Thorium as nuclear power

[Ichihara]

why dont we use thorium as fuel?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_Energy_Alliance

[+and-then]

why dont we use thorium as fuel?

http://en.wikipedia....d_nuclear_power

http://en.wikipedia....ctor_Experiment

http://en.wikipedia....Energy_Alliance

Short answer? You can't use it for nuclear weapons.

[Ichihara]

Short answer? You can't use it for nuclear weapons.

all countries dont have nuclear weapons. but could have thorium based plants.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Ichihara

[+and-then]

all countries dont have nuclear weapons. but could have thorium based plants.

Oh, I understand and I agree that Thorium would be a MUCH better choice. But historically those countries that can afford to become nuclear power producers seem to want the extra benefit and prestige of a nuke weapons capability. There are some exceptions like Japan but mostly nuke power automatically means Uranium or Plutonium.

[Ichihara]

Oh, I understand and I agree that Thorium would be a MUCH better choice. But historically those countries that can afford to become nuclear power producers seem to want the extra benefit and prestige of a nuke weapons capability. There are some exceptions like Japan but mostly nuke power automatically means Uranium or Plutonium.

Japan isnt best example. after Fukushima disaster they shut down 36 nuclear plants and they didnt loose electricity. i think that they have so many plants for reason you mentioned. what do you think why countries which are not allowed to have WMD dont change from uranium to thorium?

[aquatus1]

Japan isnt best example. after Fukushima disaster they shut down 36 nuclear plants and they didnt loose electricity.

As an inhabitant of Japan, I beg to differ.

[Crabby Kitten]

Not only would it be far more expensive than uranium, it could also turn dangerous once it's gone through a process in a reactor. Thorium can't work in a chain reaction so it needs a fuel such as uranium. If irradiated, thorium would give off more intense gamma.

Thorium can produce weapons. U-233 bombs during the Cold War was made with thorium.

[Ichihara]

As an inhabitant of Japan, I beg to differ.

Japan cant afford nuclear transition to fossil fuel. its expensive. but there are many alternatives like solar farms, wind energy, ocean wave energy, geoterhmal energy, tidal wave energy and thorium.

Japan was 2 months without nuclear power. only 30% of Japan electricity system depends on nuclear power. i first said 36 plants. but its 52 reactors that were shut down. only 2 continue to operate. but Japan had light all the time. ofcourse it was expensive period because coal, gas and oil are imports and Japan need to import more of it in this period. Fukushima disaster reveal all this. but on 16 July, 2012 people rally in Tokyo. 70 000- 200 000 people demanding shut down of nuclear reactors. biggest gathering of people in Japan since ww2. why not switch to thorium is unknown for me.

Edited August 8, 2014 by Ichihara

[Ichihara]

Not only would it be far more expensive than uranium, it could also turn dangerous once it's gone through a process in a reactor. Thorium can't work in a chain reaction so it needs a fuel such as uranium. If irradiated, thorium would give off more intense gamma.

Thorium can produce weapons. U-233 bombs during the Cold War was made with thorium.

as i understand MSR is self regulated and cant explode and waste is not used for bombs. thorium is stable atom. liquid thorium reactor is safe. thorium disolve in water.

[aquatus1]

Japan cant afford nuclear transition to fossil fuel. its expensive. but there are many alternatives like solar farms, wind energy, ocean wave energy, geoterhmal energy, tidal wave energy and thorium.

Conventional alternative energy sources (to coin an new oxymoron) are not an alternative in Japan, which is an industrial nation and has energy requirements far beyond those that could be met with solar, wind, or wave, energy. Geothermal is a possibility, but also unlikely due to the relatively low heat from available sources. Certainly there is not enough to become a significant source of electricity, however, given how location specific it is. Thorium, like most Gen IV nuclear plants, is being reviewed.

Japan was 2 months without nuclear power.

Yes, I well remember them. Rolling blackouts, freezing in the winter, broiling in the summer. Not fun times.

only 30% of Japan electricity system depends on nuclear power. i first said 36 plants. but its 52 reactors that were shut down. only 2 continue to operate. but Japan had light all the time. ofcourse it was expensive period because coal, gas and oil are imports and Japan need to import more of it in this period.

Actually, it was expensive, but we still had to monitor lights and energy usage. Forget AC units. The government even started the CoolBiz campaign, encouraging companies and workers to come to work in light clothing instead of suits in the summer. Of course, our taxes still went up, as did pollution levels.

Fukushima disaster reveal all this. but on 16 July, 2012 people rally in Tokyo. 70 000- 200 000 people demanding shut down of nuclear reactors. biggest gathering of people in Japan since ww2.

I was there. 70,000, maybe. No way it was over 100,000, and 200,000 is just silly.

why not switch to thorium is unknown for me.

