TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Thorium nuclear reactors: a possible solution of the energy crisis? (video)

227 点作者 japaget将近 14 年前

20 条评论

rmason将近 14 年前
I've studied this for years and haven't found any credible reason why we couldn't do this today.<p>But there are a lot of forces allied against Thorium in both the government, energy companies and the current nuclear industry.<p>Senator Hatch (R) Utah with support from Harry Reid (D) Nevada has introduced a bill annually for five years to fund $200 million to research to commercialize Thorium power. Yet every year the bill never even gets voted on.<p><a href="http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=releases&#38;ContentRecord_id=25d9273f-1b78-be3e-e03d-75506902df40&#38;ContentType_id=7e038728-1b18-46f4-bfa9-f4148be94d19" rel="nofollow">http://hatch.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=releases&#38;Cont...</a><p>What is stopping Google itself from funding this I don't know? Our country should make this a major initiative similar to the race to the moon and get us off coal, oil and gas.
评论 #2724292 未加载
评论 #2724656 未加载
评论 #2724200 未加载
评论 #2725506 未加载
评论 #2725294 未加载
Create将近 14 年前
This is project pursued by many[1]. The main hurdles are:<p>1. political [2], which Kirk mentions (it is no coincidence, that the pellets that the rods contain are as standard as the NATO bullet) -- the industry and power has a very different interest<p>2. technical: Kirk always mentions, that the fuel is not solid. It is liquid. The latter means, that you do have higher concerns about corrosiveness, hence (useful) reactor lifetime...<p>Also, the issue of scale, which tends to lie between 1. and 2. Uranium "won", because you got the real stuff with it (weapons as in actual projection of power, or the capability of threat to project power) and because you could make it work on a massive scale (current reactors are an order of magnitude larger than any LFTR design, and capitalism is based on the leverage of and concentration of power).<p>[1] <a href="http://energyfromthorium.com/" rel="nofollow">http://energyfromthorium.com/</a><p><a href="http://www.thorenergy.no/" rel="nofollow">http://www.thorenergy.no/</a><p><a href="http://thoriumenergy.com.au/" rel="nofollow">http://thoriumenergy.com.au/</a><p>... besides China, India, France and (even) Czechs.<p>[2] <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/2011/03/a_is_for_atom....</a> -&#62; see Seaborg interview part
评论 #2724128 未加载
api将近 14 年前
I hear a lot about the LFTR, and I wonder what the problem is. Is there a major technical hurdle that prevents this from seeing widespread use?<p>Sometimes there is, sometimes there isn't. Sometimes a really good idea never gets used because... well... because nobody really picks it up and runs with it. It's that simple sometimes.<p>But sometimes there's some hidden gotcha.
评论 #2723937 未加载
评论 #2724175 未加载
评论 #2723831 未加载
评论 #2723923 未加载
评论 #2725704 未加载
评论 #2723899 未加载
评论 #2726136 未加载
评论 #2724670 未加载
zherbert将近 14 年前
I go to school at Boston University and took an Energy class with a Nobel Laureate in physics, Sheldon Glashow, last semester. He spoke in great depth about Thorium reactors, and is very supportive of the technology.<p>One of the main hurdles is that we have poured money into our modern-day reactors, and have constructed hundreds of plants. If we were to switch to thorium, we would have to essentially start from scratch - new research, new plant designs, new training, etc. It is very difficult to justify a complete switch from uranium, as it would be incredibly costly.<p>In other countries, however, thorium reactors could be very beneficial. Countries using thorium would not be able to produce nuclear weapons, which would give the world great peace of mind. This could minimize risks in unstable countries - we wouldn't worry if Iran was building a thorium reactor, for example.<p>There are also other types of reactor designs that use nuclear waste to create power. I believe our nuclear future lies with these types of reactors, rather than with uranium or thorium.
评论 #2725031 未加载
amalag将近 14 年前
Since India has a lot of Thorium, they are actively pursuing it. <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk&#38;feature=related" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nl5DiTPw3dk&#38;feature=relat...</a>
fleitz将近 14 年前
