Welcome to Gaia! ::

I bring your attention to this awesome technology that can provide humanity with clean, safe and abundant power for millenias to come.

The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (acronym LFTR; spoken as lifter) is a thermal breeder reactor which uses the thorium fuel cycle in a fluoride-based molten (liquid) salt fuel to achieve high operating temperatures at atmospheric pressure.
The LFTR is a type of thorium molten salt reactor (TMSR). Molten-salt-fueled reactors (MSFRs).

Alvin M. Weinberg pioneered the use of the MSR at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The Aircraft Reactor Experiment in 1954 and Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment from 1965 to 1969 both used liquid fluoride salts; the latter notably demonstrated the use of U-233 as a fuel source. [6] Unfortunately for MSR research, Weinberg was fired and the MSR program closed down in the early 1970s, after which research stagnated



Some advantages of LFTRs:

The abundance of the element thorium throughout the Earth’s crust promises widespread energy independence through Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology. With LFTR, a small handful of thorium can supply an individual's lifetime energy needs; a small grain silo full could power North America for a year; and known thorium reserves could power society for thousands of years. There is 4 times more thorium than uranium on Earth, and all of it is usable in a LFTR without enrichment.

LFTR is walk-away safe. LFTR operates at low pressure and is chemically stable. It shuts down passively and removes decay heat without human intervention or mechanical backup cooling systems, eliminating the possibility of accident scenarios such as that at Fukushima. Low pressures eliminate the need for massive pressure containment vessels and alleviate safety concerns of regulators and the public about high-pressure releases to the atmosphere.
LFTR can produce not only safe, sustainable, carbon-free electricity, but life-saving medical radioisotopes, desalinated water and ammonia for agriculture and synthesized fuels in the process.

LFTRs can include a freeze plug at the bottom that has to be actively cooled, usually by a small electric fan. If the cooling fails, say because of a power failure, the fan stops, the plug melts, and the fuel drains to a subcritical passively cooled storage facility. This not only stops the reactor, also the storage tank can more easily shed the decay heat from the short-lived radioactive decay of irradiated nuclear fuels. Even in the event of a major leak from the core such as a pipe breaking, the salt will spill onto the kitchen-sink-shaped room where the reactor is in, which will drain the fuel salt by gravity into the dedicated passively cooled dump tank.

LFTR is more efficient, extracting significantly more energy from abundant, inexpensive thorium than solid-fuelled reactors can from more scarce and costly uranium. Conventional reactors consume less than one percent of their uranium fuel, leaving the rest as waste. LFTR consumes 99% of its thorium fuel.

LFTR can consume plutonium and other long-lived fissile materials remaining in spent solid nuclear fuel stockpiles while bringing many gigawatts of LFTR power generation online with thorium as the sole input thereafter. Most LFTR byproducts are stable within a decade and the remaining waste has a half-life of 30 years, decaying to stability within hundreds rather than tens of thousands of years.

LFTR is a demonstrated technology, the physics and operational fundamentals of which were proven by researchers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory's pilot plant in the late 1960's. Despite its compelling advantages, LFTR development stalled when funding was concentrated instead on fast-spectrum breeding reactors.

LFTR is proliferation resistant. Thorium and its derivative fuel, uranium-233, are unsuitable for nuclear weapons; of the thousands of warheads in the world's arsenals, none are based on the thorium fuel cycle. LFTR is unique in its ability to meet both energy generation and non-proliferation mandates.

LFTRs dont need many big and expensive components of current reactors, such as pressure vessel, or cooling towers, and by using liquid salt as the coolant instead of pressurized water, a containment structure only slightly bigger than the reactor vessel can be used. LFTRs thus can be mass produced in a factory and then delivered and reclaimed from utility sites as small modular units. Factory LFTR module production offers reduced capital costs and rapid deployment in a wide variety of sizes to sites near the point of need.

The liquid fuel form is LFTR's key differentiator from conventional nuclear energy production. LFTR uses liquid FLiBe salts as both a fuel carrier and reactor coolant. The salts are chemically inert and will not react with flood waters, ground water or the atmosphere. Fuel can be added to the liquid salts and byproducts removed at any time, even while the reactor remains online.

LFTR can provide both base power and peak power, following the demand for electricity imparted on it by the grid. LFTR's responsiveness to energy demand makes it highly complementary to alternative energy sources.

