[video] Nuclear power, thorium and LFTR

[localzuk]

I watched this video last night, and did some reading afterwards to back up what is said in it and it has totally changed my views on nuclear energy, which in part were based on ignorance and part on the stuff put out by the media.

 

 

Take a look, its incredibly interesting!

[edutech4schools]

Bill Gates talks about this

 

[localzuk]

Bill Gates talks about this

 

 

Very different technology, but it would be an effective way of getting rid of our nuclear waste stockpiles. There'd have to be some pretty good security involved though, as producing and burning plutonium is somewhat risky!

 

The video I linked above discusses thorium as a fissile material. Thorium is *everywhere*. If we used such reactors in the UK, they have complete passive failsafes - so if the power goes off, there's no possibility of a problem, we would have energy security - 5000 tonnes of thorium could power the entire planet for a year, for example.

 

And you don't end up with nuclear waste at the end of it all.

 

Part of what interests me about the topic is the fact I'm so ignorant of it all! Like most people when I hear 'nuclear' I instantly think 'Chernobyl' and 'Three Mile Island', and now 'Fukishima'. But the technologies involved are so differing and changing generation to generation as to be like saying 'cars' and thinking 'they all crash because their wheels fall off' after one model having a design flaw.

Edited February 15, 2013 by localzuk

[pcstru]

And you don't end up with nuclear waste at the end of it all.

 

Yes you do. Just a lot less in theory. In practice you need to think where you get your neutron source, you either need a big particle accelerator or another reactor. India are using fast breeder plutonium reactors as a neutron source for the thorium. Accelerators tend to be much more expensive.

[localzuk]

Yes you do. Just a lot less in theory. In practice you need to think where you get your neutron source, you either need a big particle accelerator or another reactor. India are using fast breeder plutonium reactors as a neutron source for the thorium. Accelerators tend to be much more expensive.

 

There are various ways of starting up LFTRs, the disadvantages section on the wiki article lists a few such options. But the issue is that we are doing nothing really to look at this technology. We are putting massive amounts of money down for wind turbines, coal, gas etc... but thorium based nuclear energy is being put to one side consistently. I suspect it is more to do with the second to last disadvantage than anything else - business model.

[stevenlong1985]

I Love Thorium!

[stevenlong1985]

you should what this,

 

Britain's first Nuclear Disaster

 

Windscale Britains Biggest Nuclear Disaster ( Nothing compared to Fukushima ). - YouTube

[SYNACK]

The problem with nuclear power is he tech they are using is from the 50s. More modern methods are safer and less wassteful.

[localzuk]

you should what this,

 

Britain's first Nuclear Disaster

 

Windscale Britains Biggest Nuclear Disaster ( Nothing compared to Fukushima ). - YouTube

 

Why? What relevance has a problem from 1957 have with nuclear reactors being built now, or ones to be built in the future? Not to mention, even that 'disaster' was pretty much nothing, when you consider how many people coal has killed...

[sted]

The problem with nuclear power is he tech they are using is from the 50s. More modern methods are safer and less wassteful.

 

but politically unlikely as they take years to build so any government that starts them is fairly likely to be out of power when they come on line so they wont do it theyd rather do short term solutions that help their rating than something to help the country

[localzuk]

but politically unlikely as they take years to build so any government that starts them is fairly likely to be out of power when they come on line so they wont do it theyd rather do short term solutions that help their rating than something to help the country

 

This is something else that's in the original video, a guy in Canada puts the point across that it takes 15 years to get the go-ahead for a nuclear plant, going through all the risk assessments, but the equivalent checks for a new coal plant take a weekend. Yet, coal releases *more* radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant...

[stevenlong1985]

@localzuk Woah fella

 

I'm interested in Thorium. I believe LFTR can work.

 

The Documentary I posted backs explains how The UK government didn’t make a Nuclear power station at first. They used it to refine uranium so they can show off to the Americans back in the 1950s. The documentary explains how the rectors was cooled down with FANs not a by a means of heavy water as it’s done today.

