https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2024/11/12/2979394/0/en/Clean-Core-Achieves-Historic-Burnup-Milestone-with-its-Thorium-Fuel-at-US-National-Lab.html

 

https://www.neimagazine.com/news/indias-lt-to-collaborate-on-aneel-fuel/

Low hanging fruit of Thorium. Higher burnup levels reduce drastically the amount of nuclear waste in conventional uranium nuclear reactors. At the moment, CANDU and PWR generate about 8GW days per ton of uranium fuel. By combining uranium with thorium, the burnup rate can be 8 times greater. A quick way to prolong life of those reactors.

Edited December 19, 20241 yr by Woosh

I just googled the following search on google:

 

"Active productive thorium reactors".

 

This is the AI answer:

 

"There are currently no active, productive thorium reactors, but there are experimental reactors and countries that are developing thorium-based reactors."

 

Apparently the Indians have a small, low power experimental reactor which is working after a fashion.

 

It might work, but people have been saying that fusion reactors would produce so much energy it would be free since I was at school, and I will be 74 in less than three months and we are no further forward.

 

I am coming to the conclusion that a fair number of people are sci fi addicts and really believe that the human species will be living on planet Zog before too long. What they all have in common is that they allow emotion to totally over rule common sense and an appreciation of the practical realities of science and engineering.

 

The cynic in me keeps popping this question into my head and it keeps nagging at me:

 

"Nuclear physicists knew about thorium before we ever built any kind of fission reactor. If thorium reactors were a realistic possibility - given the stated advantages, why do we not have them already all over the world, and why, given the real problems of managing waste from the traditional types of nuclear reactor, do we have THEM all over the world instead?"

sci fi addicts

https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/business-tech/why-india-wants-1-gev-particle-accelerator-for-thorium/article68826315.ece

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-09-06/china-building-thorium-nuclear-power-station-gobi/104304468

 

 

I just googled the following search on google:

 

"Active productive thorium reactors".

 

This is the AI answer:

 

"There are currently no active, productive thorium reactors, but there are experimental reactors and countries that are developing thorium-based reactors."

 

Apparently the Indians have a small, low power experimental reactor which is working after a fashion.

 

It might work, but people have been saying that fusion reactors would produce so much energy it would be free since I was at school, and I will be 74 in less than three months and we are no further forward.

 

I am coming to the conclusion that a fair number of people are sci fi addicts and really believe that the human species will be living on planet Zog before too long. What they all have in common is that they allow emotion to totally over rule common sense and an appreciation of the practical realities of science and engineering.

 

The cynic in me keeps popping this question into my head and it keeps nagging at me:

 

"Nuclear physicists knew about thorium before we ever built any kind of fission reactor. If thorium reactors were a realistic possibility - given the stated advantages, why do we not have them already all over the world, and why, given the real problems of managing waste from the traditional types of nuclear reactor, do we have THEM all over the world instead?"

Google 'HALEU' instead. Instead of going for small thorium molten salt reactors like the Chinese experimental project TSMR-LF1 (also in many other countries, including UK), uranium fuel is mixed with increasing amount of thorium. That's the way to burn thorium. No planning consent is needed. The key point is thorium cycle produces 10 times less waste and the waste has much shorter life too. Other ways of reducing waste is Bill Gates' Terra Power project, burning depleted uranium.

https://www.orano.group/usa/en/our-portfolio-expertise/orano-white-papers/why-not-mox-tru-instead-of-haleu

Google 'HALEU' instead. Instead of going for small thorium molten salt reactors like the Chinese experimental project TSMR-LF1 (also in many other countries, including UK), uranium fuel is mixed with increasing amount of thorium. That's the way to burn thorium. No planning consent is needed. The key point is thorium cycle produces 10 times less waste and the waste has much shorter life too. Other ways of reducing waste is Bill Gates' Terra Power project, burning depleted uranium.

 

I followed your advice and got this:

 

HALEU is required for most advanced reactors to be smaller in design. It's also expected to play a key role in helping countries achieve net zero objectives. However, there are some concerns about the supply of HALEU, as commercial production is limited and geopolitical uncertainties could disrupt supply chains.

 

 

Russia is currently the only country that can supply HALEU commercially. The UK has recently invested £300 million to establish its own domestic HALEU capability, which is expected to be delivered by 2031.

