# Thorium - Uranium's Successor



## billhill

On the uranium bull thread the issue of another radioactive mineral has arisn. Thorium. 

If you research this mineral as a source of nuclear fuel it is claimed to produce less shorter half life waste. Be more difficult to use in nuclear weapons. More suitable then uranium as a fuel and more abundant in the earths crust.

So is this a legitimate contender to knock uranium off its nuclear throne. What do you think?

Billhill


----------



## CanOz

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Heres a blurb to get everyone started:

http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=16813


----------



## Sean K

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

From what I've seen it needs to be looked at. 

I like the idea that we might be speaking about something that is relatively untapped as a rseource and may be worth $%^& loads when the green tree huggers realise there is an alternative to that nasty yellow stuff that causes nuclear fall out. 

Time to do some more research and see who is pushing it.


----------



## NettAssets

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Some more background:


http://www.uic.com.au/nip67.htm

John


----------



## michael_selway

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



			
				billhill said:
			
		

> On the uranium bull thread the issue of another radioactive mineral has arisn. Thorium.
> 
> If you research this mineral as a source of nuclear fuel it is claimed to produce less shorter half life waste. Be more difficult to use in nuclear weapons. More suitable then uranium as a fuel and more abundant in the earths crust.
> 
> So is this a legitimate contender to knock uranium off its nuclear throne. What do you think?
> 
> Billhill




which listed ASX companies produce thorium?

thx

mS


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Directly i've been unable to find any thorium miners listed or unlisted. But the source below would seem to indicate that it is a common byproduct of mineral sands mining. So mineral sand miners are likely in the best position to benefit from any commercialisation of thorium. However that said, any of the uranium juniors would probably be quick to jump on the bandwagon.

http://earthsci.org/mineral/mindep/depfile/minsand.htm

Billhill


----------



## Smurf1976

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

It's not used as an energy source at present but thorium is inherently safer (and far more abundant) than uranium. It doesn't have the imminent depletion problem of oil (and soon gas) or the global warming aspect of coal. So it's certainly got some positives.

Of course there are negatives too - it DOES produce dangerous waste although this remains dangerous for far less time than the waste from conventional uranium reactors (and arguably less time than the CO2 emissions from coal / oil / gas).

As for accidents, you have to keep externally exciting a thorium reactor otherwise it stops dead. A bit like how a petrol engine needs electricity to the spark plugs - take away that small amount of electricity and the engine stops there and then regardless of how much fuel it has available. So thorium reactors are much safer - no external excitement = no reaction. 

IMO we'll be using thorium as an energy source once gas supplies peak globally (probably around 2030 based on current knowledge) and it may well become a dominant energy source eventuall. But I very much doubt we'll see a power reactor operating before 2020 unless there's a real panic over either oil/gas depletion or global warming (or both) or something drastic happens (eg oil/gas exports from Russia and Middle East cut off). Even then, there's no chance of it being a _major_ energy source within 20 years (in practice almost certainly longer) no matter what happens.

To my understanding, Australia is to thorium what the Middle East is to oil or Russia is to gas so it's potentially a winner for Australia. But then we're dominant in uranium reserves and have the world's largest brown coal deposit (13% of world reserves) and quite a bit of black coal too.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Check out ARU, their MD has been going on about Thorium for 12 months or so now, they have Thorium in their U deposit, just not sure how much,


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Found this article about the endorsement of thorium as a power source by the world nuclear association.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060912/nytu088.html?.v=63

Seems that as uranium makes a resurgence it's helping to promote this alternative fuel sources. I for one will be very excited to see it reach its full potential.


----------



## Marvin Martian

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Interesting


----------



## insider

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

The thing with Thorium is that it can never explode like a bomb because it needs to be pushed conctantly to have fission. However Thorium may be pushed aside because Chinese scientists created something called the pebble bed reactor which uses physics to make it impossible for a melt down... it is meltdown proof made for uranium. These reactors are also cheaper to make then fast breeders and all the old crap.


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



> The thing with Thorium is that it can never explode like a bomb because it needs to be pushed conctantly to have fission. However Thorium may be pushed aside because Chinese scientists created something called the pebble bed reactor which uses physics to make it impossible for a melt down... it is meltdown proof made for uranium. These reactors are also cheaper to make then fast breeders and all the old crap




That may be so but the big factor with thorium is that its more abundant then uranium and hence a lot cheaper. The ecconomics look good for the mineral and there is already limited commercialisation in india and now poland.


