Slashdot Mirror
India To Build A Thorium Reactor
In their first story, slowLearner writes "India will build a working Thorium reactor. [Quoting the Guardian] 'Officials are currently selecting a site for the reactor, which would be the first of its kind, using thorium for the bulk of its fuel instead of uranium – the fuel for conventional reactors. They plan to have the plant up and running by the end of the decade.'"
Before anyone gets too excited, this is only a modified Heavy Water Reactor and not one of those fancy Molten Salt Reactors folks like Kirk Sorenson have been evangelizing for a while now.
"India will build a working Thorium reactor."
Building a non-working Thorium reactor would be an absurd plan.
Too bad, a LFTR would have made my day.
India.reputation++;
Belgium.reputation--;
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
How much does this resemble the Molten Salt Reactors everyone's talking about?
Will experience from this reactor be able to be applied to the new-style reactors?
I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
The nuke waste problem still hasn't gone away. Building new plants is insane.
pics or it didnt happen
Spain built a non-working nuclear reactor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemoniz_Nuclear_Power_Plant
I wonder why they went for solid fuel rather an a liquid fluoride thorium reactor setup. There are many advantages to the liquid setup plus it is a technology which has been done and proven. Also, the by-products are valuable, so offer additional revenue streams and there is vastly reduced risk in terms or proliferation and melt down capability. As a system, its about as safe as you can get.
Let's hope Loki doesn't learn of this.
Ok, here.
Not sure what the poster means by "fancy" when referring to the liquid flouride thorium reactor. It may be a novel concept to many folks, but if anything it's simpler compared to a light water or pressurized water reactor design. (Or any other solid fuel design, for that matter.)
If it works, and we finally develop batteries worth a crap, then humans may just survive the next centuries without a 90% die-off.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
If you think that there are no problems with nuclear power, move to Chernobyl or Fukushima.
High functioning adults -- of which you aren't one -- recognize that the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters are atypical (Chernobyl because it was a piss-poor reactor design that was all but deliberately wrecked, Fukushima because of the well-above design-basis tsunami). Then they think about appropriate solutions and implement them.
In contrast, you immediately associate Chernobyl and Fukushima with the other 100+ nuclear reactors in operation, conclude that they are all ticking time bombs, piss yourself, and either demand that the whole world switch to other power sources that have a track record of more fatalities per MWh and more land damaged per GWh, or you think we should just abandon energy altogether.
Is it my imagination, or does nuclear-power advocacy have a moving-goalposts problem? For myself, I guess I'm like most folks here, I'd love it if there were a technologically advanced carbon-free power source we could all use, so we could all be techno-optimists, and superficially, it seems that nuclear power could be that power source.
But at this point, even fission-power advocates seem to be betting the farm on future designs, rather than trying to convince anyone that any actually operational system is currently being operated safely. This comment thread is worse -- we've heard for a while that thorium reactors will be better, but now that someone's actually building one, it turns out to be the wrong kind of thorium reactor.
I want this to work, but I'm having trouble shaking the sense that fission power is only safe when it's confined to PowerPoint slides, and becomes dangerous when it collides with reality.
2*3*3*3*3*11*251
The whole problem with the nuclear industry is the complete disconnect between research in reactor design and the operational power plants. Who is to fault for this ? The cost of a nuclear power plant is so great that the operators want to extend the life of the design beyond whats acceptable. And government is very happy to oblige thank you very much.
If the nuclear power plants were to change and update the reactors with the latest technology (not technology designed in the 60s) then we would be having a very different discussion. And government through its various regulatory agencies should enforce for example the fact that no reactor should be in use for more than 20 or 30 years. No extension under any circumstances. After this time, you have to update to the latest certified design. If the commercial players can't come up with a sustainable business plan under these new rules then no nuclear energy. But this makes too much sense, so while research in nuclear design has advanced enormously the "evil" power corporations have "bought/bribed" government to let them use archaic designs. Is it then any wonder that we are having problems ?
Nukes are bad!
You are being too generic. Thorium doesn't have many of the disadvantages that Uranium has:
As a result, a lot of the safety disadvantages that one associates with Uranium based reactors are not applicable here. Thorium also cannot be weaponized, so it's unlikely that Iran, for instance, will be interested in this.
For India, it's a fantastic deal, since that country has 25% of the world's Thorium resources (thank god, one doesn't have to depend on the Middle East for this). Also, the Thorium Energy Alliance (TEA), an educational advocacy organization, emphasizes that "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years." Build a few plants in CA, NY, the Mid West and so on, and much of the commercial energy problems will disappear. In fact, if enough countries adapt this, the cash flow to OPEC will dry up, or at least considerably slow down.
If we start reprocessing our fuel using techniques that the French have been using since the 70's then the majority of our waste will be recycled. If we further start using modern reprocessing systems (like breeder reactors), then the majority of the waste that is left will also be recycled.
