China Starts Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor Project

[pabstblueribbon]

"The Energy From Thorium blog reports, 'The People's Republic of China has initiated a research and development project in thorium molten-salt reactor technology (http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/30/china-initiates-tmsr/). It was announced in the Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cas.cn%2Fxw%2Fzyxw%2Fttxw%2F201 101%2Ft20110125_3067050.shtml) annual conference on Tuesday, January 25.' The liquid-fluoride thorium reactor is an alternative reactor design that 1) burns existing nuclear waste, 2) uses abundant thorium as a base fuel, 3) produces far less toxic, shorter-lived waste than existing designs, and 4) can be mass produced, run unattended for years, and installed underground for safety."


http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/11/02/01/047232/China-Starts-Molten-Salt-Nuclear-Reactor-Project

Mother, fuckers. Glad we've had this tech ala Oak Ridge National Laboratory for a while now.... good thing we've put it to use.

[~Rocktar~]

You can thank the focus placed on social welfare programs and pork barrel spending on pet projects as well as the Liberal/Socialist eco-whackos for setting us back 30 years or so in nuclear power implementation.

[pabstblueribbon]

You can thank the focus placed on social welfare programs and pork barrel spending on pet projects as well as the Liberal/Socialist eco-whackos for setting us back 30 years or so in nuclear power implementation.

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

The main reason is because of the conflation of defense industry nuclear materials production with energy production.

Thorium reactors are almost certainly better for generating power, but they don't help you build nuclear bombs, so they get less funding.

The nuclear plant designers main profit are selling the assemblies that contain the fuel rods. To my knowledge these thorium reactors greatly simplify it if not outright make the assemblies un-needed, thus removing the main profit for the designers to implement such a system.

But hey, keep spreading your FUD about liberal/socialist whackos.

[pabstblueribbon]

In other words, blame greed and to some extent the free market.

[g++]

Blame the fact that a commercially viable thorium reactor doesnt exist yet. There are programs in the United States to investigate using them already.

[pabstblueribbon]

Blame the fact that a commercially viable thorium reactor doesnt exist yet. There are programs in the United States to investigate using them already.

Yeah. Like.. in the 1960's. Like the MSRE at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory that went critical in 1965 and ran for four years.

The Fuji MSR.. lacking funding.. wonder why..

It's not commercially viable for the reactor designers for the reasons I've already stated.

[g++]

My god you should share your results with the entire nuclear engineering world who you apparently know better than because you have access too wikipedia.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-future

Because they still seem to think its going to take trillions of dollars in research and development to make one that does something that does anything other than turn on a light bulb at a university.

E-mail India your wikipedia link. It will save them 5 years.

[pabstblueribbon]

My god you should share your results with the entire nuclear engineering world who you apparently know better than because you have access too wikipedia.

http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/energy/nuclear/is-thorium-the-nuclear-fuel-of-the-future

Because they still seem to think its going to take trillions of dollars in research and development to make one that does something that does anything other than turn on a light bulb at a university.

E-mail India your wikipedia link. It will save them 5 years.

Actually the majority of the information I have is from itheo.org and popsci.com.

The wikipedia does have some easily quotable facts though.

How does India's thorium research and implementation relate to what we've been doing since the 60's? How are our time tables even comparable?

Ah. Right.

[g++]

India has been working toward implementing a thorium based energy system for years and expects it will take 10 more years of research to get it functional. I think its pretty fucking relevent since its exactly what we are talking about. If some guys at a college in the 60s had a scalable working model you would think India would just ask the US for the fucking blueprints instead of wasting billions of dollars and 15 years re-designing it. I guess it does throw a wrench in the theory that the reason we arent utilizing thorium energy is because of the defense department.

The real reason we dont use thorium is because no one has a scalable model designed for it yet added with the fact that the US has secured cheap sources of Uranium(relatively speaking) that makes it economically unlikely that a power supplier would be driven to go off Uranium as a fuel so long as it works.

[pabstblueribbon]

India has been working toward implementing a thorium based energy system for years and expects it will take 10 more years of research to get it functional. I think its pretty fucking relevent since its exactly what we are talking about. If some guys at a college in the 60s had a scalable working model you would think India would just ask the US for the fucking blueprints instead of wasting billions of dollars and 15 years re-designing it. I guess it does throw a wrench in the theory that the reason we arent utilizing thorium energy is because of the defense department.

The real reason we dont use thorium is because no one has a scalable model designed for it yet added with the fact that the US has secured cheap sources of Uranium(relatively speaking) that makes it economically unlikely that a power supplier would be driven to go off Uranium as a fuel so long as it works.

Wow. So you're comparing ORNL to a couple of guys at college in the 60's?

Scalable model? That's what the MSRE was.. there were complications due to materials not existing that could withstand the corrosion (the piping).

I said it was a mixture of defense FUNDING, and the fact that the majority of revenue generated for the designers is based off of selling the assemblies..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/MSRE_Diagram.JPG/699px-MSRE_Diagram.JPG

[IorakeWarhammer]

Wow. So you're comparing ORNL to a couple of guys at college in the 60's?

Scalable model? That's what the MSRE was.. there were complications due to materials not existing that could withstand the corrosion (the piping).

I said it was a mixture of defense FUNDING, and the fact that the majority of revenue generated for the designers is based off of selling the assemblies..

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/13/MSRE_Diagram.JPG/699px-MSRE_Diagram.JPG

ANDDDDDDDD I have just been placed on a no-fly list.

[g++]

So all the nuclear engineers working on thorium reactors around the world right now are what? Lazy? Misinformed? Too busy to copy the perfectly usable one that already exists? There are literally 4 major world powers working toward implementing these reactors right now and you are suggesting they did not look over this experiment? Im sure they did and realized it wouldnt suit their needs when it came to actually powering a grid.

It was an experimental model thats really all that matters no one has ever used a thorium reactor to power anything. The point of your first post was to somehow imply that the reason the United States is not using thorium powered nuclear energy is because the defense department supplements uranium plants. Its really just not true the reason the United States uses Uranium is it gets it cheap and there is no commercial thorium reactor in existance so to make one would require alot of money in R&D upfront.

