KitemanSA

5 ms·

1.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
This statement is completely false. All _required_ aspects of fuel reprocessing have been demonstrated. And it has been demonstrated in two reactors with all three fissile fuels the LFTR cores are inherently stable. We have over two full
2.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
As several people have mentioned, you are confusing molten salt with liquid sodium. In a LFTR, the is no mechanism for driving the dispersal of the molten salt fuel. Therefore, no small particles and therefore the material is still in the
3.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
"What's the real cost of something like Fukushima?" Maybe the better question is what will the purveyors of fear, uncertainty and doubt cause the price to be. The cost will be negligible, at least compared to the local portion of the gener
4.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Nope, 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.
5.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
First, the government spent all that money for their own purposes. The design and construction of commercial Nuclear Power Plants has been on the user since day one. also, NPPs have been paying into a fund to handle Spent Nuclear Fuel.
6.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Oops, make that for two full power years over a period of five years. It was after all an experiment.
7.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Answer, yes it does. This was proven in the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment.
8.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
"Since the neutron flux in the reactor is the main variable which controls the power output it seems, that a Thorium reactor is significantly harder to control than a Uranium one." This is nonsense. LFTRs are self controlling with a signi
9.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Which just means there will be a lot of free fuel available!
10.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
That initial charge can be the Trans-Uranics (TRUs) from spent nuclear fuel. That way we can transition into the Thorium Age while cleaning up after the Uranium Flirtation! ;)
11.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
This is only one of MANY good presentations by Sorenson and others on LFTRs and what we can do with them.
12.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
"Safety features of nuclear plants seem to dominate the cost. There are many claims about the inherent safety features of thorium Molten Salt Reactors. But those claims have yet to be proven in working prototypes." Actually, yes they hav
13.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
"The Thorium fuel produces U232..." Yup, which is one of its nicest features. It means that the U233 is unlikely to be used for weapons. And since it never leaves the well shielded containment area in a LFTR, there is no hazard. If the k
14.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Scorecard Uranium derived bombs extant ~20,000 Thorium derived bombs extant =ZERO. The US & USSR would have been making Thorium derived weapons if it were practical. We DIDN'T. That should tell you something.
15.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
The answer, when compared to typical light water reactors is... A hell of a lot less. First, since Thorium is a byproduct of Rare Earth Element mining and Uranium is mined specifically, there is all the mining waste that is saved. Second,
16.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
What corrosion issue? It has already been shown the a combination of adding one additional alloying element to the Hastalloy N while keeping the salt slightly fluorine poor will greatly reduce the already minimal corrosion issue.
17.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Actually, there have been two working prototypes, one that ran without significant issue for about five full power years.
18.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
FOLLOW THE NUMBERS!!! U235 & Pu239 bombs extant ... ~20,000 U233 bombs extant ... ZERO Seems pretty conclusive. It is MUCH easier to make bombs the way everyone always has than to put your lives on the line fiddling with U233.
19.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Thorium in a LFTR breeds almost as well in a stable thermal spectrum reactor as U238 does in a twitchy fast spectrum reactor. And a LFTR doesn't have nearly the neutron loss mechanisms that solid fuel reactors typically do.
20.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
The same type of reactor can be used to make weapons grade Plutonium. Just ask Iran why they removed a fuel bundle from one of their reactors after just a few weeks rather than years.
21.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors were based on a design for an AIRCRAFT reactor! Talk about having to be SMALL! :)
22.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
LFTRs are not all that difficult. It is a WHOLE lot simpler than a Traveling Wave reactor!
23.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Thorium has issues in a solid fuel reactor. The LFTR is the way to go.
24.
by KitemanSA 14y ago
Thorium is kind of like diesel, it doesn't work well in a spark ignition engine. Thorium doesn't work very well in a solid fuel reactor. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs, pronounced "lifters") on the other hand work very nicely. A