LFTRs - The future?

[123ross456]

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have the capabilities to provide low cost and clean energy from a safe source, yet we still don't use them?

Just thought i'd see what you thought of it

 

Above is a short 5 minute video describing just a few of the amazing benifits

Edited July 10, 2012 by 123ross456

[Enthalpy]

For instance because they don't have this capability and because they don't exist?

[Severian]

For instance because they don't have this capability and because they don't exist?

 

No, the reason we don't use them is because the oil industry doesn't want our economies to shift away from oil, and the politicians are in their pocket.

[123ross456]

Yes they don't exist, but they have been made and used and they work.

 

And the oil industry? They would love LFTRs, money money money, if they invested in LFTRs they would have cheap (and lots of it) fuel, but they're morons. And the politicians, looking at both america and europe, there are 2 parties that clash way too much to actually get anything done. Which is why i think china will get there first.

[Enthalpy]

Please tell us what LFTR has ever run.

[Greg H.]

Please tell us what LFTR has ever run.

 

The LFTR is a type of thorium molten salt reactor (TMSR). Molten-salt-fueled reactors (MSRs) such as LFTR, where the nuclear fuel itself is in the form of liquid molten salt mixture, should not be confused with the solid-fueled Fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactors (FHRs).^[1]

Alvin M. Weinberg pioneered the use of the MSR at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. At ORNL, two prototype molten salt reactors were successfully designed, constructed and operated. These were the Aircraft Reactor Experiment in 1954 andMolten-Salt Reactor Experiment from 1965 to 1969. Both test reactors used liquid fluoride fuel salts. The MSRE notably demonstrated fueling with U-233 and U-235 during separate test runs.^[11](pix) Unfortunately for MSR research, Weinberg was fired and the MSR program closed down in the early 1970s,^[12] after which research stagnated in the United States.^[13][14] Even today, the ARE and the MSRE remain the only molten salt reactors ever operated.

from http://en.wikipedia....thorium_reactor

Edited July 12, 2012 by Greg H.

[Enthalpy]

Which confirms what I wrote:

few molten salt reactors have been built, among which no LFTR has ever run. Not a single one.

[Greg H.]

Which confirms what I wrote:

few molten salt reactors have been built, among which no LFTR has ever run. Not a single one.

What part of "remain the only two molten salt reactors ever operated" equates to "they were never run"?

 

 

Both test reactors used liquid fluoride fuel salts.

 

So yes, two liquid floride fuel salt based reactors were operated as early as the 1950s and in the latter half of the 1960s.

 

They were never run commercially, but they did operate.

[Moontanman]

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have the capabilities to provide low cost and clean energy from a safe source, yet we still don't use them?

 

 

Just thought i'd see what you thought of it

 

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=uK367T7h6ZY

 

Above is a short 5 minute video describing just a few of the amazing benifits

The main reason we don't use them is that they don't produce bomb grade plutonium... The first reactors were used to make bombs, the technology was developed because we thought we wanted huge amounts of plutonium, now we have lots of plutonium but no one to blow up with it...

[Enthalpy]

So yes, two liquid floride fuel salt based reactors were operated as early as the 1950s and in the latter half of the 1960s.

You mistake molten salt reactors with LFTR, whatever your reason is - many industries try to promote LFTR despite they know the obvious drawbacks.

 

As is known, no single LFTR has ever run.

 

---------------------------

 

And because LFTR would not attain the breeding threshold, they would always need a source of plutonium to supplement the ²³³U, which implies

- Keep uranium reactors

- Make usable only a tiny proportion of the thorium ore, as limited by the ²³⁵U available in uranium ore, which is necessary to produce plutonium.

 

This is presently all the ambition of the Indian programme, the biggest and most advanced one.

 

The same result is obtained by existing uranium reactors, both with boiling and with pressurized water. Some VVER already burn a mix of plutonium and thorium, to save some uranium ore. This cost a few millions and is operational now, instead of many billions for a hypothetical future result.

 

---------------------------

 

There is more. A thorium reactor is built with a core that produces vast amounts of excess neutrons (as opposed to a uranium reactor) and breeder blankets or thorium to produce ²³³U. This design is much easier to tweak to produce plutonium, just by replacing the blankets with uranium. Changes are easier because the core's reactivity is less influenced, and then one fuel load give much ore available neutrons to make plutonium.

 

As for weapons grade: this is nonsense. The answer is called a "booster" and is in every textbook. Anyway, replace the blankets more often and you get weapons grade if really needed.

 

One more: two bombs have already worked using ²³³U - the one LFTR would breed without modification - instead of ²³⁵U or Pu.

 

---------------------------

 

Again, the nuclear industry knows and understands these arguments perfectly. But subsidies are just so palatable!

[Greg H.]

You mistake molten salt reactors with LFTR, whatever your reason is - many industries try to promote LFTR despite they know the obvious drawbacks.

 

As is known, no single LFTR has ever run.

Ahh. That's the distinction. An LFTR is a molten salt reactor, but not all molten salt reactors are LFTR's. Thank you for the correction - sometimes I get a little blinkered in a discussion.