[pabstblueribbon]

Here's a comment from your very own link g++


Having worked as a theoretical physicist analyzing Th/U233 cycles in the 1960's, I am still surprised that it is behind the 8-ball in terms of practicality in the USA for the "nuclear" way ahead. I also did feasibility studies of pebble bed configurations and I felt then (as did others in the group) that Th/U233 and pebble bed technology combined the best of "anti proliferation" methods available and gave safer (if that is a good term) by-products.
It appears that investment in older technologies are going to sway investment decisions in the future. I know that General Dynamics were also looking at these technologies (at least pebble beds) then but I am unaware as to progress they made in this direction.
As noted in one of the articles - replacement of fuel technology in existing reactors by Thorium (and using Pu and U235 as the fissile material - to burn it up etc) is a good and cheaper option than building a new reactor facility.

[pabstblueribbon]

So all the nuclear engineers working on thorium reactors around the world right now are what? Lazy? Misinformed? Too busy to copy the perfectly usable one that already exists? There are literally 4 major world powers working toward implementing these reactors right now and you are suggesting they did not look over this experiment? Im sure they did and realized it wouldnt suit their needs when it came to actually powering a grid.

It was an experimental model thats really all that matters no one has ever used a thorium reactor to power anything. The point of your first post was to somehow imply that the reason the United States is not using thorium powered nuclear energy is because the defense department supplements uranium plants. Its really just not true the reason the United States uses Uranium is it gets it cheap and there is no commercial thorium reactor in existance so to make one would require alot of money in R&D upfront.

That experimental model was small and capable of 10MW.. but okay.


(Thorium) Currently, it costs US$ 30/kg. In the 2000s, the price of uranium has risen above $100/kg, not including the cost of enrichment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enriched_uranium), and fuel element (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_element) fabrication.
Kind of ruins your uranium is cheap argument, doesnt it. I bolded the important part for you.

[g++]

Its cheaper than developing an entirely new way to do things. There is an opportunity cost to developing a thorium nuclear reactor so the benefit of using thorium over uranium has to outweigh the price tag of R&D for a thorium reactor. It wont likely reach that hurdle for the United States anytime soon. It already has for China and India who are working toward developing it.

You still have not addressed the glaring contradiction that you claim these reactors exist and are scalable yet the very country you say invented it is currently pumping money into research to develop it. You are just completely wrong.

[pabstblueribbon]

Its cheaper than developing an entirely new way to do things. There is an opportunity cost to developing a thorium nuclear reactor so the benefit of using thorium over uranium has to outweigh the price tag of R&D for a thorium reactor. It wont likely reach that hurdle for the United States anytime soon. It already has for China and India who are working toward developing it.

You still have not addressed the glaring contradiction that you claim these reactors exist and are scalable yet the very country you say invented it is currently pumping money into research to develop it. You are just completely wrong.

Well I'm done quoting sources and facts. Your opinion obviously outweighs any of those.

Explain to me why, after 45 years of building a model that worked for 4 years, we don't use the technology?

Could it be lack of funding?

[g++]

BTW you quoted a wikipedia article that shows there was an experimental design made 50 years ago that never powered anything. I quoted an article from the present time showing 4 countries are still unable to get a working model up and running. So dont get all "I gave you so much information" you provided jack shit to back up your argument. You actually sourced slash dot for christ sake.

That mixed with the fact that Uranium was cheap and no one gave a shit about burying nuclear waste in the desert till about 20 years ago.

[pabstblueribbon]

That mixed with the fact that Uranium was cheap and no one gave a shit about burying nuclear waste in the desert till about 20 years ago.

Wasn't that the point I was trying to make hmm?

You are dismissed.

[g++]

Wasn't that the point I was trying to make hmm?

You are dismissed.

No you're misguided tin foil hat point was that the defense department was making energy conglomerates use Uranium over thorium because their evil. I dont need to dismiss you Im sure you will lock yourself in a crawl space without instruction.

[pabstblueribbon]

BTW you quoted a wikipedia article that shows there was an experimental design made 50 years ago that never powered anything. I quoted an article from the present time showing 4 countries are still unable to get a working model up and running. So dont get all "I gave you so much information" you provided jack shit to back up your argument. You actually sourced slash dot for christ sake.

That mixed with the fact that Uranium was cheap and no one gave a shit about burying nuclear waste in the desert till about 20 years ago.

Yeah, because 650 degrees celsius isn't enough to make steam to turn turbines thus generating power. Good point.

[pabstblueribbon]

I never said the evil government did anything, I just said that the research funding for defense, would rationally be less for pure nuclear energy production versus nuclear energy production that also resulted in weapons grade materials, which thorium by design, does not do.

I think this should change because if you don't think energy independence translates into defense then well.. yeah.

Seriously, get off the tin foil hat shit.

[g++]

JACKASS. ACTUAL NUCLEAR ENGINEERS ARE WORKING ON IT. IF IT WAS EASY IT WOULD BE DONE.

[pabstblueribbon]

JACKASS. ACTUAL NUCLEAR ENGINEERS ARE WORKING ON IT. IF IT WAS EASY IT WOULD BE DONE.

JACKASS. I REALIZE THIS BUT IT DOES NOT EXPLAIN THE LACK OF FUNDING HISTORICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THIS WHICH RELATES TO WHY FOR THE PAST 45 YEARS WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING WITH IT.

[g++]

Its being funded currently. As sourced.

[pabstblueribbon]

Seriously, go fuck off in another thread.

EDIT: I never cited slashdot, I simply cited where I read the story.

http://energyfromthorium.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/HargravesLFTRAimHighBRC-500x375.jpg

[g++]

Im sure you are aware thorium reactors dont have to be breeders right?

I dont suppose you have a graph that extends within 10 years of present either? rofl

[g++]

Theres over 1.8 billion dollars in the FY 2011 budget for sciences related to nuclear energy.

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/11budget/Content/FY2011Highlights.pdf

[Androidpk]

:popcorn:

[pabstblueribbon]

Im sure you are aware thorium reactors dont have to be breeders right?

I dont suppose you have a graph that extends within 10 years of present either? rofl

Explain this to me then, Mr. Wizard.

Why would you not invest in technology that replenishes its own fuel source, ala breeders?

