4 ms·

Nice specs! Where does the Thorium come from and how abundant is it?

beedogs 12y ago
"Thorium is three times more abundant in nature than uranium. All but a trace of the world’s thorium exists as the useful isotope, which means it does not require enrichment. Thorium-based reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures. Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived." http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thin...
- rwcarlsen 12y ago
  Thorium is not a fissile isotope - meaning it can't be used for fission directly. It needs to be transmuted by neutrons into uranium 233 (which is fissile). By this measure, thorium isn't any better than Uranium 238 - which is 99.3% of naturally occurring uranium. So "All but a trace of the world's thorium exists as the useful isotope" - can be applied to uranium also. Uranium 238 is also a fertile isotope - and doing a completely fair comparison, uranium doesn't need to be enriched either... Except the only way we have to convert fertile isotopes to fissile isotopes is to expose them to a sustained, high neutron flux which is typically only economically achievable using enriched uranium (via the naturally occuring U235 isotope). Thorium breeder reactors need enriched uranium as much as uranium breeder reactors. So while thorium has some advantages, I wouldn't say that natural abundance or supply are particularly significant. [Edit] corrected use of "fissile" -> "fertile"
  - ChuckMcM 12y ago
    Or, if you're doing research in the UK, you use a particle accelerator to convert it on the fly. Once it starts you're good to go (you can keep it going using neutron flux in the reactor) so you have the particle beam starter engine :-)
orbifold 12y ago
Roughly 3-4 times as abundant as Uranium, according to http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pd.... To give you an idea on how much energy could be produced with this: A rough estimate shows that if all our current electric energy demand would be satisfied with Uranium, the reserves would run out in roughly 10 years. See http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/how-long-would-uranium-last/ http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/how-long-woul....
- eloff 12y ago
  This estimate doesn't seem to account for enrichment. For every KG of uranium mined, you get a much lower ratio of enriched fuel.
  - rwcarlsen 12y ago
    It shouldn't account for enrichment because thorium is a fertile material (not fissile) just like uranium 238 (99.3% of all uranium). Unenrichced uranium can be used in breeder type reactors just like unenriched thorium.
- Tuna-Fish 12y ago
  > rough estimate shows that if all our current electric energy demand would be satisfied with Uranium, the reserves would run out in roughly 10 years. While strictly correct, this is extremely misleading. Current resources would be exhausted in a decade, but resources are defined as the known deposits extractable under current market prices. Should we actually start using a lot of uranium, the price would spike, which would lead to a lot more deposits becoming economically available. This has almost no effect on the cost of nuclear power, as the cost of the raw uranium isn't a large part of the cost of producing power. The end game there is when the price rises sufficiently for extraction from seawater becoming profitable. The world's seas have ~1000 times more uranium than conventional ground-based resources. Nuclear fuels will not run out in this millennium.
  - orbifold 12y ago

"Thorium is three times more abundant in nature than uranium. All but a trace of the world’s thorium exists as the useful isotope, which means it does not require enrichment. Thorium-based reactors are safer because the reaction can easily be stopped and because the operation does not have to take place under extreme pressures. Compared to uranium reactors, thorium reactors produce far less waste and the waste that is generated is much less radioactive and much shorter-lived." http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thing-about-thorium-why-the-better-nuclear-fuel-may-not-get-a-chance/ http://www.forbes.com/sites/energysource/2012/02/16/the-thin...

rwcarlsen 12y ago
Thorium is not a fissile isotope - meaning it can't be used for fission directly. It needs to be transmuted by neutrons into uranium 233 (which is fissile). By this measure, thorium isn't any better than Uranium 238 - which is 99.3% of naturally occurring uranium. So "All but a trace of the world's thorium exists as the useful isotope" - can be applied to uranium also. Uranium 238 is also a fertile isotope - and doing a completely fair comparison, uranium doesn't need to be enriched either... Except the only way we have to convert fertile isotopes to fissile isotopes is to expose them to a sustained, high neutron flux which is typically only economically achievable using enriched uranium (via the naturally occuring U235 isotope). Thorium breeder reactors need enriched uranium as much as uranium breeder reactors. So while thorium has some advantages, I wouldn't say that natural abundance or supply are particularly significant. [Edit] corrected use of "fissile" -> "fertile"
- ChuckMcM 12y ago
  Or, if you're doing research in the UK, you use a particle accelerator to convert it on the fly. Once it starts you're good to go (you can keep it going using neutron flux in the reactor) so you have the particle beam starter engine :-)

orbifold 12y ago

Roughly 3-4 times as abundant as Uranium, according to http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pd.... To give you an idea on how much energy could be produced with this: A rough estimate shows that if all our current electric energy demand would be satisfied with Uranium, the reserves would run out in roughly 10 years. See http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/how-long-would-uranium-last/ http://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/how-long-woul....

eloff 12y ago
This estimate doesn't seem to account for enrichment. For every KG of uranium mined, you get a much lower ratio of enriched fuel.
- rwcarlsen 12y ago
  It shouldn't account for enrichment because thorium is a fertile material (not fissile) just like uranium 238 (99.3% of all uranium). Unenrichced uranium can be used in breeder type reactors just like unenriched thorium.
Tuna-Fish 12y ago
> rough estimate shows that if all our current electric energy demand would be satisfied with Uranium, the reserves would run out in roughly 10 years. While strictly correct, this is extremely misleading. Current resources would be exhausted in a decade, but resources are defined as the known deposits extractable under current market prices. Should we actually start using a lot of uranium, the price would spike, which would lead to a lot more deposits becoming economically available. This has almost no effect on the cost of nuclear power, as the cost of the raw uranium isn't a large part of the cost of producing power. The end game there is when the price rises sufficiently for extraction from seawater becoming profitable. The world's seas have ~1000 times more uranium than conventional ground-based resources. Nuclear fuels will not run out in this millennium.
- orbifold 12y ago