Showing posts with label Major Topic --- Energy --- Kirk Sorensen's Thorium LFTRs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Major Topic --- Energy --- Kirk Sorensen's Thorium LFTRs. Show all posts
Monday, July 22, 2024
Saturday, November 9, 2019
Moving right along
Comment:
They seem to be sticking with the plan. The plan was to build a molten-salt reactor according to what is already known. That is opposed to some uncertain future development that has to take place first. In other words, Thorcon is going with what they know will work instead of waiting for something to be developed before going forward.
It looks like Thorcon is on track to a prototype reactor soon, and commercialization should follow shortly thereafter.
They seem to be sticking with the plan. The plan was to build a molten-salt reactor according to what is already known. That is opposed to some uncertain future development that has to take place first. In other words, Thorcon is going with what they know will work instead of waiting for something to be developed before going forward.
It looks like Thorcon is on track to a prototype reactor soon, and commercialization should follow shortly thereafter.
Tuesday, September 3, 2019
All the more reason to switch to molten-salt reactors
Comment:
A Carrington Event will cause havoc in conventional reactors. It would have no effect upon a molten-salt reactor.
It makes sense to shut down conventional nuke reactors. But it doesn't make sense to not switch to molten-salt reactors.
But people will do nothing because the danger is not obvious. It is inevitable though that an event of this type will occur. It is a matter of time.
A Carrington Event will cause havoc in conventional reactors. It would have no effect upon a molten-salt reactor.
It makes sense to shut down conventional nuke reactors. But it doesn't make sense to not switch to molten-salt reactors.
But people will do nothing because the danger is not obvious. It is inevitable though that an event of this type will occur. It is a matter of time.
ON THIS DAY IN 1859, the Carrington Event. Something like that would be devastatingly destructive t… https://t.co/U7QR0UtL8Q— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) September 3, 2019
Saturday, April 13, 2019
Bad ass video
Boots and Oil Blog: A "Green" New Deal That Could Work https://t.co/BbMfrnPP94— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) April 13, 2019
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
A video about Thorium
And it isn't made by the Thorium guys. Perhaps a different perspective will yield a different answer to the question posed.
His answer was something on the order of "maybe".
Some of what he said seems questionable to me, but maybe I am a little biased in favor of Thorium.
Finally, you don't need Thorium in order to run a molten-salt reactor. The molten-salt reactor technology would work with uranium. Thorium is an added bonus. If you disagree with using thorium, you can still use uranium and it will work fine. As a matter of fact, there are some folks out there who would like to do that very thing.
One of the more aggressive outfits who is pursuing this strategy is Thorcon. ( Perhaps I got that wrong. Look at their name. THORcon? ) Thorcon wants to start making reactors within the five years of so. Maybe even sooner.
Be on the lookout then, for Thorcon.
His answer was something on the order of "maybe".
Some of what he said seems questionable to me, but maybe I am a little biased in favor of Thorium.
Finally, you don't need Thorium in order to run a molten-salt reactor. The molten-salt reactor technology would work with uranium. Thorium is an added bonus. If you disagree with using thorium, you can still use uranium and it will work fine. As a matter of fact, there are some folks out there who would like to do that very thing.
One of the more aggressive outfits who is pursuing this strategy is Thorcon. ( Perhaps I got that wrong. Look at their name. THORcon? ) Thorcon wants to start making reactors within the five years of so. Maybe even sooner.
Be on the lookout then, for Thorcon.
Saturday, December 8, 2018
Flibe Energy news
What happened to Kirk Sorensen at Flibe Energy? Here is a video which answers that question.
Monday, November 5, 2018
Why "Green" Energy Will Never Replace Fossil Fuels
So, what is the solution? More fossil fuels?
Fortunately, there is a solution, and that is molten-salt reactors. They can run on any fissionable fuel, which includes nuclear waste from existing reactors. From that waste alone, they could power this country's electrical needs at the current level for decades to come, without mining an ounce of uranium. Ninety nine percent of the waste will be used up, and the rest will decay into harmlessness in 300 years. That may seem like a long time, but you could encapsule the waste in concrete and sink it into the deepest part of the oceans. It could stay there until the end of time, and nobody will be the wiser.