Several reasons. Primary one is, of course, money. Thorium reactors, even though they don't actually exist yet in commercial form, are estimated to be far more expensive to start up than other Gen IV nuclear plants. Another problem is the breeder reactor. People don't like breeder reactors because they can enrich uranium into the weapon version, and so ban them, even though they would actually be really, really, useful in dramatically reducing the amount of nuclear waste such as we have in the U.S. Then there is also the problem of the gamma radiation. As an existing entity, it would be inherently more dangerous to workers. Sure, they can be trained to deal with it, but it is still something that must be taken into consideration.

Personally, my vote is for Terrapower as the solution to nuclear energy.

[Ichihara]

Conventional alternative energy sources (to coin an new oxymoron) are not an alternative in Japan, which is an industrial nation and has energy requirements far beyond those that could be met with solar, wind, or wave, energy. Geothermal is a possibility, but also unlikely due to the relatively low heat from available sources. Certainly there is not enough to become a significant source of electricity, however, given how location specific it is. Thorium, like most Gen IV nuclear plants, is being reviewed.

only 30% of Japan electricity grid depends on nuclear power. before Fukushima. yet "Japanese PM says no choice but nuclear"

http://www.aljazeera...2715216812.html

and by OECD report nuclear expansion on track despite Fukushima disaster.

about alternatives in Japan:

Japanese sell more solar power back to utilities-

http://www.reuters.c...E80O13K20120125

City of Kitakyushu Starts Test of Tidal Power Generation in Kammon Straits

http://www.japanfs.o...s_id031953.html

interesting video

Tidal energy added to Japan’s energy mix

http://asian-power.c...de;s-energy-mix

A solar power plant with a capacity of 10 megawatts began operating Friday in Kofu, Yamanashi Prefecture.

http://www.japantime...ar-farm-online/

Solar power in Japan has been expanding since the late 1990s. The country is a leading manufacturer of solar panels and is in the top 5 ranking for countries with the most solar PV installed. In 2009 Japan had the third largest solar capacity in the world (behind Germany and Spain), with most of it grid connected,

https://en.wikipedia..._power_in_Japan

here you have Kawasaki work in Europe.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...siness-15387105

then again tidal wave-Japanese Delegation Signs Tidal Energy Research Agreement with UMaine

http://umaine.edu/ne...nt-with-umaine/

Yes, I well remember them. Rolling blackouts, freezing in the winter, broiling in the summer. Not fun times.

i heard it wasnt bad as potraited. Japan was not in dark. people live normally. again only 30% of Japanese electricity grid depends on nuclear.

"Trade minister Yukio Edano is confident that Japan's utilities will meet power demand this summer without needing the government to impose a mandatory 15 percent cut on large-lot users as it did last summer, the Asahi newspaper quoted him as saying in an interview."

http://af.reuters.co...E8CQ89920120126

Japan to experience nuclear-free summer

http://ajw.asahi.com.../AJ201406250047

and before you adress me this it have more costs

http://www.japantime...n/#.U-ddOuN_v-u

I was there. 70,000, maybe. No way it was over 100,000, and 200,000 is just silly.

sadly i wasnt on Yoyogi park. organizer said 200.000 people took part. police said the figure was 14 000. while media said 70 000 to 150 000.

but it was huge rally

More than 90 percent of respondentsduring a public comment period on the Abe administration's basic energy policy were opposed to nuclear power generation, according to an Asahi Shimbun estimate released on May 25.

http://ajw.asahi.com.../AJ201405250023

Several reasons. Primary one is, of course, money. Thorium reactors, even though they don't actually exist yet in commercial form, are estimated to be far more expensive to start up than other Gen IV nuclear plants. Another problem is the breeder reactor. People don't like breeder reactors because they can enrich uranium into the weapon version, and so ban them, even though they would actually be really, really, useful in dramatically reducing the amount of nuclear waste such as we have in the U.S. Then there is also the problem of the gamma radiation. As an existing entity, it would be inherently more dangerous to workers. Sure, they can be trained to deal with it, but it is still something that must be taken into consideration.

Personally, my vote is for Terrapower as the solution to nuclear energy.

and nuclear energy is safe? we can discuss Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster.

Radiation Levels at Fukushima 18 Times Higher than Previously Thought

http://oilprice.com/...ly-Thought.html

or this

http://ajw.asahi.com.../AJ201407030069

or to not link you anymore how TEPCO said: contamination could be spread in deep water. in other words contamination enter food chain. everyone who eats fish from Pacific. such as USA citizens. radiation is across pacific.

or how now

Japanese get anti-radiation pills ahead of nuclear restart

http://www.channelne...ti/1286026.html

abour geothermal :

Geothermal trove lies mostly untapped despite energy crisis

http://www.japantime...s/#.U-dYq-N_v-s

my choice would be nuclear fusion or in common language "sun in the box"

i really want to know ITERs results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER

btw director is Osamu Motojima.

edit: i think thorium is best choice since we dont know ITERs results.

