|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On December 20 2019 13:37 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 12:11 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:On December 20 2019 10:45 Introvert wrote:
Didn't we have a serious Thorium fan in the thread once? We need him back.
And I started late, but Biden doesn't sound totally incoherent right now. Wonder how many naps he had and how long it will last. Me? I'm hardcore pro thorium, but don't remember talking about it much. From a materials chemistry perspective, thorium is a slam dunk. It is 100% a education problem. Even well educated scientists are typically ignorant of nuclear benefits because all they learn about it is radiation training for their labs, lol. Thorium rules. I’m okay with increased use of nuclear power, but why thorium specifically? Forgive me for linking wikipedia, but it does a better job than me re-wording: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefitsShow nested quote +
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21]
There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23]
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement. Imagine if we went all-in on nuclear, kept making improvements and replacing old plants. We would have prevented this whole climate change nonsense. This just occurred to me. Libertarians ALWAYS love nuclear. Spoilered since its kind of a shitpost lol: + Show Spoiler +
This is interesting. I am a fan now :D
I think these small modular reactor things could power ships right? We all know that cruise ships and cargo ships hurt the climate much more than cars ever could. Cooling is pretty much build in. Guess safety if something goes wrong is the biggest issue
|
United States24578 Posts
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
Okay, but availability of uranium isn't really a problem for the foreseeable future. Uranium is actually pretty cheap to buy compared to the other expenses of nuclear power.
It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21] Thorium and non-thorium reactors both have pros and cons when it comes to nonproliferation, but I don't think one is significantly better than the other. They both produce material useful for weapons, but are difficult to use.
There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23] I don't have time to do detailed research, but I think this getting taken out of context (or could just be wrong, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). Historically, thorium has not provided much relief when it comes to spent fuel disposal, and the industrial processes for using thorium tend to create a lot of difficult to deal with non-fuel waste. Similar to the discussion in your quote above, irradiating thorium to produce seeds of U-233 also produces an unwanted U-232 impurity which is a significant dose source. It slowly decays to radon-220 (not the isotope predominantly found in basements, i.e., radon-222) which is a gas that tends to escape its containment, but with a half life of about a minute. It then rapidly decays to progeny including an isotope of thalium that I recall releasing a significant gamma as it decays, contributing to a somewhat difficult to manage dose to workers, or the nearby public, depending on where the facility is and what type of ventilation system it has. My point being, waste considerations for thorium, as compared to traditional commercial nuclear power, are complicated and not as favorable as that article is leading you to believe.
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I think they are meltdown proof because they are already in liquid form... this text doesn't really explain the actual advantages during a lose of power/cooling situation. Like the above discussion, the comparisons are actually very complicated though.
I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement.
I have nothing against thorium being a potential nuclear fuel, but most of the "advantages" being pushed are either wrong or misleading. I don't think thorium is necessarily better or worse than uranium/plutonium, just different. Yang and others exploit how complicated this topic is to make something seem better than it is.
Imagine if we went all-in on nuclear, kept making improvements and replacing old plants. We would have prevented this whole climate change nonsense. This just occurred to me. Libertarians ALWAYS love nuclear. Spoilered since its kind of a shitpost lol: + Show Spoiler +
Certainly, if not for the Soviet Union being morons with nuclear power and Japan making huge mistakes leading up to 2011, we could have moved past Three Mile Island by now.
On December 20 2019 19:54 Harris1st wrote:
I think these small modular reactor things could power ships right? We all know that cruise ships and cargo ships hurt the climate much more than cars ever could. Cooling is pretty much build in. Guess safety if something goes wrong is the biggest issue
Several navies already use nuclear power in their fleet. The reason why it isn't more widespread among nuclear powers is primarily economics. The USA used to have nuclear-powered cruisers, but it just wasn't economically viable to keep using them so they navy moved back to conventionally powered cruises. For submarines and aircraft carriers, it was still worth using nuclear propulsion, and so they do.
|
On December 20 2019 14:51 Belisarius wrote:
My takeaway from the Chernobyl series is that everyone who fearmongers against nuclear will now just point to the Chernobyl series.
