Friam

Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Classic

List

Threaded

10 messages Options

Owen Densmore

Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Administrator

Anyone know if thorium is really a breakthrough in terms of nuclear
power?
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?
id=19758

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

The term "breakthrough" is a bit of an overstatement, since Thorium reactors have been around since the 50's. When I worked at the Westinghouse Naval Reactors Faclility at INEL in the early 80's we took receipt of a Thorium reactor core that had been operated for a few years as a test by the Duquesne Power company. NRF cut it up and tested to see if it actually did breed (it did).

The real reason for the current emergent interest in Thorium cycle reactors is cost. Thorium is more abundant than Uranium, more efficient as a breeder fuel, and supposedly generates less waste.

Check out what our friends at Wikipedia have to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

--Doug

On Sun, Feb 7, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Anyone know if thorium is really a breakthrough in terms of nuclear power?
http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?id=19758

-- Owen

Fred Seibel-2

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

In reply to this post by Owen Densmore

Back in the dark ages when I was working in the CTR program at LANL,
then retired James Tuck, the founder of the euphemistically named
Project Sherwood, presented a colloquium in which he analyzed the
future of various energy sources. He concluded that when the lights
began to go out that the world would reconsider the use of nuclear
power in a big way. He then presented data on the "thorium cycle"
which while not as easy to use as pure uranium, I believe he mentioned
the abundance of thoria in the earth's crust made it a relatively easy
fuel to get and would be sufficient for a long time.

I guess this indicated his pessimism for achieving power generation
from fusion anytime soon.

Fred

On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:56 PM , Owen Densmore wrote:

> Anyone know if thorium is really a breakthrough in terms of nuclear
> power?
> http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?
> id=19758
>
> -- Owen
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

lrudolph

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

On 7 Feb 2010 at 13:20, Fred Seibel wrote:

> James Tuck, the founder of the euphemistically named
> Project Sherwood,

"Euphemistically" or "eponymously" (the latter if,
e.g., he were known as "Friar Tuck"; the former if
I don't know what--my normally dirty mind isn't
producing any appropriate results)?

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Fred Seibel-2

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

okay, "whimsically"
On Feb 7, 2010, at 2:55 PM , [hidden email] wrote:

> On 7 Feb 2010 at 13:20, Fred Seibel wrote:
>
>> James Tuck, the founder of the euphemistically named
>> Project Sherwood,
>
> "Euphemistically" or "eponymously" (the latter if,
> e.g., he were known as "Friar Tuck"; the former if
> I don't know what--my normally dirty mind isn't
> producing any appropriate results)?
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Frank Wimberly

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

In reply to this post by Fred Seibel-2

My father told me about thorium reactors back when I was in fifth grade and
he was one of the engineers working on the design of the USS Nautilus'
nuclear power plant. Shortly after that, I entered the "Name the Planet
Contest" associated with the TV program "Space Cadets" (or was it "Space
Patrol") in which a new planet had been discovered. I suggested the name
"Thoria" for thorium because "Uranus" was named for uranium, Pluto for
plutonium, etc. (I know they were named for Roman gods but apparently I
didn't then). By the way, there was one first prize (full size replica of
the program's space ship), several second prizes (three-speed bicycles), and
many third prizes (first aid kits for use in outer space). This was in
1954?

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505

[hidden email] [hidden email]
505 995-8715 (home) 505 670-9918 (cell)

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Fred Seibel
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Back in the dark ages when I was working in the CTR program at LANL,
then retired James Tuck, the founder of the euphemistically named
Project Sherwood, presented a colloquium in which he analyzed the
future of various energy sources. He concluded that when the lights
began to go out that the world would reconsider the use of nuclear
power in a big way. He then presented data on the "thorium cycle"
which while not as easy to use as pure uranium, I believe he mentioned
the abundance of thoria in the earth's crust made it a relatively easy
fuel to get and would be sufficient for a long time.

I guess this indicated his pessimism for achieving power generation
from fusion anytime soon.

