The raw fuel for a LFTR reactor is Thorium Fluoride (ThF4) which is easily made. What the "author" of that Wiki entry is indicating by saying "thorium requires irradiation" means that to "start the engine" you need a kick of Uranium 233. It is poorly worded, and the reference (14) in the notes only points back to the article itself.
Here is the catch with U233. It IS required to start the initial reaction in a LFTR. Once the reaction is going, LFTR creates its own U233 to perpetuate the process.
So, where do you get U233? Good question, glad I asked! It is not naturally occurring. There is a LARGE stockpile at the Oak Ridge facility where the initial thorium reactor was built in 1954. And sadly, the US government is actually paying to decommission (destroy) it as we speak.
Bottom line, no, the fuel for a LFTR is easily made and inexpensive.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Shawnski For This Useful Post:
Shawnski, it seems you're reading my posts as if I am an opponent to the LFTR, quite the opposite.
The fuel in the LFTR is not resitricted to ThF4, ThO2, or other forms of Thorium, that's the beauty of it! (and subesquently the reason it is able to use old nuclear wastes as you've stated in this thread already) One of the problems is that, while this element is abundant, and one of its naturally occuring forms is a waste stream of REE mining - the simple fact is that no one is set up to produce commercial quanitites of it for use in power generation. That takes investment, approval and a market to sell it to. People like Kirk are trying to create a market for this fuel by designing something that will utilize it, but as it stands right now, it is a chicken and egg scenario - this is where governments usually step in so that the process can get kick started... why its not happening in North America with something that has as tremendous potential as the LFTR is beyond me (as we've discussed, Russia, France and China are making R&D investments into this tech). Second, the carrier salt in the primary loop needs to have a specific isotope of Lithium so it doesn't absorb too much of the beta decay radiation (the aspect of the reaction that keeps the Thorium fissile). This is a problem specifically because the current means of enriching the lithium salt is based on a mercury leaching process that is the opposite of environmentall friendly. There are promising alternatives, but again... investment, ownership of IP, government approval (especially given that one of the by-products of the lithium enrichment process is a lithium isotope that is a controlled product because of its use in increasing payload of nuclear warheads, among other uses) all need to happen in order for this FLiBe salt to be produced in any meaningful commercial quantities... that's what I am getting at that the supply chain for the fuel and salt require as much work as the reactor itself.
EDIT: I should add that IThEMS folding is actually tragic but I do not think it is related to this technology being infesible... I simply found their company structure and revenue projections compelling... and that they would have been a natural partner for Flibe given that both firms are privately funded. The exciting part for me was the amount of credible talent that two independent firms were attracting for this technology, worlds apart. Part of me was also pleased to see that General Electric was not part of the mix as they can be monsters with their patents. This technology needs to see the light of day. Sadly due to the regulation related with things like this, the "gamer" scenario that you describe can happen - as a matter of fact it is very probable that the minds behind these designs have the technical challenges licked, but they are fighting the interia generated by an entire industry that is centred around the Uranium-Plutonium fuel cycle, all the miners, patents, manufacturers, engineering, weapons and military benefits... etc.. The policitcal will is not great enough at this point and that's why the average person needs to be made aware of the potential of the Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle (or as I like to call it - the way nuclear should have been) in order to create an entirely new and independent political and public will to push it into reality.
U-233 can also be produced through an enrichment process - the ORNL stockpiles were created as such and it would be foolish to simply eliminate them without proper utilization.
Also, here is a great site summarizing the variety of nuclear reactor designs that are on the drawing board today... it would certainly be great if this sort of innovation was allowed to see the light of day, but its not really going anywhere meaningful. Personally, my money is on the LFTR.
For something more to the point of the film and less about Thorium/Nuclear, here is an interesting article that discusses the relationship between growth in energy demand and its link to the "constant growth economy" - a paradigm that has been causing us trouble for years. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/...-bunkty-to-me/
Last edited by SeeGeeWhy; 11-21-2011 at 01:45 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to SeeGeeWhy For This Useful Post:
i've only skimmed over the thread, but one category that nobody seems to be mentioning is the amount of oil related products that the industrial food system relies on. if i'm not mistaken, the food system is the single largest consumer of petrochemicals.
on that food note, a backyard garden can solve most the worlds problems.
i've only skimmed over the thread, but one category that nobody seems to be mentioning is the amount of oil related products that the industrial food system relies on. if i'm not mistaken, the food system is the single largest consumer of petrochemicals.
on that food note, a backyard garden can solve most the worlds problems.
Thanks for the response, and when we look at how petrochemicals impact us, the food system will definitely be covered.
For something more to the point of the film and less about Thorium/Nuclear, here is an interesting article that discusses the relationship between growth in energy demand and its link to the "constant growth economy" - a paradigm that has been causing us trouble for years. http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/...-bunkty-to-me/[/QUOTE]
Thank you for the link. Really great article, and relevant to some of the major themes of my project.
I am interested in donating, but have one concern.
If I donate money to the project, and the project isn't realized (i.e.: insufficient funds donated), how do you proceed with the donations received? Will they be returned? Will you try to secure donations from another source to supplement donations?
Also, will you be able to issue tax receipts for donations received?
I am interested in donating, but have one concern.
If I donate money to the project, and the project isn't realized (i.e.: insufficient funds donated), how do you proceed with the donations received? Will they be returned? Will you try to secure donations from another source to supplement donations?
Also, will you be able to issue tax receipts for donations received?
Good question. This Indiegogo campaign is one portion of the financing of a $9 million budget. Financing will be coming through a number of different sources including government (Provincial and Federal), sponsorship, and investment.
The contributions on Indiegogo are in exchange for rewards based on the level of contribution - i.e.. copies of the finished programs and other rewards. If for some reason the project does not happen - highly unlikely at this point - momentum is gathering rapidly - contributions would be returned.
I am pursuing the potential of a local foundation that will allow us to raise funds in exchange for a tax receipt. Will update on this soon.
Good question. This Indiegogo campaign is one portion of the financing of a $9 million budget. Financing will be coming through a number of different sources including government (Provincial and Federal), sponsorship, and investment.
The contributions on Indiegogo are in exchange for rewards based on the level of contribution - i.e.. copies of the finished programs and other rewards. If for some reason the project does not happen - highly unlikely at this point - momentum is gathering rapidly - contributions would be returned.
I am pursuing the potential of a local foundation that will allow us to raise funds in exchange for a tax receipt. Will update on this soon.
Let me know if you have any other questions.
Thank you for your response.
Two more questions!
How can I get a copy of Pay Dirt? Is it available for digital download?
Are you receiving any funding from industry related sources?
How can I get a copy of Pay Dirt? Is it available for digital download?
Are you receiving any funding from industry related sources?
Currently the only place I know of to buy copies of Pay Dirt is at the Oil Sands Discovery Centre in Fort Mac. They play the history (part one) every day. I'm not part of that company any more (but I have some plans to get it into distribution and for digital download)
I am working on funding from various sources including energy industry (not just oil sands)
There is also an article about the project in the December issue of Oilsands Review.
From the article.
Quote:
The United States, for example, is looking at boosting wind power’s contribution to its electricity supply to a whopping 20 per cent by 2030.
I think I mentioned earlier in this thread that Canada was looking at doing the same thing.
I like the idea of renewable, especially after having grown up in southern Alberta with all the windmills, but I think we're not approaching it in the right way. Which is why I like what you're doing so much.
It is not naturally occurring. There is a LARGE stockpile at the Oak Ridge facility where the initial thorium reactor was built in 1954. And sadly, the US government is actually paying to decommission (destroy) it as we speak.
