Thoughts on Thorium Molten Salt Reactors?

[robert_steinhaus]

It may be worthy to note that there is a LFTR related practical molten salt Thorium/U-233 ignited fusion technology that was designed by Lawrence Livermore and Los Alamos national labs.

That system is an inertial confinement fusion power plant technology called PACER fusion and is capable of producing net energy today. PACER is practical fusion technology that could be built today and requires no physics or engineering breakthroughs to construct. PACER can be implemented in either the Plutonium or Thorium fusion enhanced fuel cycles (but Thorium-U233 is probably preferred due to advantages in molten salt fuel processing chemistry). PACER has been demonstrated to operate with either D-T or D-D fusion reactions and incorporates molten salt liquid wall heat and neutron absorption which permits reactor materials to last for in excess of 200,000 PACER shots, which is about 30 years of commercial operation at a 1 GWe average power level using the small 2 - 3kt LLNL peaceful nuclear explosive design.

A small website has been set up to share information on PACER fusion.
More info - http://goo.gl/XL534

All inertial confinement fusion concepts (NIF Indirect Laser Fusion, Sandia Z-pinch Fusion, University of Rochester Direct Laser Fusion, Heavy Ion Fusion, etc.) produce energy through a series of small, controlled, fusion explosions. PACER does also, but it is the only fusion concept today that produces net energy.

[GIThruster]

Well, it's not a fusion concept that produces net energy until it produces net energy. More importantly, I see no benefit over a fission plant. Rather, it seems a step backward.

Most people have no idea what it is about fusion that is attractive. They think because the reaction is higher power density that the system will be as well, and yet what we see over time is when you look at the entire system, chemical is more power dense than fission and fission is more power dense than fusion. Fusion's main advantage is that it shouldn't require mining, refining and handling fissile fuels, and should not generate hazardous waste. There is no expected benefit so far as power density is concerned.

Now without looking I'm just saying, it sounds like this system has all the problems of fission, so no real benefit. You still need fission materials and now it sounds like you need weapons grade materials. How is that a step forward? And doesn't it still produce fission products that have to be stored safely for hundreds of years? What exactly is the reason to build a combined fission/fusion reactor?

[KitemanSA]

People forget that Fukushima and Chernobyl were outdated systems...

People also don't understand that in the scheme of things, Fukushima and Chernobyl were non-events. More people have died setting up and running windmills than have died in commercial nuclear power plant accidents.

NPP ~ 50
WM ~ 70 (http://www.wind-works.org/articles/DeathsDatabase.xls)

[D Tibbets]

My perception of the energy density is somewhat different. A fission reactor is fairly small, perhaps large room size. I don't know how large a coal or natural gas boiler is. A Polywell may be about the same size as a fission reactor for the same thermal power. A Dense Plasma Focus may be even smaller (for the appropriate small capacity systems). I don't know where a FRC reactor would lie, though I suspect it would be about as wide and longer than a Polywell. But this is a limited view point. Fuel handling, steam plant and waste handling are the big components of a powerplant. This is where the higher power density fusion concepts would have an advantage. This probably excludes the Tokamak, but perhaps not the others. Those that could avoid a stem plant through direct conversion has an additionally large advantage .

As for fatalities, I suspect the delayed death toll from Chernobyl is much higher. Then you have to consider the deaths from other accidents associated with the industry. I suspect the coal mining contribution far exceeds any of the others.

Waste handling of fission is much more problematic than I suspected before the Japanese accidents. The fission byproducts produce a lot of heat that has to be managed to prevent a meltdown or subsequent explosion. The Japanese reactors were shut down quickly. It was the continuing heat from the decay products and the loss of cooling that led to the catastrophes.
A similar decay heat process in a D-D fusing Polywell would occur if the reactor was wrapped with Boron 10. Bussard proposed this to squeeze a little more energy out of the plant. The difference is that the decay occurs very fast, so the heat generation slows almost as fast as the water pressure drops if there was a coolent failure (and of course the fusion is turned off- which could occur is a small fraction of a second), thus heat buildup is a much smaller concern.

Dan Tibbets

[paperburn1]

A friend of a friend has made the claim that there are better designs of reactors that are more stable but not in usage because they they have a lower profit margin. He is in the industry so I have to place some credence in what he said. But with that does anybody know if there are "safer" designs that are approved out there but not being used? Or is it just safer ideas that have not yet been engineered or approved?

[GIThruster]

People forget that Fukushima and Chernobyl were outdated systems...

People also don't understand that in the scheme of things, Fukushima and Chernobyl were non-events.

