China Initiates Thorium MSR Project

[joshcryer]

The People’s Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology, it was announced in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) annual conference on Tuesday, January 25.

Led by Dr. Jiang Mianheng, a graduate of Drexel University in electrical engineering, the thorium MSR efforts aims not only to develop the technology but to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation.

...

Currently there is no US effort to develop a thorium MSR. Readers of this blog and Charles Barton’s Nuclear Green blog know that there has been a grass-roots effort underway for over five years to change this. The formation of the Thorium Energy Alliance and the International Thorium Energy Organization have been attempts to convince governmental and industrial leaders to carefully consider the potential of thorium in a liquid-fluoride reactor. There have been many international participants in the TEA and IThEO conferences, but none from China.

http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/30/china-initiates-tmsr/

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/01/have-chinese-been-reading-energy-from.html

http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/01/china-starts-lftr-development-project.html

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=2793

Hmm...

[Warpy]

1. Less chance of nuclear proliferation, anyway

and I'm at the point where I don't give a hoot who perfects the technology. I know India and China are both working on it while the US sits back in the corner with its dunce cap on and the money boys wanting nothing but uranium reactors all over the country like Wal Marts.

[Confusious]

2. While I support nuclear

I would +1,000,000,000 prefer thorium reactors.

Smaller size, less waste, immediate shutdown.

[joshcryer]

4. Air cooled, 50% efficient, closed cycle chemical reprocessing, self controlling.

They're a ridiculous technology.

[Kolesar]

5. How many thousands of megawatts are they producing now?

Or do we have to wait decades for that?

[madokie]

6. What gets me is if you'd read what some here have to say about thorium reactors

you'd think they were already developed but here we find out that its still just pie in the sky hope it works kind of deal. :wtf:

Thorium will save us as they run through the streets, thorium will save us, when actually thats a lie as it stands now too from the looks of it. liars liars pants on fire
But its used to stop discussions on alternate energy and thats happened more times than I care to remember.

[Confusious]

7. We all have our pie in the sky dreams

At least part of mine is here. Gen III and IV plants.

solar and wind will save us as they run through the streets, solar and wind will save us, when actually thats a lie as it stands now too from the looks of it. liars liars pants on fire

But its used to stop discussions on alternate energy and thats happened more times than I care to remember.

Not really. I guess you would say that if you didn't want people pointing out realities. I support renewables, but don't believe they'll save us.

[madokie]

8. Where are these Gen III and IV plants at now

more pie?

[joshcryer]

11. I don't quite see the relevance of this comment. Where are the big solar fields and wind plants?

It's just an immature statement.

[madokie]

12. The solar fields as you call them and wind plants are in place and are being built now

where are the gen3 and 4 reactors being built at? Have they even been fully proven yet? Are any producing any power yet?

Immature statement my ass. I guess that is one way of you're saying I don't know, huh :hi:
Immature statement :rofl:

[joshcryer]

18. Here's the share of renewables, solar is not slated to do very much:

And only the United States and EU will grow their wind significantly, it will not reduce the United States' coal use by much, we will still be using 75% of the coal we use now.

Unfortunately China and India will continue to grow out their coal.



So spare me please, I am not stupid. I think it is an encouraging sign that China is looking to use safe advanced proliferation resistant low waste energy source. It will allow that WEO 2010 projection graphic to change dramatically. If they start mass producing LFTR in 20 years, then coal can drop dramatically in the graph.

[madokie]

26. Why should anyone on this board spare you anything?

you're the first one to start stirring shit other than the big guy here. :shrug:

[joshcryer]

30. I'm not "stirring shit" I'm giving a reality check to people who attempt to misinform me.

[Confusious]

43. What qualifies as "stirring shit?"

Posting stuff in support of nuclear?

Posting stuff that shows renewables in bad light?

[joshcryer]

61. I do not "show renewables in a bad light." I merely give a reality check.

It's not that "renewables can't do enough" it's more that "our current civilization uses so much energy that for renewables to do enough would require 50 WWII's of expendature."

Basically we've gone on for a century building out our infrastructure and to replace it all before we have catastrophic climate change with irreversible feedbacks, we will require everything that our society can pull out of its ass.

[Confusious]

70. Well, to the anti-nukes

I merely give a reality check.

Thats "showing renewables in a bad light"

I prefer to think of it as "reality"

Not that I don't have "reality" about nukes either. Just don't see any other option. Some seem to think there are easy choices here. There aren't

Would I rather see renewables supply all of our power? Yes. Do I think they will be able to? no.

[joshcryer]

72. There's a difference between "being able to" and "practical" or "realistic."

It is very simple to do a paper napkin calculation to show that a certain technology can achieve a certain goal.

But if simply showing something is technically possible were reality, we'd have space elevators, lunar bases, and Mars colonies.

I mean, here's a concept, how about we float solar fields off of the shorelines, no more complaining about land use, it would help marine life because the platforms would be nutrient absorbers, and since most of civilization lives by the ocean, wow, amazing, we technically could do it! But I know that for that to happen would require a dramatic investment.

[TheMadMonk]

38. And now that the pilot studies are complete and the sites for commercial...

...development are being chosen, the screams for environmental conscientiousness to take place elsewhere are numerous and deafening.

And if I were to hazzard a guess, the gen-next nukes aren't happening, BECAUSE they are designed with proliferation resistance in mind and militaries particularly the US military don't like it.


Cynical? Not really.

What would you say to a fuel treatment which increases diesel power output and reduces consumption whilst simultaneously reducing particulate and NOx emissions to near zero? AND do it for essentially zero added cost. It exists (and has existed for a long time) and the US ARMY says no, because THEY like their diesel pure, unadulterated and guaranteed to burn after 20, 30 or 50 years in storage. THEY want to be able to fight any war at any time.

Fucking sad isn't it? Most of the worst vehicular pollution (and related lung disease) in the world is down to fifty years of the fucking US Army wanting to be ready to continue fighting a war after fifty years of anarchy.

[Confusious]

24. Well, Gen III plants are being built around the world

starting in 1996.

Gen IV are on the drawing board, like most solar projects and wind projects.

[madokie]

36. The question wasn't wind or solar

[Confusious]

39. I answered the question

Then added some information of my own.

I guessed you missed the part about this being a "discussion" board, not "madokie's" board.

[madokie]

45. I think you need to listen to what you wrote there yourself

personally I don't give a damn about much of this. I think that nuclear power as we have it today is not going to save us no matter how much any of us want to argue the point. I like the idea of thorium reactors as they seem to be pretty benign from what I can tell anyway. I don't think any of us has the answers. my problems is no matter how much anyone has an opinion other than nuclear will save us all we start hearing is how stupid that is to even think what ever it is rather than try to discuss the merits of the persons ideas and I see that perpetrated mostly by the pronuclear crowd. Every once in a while we are able to engage in some pretty good discussions about alternates when the pronukies are not here or not chiming in for what ever reason.

Some here and I see you as one of them that thinks that the sun rises and sets in the nuclear energy will save us group and that group makes it hard to have any discussion about anything because they seem to turn whatever the subject other than pro nuke into a fight. For the most part if you'll notice I stay away from this forum because of it.

All I know for sure about nuclear energy is many of the supporters will lie til the cows come home to try to convince others that they know best. its been this way since day one with the industry and I don't see it changing anytime soon if ever. I don't come here claiming I'm anything other than a concerned person who can remember all the lies I'd been told about how safe and cheap nuclear energy is of which it is neither for 50 some odd years now.

I guess I'll go back to using the ignore feature of this board so I don't have to keep reading the same old bs over and over.

have a good night, I hope to sleep good tonight myself.

[Confusious]

49. I feel the same way about the anti-nuclear crowd

All I know for sure about nuclear energy is many of the supporters will lie til the cows come home to try to convince others that they know best. its been this way since day one with the industry and I don't see it changing anytime soon if ever. I don't come here claiming I'm anything other than a concerned person who can remember all the lies I'd been told about how safe and cheap nuclear energy is of which it is neither for 50 some odd years now.

Seems we're at an impasse.

[madokie]

53. good deal

[joshcryer]

63. Happen to have an example of being lied to here by a nuclear supporter?

I'd appreciate it.