Did you not understand my original query? Why did we fund so much in the beginning, and then why the sharp decline in funding over the past 20 years?

[pabstblueribbon]

Theres over 1.8 billion dollars in the FY 2011 budget for sciences related to nuclear energy.

http://www.cfo.doe.gov/budget/11budget/Content/FY2011Highlights.pdf


Did you even read page 45?

[Sheikh]

Why did we fund so much in the beginning, and then why the sharp decline in funding over the past 20 years?

Every President, House, Congress, Leader, Organization........ and so on has their priorities and pet projects. Vote for somebody that cares about this and it will get funding, or become really fucking rich or run a multibillion dollar corporation and then 'donate' a shit ton of money to elected officials and then kindly ask them to have it funded more.

Or go hold a sign outside of the Capitol Building and hope for the best.

Edit: Also, like all things in the world, people want to make a profit on it. So, whoever makes it possible to rely on this as an effective form of electricity will probably not announce all the specifics or possible even talk about it right off the bat. They first company and then country to get this will keep it quite until they have cornered the market I am willing to bet.

[Latrinsorm]

JACKASS. ACTUAL NUCLEAR ENGINEERS ARE WORKING ON IT. IF IT WAS EASY IT WOULD BE DONE.PBR is probably taking the physicist point of view, which is usually: hurry up already, engineers, we already did all the hard work.

[pabstblueribbon]

Priorities like National Security.

[Androidpk]

Explain this to me then, Mr. Wizard.


You watched that show too??

[pabstblueribbon]

PBR is probably taking the physicist point of view, which is usually: hurry up already, engineers, we already did all the hard work.

Not really. Proof of concept was already done.. I want to know why we invented non-proliferation nuclear power tech and squandered it. Why are all these emerging countries jumping on it like a dog in heat?

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/history.html


A Brief History of Nuclear Reactors

From the late 1940s though the 1950s, the overwhelming concern of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)--and indeed of nuclear establishments worldwide--was the production of weapons-grade nuclear materials. This was done by enriching uranium to very high levels of the isotope uranium-235 or by forming plutonium-239 from abundant uranium-238 in a specialized nuclear reactor. In the U.S., massive gaseous diffusion plants for uranium enrichment at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and later at Portsmouth, Ohio, were constructed to produce highly enriched uranium for weapons use. By 1957 roughly 7% of the entire electrical output of the U.S. was being devoted to uranium enrichment for weapons. Weapons-grade plutonium was produced at specialized military reactors at Hanford, Washington, and at the Savannah River plant in South Carolina. These plants produced no electrical power, but contained large facilities to extract plutonium from processed uranium.

For many years, reactor development for civilian power use was a low priority of the AEC. Even the projects the AEC pursued in civilian nuclear power had military applicability, with the most notable being the liquid-metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR). The LMFBR was capable of simultaneously producing weapons-grade plutonium and producing electrical power, giving it a particular advantage over the reactors at Hanford and Savannah River in the eyes of the AEC. AEC funding of the LMFBR led to the first demonstration of electricity generation from nuclear power at the Experimental Breeder Reactor-1 in Arco, Idaho, on December 20, 1951.

Meanwhile, research into a nuclear-powered airplane led to a stunning conceptual breakthrough in nuclear reactor design: a reactor whose fuel was entirely dissolved in chemically stable fluoride salts. First proposed by R.C. Briant of Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in 1951, the liquid fluoride reactor was radically different from other reactors that relied on solid fuel. The liquid fluoride reactor had tremendous safety and performance advantages over solid-fueled reactors, as well as a remarkable versatility in potential fuels. A proof-of-concept fluoride reactor was built and operated in 1954 at Oak Ridge. It was called the Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE), and it demonstrated that fluoride reactors had the chemical and nuclear stability that Briant and his colleagues had predicted. After the success of the ARE, the fluoride reactor was baselined for the nuclear aircraft project, but the advent of intercontinental ballistic missiles led to cancellation of the nuclear aircraft in 1960.

Dr. Alvin Weinberg, the director of ORNL and the inventor of the solid-fueled light water reactor (LWR), recognized the remarkable potential of the fluoride reactor and turned the attention of the fluoride reactor team from aircraft propulsion to terrestrial energy. He was particularly impressed with the ability of the fluoride reactor to safely and efficiently use thorium. Unlike any other reactor power source, a liquid form of thorium existed (thorium tetrafluoride, ThF4) that could be easily reprocessed to unlock thorium's potential.

In 1959, using his contacts in the AEC, Weinberg pushed for funding of a more advanced demonstration of fluoride reactor technology and was able to win funding for the second fluoride reactor: the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE), which was built and operated by ORNL from 1965 to 1969. The MSRE was a much-improved design over the ARE and led to the demonstration of reactor operation on different fuels, stable self-controlling operation without control rods, removal of reactor poisons online, and strong passive safety features.

Nevertheless, the MSRE and fluoride reactors in general could not fulfill the most important mission of the AEC in those days: the production of weapons-grade plutonium. The LMFBR could make the plutonium for the nuclear build up the AEC desired. Furthermore, the safety features of the fluoride reactor highlighted the safety risks of the LMFBR; after the first commercial LMFBR suffered a severe core meltdown in 1966, the meltdown-proof fluoride reactors offered a safe alternative to LMFBRs that proved politically embarrassing. With a great deal of money and political capital already invested in LMFBRs, the AEC moved to shut down all research on fluoride reactors at ORNL in the mid-1970s, and the fluoride reactor team was disbanded and assigned to other projects.

[pabstblueribbon]

You watched that show too??

Yeah, loved it. And 3,2,1 Contact and.. just about any science show in the 80's as a kid.

[g++]

Explain this to me then, Mr. Wizard.

Why would you not invest in technology that replenishes its own fuel source, ala breeders?

Did you not understand my original query? Why did we fund so much in the beginning, and then why the sharp decline in funding over the past 20 years?

I dont know. Unlike you I dont put a "Junior Nuclear Engineer" hat on when I read an article. Ill leave it to the people that actually design reactors to choose which types they prefer. I do know that the reactor from your original post is also not a breeder its a break even reactor. So those god damn chinese must also see something wrong with breeders. Im talking out my ass at this point though I dont know enough about the subject. I would bet like 1000 dollars you dont either though.