What a crazy-ass statement! The only two level seven nuclear disaster events in history were "non-events"? You are stark raving mad! Fukushima released radioactive steam direct into the air, and contaminated ground and sea water. Radioactive products have been found 50 km away in the water table and no one is allowed to grow food inside that area. The people involved got into all sorts of crazy ass lies and misrepresentations. Those responsible to make the proper judgement calls are entirely responsible for the meltdown which they obviously could have prevented. Every safeguard that could have been used was circumvented or overcome and there is now radiation poisoning across thousands of square miles that will last for centuries.

You are out of your mind to call it a "non-event". Thats like saying just because more people died from firebombs than nuclear bombs in WWII, that the nukes we dropped were "non-events" You are a deeply screwed up guy if you can make yourself believe such bullshit.

[Skipjack]

In the grander scope of things, they were non events.
Coal kills 30,000 people every year in the US allone. That is much more important, but noone talks about it.

[Tom DeGisi]

GIThruster,

Yes, the only two level seven nuclear disaster events in history were "non-events" in the grand scheme of things. How many disasters do you remember from the 1600's, for example? I remember the London fire and some plagues.

Maybe we need a level eight.

Yours,
Tom

[KitemanSA]

Chernobyl deaths ~ 50.
Fukushima deaths = ZERO.

2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami deaths ~ 16,000.
Bhopal chemical spill deaths ~ 26,000.
2004 Boxing Day earthquake and tsunami deaths ~ 230,000.

Yes, I'd say by comparison, C&F were non-events. Only useful idiots get all het up over them.

Indeed, if all the effects could be taken into account, C&F would likely wind up being found to have extended the lives of the total "effected population" by several thousand lifespans.

[GIThruster]

The "grand scheme"? That's just playing a stupid, childish game. So what that coal kills 30,000 people a year? Permian–Triassic extinction event killed 57% of all families, 83% of all genera and 90% to 96% of all species. (53% of marine families, 84% of marine genera, about 96% of all marine species and an estimated 70% of land species, including insects. So who cares about rendering thousands of square miles completely useless for the next few centuries? And no need to care about the radioactivity now in the water table with no way to get it out. It's a "non-event".

Seriously, your head has to be deep up your asshole to think Chernobyl and Fukushima were non-events.

[KitemanSA]

Well folks, we've identified another useful idiot. I suspect he only listens to the major media.

[KitemanSA]

Oh, and by the way, freakoutazoids like the GIT here have killed more folks than all commercial NPP incidents put together. Good going GIT... MURDERER!

[GIThruster]

Kite, poisoning the air, the sea, thousands of square miles of the most expensive real estate in the world, and the water table for dozens of kilometers around is not a "non-event" by any sensible person's standards. If you portray the very worst events in human history as no big deal, you just make it so sensible people will ignore you.

Counting how many people die in a disaster is but one criteria to show the seriousness of the issue. I'm sure even you know that the real costs of Fukushima will not be counted for centuries yet. The fact you think rendering thousands of square miles as poisoned and useless is a "non-event", clearly shows your head is up your ass.

[D Tibbets]

Please stop SHOUTING. It is clear that death rates in the industry are much lower for nuclear. I suspect even the liquid petroleum industry has created many more cancer deaths than nuclear. And the environmental pollution associated with various fossil fuel acquisitions has been profound. The scope of the nuclear contamination is far less. Still, I would not call them non events, especially from an economic, and lifestyle standpoint.

As for safer designs, yes there are newer designs that are claimed to be safer. My limited research after the Japanese failures is that the improvements are mostly more pumps and valves, and a very large water tank onb top of the reactor that can passively provide cooling for several days. Still it is all a game of predicting and forcasting. The systems are inherently unforgiving, again primarily due to the continuing heat from the decay products that takes weeks before they stop melting surrounding structures. In Chernobyl the design was even worse. I think some fission continued (continues?) after meltdown, despite heroic efforts to dampen it by the USSR

PS: The nuclear accidents in nuclear submarines should be included in the death toll, but the oceans do not leave inconvenient holes. Also, when considering radioactive fall out, the natural radioactivity released in coal fired power plants is not trivial.

Polywell Plug: non fission mediated fusion power plants, while not without problems, are very much more friendly to the environment. There are limits though, even fusion power plants located off of the Earth have consequences. The cancer deaths due to Solar radiation is not trivial either.

Dan Tibbets

[KitemanSA]

The fact you think rendering thousands of square miles as poisoned and useless is a "non-event", clearly shows your head is up your ass.

The fact that you think C&F has left thousands of square miles poisoned and useless just demonstrates what a useful idiot you truly are. For the "uselessness" of the land, blame not C&F, but useful idiots such as yourself. There MAY be a few square miles that I wouldn't clamber to live in, but that is just great for the wildlife.