[DrCaleb]

It's like arguing with a special needs person sometimes.

[Zipperfish]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's like arguing with a special needs person sometimes.

Sounds like prog talk to me.

It was teh same with me--everything I read about thorium spoke of it in glowing terms (get it--radioactive--glowing). But the reality is there are no thorium reactors so what was the disconnect?

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Here's a little gem from the "About Us" link of your website Doc.

$1:

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs the public about threats to the survival and development of humanity from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences.

So what was your point again? That it wasn't anti-nuclear, because they called themselves "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"; was that it?

And a little further into 'about us':

$1:

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists was established in 1945 by scientists, engineers, and other experts who had created the atomic bomb as part of the Manhattan Project. They knew about the horrible effects of these new weapons and devoted themselves to warning the public about the consequences of using them. Those early scientists also worried about military secrecy, fearing that leaders might draw their countries into increasingly dangerous nuclear confrontations without the full consent of their citizens.

. . .

We focus as well on ways to prevent catastrophe from the malign or accidental use of nuclear, carbon-based, and biology-based technologies. After all, these technologies are ones that we create; it is in our power to channel them solely for benign purposes.

How is that Anti-Nuclear? Half the front page is about ways to better and safely use nuclear power (and hydrocarbon, and solar..).

You'd think if Atomic Scientists were anti-nuclear, they would have chosen a different profession.

Any more ad-hominems to add to the conversation?

[DrCaleb]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

It was teh same with me--everything I read about thorium spoke of it in glowing terms (get it--radioactive--glowing). But the reality is there are no thorium reactors so what was the disconnect?

Where's my facepalm graphic . . ?

That's one thing from the article I was surprised at, the Indian Point Unit I Thorium test reactor I had never heard it was such a financial disaster. I knew they switched to Uranium because of pressurized water leaks, but didn't know it was that bad.

Inside knowledge is the best, I guess!

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

[ But the reality is there are no thorium reactors so what was the disconnect?

Money.

[Zipperfish]

martin14 martin14:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

[ But the reality is there are no thorium reactors so what was the disconnect?

Money.

Funny that's always at the bottom of things.

They are making a litle bit of headway with fusion, but still have a ways to go.

[Jabberwalker]

I believe that a Thorium reactor was assembled at Chalk River early on. I'm sure that in 1948, they may have thought that Uranium was more common than it has proven to be. I'm surprised that the basic CANDU can't be re-jigged to burn Thorium. They seem to be able to burn all sorts of other junk.

[martin14]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

They are making a litle bit of headway with fusion, but still have a ways to go.

Last I heard about ITER they can make it, but they can't control it for much longer
than a few seconds.

Long way to go yet, something for the grandkids or great grandkids.

And the oil companies have to be broken or bankrupted first.


Wife has tried to get into Cadarache, no luck yet.

[Jabberwalker]

I still wonder if the ideal fusion reactor is about the size of a star, with a safe operating distance of about 93 million miles and all that we have to do is figure out an efficient way to harvest the output.

[Jabberwalker]

Wife has tried to get into Cadarache, no luck yet.

Love meanth you never have to thay you're thorium.

[Winnipegger]

I see lots of hyperbole, both for and against. My understanding is the issue is much more simple. First, it's a nuclear reactor. It works by converting thorium to uranium 233, then splitting that. So the fission fragments (nuclear waste) will be the same. Not more, not less. Not more expensive, not less. Just the same. The fuel is more plentiful, and doesn't require as much processing. That's a big plus. 100% of thorium in nature is Th-232, which is the form used in this reactor. So you need only isolate the metal from ore, no isotope enrichment necessary. That makes it less expensive. And there won't be any waste from enrichment, since you just don't enrich. But other than that, waste is the same.

