Thorium is the fuel of the future
A cheap and abundant energy source. India is currently developing several Thorium reactors and the first US naval ship powered by a reactor was a thorium reactor. American Uranium companies do not want the American public to know about the advantages of Thorium versus Uranium, this is the intelligent choice for a fuel for the future.Category: Tech
Author: Danosaur95630
Published (on YouTube): 2009-11-10
Published (here): 2012-05-28
Rating: 4.76; Votes:50
Views: 8214; Favorites: 8
Video duration: 2 min.
«Thorium is the fuel ...» screenshots:
00:00:51
|
00:00:25
|
00:00:51
|
00:01:17
|
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Comments on «Thorium is the fuel of the future»:
totoritko on 2012-02-06
Thorium reactors ...
Thorium reactors avoid Pu239 production by starting out at a much lower atomic mass than current reactors (Th232 rather than U238), so instead of the process requiring a single neutron capture (U238->Pu239 - simplified), it takes many more (232->233->...->238->239). Since the chances of this occurring are very small, it can be said that LFTR produces next to no Pu239. That's not to say that it doesn't produce any - it does, but *much* less compared to Uranium reactors.
totoritko on 2012-02-06
I'm not sure you ...
I'm not sure you understood my comment - it was about wind power. The short-term radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel originates from fission products,which decay away in a couple of hundred years. It's the plutonium and the higher actinides which are troublesome. Even though they emit only a fraction of the radiation of the fission products, they remain so for a long time + they are poisonous heavy metals, so its best to avoid them in your spent fuel as much as possible
f1r31c3r1 on 2012-02-06
lol there not ...
lol there not mining it, its the existing nuclear waste there wanting to put back into the reactor and burn up the plutonium and uranium 238, the very insanely dangerous stuff. Evacuation zone = well that would be another planet if it went wrong.
f1r31c3r1 on 2012-02-06
Because it is, ...
Because it is, unleashing the dooms day bomb in corporate hands that cant even get basic uranium reactions right is beyond insane. Works great in a professors laboratory but not in corporations hands, god help us, this is beyond insane. It would be the excuse we all need to boycott taxes as me and many others i am sure wont want to be insuring this.
f1r31c3r1 on 2012-02-06
Without being ...
Without being insulting but your insane. The type of hybrid reactors your talking about is so dangerous its not worth thinking about. I am sure many have heard of the dooms day bomb well what your talking about is building and operating a hybrid reactor that if it went wrong you have a doomsday bomb, no second chance period. All that in the hands of stupid corporations urm hell NO. The future is not Thorium its in the exact opposite reaction, fusion! Look up fusion reactor.
faffaflunkie on 2012-01-22
Natural gas is the ...
Natural gas is the fuel of the near future- we could stop the most massive transfer of wealth in history (to the sheiks) AND solve the air pollution problem tomorrow if the Govt. would get off it's ass and institute a sensible energy policy that encourages the use of natural gas instead of oil.
totoritko on 2012-01-22
An exciting ...
An exciting prospect, but with massive scalability issues. Have you actually run the numbers? Just to give you a sense of scale: wind mill turbines use neodymium magnets (otherwise the output goes way down). Ballpark numbers: ~0.3t Nd per MW capacity. Wind mill power factor: best 33%. World total power: ~4.5TW. Equiv.wind power: ~13.6TW. Nd required: ~4Mt. Current production rate: 20kt/year. So even with all Nd going to wind, it would take >200 years just to mine the stuff!
totoritko on 2012-01-22
Yep, and they've ...
Yep, and they've concluded that it's just way too expensive and inefficient when compared to U238->Pu239 transmutation, so besides a few experiments, no military force in the world uses U233-based bombs. Also, no power reactor was ever used to produce weapons-grade material, it all happened in purpose-built military ones. So, regardless of your power choices, the military will do its thing anyway. Might as well ban TNT, cause you can make bombs out of it...
bluemoondiadochi on 2012-01-01
1:07 ok, all clear: ...
1:07 ok, all clear: int community should help Iran build thorium reactors, if all they want is REALLY only electricity! and if they refuse, well, masks are off then! ok, jokes aside: Thorium RULES! problem is, uranium reactors were built during cold was so uranium processing industry would have somewhere to sell its products in peacetime. and as any big bussiness, it kinda breaks new progress... i guess it could be called deadlock of corporatism.
manw3bttcks on 2011-11-24
I guess you're ...
