China creating clean nuclear power with Thorium nuclear reactors

[Hacp]

Sounds fishy. Too easy. Mr Obama would have presented this solution before now. Unless he was waiting to use this as our "Sputnik Moment"

You know what else is too easy? Allowing drilling! We have huge Natural gas reserves ready to be pumped up to the surface. Reliable, cheap, and clean natural gas. Guess what? The EPA is imposing MORE regulations on the companies drilling for the gas. How is that not hurting job growth?

 

[wirednuts]

the people ARE why we dont make new nuke reactors. 3 mile island and chernobyl were more then enough to scare the shit out of everyone.

but if they can do this without the risk of radiation fallout, then i would bet people are smart enough to get it. our energy costs are absolutely outrageous. it needs to stop.

 

[feralkid]

You know what else is too easy? Allowing drilling! We have huge Natural gas reserves ready to be pumped up to the surface. Reliable, cheap, and clean natural gas. Guess what? The EPA is imposing MORE regulations on the companies drilling for the gas. How is that not hurting job growth?

Right, the big bad E.P.A. won't let the poor energy companies pump more gas, so the price can drop and they make less money.

 

[1prophet]

This

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PJ-BzXAN1c

plus this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLPAigMuBk0&feature=related

is what stopped nuclear power.

 

[PsiStar]

Anything that comes from China's government as well as our own has to be taken as something similar to Greek mythology, the Bible, or similar. There is definitely an essence of truth and fact, but there is also an envelope of confusion & "poetic license" by at least the press or the reporters in the context.

I was privy to much "inside" information of TMI at the time. No one really knew or understood. No one. Of course reporting that as a significant "report" would be "fail" in current terms.

Back to China. They have something. They already have our attention, and what ever they are saying the now have or alluding too, I am sure is not there. But rest assured, they will have it and it is up to "US" to bear down & keep an edge.

 

[MovingTarget]

We need a comprehensive energy policy in the US that includes a massive increase in research and development. Sorry, hacp, but increased use of ANY fossil fuel is not a long-term solution. We need to get away from oil completely for power and transport fuel purposes in order to be immune from price and supply shocks as fossil fuels are sold based on rates set by the international market (and lets not forget what OPEC did in the 70s).

 

[ShawnD1]

This

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PJ-BzXAN1c

plus this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLPAigMuBk0&feature=related

is what stopped nuclear power.

The Simpsons didn't help either. Lisa is always protesting the nuclear power plant and saying it causes acid rain, which is ironic because we know for a fact that coal and oil both produce acid rain while nuclear does not. Acid rain comes from nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide being released in the air as a product of combustion. All that comes out of a nuclear stack is steam.

 

[PeshakJang]

Right, the big bad E.P.A. won't let the poor energy companies pump more gas, so the price can drop and they make less money.

You don't know much about the real world, do you kiddo?

 

[rcpratt]

The Simpsons didn't help either. Lisa is always protesting the nuclear power plant and saying it causes acid rain, which is ironic because we know for a fact that coal and oil both produce acid rain while nuclear does not. Acid rain comes from nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide being released in the air as a product of combustion. All that comes out of a nuclear stack is steam.

Technically, there are other things that come out of the off-gas stack. In minuscule quantities.

 

[Brovane]

have we even made any new nuclear weapons since 1980? our peak stockpile was in 1967.

I believe that the last production device using new nuclear material was the W88 Trident II SLBM warhead in 1989. I believe the only site still capable of producing new weapons grade nuclear material is the Savannah River site. However the reactors are currently not operating. However we have made new nuclear devices since then but they use recycled nuclear material. Let me preface new nuclear device. The devices are modifications to existing designs so a Mod 3 device might be modified to a Mod 7 device, this can include even changes to yields. I don't think we have produced a brand new nuclear device design since the W88 Trident II warheads.

 

[sMiLeYz]

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

This also helped killed nuclear

 

[Acanthus]

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

This also helped killed nuclear

If you read the whole story on what happened at Chernobyl; you would realize that it could never happen in the United States.

 

[feralkid]

You don't know much about the real world, do you kiddo?

Do you?


Do you really have a clue, or do you just come in here to pick fights with everybody who doesn't think like you?

 

[Darwin333]

have we even made any new nuclear weapons since 1980? our peak stockpile was in 1967.

IIRC, we pretty much shut down Thorium research in 1969. It sounded like the test reactor we built for Thorium was one of the safest reactors we have ever built.

 

[DietDrThunder]

You know what else is too easy? Allowing drilling! We have huge Natural gas reserves ready to be pumped up to the surface. Reliable, cheap, and clean natural gas. Guess what? The EPA is imposing MORE regulations on the companies drilling for the gas. How is that not hurting job growth?

I'm not sure where you live, but Chesapeake and many other oil/gas companies have been drilling like crazy for the past 3 years in the Fort Worth area. I live in a typical neighborhood where the lots are 70ft by 140ft. We are receiving royalties on 7 wells, with another 4 wells to be drilled this year (not a lot of money since natural gas prices are at an all time low in our area, and the amount of royalty paid is based on property size). The drilling site is 500 ft outside of the neighborhood, and I can see 4 other drilling rigs from our 2nd story windows.

 

[Onceler]

We need the Plutonium by products for weapons(since Clinton and Obama has been disarming us).
We need weapons to handle all the enemies which is pretty much the whole world(everyone hates Americans).

 

[feralkid]

I'm not sure where you live, but Chesapeake and many other oil/gas companies have been drilling like crazy for the past 3 years in the Fort Worth area. I live in a typical neighborhood where the lots are 70ft by 140ft. We are receiving royalties on 7 wells, with another 4 wells to be drilled this year (not a lot of money since natural gas prices are at an all time low in our area, and the amount of royalty paid is based on property size). The drilling site is 500 ft outside of the neighborhood, and I can see 4 other drilling rigs from our 2nd story windows.

