Military Review

Is thorium energy a new challenge for Russia?

76
In an effort to reduce their dependence on energy resource-exporting countries, governments around the world continue to think about how to provide energy needs.


Renewable energy sources require large areas for generation. Nuclear power leaves behind a lot of expensive waste.

Recently, scientists have paid attention to thorium - another radioactive element of the Mendeleev system. It is found throughout the world, and, according to experts, its splitting does not leave waste that must be stored for centuries.

A Norwegian private company with the support of the British government is conducting research on an experimental nuclear reactor. Representatives of the company say that the experiments are going well. Similar work is underway in India, China, and Japan.

Spokesman for Thor Energy Oisten Asphiel, says: “There is a lot of thorium in the world, it is widespread all over the globe. In reactors, it has physical and chemical properties that uranium does not have. As a result of use, there is no waste that needs to be stored for a long time. ”

Research reactor


There are advantageous differences in terms of safety: when the tsunami hit the nuclear power plant at Fukushima in Japan, the reaction in the uranium reactor got out of control, specialists from Norway say that this would not have happened with thorium.

In addition to getting rid of dependence on hydrocarbon fuels, the use of thorium reactors allows radically reducing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as well as reducing the cost of electricity.

The risk of an accident at a nuclear power plant with a uranium reactor was a serious deterrent that impeded the widespread use of nuclear energy. New safe thorium reactors lack this drawback.

In 2011, the UK government announced a list of eight locations in England and Wales, where a new generation of nuclear power plants will be built by the year, with a uranium reactor. New nuclear power plants will be built taking into account the causes of the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant "Fukushima-2025". Reactors of new generation are practically safe, and, unlike many other types of energy production, they have the least impact on the environment. Four of the eight stations will be built by Centrica in partnership with France’s largest energy company EDF.

"Today, we (the UK) are importing about half of the gas needed by the country, and by 2020, this proportion will increase to 75%," said Centrica CEO Sam Leidlow. Such a scenario of events weakens the security of the UK, putting it in energy dependence on the countries exporting fuel, says Laydlow.

In 2013, the British government issued an official permit for the construction of the first nuclear power plant in the country over the past 30 years. This is a commercial project implemented by private companies. The Hinckley Point station will be located at the site of an existing nuclear power plant in Somerset county in the south-west of England. It will be constructed by a consortium led by French companies EDF, which will also include Chinese state-owned companies as investors.

A statement from the British Cabinet says that the commissioning of this power plant will reduce greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, as well as reduce the cost of electricity in the future. The ruling coalition says a lot about the need to transfer British energy to alternative sources that are not based on fossil fuels.

The construction of a nuclear power plant will cost 16 billion pounds (about 26 billion dollars).

The new power plant will have two reactors with a life span of about 60 years. A nuclear power plant, the construction of which should be completed in 10 years, according to preliminary data, will provide about 7% of British electricity. During the construction of a new nuclear power plant, about 25 thousands of jobs will be created, and 60 people will be working at the power plant itself for 900 years.

The newest developments in the field of batteries will also contribute to the complete elimination of hydrocarbon fuels. In Western countries, electrical aviation engines. For example, Rolls-Royce unveiled the concept of an electric aircraft engine at this year's Paris Air Show.

Rolls-Royce engine


According to the American Petroleum Institute, in the United States, 43% of petroleum products is used as fuel for cars, 9% is used as jet fuel, 11% is used as diesel fuel, 16% is used to make asphalt, plastic, oils, etc., 4 % - used for home heating, 5% - as ship fuel, 12% - for other needs.

As you can see, more than half of all petroleum products are used as fuel.

In the case of widespread use of nuclear power plants with a thorium reactor, there will be a huge drop in demand for hydrocarbons. And in this situation there will be not only Russia, but also other countries-exporters of hydrocarbons (Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, etc.). This, in turn, will lead to a gigantic oversupply of hydrocarbons supply. Low industrial countries will not be able to satisfy such a proposal, which will lead to a monstrous fall in oil and gas prices.

