mos6507 wrote: The trick is to basically quit while we're ahead.
Ludi wrote:NIMBYS are much less of a problem than lack of investors.
But NIMBYS are easier to blame - gotta hate on them greenies!
With oil at $100, it sure as hell is.
AirlinePilot wrote:Debunk this...Im discussing this with some other pilots....
"The other ugly little fact is that for every unit of energy you get out of coal there's 13 more in the form of thorium in the fuel. Assuming you burn one or two of those equivalents getting the thorium out of the ash (nothing is free in the real world) that still means for every 1000MWe coal plant we can build 10 more fueled by the waste it ejects, or we can burn none of the coal for power at all and use it to produce synfuel instead off the process heat (in part, at least.) This is a nearly-ideal cycle as the optimum temperature for the Fischer-Tropsch reaction tops around 300C - and LTSRs have operating temperatures around 650C.
They therefore can provide direct process heat to drive this reaction and then turn a turbine for electrical power on top of it. Oh yeah, and the high temperature operation means air-based heat exchangers are practical for the power-generating side too (they're not for a PWR due to the significantly lower process temperature.) That means you can put them anywhere, not just where there are massive fresh water sources.
Mine the coal, extract the thorium, burn it, convert the coal to diesel and gasoline while generating electricity with the rest of the process heat. There's your energy solution - we have over 1,000 years of coal supply when used in this fashion in America.
We can be entirely energy-independent within 20 years.
Beery wrote:He 'might' be able to fix that. Yeah, right! Maybe with Cavorite, Mithril, Kryptonite, or Liftwood. Or maybe Flubber - yeah, that might work.
Newfie wrote:Then the issue becomes the political will of the masses to spend large sums on R&D to create a new industry to solve a problem which the public does not perceive.
Especially rich, politically connected ones who live in scenic, unpolluted places.Ludi wrote:But NIMBYS are easier to blame - gotta hate on them greenies!
Keith_McClary wrote:Newfie wrote:Then the issue becomes the political will of the masses to spend large sums on R&D to create a new industry to solve a problem which the public does not perceive.
There are advocates for solar, biomass, etc., also needing large sums on R&D to create a new industry.
Do you think the gubmint should select the miracle technology and pour your money on it?
You gubmint is working on it:rangerone314 wrote:I propose we sprinkle cars and trucks with fairy dust, so they can fly like Tinkerbell. Then we won't need petroleum.
kildred590 wrote:As I understand it, Thorium does not change into Plutonium.
So its not economically viable, there's no "nuclear cycle", you can only use the rods once.
AirlinePilot wrote:What Im talking about is the Thorium reactor..LSR uses coal ash as a source and we use the heat to generate CTL. We did do it long ago at oak Ridge and Im wondering why it isnt being done now. Im pretty sure I know, but Im very interested in others take on this and if others think it possible to replace a significant portion of our fuel usage with CTL all at the same time continuing to generate Electric with the Nukes and continuing coal fired plants.
I think its purely amatter of NIMBY's and the cost of infrastructure to enbale it. Its the old scope and scale issue too big and not enough to matter until oil is pirced in the HUNDREDS of dollars..but Im still interested in the actual viability of Liquid Sodium reactors presently.
TheDude wrote:Two economists spot a $10 bill on the ground. One stoops to pick it up, and the other advises, “Don’t. If it were really $10, it wouldn’t be there anymore.”
Thorium reactors — The new free lunch | Energy BulletinThe fast breeder reactor is only the second stage of a long-term project. “There are no defined time lines as lot of technology development, research and demonstration activities need to be completed before commercial deployment of thorium reactors for power,” Thakur told me in an email. “I think it is decades away.” First, he explains, “we need to have a significant capacity of the fast breeder reactors where thorium could be used as a blanket.” (For a good overview on what this means, read this article on thorium reactor physics at the World Nuclear Association.)
AirlinePilot wrote:Ok lets distill this a bit. How about we discuss the feasibility of the LSR using Thorium as a fuel source. I'm interested specifically why we dont use them right now besides the NIMBY problem.
Beery,
I'm interested in your reply, this is what I have heard/read about the difficulties with LSR's the temperatures are much higher than traditional PWR and result in some as yet to be solved materials issues surrounding fuel parts and the reactor vessel etc due to temp.
Dezakin wrote:I'm unimpressed with that article.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests