The Hidden Mission Forum

Full Version: Safe energy/economy boost right now!
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Sounds good, and may be in the works as you read.
I won't be building this one, but a couple of guys I'm hunting with tonight probably will.
The testing will take place at our facility.

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/sc ... vgb-1.html
I can only guess that the reason the thorium option wasn't pursued is because you need 2 sets of heat exchangers in the reactor.
The molten fluoride salts cooling the core must heat water to make steam to run the turbines.
They probably ran into some intractable problems with long term maintenance of a reactor.
On the other hand, maybe they went with uranium in order to rapidly build an infrastructure for making A-bombs...

Hmm2 ...and what about thorium isotope half-lives??? Maybe the waste will spontaneously have a chain reaction???

For that matter...if thorium is so hot then why didn't they come out with thorium bombs???
guess you didn't read the article very well

Try this one, it explains in more depth Th's fuel cycle,
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/features/ ... page=0%2C2


and Wiki has an outstanding write-up of the technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

it is not like u-235, is not fissile, cannot sustain chain reaction, and does not produce plutonium byproducts that can be used to make nukes.
OK, Keith...this is from your link......

Quote:SO WHY ISN'T EVERYONE using thorium reactors? The main drawback to thorium is that it's not vigorously fissile, and it needs a source of neutrons to kick off the reaction.

Unlike enriched uranium, which can be left to its own devices to start producing power, thorium needs a bit of coaxing.

Thorium also cannot maintain criticality on its own; that is, it can't sustain a nuclear reaction once it has been started. This means the U-233 produced at the end of the thorium fuel cycle doesn't pump out enough neutrons when it splits to keep the reaction self-sustaining: eventually the reaction fizzles out. It's why a reactor using thorium fuel is often called a 'sub-critical' reactor.

The main stumbling block until now has been how to provide thorium fuel with enough neutrons to keep the reaction going, and do so in an efficient and economical way.

In recent years two new technologies have been developed to do just this.

One company that has already begun developing thorium-fuelled nuclear power is the aptly named Thorium Power, based just outside Washington DC. The way Thorium Power gets around the sub-criticality of thorium is to create mixed fuels using a combination of enriched uranium, plutonium and thorium.

At the centre of the fuel rod is the 'seed' for the reaction, which contains plutonium.

Look...my nuclear physicist hat may not fit very well, but it seems to me that this is the same sort of crazed thinking that led to Chernobyl!!!

I've read stories about early atomic experiments. They would "tickle the dragon", as they called it, by having a scientist manually nudge 2 pieces of slightly sub-critical uranium closer and closer together until the Geiger Counter spiked. Some people suffered severe radiation burns.

You can control a nuclear reaction by moderation or otherwise regulating neutron bombardment.

It seems to me that you're getting into unknown areas of nuclear chaos such that
the thorium content of these mixed cycle fuel rods
is counted upon to act as both a moderator AND a neutron source.
It might even be that the break-even point is uncontrollable...
ie. the initiation of the chain reaction might be unstoppable......
...in certain unforeseeable circumstances...... <img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/atombomb.gif" alt="Atombomb" title="atombomb" />