Conclusion: Russia should urgently change the structure of the economy in order to get off the “oil needle”, otherwise it will lead to the collapse of the Russian economy.

According to materials http://www.bbc.co.uk/russian/
Author:
76 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ramsi
    ramsi 14 November 2013 08: 57
    +2
    no, well, that's the waste: collected on duty, packed in a rocket and pulled towards the sun, and let them fly in a caravan until they figured out how to dispose of them more rationally
    1. Canep
      Canep 14 November 2013 11: 05
      +4
      It is cheaper to throw it out of the solar system and not think anymore, for this you need to accelerate the load to 16 km / s, and to throw it off in the sun you need high speed. The orbital speed of the earth is 30 km / s and it needs to be completely extinguished, the first space speed 8 km / s will come to the rescue, but 22 km / s will still remain. But there is one "but" in the event of an accident at the start, what will happen to the cosmodrome?
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 14 November 2013 12: 06
        +3
        and if at the start to provide only a slight deviation into the orbit ... then, it seems, should be slowly nailed to the center? But an accident - yes, this is serious, do not make a "rescue" capsule for waste
      2. Alexey
        Alexey 14 November 2013 12: 20
        +6
        Aha, and after that, when this waste "suddenly" becomes the most valuable raw material, we will figure out how to catch these missiles and return them back.
        1. Excalibur
          Excalibur 19 November 2013 23: 39
          0
          Russia must urgently change the structure of the economy in order to get off the "oil needle", otherwise it will lead to the collapse of the Russian economy.

          Soon the end of the party ...
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. The comment was deleted.
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 14 November 2013 12: 18
      +3
      Quote: ramsi
      no, well, that's the waste: collected on duty, packed in a rocket and pulled towards the sun, and let them fly in a caravan until they figured out how to dispose of them more rationally


      And if a rocket falls? Then where to do what? Himself to the rocket and towards the sun ???
    3. StolzSS
      StolzSS 14 November 2013 17: 26
      +5
      Much more rational then ??? Of the ton of radioactive waste, only 22 kilograms of waste, and the rest is valuable raw material.
    4. Maxim86
      Maxim86 14 November 2013 20: 19
      +9
      Repeatedly heard such ideas. In my opinion, it is unrealistic to realize this idea even for a hundredth of all solid waste. The reason for this is the huge mass of equipment for transporting and storing waste. I myself work at an enterprise where TUK cases are made. These are cast-iron containers with a wall thickness of 200-300 mm. The racer will not fly!
    5. trenkkvaz
      trenkkvaz 14 November 2013 20: 21
      +4
      Calculate how much it costs to withdraw 1 kg into space.
      Multiply this by the amount of waste.
      Such "economical" power engineering will be fucking unnecessary for anyone.
    6. timer
      timer 17 November 2013 16: 18
      +1
      This is complete nonsense, not a real way out. How much will it cost to put these wastes into orbit? They’ll become gold wastes. But seriously, the article is interesting, and the conclusion is accurate and unambiguous-Russia must urgently change the structure of the economy in order to get off the “oil needles ", otherwise it will lead to the collapse of the Russian economy! Moreover, if other countries can do this for a longer period of time, then Russia must do this urgently!
    7. DAOSS
      DAOSS 19 November 2013 03: 41
      0
      And if the rocket falls or explodes at launch? Have you thought about this?
    8. Evgenij.
      Evgenij. 20 November 2013 17: 14
      0
      Waste now = future raw materials
  2. fennekRUS
    fennekRUS 14 November 2013 09: 05
    +7
    "Shale gas" - in the field of nuclear energy. Offhand two copy-paste
    1.aizen.s
    Very confusing scheme is obtained.
    1. Get 232Th
    2. Put it in the RBN (not energy, but specially designed for producing isotopes, a rather rare device) to obtain 233U. Despite the fact that no one has studied the industrial irradiation regimes for the production of uranium-232. Or build a special light-water (other reactors even more expensive) breeder (diarrhea from greenpeace).
    3. Throw into the burial ground the "hot" shell from item 2 (and this is quite a lot of iron and zirconium), purify uranium from isotopes (and separate the "hot" multifractions (not the "classic" 235-238), but something like 232 -233-235-238 hemorrhoids are still the same) uranium and transport the product to the place of manufacture of U-Th fuel rods. By the way, the issue of fuel element enrichment and optimal burnup has not been worked out either.

