based fuels shows interesting characteristics but they do not appear sufficient to justify an industrial development of this cycle in the
short-term, the more so as these potential advantages are compensated by some real drawbacks. On the other hand, in the term of a few tens of years, thorium offers some
interesting prospects in particular with regard to uranium saving (if U-233 is recycled) and also with regard to the potential radiotoxicity of final waste. Then, the appearance
of new constraints could modify the current context and lead to a development of thorium cycles. It is from this point of view that it appears desirable to continue or to start a minimum of thoughts on this option to realistically assess its potential benefits under long term perspectives and anticipated technological developments, especially for
the spent fuel treatment and scenarios studies.

http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/7367.pdf

>The fuel cycle model described in this section was applied to different Th–based fuel options, including homogeneous and heterogeneous designs. The main conclusion is that the homogeneous mixture of U and Th used in a once-through cycle results in a significantly increased fuel cycle cost. The main reason is that the Th part of the fuel is always subcritical” penalizing the discharged burnup, and consequently natural uranium and enrichment requirements. The heterogeneous fuel design (seed and blanket), which allows separate fuel management for the U and Th parts of the fuel, results in a slightly higher OvFCC for the front-end and lower OvFCC, when back end savings related to Th utilization are included.

http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf

[not that guy No.4354865]

>>4354834
>Thorium is far more expensive
bitches don't know about my fifty kilograms of alloy containing 3% thorium

[Anonymous No.4354883]

>>4354098
energyfromthorium.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor

[Anonymous No.4354886]

>>4354834
>No. Thorium is far more expensive than uranium.
Maybe by raw ore. If we're talking about the useful stuff, Thorium (in general) vs U235, then there is a rather large price difference.

> > less chance of meltdown
>This is theoretical at best. Engineers have little experience with thorium reactors. There are uranium reactors which are equally theoretically safe, and have more of an established track record of safety.
No. It's simple physics. As the fuel is already in a melted state, a "melt down" cannot happen.

[Anonymous No.4354892]

>>4354834
>This is true of breeder reactors in general. It's an inevitable trade-off with proliferation risk.

I would think that it actually has less profileration risks than conventional reactors. Conventional reactors require offsite enrichment technology which Iran is pursuing. This material is easily diverted. Whereas a LFTR would be harder to make into a weapon, especially if it didn't have protactinium separation.

[Anonymous No.4354893]

>>4354098
>"Congressman", not PM
>Geothermal and solar

OP is a filipino!

[Anonymous No.4354898]

>>4354162
Goddamnit. It's not trolling. Do some research.

[Anonymous No.4354906]

>>4354520
Conventional nuclear reactors produce far less harmful waste per joule than all other forms of electricity. They've killed far far less as well.

And then there's IFR, LFTR, etc., which have the potential to be /even better still/.

[Anonymous No.4354911]

>>4354724
Gonna need some citations, given I've done some rather thorough research which disagrees with you good sir.

[Anonymous No.4354912]

>>4354419
Japan...

[Anonymous No.4354916]

>>4354834
>This is theoretical at best. Engineers have little experience with thorium reactors. There are uranium reactors which are equally theoretically safe, and have more of an established track record of safety.
This is false. Due to the specifics of the chemistry, you can do a molten salt reactor with thorium breeding, and you cannot do it (as easily or cheaply, etc.) with uranium to plutonium breeding. The molten salt allows for many safety innovations, including running at atmospheric pressure, (cheaper) reprocessing, drain plug, passive cooling, etc.

[Anonymous No.4354923]

Helium 3 is the future, We need to collect the mass on the moon and various asteroids first though.

[Anonymous No.4354921]

>>4354843
Yes. That's why basically no one advocates a 1 fluid design. Stop posting straw mans.

[Anonymous No.4354920]

>>4354098
>Uranium industrial complex
>Nukes nukes nukes nukes
>ITS A CONSPIRACY!

I thought we've had H-bombs for sixty years..

[Anonymous No.4354934]

I just have a question, how often do we have to replace the nuclear plant because of the corrosion? How much would these plants cost? Only 'problem' I see with thorium

[Anonymous No.4354935]

>>4354934
Depends on the design. That's why we need to do the research.

It'll probably be cheaper because it's at atmospheric pressure.

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.4354936]

>>4354921
Eh, if we are going for crazy reactors, lets just for Terrapower's Traveling wave reactor. It has an unlimited fuel cycle, using existing waste to produce fuel, and it is impossible to weaponize, and does not require an entirely new fuel cycle which would require entirely new mines.

also, to
>>4354916

Just because theroitical chemistry says something SHOULD act like x, does not mean (and in the case of nuclear application, it means it wont) it acts like the numbers indicate. Practical designs and prototype reactors are required at best, and Thorium is not something we can take from the shelf or old 1960-1970s era documents and try to apply it.

[Anonymous No.4354938]

>>4354935
Yeah that's what I thought but I doubt it would be a problem if it got funding, we would innovate

[Anonymous No.4354944]

>>4354936
>Eh, if we are going for crazy reactors, lets just for Terrapower's Traveling wave reactor. It has an unlimited fuel cycle, using existing waste to produce fuel, and it is impossible to weaponize, and does not require an entirely new fuel cycle which would require entirely new mines.
It's vaporware, sadly, when you actually start looking at their press releases, the physics, and so on.

