On Wed, Jan 15, 2025 at 3:04 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
*> There are many advantages for use of Thorium as a reactor fuel. Listing > them would be desirable.* *I sent this to the list some years ago. * *Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (*LFTR*) are what fusion wanted to be but never achieved, despite tens of billions of dollars poured into it. Certainly *LFTR*'s are better than conventional nuclear fission. Consider the advantages:* **Thorium is much more common than Uranium, *it's* twice as common as Tin* and almost as common as lead*. And Thorium is easier to extract from its ore than Uranium.* **A Thorium reactor burns up all the Thorium in it, 100%, so at current usage that element could supply our energy needs for many billions of years; A conventional light water reactor only burns *0*.7% of the Uranium in it. We'll run out of Thorium in the Earth's crust about the same time that the sun will run out of Hydrogen.* ** To burn the remaining 99.3% of Uranium you'd have to use a exotic fast neutron breeder reactor, Thorium reactors use slow neutrons and so are inherently more stable because you have more time to react if something goes wrong. Also breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium which is a bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. Thorium produces an insignificant amount of Plutonium.* ** Thorium does produce Uranium 233 and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, but it would be contaminated with Uranium 232 which is a powerful gamma ray emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so radioactive it would give away its position if you tried to hide it, the gamma rays would also destroy the bomb's electronic firing circuits and degrade its chemical explosives needed for implosion. For these reasons, even after 80 years, no nation has a Uranium 233 bomb in its weapons inventory.* **A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much waste as a conventional reactor and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a conventional reactor would take 100,000 years.* **A Thorium reactor has an inherent safety feature, the fuel is in liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) so if for whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and so the fuel gets less dense and the reaction slows down.* **There is yet another fail safe device. At the bottom of the reactor is something called a "freeze plug", fans blow on it to freeze it solid, if things get too hot the plug melts and the liquid drains out into a holding tank and the reaction stops; also if all electronic controls die due to a loss of electrical power the fans will stop the plug will melt and the reaction will stop.* **Thorium reactors work at much higher temperatures than conventional reactors so you have *far *better energy efficiency; in fact they are so hot the waste heat could be used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel from water.* ** Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure so that makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did get a leak it would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional reactor; that is also why the very expensive containment building in common light water reactors need to be so much larger than the reactor itself. With Thorium nothing is under pressure and there is no danger of a disastrous phase change so the expensive containment building can be made much more compact.* * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis>* 8bc -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3TCJjns-CNO%2B%2BWDD769Bbg69nMOjx8F_KMzg-tJVEsLg%40mail.gmail.com.