It's hard enough convincing the average voter that climate change is an issue. Convincing them that we need to address it by building Homer Simpson's workplace in their suburb is impossible, especially when most of the green team are also wildly opposed for ideological reasons.
Nuclear would have got us out of this if we went there 20 years ago. Now, it is just too politically difficult, and also too slow to come online when the climate is collapsing and renewables are breathing down its neck.
I am agnostic on nuclear energy. But I'm quite certain that as long as the arguments of the anti nuclear will be dismissed as "purely ideological", we won't have a rational debate.
There are PLENTY of non "purely ideological" reasons to be skeptical towards nuclear energy. I am not saying they are necessarily sound or convincing, but they are not just ideological. It's unbelievably dangerous, requires military style safety and infrastructure, produces uber dangerous waste we that we really don't know what to do with, is crazy expensive to dismantle, and so on and so forth.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 20 2019 20:35 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
Okay, but availability of uranium isn't really a problem for the foreseeable future. Uranium is actually pretty cheap to buy compared to the other expenses of nuclear power. Show nested quote +It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21] Thorium and non-thorium reactors both have pros and cons when it comes to nonproliferation, but I don't think one is significantly better than the other. They both produce material useful for weapons, but are difficult to use. Show nested quote +There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23] I don't have time to do detailed research, but I think this getting taken out of context (or could just be wrong, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). Historically, thorium has not provided much relief when it comes to spent fuel disposal, and the industrial processes for using thorium tend to create a lot of difficult to deal with non-fuel waste. Similar to the discussion in your quote above, irradiating thorium to produce seeds of U-233 also produces an unwanted U-232 impurity which is a significant dose source. It slowly decays to radon-220 (not the isotope predominantly found in basements, i.e., radon-222) which is a gas that tends to escape its containment, but with a half life of about a minute. It then rapidly decays to progeny including an isotope of thalium that I recall releasing a significant gamma as it decays, contributing to a somewhat difficult to manage dose to workers, or the nearby public, depending on where the facility is and what type of ventilation system it has. My point being, waste considerations for thorium, as compared to traditional commercial nuclear power, are complicated and not as favorable as that article is leading you to believe. Show nested quote +Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I think they are meltdown proof because they are already in liquid form... this text doesn't really explain the actual advantages during a lose of power/cooling situation. Like the above discussion, the comparisons are actually very complicated though. Show nested quote +I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement. I have nothing against thorium being a potential nuclear fuel, but most of the "advantages" being pushed are either wrong or misleading. I don't think thorium is necessarily better or worse than uranium/plutonium, just different. Yang and others exploit how complicated this topic is to make something seem better than it is. Show nested quote +Imagine if we went all-in on nuclear, kept making improvements and replacing old plants. We would have prevented this whole climate change nonsense. This just occurred to me. Libertarians ALWAYS love nuclear. Spoilered since its kind of a shitpost lol: + Show Spoiler + Certainly, if not for the Soviet Union being morons with nuclear power and Japan making huge mistakes leading up to 2011, we could have moved past Three Mile Island by now. Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 19:54 Harris1st wrote:
I think these small modular reactor things could power ships right? We all know that cruise ships and cargo ships hurt the climate much more than cars ever could. Cooling is pretty much build in. Guess safety if something goes wrong is the biggest issue
Several navies already use nuclear power in their fleet. The reason why it isn't more widespread among nuclear powers is primarily economics. The USA used to have nuclear-powered cruisers, but it just wasn't economically viable to keep using them so they navy moved back to conventionally powered cruises. For submarines and aircraft carriers, it was still worth using nuclear propulsion, and so they do.
