What's new

India designs World's first Thorium based Nuclear Reactor

World's first only in the wet dreams of dreamy Indians。:rofl:

While some ignorant Indians get high on a preliminary design,China is actually building a new generation thorium molten salt reactors(MSRs)

China eyes thorium MSRs for industrial heat, hydrogen; revises timeline - The Weinberg Foundation

By the time Indians turn their so-called design(with much foreign imports and inputs)into reality,China'd be running quite a few MSRs for commercial and industrial uses。And India would need to rely on China for the necessary components and equipment。:azn:

Much foreign imports and inputs ?

are you referring to this ?


China's two major enrichment plants were built under agreements with Russia in the 1990s and, under a 2008 agreement, Russia is helping to build additional capacity and also supply low-enriched uranium to meet future needs.

China's Nuclear Fuel Cycle


also read page on India's Nuclear programme by same Independent International organization that will open your eyes .

Nuclear Power in India | Indian Nuclear Energy



I do not expect anything better from rabid anti India person like you ...although !
 
World's first only in the wet dreams of dreamy Indians。:rofl:

While some ignorant Indians get high on a preliminary design,China is actually building a new generation thorium molten salt reactors(MSRs)

China eyes thorium MSRs for industrial heat, hydrogen; revises timeline - The Weinberg Foundation

By the time Indians turn their so-called design(with much foreign imports and inputs)into reality,China'd be running quite a few MSRs for commercial and industrial uses。And India would need to rely on China for the necessary components and equipment。:azn:

Only shit comes out of your mouth whenever you speak you gullible fellow :coffee: >>

>> This was formally announced by the CAS in its annual conference in January 2011.

>> Your plan was to build a tiny 2 MW plant using liquid fluoride fuel by the end of the decade, before scaling up to commercially viable size over the 2020s. You are also working on a pebble-bed reactor.

>> The proposed completion date for a test 2 MW pebble-bed solid thorium and molten salt cooled reactor has been delayed from 2015 to 2017.

>> The proposed "test thorium molten-salt reactor" has also been delayed.

Completion date slips for China’s thorium molten salt reactor - The Weinberg Foundation

NOTE>>> India is building a 300 MW prototype thorium based reactor and you are building a 2 MW pebble bed thorium molten-salt reactor at the same time, the projects are different the approach is different, the researches are different but still I wonder why is it being compared! Oh yeah obviously for the necessity to troll! :sick:

>> India is the only country in the world with a detailed, funded, government-approved plan to focus on thorium-based nuclear power. We are in this research right from the inception of our nuclear programme with little help from anybody!

India's three-stage nuclear power programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

lol I don't even mind a foreign collaboration in this field it will be of mutual benefit of all!

>> To avoid those same cheap Chinese products and subsequent accidents we have signed the U.S.–India Civil Nuclear Agreement in 2005!!!

U.S.–India Civil Nuclear Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Section 123 Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Nuclear Suppliers Group - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Believe me we have 47 other suppliers to chose from except China alone as you suggest!

>> Our 300 MW prototype reactor will be ready by 2025 - Subsequent plans still not disclosed by BARC.
 
Last edited:
Indians are really really a funny bunch。:rofl:

“Do More Talk Less” should become India's motto

China eyes thorium MSRs for industrial heat, hydrogen; revises timeline

November 1st, 2013

Posted by Mark Halper


China’s Hu Xongjie (r) and India’s Anil Kakodkar chat after dinner at the Thorium Energy Conference in Geneva this week. Xongjie leads China’s TMSR programme. Kakodkar, former chairman of India’s Atomic Energy Commission and one-time head of the country’s Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, champions thorium use in his country.

GENEVA – Thorium-fueled high temperature reactors could help alleviate China’s energy and environmental problems – including water shortages – by providing not only low carbon electricity but also clean heat for industrial processes and power for hydrogen production, the scientist in charge of developing the reactors said here.

Xu Hongjie of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) in Shanghai indicated that one of the two reactors he’s developing should be ready in a 100-megawatt demonstrator version by 2024, and for full deployment by 2035. A second one, based on liquid thorium fuel instead of solid, would come later, he said, hinting that it might not yet have full government financial backing.

In a presentation at the Thorium Energy Conference 2013 (ThEC13) here, he referred to both reactors as thorium molten salt reactors (TMSR). The solid fuel version uses “pebble bed” fuel – much different from today’s fuel rods – and molten salt coolant. The liquid version uses a thorium fuel mixed with molten salt. Both run at significantly higher temperatures than conventional reactors, making them suitable as industrial heat sources in industries such as cement, steel, and oil and chemicals. The thorium can also reduce the waste and the weapons proliferation threat compared to conventional reactors.

