I got into a bit of a debate with a mate last night (who, me? Imagine that... :angel:) and was astounded at the level of wilful ignorance I encountered.
So I just thought I'd ask what people here know about Thorium, and its application in power generation and its 'green' credentials.
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='79807' dateline='1442987175'So I just thought I'd ask what people here know about Thorium ......
.... I always thought it was where the guy with the hammer lived.
:angel: Yep, laziness as well as ignorance abounds, give us the drum. :grin:
Quote from: 'Unicorn' pid='79810' dateline='1442988065'.... I always thought it was where the guy with the hammer lived.
Yeah, that's how it got its name.
Element number 90 is radioactive. Can be used in reactors to generate energy by fission.
Not sure if that gives it any 'green' credentials -at least probably no more than uranium or plutonium.
That's about me done.
(http://www.australian-coins.net/gallery/albums/userpics/10113/Shultz.jpg)
There was an article about this in the latest New Scientist magazine - apparently, Britain's recently changed policy in regard to using it, or something.
It is "greener" than uranium/plutonium because it's much harder to make nuclear weapons with it, or with its waste. All the benefits of nuclear power - and nuclear power is "greener" than burning fossil fuels - without the downside of making stockpiles of weapon precursors.
Virtually all our energy; solar, wind, waves, hydro, coal wood, oil, peat and so on, comes from nuclear fusion in our very own star (Sol).
A trace ('nuclear', for want of a better word plus geothermal) is a by-product of, mostly, nuclear fission from long departed stars.
So what is 'green' and what is not? Gravity (actually quite a weak force) is mostly responsible.
Quote from: 'JeffH' pid='79815' dateline='1442990682'Not sure if that gives it any 'green' credentials -at least probably no more than uranium or plutonium.
The problem with Light Water reactors is the huge masses of highly radioactive waste they produce, and the many, many systems built around them to guard against the fact that they are basically ticking timebombs, by virtue of the high pressure superheated steam.
Fukushima's reactor didn't explode. It actually shut down immediately the tsunami hit. The problem was the loss of power, because a) the reactor shut down and b) some imbecile put the diesel generators in the basement where they were taken out by the floodwaters. No power, no cooling, no cooling, KABOOM!
Fast Breeder Reactors have very little waste, but they produce Plutonium. Great if you want to make bombs, not so great otherwise, especially if the wrong people get their hands on it.
Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors are small, cheap, fast to build, and not only generate no long-lived waste, but consume existing waste stockpiles, and create a range of highly desirable and valuable short-lived isotopes.
Any surprise the Chinese are building them, with the first to come online by 2020?
Oh, and why didn't the yanks go with them when they've had the technology for 50 years? Well, lets see.. the people, like GE and Westinghouse, who build reactors use the Gillette model.. give away the plant at cost, make a fortune on the consumable fuel rods.
If only Australians could see the huge advantage this technology could give us. But as usual, we'll be a hundred years behind. :(
Quote from: 'JeffH' pid='79835' dateline='1443001816'Virtually all our energy; solar, wind, waves, hydro, coal wood, oil, peat and so on, comes from nuclear fission in our very own star (Sol).
It's actually nuclear fusion that powers stars, not fission. Nuclear fusion is the long-sought-after ultra-green powerplant of the future - and it's been "of the future" for seventy years now, despite billions of research dollars going into it. While it should logically be possible to generate commercially viable nuclear fusion inside a vessel smaller than a star, we haven't figured out how to do it yet.
Quote from: 'Sapyx' pid='79848' dateline='1443009660'we haven't figured out how to do it yet.
Nor are we likely to. The temperatures and pressures are just too great.
Besides, with the abundance of Thorium available, and the simple and clean nature of the process, who needs it?
Fun fact: The early development was commissioned by the US Air Force, who wanted a nuclear-powered bomber. Once ICBM's were developed and made strategic bombers obsolete, they cut off funding. Bummer, eh?
QuoteIt's actually nuclear fusion that powers stars, not fission.
Yes that is what I meant to say. Inexplicable brain storm there.
I have edited my post to correct my egregious error.
There is also Cold Fusion / Low Energy Nuclear reactions, which is quite interesting.
At the end of the day, I just feel that with all the up and coming and improving renewable options, it's going to be the public who ultimately make the decision.
And because of the past events at nuclear power plants (the obvious ones Chernobyl and Fukushima) , I don't believe the public will ever really grow to accept 'Nuclear' as an option vs the others, regardless of the fuel / process.
Quote from: 'Fr45h3R' pid='79917' dateline='1443087183'I don't believe the public will ever really grow to accept 'Nuclear' as an option vs the others, regardless of the fuel / process.
No.. because the public are basically ignorant.
Ultimately, ALL energy is 'nuclear'. Whether it comes from harnessing radiation directly, indirectly as solar, wind, wave or geothermal, or even more indirectly as stored hydrocarbons, ALL of it comes from nuclear reactions.
Plus, they fail to grasp the fact that we are surrounded by radioactivity ALL the time, and they fail even more to understand that a certain level of radiation is actually beneficial.
That last point was proven beyond a doubt when people were allowed back into the Chernobyl region after many years, only to find a great diversity of healthier flora and fauna than was ever there previously.
But hey, why should we expect intelligence when 50% of the population is by definition below average?
Quote from: 'Fulvio' pid='79923' dateline='1443091278'That last point was proven beyond a doubt when people were allowed back into the Chernobyl region after many years, only to find a great diversity of healthier flora and fauna than was ever there previously.
Probably had just as much to do with the absence of humans regardless of their IQ.