I guess you're referring to his "300 times more thorium" comment. He's taking into account that although there's 3x more thorium than all isotopes of Uranium, the Uranium 235 which is of use for reactors is only 0.007 of the totally quantity of Uranium which is most commonly the 238 isotope. 0.007 is close to 0.01 -> hence he says 300X more abundant (3 / 0.01 --> 300x)
Dubious07 on 2011-09-28
your so lost dude ...
your so lost dude , how about just free energy from water and wind and solar !
afe3311 on 2011-09-27
I think he meant ...
I think he meant to say that the by product of thorium (after is used as fuel) is 500 years
raileanulucian on 2011-09-05
"The half-life of ...
"The half-life of thorium-232 is about 14.05 billion years. It is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in the Earth's crust. " -Wikipedia get your facts right silly
faffaflunkie on 2011-08-19
Bombs HAVE been ...
Bombs HAVE been made from thorium. Pick your poison.
PaladinPK on 2011-08-14
Use Integral Fast ...
Use Integral Fast Reactors to make Thorium Power Plants even more efficient
OfficeThug on 2011-08-10
Thanks I do my best ...
Thanks I do my best. Make sure you get rid of any smoke detectors while you're forsaking radiation sources, they contain a pinch of DEADLY americium-241 which has never killed anyone. Also please avoid spices, they're always irradiated to kill bacteria. Oh and make sure you encase your house in lead so you'll be protected from cosmic rays Your grip on reality is questionable. Science, statistics, and probability are more real than your vivid imagination. Go read up on radiotoxicity.
Tekknorg on 2011-08-10
No no no. The ...
No no no. The problem here is that you deny low radiaton emissions by reactors during normal mode. Thorium is deadly for every creature. As long as you don't do your homework you can stick with the IAEA / ICRP official speech control und rules. You delivered misleading, strategic misinterpretation, ignoring health, life, logic, science, ethic - to the public. Bye.
OfficeThug on 2011-08-10
The problem here is ...
The problem here is that you are equivalating nuclear accidents with normal operation. Nuclear plants never emit radioactive particulates into the environment when operating. Coal plants do, and they even top nuclear accidents. Coal plants in the US emitted 150 times more radiation than the Three Mile Incident during the same year, for example. You're millions of times likelier to encounter all those isotopes in nature as opposed to products from reactors. Radon is in your basement.
Tekknorg on 2011-08-10
The risk, that I ...
The risk, that I swin in a oil lake is a million times smaller then exposed to low radiation exposure of Krypton 85, Radon, Triitium, Iodine 131, Strontium 90, Pu241, Cesium 137 - emitted by atomic power, to everyone. This forcible pollution to all of us by the nuclear industry / military is irresponsible. Natural radiation is dangerous leads to spontaneous mutations, diseases. We can not accept such a thing as a reason to add yet more radiation. Learn something.
OfficeThug on 2011-08-10
Take a swim in oil ...
Take a swim in oil and you'll develop all sorts of cancers years later. Take a bite out of coal and you're likely to develop several internal cancers. Hold plutonium in your hand and you're going to get cancer then too. You're not going to do any of these things though, because that's not how you use fuel. Instead you're going to use those things as intended. In that case oil and coal are statistically deadlier than nuclear, because they kill more people every year by being used.
Tekknorg on 2011-08-09
Plutonium is much ...
Plutonium is much more dangerous than coal. You can have all the Plutonium, if you like. What a kindergarten. I'm outta here.
Tekknorg on 2011-08-09
Nuclear proponents ...
Nuclear proponents repeatedly claim that radiation exposure in the vicinity of coal-fired power plants is 100 times greater than for nuclear power plants of equivalent size. This story has been disproved since 1977. The UN Commission UNSCEAR (UNCEAR 1977 report) has determined that in consideration of the entire fuel cycle, the global collective dose of population per megawatt of electrical energy from nuclear power is 375 times higher than for electricity from coal.
OfficeThug on 2011-08-09
It's only deadly if ...
It's only deadly if you misuse it. If you hold a ball of U-233 in your hand, you're misusing it, so you're going to die. If you confine it in a fluoride salt reactor, encase it with a thorium salt blanket that absorbs gamma rays and neutrons like a sponge, and never forcibly try to take U-233 out of the reactor, then you'll be fine. The most dangerous fuel known to man isn't thorium, uranium, or even plutonium. It's coal by several orders of magnitude. Which would you rather have?