    As far as I know, from the existing reactor schemes, either the RBN (a thing by today's standards is unsafe) or CANDU (heavy water refueling is an amateur) can be adapted to the thorium cycle.
    2.http: //www.proatom.ru/modules.php? Name = News & file = article & sid = 1097
    1. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 14 November 2013 12: 28
      +2
      Quote: fennekRUS
      "Shale gas" - in the field of nuclear energy. Offhand two


      There was something about this in the zombie man. Muzhichenko in a jacket, similar to the current chief nuclear scientist, told about the following story: a reactor similar to the classical one, only the reaction in it is forcibly supported. I don’t know for certain what is there and how, but it seems that while there is a neutron source (or what?) In the active zone, the source has been extracted, the reaction has gone out right away. That is, the exact opposite of the classical reactor, which must be kept all the time. Then he talked with a pietet about the closed cycle of the thorium reactor, saying that it’s manna from heaven and that it is possible to utilize everything that is created by him, like just drag it ...
      So if everything is really so, then this is the future of nuclear energy.

      And the fact that the price of oil will collapse is all bullshit. Even if the electric power is at a penny per kilowatt oil will be burned in car engines, then there will always be need until it runs out at all.
      1. zardoz
        zardoz 14 November 2013 19: 55
        +1
        Electric cars will burn electricity. And there are more electric cars.
        1. SergBrNord
          SergBrNord 14 November 2013 21: 27
          0
          It remains only to make high-capacity batteries. Just.
          1. HARM
            HARM 14 November 2013 22: 26
            +1
            A new class of huge capacity batteries has been opened
            The highest density of stored energy per unit volume was given by an electrolyte based on vanadium diboride, showing absolutely fantastic 27 W • h per liter of volume, that is, in fact, more than a liter of gasoline, and "at times"!

            http://compulenta.computerra.ru/tehnika/devices/10009109/
            1. gridasov
              gridasov 15 November 2013 23: 57
              0
              Just do not hang noodles. What is the density of stored energy ?. What is called Wattami is a product of one measure of measure to another. Measurement of current and voltage is one and the same in essence, but in different measurement measures. The main thing is that all arguments about super high energies are crazy for crazy people, because there are limits to what can be created as an autonomous source of energy. With known potentials, there will always be an elementary breakdown and no insulators will help. The principled approach should be different.
          2. zardoz
            zardoz 14 November 2013 22: 58
            0
            With current batteries, they feel pretty good. If there is where to charge. If you need to travel up to 100-200 km per day, it is quite enough to use them. Moreover, they are quite economical when you consider that they need 100 kilowatts per 10 km, and these 10 kW cost half the liter of gas in Ukraine.
            1. ka5280
              ka5280 15 November 2013 17: 37
              -1
              Only battery charging lasts 10-12 hours.
              1. zardoz
                zardoz 16 November 2013 00: 05
                +1
                There are models and 45 minutes :) But it seems like 5-9 hours charge.
      2. abdrah
        abdrah 22 November 2013 04: 57
        0
        "BACKWAVE ACCELERATORS" or Bogomolov's Accelerator you probably watched the program about this. Bogomolov himself works in the usa, since in his homeland his developments stubbornly do not want to notice, I do not know how about the efficiency of his discovery, but the prospects are simply fantastic, free safe energy, super weapons and super protection from enemies' weapons. Three in one.
        something like that - http://dnevnik.se/avtorskaya_kolonka/1036-konec-epohi-yadernoy-energetiki-ili-na
        chalo-epohi-ukoriteley-obratnoy-volny.html
  3. Kostyanich
    Kostyanich 14 November 2013 09: 05
    +7
    British scientists are so British laughing
    why the fuck so far no one has used thorium?
    there are probably pitfalls
    1. avt
      avt 14 November 2013 10: 18
      +3
      Quote: kostyanich
      why the fuck so far no one has used thorium?