Fred

On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:56 PM , Owen Densmore wrote:

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Frank Wimberly

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

In reply to this post by Fred Seibel-2

What a miracle:

http://www.solarguard.com/rrcontest1.htm

Frank

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Fred Seibel
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Back in the dark ages when I was working in the CTR program at LANL,
then retired James Tuck, the founder of the euphemistically named
Project Sherwood, presented a colloquium in which he analyzed the
future of various energy sources. He concluded that when the lights
began to go out that the world would reconsider the use of nuclear
power in a big way. He then presented data on the "thorium cycle"
which while not as easy to use as pure uranium, I believe he mentioned
the abundance of thoria in the earth's crust made it a relatively easy
fuel to get and would be sufficient for a long time.

I guess this indicated his pessimism for achieving power generation
from fusion anytime soon.

Fred

On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:56 PM , Owen Densmore wrote:

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

In reply to this post by Frank Wimberly

Well: did you win a prize?

--Doug

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Frank Wimberly <[hidden email]> wrote:

My father told me about thorium reactors back when I was in fifth grade and
he was one of the engineers working on the design of the USS Nautilus'
nuclear power plant. Shortly after that, I entered the "Name the Planet
Contest" associated with the TV program "Space Cadets" (or was it "Space
Patrol") in which a new planet had been discovered. I suggested the name
"Thoria" for thorium because "Uranus" was named for uranium, Pluto for
plutonium, etc. (I know they were named for Roman gods but apparently I
didn't then). By the way, there was one first prize (full size replica of
the program's space ship), several second prizes (three-speed bicycles), and
many third prizes (first aid kits for use in outer space). This was in
1954?

Frank

---
Frank C. Wimberly
140 Calle Ojo Feliz
Santa Fe, NM 87505

[hidden email] [hidden email]
505 995-8715 (home) 505 670-9918 (cell)

-----Original Message-----
From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf
Of Fred Seibel
Sent: Sunday, February 07, 2010 1:20 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Back in the dark ages when I was working in the CTR program at LANL,
then retired James Tuck, the founder of the euphemistically named
Project Sherwood, presented a colloquium in which he analyzed the
future of various energy sources. He concluded that when the lights
began to go out that the world would reconsider the use of nuclear
power in a big way. He then presented data on the "thorium cycle"
which while not as easy to use as pure uranium, I believe he mentioned
the abundance of thoria in the earth's crust made it a relatively easy
fuel to get and would be sufficient for a long time.

I guess this indicated his pessimism for achieving power generation
from fusion anytime soon.

Fred

On Feb 7, 2010, at 12:56 PM , Owen Densmore wrote:

> Anyone know if thorium is really a breakthrough in terms of nuclear
> power?
> http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friendly_article.aspx?
> id=19758
>
> -- Owen
>
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

Owen Densmore

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Administrator

In reply to this post by Douglas Roberts-2

On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

The term "breakthrough" is a bit of an overstatement, since Thorium reactors have been around since the 50's. When I worked at the Westinghouse Naval Reactors Faclility at INEL in the early 80's we took receipt of a Thorium reactor core that had been operated for a few years as a test by the Duquesne Power company. NRF cut it up and tested to see if it actually did breed (it did).

The real reason for the current emergent interest in Thorium cycle reactors is cost. Thorium is more abundant than Uranium, more efficient as a breeder fuel, and supposedly generates less waste.

Check out what our friends at Wikipedia have to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

--Doug

So should this be the solution to the proliferation of nuclear bombs? I.e. these reactors are not only are sensible, they also do not produce material easily used for making a bomb?

-- Owen

Douglas Roberts-2

Re: Technology Review: Cleaner Nuclear Power?

On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote:

The term "breakthrough" is a bit of an overstatement, since Thorium reactors have been around since the 50's. When I worked at the Westinghouse Naval Reactors Faclility at INEL in the early 80's we took receipt of a Thorium reactor core that had been operated for a few years as a test by the Duquesne Power company. NRF cut it up and tested to see if it actually did breed (it did).

The real reason for the current emergent interest in Thorium cycle reactors is cost. Thorium is more abundant than Uranium, more efficient as a breeder fuel, and supposedly generates less waste.

Check out what our friends at Wikipedia have to say: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor

--Doug

So should this be the solution to the proliferation of nuclear bombs? I.e. these reactors are not only are sensible, they also do not produce material easily used for making a bomb?

-- Owen

Fortunately, I'm not a bomb-maker, so I have no idea.

--Doug