Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #647766 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2017-08-29 11:55 -0700 |
| Last post | 2017-08-29 19:57 -0400 |
| Articles | 7 — 4 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Thorium Reactors -- practical solution to atomic power? Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 11:55 -0700
Re: Thorium Reactors -- practical solution to atomic power? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 15:04 -0500
Re: Thorium Reactors -- practical solution to atomic power? Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> - 2017-08-29 13:10 -0700
Re: Thorium Reactors -- practical solution to atomic power? Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> - 2017-08-29 16:00 -0500
Re: Thorium Reactors -- practical solution to atomic power? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2017-08-29 21:21 +0000
Re: Thorium Reactors -- practical solution to atomic power? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 20:05 -0400
Re: Thorium Reactors -- practical solution to atomic power? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2017-08-29 19:57 -0400
| From | Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 11:55 -0700 |
| Subject | Thorium Reactors -- practical solution to atomic power? |
| Message-ID | <aa553bae-b366-4062-b612-7b12708741c7@googlegroups.com> |
I've been reading some popular articles suggesting that Thorium atomic reactors, as an alternative to uranium reactors, may shortly be coming on line, and may be a "safe" solution to our power needs. Is this likely to be true? Firstly, are thorium atomic reactors really much safer, radiation free, and nuclear waste free than conventional atomic reactors? Secondly, are they sufficiently advanced now in their development that they can be used for practical commercial purposes?
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 15:04 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo4hci$136g$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647766 |
On 8/29/2017 1:55 PM, Jerry Kraus wrote: > I've been reading some popular articles suggesting that Thorium atomic reactors, as an alternative to uranium reactors, may shortly be coming on line, and may be a "safe" solution to our power needs. Is this likely to be true? Firstly, are thorium atomic reactors really much safer, radiation free, and nuclear waste free than conventional atomic reactors? Secondly, are they sufficiently advanced now in their development that they can be used for practical commercial purposes? > not safe. radioactive. still nasty bad stuff, Thorium has theoretical advantages regarding sustainability, reducing radiotoxicity and reducing proliferation risk," states the report, prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL). "While there is some justification for these benefits, they are often overstated." https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/13/thorium-alternative-nuclear-fuel-overstated much more here; http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf http://thoriummsr.com/intro/pros-and-cons-list/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 13:10 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <16681478-c320-4ad6-9238-478f11d08d8a@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #647771 |
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 2:04:43 PM UTC-6, Serg io wrote: > On 8/29/2017 1:55 PM, Jerry Kraus wrote: > > I've been reading some popular articles suggesting that Thorium atomic reactors, as an alternative to uranium reactors, may shortly be coming on line, and may be a "safe" solution to our power needs. Is this likely to be true? Firstly, are thorium atomic reactors really much safer, radiation free, and nuclear waste free than conventional atomic reactors? Secondly, are they sufficiently advanced now in their development that they can be used for practical commercial purposes? > > > > not safe. radioactive. still nasty bad stuff, > > Thorium has theoretical advantages regarding sustainability, reducing > radiotoxicity and reducing proliferation risk," states the report, > prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the National > Nuclear Laboratory (NNL). "While there is some justification for these > benefits, they are often overstated." > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/13/thorium-alternative-nuclear-fuel-overstated > > much more here; > http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf > > http://thoriummsr.com/intro/pros-and-cons-list/ Thanks Sergio. So, it's the usual BS in order to promote and sell the latest engineering innovation, whether it's actually much of an improvement, or not. Guess we'll have to wait for practical controlled nuclear fusion to come on line. If that ever happens, that is!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Serg io <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 16:00 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <oo4kmc$18l7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #647773 |
On 8/29/2017 3:10 PM, Jerry Kraus wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 2:04:43 PM UTC-6, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/29/2017 1:55 PM, Jerry Kraus wrote: >>> I've been reading some popular articles suggesting that Thorium atomic reactors, as an alternative to uranium reactors, may shortly be coming on line, and may be a "safe" solution to our power needs. Is this likely to be true? Firstly, are thorium atomic reactors really much safer, radiation free, and nuclear waste free than conventional atomic reactors? Secondly, are they sufficiently advanced now in their development that they can be used for practical commercial purposes? >>> >> >> not safe. radioactive. still nasty bad stuff, >> >> Thorium has theoretical advantages regarding sustainability, reducing >> radiotoxicity and reducing proliferation risk," states the report, >> prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the National >> Nuclear Laboratory (NNL). "While there is some justification for these >> benefits, they are often overstated." >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/13/thorium-alternative-nuclear-fuel-overstated >> >> much more here; >> http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf >> >> http://thoriummsr.com/intro/pros-and-cons-list/ > > Thanks Sergio. So, it's the usual BS in order to promote and sell the latest engineering innovation, whether it's actually much of an improvement, or not. Guess we'll have to wait for practical controlled nuclear fusion to come on line. If that ever happens, that is! > lots of unknowns with thorium. there is some better success with scaling down a reactor in size, called SMRs http://www.westinghousenuclear.com/New-Plants/Small-Modular-Reactor construction costs killed the 2 in South Carolina from being built, so Nuclear reactors have a huge construction risk for the big ones.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 21:21 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <3f2h7e-pn.ln1@mail.specsol.com> |