FYI I can provide copious examples of misinformation from the "renewable" crowd. From "capacity factors" don't matter to "wind doesn't kill birds" to "we can build 200k+ wind turbines a year" and so on and so forth. I do the research and find that indeed none of these things are in fact true, and I defend them, only to be given hateful insults.

[madokie]

66. And for the most part most times you deserve it

If you need an example of my being lied to by the nukebots you have a problem with memory, that I can't fix

[joshcryer]

67. I think you're making a false allegation and asking for evidence.

The rules allow such evidence to be made available (linking someones post where they are allegedly lying). NNadir on occasion has screwed up the data (for instance, implying China has 1/12th CO2 intensity). But one cannot say if he was intentionally lying or what.

Unfortunately I have been unable to get any sort of information out of you, it's mostly innuendo and untruths.

[joshcryer]

9. I know of no evidence why they won't work.

Do you have any evidence why they won't work? Or are you just using innuendo to attempt to discredit people with no basis?

[madokie]

13. No I'm asking a question and you're unable to answer

so YOU are using innuendo to attempt to discredit my concerns. Actually

[joshcryer]

16. Do you know what "pie in the sky" means or are you using phrases you don't understand?

You said thorium reactors were "pie in the sky."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pie_in_the_sky

You were mocking, derisive, and overall suggesting that thorium reactors cannot be built. You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back that up because you very likely have no understanding of the history of the technology.

Yes molten salt reactors have been designed. Yes we understand the physics. Yes China is now going to research and develop the technology.

[madokie]

27. I didn't say or imply any of that

you see you have a perception problem. I see it and read it all the time here with your replies to other posters

And yes no one is supplying any power by thorium as of yet. I like the idea of thorium but its still not a fully developed technology or we'd have a bunch of the reactors being built right fucking now.

Oh yeah. You can take your smart ass and shove it dude.
and you can go blow smoke up someone else's ass but I'll not hear any of it from you with the tone you use for discussion as this post I'm replying to is evidence of.

[joshcryer]

29. It is precisely what you said;

What gets me is if you'd read what some here have to say about thorium reactors uou'd think they were already developed but here we find out that its still just pie in the sky hope it works kind of deal.

Thorium will save us as they run through the streets, thorium will save us, when actually thats a lie as it stands now too from the looks of it. liars liars pants on fire

I asked you to substantiate this nonsense misinformation, but you failed to do so.

[madokie]

33. Where are these thorium reactors in use?

now

[Confusious]

41. You seem to be misreading

No one says they are working right now.

Just like solar, or wind, or wave, or biofuels, money should be spent on development.

You're the only one saying it will save us. No one who understands nuclear power thinks it will save us.

No one who understands the limitations of solar, wind, wave or biofuels thinks they will save us.

The people who support nuclear support it because they see it as the only real option to stop global warming while other energy sources are developed and built.

[madokie]

46. And thats what I've been getting at and no I don't and haven't implied in any way that anything will

save us. At present there is no thorium reactors producing any energy of any significance that I know of anywhere.

Nuclear energy won't save us because of the logistics of it. if we relied on that we'd be fucked real quick like. Only after a nuke plant is built is it even close to carbon free, damn sure isn't while under construction and the last I checked it takes a decade or so just to get one up and running and that building the ones who most all agree that we shouldn't be building. Theres lots of carbon production in mining and refining it into usable fuel also. Some time talk to the people who do the mining and who live nearby to get some perspective on just how NOT safe the whole process of procuring the elements for the fuel is, its all documented and readily available if you care to check it out.

[Confusious]

48. No there are not any thorium reactor producing power

except a prototype in India. Nobody has said that there are any more then that to my knowledge.

Studies have shown with good fuel, a nuclear reactor will payback in 10 years, with 50+ carbon free.

Wind and solar are payback sooner, but they don't last as long. 20 years.

Mining equals out. You need to mine to get the materials for wind and solar, the same with nuclear. You have to build more to get the same output with wind and solar as compared to nuclear though.