----------



## insider

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



			
				billhill said:
			
		

> That may be so but the big factor with thorium is that its more abundant then uranium and hence a lot cheaper. The ecconomics look good for the mineral and there is already limited commercialisation in india and now poland.



You're right it is more abundant and cheaper... It's hard to tell where nuclear energy is going... The only reason why Uranium was used in the first place was because of USA. They wanted to make Big bombs


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

True that.


----------



## nizar

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



			
				Smurf1976 said:
			
		

> It's not used as an energy source at present but thorium is inherently safer (and far more abundant) than uranium. It doesn't have the imminent depletion problem of oil (and soon gas) or the global warming aspect of coal. So it's certainly got some positives.
> 
> Of course there are negatives too - it DOES produce dangerous waste although this remains dangerous for far less time than the waste from conventional uranium reactors (and arguably less time than the CO2 emissions from coal / oil / gas).
> 
> As for accidents, you have to keep externally exciting a thorium reactor otherwise it stops dead. A bit like how a petrol engine needs electricity to the spark plugs - take away that small amount of electricity and the engine stops there and then regardless of how much fuel it has available. So thorium reactors are much safer - no external excitement = no reaction.
> 
> IMO we'll be using thorium as an energy source once gas supplies peak globally (probably around 2030 based on current knowledge) and it may well become a dominant energy source eventuall. But I very much doubt we'll see a power reactor operating before 2020 unless there's a real panic over either oil/gas depletion or global warming (or both) or something drastic happens (eg oil/gas exports from Russia and Middle East cut off). Even then, there's no chance of it being a _major_ energy source within 20 years (in practice almost certainly longer) no matter what happens.
> 
> To my understanding, Australia is to thorium what the Middle East is to oil or Russia is to gas so it's potentially a winner for Australia. But then we're dominant in uranium reserves and have the world's largest brown coal deposit (13% of world reserves) and quite a bit of black coal too.




Great post.
Agree 100%.
Uranium is the way to go for now and will be for at least the next 10 years IMO.
Does any1 know any thorium pure plays?
-Yeh, i thought so-
If the potential was that great, trust me, there would be many.


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Well actually nizar, here's one for you.
Called Novastar resourses its in the process of changing its name to thorium Power after buying the company of the same name. 

http://www.novastarresources.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=121550&p=irol-irhome

In particular it specialises in proliferation resistant technologies. In an increasing nuclear world it would be useful technology that the UN can offer to at risk countries.


----------



## DB008

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Hi All,
I also read an article in COSMOS magazine a few months ago about Thorium. And l was also having a laugh because 60minutes was doing to whole china syndrome crap. 
From what l've read, Thorium can't start the reaction because it needs plutonium to start the chain reaction. And if u put enough plutonium in to start the Thorium reaction, then there is no way for a meltdown. Probably more complicated than that, sounds better than what we have today.


----------



## markrmau

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

So what's the catch?

Fascinating posts smurf, but I don't understand. If thorium is so good, the electricity market would have picked it up and we would be building thorium plants. 

Is it the classic chicken and egg problem? No thorium development so no end users?

I even remember a company (was it RRS?) that thought it had uranium in SAfrica, but it turned out to be only thorium so it was caned.


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



> So what's the catch?




Uses different technology to normal nuclear power. This technology is still in development. 

India is moving ahead with development so its only a matter of time.

http://www.indembassyathens.gr/India-nuclear energy/India_nuclear energy_thorium.htm


----------



## shinobi346

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

My understanding of this element is it has a medical use too, and is used for doing scans.


----------



## nioka

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Thorium has many uses.For many years it was used in gas light mantles,in the manufacture of glass for optical,camera and telescope lenses,as a catalyst in petroleum cracking and as an alloying element with magnesium for high temp strength. It has been used in radiation shields and can be used as a nuclear fuel. It is more abundant than uranium and in Australia is one of the minerals found in monasite which is part of the mineral sands found on our beaches. After the war in the 40s & 50s the commonwealth government took posession of the monazite. I was working in a sand mining company laboratory at the time and we established a pilot plant to extract the thorium.
We had to account for the monazite used. The monazite at that stage was taken away in army trucks. Thats news from a long time ago, I'm not up to date but I'm interested in the possibilities.


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

http://www.riu.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=55

Found another article that may be of interest.


----------



## nioka

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



			
				billhill said:
			
		

> http://www.riu.com.au/news/article.aspx?id=55
> 
> Found another article that may be of interest.



Interesting reading.


----------



## mlennox

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

very interesting topic, keeping my ear to the ground on this one, uranium is in the box seat as far as energy is concerned for the next 12 years.


