> but thorium reactors have been pretty experimental<p>Not all thorium reactors. A good example for an industrial grade thorium reactor is the thtr-300 a high temperature thorium pebble bed reactor (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300</a>)<p>> Thorium reactors are inherently stable, so “nuclear meltdowns” can’t happen.<p>This was also one reason for the design of the AVR in Jülich and it's successor the THTR-300. Although there wasn't any "nuclear meltdown", there were various other problems:<p>- Small amounts of water leaking into the primary cooling circuit. Bigger amounts could have lead to a buildup of hydrogen and oxygen which can cause explosions. This is very comparable to a meltdown<p>- The pebbles proved to be not very stable. This lead to a bigger amount of radioactive matter being released into the surrounding environment by the THTR-300<p>- The AVR leaked a big amount of radioactive matter into the ground water<p>- various other problems<p>Newer thorium reactor types won't have these problems because they will be considered in their designs, but there's still the problem with the timeframe. Estimates are that 2030 is the time when Gen IV reactors will get rolled out (<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor</a>). Meanwhile Germany replaced 3.5% of it's electric power sources from 2010 to 2011 with renewable ones.
I've seen several thorium-boosting articles like this, and none of them say why research and industrial development selected for uranium over thorium. Is it just because the initial research into power came out of weapons research?
Not only is thorium much more plentiful than Uranium, creating demand for thorium also solves diffuses the Chinese economic control of rare earth metals. Rare earths are plentiful in monazite sands as well as thorium and are available in the US. Right now, thorium is a radioactive byproduct that largely prevents economic extraction of rare earths. Build good thorium reactors in the US, and both energy and rare earth situations are alleviated.
Here's an introductory video (10 mins) <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw</a> a longer video <a href="http://thoriumremix.com/2011/" rel="nofollow">http://thoriumremix.com/2011/</a> (the surrounding links are worth exploring) and a summary <a href="http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120621060336/http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/files/comments/attachments/flibe_energy_-_lftr_thorium_top_ten.pdf" rel="nofollow">http://cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120621060336/http...</a> The important point to get is that the excitement is not just "thorium" (as the title of the thread suggests) but the reactor as well.
This seems to be an update on the Norway story at the end:<p><a href="http://singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year-test-of-thorium-nuclear-reactor/" rel="nofollow">http://singularityhub.com/2012/12/11/norway-begins-four-year...</a><p>And how come he didn't even mention LFTR?<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor</a>
Fun related trivia:<p>I just read Robert A. Heinlein's first "Heinlein juvenile" (i.e. young adult) novel <i>Rocket Ship Galileo</i>. It was published in 1947. The rocket ship's power plant was a nuclear reactor using... thorium.
Possibly Graphen coating of the metals could be used to solve the corrosion problem in molten salt Thorium reactors.<p>If we solve the corrosion problem we get cheap abundant energy with little to no nuclear waste and little to no material which can be used to make weapons of mass destruction.<p><a href="http://www.gizmag.com/graphene-metal-corrosion/24434/" rel="nofollow">http://www.gizmag.com/graphene-metal-corrosion/24434/</a>
A pretty good article overall but he seems to go off the rails when he starts talking about construction costs and assumes that a thorium reactor would cost the same as a uranium reactor. My understanding is that a thorium reactor should be dramatically cheaper for a variety of reasons (no need for a big containment bubble for one thing).
"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 have. The three main safety features have all been demonstrated.<p>First, the working fluid is non-volatile, no pressure nor chemical reactivity to drive dispersion of trapped gaseous fission products like Xenon and Iodine. Those were the two significant dispersed radionuclides in Fukushima.<p>Second, those same kind of radionuclides are removed from the salt continuously so there is not a store of them to BE dispersed.<p>Third, any loss of power to the reactor will passively result in a dump of the salt into a non-reactive tank where it will be passively cooled. It will be "walk away safe"!
This Nature article throws some cold water on the claims that thorium isn't very useful for making weapons.<p><a href="http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v492/n7427/full/492031a.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v492/n7427/full/492031a...</a><p>Unfortunately the article is paywalled.
I took a nuclear engineering class in 1975. In essence we discussed three reactor design ideas:<p>1. Water, pressurized or otherwise.
2. Gas-cooled.
3. Molten-salt.<p>The big problem with molten salt was that you sent it through a whole lot of pipes. Hence, the physical plant that would get radioactive was much bigger than just the core of a water-based reactor. Also, you just had to deal with a whole lot of radioactive sludge.<p>A huge advantage was that the thing couldn't lose coolant and melt down; a catastrophic failure would amount to the molten salt sinking into the earth below.<p>It seemed at the time that if any major change would be made, it would be to HTGRs -- high-temperature gas reactors. But it also seemed as if the true "best" idea was molten-salt.
Note well that you are reading an article by someone who doesn't know the difference between fission and fusion (he says that a uranium fission reaction can result in a "thermonuclear explosion").
Here's a full, frank discussion of the use of thorium in a LFTR <a href="http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/79398/kirk-sorensen-detailed-exploration-thoriums-potential-energy-source" rel="nofollow">http://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/79398/kirk-sorensen-de...</a>
The nice thing about this item is that there's a transcript. For example, "Why thorium, not uranium?" Well the technicalities are explained (thermal vs fast reactors).
If you want to help raise public awareness of this issue, sign the petition on the We-The-People website
to preserve U233 used to make LFTR reactors.
<a href="http://wh.gov/5Rmc" rel="nofollow">http://wh.gov/5Rmc</a><p>More info can be found here
<a href="http://thoriumpetition.com/" rel="nofollow">http://thoriumpetition.com/</a>
Could someone please open a kickstarter for a new thorium reactor design and construction?<p>I'll gladly contribute to the initial cost (probably billions) just to get a lifetime of free and CO2-efficient electricity.<p>Couldn't this way of funding bypass most "big firm" inefficiencies and legacy cruft, just as SpaceX did?
For those interested, here's a TEDx talk about liquid fluoride thorium reactors and how they could be used to power a moon colony:<p><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw</a>
Shouldn't one rather frame this debate not as "proponents vs opponents" but as "scientists trying to figure out what is actually the case and hopefully inventing better nuclear power in the process"?
Does anyone know how much less waste Thorium produces when used compared to Uranium? Both this article and Peter Thiel's linked article say "less", but neither are exact.