      I’m not special in this topic, but I’ve heard about thorium for about twenty years, it started before shale gas and everyone suffers, suffers .... But plutonium under the Gore-Chernomyrdin deal is taken away from us.
      1. Misantrop
        Misantrop 14 November 2013 17: 58
        +5
        Quote: avt
        I’ve heard about thorium for about twenty years, it started before shale gas
        They began to think about thorium energy even earlier than about uranium. In theory, everything turns out beautifully, everything, as always, depends on technology. Thorium fission requires fast neutrons, and there are not a lot of them on the planet with their sources. The temperature in the core there needs to be completely different. So far, it has been implemented only in molten salts (i.e., even higher than LMC). Are there many materials that can withstand SUCH temperatures for a long time? Further, the decay, which is spontaneous (uranium, plutonium), which is forced (thorium) gives fragments. The same as in the fission of uranium, which is so disliked (i.e. the activity is exactly the same). They can be "burned", no question. BUT this again requires a neutron source ... what

        And something tells me that in case of an accident SUCH installation of problems will be Tangibly more than in case of an accident of a standard reactor. The same source of fast neutrons in power is quite comparable to a neutron bomb, only it exploded and went out, and he ... sad
        1. My address
          My address 14 November 2013 20: 04
          +5
          You are absolutely right.

          Where did the author get it that scientists have only recently begun to decay thorium? I read about this at the university in the 60 of the last century.
          Why are these decomposition reaction products, and even actinoid, made safe?
          I can also add that the uranium mine, in relation to health hazards, is a resort relative to thorium.
          negative
        2. Mikhail3
          Mikhail3 14 November 2013 20: 48
          +4
          It is necessary to somehow legalize nuclear energy. She has already been trampled in the West by the translucent, but surprisingly harmful monsters created by him. Now we are witnessing the start of an advertising campaign, or rather, probing the ground. Maybe a ride? Can we call the nuclear power plant "thorium" and give it a ride? Well, let's bring thorium, why ...
          How uncomfortable. To hell with him, with a thorium "challenge". Another thing is disturbing - in order for this gruel to be devoured, it is necessary to step back on the intellectual scale. What are they planning new there ?! And so young guys massively demonstrate signs of powerful degradation, massive and apparently irreversible. It seems that the "pollination" of the brains of the majority will gain momentum. I wonder if I will have time to live to see slobbering nerds as an "intellectual mainstream"?
    2. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 14 November 2013 12: 35
      +1
      Quote: kostyanich
      British scientists are so British laughing
      why the fuck so far no one has used thorium?
      there are probably pitfalls


      The first uranium reactor was built by the Americans in 1942, I really think the Nazis built it a little earlier ... When did the first nuclear power station appear? It is true in 1954 ... ten years is a minimum, and given that an active struggle against nuclear energy is underway, another 20 years will pass until the first industrial thorium reactor appears.

      In general, it is not necessary to lose heart ... it is only just beginning.
      1. Walker1975
        Walker1975 14 November 2013 14: 06
        +4
        But knowing the modernization potential of the Russian government for all these 20 years they will say: aaa ... another 20 years, you can not worry, but ... another 15 years ... we will have time to react ... 10 years ... of course we will solve everything questions, 5 years ... it's time to develop a state response strategy ... oh for years - the arctic fox crept unnoticed ... How did this happen? Here they are the machinations of the enemies of Russia.