“The TMSR gets support from the Chinese government, just because China is faced with a very serious challenge, not only for energy, but also for the environment,” Hongjie said. He noted that several regions of China face water shortages in large part because China’s many coal-fired power plants require water for for cooling, as do China’s 17 conventional nuclear reactors.

“Water scarcity is very serious for China,” he said. “Most of the water has been consumed by electricity companies – for coal but also nuclear.”

GIGAWATTS AND GIGAWATTS

Nuclear reactors will help slow the growth of China’s CO2 emissions. The country today gets about 80 percent of its electricity from CO2-spewing fossil fuels. As China ramps up generating capacity to an estimated 3,000 gigawatts by 2030 – more than double today’s level – it will need to find low-carbon sources to mitigate climate change consequences.

Hongjie is the director of CAS’ of Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (TMSR), based at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, overseeing what he said is a $400 million project (China has described it in the past as $350 million). He calls the solid fuel reactor a “TMSR-SF,” and the liquid reactor a “TMSR-LF”.

One of two timelines (see below) that Hu included in his presentation showed that he expects to complete a 2-megawatt pilot for the solid fuel version by around 2015, and a 100-MW demonstrator model of the same by 2024, before readying it for live use in 2035 in “small modular” form (general industry nomenclature would call the solid fuel version an “FHR”, or fluoride salt-cooled high temperature reactor).

That timeline did not show a target date for a 2-MW liquid-fueled pilot reactor, which a year ago appeared to have slipped from 2017 to 2020. It did, however, show a 10-MW liquid-fueled pilot at around 2024, and a demonstrator version by 2035. It did not include a commercialization date. “For liquid, we still need the financial support from the government,” Hongjie said (story continues below chart).

China's TMSR Schedules(Where does India stand in this regard???)



Solidifying the future. The solid fuel (TMSR-SF) molten salt cooled thorium reactor will be ready before the liquid fuel model (LF).

Xongjie explained that the liquid version requires more complicated development than the solid version, such as “reprocessing of highly radioactive fuel salts.” But the reprocessing, when worked out, will become an advantage because it will allow re-use of spent fuel, whereas the “open” fuel cycle of the solid version will not, he noted. Hongjie said that the solid fuel version is a “precursor” to the liquid-fuel reactor.

A second timeline showed plans for developing larger TMSRs, with a 1-gigawatt capacity. It showed “commercialization” for the solid fuel version by around 2040, when the liquid 1-GW machine would reach a “demonstrator” state. The timeline does not show commercialization plans for the 1-GW liquid version. It does, however, show that a 2-MW “experimental” liquid TMSR could by ready by around 2017 (story continues below chart).


This slide, part of Hu Xongjie’s presentation, shows the timeline for a large TMSR, and suggests it would be used for hydrogen production.

After his presentation, I asked Hongjie to clarify the difference between the two timelines and the state of government financing, but he declined.

The second timeline shows the 1-GW reactors going to work for hydrogen production, a process that China mentioned at last year’s conference, held in Shanghai. Hongjie reiterated that China would combine hydrogen with carbon dioxide to form methanol, a clean energy source.

MULTIPLE USES

China has also talked about using TMSRs for coal gasification, and to convert coal to olefin and coal to diesel.

Hongjie told me the TMSRs would be used for electricity generation as well, although one slide in his presentation notes that the aim is to develop “non-electric” applications. Earlier this week at the conference, Nobel prize winning physicist Carlo Rubbia repeated an observation of his from a few years ago that China could generate the 2007 equivalent of its total electricity production – 3.2 trillion kWh, using a relatively small amount of thorium.

With those ambitious plans and with the program currently funded at around $400 million, Hongjie suggested that at some next stage the TMSR program will need an extra $2 billion “for the whole alternatives.”

China is collaborating with the U.S. Department of Energy on the molten salt-cooled reactor, which is the only publicly declared MSR programme in the world with funding in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

The four-day ThEC, which ended on Thursday, included a clarion call from former UN weapons inspector Hans Blix for thorium fuel as an anti-proliferation choice, and an equally loud entreaty by Rubbia who said thorium has “pre-eminence” over uranium, the conventional nuclear fuel. One big uranium devotee, nuclear giant Areva, announced a thorium collaboration with Belgian chemical company Solvay.

The conference, on the campus of international physics lab CERN, featured lively discussions of how best to deploy thorium, including driving them with particle accelerators, and using uranium isotopes to start a thorium fission reaction.

Photo of Hu Xongjie and Anil Kakodkar is by Mark Halper.