>Just because theroitical chemistry says something SHOULD act like x, does not mean (and in the case of nuclear application, it means it wont) it acts like the numbers indicate. Practical designs and prototype reactors are required at best, and Thorium is not something we can take from the shelf or old 1960-1970s era documents and try to apply it.
The evidence is clearly against your assertions. The only rebuttal you have is "well, sometimes science doesn't work" and "it's 30 years old!". You're going to need to do better.

[Anonymous No.4354947]

>>4354934
>>4354935

Just letting you know, since this is an American imageboard, what you are posting is potentially against various arms export laws, etc so watch it~

[Anonymous No.4354951]

>>4354936
>requires entirely new mines
Oh, this is also false. Rare earth metal mining would produce all the thorium we ever need. Don't even need to do dedicated mining.

[Anonymous No.4354952]

>>4354947
Uh what

[Anonymous No.4354958]

>>4354952
Data on atomic plants, including repair schedules is covered under the Arms export act of 1954 to name one for example.

>>.4354944
Calling it vaporware when they actually have data, a proven design based on actual production lines (even if it is a dumb as fuck fast breeder, it is useful in that application) and are working to produce it with the Chinese government is silly.

[Anonymous No.4354965]

>>4354958
The physics doesn't work. Recent releases from the company have said that reshuffling will be necessary. It's not a closed system anymore.

Do some research.

[Anonymous No.4355005]

>>4354958
To continue, they're just patent vultures.

[Anonymous No.4355093]

Trolling aside, what are the real drawbacks of thorium based reactors?

[Anonymous No.4355103]

Trolling aside, what are the real drawbacks of thorium based reactors.

[Anonymous No.4355128]

>>4355093
* Might not work, but probably will.
* Will take 5-20 years of research, along with a billion dollars.
* Bad for anyone with investment in current tech.
/Maybe/ worse for proliferation than conventional reactors. (But I remain unconvinced. I don't know.)

That's about it.

[Anonymous No.4355162]

>>4354098

I'd say whatever energy sources we choose, improving the power grid should be a major priority (especially how the economic incentives for production vs. distribution work).

There's already a lot of improvements both planned and in the works, but here's hoping it actually goes through.

[Anonymous No.4355183]

>>4354098

Anytime we talk about why something should work, as /sci/entists we should also simultaneously talk about why it shouldn't work .

For instance, starting with a more conventional Thorium reactor design (instead of the molten-salt type) would present much less developmental risk, and also start building up the Thorium supply chain we'd need. I believe they're trying this kind of convention Thorium design in India somewhere.

I don't understand enough to give good criticism about this, but as I understand it, the problem is that neutron economy in Thorium reactors is bad (which molten-salt reactors help with).

But, molten salt reactors have a couple of problems. One is that it's difficult to restart after a shutdown, you pretty much have to keep it hot and running. The other is that the corrosion problems are really, really severe. You have only a small handful of corrosion-resistant materials to work with, and there are serious questions regarding component lifespan and maintenance requirements (which do not interact well with the shutdown/startup difficulty).

[Anonymous No.4355194]

>>4355183
>But, molten salt reactors have a couple of problems. One is that it's difficult to restart after a shutdown, you pretty much have to keep it hot and running.
Simply false.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2121

>The other is that the corrosion problems are really, really severe. You have only a small handful of corrosion-resistant materials to work with, and there are serious questions regarding component lifespan and maintenance requirements
Yes. Hastelloy-N is one of them. You make it sound bad, when I would make it sound like a solved problem.

>(which do not interact well with the shutdown/startup difficulty).
What?

[Anonymous No.4355260]

>>4355194
>Simply false.

I still disagree. It's a design problem currently being coming up elsewhere already. The impact on plant capital costs and maintenance is a major problem in Solar Thermal plant design (which is actually an easier engineering problem than the Thorium molten salt case, as they have the advantage of lower melting temperatures and less corrosion -- since they can use choose the elements in their salts without worrying about neutron absorption, decay chains, and all that).

>What?
Maintenance on these systems is going to be a very expensive problem. Think like an engineer for a moment, and mentally walk through what a maintenance team might do to replace, say, a valve.

How you do the isolation of a segment, how you drain and flush, the actual removal and installation of the new component, then the purge and restoration of flow. Now consider what engineering issues need to be addressed when the working fluid is a highly reducing molten salt. Any maintenance problem becomes a lot harder and more expensive.

[Anonymous No.4355269]

>>4355260
>I still disagree. It's a design problem currently being coming up elsewhere already. The impact on plant capital costs and maintenance is a major problem in Solar Thermal plant design (which is actually an easier engineering problem than the Thorium molten salt case, as they have the advantage of lower melting temperatures and less corrosion -- since they can use choose the elements in their salts without worrying about neutron absorption, decay chains, and all that).
I don't see what this has to do with startup and shutdown. This corrosion problem seems orthogonal. And sure, this is a problem, but there are good proposed solutions.

