http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...r-thorium.html

"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...r-thorium.html

Interesting, but 'if it sounds too good.....' and all that!

On Sep 1, 8:19*am, " cupra" wrote:
"Lawrence Jenkins" wrote in message

...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...a-could-kill-f...

Interesting, but 'if it sounds too good.....' and all that!

That is my thought too. Wind farms, nuclear, Cap and Trade, and then
biofuels all seemed to be the answer but they all have flaws. What
are the disadvantages of thorium reactors? I suspect the cost per
unit of electricity generated is much higher than that from natural
gas. And will we have a thorium reactor in our cars instead of a
reciprocating engine? Not sure I want to drive to work each day
sitting on a radioactive box!

Cheers, Alastair.

On 31/08/2010 23:44, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...r-thorium.html


Thorium could well be a viable nuclear fuel now. Molten salt thorium
reactors have been built in the past. I suspect that advocates for Th232
are cheating somewhat saying that it generates 200x more energy per
tonne than Uranium. I see no obvious reason why the energy released per
tonne should scale other than with binding energy per nucleon.

Thorium does have one obvious advantage in that it is easily obtained
from rare earth refining by products and 5x more common than uranium.
And requires no enrichment step to be fissile. But Uranium is a lot more
common than people think too at about 2ppm it is just that mineable ores
are uncommon. Tungsten is a rarer metal.

We will need to build some more nuclear power stations if the lights are
not to go out in a decade or twos time (or be reliant on EDF). At this
point in time they would have to be conventional tried and tested
reactor designs - the old kit will have to be decommissioned soon.

Regards,
Martin Brown

On Sep 1, 9:59*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 31/08/2010 23:44, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...a-could-kill-f...

Thorium could well be a viable nuclear fuel now. Molten salt thorium
reactors have been built in the past. I suspect that advocates for Th232
are cheating somewhat saying that it generates 200x more energy per
tonne than Uranium. I see no obvious reason why the energy released per
tonne should scale other than with binding energy per nucleon.

Thorium does have one obvious advantage in that it is easily obtained
from rare earth refining by products and 5x more common than uranium.
And requires no enrichment step to be fissile. But Uranium is a lot more
common than people think too at about 2ppm it is just that mineable ores
are uncommon. Tungsten is a rarer metal.

We will need to build some more nuclear power stations if the lights are
not to go out in a decade or twos time (or be reliant on EDF). At this
point in time they would have to be conventional tried and tested
reactor designs - the old kit will have to be decommissioned soon.

Regards,
Martin Brown

The first word in the Torygraph's article is "If". Says it all
really.

On Sep 1, 8:59*am, Martin Brown
wrote:
On 31/08/2010 23:44, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...a-could-kill-f...

Thorium could well be a viable nuclear fuel now. Molten salt thorium
reactors have been built in the past. I suspect that advocates for Th232
are cheating somewhat saying that it generates 200x more energy per
tonne than Uranium. I see no obvious reason why the energy released per
tonne should scale other than with binding energy per nucleon.

I think the point they are making is that only the fissile isotopes of
uranium can be used to generate electricity whereas all of the mined
thorium can be used.

Cheers, Alastair.

On 01/09/2010 10:14, Dawlish wrote:
On Sep 1, 9:59 am, Martin
wrote:
On 31/08/2010 23:44, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...a-could-kill-f...

Thorium could well be a viable nuclear fuel now. Molten salt thorium
reactors have been built in the past. I suspect that advocates for Th232
are cheating somewhat saying that it generates 200x more energy per
tonne than Uranium. I see no obvious reason why the energy released per
tonne should scale other than with binding energy per nucleon.

Thorium does have one obvious advantage in that it is easily obtained
from rare earth refining by products and 5x more common than uranium.
And requires no enrichment step to be fissile. But Uranium is a lot more
common than people think too at about 2ppm it is just that mineable ores
are uncommon. Tungsten is a rarer metal.

We will need to build some more nuclear power stations if the lights are
not to go out in a decade or twos time (or be reliant on EDF). At this
point in time they would have to be conventional tried and tested
reactor designs - the old kit will have to be decommissioned soon.

Regards,
Martin Brown

The first word in the Torygraph's article is "If". Says it all
really.

Looking more closely at it displays clearly the total ignorance of the
average British journalist about matters of science. He states:

"Thorium-fluoride reactors can operate at atmospheric temperature."

Funny planet he must live on with an atmosphere at 650C or thereabouts.
Not even Venus is that hot! He means atmospheric pressure. High working
temperatures are of molten salts are good for thermodynamic efficiency.
Their recommended eutectic mix doesn't melt at all until 490C. eg

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-2076...19731B7B1D6B39

I would take everything in the article with a *huge* pinch of salt.
Wiki has a little bit about the history of earlier fused salt
experimental nuclear reactors and their interesting quirks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_...ooled_reactors

Regards,
Martin Brown

On 01/09/2010 10:32, Alastair wrote:
On Sep 1, 8:59 am, Martin
wrote:
On 31/08/2010 23:44, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...a-could-kill-f...

Thorium could well be a viable nuclear fuel now. Molten salt thorium
reactors have been built in the past. I suspect that advocates for Th232
are cheating somewhat saying that it generates 200x more energy per
tonne than Uranium. I see no obvious reason why the energy released per
tonne should scale other than with binding energy per nucleon.

I think the point they are making is that only the fissile isotopes of
uranium can be used to generate electricity whereas all of the mined
thorium can be used.

I make it nearer to 140x based on 0.7% U235 in natural ore.

That isn't true if you include plutonium breeder reactors in the
equation as they can burn the major isotope. The problem is that
plutonium is rather too easy to make bombs with and that is a political
decision rather than science or engineering.

Regards,
Martin Brown