Then for what is left, the Yucca Mountain storage plan is capable of safely storing nuclear waste for hundreds (if not thousands) of years with no maintenance. You add in a little bit of maintenance and we can safely store the waste indefinitely.
Compare that to coal where we have no practical means for collecting let alone storing all the pollution which they create. And whose pollution is causing much more immediate problems. And whose normal operation causes far more more deaths per MWh than nuclear. Building more coal plants is what is insane.
Why not just make Chernobyl or Fukushima special nuclear economic development zones? The power coming out of the zone on those transmission lines isn't going to be radioactive.
Set up a military reservation and let them run breeder reactors. The military prevents proliferation, assuming you have a professional, non-corrupt military.
What's the worst that can happen? Your "engineers" engage in unauthorized experiments and blow up the reactor? The plant is hit by a 500-year earthquake soon followed by a 500-year tsunami?
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I don't think BP really sees skimping on safety as a way to save money, not anymore. Reality has a way of asserting itself.
Companies will spend the money they need to in order to avoid spending more, at least if they're held accountable.
There's always the problem of the under-funded company which does something dangerous, causes an expensive mess, then declares bankruptcy, leaving the bill for others to pay. That is avoidable through responsible regulation - such as requiring a sufficient level of bonding or insurance before a company is allowed to attempt something which might be risky.
"jinglys "?
Do you just make this shit up?
If they were smart, they would have saved their gold and bought a fel iron reactor in a few levels.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Not even CLOSE to accurate. If you noticed the post stated that the Indian plant would use thorium for the BULK of the fuel. Like FSV, they will have uranium. Why? For the neutrons. Thorium is fertile (meaning that it can under go nuclear fission), BUT, it is not fissile (capable of generating neutrons to keep the reaction going). For that, you need an outside source. SMALL amounts of Uranium has been the main item used. The interesting part is that the uranium is not a lump, but separated throughout the reactor and up high. If the reactor overheats too much, the thorium would melt, drop to the bottom below the uranium into a pan and that would stop the reaction.
Basically, India is duplicating in 2011, the work that was started in the mid-late 60s (FSV was a product of several other thorium research reactors). General Atomic had the core correct for FSV. Sadly, they used a number of sub-standard parts for the water/steam heat system (from helium to water). If GA was smart, they would re-do their earlier work but as a small reactors that can make use of 'waste' fuel as the neutrons (which is STILL happening). With such an approach, old reactors around the USA and the world can be converted to using thorium, while burning up the 'waste' that we have, and all on site.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Zinc is by far the best element.
I also like thorium.
It's just fun to say.
Thorium.
How's your thorium?
Good, thank you.
The big problem with thorium reactors is that the spent fuel is much easier to turn into weapons-grade nuclear material than the fuel from uranium reactors. This has been known since at least the 50s, and is the main reason thorium-fueled reactors haven't been built before this.
Imagine if rather than a 10+ year $billions project to separate weapons-grade material from used fuel, it took a university-level lab and a few $million. How many terrorist groups (or nations) would have a working nuclear bomb by now?
The only reason that Uranium was used was because of the potential for producing weapons-grade isotopes as a by-product. Thorium reactors do not allow for that. The Indians are on the right track here. Pardon the pun but more power to them!
*** Don't be dull.***
Cobalt thorium G has a radioactive halflife of ninety three years. If you take, say, fifty H-bombs in the hundred megaton range and jacket them with cobalt thorium G, when they are exploded they will produce a doomsday shroud. A lethal cloud of radioactivity which will encircle the earth for ninety three years! Turgidson: Ah, what a load of commie bull. I mean, afterall...
GE doesn't have a design ready yet.
Every neo-con nut job runs around speaking of taxes and regulations killing industry in America. Yet, a number of foreign industrialists point out that taxes are not a big deal (you simply add them in to the price) and regs help them stay out of trouble with the govs.. Their issue is that we have become a sue happy nation that will every single fucking lawyer will sue for a penny. Then these liberal nut jobs tie up projects like this. So what happens? Not only do foreign nations build cheap coal plants, but ultimately, they take up this kind of work. The likelihood of an accident increases because it was not built by experienced ppl in the first place (lessons will be re-learned).
Between far right wing nut jubs and far left wing nut jobs, USA as well as the world, are all fucked by them.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Sorry, but if you really want to solve the problem, then you're going to need to fix two (or three, depending on how you look at it) strategic mistakes in that one sentence fragment!
First, lose the "pick one" part. It's ok if you use different techs in different places. Hudson Bay area residents and Sahara dwellers probably should be using totally different approaches.
Second, don't specify "doesn't produce CO2." What you want is less CO2. Or at least specify that the CO2 is not allowed to be an externality, then you deal with the CO2 and whatever it costs to do that, you make sure people pay for it whenever they draw on the power plant.