Why "Green" Energy Will Never Replace Fossil Fuels https://t.co/Qw3LTmEokp via @powerlineUS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 5, 2018
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Some objections to nuclear power, and the answer to those
It has long been my opinion that the anti-nuclear people are doing a disservice to mankind.
But this is an opinion of an amateur. I am not a nuclear physicist type, so I cannot explain myself scientifically in all its detail. However, what I have learned about it as an observer does not dissuade me in the least with respect to its potential as a solution to a lot of problems.
The number one objection is that bombs can be made from fissionable materials. That objection is handled if you use Thorium. It stands to reason that it is true, because if it were not, somebody would have done it by now. In fact, someone already has. The USA made a bomb out of the stuff, and it was a dud, for the most part.
Look, there is no need to downplay this risk. It is going to be a risk that somebody is going to try to make bombs with these things. Yes, it can be done, but it is not easy. If it were easy, it would have been done already as mentioned. Therefore, you know the risk is small. But the risk is not zero.
This leads you to having to do a risk-reward analysis. Is the risk worth the reward? At present, the world seems to be saying "no". However, at some point, the people out there are going to have to reconsider. If you have a lot of distress coming from a lack of energy resources versus the risk of somebody making a bomb out of this stuff, I think the reward is going to start looking good at some point. That point does not yet exist. But it will.
The risk is small and manageable. There is also the risk in pursuing the current strategy of so-called renewables, which will never work. There is no workable way for that path, and eventually that must lead you back to nuclear.
If you decide that you can accept that risk, you are still not finished. There is the risk of radiation. However, that is another one of these risks that you can manage. You will also have to decide if it is worth the risk. In my opinion, the risk is even less than with a bomb, and even more manageable.
For instance, with conventional reactor technology, you have a lot of waste. Most of that is unused uranium. Therefore, you haven't created new radiation hazards. It is still the same stuff as before. There are some other wastes that are produced as well, and one of those is fissionable plutonium. However, as mentioned above, fissionable plutonium is not an issue with Thorium.
If you use Thorium, you will a decay chain that doesn't include fissionable materials. It is as simple as that. The only way you make a bomb with this stuff is with the uranium that you breed from Thorium. That stuff isn't practical for a bomb, as discussed above.
With molten-salt reactor technology combined with Thorium, you will consume all of the uranium, and you are left with much less waste. Even less radioactive stuff than what you started with.
What about the waste that is left? It is about 1% of what you started with. Seems like a good deal to me. You get all that energy, with hardly no waste. The waste that is left is not zero, however, so you have to manage it.
It is not an impossible problem. There are ideas out there to encase it in glass, and store it for about 300 years. That sounds like a long time, but if you put it in a place where it cannot be disturbed, nobody will be the wiser.
Another idea is to encase it in concrete. Concrete will last MILLIONS of years. We know that from the limestone that prehistoric creatures made. Concrete is no different than limestone, it is simply manmade.
What can go wrong? Well, what if it leaks? Not likely. Even if it does, so what? Just put it where nobody goes anyway. The bottom of the ocean is a possibility. In a deep mine shaft is another. The Earth is a big place. You can put it somewhere where it is a long way from anybody, and nobody is going to go there. If they go there, they may get sick and die. Yeah, and if they go into an erupting volcano, they will die too. People don't act like that.
What if it gets out in the environment? Again, so what? Radiation is everywhere, and there is less of this stuff than what you already had anyway. Provided that you seal it well enough, it isn't going anywhere. Three hundred years in some remote place, and it is then harmless. That is not that big of a risk. In fact, I'd say the risk is near zero. However, it is not zero.
Back to your cost benefit analysis. If you look at the "risk" and the rewards, this will look good. However, that isn't the way people think today. But as mentioned, someday it will look a lot better.
Is there any way you can end up with more radiation? Not likely. In fact, that may actually be impossible. I am not well versed enough on the subject to answer that definitively.
Of the ways to make things radioactive, there are two that I know of. One is with neutron bombardment. The waste left over may emit some neutrons, I am not sure. However, it is unlikely that it does. If it did, it could still be used to breed more uranium from the Thorium. Stands to reason that the free neutrons are all used up. The neutrons were all used up in breeding uranium from the Thorium.
The other way to make stuff radioactive is from pions. If the process produces any of those, it is miniscule. Therefore, even if any of that is produced, there won't be enough of it to matter.