Money as the deciding factor. How else could it be 
Meanwhile Russia build a swimming nuclear plant boat with 70 MW output and is planning to build 30 more
|
On December 20 2019 20:35 micronesia wrote:
Several navies already use nuclear power in their fleet. The reason why it isn't more widespread among nuclear powers is primarily economics. The USA used to have nuclear-powered cruisers, but it just wasn't economically viable to keep using them so they navy moved back to conventionally powered cruises. For submarines and aircraft carriers, it was still worth using nuclear propulsion, and so they do. Actually it's because only submarines benefit to have nuclear propulsion. For everything else the logistics of every other factor like munitions or even crew rotation will run out long before fuel ever does and so will be accompanied by a logistical arm rendering the advantage of nuclear power pointless.
|
On December 20 2019 23:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 20:35 micronesia wrote:
Several navies already use nuclear power in their fleet. The reason why it isn't more widespread among nuclear powers is primarily economics. The USA used to have nuclear-powered cruisers, but it just wasn't economically viable to keep using them so they navy moved back to conventionally powered cruises. For submarines and aircraft carriers, it was still worth using nuclear propulsion, and so they do. Actually it's because only submarines benefit to have nuclear propulsion. For everything else the logistics of every other factor like munitions or even crew rotation will run out long before fuel ever does and so will be accompanied by a logistical arm rendering the advantage of nuclear power pointless.
Gonna ask for a source for this.
Nuclear power on our aircraft carriers frees up a massive amount of cargo space and allows for faster ship speeds/longer ranges on ships.
I definitely don't see how crew rotation would be an issue unique to CVN's. A given individual rotates their billet every couple years (generally 3) anyway.
|
I think he means that munitions, food, aircraft fuel etc. will run out long before fuel for ship so when resupplying for those You can also retank ship. I dont think that is correct. As You pointed out You save a lot of space by using nuclear propulsion for carriers.
|
United States24578 Posts
Carriers benefit a lot, but not quite as much as subs. Regardless, my point stands that economics is the main reason why nuclear cruisers went away after the Cold War. Maintenance was very expensive.
|
On December 20 2019 14:21 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 13:37 Mohdoo wrote:On December 20 2019 12:11 micronesia wrote:On December 20 2019 10:49 Mohdoo wrote:On December 20 2019 10:45 Introvert wrote:
Didn't we have a serious Thorium fan in the thread once? We need him back.
And I started late, but Biden doesn't sound totally incoherent right now. Wonder how many naps he had and how long it will last. Me? I'm hardcore pro thorium, but don't remember talking about it much. From a materials chemistry perspective, thorium is a slam dunk. It is 100% a education problem. Even well educated scientists are typically ignorant of nuclear benefits because all they learn about it is radiation training for their labs, lol. Thorium rules. I’m okay with increased use of nuclear power, but why thorium specifically? Forgive me for linking wikipedia, but it does a better job than me re-wording: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power#Possible_benefits
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21]
There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23]
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement. Imagine if we went all-in on nuclear, kept making improvements and replacing old plants. We would have prevented this whole climate change nonsense. This just occurred to me. Libertarians ALWAYS love nuclear. Spoilered since its kind of a shitpost lol: + Show Spoiler + https://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/infrastructure/a30225278/tiny-nuclear-reactor/?fbclid=IwAR0dpgFe7Lcti9OoI4p6GKlk9VdVq73c_CsCHlK7KhxmayYtiSN-F56ilLEThere are other nuclear options too. Modular nuclear reactors appear to be much safer than traditional ones and could be the Nucor steel of the nuclear industry. My takeaway from the Chernobyl HBO series was that they really fucked up their engineering.
Throughout scientific history, China and Russia have tried to cut corners and make desperate concessions to try to be competitive with the US. Chernobyl was an example of that. Modern reactors are amazingly more safe. It is important for people to keep in mind that there was once a time in human technology when trying to distribute natural gas to cities would have ended in disaster. We weren't quite ready for prime time nuclear power plants, but forces outside the scientific community made it happen too quickly. Now, we have climate change.
On December 20 2019 14:51 Belisarius wrote:
My takeaway from the Chernobyl series is that everyone who fearmongers against nuclear will now just point to the Chernobyl series.
It's hard enough convincing the average voter that climate change is an issue. Convincing them that we need to address it by building Homer Simpson's workplace in their suburb is impossible, especially when most of the green team are also wildly opposed for ideological reasons.