        Well ... maybe a couple more Skolkovo will be built to solve the problem. Effect - you understand.
    3. gridasov
      gridasov 16 November 2013 12: 13
      -1
      In my opinion, you need to understand that radioactivity is not exactly what they are talking about and what is meant. The radial radiation vector (no matter in which wavelength range) of any radioactive substance can be converted into a longitudinal vector. That is, create a bipolar polarization from radial polarization. Then the effectiveness of such a radioactive substance can be increased by orders of magnitude. And under perfectly understandable and justified conditions, not only thorium, but any substance can be made radioactive.
      Well, the rotor driven electric roller is generally a "wind generator", and not a promising device for flying. devices. Because the physical foundations in it are old and not perfect.
  4. Dazdranagon
    Dazdranagon 14 November 2013 09: 08
    +3
    It looks like a shale gas duck. And if thorium is really that good, then I very much doubt that ours are not doing any research! hi
    1. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 14 November 2013 09: 19
      14
      have been working since the early years, there are nuances in this technology, which "pisses" and journalists, due to education, do not pay attention to
      copy-paste-The spectrum of fission products of uranium-233 is shifted towards lighter isotopes in comparison with uranium-235, and especially plutonium-239. This leads to the fact that the main ecotoxicant - strontium-90 will be formed in about twice as much per unit of power, and krypton-85 - the main pollutant during the NORMAL operation of thermal reactors - four times. So thorium - in thermal reactors is more profitable, but also dirtier than uranium, and in fast - it is just as dirty (protactinium-231 is as problematic as minors) with less profitability and safety (the protactinium effect is greater than the non-potassium effect). If someone believes that strontium-90 can be effectively burned out, let him first look at his neutron cross sections before writing. So why do we need thorium?
      1. Nikolay D.
        Nikolay D. 14 November 2013 19: 12
        +1
        Quote: fennekRUS
        So why do we need thorium?


        We are constantly being told here and there about all sorts of shale, thorium, that they say oil. However, it will become cheaper. Do you understand what I mean? All this talk "of a country that is allegedly not visible in every article on such topics, and consuming the world's main oil oil" in favor of the poor. There is no alternative to oil yet, and it is not expected in the next 50 years, it needs a technological breakthrough, as in the 20th century, and who will do it? China? They are certainly great, but they are hardly capable of such a feat (they are more copy-paste). The EU, the USA and Russia remain, but due to the ideological, world crisis, they are not up to it. + Although who knows, maybe the crisis will be a catalyst.
      2. chunga-changa
        chunga-changa 15 November 2013 01: 20
        +1
        “Thorium is very abundant in the world, it is widespread throughout the globe ...” Actually the answer.
  5. Nitarius
    Nitarius 14 November 2013 09: 15
    0
    Of course you need to think!
    no one argues! WELL WELL WELL!
    Electricity, you can only heat kettles and metals, and so on the little things!
    Blast furnaces, wood drying and many technical processes require the FIRE SOURCE!
    and give up gas completely vryatli succeed!
    and lastly!
    Many of course really think that there is no alternative! BUT SHE IS A LONG TIME
    and the oil industry workers are NOT FOOL -patents have long been gathering from the people!
    There are alternatives --- HE NOBODY WILL ALLOW YOU TO INTRODUCE IT - I assure you!

