3 ms·
This is project pursued by many[1]. The main hurdles are: 1. political [2], which Kirk mentions (it is no coincidence, that the pellets that the rods contain a
by Create 15y ago
This is project pursued by many[1]. The main hurdles are:
1. political [2], which Kirk mentions (it is no coincidence, that the pellets that the rods contain are as standard as the NATO bullet) -- the industry and power has a very different interest
2. technical: Kirk always mentions, that the fuel is not solid. It is liquid. The latter means, that you do have higher concerns about corrosiveness, hence (useful) reactor lifetime...
Also, the issue of scale, which tends to lie between 1. and 2. Uranium "won", because you got the real stuff with it (weapons as in actual projection of power, or the capability of threat to project power) and because you could make it work on a massive scale (current reactors are an order of magnitude larger than any LFTR design, and capitalism is based on the leverage of and concentration of power).
[1] http://energyfromthorium.com/ http://energyfromthorium.com/
http://www.thorenergy.no/ http://www.thorenergy.no/
http://thoriumenergy.com.au/ http://thoriumenergy.com.au/
... besides China, India, France and (even) Czechs.
[2] http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.... -> see Seaborg interview part
- DennisP 15y agoCorrosion is one of the main objections people bring up, given that the fuel is a liquid salt. Sorenson says there's an alloy that solves the problem.
- Create 15y agoI do not think that corrosion is the showstopper. It rather seems to be the lack of irresponsible megalomania, which actually fuelled the GE/Westinghouse frenzy. And I can hardly blame anybody for the lack of it, because for all the better... Our planet has became smaller in the last 50 years, and running (tea)pot operations would be a tough sell, even on Fox. But obviously (offshore) oils rigs and gas are no better either, though people are still happy with oil running their cars and data-centres. But useful lifetime/economics of scale/TCO does matter, because ROI in the strict and sole monetary sense is the only metric of success. Note, that most reactors have been rubber-stamped to operate beyond their design lifetime.
- Create 15y agoWatch Seaborg and some engineers from ex-USSR above before downvoting without reasoning. And imagine the powerlines in a play, where Seaborg himself feels he can only act as a puppet -- randian rationalism doesn't work in society. (I do not agree/disagree with all of the comments above, just note)
- Create 15y agoThanks for your argument. Case closed. you see now too -- the alloy is not the problem.