Nuclear Power

[Crankenstein]

So I'm doing a literature review on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors for my capstone physics course.

Through doing this assignment I have decided that from now on I am not voting for any party which does not consider nuclear as a viable energy solution.

What are everyone's thoughts on Nuclear energy?

Through the extensive research I have done for this assignment I truly believe that the only way we are going to remain at our current industrial level, let alone progress is through the use and adoption of nuclear energy.

[Chris]

Through the extensive research I have done for this assignment I truly believe that the only way we are going to remain at our current industrial level, let alone progress is through the use and adoption of nuclear energy.

Nuclear reactors might be inherently 'safe' in themselves (not that I really believe that... ) but the example of Japan shows us that even the safest reactor is no match for Mother Nature and *one* bad accident has the potential to cause more devastation over the earth than any group of coal powered reactors running for 100 years!

It may not be today, or tomorrow... maybe not for 50 years, but soon enough there will be another nuclear disaster and when it *does* happen... as it will... I want to be as far away from it as possible!!

If the effort and expense that was been poured into nuclear power had instead been poured into solar energy we might have found ourselves in the position of being a net exporter by now!!

[Senexx]

Properly run and maintained with appropriate oversight I would have  one in my back yard!

So would I.

The case for nuclear power

Taken from http://australianopinion.com.au/forum/index.php/topic,2993.0.html 31/12/2010

In regards to Thorium, Scott Ludlam of the Greens thoughts may be worth a look: http://www.independentaustralia.net/2011/environment/nuclear-industry-pipedream-electricity-too-cheap-to-meter/

[Crankenstein]

The reactor in Japan was not the safest reactor ...by far... The safest reactors are inherently safe in the sense that if anything goes wrong with them it is the laws of physics that cause it to shut down rather than human interaction.

In the reactors I am researching the fuel is at 1000K. The designer has said that if a grenade is thrown into the reactor and damages it the fuel will leak out and insta-freeze. In a tube at the base of a reactor part of the fuel is kept frozen, if power is cut to the reactor then the fuel plug melts and the fuel leaks into a tray where it freezes. If the reactor starts to misbehave the liquid fuel expands, if the fuel expands it expands out of the centre of the reactor, if it's not in the centre it can't burn... The expansion/contraction of the fuel makes the reactor self regulating.

Not only does the construction of solar panels contain deadly chemicals but the solar panels themselves are a problem, containing lead and cadmium and contributing HUGELY to e-waste. They only have a 20 year lifespan at best but most are broken or replaced for a more efficient model long before that.

After reading that article you linked I can only say that Scott Ludlam is a complete idiot for passing Thorium reactors off as imaginary. One ran in the 50s for 100 hours and one ran in the 60s for 8 years.... They just weren't built at the time because everyone wanted to make nuclear weapons and the tiny minuscule amount of waste that a thorium cycle produces is unable to be used in weaponry. It was a bad choice back then during the cold war, it's a god-send now.

I'm pissed off I voted for the greens last election after reading that >.<

[Senexx]

What about when I add this to the reading literature

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf

[Chris]

What about when I add this to the reading literature

http://www.ieer.org/fctsheet/thorium2009factsheet.pdf

Rofl... I **love** this quote from that paper...

If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium?232 is very long lived (half-life:14 billion years)

I'm sure that with our actual 'history' of our species having only existed 10,000 and our entire species *development* only having been in the region of 3 million years, we are well placed to maintain the integrity of 'holding chambers' for this material for 28 *billion* years!!

Even the projected half life of the reprocessed 'fuel' at 500 million years is of a timescale humanity can't possibly comprehend let alone be able to take such precautions as to render the possibility of accidental release negligible!!

[Crankenstein]

Well at least it's spelling and grammar is good:

"There are not thorium reactors"

Oh wait...

I wouldn't trust that. My assignment was better, and I'm an undergrad.

[Chris]

Well at least it's spelling and grammar is good:

"There are not thorium reactors"

Oh wait...

I wouldn't trust that. My assignment was better, and I'm an undergrad.

Ok so it's not the *content* that is the problem it's just that the thing wasn't proof read properly??

That sets my mind at rest... !

[Crankenstein]

No. It's factually misleading and/or incorrect also.

[Crankenstein]

Senexx, I Thought you might be interested in some of the resources I used for my assignment (the free to the public ones) so I'll post them here (I can't post my assignment because it hasn't been marked yet, uni regulations...).

If I could only recommend one of these it would be this one: An article from American Scientist:
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors: An old idea in nuclear power gets re-examined.

Documents:

World Nuclear Association: Thorium Factsheet
Journal of Energy Security - Thorium as a Secure Fuel Alternative
International Atomic Energy Agency - Thorium Fuel Cycle: Potential Benefits and Challenges
International Atomic Energy Agency - Impact of the MSBR concept technology on long- lived radio-toxicity and proliferation resistance

Videos:

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted To Be

Kirk Sorensen - Introduction to Flibe Energy @ TEAC3

Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Prob

TEDxYYC - Kirk Sorensen - Thorium

Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor

[Senexx]

I knew you'd bring up Kirk Sorensen.

[Minx]

I'll be more interested in utilising it WHEN a safe way of dealing with the waste comes along

In the meantime, I'm more inclined to be supportive of the alternate energies - solar, wind, tidal and geothermal

[Senexx]

It is a work of fiction Superman and Krypton but I theorise carbon sequestration and geothermal energy is what caused the demise of Krypton.

Also Minx if you read the info above about Thorium or look at the technology behind pebble bed reactors and perhaps even CANDU - they're all safer than  3 mile Island and Chernobyl

[Chris]

I'll be more interested in utilising it WHEN a safe way of dealing with the waste comes along

Waste is a major issues... but I'm still concerned about the risks if (when) one of these things poisons millions of square miles of country.

Besides, with so much solar energy flooding this country on a daily basis we should be leading the world in alternative technologies to harvest a 'free' resource!!

[Senexx]

Synroc aka Ausroc

Nothing to say we can't do both.  There are too many false analogies of "either/or" in the world