----------



## Caliente

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Interestingly, when U238 undergoes alpha decay, it becomes thorium (234), as it ejects a Helium particle. So isn't thorium really just a poor mans version of uranium


----------



## Rafa

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



			
				markrmau said:
			
		

> Fascinating posts smurf, but I don't understand. If thorium is so good, the electricity market would have picked it up and we would be building thorium plants.




yup. hard to see thorium getting up till uranium runs out...

Its bit like the electric car...
Oil companies are sitting on a trillion barrels of oil...
There is no way they are going to let that go to waste just cause an electric car is invented...


There are plenty of things that are freely available and abundant, and the technology is there to harness it into electricity... (solar, wind, hot rocks, etc...)

But why let it out the bag when there is still money to be made from coal.... then natural gas... then uranium...!


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Who said thorium would never get off the ground!

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?NewsID=1061138

The indians are certainly moving ahead with it even if the rest of the world doesn't.


----------



## Mofra

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

I was reading an interesting article (don't get scared kennas - it was in a mag that leans left) that was talking up the use of thorium, as at the current rate of uranium useage we would have approx 53 years left of uranium before we suffer severe shortages.

Thorium is roughly 3 times as abundant so the problem is delayed.

The article also stated that 94% of current nuclear waste could be reprocessed back into fuels for reactors, and would be better termed as wasted. 

Substituting current technologies for further procseeing & better useage of nuclear materials, and then including thorium as part of a solution, could offer a long term viable alternative to current fossil fuels - especially if reacters were also designed to store hydrogen as a by-product, allowing mining operations to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels as well.


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



			
				Mofra said:
			
		

> current rate of uranium useage we would have approx 53 years left of uranium before we suffer severe shortages.




We're suffering severe shortages now and they are expected to stay that way for the nexy 5-10 years. How high can the price of uranium go. Ecconomics will decide this one. When uranium hits ultra high prices IMO the attention will seriously begin to turn to thorium.


----------



## Smurf1976

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



			
				Mofra said:
			
		

> I was reading an interesting article (don't get scared kennas - it was in a mag that leans left) that was talking up the use of thorium, as at the current rate of uranium useage we would have approx 53 years left of uranium before we suffer severe shortages.
> 
> Thorium is roughly 3 times as abundant so the problem is delayed.
> 
> The article also stated that 94% of current nuclear waste could be reprocessed back into fuels for reactors, and would be better termed as wasted.



53 years and nuclear supplies only one fifth of world electricity. So we could all go nuclear for 10 years...

Regarding the waste, I think it's higher than even 94% wasted to my understanding. If we're going to get serious about nuclear power then we're going to have to get serious about reprocessing. Problem is the plutonium that makes available...


----------



## Boggo

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Interesting thread, I have been reading about this recently.

A search in StockDoctor turns up two stocks with thorium interests, EBR and SFR.
EBR is interesting because its anomalies are near BHP's Olympic Dam mine.

This could be worth watching.

Boggo


----------



## billhill

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

News that norway is considering nuclear energy using thorium instead of uranium.

http://www.norwaypost.no/cgi-bin/norwaypost/imaker?id=51761


----------



## matross

*thorium friendly uranium energy!*

THORIUM and or  thorium hybred 
from the uranium family 3 times more abundant than uranium has been used in reactors with no core melt down producing very high fission heat (tomatoe glasshouses and domestic heating),can be located throughout industrial suburbs and in the event of an accident will defuse into the atmosphere with the radioactivity easily managable, can be processed as fuel and made almost impossible to convert to weaponsAn estimated 20 kilograms of thorium equalling 1,500 kolograms of coal in terms of energy producing no carbon emmissions and a small portable thorium reactor with 20 kilograms provides enough domestic power for a 100 persons for many years.

It is  estimated 30% and 20% of the worlds deposits lay in aust and india respectively can be produced  relatively unregulated commercially, at a fraction of the cost of uranium,similarly the reactors which is in the infant stage of development,hydrogen when compressed into a liquid fuel as substitute for lpg gas that some buses in wa have been running for a number of years and commercial hydrogen fuel pumps in melbourne can be produced with converted thorium  or thorium hybred reactors.

Why then for peace of mine with all the televised public debates havent thorium been raised to take the issue of nuclear weapons out of the equation I am stunned  last week mr Ziggy Switkowski with abc lateline buisness for the first time to listen to a well informative matter of thorium for future energy needs and India the leader in this technology a diplomatic Howard government working to maintain a relationship of exclusive technology funnelled back into australia.when the thorium fusion may be at a practical application by 2020 if for a start nuclear enrichment can be weaned with capital injected into new infrastructure.