LFTRs have liquid fuels, and therefore there is no need to shutdown and take apart the reactor just to refuel it. LFTRs can thus refuel without causing a power outage (online refueling)

I think this picture says it all:
User Image - Blocked by "Display Image" Settings. Click to show.


Check out Kirk Sorensen's lectures on Youtube for more info.

Why the hell have we stopped researching this in the 70s? We could have plentiful cheap and safe energy, as well as far less CO2 emissions and fossil fuel addiction now. This needs to be funded now.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

Pretty awesome.

We could also look into the sub-critical method, which could be potentially 200 times more efficient but have no chance of an explosion of melt down like with uranium. O_o
Gardening_with_Rave_Music's avatar

Versatile Shapeshifter

11,000 Points
  • Big Tipper 100
  • Millionaire 200
  • Senpai's Notice 100
cool but if i hear lftr lftr lftr one more time... now someones gonna quote me and say it lol
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Suicidesoldier#1
Pretty awesome.

We could also look into the sub-critical method, which could be potentially 200 times more efficient but have no chance of an explosion of melt down like with uranium. O_o

And also have an output that isn't remotely near what we need to satisfy the world's energy needs. Sorry.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
Pretty awesome.

We could also look into the sub-critical method, which could be potentially 200 times more efficient but have no chance of an explosion of melt down like with uranium. O_o

And also have an output that isn't remotely near what we need to satisfy the world's energy needs. Sorry.


Based on the current efficiency of coal over the power grid, and that this is 600 million times more powerful, it would only take 20-40 tons to power the whole world.

We're talking, that's less than 1 reactor, so no, that wouldn't be a huge issue if it took off.
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Suicidesoldier#1
MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
Pretty awesome.

We could also look into the sub-critical method, which could be potentially 200 times more efficient but have no chance of an explosion of melt down like with uranium. O_o

And also have an output that isn't remotely near what we need to satisfy the world's energy needs. Sorry.


Based on the current efficiency of coal over the power grid, and that this is 600 million times more powerful, it would only take 20-40 tons to power the whole world.

We're talking, that's less than 1 reactor, so no, that wouldn't be a huge issue if it took off.

A sub-critical reactor that produces 600 million times the output of coal?
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
Pretty awesome.

We could also look into the sub-critical method, which could be potentially 200 times more efficient but have no chance of an explosion of melt down like with uranium. O_o

And also have an output that isn't remotely near what we need to satisfy the world's energy needs. Sorry.


Based on the current efficiency of coal over the power grid, and that this is 600 million times more powerful, it would only take 20-40 tons to power the whole world.

We're talking, that's less than 1 reactor, so no, that wouldn't be a huge issue if it took off.

A sub-critical reactor that produces 600 million times the output of coal?


Yeah?

At max.


Kay, 1 kilogram of uranium is 3 million times more powerful than coal; Thorium is about equal in strength, but with the sub-critical method, is has the potential to be 200 times more efficient than it otherwise would be with normal methods, meaning that it could potentially be 200 more powerful than itself, or uranium, or roughly 600 million times more powerful than coal if the gains were realized. Even if it's only 10-100 times more efficient instead of 200, that still means only a few hundred tons of Thorium to power the whole world, let alone say the U.S., and I know of a few thousand tons in a storage facility sitting around not doing anything, and we have way more than that.

We only have 106 nuclear reactors yet they power 20% of our electricity in the U.S.; even if we went with the liquid salt reactor for Thorium, we have way more Thorium in the U.S. than we would need for 1000 years, and we'd at most need 500 reactors, and most of the power comes from only a few, very powerful uranium reactors, so if we made a couple of big reactors it could replace virtually all electricity. : P
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Suicidesoldier#1
has the potential to be 200 times more efficient

Where are you getting these figures anyway? I'm just saying, 200 times more efficient doesn't necessarily mean 200 times more powerful - it just means 200 times as much energy from the same amount of fuel (assuming that's even what they mean by 'efficiency'). It could mean it's only putting out 1/5 of the energy but lasting 1000 times as long for example. Power is energy over time, not total energy.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
has the potential to be 200 times more efficient

Where are you getting these figures anyway? I'm just saying, 200 times more efficient doesn't necessarily mean 200 times more powerful - it just means 200 times as much energy from the same amount of fuel (assuming that's even what they mean by 'efficiency'). It could mean it's only putting out 1/5 of the energy but lasting 1000 times as long for example. Power is energy over time, not total energy.