Charts are from Hu Xongjie’s ThEC13 presentation.


such articles can only make happy " giga stupid " like you !
 
Great going India. :smitten:



I didn't know that, please post more on this!! :what:

It is supposed to be a 60 lakh (Some say its 48 and some say its 60 - merely speculations) crore scam if it ever happened - it is just a speculation - But then you have the corruption champion at the center the Congress so anything can happen. if it did happen then the loss to the public exchequer would be around $1 Trillion - But as of now its just a speculation and I expect it to be the same at least! Anyways no need to worry as Yes thorium was illegally exported that's for sure but I think the reports are widely exaggerated! I don't think so its as big as this - if it would have been then the CAG would have nailed it down - it does the Annual audit of BARC as well!

What Exactly is this Thorium Scam? | IndiaWires
After coal, did India give away Thorium at pittance too? | Firstpost
The Great Thorium Robbery - CNN iReport
 
World's first only in the wet dreams of dreamy Indians。:rofl:

While some ignorant Indians get high on a preliminary design,China is actually building a new generation thorium molten salt reactors(MSRs)

China eyes thorium MSRs for industrial heat, hydrogen; revises timeline - The Weinberg Foundation

By the time Indians turn their so-called design(with much foreign imports and inputs)into reality,China'd be running quite a few MSRs for commercial and industrial uses。And India would need to rely on China for the necessary components and equipment。:azn:


Your supa powa country is using Russian and Canadian help to build the non -existent thorium technology ....

CANDU Energy Inc. | Candu Signs Expanded Agreement with China to Further Develop Recycled Uranium and Thorium Fuelled CANDU Reactors

" In early 2012, it was reported that China, using components produced by the West and Russia, planned to build two prototype thorium molten salt reactors by 2015, and had budgeted the project at $400 million and requiring 400 workers"

Martin, Richard. Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future. Palgrave – Macmillan (2012)
 
so Chanakya brace up....
you asked for this class last nite :D

Thorium-pie-in-sky.jpg


So thorium reactors are the new hype...and the enthusiastic proponents say these reactors will be “smaller, safer, cheaper, cleaner” will take over the energy market in great numbers...wowww!!!

And ...it will reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years. nohhh???
Truth is some other dream is needed....something that looks a bit more like it might happen. The thorium excitement fits the bill as once again the public can be made to believe that after all the disasters and disappointment now there really is safe, cheap nuclear power....

let me take up the issues one by one
DISCLAIMER: I am not against the use of nuclear energy...but I support the renewable sources of energy more.
And to those who believe that NPPs are necessary evils to them I would say you're being duped by the nuclear energy lobby

1) Now so is the technology is already proven???? Not really.... there are huge technical and engineering challenges in scaling up this experimental design to make a 'production' reactor. The challenge is in developing materials that can both resist corrosion by liquid fluoride salts including diverse fission products, and withstand decades of intense neutron radiation.
Next scaling up fuel reprocessing techniques to deal safely and reliably with large volumes of highly radioactive material at very high temperature.
Further to add to the existing woes will be keeping radioactive releases from the reprocessing operation to an acceptably low level
Last but not the least achieving a full understanding of the thorium fuel cycle.
Dr R K Sinha, chairman, Atomic Energy Commission, in an exclusive interview to India Today Online said, "This reactor could function without an operator for 120 days."
wow!!!
Our DAE has been a complete failure....I have said this many times.It has become their litany since 1970s to encourage nuclear energy.The grand hopes for nuclear power in India must be evaluated in the light of the history of the numerous pronouncements of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) about the dominant role for atomic energy it envisioned and failed to deliver. Somewhere in early 1970 for example it projected 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity by 2000 whereas what materialised was a mere 2,720 MW (OOPS!)

2) I have read this soooo many times that thorium reactors produce far less nuclear waste than conventional solid fuel reactors.Really?????
theoretically true....these are capable of a high fuel burn-up rate but while this may indeed reduce the volume of waste, the waste is more radioactive due to the higher volume of radioactive fission products. The continuous fuel reprocessing that is characteristic of thorium reactors will also produce hazardous chemical and radioactive waste streams, and releases to the environment will be unavoidable.

3) nuclear fusion is still little more than a super expensive glint in the eye of nuclear boffins.It is believed Thorium Reactor design may cut costs compared to conventional reactors but the fact is that the other elements will add cost notably the continuous fuel reprocessing using high temperature 'pyro-processing' technologies. Moreover a costly experimental phase of 20-40 years duration will be required before any 'production' thorium reactors can be built.Good morning!!! :coffee:
It is very hard to predict the cost of the technology that finally emerges but the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing to date suggests that the nuclear fuel produced from breeder reactors is about 50 times more expensive than ‘virgin’ fuel. Ergo it appears probable that any electricity produced from thorium reactors will be expensive.
I believe that the relatively novel or immature energy sources, such as photovoltaic electricity and photo evolved hydrogen will have become well established as low cost technologies long before thorium reactors start producing energy.

