LFTR... Thorium only reactors DO NOT EXIST period !!
T. Keating
wrote:
>Research LFTR/Gen IV. Prototypes now, but they are the future. In the
>meantime, coal or conventional -- you choose.
Thorium only reactors DO NOT EXIST period.
Same goes for Lithium,Florine,Thorium Reactors.. They also don't
exist.. Nor will they ever exist..
1. Thorium-232 is too stable to undergo sustained nuclear fission.
Something else (U-235, Pu) must chain react to generate the intense
neutron flux. Only after Th-232 captures a neutron becoming
Protactinium and then decaying (27 day half life) into unstable U-233
can it begin to contribute to fission process. Reactors of this
design will take many years, decades, maybe never, before it can be
self sustaining with out external U-235 or Pu inputs.
Note: Attempts to increase the fuel breeding ratio always involve
nasty compromises of safety and control.
2. So far the only Thorium to uranium breeding to date occurs in some
conventional reactors where 1 or 2 % of the U-238 (which makes up
~95% of heavy metal content) has been replaced by some Th-232.
Note: The 4.4Byr half life lived U-238 after neutron capture turns
into U-239, then into Np-239 which decays(2.4 day half life) into
Pu-239. I.E. One is just substituting some of the abundant
U-238 -> Pu-239 breeding for slightly more abundant Th-232 -> U-233
breeding.
But U-238 supplies are not the problem. It's the limited amount of
the more reactive U-235, and Pu components which is dooming future
fission reactors.
====
The only molten salt reactor I know of was a very small 7.4MW thermal
AIR COOLED reactor that accumulated about one year of run time at Oak
Ridge National lab. It used a Uranium salt fuel mixture
(LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4) (no Thorium) and produced NO electricity. (no
generators).
I wouldn't go betting the future of our planet on that one very
small/short lived experiment.
Rod Speed
> Peter Franks <no...@none.com> wrote
>> Research LFTR/Gen IV. Prototypes now, but they are the future.
>> In the meantime, coal or conventional -- you choose.
> Thorium only reactors DO NOT EXIST period.
Yet.
> Same goes for Lithium,Florine,Thorium Reactors..
> They also don't exist..
Yet.
> Nor will they ever exist..
Just another of the fools proclaiming that we will never fly etc.
> 1. Thorium-232 is too stable to undergo sustained nuclear fission.
Irrelevant to whether it can be used in nukes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel
> Something else (U-235, Pu) must chain react to generate the intense neutron flux.
Thats another lie. Multi step breeders are perfectly possible.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Benefits_and_challenges
> Only after Th-232 captures a neutron becoming Protactinium
> and then decaying (27 day half life) into unstable U-233
> can it begin to contribute to fission process. Reactors of this
> design will take many years, decades, maybe never, before it
> can be self sustaining with out external U-235 or Pu inputs.
That timescale shit is straight from your arse, we can tell from the smell.
> Note: Attempts to increase the fuel breeding ratio always involve
> nasty compromises of safety and control.
Another lie.
> 2. So far the only Thorium to uranium breeding to date occurs in some
> conventional reactors where 1 or 2 % of the U-238 (which makes up
> ~95% of heavy metal content) has been replaced by some Th-232.
> Note: The 4.4Byr half life lived U-238 after neutron capture turns
> into U-239, then into Np-239 which decays(2.4 day half life) into
> Pu-239. I.E. One is just substituting some of the abundant
> U-238 -> Pu-239 breeding for slightly more abundant Th-232 -> U-233
> breeding.
> But U-238 supplies are not the problem. It's the limited amount of the more
> reactive U-235, and Pu components which is dooming future fission reactors.
Lie after lie after lie.
k...@kymhorsell.com
...
> But U-238 supplies are not the problem. It's the limited amount of
> the more reactive U-235, and Pu components which is dooming future
> fission reactors.
According to optimistic assessments (including both known and
suspected reserves) there is only enough ore to supply current usage
and demand for around 80 years. I.e. meeting around 10% of electricty
and 3% of total energy demand.
So it seems nuclear power can't meet even 30% of total energy demand
for a decade even without the 2% growth we've been seeing for the
past few decades.
Without discovery of some huge and unsuspected ore body it seems
nuclear (fission) power is likely to remain a niche market and only
profitable if it *doesn't* become too popular.
--
>Rolling resistance for a [80 kph] bike with average tyres is [...] 2.2 kW.
>On a bike with rider in tuck position air resistance with no wind
>is something like .4 * v^3 Watts [...] 4.3 kW.
