4 ms·

It just vexes me that thorium research is not a national priority. How can a technology that, by many estimates, has at least a 50% chance of being a viable rep

It just vexes me that thorium research is not a national priority. How can a technology that, by many estimates, has at least a 50% chance of being a viable replacement of all energy needs over the next 1000 years not be worthy of the US investment? We lose hundreds of billions of dollars per year in oil imports. Why is that not worth avoiding?

mark-r 12y ago
It's because nuclear reactors, of any kind, are politically untenable at the moment. Especially unproven designs. Nobody's going to allow one to be built in their back yard, no matter how promising the technology.
perlgeek 12y ago
I'm not familiar with Thorium reactors at all, so forgive me for asking: how much long-lived nuclear waste do they produce? Because we have no viable way to do with that.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- dognotdog 12y ago
  The idea is that not only do they not produce long-lived waste, but some designs can even recycle the 'spent' fuel from conventional reactors.
  - CurtMonash 12y ago
    Is this in models -- molten salt? -- where the fuel circulates in liquid form?
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  They use about 1/200th amount of fuel compared to current uranium reactors, so the amount of total waste is small. About 1 tonne thorium per one gigawatt-year. And the wastes they produce have a far smaller portion of long lived isotopes, because the reactor controls very well what substances receive neutrons. Here's the best image comparison I could find. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg4r-09gm0/TdZeWHzJWEI/AAAAAAAAAh4/8X7A1Wd1NAE/s1600/comparison+in+fuel+cycles.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg4r-09gm0/TdZeWHzJWEI/AAAAAAAAAh... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg4r-09gm0/TdZeWHzJWEI/AAAAAAAAAh4/8X7A1Wd1NAE/s1600/comparison+in+fuel+cycles.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg4r-09gm0/TdZeWHzJWEI/AAAAAAAAAh...
- fordiman 12y ago
  > I'm not familiar with Thorium reactors at all, so forgive me for asking: how much long-lived nuclear waste do they produce? Almost none of the 250,000 year stuff. Almost entirely the 300 year stuff. Also, about 1/4 the total mass of all waste product. Additionally, according to their documentation, the 250,000 year stuff is ultimately cycled back into the reactor to be destroyed. Most long-lived nuclear waste is fissionable, so you can just use it as more fuel, given that you can remove the fission products from the fuel easily.

mark-r 12y ago

It's because nuclear reactors, of any kind, are politically untenable at the moment. Especially unproven designs. Nobody's going to allow one to be built in their back yard, no matter how promising the technology.

perlgeek 12y ago

I'm not familiar with Thorium reactors at all, so forgive me for asking: how much long-lived nuclear waste do they produce? Because we have no viable way to do with that.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
dognotdog 12y ago
The idea is that not only do they not produce long-lived waste, but some designs can even recycle the 'spent' fuel from conventional reactors.
- CurtMonash 12y ago
  Is this in models -- molten salt? -- where the fuel circulates in liquid form?
Gravityloss 12y ago
They use about 1/200th amount of fuel compared to current uranium reactors, so the amount of total waste is small. About 1 tonne thorium per one gigawatt-year. And the wastes they produce have a far smaller portion of long lived isotopes, because the reactor controls very well what substances receive neutrons. Here's the best image comparison I could find. http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg4r-09gm0/TdZeWHzJWEI/AAAAAAAAAh4/8X7A1Wd1NAE/s1600/comparison+in+fuel+cycles.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg4r-09gm0/TdZeWHzJWEI/AAAAAAAAAh... http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg4r-09gm0/TdZeWHzJWEI/AAAAAAAAAh4/8X7A1Wd1NAE/s1600/comparison+in+fuel+cycles.jpg http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mAg4r-09gm0/TdZeWHzJWEI/AAAAAAAAAh...
fordiman 12y ago
> I'm not familiar with Thorium reactors at all, so forgive me for asking: how much long-lived nuclear waste do they produce? Almost none of the 250,000 year stuff. Almost entirely the 300 year stuff. Also, about 1/4 the total mass of all waste product. Additionally, according to their documentation, the 250,000 year stuff is ultimately cycled back into the reactor to be destroyed. Most long-lived nuclear waste is fissionable, so you can just use it as more fuel, given that you can remove the fission products from the fuel easily.