Ok so I have looked heavily in liquid fluoride thorium ractors and i have yet really to see a down side...

that's pretty cool.

So i know this is lame, but i wanna know why you think they arent more popular? I've seen these threads on sci before and i remember it being refuted pretty quickly each time, so much so that it became sort of a meme.

Here's a quote from one of those posts.
"
>I'd like to know what the big obstacle is, if only for ammunition against these people.
No big obstacle. It's just not some miracle technology. Thorium reactors must be breeder reactors. Breeder reactors can end up with somewhat less waste than U235 reactors, but they're also more expensive, more complicated, less developed, more prone to radioisotope leakage, and present a greater proliferation threat.

Thorium-uranium breeders are less developed than uranium-plutonium breeders, which means they'll require more research and development to get going and probably have more delays and accidents for a long time.

It's still just nuclear power, with the usual concerns of high cost, catastrophic risk, non-catastrophic environmental/health issues, and nuclear weapon proliferation.

Claims that switching to thorium dramatically improves on the basic value proposition of nuclear power are hype and wishful thinking.
"

Sorry to rehash old posts but is it not relevant?

it operates at 700C and the reaction self regulates based on thermal neutrons

gets too hot less fissions occur so it cools off
gets too cold and more fissions will occur and it heats up

Light water reactors probably are easier to build, getting hotter and less fission occurring doesn't imply it has some practical limit for its power?

> It's just not some miracle technology
it was developed and a reactor was functional and operating at oak ridge until the 70s

>more expensive
im not sure of the costs but the designs ive seen show them as far smaller (less building materials)
> less developed

true, though i doubt it would be that hard to catch up borrowing from other reactor technologies that have been produced since theyve been discontinued

>more prone to radioisotope leakage
unsure, ive never heard of that problem but seeing as is a liquid i could understand where thats coming from. this is the kind of refutation i was looking for, ill look into it more

>present a greater proliferation threat
they present 0 proliferation threat, none of the byproducts can be used in nuclear weapons
in fact if its htinkable theyd have a negative threat as these things caoul run on current waste stockpiles and im pretty sure can even eat up nuclear weapons

>Thorium-uranium breeders are less developed than uranium-plutonium breeders, which means they'll require more research and development to get going and probably have more delays and accidents for a long time.

i wont argue that though i dont think the accidents will be nearly as severe as the ones from things like fast breeders

the worst thing i can think over would be in a water cooled verion there would be a leak causing a steam flash, but containment cells have been since created for this event already. they can run on gasses like CO2 though which couldnt flash as theyre already gas eleiminating that threat

essentially you could trade out a rankine cycle reactor for a brayton cycle one thats safer

>It's still just nuclear power, with the usual concerns of high cost, catastrophic risk, non-catastrophic environmental/health issues, and nuclear weapon proliferation.

see earlier

>" catastrophic risk"
there is none, meltdowns are impossible do to:

you can step up the power by making it bigger and running more generators on it

and the fact that less fissions occur as it gets warmer is the safeguard that it doesnt meltdown, this is passively engineered btw as it is a physical mechanism inherent to the nuclear reaction and not an intervention based on mechanical things like control rods

The way i see it is Brayton cycle running reactors could develop power and other reactors could simply generate unpressurized steam on coastlines to be condensed into drinking water

sorry inever answered the actual question in i dont think theyre popular since they were discontinued by nixon since they couldnt work in developing bombs and all the nuclear accidents that have happened with nuclear power since

not to mention humanitys intro to nuclear power was a bunch of nukes being dropped everywhere and fear of the damn apocalypse

now weapons and power are tied through the word nuclear and everyone now simply thinks
nuclear = bad

fukishima didnt help..

>cant be used for nuclear proliferation
Now you know why they were dropped.

thats exactly the reason

Nuclear is WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY overhyped right now:
technologyreview.com/s/603731/nuclear-energy-startup-transatomic-backtracks-on-key-promises/

This is actually the case, the lead project head on the Oak Ridge reactor, Alan Weinberg, was fired by Nixon for advocating R&D on the MSR. Because it couldn't be used for proliferation and creating nuclear weapons was a primary component of nuclear power at the time using fast breeders, they cut the funding and shelved the project, though I think they did revive it later under Carter only for it to get shelved again.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg
>Weinberg was fired by the Nixon administration from ORNL in 1973 after 18 years as the laboratory's director, because he continued to advocate increased nuclear safety and molten salt reactors (MSRs), instead of the Administration's chosen Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) that the AEC's Director of Reactor Division, Milton Shaw, was appointed to develop. Weinberg's firing effectively halted development of the MSR, as it was virtually unknown by other nuclear laboratories and specialists.[43] There was a brief revival of MSR research at ORNL as part of the Carter administration's nonproliferation interests, culminating in ORNL-TM-7207, "Conceptual Design Characteristics of a Denatured Molten-Salt Reactor with Once-Through Fueling", by Engel, et al., which is still considered by many to be the "reference design" for commercial molten salt reactors.

I'm not saying the technology is perfect, but we have done such little R&D on the MSR concept that it's just a damn shame. Who knows where nuclear energy would be today if funding was very expansive for these types of projects.

did you actually read that article or just the headline?

This sort of "proliferation threat" is fucking nonsense crippling the Nuclear industry

Why would power plants in the USA be a proliferation threat? And we could use all the extra plutonium to make nuclear pulse propulsion vehicles(or just use it for power plants)

Ah thorium produces U233, same shit.

"Those lofty claims helped it raise millions in venture capital, secure a series of glowing media profiles (including one in this publication), and draw a rock-star lineup of technical advisors. But in a paper on its site dated November 2016, the company downgraded “75 times” to “more than twice.” In addition, it now specifies that the design “does not reduce existing stockpiles of spent nuclear fuel” or use them as its fuel source. The promise of recycling nuclear waste, which poses tricky storage and proliferation challenges, was a key initial attraction of the company and captured considerable attention."

"I said this is obviously incorrect based on basic physics,” Smith says. He asked the company to run a test, which ended up confirming that “their claims were completely untrue,” Smith says."

"He notes that promising to increase the reactor’s fuel efficiency by 75 times is the rough equivalent of saying that, in a single step, you'd developed a car that could get 2,500 miles per gallon."

if only cars didnt have to worry about that damn wind resistance...

these are the paragraphs youre focused on, correct?

And we could use all the extra plutonium to make nuclear pulse propulsion vehicles

the plutonium created in the cycle is quickly used up in the fissile core once it appears