We still fund nuclear research the fact that the amount declined likely has to do with the fact that people dont want nuclear power in their neighborhoods and in the 90's nuclear energy became unpopular add in the extra fact that the cold war ended and walah. It is resurging in America though and I would not be suprised if its funding went up a bit.

I read page 45 after you pointed it out if you think I actually read the entire department of energy budget to make a point you think I am as crazy as you. So we spend money cleaning up nuclear waste....most of that is from weapons. I hate to break it to you even if the whole country was running on thorium we would still be pointing uranium at other countries. If you want to talk about that its a different topic.

[pabstblueribbon]

I dont know. Unlike you I dont put a "Junior Nuclear Engineer" hat on when I read an article. Ill leave it to the people that actually design reactors to choose which types they prefer. I do know that the reactor from your original post is also not a breeder its a break even reactor. So those god damn chinese must also see something wrong with breeders. Im talking out my ass at this point though I dont know enough about the subject. I would bet like 1000 dollars you dont either though.

We still fund nuclear research the fact that the amount declined likely has to do with the fact that people dont want nuclear power in their neighborhoods and in the 90's nuclear energy became unpopular add in the extra fact that the cold war ended and walah. It is resurging in America though and I would not be suprised if its funding went up a bit.

I read page 45 after you pointed it out if you think I actually read the entire department of energy budget to make a point you think I am as crazy as you. So we spend money cleaning up nuclear waste....most of that is from weapons. I hate to break it to you even if the whole country was running on thorium we would still be pointing uranium at other countries. If you want to talk about that its a different topic.

If that's as close as you'll come to admitting that you were wrong then I'll take it. You might find the previous article I posted an interesting read, if nothing else.

[Gan]

It's all Bush's fault.

[~Rocktar~]

Not really. Proof of concept was already done.. I want to know why we invented non-proliferation nuclear power tech and squandered it. Why are all these emerging countries jumping on it like a dog in heat?

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/history.html

I answered this already but you casually dismissed it because you clearly have no fucking clue about what has really gone on in the past 30 years.

We stopped nearly all serious alternative energy research in favor of funding social welfare and because eco whackjobs vilified nuclear power after 3 Mile Island and even more so after Chernobyl despite the fact that the 3 Mile Island plant was a design that was pretty old even then and we don't build plants the way the Russians do which is the very heart and cause of that reactor melt down and explosion.

You can do a lot of things in small sizes that you can't do on a large or efficient scale. For example, go look up the phenomenon of sono-luminesence. In small scale, you can use sound waves collapsing on each other in de-ionized water to produce light. In theory, the compression of molecules generates temperatures and pressures on the molecular level similar to what is necessary of fusion. Unfortunately, it is apparently not possible to scales this into a usable process at this time. The same is true for laser initiated fusion reactors.

I can assure you that while some of your concepts about why it isn't being used or funded/implemented as much have some merit, the primary reasoning is simply that no one has mastered it yet on a scale needed to be successful. Make no mistake, once someone does, in short order the rest of the world will know. You can't hide commercially viable, energy producing power plants all that easily.

[g++]

You made up a bunch of tin foil hat bullshit about how the government is using Uranium over thorium sourcing an article that doesnt even mention uranium. You Then proceded to use a scale model from the 60's as proof that we could power our country with it. When shown thats impossible you then clearly demonstrated you have no idea what a breeder reactor is and posted a graph from a decade ago that is completely unrelated to the current discussion. You have totally won me over on this issue.

Gold star.

[~Rocktar~]

It's all Bush's fault.

Goddammit. I just hope he says away from those cattle in Montana and Wyoming or those wolves will be able to get away scott free.

[pabstblueribbon]

I answered this already but you casually dismissed it because you clearly have no fucking clue about what has really gone on in the past 30 years.

We stopped nearly all serious alternative energy research in favor of funding social welfare and because eco whackjobs vilified nuclear power after 3 Mile Island and even more so after Chernobyl despite the fact that the 3 Mile Island plant was a design that was pretty old even then and we don't build plants the way the Russians do which is the very heart and cause of that reactor melt down and explosion.

You can do a lot of things in small sizes that you can't do on a large or efficient scale. For example, go look up the phenomenon of sono-luminesence. In small scale, you can use sound waves collapsing on each other in de-ionized water to produce light. In theory, the compression of molecules generates temperatures and pressures on the molecular level similar to what is necessary of fusion. Unfortunately, it is apparently not possible to scales this into a usable process at this time. The same is true for laser initiated fusion reactors.

I can assure you that while some of your concepts about why it isn't being used or funded/implemented as much have some merit, the primary reasoning is simply that no one has mastered it yet on a scale needed to be successful. Make no mistake, once someone does, in short order the rest of the world will know. You can't hide commercially viable, energy producing power plants all that easily.

You left out
"You can thank the focus placed on social welfare programs and pork barrel spending on pet projects as well as the Liberal/Socialist eco-whackos for setting us back 30 years or so in nuclear power implementation."

Because the AEC has nothing to do with who gets the funding, or the fact that funding was cut before Three Mile Island even happened.

You wouldn't need to hide small, thorium based reactors. They could be small enough to power your neighborhood. Decentralize, compartmentalize; there's no need to hide anything. You can't make weapons out of thorium anyways. If one goes down for maintenance whatever, it's only a small lag in the collective power 'hive'.

Cool story, though.



You made up a bunch of tin foil hat bullshit about how the government is using Uranium over thorium sourcing an article that doesnt even mention uranium. You Then proceded to use a scale model from the 60's as proof that we could power our country with it. When shown thats impossible you then clearly demonstrated you have no idea what a breeder reactor is and posted a graph from a decade ago that is completely unrelated to the current discussion. You have totally won me over on this issue.

Gold star.

Yeah. I made it all up. That's why I linked several articles about it. How did I demonstrate that I did not know what a breeder reactor was?

You make a lot of accusations.

[g++]

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

The main reason is because of the conflation of defense industry nuclear materials production with energy production.

Thorium reactors are almost certainly better for generating power, but they don't help you build nuclear bombs, so they get less funding.