Nuclear would have got us out of this if we went there 20 years ago. Now, it is just too politically difficult, and also too slow to come online when the climate is collapsing and renewables are breathing down its neck.
Renewables are really not in that great a position right now. Nuclear is still a good option today. It is extremely unfortunate how much ignorance surrounds it. It truly is people being afraid of the boogyman.
|
On December 20 2019 10:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
The US can't isolate China, how oblivious is Buttigieg? I thought he was supposed to be the smart one?
and Joe Biden is going to use the Navy to stop China... These people are morons.
On isolation, it's a matter of degrees. There's no such thing as total isolation unless it's self-imposed, but to the degree that the US can lead its allies, that does remain to an extent despite how frivolously Trump has strained our relationships across the board. Which I believe was his proposal, so long as "red lines" like a repeat of Tiananmen in Hong Kong wasn't repeated. This latter of which is a pretty safe promise: Hong Kong isn't a potentially existential crisis for the Party as Tiananmen was. In fact, domestically it's been quite good: mainland Chinese have now overwhelmingly rallied to the Chinese nationalist interpretation of "One China" with overall support the party, and the Party can be seen as the moderating influence on Hong Kong policy. There's really no hurry to shut it down from a domestic politics standpoint, unless Politburo politics in Zhongnanhai dictate a response to shore up some political agenda (but Xi has basically unopposed power right now with the lineup of the Politburo and the Central Military Commission, so there's noy any actual faction or challenger present).
Hong Kong however has not been kind to western opinions of China, which isn't good and lends itself to a more proactive, multilateral approach. Governments throughout the West have become increasingly anxious over the past few years for a variety of reasons, e.g. the EU over the Greece-China bilateral trade agreement as undermining EU sovereignty. Moreover, how public opinion works, minds only change when the relative importance of an issue or topic is low; right now, China's a high priority subject, and public opinion in the West has largely crystallized negatively, which is bad for China overall. It's a fairly big paradigm shift from a few years back, when China policy was low priority, and largely favorable to a continued partnership.
At least with what Buttigieg proposes, that's fine: economic or political sanction's by the West, in a similar vein to Russia, is quite dangerous for all involved, but particularly for China's economy. I would be cautious however, as it would have two outcomes if sustained: either the party is undermined to a degree, generating significant instability in China if mounting internal economic problems pop (e.g. local debt, housing bubbles, etc.), or it's used to reinforce a narrative of Western persecution already ingrained in the Chinese zeitgeist, lending greater support for Xi and his socialist program, and creating another Russia, whose nationalist identity is founded upon opposing the West. As a tool of brinkmanship sure, but even then I can see it playing poorly in the Chinese public, and reinforcing/encouraging more assertive Chinese foreign policy.
On Biden, while true in the short term, FONOPs (Freedom of Navigation Operations) aren't sustainable long-term, from either a military or geopolitical standpoint. China's A2AD systems are quite extensive, which pushes the boundaries that the USN can safely operate further and further from the Chinese coast. A rebalancing of naval assets is fine: the Atlantic is fairly secure and in any event, the Indo-Pacific is the more critical area of operations right now due to it's instability. But a purely military approach doesn't solve the issue, beyond the military expenses. The key work that needs to be done is reinforcing partnerships and alliance's in the region (Japan, S. Korea, Australia, France), building up and supporting new ones (the Philippines) ,and supporting smaller Southeast Asian nation's break an increasing dependency on Chinese economic relations/development to improve their freedom of action WRT Chinese actions, for instance in the South China Sea and elsewhere (Vietnam, Malaysia, India).
