5 ms·
The article is more about molten salt reactors than thorium as a fuel. The benefits listed are from using molten salt, not thorium. The NPR story adds to the o
by Tloewald 14y ago
The article is more about molten salt reactors than thorium as a fuel. The benefits listed are from using molten salt, not thorium.
The NPR story adds to the original article — the experimental thorium reactor ran for 14 years, not 4. The head of the project was fired by Nixon (hardly a big strike against him).
It seems to me that the NPR show simply raised two objections:
1) you still have nuclear waste — less than with current reactors but arguable how much less.
2) it does not stop nuclear proliferation (this was a heated discussion point with the thorium advocate arguing that it is much harder to harvest U233 from an MSR than plutonium or enriched uranium from other sources and the anti-nuclear guy citing a paper suggesting it's easier. (U233 is easier to make a bomb with than plutonium - i did not know this.)
- driax 14y agoIt it noteworthy to remember that the reason LFTR advocates says that LFTR reactors will stop nuclear proliferation is that all the U233 will be comtaminated with the highly radioactive U232 isotope. To extract U233 from the active core of an LFTR would take just as much engineering as normal enrichment plants, if not more. The current enrichment plants would never allow U232 inside their plants since it is so difficult and dangerous. Of course that's all hearsay from the LFTR advocates :P
- KitemanSA 14y agoNope, it is one of the main reasons why Thorium is not that great in typical solid fuel reactors. Lots of experience there. Processing the fuel to extract and use the U233 is rather a bothersome thing to do.