[RELEASE][URL=http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/india-thorium-nuclear-plantThe basic physics and engineering of a thorium-fuelled Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) are in place, and the design is ready," said Ratan Kumar Sinha, the director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC).[/URL]
[QUOTE]Once the six-month search for a site is completed – probably next to an existing nuclear power plant – it will take another 18 months to obtain regulatory and environmental impact clearances before building work on the site can begin.
"Construction of the AHWR will begin after that, and it would take another six years for the reactor to become operational," Sinha added, meaning that if all goes to plan, the reactor could be operational by the end of the decade. The reactor is designed to generate 300MW of electricity – about a quarter of the output of a typical new nuclear plant in the west.
One problem is the "trigger fuel" the reactor needs to initiate operation. In the original design, this is a small quantity of plutonium. Instead the new reactor's trigger will be low-enriched uranium (LEU) – which India is permitted to import under the 2008 Indo-US deal.
"The AHWR will eventually have design flexibility, using as fuel either plutonium-thorium or LEU-thorium combinations," said Sinha. "The LEU-thorium version will make the AHWR very much marketable abroad, as it would generate very little plutonium ... making it suitable for countries with high proliferation resistance."
The LEU-thorium design is currently at pilot stage. For the first time last year, the BARC tested the thorium-plutonium combination at its critical facility in Mumbai, but is still some way from doing the same for the thorium-LEU combination.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Sinha added that India was in talks with other countries over the export of conventional nuclear plants. He said India was looking for buyers for its 220MW and 540MW Pressurised Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs). Kazakhastan and the Gulf states are known to have expressed an interest, while one source said that negotiations are most advanced with Vietnam, although Sinha refused to confirm this.
"Many countries with small power grids of up to 5,000 MW are looking for 300MW reactors," he said. "Our reactors are smaller, cheaper, and very price competitive."
Producing a workable thorium reactor would be a massive breakthrough in energy generation.[/QUOTE]
[B]Liquid flouride thorium and molten salt thorium reactors[B]
[URL=http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/10/flibe-energy-liquid-flouride-thorium.html]Kirk Sorensen has started a funded liquid flouride thorium reactor company.[/URL]
[URL=http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/01/china-has-started-thorium-molten-salt.html]China has started a thorium molten salt reactor project[/URL]
[/RELEASE]
Source: [url]http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/11/indias-thorium-fuelled-advanced-heavy.html[/url]
I think I can safely say on behalf of everyone: YES!
AHWR Yeah!
I mean other than the fact that the technology is cool, why is everyone so excited about this?
[QUOTE=ewitwins;33097762]I mean other than the fact that the technology is cool, why is everyone so excited about this?[/QUOTE]
Thorium is much safer to use than uranium and its more common.
how much more energy does it produce?
[QUOTE=nikola631;33098240]how much more energy does it produce?[/QUOTE]
IIRC they're not quite as productive as uranium power plants. It's been a while though.
Yet Japan and Germany vow to abandon nuclear entirely, at least some nations seem to be doing the right thing.
And then Pakistan got pissed and bombed it.
Yet another proof the eastern countries are catching us up.
Excellent to see more progress being made.
heh, sorry India but a 14 year old on Facepunch already made it in his backyard :v:
can I have one in my basement?
My dad is against nuclear power claiming
"should a nation go to war, which can be unpredictable, or if there's going to be a terrorist target, a nuclear power station would be one of the first things to attack. And that's why I'm against nuclear power."
I'm all for nuclear power, but my dad does actually have a valid point.
I so hope this works.
One of the only reasons that thorium was never really looked into was that during the second world war it could not be weaponised as oppsed to uranium/plutonim. Hence all the funds going to those.
There are however reports of working thorium reactors in US university's in that time.
[QUOTE=wewt!;33100936]heh, sorry India but a 14 year old on Facepunch already made it in his backyard :v:[/QUOTE]
Let's hope they don't hire him since he managed to irradiate his mom's yard and almost kill himself with it
the shed is buried in utah somewhere
[QUOTE=mac338;33101170]My dad is against nuclear power claiming
"should a nation go to war, which can be unpredictable, or if there's going to be a terrorist target, a nuclear power station would be one of the first things to attack. And that's why I'm against nuclear power."
I'm all for nuclear power, but my dad does actually have a valid point.[/QUOTE]
And cole/oil plants cannot be attacked?
Thorium reactors are way safer then the standard Uranium/Plutonium reactor since it depletes really fast and is only dangerous if swallowed.
It does need a small batch of Uranium as a catalyst to work though, but this is far less then in a standard reactor.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101170]My dad is against nuclear power claiming
"should a nation go to war, which can be unpredictable, or if there's going to be a terrorist target, a nuclear power station would be one of the first things to attack. And that's why I'm against nuclear power."