[madokie]

55. I'm off to bed, my eyes won't stay open any longer. sorry

[joshcryer]

62. Hmm, the majority of the worlds new nuclear reactors take far less than a decade to go critical.

I think you're being misled here.

[txlibdem]

74. Go critical means to start producing useful power via a sustained nuclear reaction

The ongoing discussion centered around how many years it takes to pay back the construction costs of a nuclear power plant compared to the useful life of the nuclear power plant versus the same figure for solar and for wind power.

The payback period for a nuclear power plant is wholly dependent on the construction costs. The cost of fuel is miniscule (unlike a coal power plant with fuel costs perhaps 8 to 10 times higher than nuclear) and doesn't enter into the payback calculations. In my opinion, the construction firms that inflate their bid for a new nuclear power plant are shooting themselves in the foot. There's a couple of new kids on the block, and their names are Solar, Wind, Geothermal Power Plants and tidal power. Inflate at your own peril.
===========================

Now, if we're talking about modular reactors that are mass produced in a factory then there is no question --nuclear comes out the hands down winner. Refer to Westinghouse modular reactor:

The nuclear power industry that reawakened only a couple years ago is getting a booster shot these days from much-smaller reactors that would be far more affordable.

Once again, Westinghouse Electric Co. is at the core of the trend. It's designing a small nuclear reactor the size of a bus that can be built in a factory and shipped to a power plant. It would generate up to one-quarter the power of current nuclear reactors, but cost about one-tenth as much.

Small modular reactors, as they're called, are being designed by several companies that could be installed as early as 2018, say experts. Being modular, they could gradually replace fossil-fuel power plants whose owners must cut emissions.

The simpler and smaller reactors — from 10 megawatts to 300 vs. today's 1,000 megawatts or more — would be ideal for markets here and abroad with limited power demand, power grids and money. One megawatt can power 800 homes.

"There may be hundreds, if not thousands, of these by the end of the century," said Paul Genoa, director of policy development at the Nuclear Energy Institute. "It should be cookie-cutter, once it gets going,"

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/business/s_671549.html

[joshcryer]

56. I never alleged that they were "in use now." I said that China is developing them. You called it...

..."pie in the sky."

Read your own words. Defend your position. What makes thorium reactors "pie in the sky"? What technological issues can you think of?

[madokie]

64. I know what I said and I stand by that

just to set here and argue with you endlessly is getting neither of us anywhere and I refuse to
Go find someone who likes to argue.
I never said you said any thing I said what I said and thats that, your circular logic is beyond my keeping up with nor my desire to keep up with.

[joshcryer]

68. Just so we're clear, you said thorium reactors were "pie in the sky" and I contested that.

I defended why they were in fact not "pie in the sky" as China has started a development program. You failed to provide information as to why they were "pie in the sky." It would be like me saying "wind turbines with 15 year maintainable times and 40% capacity factors are "pie in the sky," however, I know that they're technically feasible with proper siting and proper technology and that if we are to have a lot of them they need to be changed how they're built. That's the difference, you are an absolutist, I am not.

[Kolesar]

21. Yes, that is the point I was getting at. There is a message system here to reinforce a nuclear ...

...proposition, coupled with plenty of insults for advocates of any renewable electricity generation.

[joshcryer]

23. Oh yes, because the person you're responding to is a becon of civility.

The very response you're responding to is very derisive.

[madokie]

28. .

You're not worth being banned for.
I'm derisive because you can't blow smoke up my ass like you'd like. :rofl:

[joshcryer]

31. I at least substantiate what I say.

[madokie]

34. for the most part you argue for the sake of arguing.

I've been here a while and I've read a lot of nonsense coming from you that was not substantiated. You lie joe wilson you lie

[Confusious]

42. josh is one of the nicest nuclear supporters here

You on the other hand, I see as a grumpy old man yelling "Damn kids! Get off my lawn!"

[madokie]

44. And you don't see well

[Confusious]

50. Well, that's the impression you leave. nt

[madokie]

54. good luck with that

[joshcryer]

57. I have posted more information in this thread than I've ever seen you post.

[madokie]

65. whoopity fucking doo

What a little man complex you have

[joshcryer]

69. More that your allegations are false and misleading to people here.

I seek truth, not facades.