In my opinion, the risk of making more radiation is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. The reverse is actually true. You end up with less radiation than if you did nothing. In three hundred years, you end up with nearly zero. You cannot say that with the Thorium that you started with. It has a half life of billions of years. It will be radioactive forever. Get rid of Thorium, and get energy out of it. How can you lose? If somebody did something that took tremendous effort and at great risk to themselves in order to cause harm? This is unlikely, but even so, it is manageable.
In summary, even those there are risks, they are manageable. The rewards greatly exceed any risks. Even if the worst happened, it wouldn't not end the world. The world will get by regardless of whether this is done or not. The greater risk is to do nothing. Doing nothing will result in greater distress than even the worst case scenario for the nuclear option.
But this is an opinion of an amateur. I am not a nuclear physicist type, so I cannot explain myself scientifically in all its detail. However, what I have learned about it as an observer does not dissuade me in the least with respect to its potential as a solution to a lot of problems.
The number one objection is that bombs can be made from fissionable materials. That objection is handled if you use Thorium. It stands to reason that it is true, because if it were not, somebody would have done it by now. In fact, someone already has. The USA made a bomb out of the stuff, and it was a dud, for the most part.
Look, there is no need to downplay this risk. It is going to be a risk that somebody is going to try to make bombs with these things. Yes, it can be done, but it is not easy. If it were easy, it would have been done already as mentioned. Therefore, you know the risk is small. But the risk is not zero.
This leads you to having to do a risk-reward analysis. Is the risk worth the reward? At present, the world seems to be saying "no". However, at some point, the people out there are going to have to reconsider. If you have a lot of distress coming from a lack of energy resources versus the risk of somebody making a bomb out of this stuff, I think the reward is going to start looking good at some point. That point does not yet exist. But it will.
The risk is small and manageable. There is also the risk in pursuing the current strategy of so-called renewables, which will never work. There is no workable way for that path, and eventually that must lead you back to nuclear.
If you decide that you can accept that risk, you are still not finished. There is the risk of radiation. However, that is another one of these risks that you can manage. You will also have to decide if it is worth the risk. In my opinion, the risk is even less than with a bomb, and even more manageable.
For instance, with conventional reactor technology, you have a lot of waste. Most of that is unused uranium. Therefore, you haven't created new radiation hazards. It is still the same stuff as before. There are some other wastes that are produced as well, and one of those is fissionable plutonium. However, as mentioned above, fissionable plutonium is not an issue with Thorium.
If you use Thorium, you will a decay chain that doesn't include fissionable materials. It is as simple as that. The only way you make a bomb with this stuff is with the uranium that you breed from Thorium. That stuff isn't practical for a bomb, as discussed above.
With molten-salt reactor technology combined with Thorium, you will consume all of the uranium, and you are left with much less waste. Even less radioactive stuff than what you started with.
What about the waste that is left? It is about 1% of what you started with. Seems like a good deal to me. You get all that energy, with hardly no waste. The waste that is left is not zero, however, so you have to manage it.
It is not an impossible problem. There are ideas out there to encase it in glass, and store it for about 300 years. That sounds like a long time, but if you put it in a place where it cannot be disturbed, nobody will be the wiser.
Another idea is to encase it in concrete. Concrete will last MILLIONS of years. We know that from the limestone that prehistoric creatures made. Concrete is no different than limestone, it is simply manmade.
What can go wrong? Well, what if it leaks? Not likely. Even if it does, so what? Just put it where nobody goes anyway. The bottom of the ocean is a possibility. In a deep mine shaft is another. The Earth is a big place. You can put it somewhere where it is a long way from anybody, and nobody is going to go there. If they go there, they may get sick and die. Yeah, and if they go into an erupting volcano, they will die too. People don't act like that.
What if it gets out in the environment? Again, so what? Radiation is everywhere, and there is less of this stuff than what you already had anyway. Provided that you seal it well enough, it isn't going anywhere. Three hundred years in some remote place, and it is then harmless. That is not that big of a risk. In fact, I'd say the risk is near zero. However, it is not zero.
Back to your cost benefit analysis. If you look at the "risk" and the rewards, this will look good. However, that isn't the way people think today. But as mentioned, someday it will look a lot better.