** For Christ's sake - go learn some basic physics, dickhead.
The drag experienced by the solar car or a cyclist is almost entirely due to
AIR resistance. And that is not a linear function [v^3??] of speed.
[Later turns out the measured ratio was 70%, approx as predicted]
-- "Phil [NPD] Allison" <phi...@tpg.com.au>, 9 Jan 2011 13:28 +1100
Rod Speed
> T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
..
>> But U-238 supplies are not the problem. It's the limited amount of
>> the more reactive U-235, and Pu components which is dooming future
>> fission reactors.
> According to optimistic assessments (including both known
> and suspected reserves) there is only enough ore to supply
> current usage and demand for around 80 years.
Another bare faced lie.
You only get a number like that if you ignore breeders, fuckwit.
> I.e. meeting around 10% of electricty and 3% of total energy demand.
Another bare faced lie.
> So it seems nuclear power can't meet even 30% of total energy demand for a decade
Another bare faced lie.
> even without the 2% growth we've been seeing for the past few decades.
> Without discovery of some huge and unsuspected ore body it seems
> nuclear (fission) power is likely to remain a niche market and only
> profitable if it *doesn't* become too popular.
Another bare faced lie.
You're ignoring breeders and thorium, you silly little pathological liar.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
they sell the **** for armor-piercing shells,
for nothin'.
1treePetrifiedForestLane
Yucca Flats is a big joke.
AGW Facts
> In sci.econ T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
> ...
> > But U-238 supplies are not the problem. It's the limited amount of
> > the more reactive U-235, and Pu components which is dooming future
> > fission reactors.
See for example:
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
> ...
>
> According to optimistic assessments (including both known and
> suspected reserves) there is only enough ore to supply current usage
> and demand for around 80 years. I.e. meeting around 10% of electricty
> and 3% of total energy demand.
>
> So it seems nuclear power can't meet even 30% of total energy demand
> for a decade even without the 2% growth we've been seeing for the
> past few decades.
>
> Without discovery of some huge and unsuspected ore body it seems
> nuclear (fission) power is likely to remain a niche market and only
> profitable if it *doesn't* become too popular.
China has 27 nuclear reactors under construction, which they also
plan to decommission 40 years after each goes on-line: they don't
have enough uranium to power them all. The reactors are meant as a
"stop gap" between now and when solar and wind can take up the
demand.
It is something the United States must also do. People living now
who are 30 years old or younger will live in a world where there
is not enough uranium to power nuclear reactors; they will also
live in a world much warmer than now.
Peter Franks
That's why need need to move to LFTR technology ASAP. That will get us
another 80-100 years (conservatively), until fusion becomes practical.
Solar/wind won't get us there, no way, no how.
Rod Speed
> On 04 Jun 2011 06:52:52 GMT, k...@kymhorsell.com wrote:
>
>> In sci.econ T. Keating <tkus...@ktcnslt.com> wrote:
>> ...
>
>>> But U-238 supplies are not the problem. It's the limited amount of
>>> the more reactive U-235, and Pu components which is dooming future
>>> fission reactors.
>
> See for example:
>
> http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf17.html
>
>> ...
>>
>> According to optimistic assessments (including both known and
>> suspected reserves) there is only enough ore to supply current usage
>> and demand for around 80 years. I.e. meeting around 10% of electricty
>> and 3% of total energy demand.
>>
>> So it seems nuclear power can't meet even 30% of total energy demand
>> for a decade even without the 2% growth we've been seeing for the
>> past few decades.
>>
>> Without discovery of some huge and unsuspected ore body it seems
>> nuclear (fission) power is likely to remain a niche market and only
>> profitable if it *doesn't* become too popular.
>
> China has 27 nuclear reactors under construction, which they also
> plan to decommission 40 years after each goes on-line: they don't
> have enough uranium to power them all. The reactors are meant as a
> "stop gap" between now and when solar and wind can take up the demand.
And that wont happen and they will in fact continue to use them
and will get the uranium they need from australia.
> It is something the United States must also do.
Nope, its not a viable approach.
> People living now who are 30 years old or younger will live in a world
> where there is not enough uranium to power nuclear reactors;
Wrong, we will have reprocessed spent fuel from nukes by then,
and added thorium to uranium and solved the problem that way.
> they will also live in a world much warmer than now.
You dont know that.
Giga2
"Peter Franks" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:isjuus$es0$1...@dont-email.me...
Great, just build *one* (commercial that works) first!