[Kolesar]

35. You got out of bed this morning to tell me that? eom

[joshcryer]

10. Sadly, it seems that way. Too bad, they're a good technology.

Unlike, say, PMSG (Permanent Magnet Synchronous Generator, Gearless) which cannot fulfill our energy needs without dramatic change in how they're buil. Until we start building PMSGs with turbines on the ground then I refuse to believe that wind, for one, will have any impact on our global energy use.

I still have hope for solar but we'll have to see if it grows as is projected.

[madokie]

14. right now we're around a 2 plus percent and growing wind powered electrical grid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_the_United_States
I notice this is an old link too.

I've been reading about the new soon to be deployed turbines that do have the generator at the ground level so that is in the works

[joshcryer]

17. All renewables will cut our coal use by about 25% and will barely make a dent in our oil use by '35.

(Source: WEO 2010)

For perspective, they project the US will be using approximately 500 TWh less coal by 2035. Currently we use around 2,000 TWh of coal annually: http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epm/table1_1.html

So in 2035 the US will be using 1,500 TWh of coal, as projected by the WEO, even with all that wind. A 25% reduction.

Or about 8.2 billion tonnes of CO2 will still be released (compared to the 11 billion tonnes of CO2 coal releases now).

If there are turbine on the ground or on the base of turbines I would like to see them, please provide a citation for this. Particularly the gearless brushless designs that last significantly longer and don't have high maintenance costs. We require 200k+ wind turbines built every year to avert catastrophic climate change. Current technology is unable to do that because it uses copious amounts of rare earth minerals, so you need turbines on the ground (you cannot conceivably put a brushless gearless design on top of a shaft without using rare earth minerals, you can put it on the ground though using more common materials).

[GliderGuider]

19. Wind power now supplies about 1.7% of the world's electricity

But it only avoids 0.7% of the CO2 we're producing, because of our use of gas and oil. The global recession has done more to reduce our CO2 production than 20 years of wind power deployment.

I love the look of windmills, but I think wind power needs some help.

[Kolesar]

22. And 20 years of nuclear deployment, in all fairness

About the only improvement nuclear has had is to improve the steam generators. No new plants in the USA

[Confusious]

52. No, we let other countries build them

And take the lead and the jobs.

[madokie]

25. Here we're a little better than 2 percent wind power

any is better than none. Its going to take a combination to cut our co2 output but I don't agree that nuclear as we have it today is the answer. I like what I've read about thorium but there is still a lot of wrinkles to be ironed out and a while before they are on line. My electricity here is wind, hydro, natural gas and coal and not necessarily in that order.

[joshcryer]

32. 2035: US expected to burn 75% coal for electricity. Oil will still be at similar levels.

Don't get me started as to where that oil will come from. Since conventional oil deposits have effectively peaked, we'll get it from unconventional sources, ie, Alberta Tar Sands. Fun times ahead for a global planetary society that can't get its shit together.

[madokie]

47. Oil from the ground and coal is not the only options

Just because one is against nuclear does not make them pro coal or oil. Thats one of the mistakes that is repeated here all the time by the pronuke crowd and its simply not true.

[Confusious]

51. I will admit, some do

But with renewables not replacing, and not even filling the gap, that's the only option left.

[joshcryer]

59. Biofuels are slated to make a huge wave in the coming decades.

However, it remains to be seen if we can really build out our biofuel infrastructure to the extent that the WEO 2010 projects.

[Confusious]

71. That's the catch. "coming decades"

We don't have decades.

Corn or wheatgrass ain't going to cut it. Well, it could, if we decide not to eat.

It'll have to be algae.

[joshcryer]

73. I have absolutely no clue how the WEO is projecting our biofuel growth.

It's unclear in WEO 2010. By and large, however, they expect us to still use oil. Which is perfectly conceivable given how much shale we have and how much is left in the tar sands. The US isn't stupid. It's using cheap oil first and sitting on the more expensive to extract stuff.

[joshcryer]

58. Do you have credible projections that disagree with the World Energy Outlook?

I think the WEO 2010 is being very liberal when it comes to oil (the majority of oil being "unconventional" by 2035 is very scary). However, as far as the United States is concerned I believe it. We'll rape every bit of ground we can to get the oil. If it's not the Alberta sands it'll be the Green River Shale.