The nuclear plant designers main profit are selling the assemblies that contain the fuel rods. To my knowledge these thorium reactors greatly simplify it if not outright make the assemblies un-needed, thus removing the main profit for the designers to implement such a system.

But hey, keep spreading your FUD about liberal/socialist whackos.


Back this up.

...several articles you linked an announcement that china was working on one. What are the other articles? I pointed out you copy pasted wikipedia if thats the several sources I dont know what to say.

[~Rocktar~]

You left out
"You can thank the focus placed on social welfare programs and pork barrel spending on pet projects as well as the Liberal/Socialist eco-whackos for setting us back 30 years or so in nuclear power implementation."

Because the AEC has nothing to do with who gets the funding, or the fact that funding was cut before Three Mile Island even happened.

You wouldn't need to hide small, thorium based reactors. They could be small enough to power your neighborhood. Decentralize, compartmentalize; there's no need to hide anything. You can't make weapons out of thorium anyways. If one goes down for maintenance whatever, it's only a small lag in the collective power 'hive'.


You really do have no clue. And Social Welfare spending started when 3 Mile Island happened amrite?

[pabstblueribbon]

You really do have no clue. And Social Welfare spending started when 3 Mile Island happened amrite?

Yeah. I'm the one without a clue. Teddy, FDR, the great depression. All those social welfare projects definitely led to a severe core meltdown in an LMFBR in 1966, which promptly resulted in funding cuts.

Would you like a shovel for that hole you're digging?

[~Rocktar~]

The only shovel I need is a manure shovel to keep ahead of the load you are dumping.

[pabstblueribbon]

Back this up.

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/history.html


Nevertheless, the MSRE and fluoride reactors in general could not fulfill the most important mission of the AEC in those days: the production of weapons-grade plutonium. The LMFBR could make the plutonium for the nuclear build up the AEC desired. Furthermore, the safety features of the fluoride reactor highlighted the safety risks of the LMFBR; after the first commercial LMFBR suffered a severe core meltdown in 1966, the meltdown-proof fluoride reactors offered a safe alternative to LMFBRs that proved politically embarrassing. With a great deal of money and political capital already invested in LMFBRs, the AEC moved to shut down all research on fluoride reactors at ORNL in the mid-1970s, and the fluoride reactor team was disbanded and assigned to other projects.

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


Molten salt fuel reactors are not experimental. Several have been constructed and operated at 650 °C temperatures for extended times, with simple, practical validated designs. There is no need for new science and very little risk in engineering new, larger or modular designs.

Give me a second to find the information on profits gained from the production of the nuclear fuel elements in a traditional reactor vs the molten salt reactor (which has no fuel element IIRC).

I will find it.

[pabstblueribbon]

The only shovel I need is a manure shovel to keep ahead of the load you are dumping.

?

You make claims, I refute them with facts.

Then you respond with something about manure. Not much of a debater, are you?

[Rinualdo]

?

You make claims, I refute them with facts.

Then you respond with something about manure. Not much of a debater, are you?

Have you just started reading Rocktar posts? This is all he has.

An interesting departure from Firestorm Killa's posts

[~Rocktar~]

?

You make claims, I refute them with facts.

Then you respond with something about manure. Not much of a debater, are you?

You make unsubstantiated claims and focus on what you think is the cause of them all the while simply discounting anything that doesn't agree with you. You moved from a somewhat interesting post with some short sighted conclusions in it into full blown denial and shit shoveling.

When you engage the debate instead of sticking your head in the sand or your ass, then maybe you can call it an actual debate. As it stands now, it is you spewing stuff, others posing contradictory ideals and your response being the text equivalent of putting your hands over your ears, closing your ears and yelling "la la la" while others are talking.

[pabstblueribbon]

www.energyfromthorium.com (http://www.energyfromthorium.com)


History of liquid fuel reactors
The world’s first liquid fuel reactor used uranium sulfate fuel dissolved in water. Eugene Wigner conceived this technology in 1945, Alvin Weinberg built it at Oak Ridge, and Enrico Fermi started it up. The water carries the fuel, moderates neutrons (slows them to take advantage of the high fission cross-section of uranium for thermal-energy neutrons), transfers heat, and expands as the temperature increases, thus lowering moderation and stabilizing the fission rate. Because the hydrogen in ordinary water absorbs neutrons, an aqueous reactor, like a PWR, cannot reach criticality unless fueled with uranium enriched beyond the natural 0.7% isotopic abundance of U-235. Deuterium absorbs few neutrons, so, with heavy water, aqueous reactors can use unenriched uranium. Weinberg’s aqueous reactor fed 140 kW of power into the electric grid for 1000 hours. The intrinsic reactivity control was so effective that shutdown was accomplished simply by turning off the steam turbine generator.

In 1943, Wigner and Weinberg also conceived a liquid fuel thorium-uranium breeder reactor, for which the aqueous reactor discussed above was but the first step. The fundamental premise in such a reactor is that a blanket of thorium Th-232 surrounding the fissile core will absorb neutrons, with some nuclei thus being converted (“transmuted”) to Th-233. Th-233, in turn, beta decays to protactinium-233 and then to U-233, which is itself fissile and can be used to refuel the reactor. Later, as Director of Oak Ridge, Weinberg led the development of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), the subject of this article.

Aware of the future effect of carbon dioxide emissions, Weinberg wrote “humankind’s whole future depended on this.” The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, powered first with U-235 and then U-233, operated successfully over 4 years, through 1969. To facilitate engineering tests, the thorium blanket was not installed; the U-233 used in the core came from other reactors breeding Th?232.

The MSRE was a proof-of-principle success. Fission-product xenon gas was continually removed to prevent unwanted neutron absorptions, online refueling was demonstrated, minor corrosion of the reactor vessel was addressed, and chemistry protocols for separation of thorium, uranium, and fission products in the fluid fluorine salts were developed. Unfortunately, the Oak Ridge work was stopped when the Nixon administration decided instead to fund only the solid fuel Liquid sodium Metal cooled Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR), which could breed plutonium-239 faster than the LFTR could breed uranium-233.