Is it i that this has passed me bye, only learning recently or is the potential of thorium already well known by say, shareholders of aru and what ever other companies that produce thorium .?            The writer holds no shares in or making a plug for aru         matross


----------



## black_bird2

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

Might be recent hype, or just that I had finished reading this thread and was searching other areas when I found an IPO soon to arrive for a company called Metminco that specifically mentions Thorium as part of it's rare earth elements that it is exploring for. Thought this might be relevant for this thread.


----------



## Smurf1976

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*

http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009/01/or-immediate-release-thorium-for.html

Seems there's some serious interest in this in Finland.


----------



## CanOz

*Re: Thorium. Uranium's Successor*



Smurf1976 said:


> http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009/01/or-immediate-release-thorium-for.html
> 
> Seems there's some serious interest in this in Finland.




Fascinating material Smurf. If it we not for the commercialization of Uranium reactors we would Have Thorium by now I'm sure. In any case, it seems the benefits are huge for this material in preference to Uranium.

Cheers,


CanOz


----------



## Smurf1976

Thorium along with geothermal are the two great hopes for energy and, ultimately, the world in my opinion.

Looking at everything else:

Fossil fuels: 3 main types of which two are extremely limited in terms of known and probable resources whilst the other (coal) is heavily polluting.

Biofuels: Running out of wood was why we used coal in the first place. When you realise that a week's worth of food for a man is equivalent to just two litres of petrol, but that it takes the equivalent of 20 litres of petrol to produce, you realise that biofuels aren't the answer.

Hydro: It certainly works and it's the best thing anyone's come up with for handling rapid load variations etc. But there just isn't enough of it to rely on it for the majority of the energy supply other than in a few parts of the world. For the rest, it's peaking and backup.

Non-hydro renewables: They're all intermittent in nature and really only useful as a supplement to some other energy source in order to "stretch out" its availability. Useful to some extent but ridiculously uneconomic to rely completely on.

Uranium: It works but at the cost of the ever present dangers associated with it, the proliferation of plutonium availability, waste disposal and the high financial cost. 

Which leaves geothermal and thorium as the great technological hopes for energy. And both seem, on paper at least, to be practical.


----------



## prawn_86

So why isn't thorium been looked at by governments as a viable alternative?

What are the downsides to it? Aside from the fact that there are no plants using it at the moment


----------



## kgee

No expert in the field...
I have shares in a REE company that apparrently has Thorium as well, but the company doesn't mention it.
When the MD was asked why, he stated that theres no market for it and that in any case France had massive stockpiles of the stuff
So I'm thinking that anyone out there whoes looking at this as a little money earner might want to look into these stockpiles
I'm guessing that they were tailings from uranium extraction?


----------



## So_Cynical

prawn_86 said:


> So why isn't thorium been looked at by governments as a viable alternative?
> 
> What are the downsides to it? Aside from the fact that there are no plants using it at the moment




Apparently there was a point in time back in the late early 60's when a decision was made by the Americans to either go with Uranium or Thorium...Uranium won because Plutonium was a major by product, and they needed plutonium for the cold war (Nukes).

Downsides...ive been looking at this for months and i just cant find any other than the waste, probably the biggest downside would be political as Thorium along with Uranium power is not considered to be renewable therefore has been left out of all climate negotiations.

The looney green left simply bundle thorium in with uranium and call them both nasty dangerous nuclear fuels, and have successfully lobbied the UNIPCC -Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to have all nuclear fuels excluded form climate negotiations.

With all the other crap going on about climate the incredible potential of thorium has got lost in the noise, politically thorium has no friends  the existing nuclear industry supports the status quo and doesn't want change, the alternative power supporters are in with the greens and don't consider thorium to be renewable (technically there right).

There is no thorium lobby...to get an idea of the current frustrations have a look at the Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/

---------------

For the record the 2 biggest listed Thorium plays in Australia are ILU & RIO they have millions of tonnes of the stuff.


----------



## Smurf1976

prawn_86 said:


> So why isn't thorium been looked at by governments as a viable alternative?



The last thing politicians at the national or international level want is an alterantive source of cheap energy. 

1. Wipes out existing coal industry with the associated economic dislocation noting that Australia, China and the US are all major world powers in terms of coal reserves and/or extraction rates.

2. Removes the need for any country to hold US Dollars as a means to buy oil.

3. Makes the Middle East irrelevant in world affairs along with Venezuela etc.

4. Removes much of the global role of the US military and the USA itself - a country whose economic strength post-WWII was largely built upon oil and things derived from it.

