3 ms·

Thorium also has its issues. Germany had a commercial reactor in the 80s, but it was abandoned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.m.wikipedia

Thorium also has its issues. Germany had a commercial reactor in the 80s, but it was abandoned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

The_rationalist 7y ago
To my limited knowledge, there are today some reactor that take both normal uranium and thorium. (the state of the art seems to be Russia from 90s) The only issue I saw is that thorium is less lucrative than uranium with today technology. Being less lucrative make it still lucrative enough to provide energy for all humanity decently.
fastball 7y ago
"Modern" Thorium designs (not really modern, but what people are talking about today) use liquid fuel, where as THTR-300 used pebble fuel. If you are comparing a uranium solid fuel reactor to a thorium solid fuel reactor, the differences are indeed marginal. Most of the benefits people talk about with thorium are related to using a liquid fuel in the form of a molten salt (LFTR), which allows for things like continuous operation, 100% fuel utilization, and "meltdown-proof" designs.
- gridlockd 7y ago
  > Most of the benefits people talk about with thorium are related to using a liquid fuel in the form of a molten salt (LFTR), which allows for things like continuous operation, 100% fuel utilization, and "meltdown-proof" designs. If it is really that great, China will make it happen. If not, then it's just overhyped, like hydrogen. People like to focus too much on arbitrary metrics, when really it's economics first, politics second and science/engineering last.
  - fastball 7y ago
    "Utilizing more fuel" and "operating continuously" are first-and-foremost economic considerations. We don't want to do those things just because they are cool from an engineering perspective. If we can make nuclear fission work with liquid fuel, that is a game changer. It is the equivalent of going from coal to gasoline. Except even better. Maybe more like going from wood logs to gasoline.
- imtringued 7y ago
  The problem with nuclear is that people constantly talk about how designs that currently don't exist will solve all the problems. Cost overruns by nuclear power plants is primarily caused by the fact that almost every plant is redesigned from the ground up, yet somehow magically every project fails to consider these modern reactor designs.
  - fastball 7y ago
    LFTR designs currently do exist. There are a variety of reasons they haven't been built and used for large-scale energy production, some of them more conspiratorial than others.

Thorium also has its issues. Germany had a commercial reactor in the 80s, but it was abandoned. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300

The_rationalist 7y ago

To my limited knowledge, there are today some reactor that take both normal uranium and thorium. (the state of the art seems to be Russia from 90s) The only issue I saw is that thorium is less lucrative than uranium with today technology. Being less lucrative make it still lucrative enough to provide energy for all humanity decently.

fastball 7y ago

"Modern" Thorium designs (not really modern, but what people are talking about today) use liquid fuel, where as THTR-300 used pebble fuel. If you are comparing a uranium solid fuel reactor to a thorium solid fuel reactor, the differences are indeed marginal. Most of the benefits people talk about with thorium are related to using a liquid fuel in the form of a molten salt (LFTR), which allows for things like continuous operation, 100% fuel utilization, and "meltdown-proof" designs.

gridlockd 7y ago
> Most of the benefits people talk about with thorium are related to using a liquid fuel in the form of a molten salt (LFTR), which allows for things like continuous operation, 100% fuel utilization, and "meltdown-proof" designs. If it is really that great, China will make it happen. If not, then it's just overhyped, like hydrogen. People like to focus too much on arbitrary metrics, when really it's economics first, politics second and science/engineering last.
- fastball 7y ago
  "Utilizing more fuel" and "operating continuously" are first-and-foremost economic considerations. We don't want to do those things just because they are cool from an engineering perspective. If we can make nuclear fission work with liquid fuel, that is a game changer. It is the equivalent of going from coal to gasoline. Except even better. Maybe more like going from wood logs to gasoline.
imtringued 7y ago
The problem with nuclear is that people constantly talk about how designs that currently don't exist will solve all the problems. Cost overruns by nuclear power plants is primarily caused by the fact that almost every plant is redesigned from the ground up, yet somehow magically every project fails to consider these modern reactor designs.
- fastball 7y ago
  LFTR designs currently do exist. There are a variety of reasons they haven't been built and used for large-scale energy production, some of them more conspiratorial than others.