>Now consider what engineering issues need to be addressed when the working fluid is a highly reducing molten salt. Any maintenance problem becomes a lot harder and more expensive.
That's why you control fluorine levels.

[Anonymous No.4355299]

>>4354271

>no steam generators required

Wait, what? How do LFTRs produce energy in a way that doesn't utilize a Rankine cycle at some point? Either way, you're going to have to utilize the coolant to turn a turbine. If that's the case, turbine technology for liquid thorium has to be GREATLY improved.

The only alternative I can think of is using a Brayton cycle of some sort, and in the long term helium supplies are going to be a problem (unless you use some other gas).

[Anonymous No.4355303]

>>4355299
Brayton cycle is thrown around a lot. IIRC, can you use CO2 with that?

Regardless, with a conventional steam turbine, the usual plans involve a secondary salt loop to keep the water far away from the hot core, meaning the possible problems with pressurized water has nothing to do with nuclear material.

[Anonymous No.4355306]

So thorium looks really good, but also really far off. What solar panels with solar concentrators? They can be put on top of every house, or maybe a batch of them every block or so, so they only power the local area. They generate less power sure, but if the panels are distributed like that, then they dodge having to power the massive power grid, where 67% of the electricity is lost due to resistance.

[Anonymous No.4355309]

>>4355306
If you actually do the research, you will find that solar and wind are still completely ineffectual at providing baseload power for anything above, say, 20% of baseload.

Nuclear is cheaper, safer, and greener. Even conventional light water reactors, although I am a big fan of generation IV reactors like the IFR and LFTR. The technology we have now for conventional fission reactors is much much closer to meeting all of our goals compared to the alternatives, and it has been for the last 40 years.

Take solar. Even if the solar panels were free, it wouldn’t work. The problem is how to store energy for the night, and for cloudy days. Here’s some example links of the actual math for possible solutions.
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/11/pump-up-the-storage/
http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/08/nation-sized-battery/

To be fair, sodium-sulfur batteries appear plausible, and they were not discussed in the above link. However, they’re still too expensive to be practical by a magnitude or two.

[Anonymous No.4355314]

>>4355303

But that's not my point. My point is that SOMEWHERE in the line steam generators are required. Saying otherwise is horse shit.

I'm aware of the problems of using liquid salt problems and how there has to be separation between any working fluid and any water line (particularly with any liquid metal reactors).

I'm not too familiar with the working fluids of Braytons (but it's something I'm hoping to study when I finish my degree and nuclear engineering and go into mechanical engineering). I'm just most familiar with the use of Brayton cycles for use in HTGR (as helium is less susceptible to irradiation compared to other gases used as coolants within nuclear reactors). Furthermore, I think application of Brayton cycles are more useful to power generation (in terms of increased thermal efficiency) than anything else (including thorium reactors).

[Anonymous No.4355318]

>>4355314
Well, I didn't make those pics, nor post them, so I really won't defend them. The cool part is keeping the radioactive bits under atmospheric pressure, to prevent explosions and such of nuclear material. It's a really big boon.

And you are right the Brayton cycle is useful for higher thermal efficiency. Because we have the option of not using water as a working fluid, we can get higher temperatures, and thus Brayton cycle looks interesting.

[Anonymous No.4355326]

>>4355309
Those are talking about going solar to power the grid. What I talked about was more or less decentralized power generation. No grid. Though of course the problem of cloudy days still remains.

[Anonymous No.4355328]

>>4355326
>problem of cloudy days remain
And so does nights. It's exactly what I said. It's a 20% solution, which might as well not be a solution at all.

[Anonymous No.4355337]

>>4355328
Aren't there batteries that can store a 12-hour charge for a single home?

[Anonymous No.4355343]

>>4355337
Please see the above link AS I PUT THAT THERE SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THIS QUESTION.

In short, no. Nowhere near cheap enough.

[Anonymous No.4355346]

>>4355318
Ya, the Brayton cycles have great potential in next generation reactors. The thing is, most applications have been tested on Uranium FAST reactors (a viable alternative to Thorium). Even so, the only test reactor on such a setup used a hybrid Brayton-Rankine cycle, which ended up having problems when a ruptured water line was causing high temperature corrosion of the Uranium core within the gaseous environment. I think it would be worth pursuing further research on pure Brayton cycles, both to evaluate potential of Uranium fast reactors and to evaluate potential materials to be used in such a high temperature environments.

[Anonymous No.4355363]

Well, being a biology major here I can't help too much with most of the energy sources here. But I can say that cellulosic ethanol produced through fermentation don't look to good to me.

The fundamental problem behind cellulosic ethanol, is that the cellulose/lignin composite that plants are made of, is the end result of a long-term evolutionary arms race between plants and cellulose-digesting microbes. The enzymes we're finding in nature now a result of a stalemate that has lasted hundreds of millions of years. We'll find enzymes and fermenting organisms better than what we have today, but not magically better.

So the other option is to work on the plants themselves instead. But we're trying to change something that's a very fundamental part of a plant's biology -- right now I don't think our understanding is enough to even make a competent evaluation of how far we can go in this direction.