5. Renders a vast empire of trading and speculation in oil (and to a far lesser extent coal and gas) redundant with consequent losses for the big end of town.

6. Apart from most hydro schemes, it makes the entire existing power generation asset base essentially redundant.

Now, the cynic in me notes that it is the "alternative" energy sources that receive opposition where they threaten the "conventional" sources of black coal, oil and gas.

Nuclear (uranium) - strong opposition until it too became a "conventional" energy source.

Hydro - attracts opposition in any circumstance where it enables an economically disadvantaged location to gain advantage over those relying on "conventional" energy sources. Nobody minds though when it's a small scheme in a Third World backwater or is only a supplement to "conventional" fuels, thus not threatening anyone.

Brown coal - same situation as with anything else that isn't uranium, black coal, oil or natural gas. There's no ability to trade it, no ability to speculate on its price, and it gives an economic advantage to anyone able to mine it on a massive scale. Hence it will be opposed with or without the CO2 issue.

Basically, the world as we know it falls apart if someone comes up with a "silver bullet" to actually replace coal, oil, gas and/or to give some region a comparative advantage in energy production over the major economic powers either globally or within a country. Hence official support for solar, wind, biomass, small hydro schemes, landfill gas, insulating houses and anything else that can't manage to supply the total load meanwhile there's fierce opposition to anything that can.

And likewise the world falls apart if we keep relying on coal, oil and natural gas since they simply are not sustainable. 

At some point, a paradigm shift is inevitable but don't expect those who gain from the status quo to be in a hurry for it to happen...


----------



## prawn_86

Fantastic post Smurf.

Sometimes i wish there was a quick way one could create a new country and have it run by sensible, non political people.


----------



## So_Cynical

prawn_86 said:


> Fantastic post Smurf.
> 
> Sometimes i wish there was a quick way one could create a new country and have it run by sensible, non political people.




Agree on both counts. 

---------------

Here is a detailed explanatory video on thorium based power via The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.


----------



## Wysiwyg

prawn_86 said:


> Fantastic post Smurf.
> 
> Sometimes i wish there was a quick way one could create a new country and have it run by sensible, non political people.



 Hear hear!


----------



## prawn_86

Story on Thorium in the latest issue of Wired:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

Seem's it is slowly becoming more known, however like every other alternative fuel, probably wont be used until it's too late...


----------



## So_Cynical

I found a great Thorium write up that was published recently in the American scientist magazine....its a detailed yet somewhat easy to understand piece that covers all the Thorium issues....a great read for those new to the energy from Thorium concept.
~


----------



## DB008

So if looking to invest in Thorium, would BHP be the best bet in Australia?


----------



## So_Cynical

DB008 said:


> So if looking to invest in Thorium, would BHP be the best bet in Australia?




Iluka - ILU actually has the biggest reserves, however please keep in mind that Thorium isn't "burnt" in a liquid fluoride reactor, it's U233 that's "burnt" so very little Thorium is needed to maintain a reaction....and for that matter little uranium is needed as well because U233 taken from decommissioned nukes is available in abundance.

There will never be a thorium boom


----------



## DB008

So_Cynical said:


> Iluka - ILU actually has the biggest reserves, however please keep in mind that Thorium isn't "burnt" in a liquid fluoride reactor, it's U233 that's "burnt" so very little Thorium is needed to maintain a reaction....and for that matter little uranium is needed as well because U233 taken from decommissioned nukes is available in abundance.
> 
> There will never be a thorium boom





Cheers for that So_Cynical.


----------



## DB008

Thorium on RT

Very interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOLo73k3OG0&feature=youtube_gdata


----------



## Smurf1976

So_Cynical said:


> Iluka - ILU actually has the biggest reserves, however please keep in mind that Thorium isn't "burnt" in a liquid fluoride reactor, it's U233 that's "burnt" so very little Thorium is needed to maintain a reaction....and for that matter little uranium is needed as well because U233 taken from decommissioned nukes is available in abundance.



At some point we must surely run out of decommissioned weapons as a source of fissile material and to my understanding the present program has only a few years left to run.


----------



## So_Cynical

Smurf1976 said:


> At some point we must surely run out of decommissioned weapons as a source of fissile material and to my understanding the present program has only a few years left to run.




Yes Smurf as usual your on the money, the mainstream nuke power industry is "using" alot of the nuclear material from decommissioned nukes and will shortly need more that will have to come from mining.