In fact, dramatically increasing US Naval presence in the region, especially if put forward to our bases in Japan, SK, or the Philippines, can very well erode our ability to do so. Why did the Philippines kick out the US from Clark (with us only making progress in 2014 to return), or the Okinawans consistently protest US presence? Moreover, it provides China the opportunity to write it as a narrative of US aggression, or for countries like Malaysia who, while wary of Chinese moves in the SCSs, see it as nothing more than an extension of a Great Power conflict/struggle, and go into their non-aligned/hedging tendency as opposed to taking steps to try and address the imbalance themselves.
|
On December 20 2019 20:35 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
Okay, but availability of uranium isn't really a problem for the foreseeable future. Uranium is actually pretty cheap to buy compared to the other expenses of nuclear power. Show nested quote +It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21] Thorium and non-thorium reactors both have pros and cons when it comes to nonproliferation, but I don't think one is significantly better than the other. They both produce material useful for weapons, but are difficult to use. Show nested quote +There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23] I don't have time to do detailed research, but I think this getting taken out of context (or could just be wrong, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). Historically, thorium has not provided much relief when it comes to spent fuel disposal, and the industrial processes for using thorium tend to create a lot of difficult to deal with non-fuel waste. Similar to the discussion in your quote above, irradiating thorium to produce seeds of U-233 also produces an unwanted U-232 impurity which is a significant dose source. It slowly decays to radon-220 (not the isotope predominantly found in basements, i.e., radon-222) which is a gas that tends to escape its containment, but with a half life of about a minute. It then rapidly decays to progeny including an isotope of thalium that I recall releasing a significant gamma as it decays, contributing to a somewhat difficult to manage dose to workers, or the nearby public, depending on where the facility is and what type of ventilation system it has. My point being, waste considerations for thorium, as compared to traditional commercial nuclear power, are complicated and not as favorable as that article is leading you to believe. Show nested quote +Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I think they are meltdown proof because they are already in liquid form... this text doesn't really explain the actual advantages during a lose of power/cooling situation. Like the above discussion, the comparisons are actually very complicated though. Show nested quote +I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement. I have nothing against thorium being a potential nuclear fuel, but most of the "advantages" being pushed are either wrong or misleading. I don't think thorium is necessarily better or worse than uranium/plutonium, just different. Yang and others exploit how complicated this topic is to make something seem better than it is.
Really ? So them having absolutely no chance to explode, due to the reaction not being self-sustainable (if left unattended in case of disaster, they just shut down), is not an overwhelming advantage for you ?
Nuclear waste can always be managed or buried or sent off the planet if need be. Nuclear disaster due to Chernobyl, no.
Just keep that one in mind when you decide which is worth it.
|
United States24578 Posts
On December 21 2019 04:40 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 20:35 micronesia wrote:
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
Okay, but availability of uranium isn't really a problem for the foreseeable future. Uranium is actually pretty cheap to buy compared to the other expenses of nuclear power. It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21] Thorium and non-thorium reactors both have pros and cons when it comes to nonproliferation, but I don't think one is significantly better than the other. They both produce material useful for weapons, but are difficult to use. There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23] I don't have time to do detailed research, but I think this getting taken out of context (or could just be wrong, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). Historically, thorium has not provided much relief when it comes to spent fuel disposal, and the industrial processes for using thorium tend to create a lot of difficult to deal with non-fuel waste. Similar to the discussion in your quote above, irradiating thorium to produce seeds of U-233 also produces an unwanted U-232 impurity which is a significant dose source. It slowly decays to radon-220 (not the isotope predominantly found in basements, i.e., radon-222) which is a gas that tends to escape its containment, but with a half life of about a minute. It then rapidly decays to progeny including an isotope of thalium that I recall releasing a significant gamma as it decays, contributing to a somewhat difficult to manage dose to workers, or the nearby public, depending on where the facility is and what type of ventilation system it has. My point being, waste considerations for thorium, as compared to traditional commercial nuclear power, are complicated and not as favorable as that article is leading you to believe. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I think they are meltdown proof because they are already in liquid form... this text doesn't really explain the actual advantages during a lose of power/cooling situation. Like the above discussion, the comparisons are actually very complicated though. I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement. I have nothing against thorium being a potential nuclear fuel, but most of the "advantages" being pushed are either wrong or misleading. I don't think thorium is necessarily better or worse than uranium/plutonium, just different. Yang and others exploit how complicated this topic is to make something seem better than it is. Really ? So them having absolutely no chance to explode, due to the reaction not being self-sustainable (if left unattended in case of disaster, they just shut down), is not an overwhelming advantage for you ? Nuclear waste can always be managed or buried or sent off the planet if need be. Nuclear disaster due to Chernobyl, no. Just keep that one in mind when you decide which is worth it. Modern reactors do not have a risk of nuclear explosion. At worst, hydrogen can explode and thorium does not mitigate that to my knowledge.
|
On December 20 2019 20:52 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On December 20 2019 14:51 Belisarius wrote:
My takeaway from the Chernobyl series is that everyone who fearmongers against nuclear will now just point to the Chernobyl series.