    Let's think about the fact described in the article by E. Lenz (Theft of the perpetual motion machine. Today, January 14.01.2000, 1994), dedicated to the fate of the scientist O. Gritskevich, who worked in Vladivostok. It turns out that O. Gritskevich was engaged in a very promising development of a hydrodynamic generator with a KPI (energy conversion coefficient) of more than one, which made it possible to completely abandon fossil fuels and traditional systems. The development was approved by the Supreme Innovation Council. In XNUMX, O. Gritskevich was at a reception at Soskovets on the issue of increasing funding and speeding up the completion of work - he was refused this. He also addressed the premieres - the secretariats answered in the same way: the idea is great, but look for the funds yourself.
    O. Gritskevich's installation was environmentally friendly. As a result, the entire team of "paranoids", which together with O. Gritskevich was engaged in "anti-scientific" activities, were taken with their families to the United States, where they were granted American citizenship a month later and all conditions were created for the development of "paranoia" and the reproduction of "paranoid" students !!!!!
    In 1974, a six-stroke ICE was developed in the United States, having a KPI twice that of a traditional one. Essence: fifth step - water injection; the sixth step is the work of water vapor. Firstly, this engine had a KPI, obviously exceeding the KPI of the Carnot cycle. Secondly, assuming the KPI of a good ICE of that time to be 55% (our "loose" ones had 42-50%), then the KPI of a six-stroke ICE is more than one.
    In the 30s, Shell announced a tender to create a car with minimal fuel consumption. “Forget it,” even before the war, “Studebakers” were created with a fuel consumption of 5,5 liters per 100 km. The record belongs to the Japanese - in 1986, a specially created car they consumed per 100 km in total ... 0,055 liters of gasoline (about 44 grams). I hope it is clear that there are no factories producing such engines today.
    1. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 14 November 2013 09: 26
      0
      Can I have a reference to the patent? intrigued
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 14 November 2013 12: 13
        0
        and in fact, the idea of ​​six measures seems sound, then why do hybrids rivet in battles for ecology? ..
        1. fennekRUS
          fennekRUS 14 November 2013 12: 45
          0
          googled the scheme and patent application. The mechanism becomes more complicated, reliability drops, higher friction losses, a number of problems on a cold engine in conditions of freezing temperatures, are expensive. that's what is seen offhand. The scheme is viable, but before entering the mode of dancing with a tambourine.
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 14 November 2013 13: 05
            0
            but you don't need a cooling system with its own pump and fan. Friction losses should not be greater; reaching the operating temperature is a problem, you need to somehow "skip" two "extra" cycles; more additional nozzles for water (and air is probably not needed); plus a second tank ... Of course, there are difficulties, but, in my opinion, it's still better than a hybrid
            1. fennekRUS
              fennekRUS 14 November 2013 14: 41
              0
              Definitely better, but an electrician is cheaper than a mechanic and easier to assemble. I’ll dig deeper in the evening.
              1. ramsi
                ramsi 14 November 2013 16: 11
                +1
                two strokes can be skipped easily, it is enough for the engine to be well balanced (for example, an eight can be acceptable to start on four cylinders, but not on all), but electrically, - even "brains" are not needed - the pump supplying water can be switched on from a temperature sensor ... Breakthrough of water vapor into the oil sump and oil dilution is solved by removing the crankcase and replacing it with a filter sump. It is more difficult to shut off the air supply to the cylinders during water injection ... In principle, it is possible to remove the intake valve altogether and supply air to the cylinders from the compressor, having sewn the algorithm into the "brains". But you can do nothing, it's not so scary
    2. Misantrop
      Misantrop 14 November 2013 18: 08
      0
      Quote: Nitarius
      Essence: fifth step - water injection; the sixth step is the work of water vapor.
      As always, it's all about technology. The first such engine was tested in Feodosia half a century ago. Works great, BUT ... not for long - a mixture of water vapor with fuel combustion products destroys cylinders at a hurricane rate. Especially after stopping the engine. So the engine of the Crimean "Kulibin" turned out, though gorgeous, but ... one-time request
      1. ramsi
        ramsi 14 November 2013 19: 37
        0
        honestly, it’s not very clear - why accelerated destruction? For air-cooled engines, the temperature difference between the cylinder and the air-fuel mixture is even greater; the chemical activity of weak sulfuric acid is not so high ... Although the operating mode and materials, of course, have to be clarified ...
        But it will become difficult to burn off the combustion products in the catalyst - at least introduce another cylinder, especially for this
        1. Misantrop
          Misantrop 14 November 2013 19: 50
          +1
          Quote: ramsi
          the temperature difference between the cylinder and the air-fuel mixture is even greater