Yes, I have family members and friends who own property in the Ft. Worth area. Same story...it's amazing to me to be able to buy property with mineral rights included in the deed: is that typical in Texas?

 

[ShawnD1]

Yes, I have family members and friends who own property in the Ft. Worth area. Same story...it's amazing to me to be able to buy property with mineral rights included in the deed: is that typical in Texas?

Isn't that pretty standard? If I bought some diamond mine in north canada, I would be be really pissed off if it turned out the government owned the diamonds and I wasn't allowed to mine my own property.

 

[SunnyD]

I would give my left nut to see the US start producing and utilizing Molten Salt Reactors using Thorium.

In fact, I would give my left nut to see the US start building out even 5 more commercial nuke power generation facilities. We really need to get away from big oil.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

We really need to get away from big oil.

Oil fired power plants produce only 1% of the electrical power in the US.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2008_US_electricity_generation_by_source_v2.png

 

[Thump553]

I know nothing about it, but is there any real science behind the claim that there is absolutely no risk of a meltdown in a thorium reactor? What about the safety of it's byproducts? Is there a commercial viable thorium reactor anywhere in the world?

Unfortunately both sides seem to dwell mostly upon BS slogans and a sparsity of real facts.

 

[ShawnD1]

I know nothing about it, but is there any real science behind the claim that there is absolutely no risk of a meltdown in a thorium reactor?

The way a reactor works and the way a bomb works are fundamentally different. Nuclear bombs have positive void coefficients - the fission goes faster and faster unless something else influences it.
Nuclear power plants are the opposite. They have negative void coefficients and they rely on human intervention to work properly. If you take all of the humans out of the station and let the thing run by itself, the reaction slows down rather than speed up.


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

reactor designs:

* Boiling water reactors generally have negative void coefficients, and in normal operation the negative void coefficient allows reactor power to be adjusted by changing the rate of water flow through the core. However, the negative void coefficient can cause an unplanned reactor power increase in events (such as sudden closure of a steamline valve) where the reactor pressure is suddenly increased. In addition, the negative void coefficient can result in power oscillations in the event of a sudden reduction in core flow, such as might be caused by a recirculation pump failure. Boiling water reactors are designed to ensure that the rate of pressure rise from a sudden steamline valve closure is limited to acceptable values, and they include multiple safety systems designed to ensure that any sudden reactor power increases or unstable power oscillations are terminated before fuel or piping damage can occur.

* Pressurized water reactors operate with no voids at all, and the water serves as both moderator and coolant. Thus a large negative void coefficient ensures that if the water boils or is lost the power output will drop.

* CANDU reactors have positive (fuck!) void coefficients that are small enough that the control systems can easily respond to boiling coolant before the reactor reaches dangerous temperatures (see References).

* RBMK reactors, such as the reactors at Chernobyl, have a dangerously high positive void coefficient. This was necessary for the reactor to run on unenriched uranium and to require no heavy water. Before the Chernobyl accident these reactors had a positive void coefficient of 4.7 beta and after the accident that was lowered to 0.7 beta. This was done so all RBMK reactors could resume safe operating and produce much needed power for the then USSR and its satellites.

* Fast breeder reactors do not use moderators, since they run on fast neutrons, but the coolant (often lead or sodium) may serve as a neutron absorber and reflector.

* Magnox reactors, advanced gas-cooled reactors and pebble bed reactors are gas-cooled and so void coefficients are not an issue. In fact, some can be designed so that total loss of coolant does not cause core meltdown even in the absence of active control systems. As with any reactor design, loss of coolant is only one of many possible failures that could potentially lead to an accident. In case of accidental ingress of liquid water into the core of pebble bed reactors a positive void coefficient may occur.[1]

So for most of them, stopping the reactor is as simple as dumping the water. That too is something you probably won't want to do for environmental reasons, but there's basically no chance in hell the reactor will melt down.

 

[rcpratt]

The way a reactor works and the way a bomb works are fundamentally different. Nuclear bombs have positive void coefficients - the fission goes faster and faster unless something else influences it.
Nuclear power plants are the opposite. They have negative void coefficients and they rely on human intervention to work properly. If you take all of the humans out of the station and let the thing run by itself, the reaction slows down rather than speed up.


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


So for most of them, stopping the reactor is as simple as dumping the water. That too is something you probably won't want to do for environmental reasons, but there's basically no chance in hell the reactor will melt down.

Wait, what? Are you saying you'd like to dump the water out? That's the very definition of melting fuel.

 

[NaughtyGeek]

If the coolant is lost in a pressurized water reactor and no further action is taken, the reactor will melt down. One of the biggest safety systems in a pressurized water reactor is the reactor fill system which will flood the reactor with water upon a loss of coolant.

Uhg, Wiki as a source.

 

[Mark R]

So for most of them, stopping the reactor is as simple as dumping the water. That too is something you probably won't want to do for environmental reasons, but there's basically no chance in hell the reactor will melt down.

No way. That's what happened at TMI and caused the meltdown. The reactor had already been shutdown for some time, before the water level dropped. Once the fuel was uncovered, it melted.

Nuclear reactors continue to produce heat after shutdown (due to radioactive decay). Immediately after shutdown, the fuel contains large amounts of very short half-life substances which produce a lot of heat. A typical figure is that 1 hour after shutdown, the reactor is still producing heat at about 10% of normal operating power, dropping to about 1-2% after 24 hours.

Also bear in mind that the power density in an operating nuclear reactor is close to 100x the power density of the heating element in a kettle or water heater. Even when heated only by 'decay heat' at 5% of normal power, the fuel will melt in seconds if taken out of water.