Added: 2 years ago
From: gordonmcdowell
Views: 2,972
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (9)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • why don't we just use this semi nuclear reactor to create energy instead of extracting fossil fuels... the energy could be put to electric cars and the power grid...

  • Everybody needs to be informed

    DEMAND THE THORIUM FUTURE!

    Molten salt reactors can make Yucca storage obsolete, have much less waste that decays back down to lead one thousand times faster than todays over pressurized and dangerous LWR's ,thus these are best!

  • Thorium has little chance in Canada, with such good conventional reactors and foreign interest in CANDU, you think LFTR would be adopted even if it could be vastly superior?

    I have a feeling LFTR will be adopted in a nation which doesn't have a good nuclear program or is very open to things.... Russia, India, Korea.

  • @HWGuyEG I'm inclined to agree with you, CANDU has a good reputation and is not the light-water reactor LFTR gets compared to frequently. But I do think Alberta oil sands offer a unique opportunity for testing technology... doing ANYTHING to increase efficiency might be considered by the province, and LFTR could replace the burning of natural gas (heat energy needed).

    Canada might not be a good target market overall, but Alberta might be.

  • I think that uranium supply will be getting abit tighter...Notice spikes/rises in price when Cameco's Cigar Lake mine hit major snags for past three years.

    India also made strides in this are while it had limited access to uranium.

    Finally, there are great operational benefits to a design that allows for continuous (liquid) refuelling, rather than costly shut downs, and moving parts maintenance, fuel rod replacement, and re-start cycles for conventiona core designs.

  • woah woah woah... geez slow this down some

  • At best, LFTR will be a few research projects and prototypes which will mysteriously get axed like in the 70's.

    Instead of refueling, operators would need to reprocess. And its certainly not as simple as physically removing and replacing bundles nowadays.

    Also prob of seting up many LFTRs.. need U233, so a long time breeding Thorium and waiting for it to decay.

    As others point out, nuclear makes money from fuel, and while Uranium is cheap and plentiful no cause to disturb status quo.

  • @deimos47ca It's a chemical reprocess, not nuclear. Not at all the same thing. And it's continous reprocessing, so there's simply a "chemical plant" in the cycle.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more