I'm all for nuclear power, but my dad does actually have a valid point.[/QUOTE]
Except usually nuclear reactors are covered in concrete-layers thick enough to have a jet pulverize on it without even leaving a dent.
[QUOTE=DrLuke;33101198]Except usually nuclear reactors are covered in concrete-layers thick enough to have a jet pulverize on it without even leaving a dent.[/QUOTE]
Yet still there are viruses like Stuxnet that already are proven to penetrate security, tell the operators the reactors are okay, and then heat them.
[editline]3rd November 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=taipan;33101197]And cole/oil plants cannot be attacked?
Thorium reactors are way safer then the standard Uranium/Plutonium reactor since it depletes really fast and is only dangerous if swallowed.
It does need a small batch of Uranium as a catalyst to work though, but this is far less then in a standard reactor.[/QUOTE]
And still the safest and most modern nuclear plants are vulnerable as proven by a certain tsunami recently.
(Don't burn me for this: I'm trying to make an objective argument though I'm pro-nuclear energy)
18 months to get clearance?
What the fuck
[QUOTE=Tobba;33101322]18 months to get clearance?
What the fuck[/QUOTE]
That's not abnormal. Not that I know a lot about that stuff, it just seems logical.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101280]And still the safest and most modern nuclear plants are vulnerable as proven by a certain tsunami recently.
(Don't burn me for this: I'm trying to make an objective argument though I'm pro-nuclear energy)[/QUOTE]
Actually, Fukushima is nowhere near modern. It's had some modernisation done to it in recent times if I'm not mistaken, but the place was put up in '71. Far from modern.
[QUOTE=sltungle;33101341]Actually, Fukushima is nowhere near modern. It's had some modernisation done to it in recent times if I'm not mistaken, but the place was put up in '71. Far from modern.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for the information.
So, what about safety standards - some countries like India are likely to have - well, not too much. In case of an actual meltdown in a precarious country a lot of neighboring countries will have consequences for something that is beyond them.
Chernobyl radiation map over Europe:
[IMG]http://maps.grida.no/library/files/radiation-from-chernobyl.jpg[/IMG]
Here in Norway we had to kill many thousands of animals, and a lot of people got cancer.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101359]Thanks for the information.
So, what about safety standards - some countries like India are likely to have - well, not too much. In case of an actual meltdown in a precarious country a lot of neighboring countries will have consequences for something that is beyond them.[/QUOTE]
That's what the thorium reactors are for now. From what I heard they can't melt down under any circumstances.
[QUOTE=DrLuke;33101370]That's what the thorium reactors are for now. From what I heard they can't melt down under any circumstances.[/QUOTE]
In the same way Titanic was unsinkable?
It's a douchebag argument but it's valid.
What about, for example, Stuxnet?
[QUOTE=sltungle;33101341]Actually, Fukushima is nowhere near modern. It's had some modernisation done to it in recent times if I'm not mistaken, but the place was put up in '71. Far from modern.[/QUOTE]
And I think its design was kind of shitty for its time too, I think it not going all Chernobyl on Japan's ass is reason to support nuclear power
[QUOTE=mac338;33101382]In the same way Titanic was unsinkable?
It's a douchebag argument but it's valid.
What about, for example, Stuxnet?[/QUOTE]
The Titanic being unsinkable of course was an utter exaggeration, because back then it was the most massive ship people have ever seen.
With your attitude we should revert back to burning coal for energy, because it's the safest way.
[QUOTE=mac338;33101280]Yet still there are viruses like Stuxnet that already are proven to penetrate security, tell the operators the reactors are okay, and then heat them.
[editline]3rd November 2011[/editline]
And still the safest and most modern nuclear plants are vulnerable as proven by a certain tsunami recently.
(Don't burn me for this: I'm trying to make an objective argument though I'm pro-nuclear energy)[/QUOTE]
Except the reactors at Fukushima were ancient Generation 1 designs that could hardly be considered modern. The plant actually should have been decommissioned years ago but they kept it operating anyways.
[QUOTE=Satane;33101373]what would make you think they don't have enough security standards ?[/QUOTE]
It's the same nation that handles aspestos by hand workers.
[IMG]http://media.mcclatchydc.com/smedia/2010/07/15/20/04a.wide_photo.prod_affiliate.91.jpg[/IMG]
And the same country that lost Cobalt-60 pencils in a populated district.
[video=youtube;3nwXc2X2qlM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwXc2X2qlM[/video]
[QUOTE=sltungle;33101341]Actually, Fukushima is nowhere near modern. It's had some modernisation done to it in recent times if I'm not mistaken, but the place was put up in '71. Far from modern.[/QUOTE]
Ninja'd but yeah, the reactors were dinosaurs.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