A significant advantage of using thorium to breed U-233 is that relatively little plutonium is produced from the Th-232 because six more neutron absorptions are required than is the case with U-238. The U-233 that is bred is also proliferation-resistant in that the neutrons that produce it also produce 0.13% contaminating U-232 which decays eventually to thallium, which itself emits a 2.6 MeV penetrating gamma radiation that would be obvious to detection monitors and hazardous to weapons builders. For example, a year after U-233 separation, a weapons worker one meter from a subcritical 5 kg sphere of it would receive a radiation dose of 4,200 mrem/hr; death becomes probable after 72 hours exposure. Normally the reactor shielding protects workers, but modifying the reactor to separate U-233 would require somehow adding hot cells and remote handling equipment to the reactor and also to facilities for weapons fabrication, transport, and delivery. Attempting to build U-233-based nuclear weapons by modifying a LFTR would be more hazardous, technically challenging and expensive than creating a purpose-built weapons program using uranium enrichment (Pakistan) or plutonium breeding (India, North Korea).


Work on thorium-based reactors is currently being actively pursued in many countries including Germany, India, China, and Canada; India plans to produce 30% of its electricity from thorium by 2050. But all these investigations involve solid fuel forms. Our interest here is with the liquid-fueled form of a thorium-based U-233 breeder reactor.

The configuration of a LFTR is shown schematically in Figure 2. In a “two-fluid” LFTR a molten eutectic mixture of salts such as LiF and BeF2 containing dissolved UF4 forms the central fissile core. (“Eutectic” refers to a compound that solidifies at a lower temperature than any other compound of the same chemicals.) A separate annular region containing molten Li and Be fluoride salts with dissolved ThF4 forms the fertile blanket. Fission of U-233 (or some other “starter” fissile fuel) dissolved in the fluid core heats it. This heated fissile fluid attains a noncritical geometry as it is pumped through small passages inside a heat exchanger. Excess neutrons are absorbed by Th-232 in the molten salt blanket, breeding U-233 which is continuously removed with fluorine gas and used to refuel the core. Fission products are chemically removed in the waste separator, leaving uranium and transuranics in the molten salt fuel. From the heat exchanger a separate circuit of molten salt heats gases in the closed cycle helium gas turbine which generates power. All three molten salt circuits are at atmospheric pressure.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201101/images/hargraves-fig2_1.jpg
Figure 2. In a two-fluid liquid fluoride thorium reactor the fission of U-233 in the core heats molten carrier salt (yellow). It attains a noncritical geometry as it is pumped through small passages in a heat exchanger. A separate circuit of molten salt (red), with no radioactive materials, heats gases in the closed cycle helium gas turbine which spins to generate power. Excess neutrons are absorbed by Th-232 in the molten salt blanket (green), breeding U-233 which is removed with fluorine gas. Fission products are chemically removed in the waste separator, leaving uranium and transuranics in the molten salt fuel. All three molten salt circuits are at atmospheric pressure.
LFTRs would reduce waste storage issues from millions of years to a few hundred years. The radiotoxicity of nuclear waste arises from two sources: the highly radioactive fission products from fission and the long-lived actinides from neutron absorption. Thorium and uranium fueled reactors produce essentially the same fission products, whose radiotoxicity in 500 years drops below that of the original ore mined for uranium to power a PWR. A LFTR would create far fewer transuranic actinides than a PWR. After 300 years the LFTR waste radiation would be 10,000 times less than that from a PWR (Figure 3). In practice, some transuranics will leak through the chemical waste separator, but the waste radiotoxicity would be < 1% of that from PWRs. Geological repositories smaller than Yucca mountain would suffice to sequester the waste.
http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/201101/images/hargraves-fig3.jpg
Figure 3. A LFTR produces much less long-lived waste than PWRs. (Adapted from Sylvan David et al, Revisiting the thorium-uranium nuclear fuel cycle, Europhysics news, 38(2), p 25.)

Existing PWR spent fuel can be an asset. A 100 MW LFTR requires 100 kg of fissile material (U-233, U-235, or Pu-239) to start the chain reaction. The world now has 340,000 tonnes of spent PWR fuel, of which 1% is fissile material that could start one 100 MW LFTR per day for 93 years.

A commercial LFTR will make just enough uranium to sustain power generation, so diverting uranium for weapons use would stop the reactor, alerting authorities. A LFTR will have little excess fissile material; U-233 is continuously generated to replace the fissioned U-233, and Th-232 is continuously introduced to replace the Th-232 converted to the U-233. Terrorists could not steal this uranium dissolved in a molten salt solution along with lethally radioactive fission products inside a sealed reactor, which would be subject to the usual IAEA safeguards of physical security, accounting and control of all nuclear materials, surveillance to detect tampering, and intrusive inspections.

It is also possible to configure a liquid-fuel reactor that would involve no U-233 separation. For example, the single fluid denatured molten salt reactor (DMSR) version of a LFTR with no U-233 separation is fed with both thorium and < 20% enriched uranium. It can operate up to 30 years before actinide and fission product buildup requires fuel salt replacement, while consuming only 25% of the uranium a PWR uses.

Starting up LFTRs with plutonium can consume stocks of this weapons-capable material. Thorium fuel would also reduce the need for U-235 enrichment plants, which can be used to make weapons material as easily as power reactor fuel. U-233, at the core of the reactor, is important to LFTR development and testing. With a half-life of only 160,000 years, it is not found in nature. The US has 1,000 kg of nearly irreplaceable U-233 at Oak Ridge. It is now slated to be destroyed by diluting it with U-238 and burying it forever, at a cost of $477 million. This money would be far better invested in LFTR development.

[~Rocktar~]

Have you just started reading Rocktar posts? This is all he has.

An interesting departure from Firestorm Killa's posts

Please try to stop being a waste of skin and protoplasm. You don't even start with any substantial post to begin with.

[pabstblueribbon]

You make unsubstantiated claims and focus on what you think is the cause of them all the while simply discounting anything that doesn't agree with you. You moved from a somewhat interesting post with some short sighted conclusions in it into full blown denial and shit shoveling.

When you engage the debate instead of sticking your head in the sand or your ass, then maybe you can call it an actual debate. As it stands now, it is you spewing stuff, others posing contradictory ideals and your response being the text equivalent of putting your hands over your ears, closing your ears and yelling "la la la" while others are talking.

Unsubstantiated claims?