There are a couple improvements. Thorium requires 2 neutrons per atom split: one to convert thorium into uranium, the other to split uranium. Each time uranium is split, it releases on average 3 neutrons. For a uranium reactor, only 1/3 has to be absorbed, the other 2/3 can be wasted. However, for a thorium reactor, 2/3 has to be absorbed by fuel, only 1/3 can be wasted. That makes it a bit more tricky to design. It also means less radiation gets into reactor parts. Radiation causes stainless steel pipes to degrade, and other accelerated corrosion. Reducing that radiation means less corrosion, so longer reactor life. It also means fewer parts to dispose of that have become radioactive. Those parts are the medium level radioactive waste from a reactor.

From a safety point of view, thorium is better. India has designed a working reactor that uses thorium. That's because they have plentiful thorium deposits, but not much uranium. Their design requires ever so slightly more neutron radiation than the core produces. That extra radiation is provided by a small "seed" of enriched uranium set on top. If there's a problem, a control arm just moves the seed away. With that "seed" gone, the reaction slowly dies down.

Another interesting feature is you can't use it for weapons. When a thorium atom is exposed to a moderated neutron, it takes about 3 days to become uranium-233. I could give you the exact decay path with half lives, but the point is it's far too slow for a bomb. A bomb requires a reaction in a faction of a second. Furthermore, uranium-233 absorbs neutrons far more readily than thorium. That means the uranium will be consumed as soon as it's produced. Modifying the reactor to produce uranium that could be extracted for a bomb, would require a major re-design.

You could Google "thorium reactor India". Here's one web page...
http://www.itheo.org/articles/world%E2%80%99s-first-thorium-reactor-designed

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's like arguing with a special needs person sometimes.

Please, tell me more about how you abhor ad hominem attacks.

And that actually is one.

When I point out your source is an obvious anti-nuclear site, that's just a correct and useful observation. They are coming to the table with a bias. It's worth noticing that. Just as it would be worth noticing if somebody with a bias was speaking from the pro thorium side.

And again I'm not saying your anti-nuclear people are necessarily incorrect. I'm just saying I want to hear from both sides, because what I heard from the other guys was different.

Yes, I did say "Anti-nuclear" website.

First five nuke related articles from the current issue.

http://thebulletin.org/2014/march/ameri ... -materials
http://thebulletin.org/2014/march/battl ... south-asia
http://thebulletin.org/2014/may/breeder ... -leaks7135
http://thebulletin.org/2014/may/are-med ... curity7136
http://thebulletin.org/2014/may/treasur ... r-past7137

First sentence from the "About Us" section.

$1:

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs the public about threats to the survival and development of humanity from nuclear weapons.

[FieryVulpine]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Any more ad-hominems to add to the conversation?

You're a poopy-head!

Hey! He was the one who asked.

[Khar]

$1:

When I point out your source is an obvious anti-nuclear site, that's just a correct and useful observation. They are coming to the table with a bias. It's worth noticing that. Just as it would be worth noticing if somebody with a bias was speaking from the pro thorium side.

And again I'm not saying your anti-nuclear people are necessarily incorrect. I'm just saying I want to hear from both sides, because what I heard from the other guys was different.

Yet, it's not an obvious anti-nuclear site. The mass majority of the articles discuss the sheer potential nuclear has and how important energy stability is to a wide array of people. Take a look at the recent list of articles. The majority of these discuss the importance of encouraging the use of nuclear reactors or other secure forms of energy abroad to ensure that the population of the world has access to massively efficient energy sources.

The quote you have now used twice (without some context) when expanded specifies that this forum for thought was originally created by scientists who worked on the Manhattan project, for the purposes of informing everyone on updates, advances, and information regarding nuclear technology, and yes, the dangers of nuclear weapons. The most well known aspect of nuclear technology, and the origins of that site and it's connected information, is weaponry. It would be irresponsible, disingenuous, and ridiculous to run a periodical, especially one created shortly after the dropping of two nuclear bombs and during the tests of hundreds more, based on nuclear technology and not discuss nuclear weaponry.

