Posted: Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:06 am
Another article about this subject:
Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke (www.wired.com)
Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke (www.wired.com)
a discussion forum for Polywell fusion
https://talk-polywell.org/bb/
Interesting.vernes wrote:Another article about this subject:
Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke (www.wired.com)
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.
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?
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!!!
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!!!