          It is not the temperature difference that plays here, but the corrosion of wet steam, and even with acidifying agents. In what position the piston stopped, in that position the rings "stick" to the pot. And a pair of steel-silumin in high humidity conditions is also far from a gift. Where the oxide film on the piston was erased, in that half a day there is already a hole with white dust. All piston - like after shelling sad
          1. ramsi
            ramsi 14 November 2013 23: 23
            +1
            both ... I read on the topic: it turns out that before switching off the engine it is recommended to switch to clean fuel for a couple of clock strokes. Well, automatically, it’s not difficult. The only thing that seems irresistible is minus temperatures
    3. fzr1000
      fzr1000 15 November 2013 09: 56
      +1
      There are wood dryers on electricity. What is the difference than heating the coolant? And there are vacuum dryers, they are also on electricity. It’s just expensive to get it all on electricity, gas or wood waste cheaper, for now.
      As for metallurgy, it’s not all clear either, to take the same aluminum production.
    4. gridasov
      gridasov 16 November 2013 20: 20
      +1
      Gritskevich’s attitude was innovative in approach, but not effective. That is, you can not replace the concept. This was an early stage of a hydro-magnetic generator. However, the scientific approach was not correct. The magnetic flux density must be formed in a different plane.
      The second one. Injection of water not into the combustion chamber, but the creation of catalytic combustion of water in the pre-chamber. This is generally elementary. Water falling on a red-hot material (the simplest is best), is destructured and turns into steam. Steam in turn is easier to decompose into fuel and oxidizer components. So there is no need to refuel with hydrocarbons. Obviously, the best embodiment of this technology remains Bakaev. The process algorithm is known and justified. Well, what is not being implemented everywhere is another question.
  6. Asan Ata
    Asan Ata 14 November 2013 10: 07
    0
    Say what you like, and nuclear power is a way to get into the club of big guys. The risk of getting your Chernobyl is overshadowed by the prospect of serious facial expressions in international negotiations. It turns out, whatever one may say - thorium, uranium, plutonium - will sound invitingly as long as there is a risk of running into occupation.
  7. Jurkovs
    Jurkovs 14 November 2013 10: 55
    10
    Stupid and unnecessary article from start to conclusion. Thorium reactors have already been written about here and not so long ago. The fission of thorium nuclei does not generate neutrons and therefore quickly decays. The thorium reactor is actually a thorium-uranium or thorium-plutonium reactor. When uranium nuclei decay, thorium absorbs excess neutrons and decays already without neutrons. On the one hand, there is less contaminated waste, but there will be some. On the other hand, it is a reactor in a reactor, which means it is twice as expensive, and the cost of electricity is also twice as expensive. Russian scientists have known this for a long time and they have developed a uranium-plutonium waste-free cycle. It is much cheaper because it uses virtually unenriched uranium, which is not much less than thorium. And if scientists from other countries cannot solve this problem, then they are PR in front of us, they say, how smart they are, and Russia is a skiff. And we, as always, "have no prophets in our own country."
  8. The comment was deleted.
  9. postman
    postman 14 November 2013 12: 10
    14
    Quote: Author
    It is found all over the world

    The thorium content in the earth's crust is 8 - 13 g / t, in sea water it is 0,05 μg / l.
    Uranium content in the earth's crust up to 25 g / t (0,0003% of

    Only Thorium-232 can be used.
    Quote: Author
    New generation reactors are practically safe, and, unlike many other types of energy production, they have the least impact on the environment.

    ?
    uranium-thorium fuel cycle

    1. Thorium is radioactive
    2. Thorium compounds are carcinogens
    3.result of the reaction Uranium-233 (PP about 27 days, HARD GAMMA RADIATION) and 232, which is not "sugar"
    4. To start the reaction, an INITIATOR (U235 Or plutonium) is needed to achieve "criticism"
    Operation Teapot




    The thorium nuclear program did not have any significant historical significance in any of the countries of the world.
    They were already:
    1.THTR-300 (Germany)

    2.AVR (Germany)

    3.Peach Bottom (USA)
    1. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 14 November 2013 12: 51
      +7
      Above wrote about the same. just simpler. The journalist does not need the whole problem, he needs a bright tail. And to study a topic, for a rating it is optional. And in general, this forcing the topic is yet another stock market speculation. IMHO
      1. postman
        postman 14 November 2013 14: 00
        +1
        Quote: fennekRUS
        wrote above about the same