It's hard enough convincing the average voter that climate change is an issue. Convincing them that we need to address it by building Homer Simpson's workplace in their suburb is impossible, especially when most of the green team are also wildly opposed for ideological reasons.
Nuclear would have got us out of this if we went there 20 years ago. Now, it is just too politically difficult, and also too slow to come online when the climate is collapsing and renewables are breathing down its neck. I am agnostic on nuclear energy. But I'm quite certain that as long as the arguments of the anti nuclear will be dismissed as "purely ideological", we won't have a rational debate. There are PLENTY of non "purely ideological" reasons to be skeptical towards nuclear energy. I am not saying they are necessarily sound or convincing, but they are not just ideological. It's unbelievably dangerous, requires military style safety and infrastructure, produces uber dangerous waste we that we really don't know what to do with, is crazy expensive to dismantle, and so on and so forth.
I mean, ideological doesn't mean "false", it means "stemming from a deep-seated worldview." The visceral green objection to nuclear is tied up in stuff like distrust of the military-industrial complex, opposition to corporatism and a whole bunch of foundational mythos from the 70s with hippies protesting outside powerstations against fallout-type dystopian futures.
These are valid but they're difficult to engage with on a given issue. Any attempt to address the components that are false, like explaining that modern reactors are safer, relies on testimony from the groups they distrust in the first place, and runs smack into the good-is-the-enemy-of-the-perfect ethos the ideology is also known for.
My point is that if my enemies are opposed, and the grassroots support I depend on is possibly even more opposed, my campaign is very unlikely to succeed and will burn political capital at a huge rate as it fails.
|
On December 21 2019 04:42 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2019 04:40 Nouar wrote:On December 20 2019 20:35 micronesia wrote:
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
Okay, but availability of uranium isn't really a problem for the foreseeable future. Uranium is actually pretty cheap to buy compared to the other expenses of nuclear power. It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21] Thorium and non-thorium reactors both have pros and cons when it comes to nonproliferation, but I don't think one is significantly better than the other. They both produce material useful for weapons, but are difficult to use. There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23] I don't have time to do detailed research, but I think this getting taken out of context (or could just be wrong, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). Historically, thorium has not provided much relief when it comes to spent fuel disposal, and the industrial processes for using thorium tend to create a lot of difficult to deal with non-fuel waste. Similar to the discussion in your quote above, irradiating thorium to produce seeds of U-233 also produces an unwanted U-232 impurity which is a significant dose source. It slowly decays to radon-220 (not the isotope predominantly found in basements, i.e., radon-222) which is a gas that tends to escape its containment, but with a half life of about a minute. It then rapidly decays to progeny including an isotope of thalium that I recall releasing a significant gamma as it decays, contributing to a somewhat difficult to manage dose to workers, or the nearby public, depending on where the facility is and what type of ventilation system it has. My point being, waste considerations for thorium, as compared to traditional commercial nuclear power, are complicated and not as favorable as that article is leading you to believe. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I think they are meltdown proof because they are already in liquid form... this text doesn't really explain the actual advantages during a lose of power/cooling situation. Like the above discussion, the comparisons are actually very complicated though. I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement. I have nothing against thorium being a potential nuclear fuel, but most of the "advantages" being pushed are either wrong or misleading. I don't think thorium is necessarily better or worse than uranium/plutonium, just different. Yang and others exploit how complicated this topic is to make something seem better than it is. Really ? So them having absolutely no chance to explode, due to the reaction not being self-sustainable (if left unattended in case of disaster, they just shut down), is not an overwhelming advantage for you ? Nuclear waste can always be managed or buried or sent off the planet if need be. Nuclear disaster due to Chernobyl, no. Just keep that one in mind when you decide which is worth it. Modern reactors do not have a risk of nuclear explosion. At worst, hydrogen can explode and thorium does not mitigate that to my knowledge.