 

I posted this Documentary as not many people knew Britain has its own disaster and backs up your post why we should start using LFTR. The only main reason why we have these nuclear power plants is for weapons

[pcstru]

This is something else that's in the original video, a guy in Canada puts the point across that it takes 15 years to get the go-ahead for a nuclear plant, going through all the risk assessments, but the equivalent checks for a new coal plant take a weekend. Yet, coal releases *more* radiation into the atmosphere than a nuclear plant...

 

Apples and oranges. A coal fired power station goes bang and hardly anyone will care. A nuke pop's it's top and a whole continent will care. Risk is a product of probability AND consequences. The risks involved in a single nuclear plant are significantly higher than any single coal plant. Decommissioning a coal plant is a known, process with a calculable cost. We have no idea what the long term costs of decommissioning a nuclear plant will be, but we do know that every time we build one, people in 20,000 years will still be looking after the waste.

[localzuk]

Apples and oranges. A coal fired power station goes bang and hardly anyone will care. A nuke pop's it's top and a whole continent will care. Risk is a product of probability AND consequences. The risks involved in a single nuclear plant are significantly higher than any single coal plant. Decommissioning a coal plant is a known, process with a calculable cost. We have no idea what the long term costs of decommissioning a nuclear plant will be, but we do know that every time we build one, people in 20,000 years will still be looking after the waste.

 

I'd love to see the evidence that the risks in a nuclear plant are higher. Not to mention, you've just perpetuated several known fallacies with the whole issue - one, that nuclear power is dangerous and two, that we will be stuck with 'waste' for 20,000 years... Like we're not stuck with coal slag piles? For example the one that shifted a few days ago and destroyed 100m of our railways - if a train had not noticed and gone across? Many lives would've been lost.

 

No, what you've basically said there is what the media consistently says - "nuclear is dangerous!" but without any actual evidence of deaths, of injuries, of actual consequences. So, you're saying policy should be based on perception rather than actual consequences.

 

Not to mention, the issues are regarding *old* technology. Not the new technologies appearing.

 

Some interesting numbers - 170,000 people die per trillion kWh of electricity produced from coal. 90 people die for the same amount from nuclear energy. How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes

[SYNACK]

Apples and oranges. A coal fired power station goes bang and hardly anyone will care. A nuke pop's it's top and a whole continent will care. Risk is a product of probability AND consequences. The risks involved in a single nuclear plant are significantly higher than any single coal plant. Decommissioning just very a coal plant is a known, process with a calculable cost. We have no idea what the long term costs of decommissioning a nuclear plant will be, but we do know that every time we build one, people in 20,000 years will still be looking after the waste.

 

Comparatively a coal plant is exploding all the time slowly throughout its lifespan spewing radiation and co2. A nuclear plant just goes all at once if at all.

 

Micro reactors based on newer tech are quicker to build, safer and more efficient. Politics will sabotage progress as always though.

[pcstru]

I'd love to see the evidence that the risks in a nuclear plant are higher. Not to mention, you've just perpetuated several known fallacies with the whole issue - one, that nuclear power is dangerous and two, that we will be stuck with 'waste' for 20,000 years... Like we're not stuck with coal slag piles? For example the one that shifted a few days ago and destroyed 100m of our railways - if a train had not noticed and gone across? Many lives would've been lost.

 

No, what you've basically said there is what the media consistently says - "nuclear is dangerous!" but without any actual evidence of deaths, of injuries, of actual consequences. So, you're saying policy should be based on perception rather than actual consequences.

No. I said the RISK is higher. Risk is a technical term which is used to mean a product of probability and consequence. So the probability of an accident at a nuclear plant might be small, but the consequences if it does happen are potentially much more severe.

 

IF you want to see why risk is higher, look at Chernobyl or Fukashima. No disaster at any coal plant has ever resulted in a 20 mile exclusion zone.