Is there any way you can end up with more radiation? Not likely. In fact, that may actually be impossible. I am not well versed enough on the subject to answer that definitively.
Of the ways to make things radioactive, there are two that I know of. One is with neutron bombardment. The waste left over may emit some neutrons, I am not sure. However, it is unlikely that it does. If it did, it could still be used to breed more uranium from the Thorium. Stands to reason that the free neutrons are all used up. The neutrons were all used up in breeding uranium from the Thorium.
The other way to make stuff radioactive is from pions. If the process produces any of those, it is miniscule. Therefore, even if any of that is produced, there won't be enough of it to matter.
In my opinion, the risk of making more radiation is for all intents and purposes, nonexistent. The reverse is actually true. You end up with less radiation than if you did nothing. In three hundred years, you end up with nearly zero. You cannot say that with the Thorium that you started with. It has a half life of billions of years. It will be radioactive forever. Get rid of Thorium, and get energy out of it. How can you lose? If somebody did something that took tremendous effort and at great risk to themselves in order to cause harm? This is unlikely, but even so, it is manageable.
In summary, even those there are risks, they are manageable. The rewards greatly exceed any risks. Even if the worst happened, it wouldn't not end the world. The world will get by regardless of whether this is done or not. The greater risk is to do nothing. Doing nothing will result in greater distress than even the worst case scenario for the nuclear option.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
China Takes Lead in Race for Clean Nuclear Power
wired.com
quote:
Comment:
Well, it has been a year and what has this administration done?
quote:
“President Obama talked about a Sputnik-type call to action in his SOTU address,” wrote Charles Hart, a a retired semiconductor researcher and frequent commenter on the Energy From Thorium discussion forum. “I think this qualifies.”
Comment:
Well, it has been a year and what has this administration done?
Another look at the Thorium REMIX 2011
I went nuts with this yesterday afternoon. I made a bunch of screen shots and organized them according to topic. I did this because the material just gets to be too much at one sitting. This is probably too technical a discussion for most people to stick with for the entire 2 hours. Even though I'm vitally interested in it, it is still a challenge for me to spend so much time on it.
Basically, I divided the screen shots into 3 categories
This video should be part of a study course- which illustrates to anyone interested -how things can go badly wrong. After watching this, the main thing to take away is this: just because it hasn't been developed already doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
An historical example: I saw on Instapundit today a story about how aluminum may have been available much sooner if a Roman Emperor had allowed it. Think about that one for awhile.
Basically, I divided the screen shots into 3 categories
- Waste: the screenshots start at 1:10:30 and (for the most part) at 1:15. I took 17 of these.
- Proliferation: only 3 of these, 2 at 30 minute in, and one near the end
- Inertia: 13 of these spread out over the 2 hour video. This inertia exists both in the public and private sectors.
This video should be part of a study course- which illustrates to anyone interested -how things can go badly wrong. After watching this, the main thing to take away is this: just because it hasn't been developed already doesn't mean it was a bad idea.
An historical example: I saw on Instapundit today a story about how aluminum may have been available much sooner if a Roman Emperor had allowed it. Think about that one for awhile.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
A benefit of the Thorium fuel cycle
This may not be a new idea, but the significance was enough to discuss briefly. I thought that you would want to be able to handle Uranium 233 from the breeding of Thorium 232, want to be able to make fuel rods for a nuclear thermal engine for a rocket on the moon and Mars.
This is as opposed to using a LFTR design for energy production on the ground. Wouldn't want to use a LFTR in space because it is liquid, and that may be a problem in space. However, handling U 233, which is a product of a LFTR on the ground, is a bit of a challenge, as I understand. But, if you could do this off world, a significant benefit could result.
How?
You would not need to get fuel from the earth anymore. If you can do this off world, you will be able to eliminate the necessity to lift fuel from off the Earth. Without having to lift all this fuel from the Earth would make interplanetary space travel much easier than otherwise.
This should be able to reduce costs for deep space missions by a considerable amount, I would think.
One may get it all started by breeding some Plutonium for deep space travel as well. You could use a small LFTR design for that as a research reactor. That could get the ball rolling. NASA needs the stuff for these types of projects, provided that funding could be gotten for it. Also, Obama has indicated in his budget that he doesn't want these programs anymore.
