Changes in Atlantic currents

[jtsailjt]

Originally Posted by genaea

Don, thank you for your perspective.



I find it interesting to consider that many ACC/AGW opponents are not opposed to nuclear power. Which will, in affect, help 'solve' a problem they do not either believe in nor agree with.



Conversely, many people who are ACC/AGW proponents are against nuclear power, even though this will help 'solve' a problem they believe is dire.



To use a term from fellow CF member Mike OReilly, solving ACC/AGW is an interesting thought exercise, but will not likely occur until the very end (if then). Since many people have intrinsic beliefs that disallow them from considering otherwise viable solutions.



Thank you for your thoughts.

Very few of those of us who some like to label deniers actually deny that climate change is occurring or that human activity has an influence on it. Our disagreement is in how much danger this poses and what should be done about it but rather than debate those issues logically it’s much easier to just dismiss us as general purpose climate change deniers who are anti science though nothing could be further from the truth. There are other reasons to support nuclear energy even if you aren’t concerned about atmospheric CO2 levels. Burning fossil fuels requires messy mining, refining, transporting, and then it pollutes the air when we burn it. So even if you leave CO2 concerns out of the equation I think we all should be able to agree that it would be nice to avoid having to deal with all that mess involved in depending on fossil fuels. Nuclear is the only other option that can provide the massive amounts of energy we need. Besides being unreliable, solar and wind and other renewables just can’t generate enough energy to supply the bulk of our needs.

Those claiming to be most concerned about AGW don’t support nuclear energy mostly out of habit from when their leaders demonstrated against it back in the 60’s when it was trendy and the much worse danger caused by the alternative was not widely known. Fear mongering about nuclear waste storage disasters is a popular meme for them despite nuclear s remarkable safety record. Yes their position is totally illogical but so ingrained it’s like a built in reflex. And these are the same folks who claim to be pro science and logic!

I’m actually a little more optimistic than Mike because I think nuclear energy will make a comeback within a few decades and will so quickly solve our energy needs and desire to cut back on CO2 that it will be very widely embraced. Of course by then we’ll still be stuck with all the CO2 we’ve pumped into the atmosphere during these nuclear delay years but I don’t think the effects of climate change will be anywhere near as dire as some are predicting. We’ll successfully adapt to the change that does occur.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

Those claiming to be most concerned about AGW don’t support nuclear energy mostly out of habit from when their leaders demonstrated against it back in the 60’s when it was trendy and the much worse danger caused by the alternative was not widely known. Fear mongering about nuclear waste storage disasters is a popular meme for them despite nuclear s remarkable safety record. Yes their position is totally illogical but so ingrained it’s like a built in reflex. And these are the same folks who claim to be pro science and logic!

That's BS... concern about CC is mainstream and most such folks would be ok with more nuclear. What's currently missing is leadership, and government & industry coming forward together with a solid, confident plan for nuclear power expansion.

Have you ever stopped to think that the interests that are most invested against recognizing AGW also have a lot to lose if more nuclear plants are built? You can't see who's REALLY against nuclear.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

Have you ever stopped to think that the interests that are most invested against recognizing AGW also have a lot to lose if more nuclear plants are built? You can't see who's REALLY against nuclear.

I would say the fossil fuel industries are the most anti nuclear which is why they've gone into 'Renewables' and are cornering the market...

“Most of our customers, private individuals and companies, will in the coming decades only be using electricity – so if we’re not in that business, we’ll become marginalised.”

“So to an extent, it’s about survival, but it’s also about, of course, playing a positive role in energy transition – we see the two as equally powerful.”

https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/fea...g%20the%20pace

Nuclear continues to be a threat, more so now the costs gap is closing.

[Don C L]

Originally Posted by jtsailjt

So what’s the problem with waste being still stored at the plant?

Nuclear plant design has progressed since Fukushima was designed and built and are much safer now. But even not considering that, compare the damage done by nuclear accidents at old, poorly designed nuke plants with the damage AGW alarmists tell us has happened as a result of continuing to burn fossil fuels over the last 50 years. Until we stop letting our fear of the nuclear power boogeyman guide energy policy, we’re just wasting time talking about near irrelevancies because no other source will even begin to provide enough reliable power to replace the burning of fossil fuels.

The San Onofre plant I referred to is a fairly old plant, older than Three Mile Island. As I said, I believe nuclear is in a better position now technologically, but Fukushima is still fresh in our memories. The fear is not totally irrational. Mining for the ore needed for nuclear plants is not without serious concerns as well. Bringing new advanced nuclear plants will take years. Even if solar and wind and hydropower and tidal power and any other renewables cannot replace fossil fuels, it is cheaper and faster to bring many of those online in the meantime, and is a good idea, no? And combined with reducing demand for energy with energy saving strategies (like replacing bulbs with LEDs and better insulation etc.,) we could get even closer. I think the answers will involve multiple approaches simultaneously, not either/or.