Maybe I should rephrase : there is no risk of core fusion, meltdown, or corium formation, in addition to hydrogen explosion.
Newer regular reactors like EPR work with even more temperature and pressure... Even if there are more safety measures (general "passive nuclear safety" meaning in the absence of action, it should just shut down), it is a lot harder to sell it to the public than a reactor working at near atmospheric pressure, negating the risk of a hydrogen explosion. The court of public opinion is really important after the previous disasters that happened.
"Never again" worked once, will likely not work again after Fukushima.
|
United States24578 Posts
On December 21 2019 06:49 Nouar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2019 04:42 micronesia wrote:On December 21 2019 04:40 Nouar wrote:On December 20 2019 20:35 micronesia wrote:
Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium in the Earth's crust.[17] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years."[16][17] "America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.[18] Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.
Okay, but availability of uranium isn't really a problem for the foreseeable future. Uranium is actually pretty cheap to buy compared to the other expenses of nuclear power. It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."[13]:11[19] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232 made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation. Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[20][21] Thorium and non-thorium reactors both have pros and cons when it comes to nonproliferation, but I don't think one is significantly better than the other. They both produce material useful for weapons, but are difficult to use. There is much less nuclear waste—up to two orders of magnitude less, state Moir and Teller,[3] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[13]:13 "Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[22] The radioactivity of the resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years, compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off.[23] I don't have time to do detailed research, but I think this getting taken out of context (or could just be wrong, but I'll give it the benefit of the doubt). Historically, thorium has not provided much relief when it comes to spent fuel disposal, and the industrial processes for using thorium tend to create a lot of difficult to deal with non-fuel waste. Similar to the discussion in your quote above, irradiating thorium to produce seeds of U-233 also produces an unwanted U-232 impurity which is a significant dose source. It slowly decays to radon-220 (not the isotope predominantly found in basements, i.e., radon-222) which is a gas that tends to escape its containment, but with a half life of about a minute. It then rapidly decays to progeny including an isotope of thalium that I recall releasing a significant gamma as it decays, contributing to a somewhat difficult to manage dose to workers, or the nearby public, depending on where the facility is and what type of ventilation system it has. My point being, waste considerations for thorium, as compared to traditional commercial nuclear power, are complicated and not as favorable as that article is leading you to believe. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage.[25]
I think they are meltdown proof because they are already in liquid form... this text doesn't really explain the actual advantages during a lose of power/cooling situation. Like the above discussion, the comparisons are actually very complicated though. I pasted the ones that I think are most relevant. The disadvantages are just engineering challenges. It is a fundamentally sound technology. Similar to how an incredible percent of atmospheric physicists agree human-induced climate change is both significant and bad, everyone who works in a field that understands what went wrong with past nuclear stuff and how new stuff compares see nuclear as a really good thing. It is very sad that some admittedly very bad things basically sidelined what should have gone on to be a major human advancement. I have nothing against thorium being a potential nuclear fuel, but most of the "advantages" being pushed are either wrong or misleading. I don't think thorium is necessarily better or worse than uranium/plutonium, just different. Yang and others exploit how complicated this topic is to make something seem better than it is. Really ? So them having absolutely no chance to explode, due to the reaction not being self-sustainable (if left unattended in case of disaster, they just shut down), is not an overwhelming advantage for you ? Nuclear waste can always be managed or buried or sent off the planet if need be. Nuclear disaster due to Chernobyl, no. Just keep that one in mind when you decide which is worth it. Modern reactors do not have a risk of nuclear explosion. At worst, hydrogen can explode and thorium does not mitigate that to my knowledge. Maybe I should rephrase Reading ahead, it seems more like you changed to an entirely different topic, but that's okay because the new topic is better.
there is no risk of core fusion Huh? Why would there be a risk of fusion in a commercial power reactors (there wouldn't...)?
meltdown, or corium formation Can you explain what it is about thorium, specifically, the precludes fuel meltdown and formation of corium?
in addition to hydrogen explosion Addressed below.