[madokie]

15. None

that I know of as Joshcryer would put it

[NNadir]

37. A Nobel Prize winning scientist was present the first MSR/U-233 cycle in the US in 1969

The MSR produced in a very small volume, over 7.5 MW of full power, and began operations and reached full power - albeit not with U-233 - in 1966. The last fuel cycle did, however, operate on a thorium/U-233 cycle, around the same time as the US's first commercial nuclear reactor did the same.

Here's a picture of the Nobel Prize winner at the control panel of the world's first operating Molten Salt Reactor:



The tall guy is the Nobel Laureate, diplomat, and Presidential advisor who was responsible for the construction of more than 70 of the 100 nuclear reactors in this country that now operate, remaining despite the ignorant invective of stupid people, the largest source of climate change gas free primary energy in this country, outstripping all others combined. The short guy is the guy who built the first molten salt reactor, and who worked closely, and was on a first named basis, with scores of Nobel Laureates, including Fermi and Wigner. (He always considered Wigner his personal mentor.)

One cannot be an anti-nuke and comprehend even the most basic facts about the work, the personalities, and the motivations of any of these people.

Anti-nukes are all the intellectual equivalents of creationists, the hate nuclear science because they know absolutely nothing about nuclear science or any science.

They can't comprehend numbers, and they repeat falsehoods that are easily disproved in seconds of research, assuming that one knows shit from shinola about doing research.

The amount of energy produced each year in the MSR reactor, was given the power level achieved for the reactor, assuming one didn't fail high school physics, is about 0.2 petajoules, in um, 1966, which was - again assuming the ability to 7th grade mathematics - about 0.2 petajoules of energy.

The solar industry - which is now entering its sixth decade of being a miserable failure at anything other than robbing the poor to subsidize the rich - produced in the entire State of California, in 2009 - http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html">846 GWh of electricity which is equal roughly to 3.0 petajoules.

Thus the 43 years ago, an MSR produced, in a small tin can located at Oak Ridge National laboratory, 7% as much energy as the entire State of California has been able to produce with massive subsidies - subsidies that come at the expense of California's schools, help for California's poor, sustenance of California's parks, its libraries, its health care, even its dumb fucking roads - as the whole solar enterprise in that State, population roughly 37 million.

The per capita energy production from the failed California solar industry amounts to 6 watts.

The number of California anti-nuke assholes who write on this site who live on 6 watts is, um, zero. Every time a dumb anti-nuke opens his or her mouth, they remove all doubt as to whether they are complete and total fools.

[joshcryer]

3. They don't require the U233 route but they appear to be going that way, why, one wonders.

Probably because they want to sell the technology later on down the line. A proliferation resistant route would be the most amiable route to take, it would be difficult for the international community to say "Aww, but states will make weapons with it!"

[jpak]

20. but...but.. but...the New Jersey molten salt breeder reactor IS REAL!!1111

:rofl:

[txlibdem]

40. America has already perfected the Thorium Reactor... in 1968.

"This combination of low pressure and inherent safety, results in an inherently safe reactor that is simple enough to be mass-produced in a factory, saving 75% of the cost of a conventional reactor.

Two real prototype reactors have shown these safety benefits: the original 1968 test reactor at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and more recently in 2008 at the Nuclear Research Institute Rez at Prague, Czech Republic."

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/17/lftr-in-australia/

"The broadest and perhaps most important conclusion from the MSRE experience was that a molten salt fueled reactor concept was viable. It ran for considerable periods of time, yielding valuable information, and maintenance was accomplished safely and without excessive delay.

The MSRE confirmed expectations and predictions.<13>"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment#Results

So, after we worked all the kinks out of the design, figured out how to make it safe and reliable and had it ready to go... congress pulled all the funding from the project.

America is so f**king stupid sometimes!

[joshcryer]

60. A similar thing happened to IFR, which would be burning our nuclear waste by now.

And which would be operating at near 100% burnup rates. :(

We wouldn't need very many of them to get rid of the waste.