Third (or a variation on the first), lose the requirement for solutions to always handle the base load. Yes, that makes them be only partial solutions, but mitigation, rather than elimination, is a damn worthy thing to pursue. If you get your daytime power from clean good magic tech and nighttime power from bad tech, you've still half-fixed the problem. That's something to be happy about. We win and lose by degrees.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Indian engineers have been reported camping known spawn points in Ungoro. News at 11.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Almost every project in the country is opposed by the environmental groups and whoever happens to be in the opposition at that time.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
And this is different from the United States how?
Well, as a steam turbine engineer, their plan for the turbine is borderline ridiculous.
The turbine system believed best suited for its operation is a triple-reheat closed-cycle helium turbine system, which should convert 50% of the reactor heat into electricity compared to today's steam cycle (~25% to 33%).
Firstly, triple reheat turbines are more efficient from a thermodynamic point of view. But nobody builds them because the increased complexity and cost just aren't worth it. Double-reheat steam turbines were relatively rare for coal turbines- only a handful were built and the design concept was abandoned, but they may be common on the nuclear side.
The next problem is using helium for the working fluid. I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but the turbine would have to be enormous in order to work with helium. I'm talking so big that you need to install the blades on site because you can't move it by road or rail. This adds a huge amount of extra cost also- assuming you can find a material to make blades that long with. Currently the longest blades for steam turbines available are Titanium 52" or maybe 60" (for 50hz systems). A longer blade would probably require an even stronger material with the desired properties, which does not currently exist at anything approaching a reasonable price.
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.
This is a country that has problems mastering coal power.
When advanced countries have shelved nuclear power, India is not the best candidate to pick up the torch (although they also have fewer options than advanced countries).
Perhaps toilets and sewers are needed more in India than any nuclear reactor?
Sorry, I'm just showing my "western bias." Taking a crap inside is weird for some cultures. Please forgive me.
I just hope they don't use cobalt thorium-g... If they do we'd better start work on our mine shafts.
I used to work in a low-temperature physics lab, where we used a lot of helium. We spent half our lives chasing helium leaking from the recovery apparatus that piped boiled off helium back to our machine shop for re-liquifying.
Then there's the fact that helium is really, really expensive - the reason that we were going to so much trouble to recover it in the first place was that it cost so much. I don't see how this could ever be cost-effective as a working fluid for a turbine.
1) People hate 'unsafe' nuclear reactors
2) Tell people 'Uranium is an unsafe fuel'.
3) Build a reactor using 'safer' fuel that does exactly the same thing
4) Eventually rename Uranium 'Safe-anium'
And I'm not even going to use them here just so I can gloat in this post.
Na na na na na.
I'm not radically anti-nuclear by any means*, but why exactly can't the GP do this? Is there some rule that states there's a certain minimum number of nuclear reactors in the world? You might think that getting rid of nuclear plants is bad policy, and that's a reasonable position to take. But there's certainly nothing inconsistent about insisting that old reactors be decommissioned (because you believe they're unsafe) and insist that they be replaced by non-nuclear sources of power.
*I do have cost-effectiveness concerns with respect to nuclear energy - specifically, the fact that the nuclear industry in the US has been, in effect "pre-bailed out" by having their liability in the event of an accident strictly limited by law. If the nuclear industry had to obtain insurance at market rates... they'd be out of business. The existing law is in effect a huge subsidy to nuclear power.
Beware the Thalaron radiation.
That'll be cost effective, given that rockets to the sun hardly cost anything.
Look, I realize that it was just a throwaway line, but the problem is that some people will actually take this seriously.
One question - what's the role of heavy water i.e. deuterium monoxide in all this? I can understand thorium going through similar reactions as uranium, and leaving radium as the by product, and the heat being used to generate electricity. But when heavy water is involved, the reason for it is to get deuterium and protium to have a nuclear reaction and produce helium 3, but then that begs the question of how does such a reaction get controlled? Any ideas, anyone?
Usually means an uneducated/stupid person of south asian origin.
I've long thought that the ideal way to further develop nuclear energy is to build microreactors in a research mode then over time refine the design into a production reactor, then deploy the microreactors, amassing as many as you need for a given application. The size of each would be shipping container size. A design goal would be to standardize the design so that the microreactors could be serviced/refurbished robotically. On the site the reactors would be located below grade and each microreactor should be capable of producing about 5-10 Megawatts of electricity.
This approach would allow the details of the use of thorium to be worked out without investing in huge reactors. Also, no scaling of the design is required, just build more reactors.
That was the turning point of my life--I went from negative zero to positive zero.
Cobalt Thorium G. (with a Ruski accent).
TIL: Jingly means an uneducated/stupid person of South Asian origin.
Man. Reddit will love this.
Shippingport Atomic Power Station was a light water thorium breeder
nuclear power station; the work of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Reactor