4 ms·
I hope that in the future we will seriously consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nucle
by rando57 6y ago
I hope that in the future we will seriously consider https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power
Compared to current methods of producing nuclear energy, thorium:
- produces significantly more energy per ton
- produces significantly less waste
- the waste is significantly less dangerous (cools down in x00 years, instead of x0000 years)
- max_ 6y agoYou can make your own thorium battery. [0] [0]:https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optoelectric_nuclear_battery https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optoelectric_nuclear_battery
- etaioinshrdlu 6y agoYou're not thinking of a Tritium battery are you? They produce very little power (W).
- black_puppydog 6y ago> A failure of containment would release high-pressure jets of finely-divided radioisotopes, forming an effective dirty bomb. I'll let you do that first. Please do it somewhere remote kay? :D
- croes 6y agoWe can't even handle a pandemic and you think we can handle nuclear energy?
- ed25519FUUU 6y agoHave Florida build it.
- croes 6y agoTo the down voters, which company or authority do you trust enough to operate this systems for decades?
- loeg 6y agoThe Navy.[0] > By 2003 the U.S. Navy had accumulated over 5,400 "reactor years" of accident-free experience, and operated more than 80 nuclear-powered ships. They've been sailing nuclear subs since the 1950s without major safety incident. The big carriers supply grid power when they're docked in Hawaii. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_navy
- croes 6y agoYeah, because the military never lies or tries to cover up something. https://apnews.com/article/559da885ca7c3f6252d67e400e92a846 https://apnews.com/article/559da885ca7c3f6252d67e400e92a846
- loeg 6y ago> a minor mishap in which ″there were no serious injuries or radiological problems, the ship remained fully capable to perform any mission required of it and there was no damage to the reactor.″ > Lt. Cmdr. Craig Quigley, a Navy spokesman, responded: ″We did not try to cover anything up. Everything about this incident was properly reported through Navy channels. That's neither a cover-up, nor damning evidence that the navy cannot safely operate reactors.
- acidburnNSA 6y agoNuclear engineer here. I've spent lots of time fighting against persistent myths about thorium. All the things you mention are characteristics of breeder reactors, not just thorium breeders. Uranium-based breeder reactors can do these things as well. Thorium has only one actual physical advantage, and that is that it can do breeding with slow neutrons rather than fast ones. This is a technicality and has lots of complications. [1] https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html
- nickik 6y agoYes, this. I am a huge fan of thorium breeders and there are few other minor advantages but people have gone of the deep end. If you are not doing a breeder, uranium is just fine.
- fmajid 6y agoA big advantage is that thorium is a non-proliferating nuclear technology, which may explain why so little effort has been put into it.
- tim333 6y agoYou can still make bombs https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html#myth3 https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html#myth3
- acidburnNSA 6y agoYup. This myth is particularly pervasive. Less effort was put into thorium because it was inherently more expensive to get going and didn't offer sufficient advantages to motivate the additional expense.