Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
101 online now:
Phat, Tanypteryx (2 members, 99 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,031 Year: 5,143/6,534 Month: 563/794 Week: 54/135 Day: 6/25 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Fukushima Apocalypse
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 32 of 41 (708068)
10-04-2013 12:09 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by dronestar
10-03-2013 12:52 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
MY wonder is why dont we switch to liquid fluoride thorium reactor's?

From what i have read about it its safer, cheaper since we are buring thorium not uranium. (4 times more abundant).

Is it just because you cant get weapons from thorium or am i missing something?


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by dronestar, posted 10-03-2013 12:52 PM dronestar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by dronestar, posted 10-04-2013 12:34 PM frako has taken no action
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 10-04-2013 4:59 PM frako has replied

  
frako
Member
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


(1)
Message 39 of 41 (708101)
10-04-2013 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Rahvin
10-04-2013 4:59 PM


Re: mushroom jellyfish cloud?
The only answer I'm aware of is, ironically, the regulatory structure. It takes a lot of red tape to get a nuclear power plant approved - the cost is in the billions. An entirely new design with a new fuel cycle might be even more difficult, and businesses might find it to be risky.

I think there are a few prototipes in development. but the US had a working thorium reactor in the 60ties, and basically went for uranium power since it can power subs, and other weapons technologies. Why didnt some other nation pick up where the US left off.

Then there are folks like dronester, who argue so strongly against nuclear power in general that we tend to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's just my best guess.

From what i know of thorium reactors i wouldn't be protesting stop nuclear power but change to thorium and more of it.

But I'm with you - I'd be all on board for a Thorium fuel cycle. And I believe you're talking about a molten salt design, which is passively cooled and passively temperature-regulated and passively shuts down in case of an emergency, which is all great.

Thorium also has a longer usable fuel cycle than Uranium, so we can get more power out of it on top of its increased abundance, and the waste material after reprocessing is both minimal and only radioactive for a relatively short time (if I remember correctly, hundreds of years, not thousands or millions).

Yea that one 300 years is the time waste remains radioactive, and its al primarily alpha radiation that is stopped by skin only dangerous if such material is ingested.


Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand

What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Rahvin, posted 10-04-2013 4:59 PM Rahvin has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022