Um... but that would be the opposite. It would need to dump out 200 times the energy in the same amount of time, to be power.

But even if it takes longer over the amount of time we consume energy it would be fine.


As far as it goes atom bombs for instance have always been more efficient than traditional reactor designs, but getting that energy out realistically is near impossible. Since you bombard the Thorium with neutrons (by using a proton accelerator to bombard other materials) you simulate the effects but without having a chain reaction. Uranium could do it, but since uranium can be set off with a nuclear chain reaction any increase in potential energy is risky. More or less in modern power plants a lot of energy is wasted.

There's a number of sources, but mainly it's Nobel prize winning Carlo Rubbia's stuff, previous director of CERN, with the "sub-critical", or accelerator driven system, that serves as an "energy amplifier". There's some sources (PDF), but as for compiling a bunch of 100% true stuff and getting all the physics behind the theoretical idea squared away that will take me some time.


I am making something for that it will be take me a while. xp

Basically, you use a proton accelerator bombarding a material to release neutrons at high speeds to cause fission; Thorium is the ideal fuel since it can't explode but still has high yields, about as much as uranium would. This is similar to what happens in a nuclear chain reaction with neutrons, except it's caused by an outside source rather than the nuclear chain reaction, so it's more stable. Some of this power then goes back to power the accelerator, or accelerators, rather than as a chain reaction, so there are some conversion losses, although even it was 100 times more efficient it would still bare minimum lower electricity costs by 100 times their current amount, and thorium is 3-4 times more abundant and doesn't need as many safety protocols as uranium, which is already about 75% the price of coal.


General technical difficulties involve building a large proton accelerator, but we already have hadron colliders 50 times more powerful than we need.

The fear has always been that since each power plant would require hadron colliders, it would end up being really expensive to have an equivalent amount of these reactors compared to say, uranium reactors. The reality is, since you need so few, it doesn't really matter. You have a few billion dollar down payments with say, as many scientists at CERN operating it (around 3000 making 100,000 a year, or 300 million a year) with say, 40 tons of material, let's say 100 million dollars since it's 5 million per ton (and you want to replace gasoline, coal, natural gas etc.) and that's all you need to power the U.S. Compared to the trillion dollars we spend a year, it's kind of not a real issue. The CERN facility is over 50 times more powerful than what's required, so 20-25 smaller ones or so makes sense, being prudent.


As far as power goes 600 million times more powerful than coal, well the U.S. uses about 1 billion tons, so that's like, 4 tons max, since coal only powers half of what we have now, but if we want to replace everything and assuming only 10-20 times greater efficiency than standard models, for whatever reason the gains being hard to realize, you'd need like, 40 or so. Since I'm calculating in how much coal we use that should also hopefully account for the power grid and other efficiency calculations. xp
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Suicidesoldier#1
MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
has the potential to be 200 times more efficient

Where are you getting these figures anyway? I'm just saying, 200 times more efficient doesn't necessarily mean 200 times more powerful - it just means 200 times as much energy from the same amount of fuel (assuming that's even what they mean by 'efficiency'). It could mean it's only putting out 1/5 of the energy but lasting 1000 times as long for example. Power is energy over time, not total energy.


Um... but that would be the opposite. It would need to dump out 200 times the energy in the same amount of time, to be power.

But even if it takes longer over the amount of time we consume energy it would be fine.


As far as it goes atom bombs for instance have always been more efficient than traditional reactor designs, but getting that energy out realistically is near impossible. Since you bombard the Thorium with neutrons (by using a proton accelerator to bombard other materials) you simulate the effects but without having a chain reaction. Uranium could do it, but since uranium can be set off with a nuclear chain reaction any increase in potential energy is risky. More or less in modern power plants a lot of energy is wasted.

There's a number of sources, but mainly it's Nobel prize winning Carlo Rubbia's stuff, previous director of CERN, with the "sub-critical", or accelerator driven system, that serves as an "energy amplifier". There's some sources (PDF), but as for compiling a bunch of 100% true stuff and getting all the physics behind the theoretical idea squared away that will take me some time.


