Thorium energy as an alternative to Aneutronic Fusion

[rashidas]

Here is a link to a portal for information on thorium as an alternative means of nuclear fission:

http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/index.html

Will the development of thorium compete for scarce funding for the development of new energy technologies like aneutronic fusion? Is there enough financial support for both technologies?

[zapkitty]

rashidas wrote: Here is a link to a portal for information on thorium as an alternative means of nuclear fission:

http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/index.html

Will the development of thorium compete for scarce funding for the development of new energy technologies like aneutronic fusion? Is there enough financial support for both technologies?

Economically speaking thorium can’t compete with any of the lower cost fusion alternatives such as FF or Polywell. The only reason to pursue it as a power source after a successful demonstration of net power from fusion would be the oligarchs trying to impede commercial implementation of fusion.

[Brian H]

FF requires no financial support, assuming the “unity” test is successful. Private money for engineering refinement will (IMO) be relatively easy to get after a world first like that. Then the process of licensing to manufacturers who fund their own plant and labor and raw materials and shipping and coping with regulators begins, and is almost cost-free.

Thorium reactors have the advantage of being able to “burn” existing waste isotopes from uranium reactors, and may well be cost-effective on that basis alone. They might be able to “give away” their electrical output at FF prices. But that depends on gubmint willingness and rational choices for waste disposal.

[zapkitty]

Brian H wrote:
Thorium reactors have the advantage of being able to “burn” existing waste isotopes from uranium reactors, and may well be cost-effective on that basis alone. They might be able to “give away” their electrical output at FF prices. But that depends on gubmint willingness and rational choices for waste disposal.

errrr… wouldn’t an aneutronic DPF be able to power dedicated disposal units that are both faster and cheaper than a thorium-based reactor could dream of?

[zapkitty]

Fusion Irony Theater episode XXVIII

The energy to dispose of the waste from a given nuclear fission power reactor will exceed the power that was generated by the reactor in the first place… and yet aneutronic Focus Fusion units can power accelerator-driven disposal units cheaper and faster than any of the proposed attempts to use the waste to generate more power.

This has been this week’s episode of…

Fusion Irony Theater

[JimmyT]

Thorium breeder reactors will never be able to compete cost-wise with power production by focus fusion. Not by several orders of magnitude.
But molten salt thorium reactors can use high level nuclear waste as part of their fuel supply. Producing power from it, not consuming power to destroy it.

There is lots of material on-line about molten salt nuclear reactors

[Breakable]

LFTR are as much of a vaporware as FF is. In any case I would bet on the aneutronic competitor.

[zapkitty]

JimmyT wrote: Thorium breeder reactors will never be able to compete cost-wise with power production by focus fusion. Not by several orders of magnitude.
But molten salt thorium reactors can use high level nuclear waste as part of their fuel supply. Producing power from it, not consuming power to destroy it.

There is lots of material on-line about molten salt nuclear reactors

Errr… I meant existing (and defunct) fission power reactors and their waste.

But if you limit nuclear waste disposal to new fission power reactors you needs must, are required, absolutely have to add to the cost of handling and moving the waste the cost, time, and complexity of designing, licensing, building and operating new fission power reactors.

… as opposed to setting up dedicated FoFu’s (what a name) and the associated disposal units wherever the waste happens to be.

And the meme of “contributing power” as opposed to “consuming power” becomes meaningless when cheap Focus Fusion power turns nuclear waste disposal into a manageable chore… as opposed to its current status which is that of a Sisyphean task requiring that you extract power from the waste just to get political cover for getting this very necessary job done.

Yes, I said political cover… because the power generated from the waste can not possibly cover the total cost of designing and bringing online an entire new class of fission power reactors and the cost of handling and moving the waste to wherever these new fission reactors are allowed to be built.

This is not going to be an argument that thorium reactors can win on the economics… and aneutronic fusion units simply won’t need the political cover.

[Matt M]

The thing to remember is the MSLT reactors were operationally 35 years ago. They have
successfully replaced coal fired plants. They are a lower cost option to Coal and Uranium.
And, if Focus Fusion is never successful Thorium reactors could be a great fallback position.

[zapkitty]

Matt M wrote: The thing to remember is the MSLT reactors were operationally 35 years ago.

Molten Salt Reactor Experiment at ORNL from 1964–1969

Matt M wrote: They have successfully replaced coal fired plants. They are a lower cost option to Coal and Uranium.
And, if Focus Fusion is never successful Thorium reactors could be a great fallback position.

errr… you seem to have combined molten salt power reactors with thorium power reactors.

All thorium power reactors to date have been solid fuel reactors, although India hopes to change this.

And thus for your waste burners you would still be stuck with bringing online an entire new class of fission power reactors.

If fusion fails… if there’s nothing within maybe 3-8 years, a decade at most… then there won’t be time for anything else to make a difference.

edit: important distinction of power reactors

[Matt M]

You are right. My mistake.

But that actually illustrates the fact that Thorium can replace Uranium in a reactor design that is similar in nature to existing reactors. India is pursuing this for the simple reason that they have almost no domestic uranium but lots of thorium.

To go to liquid thorium you would have to build the infrastructure to handle and process the waste – mostly gasses that are given off. And, it would require an investment of several billion dollars.

Ultimately, the question is not whether Thorium is better than fusion. Because it’s not.

[Aeronaut]

What we need to keep in mind is that our nuclear cousins of the fission family have the clout and financing to move over a trillion dollars through their projects, irregardless of practical considerations the rate payers may have. The good news is that nuclear is no longer a dirty word. And that helps float our boats on the nuclear fusion side of the family…

[Author]

Posts