Edited August 10, 2014 by Ichihara

[Ichihara]

Thorium dream documentary

http://motherboard.v...e-thorium-dream

or watch this

Edited August 10, 2014 by Ichihara

[aquatus1]

only 30% of Japan electricity grid depends on nuclear power. before Fukushima.

"Only" 30%?

Draw a pie chart. Slice a freaking third of that pie out. That is a huge chunk. Huge.

yet "Japanese PM says no choice but nuclear"

http://www.aljazeera...2715216812.html

and by OECD report nuclear expansion on track despite Fukushima disaster.

Correct. Because Japan is an industrial nation, and industry uses a whopping 33% percent of electricity, which cannot be supplied by solar, wind, wave, or anything without a base load.

about alternatives in Japan:

The homes and farms aren't the problem. They aren't the power users.

i heard it wasnt bad as potraited. Japan was not in dark. people live normally. again only 30% of Japanese electricity grid depends on nuclear.

I don't know what you heard, but it wasn't so much bad as it was greatly annoying. I don't think I was properly dry the entire summer. Life was normal, considering that normal in Japan is a few decades behind the U.S.

Again, 30% is a huge chunk.

"Trade minister Yukio Edano is confident that Japan's utilities will meet power demand this summer without needing the government to impose a mandatory 15 percent cut on large-lot users as it did last summer, the Asahi newspaper quoted him as saying in an interview."

Good, then we agree that the lights did have to go out, not by choice.

Japan to experience nuclear-free summer

Already experiencing it. It sucks.

and before you adress me this it have more costs

http://www.japantime...n/#.U-ddOuN_v-u

Umm, thank you?

What is it with all these links? What are you trying to prove?

sadly i wasnt on Yoyogi park. organizer said 200.000 people took part. police said the figure was 14 000. while media said 70 000 to 150 000. but it was huge rally

Yeah, you didn't miss anything. Like I said, I'd agree with about 70,000.

Though again, it doesn't really matter. 70,000, 200,000, hell 500,000, it doesn't matter how many people show up. The machines don't really care. They will still demand the same amount fo power they always demand.

More than 90 percent of respondentsduring a public comment period on the Abe administration's basic energy policy were opposed to nuclear power generation, according to an Asahi Shimbun estimate released on May 25.

Again, so what? There are people for and against anything. I don't care about popular opinion. Popular opinion doesn't trump engineering. If a factory needs x amount of electricity to function, it won't change just because people think it shouldn't.

and nuclear energy is safe? we can discuss Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant disaster.

The absolute safest, best record, fewest direct victims, fewest collateral victims, least amount of environmental damage, an absolutely ridiculous amount of energy generation vs resource consumption, yeah. in every way, shape, and form, nuclear beats pretty much all the other forms of energy combined.

edit: i think thorium is best choice. and i will respond to you about it later.

Good, and by the way, we don't need links and support for opinions. No one here is going to argue that there are people on both sides. If you are going to link something, make it a link to something concrete in regards to energy supply and power consumption.

[Ichihara]

you said :“Japan is an industrial nation, and industry uses a whopping 33% percent of electricity, which cannot be supplied by solar, wind, wave, or anything without a base load.“

to start with we could switch to thorium with mix of others alternative energy sources as now experimental tidal power generator in Fukuoka prefecture, solar power plants in Yamanashi prefecture and etc. or perhaps geothermal plants. Japan is leader in geothermal technology (75% of international market) and Japan ranks third position in world in geothermal resources. from link i provided :

„There is an estimated 23.5 gigawatts of geothermal energy that could be tapped — the equivalent of 20 nuclear power plants“.

it would reduce number of nuclear plants for almost a half.

Also from same article: “The most powerful ministry responsible for geothermal is METI and they still promote nuclear power. As long as METI doesn’t revise its way of thinking about geothermal, there won’t be any real development,” Ehara said. personally i found Kuju Kanko Hotel neat way for attraction of guests.

there is also issue of global warming. Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia from CERN estimated that one ton of thorium can produce energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3 500 000 tons of coal. Coal (source of carbon dioxide) makes 42% of USA electrical power and 65% in China.

you said, qoute: „Because Though again, it doesn't really matter. 70,000, 200,000, hell 500,000, it doesn't matter how many people show up. The machines don't really care. They will still demand the same amount fo power they always demand.“

machines really dont care. true. because they are things. but humans care. and it does matter how many people show up because we live in democracy not in techoncracy ruled by machines. may i ask what wer you doing in rally in Tokyo? you seems as advocate for nuclear energy.