Advising people about dangers regarding nuclear weaponry and advocating for control of such weaponry doesn't make one anti-nuclear energy, especially in what is a non-technical global security and public policy magazine. During the period of the Cold War, that clock they created did move awfully close to midnight during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This was broadly recognized as a serious event by everyone of all political leanings and backgrounds. Are you going to state that they should not discuss nuclear arms as a danger even with that event? That nuclear weapons are not weapons of mass destruction, capable of a large degree of human suffering? That nuclear weapons did not play a role in the bipolar power struggle between two nuclear powers, Russia and the USA, that essentially defined a lot of the world for years? That Pakistan, India, and most importantly, North Korea getting the bomb wasn't exactly troublesome? Or Iran one day getting it?

You've posted that those nations getting the bomb is dangerous, N_Fiddledog. You've even supported the USA bombing the Iranian nuclear program. Tell me, exactly why is it wrong for this site to discuss those dangers and not you? Most everyone recognizes nuclear weapons are dangerous. Running a publication which encourages discussion of the geopolitical and policy realities of those dangers, encouraging proper responses to such dangers, as well as educating the public on that topic, makes sense.

Either way it doesn't really impact the thorium discussion much.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Since I've been paying attention to Nuclear Reactors in general for about 20 years, and Thorium as a fuel for around 10; I'm guessing Zip has more fission knowledge in his little finger than us both. I wish you the best of luck!

Woefully ignorant I'm afraid--which is why I liked the article so much. it's the first one that explained the challenges of the thorium reactors. I'm a thermodynamics guy.

It's one of the few articles I've read that didn't have a bright future for Thorium. Too expensive, too many waste products . . . not hopeful. If you wanted to create weapons grade Uranium, it looks like the way to go.

Most of the information I've read said the exact opposite - that Thorium reactors didn't produce weapons, and that the by-products were relatively stable compared to Uranium waste.

<snip>

I'm actually surprised to see this contribution in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. It was kind of funny to see it had made it onto Canadaka, since I had to listen to someone complain about it for an hour yesterday (during which my eyes crossed and I started thinking about hockey). My physicist friend had a conniption reading this article, in part because Alvarez is making mostly a policy and financial argument to stop research. While he might be able to make some excellent points of the finances and policy of thorium research and how much effort we have put into it (and that part of the article is definitely sound), condemning it as a failed panacea as a result of the financial cost seems foolhardy to me. Ongoing research into new technologies shouldn't end because that technology doesn't yet exist. The potentials of thorium production are worth the costs in my view, and apparently that of two dozen or so countries engaged in the research.

His arguments kind of fall apart when you notice that most of his analysis rests of U-233 being a dangerous resource that could be proliferated, all while also stating it's incredibly hard to extract and is a financial liability (with a large cost to even extract it) once it is done so. In a normal reactor using thorium you don't extract it, you simply use it within the reactor proper where it is consumed. Further, such dangerous substances exist already; using proper containment protocols and mechanisms for situations when it is extracted makes sense. Even then, other experts have stated that it is not a resource you could get bomb-making resources out of, making it a boon for non-proliferation. Even if it could be proliferated, it doesn't seem as efficient as is possible with other nuclear fuel sources... but that's just my less than knowledgeable view.

Finally, other organizations, like CERN, continue to support and push for greater use of thorium. Thorium research is far from dead, but it was nice to see another perspective in the forum of costs and perceived dangers. Personally, I still see thorium as the future.

My thoughts anyways.

[Freakinoldguy]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

It's like arguing with a special needs person sometimes.

Sounds like prog talk to me.

It was teh same with me--everything I read about thorium spoke of it in glowing terms (get it--radioactive--glowing). But the reality is there are no thorium reactors so what was the disconnect?

Apparently nothing but the cost of R&D, financial investment and extraction expenses so, when you consider that it's only the Chinese working on developing it who knows when it'll become a viable source of fuel, if ever.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Curre ... n/Thorium/

It's an interesting read because it explains it in basic terms that even a nuclear simpleton like myself can understand but, it does makes me wonder why they're so high on it as fuel when the article the Dr. posted is claiming it's a dead horse.