4) So ppl say thorium reactors offer a solution to current and medium term energy supply deficits.Again the truth is the thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production thorium reactors will not be deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.
5)We are made to believe that 100% of the thorium is usable as fuel in contrast to the low (0.7%) proportion of fissile 235U in natural uranium.But Thorium must be subjected to neutron irradiation to be transformed into a fissile material suitable for nuclear fuel (uranium, 233U). The same applies to the 238U that makes up depleted uranium which as already observed, is plentiful. In theory 100% of either metal could be bred into nuclear fuel. So there it is as good as uranium NPPs.

6) The claims are thorium reactors do not produce plutonium and so create little or no proliferation hazard....well good...it sounds good too.But an LFTR could (by including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity well above normal weapons-grade presenting a major proliferation hazard.So that claim also fizzled out.

7)Next.....
The latest AHWR design incorporates several passive safety features.
what they mean is that the thorium NPP are intrinsically safe because the reactor operates at low pressure and is and incapable of melting down.True that the design of molten salt reactors does indeed mitigate against reactor meltdown and explosion. But in an throium reactor the main danger has been shifted from the reactor to the on-site continuous fuel reprocessing operation.... a high temperature process involving highly hazardous, explosive and intensely radioactive materials. A further serious hazard lies in the potential failure of the materials used for reactor and fuel containment in a highly corrosive chemical environment, under intense neutron and other radiation.

8)
India's abundant reserves of thorium, constitute 25 per cent of the world's total reserves.
Thorium (232Th) is indeed more abundant than uranium by a factor of three to four. But whereas 0.7% of uranium occurs as fissile 235U none of the thorium is fissile. The world already possesses an estimated 1.2 million tonnes of depleted uranium (mainly 238U), like thorium a fertile but non-fissile material. So the greater abundance of thorium than uranium confers no advantage....whatsoever.
How was your class @Chanakya's_Chant??? :D
I have kept a cane ready in case you are yawning :agree:
 
Indians are really really a funny bunch。:rofl:

“Do More Talk Less” should become India's motto.


India is the world leader in Thorium research .

It has the highest number of publications in this domain ....only followed by united states ....

"Do More Steal Less" should become your motto ...

Your head full of ' giga' stupidity may not be able to take that friendly advise although .
 
so Chanakya brace up....
you asked for this class last nite :D

Thorium-pie-in-sky.jpg


So thorium reactors are the new hype...and the enthusiastic proponents say these reactors will be “smaller, safer, cheaper, cleaner” will take over the energy market in great numbers...wowww!!!

And ...it will reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years. nohhh???
Truth is some other dream is needed....something that looks a bit more like it might happen. The thorium excitement fits the bill as once again the public can be made to believe that after all the disasters and disappointment now there really is safe, cheap nuclear power....

let me take up the issues one by one
DISCLAIMER: I am not against the use of nuclear energy...but I support the renewable sources of energy more.
And to those who believe that NPPs are necessary evils to them I would say you're being duped by the nuclear energy lobby

1) Now so is the technology is already proven???? Not really.... there are huge technical and engineering challenges in scaling up this experimental design to make a 'production' reactor. The challenge is in developing materials that can both resist corrosion by liquid fluoride salts including diverse fission products, and withstand decades of intense neutron radiation.
Next scaling up fuel reprocessing techniques to deal safely and reliably with large volumes of highly radioactive material at very high temperature.
Further to add to the existing woes will be keeping radioactive releases from the reprocessing operation to an acceptably low level
Last but not the least achieving a full understanding of the thorium fuel cycle.

wow!!!
Our DAE has been a complete failure....I have said this many times.It has become their litany since 1970s to encourage nuclear energy.The grand hopes for nuclear power in India must be evaluated in the light of the history of the numerous pronouncements of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) about the dominant role for atomic energy it envisioned and failed to deliver. Somewhere in early 1970 for example it projected 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity by 2000 whereas what materialised was a mere 2,720 MW (OOPS!)

2) I have read this soooo many times that thorium reactors produce far less nuclear waste than conventional solid fuel reactors.Really?????
theoretically true....these are capable of a high fuel burn-up rate but while this may indeed reduce the volume of waste, the waste is more radioactive due to the higher volume of radioactive fission products. The continuous fuel reprocessing that is characteristic of thorium reactors will also produce hazardous chemical and radioactive waste streams, and releases to the environment will be unavoidable.