What i meant in my previous post was that if the world proceeded down a Thorium MSR rapid development and deployment path then the U233 from decommissioned nukes would be enough to satisfy demand down that development path for a considerable distance into the future....however in reality that's just not going to happen so were going to need more uranium mining to sustain the conventional developments in the pipeline.

Still the projections are that power produced with Thorium via MSR type technology would use significantly less uranium (maybe 95% less) than conventional reactors without the vast majority of risk factors that come with conventional nuclear power.


----------



## jtl

*Re: Thorium - China will launch thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor*

Great news today from Wired Science

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...tories+2))

China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source.

If the reactor works as planned, China may fulfill a long-delayed dream of clean nuclear energy. The United States could conceivably become dependent on China for next-generation nuclear technology. At the least, the United States could fall dramatically behind in developing green energy.

“President Obama talked about a Sputnik-type call to action in his SOTU address,” wrote Charles Barton, creator of the Nuclear Green Revolution blog, on the Energy From Thorium discussion forum. “I think this qualifies.”

While nearly all current nuclear reactors run on uranium, the radioactive element thorium is recognized as a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel. Thorium is particularly well-suited for use in molten-salt reactors, or MSRs. Nuclear reactions take place inside a fluid core rather than solid fuel rods, and there’s no risk of meltdown.

In addition to their safety, MSRs can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste. Their byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. They can also operate as breeders, producing more fuel than they consume. Blah Blah Blah....

****** end quote

1. Not using uranium and byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. this mean in theory they can sell reactor/know how to rogue states of the world such as Iran and North Korean without the fear of breeding nuclear wepaons or weapons of any kind.

2. A new system of zero meltdown risk. Great!

3. New energy of the future!!!!! Great!!!!!

4. If you hold shares in RMR, you lucky bastards!!!!!!!! Not only is RMR into gold and rara elements, from what is written, it show that from the latter thorium is one of the by-product they can mine, once they get the greenlight from Greenland..

5. B. About Niobium
Niobium and tantalum have a strong geochemical coherence and usually occur together in nature. Besides tantalum, niobium is most commonly associated with thorium, titanium and lanthanides (REE). Niobium (Nb) is soft and ductile and characterized by high melting and boiling points. (Sources: http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au...rces-1429.html)

6. With all these potentials, RMR is currently trading at only 2.5c with current shares issued of under 550m. I think this won't be the case for long once.

7. Should also start looking at other companies that are really into thorium.... please list them in reply if you know any other. Would GGG who is next to RMR in Greenland be one?


----------



## sinner

*Re: Thorium - China will launch thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor*



jtl said:


> Great news today from Wired Science
> 
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...tories+2))
> 
> China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source.
> 
> If the reactor works as planned, China may fulfill a long-delayed dream of clean nuclear energy. The United States could conceivably become dependent on China for next-generation nuclear technology. At the least, the United States could fall dramatically behind in developing green energy.
> 
> “President Obama talked about a Sputnik-type call to action in his SOTU address,” wrote Charles Barton, creator of the Nuclear Green Revolution blog, on the Energy From Thorium discussion forum. “I think this qualifies.”
> 
> While nearly all current nuclear reactors run on uranium, the radioactive element thorium is recognized as a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel. Thorium is particularly well-suited for use in molten-salt reactors, or MSRs. Nuclear reactions take place inside a fluid core rather than solid fuel rods, and there’s no risk of meltdown.
> 
> In addition to their safety, MSRs can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste. Their byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. They can also operate as breeders, producing more fuel than they consume. Blah Blah Blah....
> 
> ****** end quote
> 
> 1. Not using uranium and byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. this mean in theory they can sell reactor/know how to rogue states of the world such as Iran and North Korean without the fear of breeding nuclear wepaons or weapons of any kind.
> 
> 2. A new system of zero meltdown risk. Great!
> 
> 3. New energy of the future!!!!! Great!!!!!
> 
> 4. If you hold shares in RMR, you lucky bastards!!!!!!!! Not only is RMR into gold and rara elements, from what is written, it show that from the latter thorium is one of the by-product they can mine, once they get the greenlight from Greenland..
> 
> 5. B. About Niobium
> Niobium and tantalum have a strong geochemical coherence and usually occur together in nature. Besides tantalum, niobium is most commonly associated with thorium, titanium and lanthanides (REE). Niobium (Nb) is soft and ductile and characterized by high melting and boiling points. (Sources: http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au...rces-1429.html)
> 
> 6. With all these potentials, RMR is currently trading at only 2.5c with current shares issued of under 550m. I think this won't be the case for long once.
> 
> 7. Should also start looking at other companies that are really into thorium.... please list them in reply if you know any other. Would GGG who is next to RMR in Greenland be one?