You don't say.. Hmm.. I think I've substantiated my claims much more thoroughly than, IT'S THE WELFARE/SOCIALIST/LIBERAL AGENDA.

And I'm the one putting my hands over my ears, closing my eyes and yelling "la la la" while others are talking?

Read, moron.

[pabstblueribbon]

Yeah, the MSRE didn't produce any power g++.


May 23. After about a year of experimentation, the MSRE reaches its full power rating of 8 thermal megawatts.

[g++]

http://www.energyfromthorium.com/history.html



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



Give me a second to find the information on profits gained from the production of the nuclear fuel elements in a traditional reactor vs the molten salt reactor (which has no fuel element IIRC).

I will find it.

That does not prove that the reason we dont use thorium reactors today is because they dont provide material for nuclear weapons which was your implication, that may very well have been the prevailing attitude in the 60s but I seriously doubt the the main aim of nuclear plants today is to make weapons grade plutonium. I could also point out that the website your using as a source "energyfromthorium.com" is pretty god damned likely to be biased in favor of thorium being the solution to all our problems since its the name of the freaking web site but Ill take it at face value its true for now.

Also the site pointed out the theoretical version youve been saying is ready for production melted down. ::shrug::

My point has never been thorium would not be a good alternate energy source. Its that you coming at it as "The ignorant fucking government ignored it so it could make nukes" is dead wrong. It ignored it because Uranium was a more feasable way to produce energy and no working thorium reactor models exist on a usable scale.

[pabstblueribbon]

That does not prove that the reason we dont use thorium reactors today is because they dont provide material for nuclear weapons which was your implication, that may very well have been the prevailing attitude in the 60s but I seriously doubt the the main aim of nuclear plants today is to make weapons grade plutonium. I could also point out that the website your using as a source "energyfromthorium.com" is pretty god damned likely to be biased in favor of thorium being the solution to all our problems since its the name of the freaking web site but Ill take it at face value its true for now.

Also the site pointed out the theoretical version youve been saying is ready for production melted down. ::shrug::

Wrong. The LMFBR melted down, in 1966. Did you read any of the information I posted? You know there's a difference, right?

[g++]

Yeah alright I misread it.

[pabstblueribbon]

My point has never been thorium would not be a good alternate energy source. Its that you coming at it as "The ignorant fucking government ignored it so it could make nukes" is dead wrong. It ignored it because Uranium was a more feasable way to produce energy and no working thorium reactor models exist on a usable scale.

And you're dead fucking wrong. How many times do I have to post that the goddamn reactor produced nearly 10MW of power? It is a fact.

Funds were funneled into the LMFBR because it could create weapons grade material faster. I've posted several reasons for this.

[g++]

And you're dead fucking wrong. How many times do I have to post that the goddamn reactor produced nearly 10MW of power? It is a fact.

Funds were funneled into the LMFBR because it could create weapons grade material faster. I've posted several reasons for this.

How do you not understand the difference between a prototype that makes 10MW of power and powering a large portion of the entire country? I showed evidence that India is still 10 years away from developing the technology and you keep pointing to a wikipedia article that a prototype reactor existed.

[pabstblueribbon]

How do you not understand the difference between a prototype that makes 10MW of power and powering a large portion of the entire country? I showed evidence that India is still 10 years away from developing the technology and you keep pointing to a wikipedia article that a prototype reactor existed.

Who gives a flying fuck about India? Why do you keep coming back to this? We invented it, we are more advanced than India. WE CUT THE FUNDING AND THREW IT INTO LMFBR BECAUSE IT PRODUCED WEAPONS GRADE MATERIAL. This is well known. Why would we do this? Cold war. I don't blame them.

Would it be better if I could find an ORNL article that says it existed? It did. It's a pretty well known fact.

Did you not read the differences between India's implementation?

Are you reading any of it at all?

10MW of power by itself, sure, it's not amazing when you think of a big plant. It's still enough to power roughly 30,000 US homes..

But that's not what I'm talking about. I'd love to have a 10MW plant the size of a substation in my back yard.

[g++]

Who gives a flying fuck about India? Why do you keep coming back to this? We invented it, we are more advanced than India. WE CUT THE FUNDING AND THREW IT INTO LMFBR BECAUSE IT PRODUCED WEAPONS GRADE MATERIAL. This is well known. Why would we do this? Cold war. I don't blame them.

Would it be better if I could find an ORNL that says it existed? It did. It's a pretty well known fact.

Did you not read the differences between India's implementation?

Are you reading any of it at all?

You're psychotic but back to the point.

http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/mSR_Adventure.html

This guy who actually was on the project managed to explain why HIS program was shut down without blaming nuclear weapons. Hes probably some lune though he was just the director of the actual project.

Yes I read India is using a staged process to get the most bang for their buck in order to get enough energy to power a large portion of their country. Almost like their planning to set up some kind of crazy energy grid instead of a single reactor.

[pabstblueribbon]

You're psychotic but back to the point.

http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/mSR_Adventure.html (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ebhoglund/mSR_Adventure.html)

This guy who actually was on the project managed to explain why HIS program was shut down without blaming nuclear weapons. Hes probably some lune though he was just the director of the actual project.

Yes I read India is using a staged process to get the most bang for their buck in order to get enough energy to power a large portion of their country. Almost like their planning to set up some kind of crazy energy grid instead of a single reactor.

From your own article:


Starting in 1960, however, the financial support of the Molten Salt Reactor Program was dependent on its breeding possibilities.

[g++]

.....You remember like 3 posts ago where your position was we use Uranium only because it produces material for nuclear weapons?

[pabstblueribbon]

.....You remember like 3 posts ago where your position was we use Uranium only because it produces material for nuclear weapons?
Nope. It doesn't exist. I never said anything about uranium other than to disprove your assertation that it was cheaper than thorium. There is more to nuclear design than the material that's being used. I thought I made that fairly clear.

My position is that during the cold war, funding was cut in favor of designs that could produce material for nuclear weapons. Which is fact.

[g++]

You are so wrong it's not even funny.

The main reason is because of the conflation of defense industry nuclear materials production with energy production.

Thorium reactors are almost certainly better for generating power, but they don't help you build nuclear bombs, so they get less funding.

