3 ms·

thats probably intended. A mash of thorium and strontium maybe.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-

by kayoone 13y ago

thats probably intended. A mash of thorium and strontium maybe.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

frik 13y ago
I don't get the fanciness. Thorium reactors are a dead-end, as European research found out. They had stopped all work years ago. There were major accidents with this type of reactors and one even happened at the same time as the Chernobyl disaster: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#St.C3.B6rfall_am_4._Mai_1986 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#St.C3.B6... For some reasons some countries don't want to learn from history. Edit: English language links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor#Thorium_high-temperature_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor#Thorium_high...
- luka-birsa 13y ago
  I always find it amusing when links provided by "nay sayers" present contrary evidence or no evidence at all. From the link: The nuclear power plant THTR-300 ( thorium high-temperature reactor) was a helium-cooled high-temperature reactor of the type pebble bed reactor in North Rhine-Westphalia Hamm with an electrical output of 300 megawatts . Despite its designation as a thorium reactor , it was essentially a normal on uranium fission ( 235 U) based reactor: While there was his nuclear fuel to 90 per cent of thorium, but this was holds less than 30 percent of its energy. Because of its high cost and because of his unsatisfactory, short operation he is widely regarded as the greatest technical debacle in post-war Germany. The reactor was in fact a URANIUM REACTOR! I still need to see relevant proof that Thorium technology failed for any other reason than good sales and marketing from the Uranium camp.
  - sgift 13y ago
    > While there was his nuclear fuel to 90 per cent of thorium, but this was holds less than 30 percent of its energy. Hint: Maybe there was a reason for that? Like ... that was/is the best way to build a Thorium reactor? But yeah, the engineers were probably all monkeys. That must be the reason.
    - luka-birsa 13y ago
      Sure, there was a reason to do a project which: "Because of its high cost and because of his unsatisfactory, short operation he is widely regarded as the greatest technical debacle in post-war Germany." (from the link). Not saying the engineers are all monkeys, but this specific project was a complete failure and yes, there are countless better ways to develop a Thorium reactor (see LFTR et all).
  - darklajid 13y ago
    Dear diary: My most bizarre moment on HN so far. Someone referenced my tiny (ugly) birth town in a discussion about energy. On topic: It didn't look impressive. :)
    - phryk 13y ago
      At least you didn't grow up in Ennigerloh and Beckum. T_T
    - kayoone 13y ago
      isn't Hamm the place where you have to wait so awfully long for the train ? ;)
- doctorcroc 13y ago
  For some reason users who post links don't want to read them. From the first paragraph: "Despite its designation as a thorium reactor , it was essentially a normal on uranium fission ( 235 U) based reactor" Additionally, a lot of the recent hype on thorium reactors is that they are actually molten salt reactors (see the oak ridge national lab experiments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment). By using a liquid fluoride salt, you can run a thorium reactor at ambient pressure and high temperatures, leading to safer operation and better utilization of thorium in feed stock. I think one of the main concerns for this implementation is material durability and corrosion resistance. If we can figure this stuff out, this reactor model looks promising. See Kirk Sorensen's company Flibe energy and the wiki for the LFTR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR.
  - XorNot 13y ago
    Also potentially safer failure mode: in a run-away vent, it heats up, melts through a plug in the reactor base and drains out into a settling pan, which stops the reaction dead. The worst thing about modern nuclear power is we won't shut the old reactors the hell down, so when you get a Fukushima it's because at every junction proposals to replace it were held up, but no one would brook just shutting it down either.

by kayoone 13y ago

thats probably intended. A mash of thorium and strontium maybe.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

frik 13y ago

I don't get the fanciness. Thorium reactors are a dead-end, as European research found out. They had stopped all work years ago. There were major accidents with this type of reactors and one even happened at the same time as the Chernobyl disaster: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#St.C3.B6rfall_am_4._Mai_1986 http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kernkraftwerk_THTR-300#St.C3.B6... For some reasons some countries don't want to learn from history. Edit: English language links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor#Thorium_high-temperature_reactor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble-bed_reactor#Thorium_high...

luka-birsa 13y ago
I always find it amusing when links provided by "nay sayers" present contrary evidence or no evidence at all. From the link: The nuclear power plant THTR-300 ( thorium high-temperature reactor) was a helium-cooled high-temperature reactor of the type pebble bed reactor in North Rhine-Westphalia Hamm with an electrical output of 300 megawatts . Despite its designation as a thorium reactor , it was essentially a normal on uranium fission ( 235 U) based reactor: While there was his nuclear fuel to 90 per cent of thorium, but this was holds less than 30 percent of its energy. Because of its high cost and because of his unsatisfactory, short operation he is widely regarded as the greatest technical debacle in post-war Germany. The reactor was in fact a URANIUM REACTOR! I still need to see relevant proof that Thorium technology failed for any other reason than good sales and marketing from the Uranium camp.
- sgift 13y ago
  > While there was his nuclear fuel to 90 per cent of thorium, but this was holds less than 30 percent of its energy. Hint: Maybe there was a reason for that? Like ... that was/is the best way to build a Thorium reactor? But yeah, the engineers were probably all monkeys. That must be the reason.
  - luka-birsa 13y ago
    Sure, there was a reason to do a project which: "Because of its high cost and because of his unsatisfactory, short operation he is widely regarded as the greatest technical debacle in post-war Germany." (from the link). Not saying the engineers are all monkeys, but this specific project was a complete failure and yes, there are countless better ways to develop a Thorium reactor (see LFTR et all).
- darklajid 13y ago
  Dear diary: My most bizarre moment on HN so far. Someone referenced my tiny (ugly) birth town in a discussion about energy. On topic: It didn't look impressive. :)
  - phryk 13y ago
    At least you didn't grow up in Ennigerloh and Beckum. T_T
  - kayoone 13y ago
    isn't Hamm the place where you have to wait so awfully long for the train ? ;)
doctorcroc 13y ago
For some reason users who post links don't want to read them. From the first paragraph: "Despite its designation as a thorium reactor , it was essentially a normal on uranium fission ( 235 U) based reactor" Additionally, a lot of the recent hype on thorium reactors is that they are actually molten salt reactors (see the oak ridge national lab experiments - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment). By using a liquid fluoride salt, you can run a thorium reactor at ambient pressure and high temperatures, leading to safer operation and better utilization of thorium in feed stock. I think one of the main concerns for this implementation is material durability and corrosion resistance. If we can figure this stuff out, this reactor model looks promising. See Kirk Sorensen's company Flibe energy and the wiki for the LFTR - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LFTR.
- XorNot 13y ago
  Also potentially safer failure mode: in a run-away vent, it heats up, melts through a plug in the reactor base and drains out into a settling pan, which stops the reaction dead. The worst thing about modern nuclear power is we won't shut the old reactors the hell down, so when you get a Fukushima it's because at every junction proposals to replace it were held up, but no one would brook just shutting it down either.