 

Not to mention, the issues are regarding *old* technology. Not the new technologies appearing.

 

Some interesting numbers - 170,000 people die per trillion kWh of electricity produced from coal. 90 people die for the same amount from nuclear energy. How Deadly Is Your Kilowatt? We Rank The Killer Energy Sources - Forbes

 

I was responding to what you said - where you seem surprised that the process for approving a nuclear plant was different from a coal plant. You can take it out of context if you like, but it doesn't alter the point.

[pcstru]

Comparatively a coal plant is exploding all the time slowly throughout its lifespan spewing radiation and co2. A nuclear plant just goes all at once if at all.

And the legacy of nuclear? Products with ten thousand year half lives?

Micro reactors based on newer tech are quicker to build, safer and more efficient. Politics will sabotage progress as always though.

 

Both fossil fuel and nuclear suffer the same problem IMO, the costs of our energy needs end up being paid for by our children. If we want energy, then we should pay the true cost of it.

 

It seems a tragedy that we choose to saddle future generations with our waste when there is enough energy in the sunlight hitting the earth to supply our energy needs millions of times over. We just don't want to pay for it.

[localzuk]

No. I said the RISK is higher. Risk is a technical term which is used to mean a product of probability and consequence. So the probability of an accident at a nuclear plant might be small, but the consequences if it does happen are potentially much more severe.

 

And that is what I'm disagreeing with. The consequence of a problem is not as severe as everyone keeps trying to say. The numbers simply don't show that it is. How many people died because of Chernobyl? Direct deaths? 31. Some say 6000, but the evidence to support this is very thin.

 

How about Fukishima? Death toll? None so far... Predictions are that over the lifetime of the people who were involved, up to 100 could have their lives prematurely damaged by the radiation dose they received.

 

IF you want to see why risk is higher, look at Chernobyl or Fukashima. No disaster at any coal plant has ever resulted in a 20 mile exclusion zone.

 

Why were 20 mile exclusion zones imposed? Because policy is based on nonsense, perception, fear, uncertainty and not scientific fact. I'm saying that these decisions should be based on evidence.

 

I was responding to what you said - where you seem surprised that the process for approving a nuclear plant was different from a coal plant. You can take it out of context if you like, but it doesn't alter the point.

 

I'm not saying I'm surprised, I'm saying it is wrong.

[localzuk]

And the legacy of nuclear? Products with ten thousand year half lives?

 

Coal releases more radiation than nuclear waste. Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste: Scientific American

 

So what, it lasts a long time, so does coal ash.

 

Both fossil fuel and nuclear suffer the same problem IMO, the costs of our energy needs end up being paid for by our children. If we want energy, then we should pay the true cost of it.

 

It seems a tragedy that we choose to saddle future generations with our waste when there is enough energy in the sunlight hitting the earth to supply our energy needs millions of times over. We just don't want to pay for it.

 

That's a great ideological viewpoint to have, and one I share, however it is simply impossible to do.

[pcstru]

How about Fukishima? Death toll? None so far... Predictions are that over the lifetime of the people who were involved, up to 100 could have their lives prematurely damaged by the radiation dose they received.

Death isn't necessarily the issue. What is the *cost* of a 10 mile exclusion zone in a place like Japan? What is the cost of dealing with the clean-up of two breached reactors with melted cores?

Why were 20 mile exclusion zones imposed? Because policy is based on nonsense, perception, fear, uncertainty and not scientific fact. I'm saying that these decisions should be based on evidence.

And your evidence that those decision are not based on evidence is ... what exactly? For someone who at the beginning of the thread admitted ignorance, you seem to think a mere two hour video has left you in a better position to judge than people who are actually responsible for decisions which affect the safety of people. Good call.

