Thorium...why not?

[gungasnake]

I don't feel any real need to cite common knowledge claims, like the thing about the sky being blue, 2 = 2 being 4, or wild bears going to the bathroom in the woods.

Sorry, but this conversation is over.

 

[Shemjaza]

I don't feel any real need to cite common knowledge claims, like the thing about the sky being blue, 2 = 2 being 4, or wild bears going to the bathroom in the woods.

Sorry, but this conversation is over.

Thorium is hundreds of times more efficient then uranium is a common knowledge claim?

Wow, the common man has got technical over the last couple of days.

 

[selfinflikted]

I don't feel any real need to cite common knowledge claims, like the thing about the sky being blue, 2 = 2 being 4, or wild bears going to the bathroom in the woods.

Sorry, but this conversation is over.

1. Make unsupported assertion
2. Refuse to back it up
3. Run away

 

[gungasnake]

Somebody refresh my memory... How do you put users on 'ignore' on this forum?

 

[variant]

Thorium reactors would require a substantial investment, but they are less prone to full meltdown scenarios, and that feature alone is worth the long term investment IMO.

They wouldn't pose a melt down risk at all, thorium requires a continuous stream of particle radiation from a uranium source in order to be fissile, if the stream is interrupted the process will shut off fairly quickly so there is no risk of a run away melt down.

 

[variant]

Thorium is hundreds of times more efficient then uranium is a common knowledge claim?

Wow, the common man has got technical over the last couple of days.

The actual advantage is that the useful Thorium deposits are orders of magnitude more plentiful than useful fissile uranium so pound for pound it will have a lot more useful energy density than uranium ore.

 

[Michael]

You can find a website that claims almost anything. I can find websites that claim the Earth is flat. Would that make my claim justified simply because I linked them?

True in this case, but quite the irony overload.

 

[Michael]

They wouldn't pose a melt down risk at all, thorium requires a continuous stream of neutrons from a uranium source in order to be fissile, if the stream is interrupted the process will shut off fairly quickly so there is no risk of a run away melt down.

IMO the current lack of a "fail safe" scenario with respect to being able to shut down or operate correctly without power is the real danger of current nuclear technology. The ability to mechanically remove the uranium source from a thorium reactor would allow it to be shut down mechanically without respect to needing power for constant cooling. The really frightening aspect of our current nuclear predicament is that our current technology *is* dangerous and *should be* replaced, but with every accident the public simply grows more afraid of the whole idea of nuclear energy yet they do *nothing* to improve it. We need a nuclear update badly in this country IMO.

 

[gungasnake]

There's at least one proposal out there to use an accelerator rather than a uranium particle source for a thorium reactor. Again I don't see the downside.

 

[[serious]]

There's at least one proposal out there to use an accelerator rather than a uranium particle source for a thorium reactor. Again I don't see the downside.

Monetary return presently. We don't yet know how to make thorium reactors work as profitably as uranium reactors.

 

[Michael]

Monetary return presently. We don't yet know how to make thorium reactors work as profitably as uranium reactors.

When we're calculating the 'profitability' of uranium reactors, how are we factoring in the costs of something like Chernobyl and Fukashima? How about the environmental costs?

IMO that profitability figure is associated with uranium reactors is probably *vastly* underestimated.

I'd definitely prefer a long term strategy that includes a design that doesn't "blow up' because the power goes off.

That doesn't seem like a "good" design long term, and the actual long term costs of uranium reactors depends on how well they hold up over time.

 

[Seipai]

Somebody refresh my memory... How do you put users on 'ignore' on this forum?

Yes, that is a much simpler solution than doing your own homework, isn't it?

 

[Michael]

Tens of Thousands of Tons of Coal Ash Spilling Into N.C. River | Common Dreams
http://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com...-dangerous-levels/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0

By the way, petroleum and fossil fuel based power isn't exactly 'environmentally friendly' technology. In some ways it's actually *more* dangerous than nuclear energy, even if we ignore the C02 issues.