I am making something for that it will be take me a while. xp

Basically, you use a proton accelerator bombarding a material to release neutrons at high speeds to cause fission; Thorium is the ideal fuel since it can't explode but still has high yields, about as much as uranium would. This is similar to what happens in a nuclear chain reaction with neutrons, except it's caused by an outside source rather than the nuclear chain reaction, so it's more stable. Some of this power then goes back to power the accelerator, or accelerators, rather than as a chain reaction, so there are some conversion losses, although even it was 100 times more efficient it would still bare minimum lower electricity costs by 100 times their current amount, and thorium is 3-4 times more abundant and doesn't need as many safety protocols as uranium, which is already about 75% the price of coal.


General technical difficulties involve building a large proton accelerator, but we already have hadron colliders 50 times more powerful than we need.

The fear has always been that since each power plant would require hadron colliders, it would end up being really expensive to have an equivalent amount of these reactors compared to say, uranium reactors. The reality is, since you need so few, it doesn't really matter. You have a few billion dollar down payments with say, as many scientists at CERN operating it (around 3000 making 100,000 a year, or 300 million a year) with say, 40 tons of material, let's say 100 million dollars since it's 5 million per ton (and you want to replace gasoline, coal, natural gas etc.) and that's all you need to power the U.S. Compared to the trillion dollars we spend a year, it's kind of not a real issue. The CERN facility is over 50 times more powerful than what's required, so 20-25 smaller ones or so makes sense, being prudent.


As far as power goes 600 million times more powerful than coal, well the U.S. uses about 1 billion tons, so that's like, 4 tons max, since coal only powers half of what we have now, but if we want to replace everything and assuming only 10-20 times greater efficiency than standard models, for whatever reason the gains being hard to realize, you'd need like, 40 or so. Since I'm calculating in how much coal we use that should also hopefully account for the power grid and other efficiency calculations. xp

Okay, thanks for the links. I understand how it works now. But I didn't see anything about it being 200 times more efficient. I'm willing to go with just theoretical analyses if they have at least some economics to back it up. Looking here, it seems it would be about half the cost of an equivalent number of coal power plants, which don't get me wrong, is still exciting! I'm just trying to pin down all these figures.

Also keep in mind, CERN is a research facility, so a lot of the scientific staff wouldn't be needed for an accelerator which just produces electricity.
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
has the potential to be 200 times more efficient

Where are you getting these figures anyway? I'm just saying, 200 times more efficient doesn't necessarily mean 200 times more powerful - it just means 200 times as much energy from the same amount of fuel (assuming that's even what they mean by 'efficiency'). It could mean it's only putting out 1/5 of the energy but lasting 1000 times as long for example. Power is energy over time, not total energy.


Um... but that would be the opposite. It would need to dump out 200 times the energy in the same amount of time, to be power.

But even if it takes longer over the amount of time we consume energy it would be fine.


As far as it goes atom bombs for instance have always been more efficient than traditional reactor designs, but getting that energy out realistically is near impossible. Since you bombard the Thorium with neutrons (by using a proton accelerator to bombard other materials) you simulate the effects but without having a chain reaction. Uranium could do it, but since uranium can be set off with a nuclear chain reaction any increase in potential energy is risky. More or less in modern power plants a lot of energy is wasted.

There's a number of sources, but mainly it's Nobel prize winning Carlo Rubbia's stuff, previous director of CERN, with the "sub-critical", or accelerator driven system, that serves as an "energy amplifier". There's some sources (PDF), but as for compiling a bunch of 100% true stuff and getting all the physics behind the theoretical idea squared away that will take me some time.


I am making something for that it will be take me a while. xp

Basically, you use a proton accelerator bombarding a material to release neutrons at high speeds to cause fission; Thorium is the ideal fuel since it can't explode but still has high yields, about as much as uranium would. This is similar to what happens in a nuclear chain reaction with neutrons, except it's caused by an outside source rather than the nuclear chain reaction, so it's more stable. Some of this power then goes back to power the accelerator, or accelerators, rather than as a chain reaction, so there are some conversion losses, although even it was 100 times more efficient it would still bare minimum lower electricity costs by 100 times their current amount, and thorium is 3-4 times more abundant and doesn't need as many safety protocols as uranium, which is already about 75% the price of coal.


General technical difficulties involve building a large proton accelerator, but we already have hadron colliders 50 times more powerful than we need.