[RaymondR]

But what if what the proponents of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are telling us unexaggerated truths and the widespread adoption of this technology could provide cheap and prolific electrical power with relatively short lived wastes, zero melt down hazard, ambient pressure reactors, and much reduced weapons proliferation capabilities.

[Midnight Son]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

But what if what the proponents of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are telling us unexaggerated truths and the widespread adoption of this technology could provide cheap and prolific electrical power with relatively short lived wastes, zero melt down hazard, ambient pressure reactors, and much reduced weapons proliferation capabilities.

Sorry, anything that uses Fluorine in any form, is not on my list of favorites, please look up it's chemical properties (hint: it's a very reactive chemical).
Best wishes.

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

But what if what the proponents of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are telling us unexaggerated truths and the widespread adoption of this technology could provide cheap and prolific electrical power with relatively short lived wastes, zero melt down hazard, ambient pressure reactors, and much reduced weapons proliferation capabilities.

Do you mean sodium based right not fluoride?

There are several viable options of smr/ msr reactors that are being developed/ tested now.

[RaymondR]

Nope fluorides, I'm aware of the molten sodium salts and molten sodium cooled reactors also.

Damn, I better stop buying that toothpaste.

Google Flibe.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

But what if what the proponents of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are telling us unexaggerated truths and the widespread adoption of this technology could provide cheap and prolific electrical power with relatively short lived wastes, zero melt down hazard, ambient pressure reactors, and much reduced weapons proliferation capabilities.

Indeed.
But, what is it, that makes you hop on the Liquid Fluoride Thorium [in particular] bandwagon [cult?]?
As newhaul implies, there is whole family of possible molten salt reactor designs, and the use of thorium, is but one.

Scientists suggest a $5 billion investment, over five years could net a viable Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, or LFTRs (“lifters”) reactor solution in the United States, but, with limited funding for thorium, it is difficult to see this vision come to fruition. Other countries have made preliminary investments towards building thorium reactors.
The route chosen, for the future of nuclear energy, will likely a come from a political decision, not a technical one.
But, my question remains: Why LFTR, in particular?
What has changed, since the 1960/70s, when research and dvelopement, on them, was [mostly] abandoned? [One major factor immediately comes to my mind]


Here’s an interesting discussion:
“Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors” ~ by Robert F. Hargraves, & Ralph Moir [2010]
➥ https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...orium-reactors

“Not So Fast with Thorium” ~ Comment [Keith Schwartztrauber] & Response [Drs. Hargraves and Moir]
➥ https://www.americanscientist.org/ar...t-with-thorium

[RaymondR]

Hi Gord,

The reactor vessel operates at atmospheric or even negative pressure. All three serious melt down accidents had as proximal cause lowering water levels in reactors which must be maintained at high pressure in order to keep the vessel full.

The burn up rate is much higher with thorium than with uranium.

The waste stream for thorium only needs secure storage for a few centuries rather than the millenniums required for uranium waste streams and is orders of magnitude less.

As a dispersion in a liquid the fuel load can be dumped to a configuration where fission halts rapidly and as the solution cools it hardens thereby trapping the nuclear materials. Spills turn into pancakes and don't disperse.

The progression of transmutations during the fission process creates fewer materials suitable for nuclear weapon production with thorium than uranium.

Reaction poisoning substances can continuously be removed from the fuel stream of the LFTR and consequently the reactor can achieve much higher in service times than a solid fuel reactor where rods must be constantly changed.

Etc.

There's probably a few more but it's years since I read the MSR experiment report and a number of books on the technology however it left a very strong impression that the LFTR technology had the potential to be the best of the nuclear fission technologies for civil power production.

[GordMay]

Thanks Raymond, for an excellent summary of some of the advantages of LFTRs.

Why have all attempts to develop commercial thorium reactors failed?

As far as I know, no commercial LFTR exists, anywhere in the world. India has been attempting, without success, to develop a thorium breeder fuel cycle for decades. Other countries, including the US and Russia, have researched the development of thorium fuel, over more than half a century, without overcoming the technical complications.
There is one publicly traded company working to develop thorium-based fuels, Lightbridge Corp. [1]
[1] ➥ https://www.ltbridge.com/

One of the biggest challenges, in developing a thorium reactor, is finding a way to fabricate the fuel economically [1]. Making thorium dioxide is expensive, in part, because its melting point is the highest of all oxides, at 3,300° C. The options for generating the barrage of neutrons needed to kick-start the reaction regularly come down to uranium or plutonium, bringing at least part of the problem full circle [waste/proliferation].

