Yes I have. Do you understand ecological footprints? Probably the best thing would be for you to read the UMPNER report.
http://www.ansto.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/38975/Umpner_report_2006.pdf
But I'll refer you to Table 7.1 or in graphical form in Figure 7.5. Those show the whole of life cycle greenhouse gas emissions for various generating technologies. You will see that whole of cycle nuclear compares favourably with solar and the best nuclear compares well with wind and hydro. It is extremely hard to agree that thorium is better than uranium fueled nuclear on ecological footprint, especially given the potential requirement for reprocessing, as per below.
If you are at all interested in cost comparison refer to figure 4.7 to see how nuclear stacks up. Then realise that a carbon tax increase the cost of coal such that nuclear becomes financially viable.
But as
drron has already pointed out, and as I mentioned it is not a current technology. If we refer to the UMPNER report we can see a number of disadvantages of thorium technology. The fuel requires highly enriched uranium to get started, unlike uranium fueled nuclear. The reaction also produces U-233, fissile uranium that requires reprocessing, increasing the ecological footprint.
But the biggest telling factor is that the technology is not available now. So they are going to shut down brown coal power plants in the next 3 years or so. They are talking about replacing that generating capacity now, not in 15 years with thorium is available. See Appendix L of the UMPNER report for more information.
The waste is probably just as harmful. The only difference is that it is shorter lived, even if the waste still contains long lived actinides. The radiation is output over a shorter time frame that doesn't mean there is less radiation emitted per second or that it is less harmful. In fact a shorter half life generally means a fast decay rate and hence greater radiation output per unit quantity of radioactive waste.
Yep, I did actually mention that as the only advantage.
Safety isn't a concern for me? :shock:
Guess I better give up my day job then.
The uranium power industry is one of the safest industries in the world. Look at the record, 3 accidents in the last 40 years and at most a few hundred people have died from radiation exposure. Compare that to the 1000+ that have probably died in coal mines in the last 12 months. Instead of sprouting forth with the rubbish you read in a Greens pamphlet, I suggest you get real facts. Sorry, correcting falsehood is not arguing.
Not much info in the graphs re thorium, yes it shows nuclear is a good source of energy, I agree, it's the only stable source of base energy for cities our size. You would note from the start of my involvement in this thread that the solution is easy. The 5 major countries out their moving to nuclear and then on charging costs to the rest of the world via exports was the easy solution. I'm not one of those people who think you can survive on solar wind and hydro.
Yes it needs a very small amount of Uranium to kick start the reaction process as Thorium can't sustain a chain reaction on it's own. It's one of the key advantages. I like knowing that it can't burn itself down.
Yes the tech isn't available now but people are working on it. It takes 7 years to build a reactor anyway and that's before getting approval etc. Thorium is much more likely to get acceptance with the public. Just because it's not available now does not mean the option shouldn't be explored. A lot of signs are point towards it being better than uranium and significantly more likely to be accept by the general public.
Faster decay rate is a good thing because if anything goes wrong the area will become safer sooner, it's as simple as that. Also the waste won't be as dangerous as long. Again great.
Deaths are one thing but what do you do when the area becomes inhabitable because of the contamination? The key concern of the public is a melt down happening for whatever reason. Yes they are rare but when they happen it's devastating. We can't afford to have a nuclear reactor in close proximity to say Sydney melt down. If a new technology gives significant certainty that it can't happen then that's a better option.
I'm not stating rubbish from green pamphlets but seriously answering the question of would I want my children to live near a uranium nuclear reactor? The answer is no. Most of the public will answer no as well. Would I like to live near a Thorium reactor, probably not but much more likely to accept it.
Yeah get a new job, get with the new technology. Read:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/2/
[h=2]Advantages and Disadvantages in Using Thorium-233 and Uranium-235 as Nuclear Energy Fuels.[/h]
- Advantages of Thorium 233 over Uranium 235
1. Waste products can contain significantly less long-lived radioactive waste than uranium or plutonium.
2. Weapons cannot be proliferated from Thorium.
3. Thorium is more energy efficient, operating at higher temperatures.
4. There are massive supplies of Thorium worldwide.
5. Less environmental damage to the environment through mining, extraction, and processing.
6. Less damaging health effects to workers during extraction.
7. Many valuable metals can be extracted as by-products during the processing of Thorium, as well as medical applications.
8. Thorium does not require enrichment.
- Disadvantages of Thorium 233 over Uranium 235
1. Thorium is non-fissile on its own; it needs a kick-start from Uranium 235, to start a chain reaction, raising the radioactivity of the waste.
2. Although thorium produces much less long lived transuranics; some long life actinides are produced.
3. Research and development of thorium has been slow and underfunded owing to the difficulty to form it into nuclear weapons.
4. It would be difficult to convert existing uranium fuelled plants to thorium use.
Read more:
http://www.brighthub.com/engineering/mechanical/articles/77255.aspx#ixzz1Rz9itY5g