Newer regular reactors like EPR work with even more temperature and pressure... Even if there are more safety measures (general "passive nuclear safety" meaning in the absence of action, it should just shut down)
You seem to be confusing two separate concepts: walkaway capability from an at-power reactor without damaging the fuel via a loss of sufficient cooling post-shutdown, and inability to shut down the reactor when s*** hits the fan. Just to make sure this is perfectly clear, modern pressurized water reactors (the design I'm most familiar with and will use as an example) are able to shut down easily. When the control rods are inserted, the reactor is shut down... it takes one or two button presses, with the backup of automated protection systems (with built in coincidence and redundancy) doing it as well. Also, the coolant can be chemically poisoned if the rods can't insert for some reason. If by some chance there is a confluence of events that operators and protection systems fail to shut down the reactor, the reactor will still shut itself down. The coolant (water) doubles as the neutron moderator, and when the reactor heats, the water thermally expands, reducing the reactor's reactivity and therefore reducing power. If the water flashes to steam entirely in an extreme case, the reactor shuts down entirely due to severely insufficient neutron moderation. For this reason, the focus of the discussion should be on decay heat removal from the fuel rather than concerns about shutdown or explosions.
it is a lot harder to sell it to the public than a reactor working at near atmospheric pressure, negating the risk of a hydrogen explosion What does pressure have to do with the risk of hydrogen explosions? Hydrogen explosions would most likely occur in a containment following a zirc+water+heat reaction (perhaps you could show that thorium uniquely permits efficient design of reactors without use of zirc, or that uncontrolled heating events are not possible). Also, hydrogen aside, is there a technical basis you can refer to for why low-pressure reactor designs are safer? I know your point was about public perception, but there needs to be at least some reasons for why pressurization is bad...
. The court of public opinion is really important after the previous disasters that happened.
"Never again" worked once, will likely not work again after Fukushima. Are you referencing anything in particular with the 'never again' language?
Most of the things I've been reading recently online regarding Yang's pushing of thorium, when written by people with experience in nuclear science, are underwhelming. I think part of the problem is, it's hard to separate the benefits of brand new reactor designs (which just so happen to have been designed using thorium as a fuel) with benefits that are inherent to use of thorium as a fuel.
|
Micronesia, even if people start supporting thorium for the wrong reason, it is still a good thing. Most of the "issues" solved by thorium aren't actually issues with modern reactors, but whatever. If it makes people support nuclear, just go with it.
|
United States24578 Posts
If the choices are thorium or zero nuclear, I guess my vote goes for thorium. That seems like a crazy false dichotomy though. Basically, the strategy is to lie to the public that uranium=unsafe and thorium=safe for the greater good. Setting aside the ideological issues I have with that, that strategy is very harmful to current utilization of uranium such as, ahem, subs and carriers. My vote is for factual representation of all nuclear fuels. There's plenty of room for dispelling myths about existing technology before saying, "nah, scrap that, this currently underutilized alternative is the greatest thing since sliced bread."
|
Isn't Thorium still in early stages? Afaik there are only research reactors and not even one large scale industrial one?
|
United States24578 Posts
I think it depends on your definition of large scale. For example, Shippingport provided power commercially from thorium in its third core: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor#Thermal_breeder_reactor (second paragraph). By the way, the manufacture of that core left behind a mess (for example, see my earlier discussion in this conversation about U-232 impurities).
edit: Note that the U-233 seeds were made by irradiating thorium in another reactor first.
|
United States41987 Posts
The storage problems with sources like solar disappear if you treat it as a load smoothing source that allows for the higher daytime power consumption during the hot summer months. Power plants can’t easily scale up or down, they’re built to supply enough for peak consumption and overproduce at off peak times, leading to discounted electricity used for industrial electrolysis and the like at night. It’d be easier to have fewer power plants providing a lower base load with solar supplementing it during sunny days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/aZ0o0Qc.png)
