10 ms·
Thorium nuclear reactor trial begins in Norway
- tehabe 13y ago"[Thorium reactor] could provide cleaner, safer, almost-waste-free energy" Always when somebody claims this, it almost never works that way.
- embolism 13y agoTherefore it never will.
- nawitus 13y agoMore like the claim will be true but ignored, atleast when it comes to cleaner and safer.
- welterde 13y agoAt least pebble bed reactors (like the already mentioned THTR-300) are not really safe. Get a bit of water into the primary cooling cycle, while the reactor is running at capacity and you won't have that power plant for long (happened at the AVR.. luckily it was running at lower temperature at the time so they only had to run the reactor quite a lot reduced capacity for a year to get the water out). As for molten salt reactors.. still lots of problems to be solved related to the combination of molten salt and high temperature (I recall there being an US based molten salt reactor that got it's cooling cycle contaminated somehow.. but can't seem to find it right now)
- danmaz74 13y ago"but not in the sense that most people think of when they hear the word thorium [...] they haven’t created a cold fusion thorium reactor" What is this supposed to mean? Who ever talked about cold fusion thorium reactor? Was the author thinking about toroidal fields in Tokamak (which is very hot fusion)??
- hughes 13y agoKeep in mind, this article was written by the same author as "Cold Fusion reactor independently verified"[1]. He seems somewhat obsessed with the idea. [1] http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reactor-independently-verified-has-10000-times-the-energy-density-of-gas http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/156393-cold-fusion-reacto...
- danmaz74 13y agoSo maybe he should know that thorium has nothing to do with fusion :)
- ramidarigaz 13y agoAnd, as a couple people have pointed out, Thorium isn't even used in fusion. This author could stand to do a little more reading on the subject.
- jaggederest 13y agoNothing like fusing Thorium into some ??? 462
- aidenn0 13y agoEveryone knows you fuse Th-232 with Ni-62 to make Uuo-294
- comrade_ogilvy 13y agoUnobtainium is almost within reach!
- scrumper 13y agoThis is interesting and encouraging stuff. I'm a big believer in fission power as our best option for a clean source of huge amounts of electricity (which we'll only need more of as electric cars start to become popular). My main reason for commenting is to congratulate Thor Energy on coming up with a trebly relevant name.
- ownagefool 13y agoThere was an enegry debate here a couple of months ago and it was suggested that the future of enegry is everyone will have a solar panels and a battery which is charged by the sun. Once you think about distributed power, the need to generate mass amounts in one place seems to be less important, though having access to cleaner and safer ways of doing so are still good things as no doubtsome of us will still rely on the grid sometimes.
- lostlogin 13y agoGive us decent batteries and all will be well. My parents just scrapped their solar set up. Summer days in the Bay of Plenty, New Zealand, provides enough sun to have the charging switch off at about 9am, batteries full. Big Mac Pro, lots of IT gear, coffee machine, vacuum cleaner etc all used normally. No problem. But come winter the batteries would be perilously low, risking damage. Days and days of torrential rain prevented any meaningful charging. The ability to store more power economically would be so very handy. The panels would provide vastly more power than was used during a year, but were uneconomic due to not being able to feed it back to the grid (!!?!) and not being able to store enough. I'd say that decent power storage was a bigger problem than the generation.
- chii 13y agois it possible to somehow convert the power gathered during summer and spread it out for use during winter (when there is less sun), by say, electrolysing water to produce hydrogen and then use that as a chemical store of fuel?
- 13y ago
- kmfrk 13y agoInteresting contrast to the German reaction to Fukushima.
- Ashuu 13y agoI hope such technology comees to India soon!
- DennisP 13y agoYou may know this but India's been working on it, since it has substantial thorium reserves and not much uranium.
- pjg 13y agoHere's the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor#cite_note-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor#...
- Ashuu 13y agoYes I know that India is working hard in making thorium reactors. Also, many of the nuclear plants in India use some percentage of thorium like 4 thorium with 12 uranium to make a bundle. I hope thorium reactors soon. It will be very useful.
- apendleton 13y agoI'm super-interested in thorium reactor research, but this author seems to lack even a cursory understanding of the issues at play. This reactor differs from what lots of thorium advocates are aiming for because it's a solid-fueled, high-pressure, water-cooled reactor, instead of the proposed LFTR designs, which involve a reaction taking place in a liquid at very high temperature, but at atmospheric pressure, and thus have a different set of tradeoffs as far as efficiency, safety, proliferation resistance, etc. This article discusses none of that, and instead suggests that this reactor is sub-optimal because it's not a cold fusion reactor -- what? Thorium atoms are big and somewhat-unstable, which is what you want for fission. For fusion, you want little atoms you can ram together to make slightly-bigger little atoms. They're totally separate.
- dragontamer 13y agoYou're right, the author clearly doesn't know what he's talking about. But the story is still interesting nonetheless. :-) Its great to hear news that Thorium is finally on the path to adoption.