Just use CANDU reactors, it will burn raw uranium, and can use the waste product from PWR reactors, just leave the thorium in the raw uranium. It's been working for years, no Yucca mountain, Yucca mountain is a purely US phenomena, it doesn't exist in Canada or France. It's not a new technology, it's 60 years old. All you need is a little heavy water, and in event of a meltdown you just flood the tank with regular water and voila no reactions.<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor</a><p>Here's the fuel cycle for a CANDU reactor which will support the thorium cycle as well. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CANDU_fuel_cycles.jpg" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CANDU_fuel_cycles.jpg</a>
DennisP将近 14 年前
For anyone who wants to delve into this more deeply, Sorenson's videos (<a href="http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/06/04/adventures-with-gordon/" rel="nofollow">http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/06/04/adventures-with-gord...</a>) are really great. I recently watched the two-hour one, which was edited from a longer talk to cut out the pauses. It's a rapid-fire, passionate technical introduction that I found very compelling.
ugh将近 14 年前
Any plans to build a reactor somewhere?<p>I fear that mere engineering heavy talking has no chance solving nuclear’s PR problem.<p>Actually building a reactor might help. Maybe. Maybe not.
评论 #2723979 未加载
earlyrise将近 14 年前
If the world was serious about nuclear non-proliferation, we would have thorium reactors everywhere already. They said a few times in the video that thorium reactors can't be used for weapons, and so they are not built. Governments have decided that we need nukes, so thorium reactors do not get funding.<p>But if we are serious about non-proliferation, then switching to thorium reactors and controlling which new reactors get built is a much more effective strategy then the current weapon-counting efforts. Once a reactor is built and starts creating fissile material, then it is difficult to keep track of and control. But it is much harder to hide a reactor while you are building it - Iran tried and failed.<p>So it seems to me that thorium reactors, in addition to their efficiency, low cost and low amount of radioactive waste, could also be a useful tool in enforcing nuclear non-proliferation. We've got these reactors that cannot be used to make bombs - why don't we sign treaties saying that they are the only reactors that can be built?
daniel-cussen将近 14 年前
I read an American company is trying to make one in the north of Chile. It's because they really need energy (they're currently using coal and <i>diesel</i> to keep the lights on in the north) and there's not a whole lot of bio-anything to protect there. I think it's a great idea, but a lot of people don't.
mrothe将近 14 年前
This cutted version feels like none of these persons said anything that is in the video, because the statements (or even words) are "out of context". I just can <i>assume</i> the author of the video has good intentions and did not change the context.
评论 #2724102 未加载
评论 #2725421 未加载
评论 #2724404 未加载
评论 #2723762 未加载
评论 #2723826 未加载
mcritz将近 14 年前
Thus video just gave me something to research for the next few days.
iwwr将近 14 年前
You can still make bombs from the thorium cycle, with U233.
评论 #2723896 未加载
评论 #2724702 未加载
评论 #2724090 未加载
seamonster将近 14 年前
Kirk Sorenson on Dr kiki’s Science Hour: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpnpyd-jbw" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpnpyd-jbw</a>
ollybee将近 14 年前
the UK National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) undertook a recent independent assessment, in which it assessed a number of claims made by proponents of thorium fuel. The report can be found at: <a href="http://www.nnl.co.uk/positionpapers" rel="nofollow">http://www.nnl.co.uk/positionpapers</a>
评论 #2728613 未加载
brianbreslin将近 14 年前
Slightly off topic, but could thorium be used for vehicle propulsion? as in nuclear submarines or even better: space craft? if the payload is efficient enough, it could solve the issues we have with getting rockets into space (fuel is heavy, and costly to transport).
delinquentme将近 14 年前
Tailor made idea for the "reverse VC pitch"<p>VC &#62;&#62; find engineers &#62;&#62; provide $$ &#62;&#62; GO.
softbuilder将近 14 年前
Can I look forward to a Google thorium salt reactor in the near future?
zobzu将近 14 年前
text &#62; video
评论 #2726452 未加载
评论 #2724578 未加载
u48998将近 14 年前
I have a whole lot of related links here making the case for thorium: <a href="http://webwanderings.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/thorium-based-energy-is-the-answer/" rel="nofollow">http://webwanderings.wordpress.com/2011/04/07/thorium-based-...</a>