 

[[serious]]

When we're calculating the 'profitability' of uranium reactors, how are we factoring in the costs of something like Chernobyl and Fukashima? How about the environmental costs?

IMO that profitability figure is associated with uranium reactors is probably *vastly* underestimated.

I'd definitely prefer a long term strategy that includes a design that doesn't "blow up' because the power goes off.

That doesn't seem like a "good" design long term, and the actual long term costs of uranium reactors depends on how well they hold up over time.

" In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, analysis has determined that nuclear power has caused less fatalities per unit of energy generated than the other major sources of energy generation. Energy production from coal, petroleum, natural gas and hydropower has caused a greater number of fatalities per unit of energy generated due to air pollution and energy accident effects.[20][21][22][23][24]"

-Wikipedia

I didn't immediately find dollars per kWH stats and it's late, so I'll leave it there until tomorrow.

 

[Davian]

" In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, analysis has determined that nuclear power has caused less fatalities per unit of energy generated than the other major sources of energy generation. Energy production from coal, petroleum, natural gas and hydropower has caused a greater number of fatalities per unit of energy generated due to air pollution and energy accident effects.[20][21][22][23][24]"

-Wikipedia

I didn't immediately find dollars per kWH stats and it's late, so I'll leave it there until tomorrow.

This is interesting:

How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes

"...an energy’s deathprint, as it is called, is rarely discussed. The deathprint is the number of people killed by one kind of energy or another per kWhr produced and, like the carbon footprint, coal is the worst and wind and nuclear are the best."

Included in the death count are workers falling off of wind turbines and off of roofs while installing solar panels.

 

[Seipai]

True in this case, but quite the irony overload.

Yes, your inability to find valid links to back your claims is legendary. It is rather ironic indeed that you just supported this claim.

 

[Michael]

" In terms of lives lost per unit of energy generated, analysis has determined that nuclear power has caused less fatalities per unit of energy generated than the other major sources of energy generation. Energy production from coal, petroleum, natural gas and hydropower has caused a greater number of fatalities per unit of energy generated due to air pollution and energy accident effects.[20][21][22][23][24]"

-Wikipedia

I didn't immediately find dollars per kWH stats and it's late, so I'll leave it there until tomorrow.

So by "modernizing" our nuclear technology we have the potential to bring that number close to zero, meanwhile all fossil related energy continues to spew toxins into the atmosphere by the tons which already cause more human deaths than nuclear technologies. I must say, it's a real pity that a few failures of old style nuclear reactors have paralyzed our nation in terms of upgrading the technology. You'd hope it would have exactly the *opposite* effect.

IMO it makes sense to invest in upgrading our nuclear technologies and continuing to invest in renewable energy via homeowner subsidies for installing such equipment. Our energy dependence on fossil fuels seems penny wise and pound foolish, and our lack of investment in nuclear technologies leaves us unnecessarily vulnerable to environmental damage over the long haul.

 

[Michael]

Yes, your inability to find valid links to back your claims is legendary.

You once again pegged the irony meter.

It is rather ironic indeed that you just supported this claim.

FYI, I actually support nuclear technology, and specifically the *improvement/modernization* of our nuclear infrastructure. Nuclear energy is already safer than fossil fuel forms of energy, and we have the ability to make it even safer simply by upgrading the technology based on what we've learned over the past five or six decades of working with nuclear power.

 

[Seipai]

You once again pegged the irony meter.



FYI, I actually support nuclear technology, and specifically the *improvement/modernization* of our nuclear infrastructure. Nuclear energy is already safer than fossil fuel forms of energy, and we have the ability to make it even safer simply by upgrading the technology based on what we've learned over the past five or six decades of working with nuclear power.

Michael, please try to be honest.

I do agree that nuclear energy is the safest energy we have. But we all know who believes in Woo here.