It would take, perhaps, 10 years for the NRC to understand and write regulations for LRTCs. And it would take about another 10 years, before that, to do the experiments, and produce the data, so you can regulate this thing, because all of our regulation is based on light water reactors.

Then, we could begin to build the thorium reactors.

FWIW: I take no position, for or against, any particular nuclear technology [including LFTRs], as I don’t know enough about the various options.
I do expect that nuclear power should, probably, be a part the mix, of sustainable energy sources.

[LakeSuperior]

Interesting article on a South African reactor design,

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2021/11/...can-countries/

They have dubbed it the South African Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) and additionally they believe it will be especially suitable for regional grids and off planet applications. It does not need the ocean to supply a liquid cooling source.

"The HTMR-100 uses ‘pebbles,’ which are graphite balls containing small grains of Uranium that in turn are coated with a thin protective shield of silicon carbide. That makes the Pebble fuel itself exceptionally safe from any leaks of radioactive particles, let alone the protective containment of the entire reactor itself.

The fuel balls are easily transported by road over long distances, making them ideal for African conditions. They are very robust and can withstand rough handling, in contrast to the fragile large metal fuel assemblies used in large nuclear reactors."

[newhaul]

Originally Posted by RaymondR

Hi Gord,

The reactor vessel operates at atmospheric or even negative pressure. All three serious melt down accidents had as proximal cause lowering water levels in reactors which must be maintained at high pressure in order to keep the vessel full.

The burn up rate is much higher with thorium than with uranium.

The waste stream for thorium only needs secure storage for a few centuries rather than the millenniums required for uranium waste streams and is orders of magnitude less.

As a dispersion in a liquid the fuel load can be dumped to a configuration where fission halts rapidly and as the solution cools it hardens thereby trapping the nuclear materials. Spills turn into pancakes and don't disperse.

The progression of transmutations during the fission process creates fewer materials suitable for nuclear weapon production with thorium than uranium.

Reaction poisoning substances can continuously be removed from the fuel stream of the LFTR and consequently the reactor can achieve much higher in service times than a solid fuel reactor where rods must be constantly changed.

Etc.

There's probably a few more but it's years since I read the MSR experiment report and a number of books on the technology however it left a very strong impression that the LFTR technology had the potential to be the best of the nuclear fission technologies for civil power production.

Ok you have described why smr's and mmr's but why Fluoride?

In my opinion the most likely to be brought to fruition would be the Natrium molten sodium fast reactors.

However if you are set on fluoride then look to the chineese they are pursuing that particular smr technology.

[RaymondR]

My interest in thorium was aroused by a book titled "Superfuel" by Richard Martin which appears to provide a fairly comprehensive history of the development of possible LFTR designs by Weinburg and ORNL and the LFR experiment and the part played by Rickover in the matter. A perceived need for plutonium for weapons production during the cold war appears to have been a significant factor in the choice of preferred reactor fuels.

I have had some experience of dealing with regulatory bodies in attempting to introduce novel methods of doing things and found them to be extremely reactionary. In general the ones I dealt with found it far easier to just say no than to fully evaluate a new technology. I imagine that anything as controversial as nuclear plant design would be a nightmare to deal with them over.

The Indian development program is a bit weird from a development path viewpoint and I suspect that it's future will be dictated by the geopolitical situation in that part of the world and that this will also be the case with China although I read somewhere that they are looking at LFTR for warship propulsion.

The transmutation chain for thorium requires a neutron source as thorium is fertile rather than fissile. The neutron source can be any fissile material although particle accelerators have been proposed as a non nuclear source. The fissile neutron source required is only a very minor fraction of that found in the solid fuel uranium reactors and can be contaminated to make it almost useless as a weapons grade material source which helps a lot with the proliferation problem. It being enclosed within the reactor vessel with no need to be regularly accessed also helps the monitoring of it's whereabouts and audits by international non proliferation bodies.

Overall the LFTR appears to be such a good idea that one wonders what is the "elephant in the room" preventing it's development and exploitation as an electrical power generator.

Apparently fluoride based salts are almost invisible to neutrons, are chemically inactive and have a very high boiling point which is what allows the reactor vessel to be maintained at atmospheric pressures.

Waters flaw as a very convenient, combination moderator/heat transfer medium is that at atmospheric pressure it boils at 100 degrees centigrade requiring the reactor vessel to be held pressurized to a couple of thousand psi to achieve the required operating temperature and it is this factor which lead to the initiation of the three famous melt downs.