3) nuclear fusion is still little more than a super expensive glint in the eye of nuclear boffins.It is believed Thorium Reactor design may cut costs compared to conventional reactors but the fact is that the other elements will add cost notably the continuous fuel reprocessing using high temperature 'pyro-processing' technologies. Moreover a costly experimental phase of 20-40 years duration will be required before any 'production' thorium reactors can be built.Good morning!!! :coffee:
It is very hard to predict the cost of the technology that finally emerges but the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing to date suggests that the nuclear fuel produced from breeder reactors is about 50 times more expensive than ‘virgin’ fuel. Ergo it appears probable that any electricity produced from thorium reactors will be expensive.
I believe that the relatively novel or immature energy sources, such as photovoltaic electricity and photo evolved hydrogen will have become well established as low cost technologies long before thorium reactors start producing energy.

4) So ppl say thorium reactors offer a solution to current and medium term energy supply deficits.Again the truth is the thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production thorium reactors will not be deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.
5)We are made to believe that 100% of the thorium is usable as fuel in contrast to the low (0.7%) proportion of fissile 235U in natural uranium.But Thorium must be subjected to neutron irradiation to be transformed into a fissile material suitable for nuclear fuel (uranium, 233U). The same applies to the 238U that makes up depleted uranium which as already observed, is plentiful. In theory 100% of either metal could be bred into nuclear fuel. So there it is as good as uranium NPPs.

6) The claims are thorium reactors do not produce plutonium and so create little or no proliferation hazard....well good...it sounds good too.But an LFTR could (by including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity well above normal weapons-grade presenting a major proliferation hazard.So that claim also fizzled out.

7)Next.....

what they mean is that the thorium NPP are intrinsically safe because the reactor operates at low pressure and is and incapable of melting down.True that the design of molten salt reactors does indeed mitigate against reactor meltdown and explosion. But in an throium reactor the main danger has been shifted from the reactor to the on-site continuous fuel reprocessing operation.... a high temperature process involving highly hazardous, explosive and intensely radioactive materials. A further serious hazard lies in the potential failure of the materials used for reactor and fuel containment in a highly corrosive chemical environment, under intense neutron and other radiation.

8)
Thorium (232Th) is indeed more abundant than uranium by a factor of three to four. But whereas 0.7% of uranium occurs as fissile 235U none of the thorium is fissile. The world already possesses an estimated 1.2 million tonnes of depleted uranium (mainly 238U), like thorium a fertile but non-fissile material. So the greater abundance of thorium than uranium confers no advantage....whatsoever.
How was your class @Chanakya's_Chant??? :D
I have kept a cane ready in case you are yawning :agree:

Did you woke up the whole night to do this research?? :o: :o: :o: Please give me 48 hours time for a suitable reply :agree: Either you are a very serious NPP hater or a very serious Renewable energy lover! :D
 
Last edited:
Did you woke up the whole night to do this research :o: :o: :o: Please give me 48 hours time for a suitable reply :agree:

From past few weeks boys on the forum were at loggerheads with me over this issue.
So I had bookmarked some of the content that I had posted here and there on this site.Today I just compiled it into one :D
 
Indians are really really a funny bunch。:rofl:

“Do More Talk Less” should become India's motto.

Our leadership in Thorium research is well appreciated by world except off course narrow minded Chinese .


" This would be the best in the world facility to obtain benchmark data for Thorium based reactors " - Mr Harold Mcfarlen Former president American Nuclear association .



so Chanakya brace up....
you asked for this class last nite :D

Thorium-pie-in-sky.jpg


So thorium reactors are the new hype...and the enthusiastic proponents say these reactors will be “smaller, safer, cheaper, cleaner” will take over the energy market in great numbers...wowww!!!

And ...it will reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years. nohhh???
Truth is some other dream is needed....something that looks a bit more like it might happen. The thorium excitement fits the bill as once again the public can be made to believe that after all the disasters and disappointment now there really is safe, cheap nuclear power....

let me take up the issues one by one
DISCLAIMER: I am not against the use of nuclear energy...but I support the renewable sources of energy more.
And to those who believe that NPPs are necessary evils to them I would say you're being duped by the nuclear energy lobby

1) Now so is the technology is already proven???? Not really.... there are huge technical and engineering challenges in scaling up this experimental design to make a 'production' reactor. The challenge is in developing materials that can both resist corrosion by liquid fluoride salts including diverse fission products, and withstand decades of intense neutron radiation.
Next scaling up fuel reprocessing techniques to deal safely and reliably with large volumes of highly radioactive material at very high temperature.
Further to add to the existing woes will be keeping radioactive releases from the reprocessing operation to an acceptably low level
Last but not the least achieving a full understanding of the thorium fuel cycle.

wow!!!
Our DAE has been a complete failure....I have said this many times.It has become their litany since 1970s to encourage nuclear energy.The grand hopes for nuclear power in India must be evaluated in the light of the history of the numerous pronouncements of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) about the dominant role for atomic energy it envisioned and failed to deliver. Somewhere in early 1970 for example it projected 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity by 2000 whereas what materialised was a mere 2,720 MW (OOPS!)