This article is making the rounds, and I knew it wouldn't be long before it appeared here.

A friend is in the industry in research capacity and had the following to say



> 1)*"burns existing nuclear waste"* - burning existing waste is really expensive and you have to run the reactor at a lower power level so it is not economically viable until uranium becomes prohibitively expensive(30-50 years from now)
> 2)*"uses abundant thorium as a base fuel"* - while thorium is abundant the fuel behavior in a reactor is not as well known and more importantly its much less stable and more prone to clad failure(fuel leaking into the primary coolant) which usually forces an unplanned shutdown or reduction in output power until the next refueling.
> 3) *"produces far less toxic, shorter-lived waste than existing designs"* - blatant lie.
> 4) *can be mass produced, run unattended for years, and installed underground for safety* - This is a claim that can only be made after years of experience because we(both the US and China) lack the capability to model fast reactors well.
> 
> Generation IV reactors like this one will probably be much more practical in 20 years time, but currently they make little sense unless you don't have access to uranium(ie India).




I hold no claim as to whether his statements are true or not but thought I would put it out there as the "Devil's Avocado" to the "thorium craze" that seems to be sweeping bits of the net right now.

Although, I do believe in the Chinese example given, the fuel is unclad.


----------



## So_Cynical

*Re: Thorium - China will launch thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor*



jtl said:


> Great news today from Wired Science
> 
> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...tories+2))
> 
> China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source.




Absolutely brilliant news....go team China, selling clean Nuke technology to the world...bet no one saw that coming, i certainly didn't.

-----------------------------------



sinner said:


> This article is making the rounds, and I knew it wouldn't be long before it appeared here.
> 
> A friend is in the industry in research capacity and had the following to say
> 
> 1)"burns existing nuclear waste" - burning existing waste is really expensive and you have to run the reactor at a lower power level so it is not economically viable until uranium becomes prohibitively expensive(30-50 years from now)
> 
> *MSR technology produces significantly less waste than conventional nuke technology...also produces a less dangerous waste in comparison.*
> 
> 2)"uses abundant thorium as a base fuel" - while thorium is abundant the fuel behavior in a reactor is not as well known and more importantly its much less stable and more prone to clad failure(fuel leaking into the primary coolant) which usually forces an unplanned shutdown or reduction in output power until the next refueling.
> 
> *Maybe showing my technical lack of detail here but...i didn't think coolant was a big deal with MSR, anyway not like how critical it is in conventional reactors.*
> 
> 
> 3) "produces far less toxic, shorter-lived waste than existing designs" - blatant lie.
> 
> *No its not, this is well documented....i think your mate needs to have another look at MSR cos i think he talking about using thorium in a conventional reactor.*
> 
> 4) can be mass produced, run unattended for years, and installed underground for safety - This is a claim that can only be made after years of experience because we(both the US and China) lack the capability to model fast reactors well.
> 
> *The idea for mass production is to bring down costs so they can be rapidly deployed world wide...no need to build em under ground as they are really very safe...even a worst case scenario doesn't produce any really big problems, a china syndrome or Chernobyl type event is impossible.*
> 
> Generation IV reactors like this one will probably be much more practical in 20 years time, but currently they make little sense unless you don't have access to uranium(ie India).
> 
> *And a 15 year development period would delivery the perfected and tested technology right on time.*
> 
> 
> I hold no claim as to whether his statements are true or not but thought I would put it out there as the "Devil's Avocado" to the "thorium craze" that seems to be sweeping bits of the net right now.
> 
> Although, I do believe in the Chinese example given, the fuel is unclad.




There is a very large and established global nuke industry and like all things old and established and big (very well funded) they do not want change....stand by for a concerted (well funded) dirty tricks campaign against Thorium.


----------



## So_Cynical

Yep i was right....just for clarification, from the MSR wiki.



> 2)"uses abundant thorium as a base fuel" - while thorium is abundant the fuel behavior in a reactor is not as well known and more importantly its much less stable and more prone to clad failure(fuel leaking into the primary coolant) which usually forces an unplanned shutdown or reduction in output power until the next refueling.
> 
> Maybe showing my technical lack of detail here but...i didn't think coolant was a big deal with MSR, anyway not like how critical it is in conventional reactors.