It would take a change in administrations to bring this into being.
This is as opposed to using a LFTR design for energy production on the ground. Wouldn't want to use a LFTR in space because it is liquid, and that may be a problem in space. However, handling U 233, which is a product of a LFTR on the ground, is a bit of a challenge, as I understand. But, if you could do this off world, a significant benefit could result.
How?
You would not need to get fuel from the earth anymore. If you can do this off world, you will be able to eliminate the necessity to lift fuel from off the Earth. Without having to lift all this fuel from the Earth would make interplanetary space travel much easier than otherwise.
This should be able to reduce costs for deep space missions by a considerable amount, I would think.
One may get it all started by breeding some Plutonium for deep space travel as well. You could use a small LFTR design for that as a research reactor. That could get the ball rolling. NASA needs the stuff for these types of projects, provided that funding could be gotten for it. Also, Obama has indicated in his budget that he doesn't want these programs anymore.
It would take a change in administrations to bring this into being.
Sunday, February 26, 2012
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Sorensen: Save U-233, explore space video
Selenian Boondocks
I didn't know that Sorensen blogged here. Not very many posts, but very interesting.
This is a video I found there.
I didn't know that Sorensen blogged here. Not very many posts, but very interesting.
This is a video I found there.
Saturday, February 4, 2012
Thorium Energy Alliance
A short update on that post recently, which has some actionable material in it, just in case you wanted to, you know, DO SOMETHING.
Well, one thing that can be done is actually follow up on what was in that video. There is an organization, called the Thorium Energy Alliance, which looks like a non profit corporation. As of this moment, my knowledge of this is limited, but I am looking it up.
Update:
Some screenshots of highlights of the video
So, what happened to the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor? It was so promising, yet it wasn't adopted. To put it succinctly, and it may be seen as unfairly, the Nixon Administration killed it. The administration at that time wanted to go in another direction. That direction led to a dead end. The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor was forgotten about until recently.
Well, one thing that can be done is actually follow up on what was in that video. There is an organization, called the Thorium Energy Alliance, which looks like a non profit corporation. As of this moment, my knowledge of this is limited, but I am looking it up.
Update:
Some screenshots of highlights of the video
 |
| Weinberg with President Kennedy. Weinberg invented Light Water Reactor and Thorium Molten Salt Reactor |
 |
| Weinberg and Seaborg favored Thorium Molten Salt Reactors |
So, what happened to the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor? It was so promising, yet it wasn't adopted. To put it succinctly, and it may be seen as unfairly, the Nixon Administration killed it. The administration at that time wanted to go in another direction. That direction led to a dead end. The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor was forgotten about until recently.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Robert Hargraves - Aim High! @ TEAC3
Uploaded by gordonmcdowell on Jul 24, 2011
Comment:
This is a great sales job for thorium cycle nuclear reactors. Particularly at the end of the presentation.
Comment:
This is a great sales job for thorium cycle nuclear reactors. Particularly at the end of the presentation.
Monday, January 16, 2012
Joe Bonometti - LFTR Development Lessons Learned @ TEAC3
Dr. Joe Bonometti at TEAC3
quote:
I put in both videos on this post, as well as screenshots to the first one, which is a video that lasts nearly an hour.
Screenshots from the above video:
You could manufacture your fuel for a return to Earth using energy from Thorium. A transportation system could run on something like this.
Even if you have only terrestrial applications in mind, keep in mind that thorium has advantages here as well.
When the airplane idea gave way to missiles, they kept researching it in a small reactor and came up with the LFTR.
The video below is only about 10 minutes in case you are pressed for time:
quote:
Joe also did one of the very first “Tech-Talks” at Google on the subject of LFTR technology.Comment:
I put in both videos on this post, as well as screenshots to the first one, which is a video that lasts nearly an hour.
Screenshots from the above video:
 |
| Easy to find thorium on the moon and Mars. |
 |
| The advantages of nuclear vs. solar and/or wind |
 |
| History of this research: it was originally intended for airplanes! |
 |
| What is LFTR? Just this: It is better than uranium, and almost as good as fusion could ever be, but it is available NOW. |
 |
| What's not to like? |
 |
| Uranium Fuel Cycle versus Thorium Fuel Cycle |
The video below is only about 10 minutes in case you are pressed for time:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)