- tankenmate 13y agoUnfortunately the type of reactor they are building is not as safe as a LFTR, nor does the fuel in this type of reactor last as long; the LFTR reactor is a type of fast breeder reactor. It will still need to be fed pellets continually. The only two material difference between this kind of reactor and a normal boiling water reactor is that it is capable of "burning" a small amount of uranium and/or plutonium a year (either from spent fuel or new sources), and the spent fuel is far less radioactive after a full burn (a full burn is not always the case). It still has most of the other safety issues of a boiling water reactor.
- DennisP 13y agoJust a nitpick, the LFTR isn't a fast reactor, though it is a breeder. Thermal reactors breed thorium to U233 just fine. Some people have proposed fast molten salt reactors but those designs aren't as far along.
- jshen 13y agoHow long can we continue to believe our energy needs can rise at the level we've become accustomed too? This is scary: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-energy/ http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galactic-scale-e...
- danbruc 13y agoThis is probably rather pointless - first normalize the energy consumption by the population. Because population growth was exponential for a long time, the energy consumption per capita was probably more or less constant. It will get very crowded way before our energy consumption starts to melt the earth.
- jshen 13y agoI think the global energy consumption per capita is rising rather quickly as other countries adopt American levels of consumption.
- sliverstorm 13y agoNo one with even a rudimentary understanding of exponential growth believes energy consumption can grow exponentially forever. But the problem is self-fixing; one day, the supply of energy will stop growing as fast as demand. The day will come, the day will pass, and the world will adjust.
- jcrites 13y agoIn particular, prices will rise gradually over time, which will encourage investment in cost-lowering research and development, as well as into energy generation. The market is what helps the world adjust. Unless a dramatic event causes a significant change in prices in a short time, things will carry on just like they always have.
- jshen 13y agoHow can an economy grow significantly if energy is capped?
- ommunist 13y agoThis may be the beginning of new era. Thorium is easy to get for developed nations in the 3rd world.
- pjg 13y agoIndia has been working on a Thorium reactor for some time already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor#cite_note-4 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor#...
- Tuna-Fish 13y ago> While the safety of nuclear power plants is hotly contested, no one is arguing the nastiness of plutonium. Except everyone who knows anything about it. Plutonium is a hot topic because it's what you need to build a nuke, but the public perception that it is a significant as nuclear waste is simply completely misguided. Because it's half-life is so long, it's only mildly radioactive. It's an alpha emitter, so plutonium not in your body is not a risk to you. It oxidizes easily, and it's oxides are heavy and non-soluble, so when it is released to the environment, it just tends to fall down and stay there. There is negligible biological uptake through eating, and while there is some uptake through breathing, plutonium does not tend to stay airborne. Various people have denounced environmental plutonium as something capable of killing billions. The toxicity of plutonium in humans is not known, simply because not enough people have died of it. There is no-one in the world who has died of plutonium exposure who did not have it injected into his body (and that's a long and horrible story), and there were a lot of people who worked coated in plutonium dust for a long time. Of the people who were injected with plutonium, most died of other causes. Suffice to say, plutonium is sufficiently non-radioactive that it's chemical toxicity is considered significant in it's lethality. Or, in other words, it's fine to consider toxicity of environmental plutonium as you would consider lead or other heavy metals. To put it short, plutonium being toxic is simply not a concern as far as nuclear waste is concerned. If all the plutonium produced by civilian nuclear power was pulverized and spread in populated areas, it would not make nuclear reactors as dangerous to people as wind power. (Somewhat ironically, because of the thorium that is released into the environment while separating the REE for the magnets.) Taking all the plutonium produced in a plant and dumping it in one spot doesn't make that spot as dangerous as the ground near a typical fuel station that was in use for the period leaded gas was used. Nuclear waste is really bad, but that's because of short-lived isotopes, which decay more often, and thus are more radioactive, and light radioactive materials, which are often soluble in water, have high biological uptake, and can stay in the atmosphere. Plutonium needs to be tracked really closely, but that is not because it's toxic, it's because it can be used to make a bomb. The more you know.
- mikeash 13y ago"In Massachusetts, 57 developmentally disabled children were fed radioactive oatmeal in an experiment sponsored by MIT and the Quaker Oats Company." What the fuck. The bit about Quaker is really nuts. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Plutonium_Files for anyone who doesn't feel like googling it.
- merraksh 13y ago(And yes, just in case you were wondering, the element thorium really is named after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. And yes, Norse mythology originated from Norway, where Thor Energy is based. Coincidence, I think not!) The first sample of Thorium was found in Norway: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#History Morten Thrane Esmark found a black mineral on Løvøya island, Norway and gave a sample to his father Jens Esmark, a noted mineralogist. The elder Esmark was not able to identify it and sent a sample to Swedish chemist Jöns Jakob Berzelius for examination in 1828. Berzelius determined that it contained a new element, which he named thorium after Thor, the Norse god of thunder.[17] He published his findings in 1829.[50][51][52] The fact that Thor Energy is Norwegian might just be due to the country being at the same time very wealthy and environment-minded. The Norwegian reserves of thorium are far smaller than those of other countries.
- Dewie 13y ago> The fact that Thor Energy is Norwegian might just be due to the country being at the same time very wealthy and environment-minded. The Norwegian reserves of thorium are far smaller than those of other countries. Norway is also only nr. 22 when it comes to proven oil reserves :) (dunno about previous figures) From the (few, probably inaccurate) estimates, Norway seems to have a sizeable enough amount of thorium for a country of its size and population.
- _delirium 13y agoConsidering Norway is already a net exporter of both oil and hydroelectric power, if they add cutting-edge nuclear to the portfolio, they will really be all-around energy kingpins! Incidentally, this is the project site, which the article irritatingly doesn't bother to link: http://www.thorenergy.no/en.aspx http://www.thorenergy.no/en.aspx
- blaabjerg 13y agoNorway has a disproportional chunk of the world's known Thorium reserves as well. It seems Slartibartfast rigged the energy lottery in their favor.
- iSnow 13y agoWell, Germany got burned by Thorium reactors back in the 80s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 Let's see if this performs any better.
- GhotiFish 13y agoa pebble bed reactor? It's like a nuclear gumball machine! Neat!
- pjscott 13y agoThe THTR-300 ran into trouble because of operational difficulties with its unconventional pebble-bed design. In contrast, this is a very conventional reactor design. The difference is that the fuel is initially made of about 90% ThO2 and 10% PuO2.
- oal 13y agoHere are some slides containing more details about the Norwegian thorium initiative and Thor Energy: http://www.statkraft.no/Images/Thorium%20power%20abundant%20climate_tcm10-1682.pdf http://www.statkraft.no/Images/Thorium%20power%20abundant%20...
- andor 13y agoThe rod in the middle of the picture contains thorium-MOX pellets, and is being inserted into the reactor (which is underground). So these guys are standing right next to a fuel rod radioactive enough to start a nuclear chain reaction? [0] Can anybody elaborate on how dangerous this is? [0] only if close to lots of other fuel rods, I guess...
- tarre 13y agoUnused nuclear fuel has very low radioactivity. It is the fission products, which are the problem regarding radioactivity. Were it a used fuel bundle, they wouldn't be standing there.
- jackfoxy 13y agoWait a minute...plutonium is a waste product? I thought the supply of plutonium (that is not used in weapons) was running so low there would not be enough to fuel deep space missions.
- pjscott 13y agoThe isotope of plutonium that's used in radiothermal generators for space missions, Pu-238, is something you produce specially. Usually you get Np-237 from spent reactor fuel, and then bombard it with neutrons in a reactor designed for producing useful isotopes.
- chii 13y agowhere do these neutrons come from?
- jpollock 13y agoPlutonium is manufactured in a reactor, not processed from ore. The dominant source for plutonium for deep space missions was the US government, and they dominant reason for producing it was bombs. However, the US govt. doesn't need to produce bombs anymore - they've done enough work to know how to extend the life of the bombs they do have, as well as how to go about reprocessing the plutonium in warheads that are too old into new ones (I think). They are reducing the number of warheads in service, so the US has shut down domestic production. The Russians seem to have caught up to the US in the warhead lifespan tech and they seem to have shut down their breeders too? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutonium-238
- gweinberg 13y agoAt a test site in Norway, Thor Energy has successfully created a thorium nuclear reactor — but not in the sense that most people think of when they hear the word thorium. The Norwegians haven’t solved the energy crisis and global warming in one fell swoop — they haven’t created a cold fusion thorium reactor. Who the hell thinks "cold fusion" when they hear thorium?
- btilly 13y agoThe "not prone to nuclear weapons proliferation" bit is critical, and unfortunately wrong. As http://phys.org/news/2012-12-thorium-proliferation-nuclear-wonder-fuel.html http://phys.org/news/2012-12-thorium-proliferation-nuclear-w... points out, thorium produces protactinium-233 which can be chemically separated out. In around a month that turns into uranium-233 at sufficient purity to make nuclear bombs. This process is much easier to do in secret than the centrifuges that are required to separate isotopes of uranium. Thus thorium is worse for proliferation, not better.
- DennisP 13y agoYes, but you have to separate the protactinium shortly after it's created, or you end up with enough U232 to make a bomb impractical. And in a solid-fuel reactor, what are you going to do, shut down the reactor every day so you can melt the fuel rods, pull out the protactinium, and refabricate them? A liquid-fueled reactor could be another matter, and we'd want to keep an eye on them in non-nuclear states. But another factor is the breeding ratio, which is barely over one for thermal thorium. If someone were to pull out much fissile, the reactor would shut down, and they'd have to go begging for more fissile to start it up again. Another advantage for liquid fuel is very high burnup, so pretty much all you're taking out of the reactor is fission products, not leftover fissile that could theoretically be reprocessed.
- Expez 13y agoThe key thing here is that these pellets are designed to work with existing reactors. If you want to start using thorium it is a very hard sell (given the popularity of nuclear power atm) to build new reactors/plants, but changing the fuel in existing plants to something that can be said to be 'cleaner' or 'safer' might be doable.