2) I have read this soooo many times that thorium reactors produce far less nuclear waste than conventional solid fuel reactors.Really?????
theoretically true....these are capable of a high fuel burn-up rate but while this may indeed reduce the volume of waste, the waste is more radioactive due to the higher volume of radioactive fission products. The continuous fuel reprocessing that is characteristic of thorium reactors will also produce hazardous chemical and radioactive waste streams, and releases to the environment will be unavoidable.

3) nuclear fusion is still little more than a super expensive glint in the eye of nuclear boffins.It is believed Thorium Reactor design may cut costs compared to conventional reactors but the fact is that the other elements will add cost notably the continuous fuel reprocessing using high temperature 'pyro-processing' technologies. Moreover a costly experimental phase of 20-40 years duration will be required before any 'production' thorium reactors can be built.Good morning!!! :coffee:
It is very hard to predict the cost of the technology that finally emerges but the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing to date suggests that the nuclear fuel produced from breeder reactors is about 50 times more expensive than ‘virgin’ fuel. Ergo it appears probable that any electricity produced from thorium reactors will be expensive.
I believe that the relatively novel or immature energy sources, such as photovoltaic electricity and photo evolved hydrogen will have become well established as low cost technologies long before thorium reactors start producing energy.

4) So ppl say thorium reactors offer a solution to current and medium term energy supply deficits.Again the truth is the thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production thorium reactors will not be deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.
5)We are made to believe that 100% of the thorium is usable as fuel in contrast to the low (0.7%) proportion of fissile 235U in natural uranium.But Thorium must be subjected to neutron irradiation to be transformed into a fissile material suitable for nuclear fuel (uranium, 233U). The same applies to the 238U that makes up depleted uranium which as already observed, is plentiful. In theory 100% of either metal could be bred into nuclear fuel. So there it is as good as uranium NPPs.

6) The claims are thorium reactors do not produce plutonium and so create little or no proliferation hazard....well good...it sounds good too.But an LFTR could (by including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity well above normal weapons-grade presenting a major proliferation hazard.So that claim also fizzled out.

7)Next.....

what they mean is that the thorium NPP are intrinsically safe because the reactor operates at low pressure and is and incapable of melting down.True that the design of molten salt reactors does indeed mitigate against reactor meltdown and explosion. But in an throium reactor the main danger has been shifted from the reactor to the on-site continuous fuel reprocessing operation.... a high temperature process involving highly hazardous, explosive and intensely radioactive materials. A further serious hazard lies in the potential failure of the materials used for reactor and fuel containment in a highly corrosive chemical environment, under intense neutron and other radiation.

8)
Thorium (232Th) is indeed more abundant than uranium by a factor of three to four. But whereas 0.7% of uranium occurs as fissile 235U none of the thorium is fissile. The world already possesses an estimated 1.2 million tonnes of depleted uranium (mainly 238U), like thorium a fertile but non-fissile material. So the greater abundance of thorium than uranium confers no advantage....whatsoever.
How was your class @Chanakya's_Chant??? :D
I have kept a cane ready in case you are yawning :agree:


this particular article is full of lot of biases and untruth .

the last line itself sums up it well .

Greater abundance of Thorium than uranium confers no advantage ...whatsoever ! is complete lie

may be for other nations ...but not for India . that's the caveate .
the last line makes a bold statement but tries to hide the truth by referring to world .

We have enormous stakes given abundant thorium reserves ....that's why India has emerged as leader in thorium research .

The implications for save our Uranium reserves and exponentially increasing our Plutonium production are immense .


I will not go by biased opinion of some disgruntled scientist as against that of established consensus opinion of our scientific community .
 
Last edited:
this particular article is full of lot of biases and untruth .

the last line itself sums up it well .

Greater abundance of Thorium than uranium confers no advantage ...whatsoever ! is complete lie

may be for other nations ...but not for India . that's the caveate .
the last line makes a bold statement but tries to hide the truth by referring to world .