The fear has always been that since each power plant would require hadron colliders, it would end up being really expensive to have an equivalent amount of these reactors compared to say, uranium reactors. The reality is, since you need so few, it doesn't really matter. You have a few billion dollar down payments with say, as many scientists at CERN operating it (around 3000 making 100,000 a year, or 300 million a year) with say, 40 tons of material, let's say 100 million dollars since it's 5 million per ton (and you want to replace gasoline, coal, natural gas etc.) and that's all you need to power the U.S. Compared to the trillion dollars we spend a year, it's kind of not a real issue. The CERN facility is over 50 times more powerful than what's required, so 20-25 smaller ones or so makes sense, being prudent.


As far as power goes 600 million times more powerful than coal, well the U.S. uses about 1 billion tons, so that's like, 4 tons max, since coal only powers half of what we have now, but if we want to replace everything and assuming only 10-20 times greater efficiency than standard models, for whatever reason the gains being hard to realize, you'd need like, 40 or so. Since I'm calculating in how much coal we use that should also hopefully account for the power grid and other efficiency calculations. xp

Okay, thanks for the links. I understand how it works now. But I didn't see anything about it being 200 times more efficient. I'm willing to go with just theoretical analyses if they have at least some economics to back it up. Looking here, it seems it would be about half the cost of an equivalent number of coal power plants, which don't get me wrong, is still exciting! I'm just trying to pin down all these figures.


Hehe, it's a lot to go into. whee

Don't worry about it, I'll try to find more sources and stuff.


Even if it was 10 times cheaper, that would solve a lot of issues. O_o

You could switch over to electric for virtually all your appliances and use electric cars and whatnot.


Carbon fiber uses a lot of electricity, and energy, but if it was just 3 times cheaper it could be around the same price as steel, so we could use it to replace the frames of cars, and be between 3-5 times lighter, and therefore gets 3-5 times the fuel efficiency, without compromising the safety of the vehicle since it would be just as strong.

If you used electric cars, that means 3-5 times the range and battery life but the already cheap price of electricity; you can do all kinds of cool stuff with electricity and energy are cheaper. xp
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Suicidesoldier#1
Hehe, it's a lot to go into. whee

Don't worry about it, I'll try to find more sources and stuff.


Even if it was 10 times cheaper, that would solve a lot of issues. O_o

You could switch over to electric for virtually all your appliances and use electric cars and whatnot.


Carbon fiber uses a lot of electricity, and energy, but if it was just 3 times cheaper it could be around the same price as steel, so we could use it to replace the frames of cars, and be between 3-5 times lighter, and therefore gets 3-5 times the fuel efficiency.

If you used electric cars, that means 3-5 times the range but the already cheap price of electricity; you can do all kinds of cool stuff with electricity and energy are cheaper. xp

Never mind, I found it in the powerpoint presentation he gave. It's more on a large scale than looking at individual reactors. So yes, it's still going to be quite a bit more expensive to make amplifier-style power plants, but with proper controls it could produce the same amount from 1kg of thorium as modern nuclear power plants generate from 200kg of uranium. That's crazy...
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
Hehe, it's a lot to go into. whee

Don't worry about it, I'll try to find more sources and stuff.


Even if it was 10 times cheaper, that would solve a lot of issues. O_o

You could switch over to electric for virtually all your appliances and use electric cars and whatnot.


Carbon fiber uses a lot of electricity, and energy, but if it was just 3 times cheaper it could be around the same price as steel, so we could use it to replace the frames of cars, and be between 3-5 times lighter, and therefore gets 3-5 times the fuel efficiency.

If you used electric cars, that means 3-5 times the range but the already cheap price of electricity; you can do all kinds of cool stuff with electricity and energy are cheaper. xp

Never mind, I found it in the powerpoint presentation he gave. It's more on a large scale than looking at individual reactors. So yes, it's still going to be quite a bit more expensive to make amplifier-style power plants, but with proper controls it could produce the same amount from 1kg of thorium as modern nuclear power plants generate from 200kg of uranium. That's crazy...


It is! blaugh

Even half that, or 1/20th that, think of what could be achieved. O_o


Not just cheaper electricity but you could turn lead into gold and make a profit or make MRI machines cheaper or who knows what; make carbon fiber or diamonds cheaper.

The possibilities are endless; plus, if we switched over to electric with everything, that's more than a few thousand dollars saved every year, that's potentially replacing natural gas and gasoline etc.


It will be more expensive to begin with.

But hopefully in the long term when the price of the reactor pays for itself and with the fact you need fewer reactors it will end up being way cheaper; coupled with increased availability of Thorium and decreased safety for maintenance and nuclear waste disposal it may end up being way cheaper. blaugh
MachineMuse's avatar

Friendly Lunatic

Suicidesoldier#1
MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
Hehe, it's a lot to go into. whee

Don't worry about it, I'll try to find more sources and stuff.