you are not being fully serious when you claim that standard nuclear plants are safest and with fewest direct and collateral victims and least amount of environmental damage. Fukushima Daiichi disaster is, as one can suggest, disaster. so i will not adress this further although i could provide you links which are not opinion but basic facts. i agree with you when you said that nuclear beats all others forms combine. but you forget that thorium based nuclear power is, as name suggest again, nuclear. MSR is safe, it operated for 5 years, thorium is four times as abundant as uranium, there is much less nuclear waste and you cant make nuclear bombs from it. MSR is self regulated and cant explode, thorium is stable atom, we can learn how to deal with gamma rays, uranium resources are depleting, reducing CO2 emissions (if you are AGW theory proponent) etc. etc.

my advice is to watch Thorium dream documentary if you didnt. http://motherboard.v...e-thorium-dream

[aquatus1]

to start with we could switch to thorium with mix of others alternative energy sources as now experimental tidal power generator in Fukuoka prefecture, solar power plants in Yamanashi prefecture and etc. or perhaps geothermal plants.

We could do any number of things, but as long as no-nuke activists keep rallying, nuclear energy is still going to be held back. Assuming they wise up and start complaining about the right things, nuclear power, whether it be thorium, Terrapower, or whichever, is going to be the best bet for supplying power to everything. Why burden people with each one getting their own unreliable forms of alternative energy when a single plant can produce enough electricity for everyone in the region?

Japan is leader in geothermal technology (75% of international market) and Japan ranks third position in world in geothermal resources. from link i provided :

„There is an estimated 23.5 gigawatts of geothermal energy that could be tapped — the equivalent of 20 nuclear power plants“.

it would reduce number of nuclear plants for almost a half.

And if all industries were clustered around geothermal zones, that would be great. Except for the tourist industry.

Also from same article: “The most powerful ministry responsible for geothermal is METI and they still promote nuclear power. As long as METI doesn’t revise its way of thinking about geothermal, there won’t be any real development,” Ehara said. personally i found Kuju Kanko Hotel neat way for attraction of guests.

That the most powerful advocates for geothermal energy acknowledge the superiority of nuclear should tell you something right there. But as for Kuju Kanko, it isn't going to be there if the area turns into a generating station.

there is also issue of global warming. Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia from CERN estimated that one ton of thorium can produce energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3 500 000 tons of coal. Coal (source of carbon dioxide) makes 42% of USA electrical power and 65% in China.

Sure. Nuclear is the way to go.

machines really dont care. true. because they are things. but humans care. and it does matter how many people show up because we live in democracy not in techoncracy ruled by machines. may i ask what wer you doing in rally in Tokyo? you seems as advocate for nuclear energy.

I am an advocate for whichever method I believe is the most efficient. I went to the rally to see if anyone had any actual good points. No one did. It was all emotionally-ridden rhetoric and anti-war propaganda.

Incidentally, aren't you pro-nuclear yourself? You seem to be advocating thorium reactors.

you are not being fully serious when you claim that standard nuclear plants are safest and with fewest direct and collateral victims and least amount of environmental damage.

Absolutely. Numbers don't lie. Emotions do, however, on a fairly regular basis.

Fukushima Daiichi disaster is, as one can suggest, disaster.

Yes, it is. One of three memorable ones in the history of the field. Without a single casualty.

Shall we compare how many people have died on oil rigs? How many towns have been evacuated due to underground coal fires? By whichever metric you choose, Nuclear remains the one with the best safety record.

i agree with you when you said that nuclear beats all others forms combine. but you forget that thorium based nuclear power is, as name suggest again, nuclear. MSR is safe, it operated for 5 years, thorium is four times as abundant as uranium, there is much less nuclear waste and you cant make nuclear bombs from it.

I'm not getting your point. You seem to be alternating between referring to thorium as nuclear and as non-nuclear. Of course thorium is nuclear. I lump it in with all the other Gen IV nuclear plants. It has its pros, it has its cons. I am personally supporting Terrapower because of all the reasons above, except more so. But yeah, thorium is still up there with the others. No one is arguing against it specifically.

MSR is self regulated and cant explode, thorium is stable atom, we can learn how to deal with gamma rays, uranium resources are depleting, reducing CO2 emissions (if you are AGW theory proponent) etc. etc.

Yeah, we've all read the brochure. The question, in my mind, is how it stacks up to other Gen IV nuclear reactors. The question in the minds of people who freak out at the word "nuclear" is why we don't just buy a few solar panels for the Mitsubishi Car Manufacturing Plant and be done with it. They are silly people.

my advice is to watch Thorium dream documentary if you didnt. http://motherboard.v...e-thorium-dream

Can you just summarize the cons (since you already did the pros)?