| In reply to | #647773 |
Jerry Kraus <jkraus1999@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 2:04:43 PM UTC-6, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/29/2017 1:55 PM, Jerry Kraus wrote: >> > I've been reading some popular articles suggesting that Thorium atomic reactors, as an alternative to uranium reactors, may shortly be coming on line, and may be a "safe" solution to our power needs. Is this likely to be true? Firstly, are thorium atomic reactors really much safer, radiation free, and nuclear waste free than conventional atomic reactors? Secondly, are they sufficiently advanced now in their development that they can be used for practical commercial purposes? >> > >> >> not safe. radioactive. still nasty bad stuff, >> >> Thorium has theoretical advantages regarding sustainability, reducing >> radiotoxicity and reducing proliferation risk," states the report, >> prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the National >> Nuclear Laboratory (NNL). "While there is some justification for these >> benefits, they are often overstated." >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/13/thorium-alternative-nuclear-fuel-overstated >> >> much more here; >> http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf >> >> http://thoriummsr.com/intro/pros-and-cons-list/ > > Thanks Sergio. So, it's the usual BS in order to promote and sell the latest engineering innovation, whether it's actually much of an improvement, or not. Guess we'll have to wait for practical controlled nuclear fusion to come on line. If that ever happens, that is! > Practical controlled nuclear fusion is just around the corner and will be on line any day now, just like it has been for about 50 years. -- Jim Pennino
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 20:05 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a6014f$0$13158$c3e8da3$cc4fe22d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647773 |
On 8/29/2017 4:10 PM, Jerry Kraus wrote: > On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 2:04:43 PM UTC-6, Serg io wrote: >> On 8/29/2017 1:55 PM, Jerry Kraus wrote: >>> I've been reading some popular articles suggesting that Thorium atomic reactors, as an alternative to uranium reactors, may shortly be coming on line, and may be a "safe" solution to our power needs. Is this likely to be true? Firstly, are thorium atomic reactors really much safer, radiation free, and nuclear waste free than conventional atomic reactors? Secondly, are they sufficiently advanced now in their development that they can be used for practical commercial purposes? >>> >> >> not safe. radioactive. still nasty bad stuff, >> >> Thorium has theoretical advantages regarding sustainability, reducing >> radiotoxicity and reducing proliferation risk," states the report, >> prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the National >> Nuclear Laboratory (NNL). "While there is some justification for these >> benefits, they are often overstated." >> >> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/13/thorium-alternative-nuclear-fuel-overstated >> >> much more here; >> http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf >> >> http://thoriummsr.com/intro/pros-and-cons-list/ > > Thanks Sergio. So, it's the usual BS in order to promote and sell the latest engineering innovation, whether it's actually much of an improvement, or not. Guess we'll have to wait for practical controlled nuclear fusion to come on line. If that ever happens, that is! > You just don't get it dummy. I bet you love Hillary too! These totally safe, melt-down proof, minimal waste reactors were invented and PROVEN and PATENTED long ago in the 50's. They were rejected for the simple reason that nobody really cared about generating power. That was just a cover. They wanted the bomb materials that uranium reactors produce. This information is history and if you poke around you can easily find it. Quit letting those with an agenda feed you bullshit (not talking Sergio here) and do your thinking for you. Here's the bottom line. Should we use all those thousands of nukes to blow each other up or should be use that stuff to replace some dirty nasty coal plants? One guess as to what a politician would choose.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2017-08-29 19:57 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <59a5ff5a$0$36034$c3e8da3$76a7c58f@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #647771 |
On 8/29/2017 4:04 PM, Serg io wrote: > On 8/29/2017 1:55 PM, Jerry Kraus wrote: >> I've been reading some popular articles suggesting that Thorium atomic >> reactors, as an alternative to uranium reactors, may shortly be coming >> on line, and may be a "safe" solution to our power needs. Is this >> likely to be true? Firstly, are thorium atomic reactors really much >> safer, radiation free, and nuclear waste free than conventional atomic >> reactors? Secondly, are they sufficiently advanced now in their >> development that they can be used for practical commercial purposes? >> > > not safe. radioactive. still nasty bad stuff, > > Thorium has theoretical advantages regarding sustainability, reducing > radiotoxicity and reducing proliferation risk," states the report, > prepared for the Department of Energy and Climate Change by the National > Nuclear Laboratory (NNL). "While there is some justification for these > benefits, they are often overstated." > > https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/sep/13/thorium-alternative-nuclear-fuel-overstated > > > much more here; > http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf > > http://thoriummsr.com/intro/pros-and-cons-list/ Sure, nuclear reactors with sodium and other techniques can AND HAVE not only been built, but patented and even offered for sale way back in 50s. And we all know that they can be totally safe and melt-down free which has been demonstrate (back then) and of course reduce the waste storage and other problems so as to be THE answer to ACTUALLY producing enough power for civilization rather than the usual idiot lib fantasies without burning coal. But the reason we have 3 mile Island and Chernobyl and Fukushima in history is hidden in that little phrase "reducing proliferation risk". What they are saying so you don't get it is that Thorium reactors while totally safe power sources just don't produce plutonium to build atomic bombs with the way dangerous, dirty and deadly uranium reactors do. Well, that certainly puts Thorium out of the picture, doesn't it? I mean one NEVER can have too many nuclear "devices".
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web