Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Friday August 25 2017, @01:09PM   Printer-friendly
from the more-then-just-a-fission-expedition dept.

Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:

The road to cleaner, meltdown-proof nuclear power has taken a big step forward. Researchers at NRG, a Dutch nuclear materials firm, have begun the first tests of nuclear fission using thorium salts since experiments ended at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1970s.

Thorium has several advantages over uranium, the fuel that powers most nuclear reactors in service today. First, it's much harder to weaponize. Second, as we pointed out last year in a long read on thorium-salt reactors, designs that call for using it in a liquid form are, essentially, self-regulating and fail-safe.

The team at NRG is testing several reactor designs [javascript required] on a small scale at first. The first experiment is on a setup called a molten-salt fast reactor, which burns thorium salt and in theory should also be able to consume spent nuclear fuel from typical uranium fission reactions.

The tests come amid renewed global interest in thorium. While updated models of uranium-fueled power plants are struggling mightily to get off the ground in the U.S., several startup companies are exploring molten-salt reactors. China, meanwhile, is charging ahead with big plans for its nuclear industry, including a heavy bet on thorium-based reactors. The country plans to have the first such power plants hooked up to the grid inside 15 years. If they pull it off, it might just help usher in a safer future for nuclear power.

-- submitted from IRC


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Zinho on Friday August 25 2017, @02:44PM (6 children)

    by Zinho (759) on Friday August 25 2017, @02:44PM (#558874)

    "Reactor" evokes "Nuclear Reactor". For many people, "nuclear reactor" is a deeply loaded term. Likewise "Thorium" (and other words that end in "-ium") sounds dangerously like "plutonium" and "uranium".

    Yes, let's also avoid those other dangerous-sounding elements ending in "-ium", like Helium, Lithium, Sodium, Magnesium, Aluminium [sic], Potassium, Calcium, Titanium, Chromium... I'm going to stop there; by my quick count there are at least 70 of the 118 identified elements whose names end in "-ium", many of which are household words with no negative associations. I'm pretty sure Potassium, Calcium, and Titanium all have good press, in fact. I'd wager that most people don't know what thorium even is, beyond sounding chemical-ish.

    The problem word here is "nuclear"; the same technology that's used in science labs with the name "Nuclear Magnetic Resonance" (NMR) is widely accepted in hospitals under the name "Magnetic Resonance Imaging" (MRI). Let's give "thorium reactor" a chance before deciding that it needs more extreme spin. Or, we could go with the name "molten-salt reactor" since they are multi-fuel inherently anyhow, and that seems to be the name the researchers are already going with.

    The truth of the situation is that no matter what we call it, it's still a self-sustaining fission process. Whatever words we use will get painted with the "nuclear" brush by the NIMBY and BANANA crowd, so it won't matter if we call them Super Happy Crazy Fun Time Power Generators. [soylentnews.org] The spin we really need is to get groups like Greenpeace on board with the idea of Thorium Reactors being a non-proliferating waste disposal plant, used to destroy Uranium byproducts and render them safe. That way we can step off the euphemism treadmill and avoid slandering perfectly good words like "salt" and "pizza". I mean, any further [wikipedia.org] than they already are... [wikipedia.org]

    --
    "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=2, Interesting=2, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by leftover on Friday August 25 2017, @04:23PM (2 children)

    by leftover (2448) on Friday August 25 2017, @04:23PM (#558938)

    "The spin we really need is to get groups like Greenpeace on board with the idea of Thorium Reactors being a non-proliferating waste disposal plant, used to destroy Uranium byproducts and render them safe."

    This, by far, the best idea I have seen in years. Sell and build the plants to dispose of the spent fuel stockpiles at individual current sites. No new siting delays, no spent fuel transportation problems, seamless transition to continuing operation after the spent uranium is gone. Quite lovely.

    --
    Bent, folded, spindled, and mutilated.
    • (Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @04:44PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @04:44PM (#558957)

      Instead of bending the will of irrational idiots, it would be easier to bait them with whale hunting ships armed with machine guns to wipe out some of their prominent leaders.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @05:51PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday August 25 2017, @05:51PM (#559015)

        You have an ignorance problem.

  • (Score: 2) by cykros on Friday August 25 2017, @05:47PM (1 child)

    by cykros (989) on Friday August 25 2017, @05:47PM (#559012)

    Not to mince words...well, okay, only to mince words:

    Aluminium is the correct spelling if you're using British English. Here's why. [thoughtco.com]

    • (Score: 2) by Zinho on Friday August 25 2017, @09:13PM

      by Zinho (759) on Friday August 25 2017, @09:13PM (#559114)

      Yeah, I was kinda trolling for a reply like yours; thanks for supplying it :P

      I don't use British English, not having grown up with it; however, for the purpose of this discussion it was useful to go with the IUPAC spelling. I have to wonder whether the AC I replied to has a point, in that the typical American untrained in Chemistry has a negative association with the "-ium" ending for names of metals. Sad, if it's true.

      Regardless, until the IUPAC starts renaming other elements to things like Aurium [wikipedia.org] and Argentium [wikipedia.org] I don't see a need to force Aluminum into an arbitrary "-ium" ending for consistency.

      --
      "Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Friday August 25 2017, @07:18PM

    by krishnoid (1156) on Friday August 25 2017, @07:18PM (#559073)

    Yes, let's also avoid those other dangerous-sounding elements ending in "-ium", like Helium, Lithium, Sodium, Magnesium, Aluminium [sic], Potassium, Calcium, Titanium, Chromium... I'm going to stop there

    Good thing, too; I was about to downmod your whole post '-1 Dangerous-sounding chemical hazard'.