We have enormous stakes given abundant thorium reserves ....that's why India has emerged as leader in thorium research .

The implications for save our Uranium reserves and exponentially increasing our Plutonium production are immense .

I will not go by biased opinion of some disgruntled scientist as against that of established consensus opinion of our scientific community .
Di you read the first half of my post??? :coffee:
I have said it in big bold letters the disadvantages of Thorium NPPs.... including the time,the cost of technology development, construction and operation....the hype about it being safe...
 
so Chanakya brace up....
you asked for this class last nite :D

Thorium-pie-in-sky.jpg


So thorium reactors are the new hype...and the enthusiastic proponents say these reactors will be “smaller, safer, cheaper, cleaner” will take over the energy market in great numbers...wowww!!!

And ...it will reinvent the global energy landscape and sketch an end to our dependence on fossil fuels within three to five years. nohhh???
Truth is some other dream is needed....something that looks a bit more like it might happen. The thorium excitement fits the bill as once again the public can be made to believe that after all the disasters and disappointment now there really is safe, cheap nuclear power....

let me take up the issues one by one
DISCLAIMER: I am not against the use of nuclear energy...but I support the renewable sources of energy more.
And to those who believe that NPPs are necessary evils to them I would say you're being duped by the nuclear energy lobby

1) Now so is the technology is already proven???? Not really.... there are huge technical and engineering challenges in scaling up this experimental design to make a 'production' reactor. The challenge is in developing materials that can both resist corrosion by liquid fluoride salts including diverse fission products, and withstand decades of intense neutron radiation.
Next scaling up fuel reprocessing techniques to deal safely and reliably with large volumes of highly radioactive material at very high temperature.
Further to add to the existing woes will be keeping radioactive releases from the reprocessing operation to an acceptably low level
Last but not the least achieving a full understanding of the thorium fuel cycle.

wow!!!
Our DAE has been a complete failure....I have said this many times.It has become their litany since 1970s to encourage nuclear energy.The grand hopes for nuclear power in India must be evaluated in the light of the history of the numerous pronouncements of the Department of Atomic Energy (DAE) about the dominant role for atomic energy it envisioned and failed to deliver. Somewhere in early 1970 for example it projected 43,500 MW of nuclear generating capacity by 2000 whereas what materialised was a mere 2,720 MW (OOPS!)

2) I have read this soooo many times that thorium reactors produce far less nuclear waste than conventional solid fuel reactors.Really?????
theoretically true....these are capable of a high fuel burn-up rate but while this may indeed reduce the volume of waste, the waste is more radioactive due to the higher volume of radioactive fission products. The continuous fuel reprocessing that is characteristic of thorium reactors will also produce hazardous chemical and radioactive waste streams, and releases to the environment will be unavoidable.

3) nuclear fusion is still little more than a super expensive glint in the eye of nuclear boffins.It is believed Thorium Reactor design may cut costs compared to conventional reactors but the fact is that the other elements will add cost notably the continuous fuel reprocessing using high temperature 'pyro-processing' technologies. Moreover a costly experimental phase of 20-40 years duration will be required before any 'production' thorium reactors can be built.Good morning!!! :coffee:
It is very hard to predict the cost of the technology that finally emerges but the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing to date suggests that the nuclear fuel produced from breeder reactors is about 50 times more expensive than ‘virgin’ fuel. Ergo it appears probable that any electricity produced from thorium reactors will be expensive.
I believe that the relatively novel or immature energy sources, such as photovoltaic electricity and photo evolved hydrogen will have become well established as low cost technologies long before thorium reactors start producing energy.

4) So ppl say thorium reactors offer a solution to current and medium term energy supply deficits.Again the truth is the thorium fuel cycle is immature. Estimates from the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory and the Chinese Academy of Sciences suggest that 10-15 years of research will be needed before thorium fuels are ready to be deployed in existing reactor designs. Production thorium reactors will not be deployable on any significant scale for 40-70 years.
5)We are made to believe that 100% of the thorium is usable as fuel in contrast to the low (0.7%) proportion of fissile 235U in natural uranium.But Thorium must be subjected to neutron irradiation to be transformed into a fissile material suitable for nuclear fuel (uranium, 233U). The same applies to the 238U that makes up depleted uranium which as already observed, is plentiful. In theory 100% of either metal could be bred into nuclear fuel. So there it is as good as uranium NPPs.

6) The claims are thorium reactors do not produce plutonium and so create little or no proliferation hazard....well good...it sounds good too.But an LFTR could (by including 238U in the fuel) be adapted to produce plutonium of a high purity well above normal weapons-grade presenting a major proliferation hazard.So that claim also fizzled out.