The nuclear plant designers main profit are selling the assemblies that contain the fuel rods. To my knowledge these thorium reactors greatly simplify it if not outright make the assemblies un-needed, thus removing the main profit for the designers to implement such a system.

But hey, keep spreading your FUD about liberal/socialist whackos.


...

[g++]

WE CUT THE FUNDING AND THREW IT INTO LMFBR BECAUSE IT PRODUCED WEAPONS GRADE MATERIAL. This is well known. Why would we do this? Cold war. I don't blame them.


..

[pabstblueribbon]

This relates to "we use Uranium only because it produces material for nuclear weapons" how?

[pabstblueribbon]

I'm done arguing with you until you do some further reading. I mean, what exactly is wrong with this statement "The main reason is because of the conflation of defense industry nuclear materials production with energy production."

Didn't I prove through several articles that this was indeed the case? AEC, ORNL? Both of which handle domestic power and defense capabilities.

You're going to have to give me more to go on than ...

[g++]

Im starting to wonder if you understand English. I mean honestly you cant seem to understand posts you made 5 hours ago. You're simply ignoring the argument you made 6 pages ago because you cant back it up.

Anyway Im going home from work so the arguments over anyway. Keep on being fucking insane I wont make the mistake of replying to another thread you start. So your next few will follow the normal trend of you posting shit and no one talking to you.

Nice job never posting again like you announced btw. Thats really working out well for you.

[pabstblueribbon]

What?

And it may be in your best interest not to reply to my posts. Replying to this one sure made you look stupid.

[pabstblueribbon]

You should read the article you posted. It's very good.

[pabstblueribbon]

Wikipedia, still interesting. I think I may go grab me a few of those books that are quoted as sources. Thanks for the earlier link.


Controversy

Weinberg was fired by the Nixon Administration from ORNL in 1973 after 18 years as the lab's director because he continued to advocate increased nuclear safety and Molten Salt Reactors against the Republican Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_%28United_States%29)'s selected Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LMFBR)) that the AEC's Director of Reactor Division, Milton Shaw, was tasked to promote.[13] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-12) Weinberg's firing effectively halted development of the MSR, as it was virtually unknown by other nuclear labs and specialists.[14] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-13) ORNL had also done the majority of research on thorium as a nuclear fuel, and thorium's use as a nuclear fuel was also diminished, although strong backing by ORNL's ORSORT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORSORT) (Oak Ridge School Of Reactor Technology [15] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-14)) sponsor, Admiral Rickover, along with his nuclear core designer Dr. Alvin Radkowsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_Radkowsky) successfully recorded the USA's first commercial power plant at Shippingport, Pennsylvania with thorium fuel to create the Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR).[16] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-15)[17] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-16) LWBR technology is currently being used to destroy plutonium in proliferation resistant, recorded PWRs in Russia with the U.S. DOE's Initiatives for Proliferation Prevention program funding, and technical assistance from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and Thorium Power, Inc.[18] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-17)[19] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_note-18)



^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-0) Richardson, Darrell. "Brilliant Scientist" Dies at 91 (http://oakridger.com/stories/101906/new_112035921.shtml). The Oak Ridger. 2006-10-19.
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-1) Page 100, "The First Nuclear Era: Life and Times of a Technological Fixer", Alvin M. Weinberg (1994)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-2) https://iris.ornl.gov:443/R/TEYAVDETDKC72XITPG1XHSQUXENI2K8S9HM15A3ERH7GPUVX5P-00039?func=results-jump-full&set_entry=000002 (https://iris.ornl.gov/R/TEYAVDETDKC72XITPG1XHSQUXENI2K8S9HM15A3ERH7GPUVX5P-00039?func=results-jump-full&set_entry=000002)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-3) Page 108, "The First Nuclear Era: Life and Times of a Technological Fixer", Alvin M. Weinberg (1994)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-4) Page 673, "Fluid Fuel Reactors", James A. Lane, H.G. MacPherson, Frank Maslan (1958)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-5) Page 49 (PDF Pg. 55), ORNL/M-6589, "Metals and Ceramics Division History 1946-1996", http://www.ornl.gov/~webworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/99295.pdf (http://www.ornl.gov/%7Ewebworks/cppr/y2001/rpt/99295.pdf)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-6) http://www.ornl.gov/info/reporter/no83/nov06_dw.htm
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-7) Pages 99-101, "The First Nuclear Era", Alvin M. Weinberg (1994)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-8) Pages 9-20 (PDF Pgs. 11-23), ORNL-TM-1853, "Chemical Research and Development for Molten-Salt Breeder Reactors", W.R. Grimes (June 1967), http://www.ornl.gov/info/reports/1967/3445603227176.pdf
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-9) http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev25-34/net525.html
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-10) http://www.osti.gov/accomplishments/wignerpat2.html
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-11) http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev28-1/text/wbg.htm
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-12) Page 198 - 200, "The First Nuclear Era: The Life and Times of a Technological Fixer", Alvin M. Weinberg (1994) AIP Press
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-13) http://books.google.com/books?id=otQDyt9PeswC&pg=PA198&dq=GOP+LMFBR+President+Nixon%27s
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-14) http://www.csm.ornl.gov/PR/NS10-18-02.html
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-15) http://home.earthlink.net/~bhoglund/ (http://home.earthlink.net/%7Ebhoglund/)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-16) http://www.princeton.edu/~globsec/publications/pdf/7_3kasten.pdf (http://www.princeton.edu/%7Eglobsec/publications/pdf/7_3kasten.pdf)
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-17) http://www.nea.fr/html/science/meetings/arwif2001/57.pdf
^ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_M._Weinberg#cite_ref-18) http://www.bnl.gov/est/files/pdf/FactSheetForThoriumReactors.pdf

[pabstblueribbon]

Im starting to wonder if you understand English. I mean honestly you cant seem to understand posts you made 5 hours ago. You're simply ignoring the argument you made 6 pages ago because you cant back it up.

Anyway Im going home from work so the arguments over anyway. Keep on being fucking insane I wont make the mistake of replying to another thread you start. So your next few will follow the normal trend of you posting shit and no one talking to you.

Nice job never posting again like you announced btw. Thats really working out well for you.

http://i173.photobucket.com/albums/w73/wtfnancy/meltdown.jpg