Even if it was 10 times cheaper, that would solve a lot of issues. O_o

You could switch over to electric for virtually all your appliances and use electric cars and whatnot.


Carbon fiber uses a lot of electricity, and energy, but if it was just 3 times cheaper it could be around the same price as steel, so we could use it to replace the frames of cars, and be between 3-5 times lighter, and therefore gets 3-5 times the fuel efficiency.

If you used electric cars, that means 3-5 times the range but the already cheap price of electricity; you can do all kinds of cool stuff with electricity and energy are cheaper. xp

Never mind, I found it in the powerpoint presentation he gave. It's more on a large scale than looking at individual reactors. So yes, it's still going to be quite a bit more expensive to make amplifier-style power plants, but with proper controls it could produce the same amount from 1kg of thorium as modern nuclear power plants generate from 200kg of uranium. That's crazy...


It is! blaugh

Even half that, or 1/20th that, think of what could be achieved. O_o


Not just cheaper electricity but you could turn lead into gold and make a profit or make MRI machines cheaper or who knows what; make carbon fiber or diamonds cheaper.

The possibilities are endless; plus, if we switched over to electric with everything, that's more than a few thousand dollars saved every year, that's potentially replacing natural gas and gasoline etc.


It will be more expensive to begin with.

But hopefully in the long term when the price of the reactor pays for itself and with the fact you need fewer reactors it will end up being way cheaper; coupled with increased availability of Thorium and decreased safety for maintenance and nuclear waste disposal it may end up being way cheaper. blaugh

lol, a lot of these aren't even contingent on it. Nuclear transmutation for the materials is not really worth it. But as far as cheaper, cleaner energy: For sure.

Just don't expect this to happen really soon. Big oil will fight it like they did with hydrogen-powered cars sad
Suicidesoldier#1's avatar

Fanatical Zealot

MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
MachineMuse
Suicidesoldier#1
Hehe, it's a lot to go into. whee

Don't worry about it, I'll try to find more sources and stuff.


Even if it was 10 times cheaper, that would solve a lot of issues. O_o

You could switch over to electric for virtually all your appliances and use electric cars and whatnot.


Carbon fiber uses a lot of electricity, and energy, but if it was just 3 times cheaper it could be around the same price as steel, so we could use it to replace the frames of cars, and be between 3-5 times lighter, and therefore gets 3-5 times the fuel efficiency.

If you used electric cars, that means 3-5 times the range but the already cheap price of electricity; you can do all kinds of cool stuff with electricity and energy are cheaper. xp

Never mind, I found it in the powerpoint presentation he gave. It's more on a large scale than looking at individual reactors. So yes, it's still going to be quite a bit more expensive to make amplifier-style power plants, but with proper controls it could produce the same amount from 1kg of thorium as modern nuclear power plants generate from 200kg of uranium. That's crazy...


It is! blaugh

Even half that, or 1/20th that, think of what could be achieved. O_o


Not just cheaper electricity but you could turn lead into gold and make a profit or make MRI machines cheaper or who knows what; make carbon fiber or diamonds cheaper.

The possibilities are endless; plus, if we switched over to electric with everything, that's more than a few thousand dollars saved every year, that's potentially replacing natural gas and gasoline etc.


It will be more expensive to begin with.

But hopefully in the long term when the price of the reactor pays for itself and with the fact you need fewer reactors it will end up being way cheaper; coupled with increased availability of Thorium and decreased safety for maintenance and nuclear waste disposal it may end up being way cheaper. blaugh

lol, a lot of these aren't even contingent on it. Nuclear transmutation for the materials is not really worth it. But as far as cheaper, cleaner energy: For sure.

Just don't expect this to happen really soon. Big oil will fight it like they did with hydrogen-powered cars sad


Well, hydrogen cars would actually go on to benefit big oil companies, since the hydrogen would be gotten from oil and natural gas and stuff D:

But if we got the government to do it, and subsidize, so to speak, we could bypass all that and get cheap, clean wonderful energy!


If we started with the U.S., then moved out, then big oil companies would initially being able to say, sell to China, which would get them more profits, until Thorium power spread out all over the world. xp

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get Items
Get Gaia Cash
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games