7)Next.....

what they mean is that the thorium NPP are intrinsically safe because the reactor operates at low pressure and is and incapable of melting down.True that the design of molten salt reactors does indeed mitigate against reactor meltdown and explosion. But in an throium reactor the main danger has been shifted from the reactor to the on-site continuous fuel reprocessing operation.... a high temperature process involving highly hazardous, explosive and intensely radioactive materials. A further serious hazard lies in the potential failure of the materials used for reactor and fuel containment in a highly corrosive chemical environment, under intense neutron and other radiation.

8)
Thorium (232Th) is indeed more abundant than uranium by a factor of three to four. But whereas 0.7% of uranium occurs as fissile 235U none of the thorium is fissile. The world already possesses an estimated 1.2 million tonnes of depleted uranium (mainly 238U), like thorium a fertile but non-fissile material. So the greater abundance of thorium than uranium confers no advantage....whatsoever.
How was your class @Chanakya's_Chant??? :D
I have kept a cane ready in case you are yawning :agree:


Here is the IGCAR document dwelling upon safety issue of PFBR


" Sodium cooled fast reactors have several inherent and engineered safety features.
Further for PFBR, robust safety features have been incorporated and qualified based on
extensive theoretical and experimental testing and evaluations, which have been
reviewed elaborately through multi-tier review process under Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board. With these justifications, it can be stated with high confidence that there is no
concern on core melt down accident and associated mechanical consequences such as
failure of containment system in PFBR."


Severe Accident Assessment for PFBR: Designer’s Perspective

http://www.igcar.ernet.in/press_releases/severe_accident.pdf

Di you read the first half of my post??? :coffee:
I have said it in big bold letters the disadvantages of Thorium NPPs.... including the time,the cost of technology development, construction and operation....the hype about it being safe...

I did read whole of the article .

just because it may be bit more costly in intial phase does not make it useless .

We already in process to start Prototype Commercial Fast Breeder Reactor . we have shown that it is economically viable .

we are going ahead with 6 other Fast Breeder reactors....

and the design can be scaled up.

Strategic importance of FBR scores above everything ....

Do you know what will be the impact over our capability to produce Plutonium ????
 
Its is not exported from TN and Kerala.Sands from our area specially Kerala IRE area is go to TN and then a tuticorin based business extracts some of these elements and rest of sand is go for construction.Thorium is future technology even US dont master it ,So why the hell they can export mere sand?

Man, Monozite contains rare earth minerals other than thorium too. It goes for a lot of money. Its an open secret to anyone in TN. Sands are exploited in the name of construction. But it really went into construction? No-one knows.!
 
Thanks to this fucking congress government! Reports suggest that since the UPA government assumed office in 2004 with Manmohan Singh as Prime Minister, 2.1 million tones of monazite, equivalent to 195,300 tonnes of thorium at 9.3 per cent recovery, has disappeared from the shores of India. If this report is right then its really horrible! Thorium is the key to India's Energy Security! I wonder why this thing didn't came into limelight despite being a matter of grave concern!
These Congress bozos are involved in this massive scam! The money is going into their party coffers and in their pockets too!

You think they're bothered about energy security? They're more interested in their own financial security! The country be damned. It's people be damned!
 
Here is the IGCAR document dwelling upon safety issue of PFBR


" Sodium cooled fast reactors have several inherent and engineered safety features.
Further for PFBR, robust safety features have been incorporated and qualified based on
extensive theoretical and experimental testing and evaluations, which have been
reviewed elaborately through multi-tier review process under Atomic Energy Regulatory
Board. With these justifications, it can be stated with high confidence that there is no
concern on core melt down accident
and associated mechanical consequences such as
failure of containment system in PFBR."
you gotta be kidding me.... "no concern"????
a"100% safe” is scientifically untenable... every nuclear reactor has a finite, albeit small probability of undergoing a catastrophic failure. And I am not going into the details of a catastrophe .....the name Chernobyl is enough if there are expunged memories.

Sodium cooled fast reactors have several inherent and engineered safety features.
It was thought that Breeder reactors could be as safe and reliable as light water reactor but safety issues are cited as a concern with fast reactors that use a sodium coolant where a leak could lead to a sodium fire.

I did read whole of the article .
just because it may be bit more costly in intial phase does not make it useless .
i stated this very clearly that.......It is very hard to predict the cost of the technology that finally emerges but the economics of nuclear fuel reprocessing to date suggests that the nuclear fuel produced from breeder reactors is about 50 times more expensive than ‘virgin’ fuel. Ergo it appears probable that any electricity produced from thorium reactors will be expensive.
 

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom