A Question for Engineers (or anybody) regarding Thorium reactors

[PhredPhantom]

Some of the discussion in the most recent EV thread reminded me of something. In that thread some were discussing that the current electric power generation capacity in the U.S. could not support national primarily-electric car fleet power needs.

It reminded me of a movie I watched on Amazon Prime titled "Thorium 2011". In fact it's still there if anyone wants to watch it. It's a full-length documentary discussing power generation using Thorium reactors. It was interesting because it claimed that it is a safer way to generate electricity and the essential element, Thorium, is waaaay more plentiful than Uranium. I also just noticed that there is another movie titled "Thorium 2016" that I haven't watched yet (but I plan to) so there may be new information that would affect whether or not it is feasible, technologically and/or economically.

"Thorium 2011" basically says that this technology hasn't been developed because there's not enough money in it to make it commercially viable. If it's so good, I wonder why, then, the government would not finance the construction of a new reactor facility, especially considering Congress seems to think we have an infinite amount of money lately.

Any discussion on those familiar with this would be appreciated. I'll hang up and listen.

 

[Dawgg]

Thorium sounds like a made-up material used to make Mjolnir, but of course, (pushes glasses higher on nose) we all know that material is call ‘uru’.

 

[PhredPhantom]

Thorium sounds like a made-up material used to make Mjolnir, but of course, (pushes glasses higher on nose) we all know that material is call ‘uru’.

That's kind of funny.

I was looking around a little more and found a description of another movie on the subject wherein it gives a better technical description than I had done. Apparently the correct name is "LFTR" or "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor". It also mentions that it has a lack of weaponizable byproducts which killed the interest in it.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

If you can't kill people with it is it really worth using ??

 

[PirateDawg]

Gas and electric kill people too. What is your point?

 

[AROB44]

That's kind of funny.

I was looking around a little more and found a description of another movie on the subject wherein it gives a better technical description than I had done. Apparently the correct name is "LFTR" or "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor". It also mentions that it has a lack of weaponizable byproducts which killed the interest in it.

Do we really need anymore? We can already blow up the entire planet. Isn't that enough?

 

[turkish]

Maybe .gov is less interested in clean energy than they are in getting $ from those producing and consuming the existing energy.

 

[Mjoelner]

Not a nuke engineer but here is what I've heard about them. This may be incorrect but I think it is right: 1. Virtually no chance of a melt down. 2. Requires a uranium reactor to 'jump-start' the first reactor but then more can be daisy-chained off of that one. 3. While obtaining weapon's grade material is possible, it is damned expensive, time consuming and impossible to hide the evidence of doing so. 4. I think China is currently building some.

 

[maroonmadman]

Slight thread hijack. I have a family member that is a pilot for Entergy and flies their corporate jets and flying the big wigs around. As far as nukes go the discussion is about "mini-nukes" or nuclear power plants that could power a city of 250K or less. Think nuclear power plants roughly the size that would power an aircraft carrier or something thereabouts. Don't know if this is viable or not but it's what the big wigs are discussing.

 

[PhredPhantom]

The movie, “Thorium 2011”, (which I have already watched) is a regular ~1.5 hour movie.

I started watching “Thorium 2016” last night but haven’t finished it yet because it is 6.5 hours long.

One interesting quote (that I will paraphrase here) was when Ken Sorensen, the main proponent in the movie, said, “Here’s how plentiful Thorium is compared to Uranium. I have a friend who owns a mine where one of the byproducts of their mining operation is Thorium. It is a net expense for them to remove it. He asked the friend how much Thorium they would probably wind up removing this year and he said about 5,000 tons. 5,000 tons of Thorium would provide all the electricity used by THE ENTIRE PLANET for several years. And there are vast deposits of Thorium all over the world. In fact, it is somewhat ‘common’”

 

[Cooterpoot]

View attachment 24916

 

[PirateDawg]

You can make your own nuclear reactor at home. This kid did: DAVID

 

[Internet Cowboy]

The Netflix movie "Occupied" involves Thorium. Based in Norway. It was in 2015 and showed Russia basically taking over Norway on behalf of the UN, because the Norwegian leaders were trying to push Thorium energy instead of all the oil , and Europe needs their oil.
So the UN allowed Russia to silently take control of things in Norway as long as the fuel kept coming their way.

Definitely some foreshadowing of current 2022, but in it the US stays neutral.
The series Occupied, is really good though.

 

[mcdawg22]

Thorium sounds like a made-up material used to make Mjolnir, but of course, (pushes glasses higher on nose) we all know that material is call ‘uru’.

Avatar checks out.

 

[Ralph Cramden]

Are you sure that's not vibranium ?