			
				MSR wiki said:
			
		

> *A molten salt reactor (MSR) is a type of nuclear fission reactor where the primary coolant is a molten salt mixture*, which can run at high temperatures (for higher thermodynamic efficiency) while staying at low vapor pressure for reduced mechanical stress and increased safety, and is less reactive than molten sodium coolant. The nuclear fuel may be solid fuel rods, *or dissolved in the coolant itself*, which eliminates fuel fabrication




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor


----------



## DB008

*Thorium Remix 2009 - LFTR in 16 Minutes *







> *Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium*
> A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.
> 
> 
> 
> Thorium could be a much safer option for China which has been unsettled by the nuclear crisis in Japan where fears over radiation levels are rising Photo: AP
> 
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html#dsq-content


----------



## tech/a

Great Vid
Leading edge stuff.


----------



## DB008

Thorium Energy Future


----------



## DB008

*Chinese going for broke on thorium nuclear power, and good luck to them*




> The nuclear race is on. China is upping the ante dramatically on thorium nuclear energy. Scientists in Shanghai have been told to accelerate plans (sorry for the pun) to build the first fully-functioning thorium reactor within ten years, instead of 25 years as originally planned.
> 
> “This is definitely a race. China faces fierce competition from overseas and to get there first will not be an easy task”,” says Professor Li Zhong, a leader of the programme. He said researchers are working under “warlike” pressure to deliver.






> The project began with a start-up budget of $350m and the recruitment of 140 PhD scientists at the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear and Applied Physics. It then had plans to reach 750 staff by 2015, but this already looks far too conservative.
> 
> The Chinese appear to be opting for a molten salt reactor – or a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) ”” a notion first proposed by the US nuclear doyen Alvin Weinberg and arguably best adapted for thorium.
> 
> This in entirely different from thorium efforts in the West that rely on light water technology used in uranium reactors. The LFTR has its own problems, not least corrosion caused by the fluoride.
> 
> “We are still in the dark about the physical and chemical nature of thorium in many ways. There are so many problems to deal with but so little time,” said Prof Li.
> 
> The great hope for thorium is that it could restore faith in the safety of nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. It can be done on a much smaller scale, at atmospheric pressure, without the need for the vast structures than encase uranium reactors. You could have micro LFTRs for each steel mill or a small town, hidden away, almost invisible.




http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100026863/china-going-for-broke-on-thorium-nuclear-power-and-good-luck-to-them/


----------



## orr

Smurf1976 said:


> The last thing politicians at the national or international level want is an alterantive source of cheap energy.
> 
> 1. Wipes out existing coal industry with the associated economic dislocation noting that Australia, China and the US are all major world powers in terms of coal reserves and/or extraction rates.
> 
> 2. Removes the need for any country to hold US Dollars as a means to buy oil.
> 
> 3. Makes the Middle East irrelevant in world affairs along with Venezuela etc.
> 
> 4. Removes much of the global role of the US military and the USA itself - a country whose economic strength post-WWII was largely built upon oil and things derived from it.
> 
> 5. Renders a vast empire of trading and speculation in oil (and to a far lesser extent coal and gas) redundant with consequent losses for the big end of town.
> 
> 6. Apart from most hydro schemes, it makes the entire existing power generation asset base essentially redundant.
> 
> Now, the cynic in me notes that it is the "alternative" energy sources that receive opposition where they threaten the "conventional" sources of black coal, oil and gas.
> 
> Nuclear (uranium) - strong opposition until it too became a "conventional" energy source.
> 
> Hydro - attracts opposition in any circumstance where it enables an economically disadvantaged location to gain advantage over those relying on "conventional" energy sources. Nobody minds though when it's a small scheme in a Third World backwater or is only a supplement to "conventional" fuels, thus not threatening anyone.
> 
> Brown coal - same situation as with anything else that isn't uranium, black coal, oil or natural gas. There's no ability to trade it, no ability to speculate on its price, and it gives an economic advantage to anyone able to mine it on a massive scale. Hence it will be opposed with or without the CO2 issue.
> 
> Basically, the world as we know it falls apart if someone comes up with a "silver bullet" to actually replace coal, oil, gas and/or to give some region a comparative advantage in energy production over the major economic powers either globally or within a country. Hence official support for solar, wind, biomass, small hydro schemes, landfill gas, insulating houses and anything else that can't manage to supply the total load meanwhile there's fierce opposition to anything that can.
> 
> And likewise the world falls apart if we keep relying on coal, oil and natural gas since they simply are not sustainable.
> 
> At some point, a paradigm shift is inevitable but don't expect those who gain from the status quo to be in a hurry for it to happen...




This post is 'gold' smurf. Given that the 'adults' have finally had their way after a few years of scaring the children and while the real adult thinkers/policy makers of the planet are going about rearranging their chess 
pieces, it's a poignant re-read.


----------