In answer to my question, "Can you summarise the nuclear technology types in use in operational commercial nuclear reactors around the world?" Chat Gpt gave a detailed answer from which I quote this paragraph:

 

Global Deployment:

• PWRs and BWRs dominate, comprising ~80% of operational reactors.
  
• PHWRs are prominent in Canada and India.
  
• AGRs are mostly UK-specific.
  
• RBMKs are limited to the former Soviet bloc.
  
• FNRs remain experimental with limited commercial application.
  
• SMRs are poised to grow but are not yet widespread.
  

Each reactor type reflects trade-offs between fuel type, efficiency, safety, and operational complexity.

 

There is no mention of what you put forward.

 

The full and detailed answer is here:

 

https://chatgpt.com/share/6763f5f0-ef50-8001-8745-57987a44bd06

I followed your advice and got this:

 

HALEU is required for most advanced reactors to be smaller in design. It's also expected to play a key role in helping countries achieve net zero objectives. However, there are some concerns about the supply of HALEU, as commercial production is limited and geopolitical uncertainties could disrupt supply chains.

 

 

Russia is currently the only country that can supply HALEU commercially. The UK has recently invested £300 million to establish its own domestic HALEU capability, which is expected to be delivered by 2031.

Nuclear power doesn't have the same ROI compared to wind, solar and batteries so it's not a priority. If you look at the way wind and solar can be integrated over 1000 miles-1500 miles East West such as Western China (Xian province, sparsely populated, sunny and windy) producing electricity fot Eastern China (Shanghai, Bejing, densely populated), when the sun sets in Shanghai, electricity is still abundantly produced in Xian. The same happens in Australia and if the UK grid is integrated with the EU grid, the same can happen here too. All we need is ultra high voltage DC connectors. We wouldn't need so much gas and nuclear.

ChatGPT answer on Thorium practicality:

 

https://chatgpt.com/share/6763f830-f420-8001-ad4a-ac1b0aa0c354

Each reactor type reflects trade-offs between fuel type, efficiency, safety, and operational complexity.

 

There is no mention of what you put forward.

We discussed a lot on nuclear power in the covid years in the brexit thread. Flecc contributed a lot to the discussion. Flecc was pro nuclear, I am anti nuclear on the ground of exhorbitant decommissioning cost. I saw no problem with burning gas for a short term (one generation or two).

I started following the development of nuclear technology ever since, especially TRISO. I did buy some RR shares. Small reactors will have to run on advanced fuels such as TRISO or HALEU. They are designed to avoid reprocessing after the fuel is burned up.

Edited December 19, 20241 yr by Woosh

ROI on nuclear allowing for costs of managing waste is truly appalling!

Thorium for Energy: Historical Challenges and Current Efforts

http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2017/ph240/li2/

ROI on nuclear allowing for costs of managing waste is truly appalling!

What an honour to attract a response from Polly!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12196322

 

Edited December 19, 20241 yr by lenny

What an honour to attract a response from Polly!

She thinks anything to do with science or modern medicine is 'funny'. If you look at her posting record, it would be hard to conclude that she had't left school at the age of nine.

People who don't know what an electricity bill is!

Are there many others? :-)

Free Gov funded Solar Power, yay!

"Your taxes just went up by 100%", what!

VW group is firing 35,000+ workers. It's better to act now than closing car plants in the next few years but it may not stop there. With hindsight, they should have moved to EVs with more enthusiasm in the last decade. EVs are fundamentally simpler and cheaper to make.

The industry needs to move away from EV's as being a silver bullet solution .

H ydrogen propulsion needs to be developed more.

We have some hydrogen single decker busses locally where I live on the public transport system and suspect in all reality it is a much better option for lorries as well.

 

Problem is with both means of futurising vehicles is that your average person can't afford a new vehicle due to cost.

Hydrogen cars and trucks are just evs with a generator on-board.

Not so Tony , HICE engines are internal combustion engines with H fuel cells as well as generator type systems with H fuel cells.

Edited December 21, 20241 yr by Nealh

Not so Tony , HICE engines are internal combustion engines with H fuel cells as well as generator type systems with H fuel cells.

How efficient are hydrogen ice?