Why don't we have Thorium reactors now?

[shawnwachter]

The Thorium fuel cycle was not developed because it would have destroyed the coal industry, the rail industry, and thus the banks that had already loaned them so much money. MSRs have a levelized cost of electricity substantially lower than coal, gas, or conventional nuclear. The problem is political, not technological.

[bill]

Yes, thorium was more expensive then, but now is cheaper. Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) have too many benefits over water cooled reactors.
Today the Dept. of Energy is actively blocking development of MSRs. Large corporations don't want MSRs, because the money made from water cooled reactors is very large.
Can't make as much money from MSRs. Wind and Solar are more destructive to the environment in the manufacturing processes.

[LFTRnow]

Also interesting is the main reason thorium is interesting is that it can be "bred" (using neutrons) into fuel. It becomes (eventually) U233 which is the fuel. Back in the 60's breeder reactors were supposed to be developed which would have bred (and recycled for fuel), plutonium. This would have greatly reduced waste and improved efficiency. It was initially planned because it was thought uranium was rare on earth. When more was discovered, the breeder reactor plans were dropped - though they still are a very good idea. Both thorium and uranium breeders would advance nuclear power into a level we could only dream of today. Energy would become plentiful and low cost (EROEI).

[anonemus]

Because Thorium isn't used in the making of plutonium

[joshuacoldwater]

It may have cost twice as much, but refining thorium is much easier than refining uranium. They end up with a lot left to use, as with uranium you put a lot in and get a little out. There is also WAY more thorium all over our planet then there will ever be of uranium (11 times the amount). Furthermore, the energy produced would be exponentially higher per ton used. The environmental effects of the reactors would be minuscule, Thorium produces very little nuclear waste. Based on your statement, you are saying that the most intelligent scientists in our country didn’t realize either of these things. I hope that isn’t the truth, I know science evolves with time. I just can’t believe that these genius men and women would use such a toxic element if it was not needed.

[perryallan]

Your comments are incomplete. The USA and other countries actually tried using Thorium as nuclear reactor fuel in a commercial power plant, and even built a thorium breeder reactor power plant.

Of course many countries (USA, Brazil, France, Germany, and possibly others) built test reactors using thorium as fuel in the 1950's and 1960's.

In the USA one of the first "large scale" commercial nuclear power plants in the USA - Indian Point Unit 1 (275 MW electrical output) was designed and started up in 1962 using thorium nuclear fuel. That reactor was later switched to Uranium as Uranium was more economical.

Shippingport Atomic Power Station - Unit 3 (60 MW electrical output) was built as a thorium breeder reactor (and it bred enough fuel to refuel itself). It ran 1977 - 1982. Economics again shut it down (but it was built more as a test power plant reactor instead of as a large commercial power plant).

There was by the early 1960's an existing thorium fuel production facility. But, the economics did not work out.

[pepelegal]

I believe there are also materials constraints due to high temperatures and corrosion in molten salt reactors?

[alf.]

I know Wikipedia is the bane of most academics but isn't there a military element of choosing Uranium over Thorium?
Science writer Richard Martin explains that nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg's unwillingness to sacrifice potentially safe nuclear power for the benefit of military uses forced him to retire:

"Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. ... his team built a working reactor ... and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nation's atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973."

[jasonh.]

Nobody seems to be worried that all those solar panels have to be replaced every 30 years or so, where will we get the energy to do that? And looking at all the comments, uranium fission was as much about producing plutonium for warheads as it was for producing energy. Thorium seems like a viable long term power source.

[mrbasfed]

Yeah Mr. White! Yeah science!
P.S. Thank you for the explanation. )

[Hugealligator]

So basically they just decided to choose the worse option and used that as an excuse not to do the better option?

[davehalliday]

Here's the difference, using uranium as a fuel is equivalent to using platinum, using Thorium as a fuel is equivalent to using dirt. One is way way more abundant than the other. And the United States (I think) has the third largest deposits of Thorium on the planet, behind Canada and India and maybe Russia.

[jugo]

Money and political issues/interests completely aside (imagining a society devoted to just developing because money/politics is not an issue/restriction) between the those 2: which technology do you think we should be developing and using?

[Steven]

Ever worked on an absorption Chiller? That was two vessels to deal with when it solidified. You want to do what? That goes solid at 850 Deg.? Its not real bright, youd have to wait weeks for it to cool off enough to work on.

[christerbergstrom]

The experimental LFTR in Wuwei, China, seems interesting, though.

[daxmac]

It's always the money. But there's money being wasted in Wind/Solar? The investment in uranium fuel cycle could also produce weapons grade material...cold war stats '55=3000 NWeapons, late '80s = approx 60k Nweapons. And now that the world is all friendly....thorium sounds promising.

[travissmith]

Honestly, with all the known unknowns about current renewable tech, issues, and possibility of unknown unknowns nuclear is our best near-term bet. We just have to stop with a fresh plant design but using same systems that have been used since the beginning and actually try to make them reproducible.

[jamiebejune]

Short Answer: The parasites forbid better technologies they cant brutally exploit the public with. They MUST have SCARCITY

[kevinfox]

We have thorium reactors on submarines.

[higgsbosonberg]

The definition of shortsightedness. Profit-blinded myopia.