 

As far as I am aware they have measured and are still measuring elevated levels of radiation in the exclusion zone around the plant. That's also still true of the area around Chernobyl. Those elevated readings are caused by radioactive contamination from the plant. There is a risk that people and high energy radionuclide's will come together and the evidence says that when that happens, it can be quite unpleasant (usually for the people rather than the radionuclide).

[pcstru]

That's a great ideological viewpoint to have, and one I share, however it is simply impossible to do.

 

Something like that is certainly impossible if you have already decided it is impossible.

[localzuk]

Death isn't necessarily the issue. What is the *cost* of a 10 mile exclusion zone in a place like Japan? What is the cost of dealing with the clean-up of two breached reactors with melted cores?

 

Doesn't really deal with my comment about why they put this exclusion zone in place... Sure, the cost of cleanup is going to be a chunk of cash, but so is the cost of cleanup for the damage done by coal...

 

And your evidence that those decision are not based on evidence is ... what exactly? For someone who at the beginning of the thread admitted ignorance, you seem to think a mere two hour video has left you in a better position to judge than people who are actually responsible for decisions which affect the safety of people. Good call.

 

Yup. Have you watched the video? Done some further reading to confirm what has been said? Looked for any evidence of the dangers of nuclear beyond what you are repeating over and over again - pointing at cleanup and exclusion zones without any scientific evidence?

 

As far as I am aware they have measured and are still measuring elevated levels of radiation in the exclusion zone around the plant. That's also still true of the area around Chernobyl. Those elevated readings are caused by radioactive contamination from the plant. There is a risk that people and high energy radionuclide's will come together and the evidence says that when that happens, it can be quite unpleasant (usually for the people rather than the radionuclide).

 

You are once again perpetuating the same thing! You're saying "elevated levels of radiation" as if that instantly means "dangerous to health". And I'm saying, again, I want evidence of this. The numbers simply don't lead to this conclusion. If they did, there would be more deaths from radiation poisoning from Chernobyl and Fukishima, from Windscale, or from Three Mile Island. It simply doesn't add up.

[localzuk]

@pcstru - have you watched the video? Seen the designs of LFTR systems? Seen how they are safer than those from the past? If not, you're not really engaging in a discussion on the topic, you're arguing without actually looking at what has been presented.

[localzuk]

@localzuk Woah fella

 

I'm interested in Thorium. I believe LFTR can work.

 

The Documentary I posted backs explains how The UK government didn’t make a Nuclear power station at first. They used it to refine uranium so they can show off to the Americans back in the 1950s. The documentary explains how the rectors was cooled down with FANs not a by a means of heavy water as it’s done today.

 

I posted this Documentary as not many people knew Britain has its own disaster and backs up your post why we should start using LFTR. The only main reason why we have these nuclear power plants is for weapons

 

I've just watched it. Interesting video, however, it does perpetuate this idea that radiation from this sort of accident is somehow massively dangerous, yet they have interviews with basically all the men involved who are still alive (yes, there were around 33 people who died due to cancer from the incident, but how many have died from cancer due to coal related radiation?). I'd be keen on changing the term from 'disaster' to 'accident' personally, as a disaster in my mind leads to deaths...

Edited February 15, 2013 by localzuk

[DT2]

LFTR is the way forward, simple. Whether or not this will happen is another thing entirely. Don't forget, beyond the safety concerns and everything else there is money. That's right, money. The thing that drives our governments. They will follow and support the technology that benefits them financially whether it's a proven concept or not. Think they're going to be able make money from, or apply environmental levies to a technology that has such a tiny environmental impact? Pah, you have to be kidding. That's why they love coal and gas and dirty nuclear sites.... Because they can stuff them for a ton of cash. And let's face it, nothing will ever change that. So until private business begins to develop this technology we won't see any change in energy production methods. If the government had any sense at all, they'd be ploughing cash into this in order to take the technological lead..... Like the guy said at the end of the video, develop the technology ourselves now, or face the cost of purchasing it in years to come from other countries.