Another article about this subject:
Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke (www.wired.com)
Power from Thorium Conference coming soon. FYI
Interesting.vernes wrote:Another article about this subject:
Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke (www.wired.com)
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
I think thorium-based fission power (LFTR or MSR) is the way to go if none of the fusion schemes being pursued right now (polywell, FRC, etc.) work out. Also, if Boron-Hydrogen fusion turns out to be impossible, but D-D fusion works OK, then fusion-fission hybrid power will be the way to go.
Interestingly, with regards to energy output (because fission produces 20 times more energy than fusion per atom used), the Earth has as much Thorium reserves as it does Boron.
Interestingly, with regards to energy output (because fission produces 20 times more energy than fusion per atom used), the Earth has as much Thorium reserves as it does Boron.
MSimon - I found this toward the end of the link:
# Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
# Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution
# Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium
# Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)
# Coolant Self-regulating
# Proliferation potential None
# Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone
How does this compare to a Polywell BFR? In particular, how does the projected fuel cost and footprint compare? And is this LFTR footprint, 2,000-3,000 square feet, a good sized house or a very small city lot, really believable? If so, what does it include.
# Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
# Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution
# Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium
# Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)
# Coolant Self-regulating
# Proliferation potential None
# Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone
How does this compare to a Polywell BFR? In particular, how does the projected fuel cost and footprint compare? And is this LFTR footprint, 2,000-3,000 square feet, a good sized house or a very small city lot, really believable? If so, what does it include.
Aero
-
passenger66
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Fri Jun 12, 2009 5:22 pm
I like this site:
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/
for more info on the LFTR.
(btw, Charles Barton has eyesight problems, so there are spelling mistakes in his posts because he can't see them)
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
has a technical papers repository for the ORNL MSRE and LFTR discussion.
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/
for more info on the LFTR.
(btw, Charles Barton has eyesight problems, so there are spelling mistakes in his posts because he can't see them)
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
has a technical papers repository for the ORNL MSRE and LFTR discussion.
I'd say the the two schemes are in the same ball park. (i.e. within a factor of 2 or so). The pluses and minuses for each are a little different but from 1Km away hardly any difference (i.e. the BFR has essentially zero heat production when you turn the electricity off - a thorium device will have some due to fission products - I haven't run the numbers - in fact it would be good if some one had the numbers - any one have a link - other than to hand waving?)Aero wrote:MSimon - I found this toward the end of the link:
# Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
# Fuel Thorium and uranium fluoride solution
# Fuel input per gigawatt output 1 ton raw thorium
# Annual fuel cost for 1-GW reactor $10,000 (estimated)
# Coolant Self-regulating
# Proliferation potential None
# Footprint 2,000-3,000 square feet, with no need for a buffer zone
How does this compare to a Polywell BFR? In particular, how does the projected fuel cost and footprint compare? And is this LFTR footprint, 2,000-3,000 square feet, a good sized house or a very small city lot, really believable? If so, what does it include.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LeM-Dyuk6g
Not a numbers video IIRC. It's a good 10min recap for anyone wanting the gist.
Not a numbers video IIRC. It's a good 10min recap for anyone wanting the gist.
No, at least not economically or anytime soon. I saw some numbers a while back which I might try to dig up again (I think the link is on TP somewhere). They're promising, but not that promising. Plus, a significant and vocal faction of the population thinks they're powered by evil spirits that anger Mother Earth.And is this LFTR footprint, 2,000-3,000 square feet, a good sized house or a very small city lot, really believable?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor
Anyways, size isn't really an issue; you can build a pebble-bed reactor small enough to power a truck (after all, it's just hot rocks in a box). But there's no way in hell you'd be allowed to drive it anywhere, and the regulatory costs would make it horribly uneconomic.
OTOH, we might live to see both. There's only so much fossil fuel left, and a hell of a lot of thorium.
Shipboard reactors (50 to 150 MWth) are not very large. It is all the other stuff that takes up the space.KitemanSA wrote:Remember, the original molten salt reactor was designed with the intention of powering an aircraft. They can be COMPACT!!!
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
True they are not extremely large, but larger than an MSR. And all the otherstuff in an MSR can also be compact by comparison to a PWR.MSimon wrote:Shipboard reactors (50 to 150 MWth) are not very large. It is all the other stuff that takes up the space.KitemanSA wrote:Remember, the original molten salt reactor was designed with the intention of powering an aircraft. They can be COMPACT!!!
The other thing I didn't mention last time is they tend to be very LIGHT in comparison too. No massive pressure containment vessle.