        Yes, when I pulnul, then I saw ....
        Long bullets, distracted repeat
        Quote: fennekRUS
        regular exchange speculation. IMHO

        I was also pinned about Airplane Batteries ...
        soon. soon without kerosene fly boom.
        So far, they have not learned how to ride without gasoline, but nothing. PROGRESS
        1. fennekRUS
          fennekRUS 14 November 2013 14: 44
          -1
          While batteries per capacity per kilogram of weight will not be raised by an order of magnitude, they will not be the main source in the sky. Otherwise, a coin-sized clock and two suitcases of batteries for them will come out in that mess. laughing
        2. go
          go 14 November 2013 21: 56
          +1
          Quote: Postman
          So far, they have not learned how to ride without gasoline, but nothing. PROGRESS


          They learned how to ride: in Brazil, many (if not most) drive bioethanol and in general diesel engine created its own engine for low-octane fuel, the same biodiesel (essentially rapeseed oil) was e.g. in Germany is very common.

          Another thing is that I think everyone imagines the lobbies of oil companies that can afford to rule the world, and their connections with automakers, who don't need to alter anything if they buy cars well. So what kind of alternative fuel is there ... Even in the app. Europe, where the greens are strong enough, have achieved only 10% of the biofuel content in the ...

          There are electric cars, but only for the city, because while the problem with email. nutrition. Fuel cells and hydrogen to them are also not yet cheap. But as a prototype, I think this electric motor for an airplane is progress.
          1. Misantrop
            Misantrop 14 November 2013 21: 58
            -1
            Quote: go
            this electric motor for an airplane is progress.

            Now add to the horn kit (like a trolley bus) and pull the wires wassat
            1. HARM
              HARM 14 November 2013 22: 42
              +1
              But why?
              A new class of huge capacity batteries has been opened
              The highest density of stored energy per unit volume was given by an electrolyte based on vanadium diboride, showing absolutely fantastic 27 W • h per liter of volume, that is, in fact, more than a liter of gasoline, and "at times"!

              http://compulenta.computerra.ru/tehnika/devices/10009109/
              -----
              Scientists from the University of California Boulder handed over the next-generation battery technology to the commercial company Solid Power. The new battery does not have liquid electrolyte and is much safer than ordinary lithium-ion. Besides, the new battery in the ratio of capacity / weight is 3 times superior to Li-ion.

              http://rnd.cnews.ru/tech/energy/news/line/index_science.shtml?2013/09/20/543682
              -----
              Sodium-ion batteries have set a record for capacity and durability.
              According to the developers, new batteries have up to 600 Wh per kilogram of weight, which is 2,5–6 times more than the standard lithium batteries on the market today.

              http://compulenta.computerra.ru/tehnika/devices/10008993/
            2. go
              go 16 November 2013 13: 46
              +1
              Quote: Misantrop
              Now add to the horn kit (like a trolley bus) and pull the wires


              If you talk like that, then there is no need at all and will not be any progress. In Europe, they are working hard on a new generation of batteries, as there is a demand. I think the result will be. Recently discussed on an article about new Japanese submarines - look if interested.
          2. postman
            postman 14 November 2013 22: 40
            -1
            Quote: go
            Learned to ride:

            I put it wrong, on non-hydrocarbons of course (meant TE and battery)
            Quote: go
            the same biodiesel (essentially rapeseed oil) was ex. in Germany is very common.

            There was no synthetic gasoline during WW2
            And NOW, biodiesel and bio-gasoline are common, EVERYWHERE from 7- to 15% at gas stations
            I WANT TO SEARCH a gas station without biofuel, in Finland the gasoline is the same (E-10 like), the diesel fuel is still holding (apparently due to cold weather) natural
            Quote: go
            achieved only 10% of the biofuel content in ordinary ...

            why? there is a full 100% (not all ICEs can)
            I will "please" you since 2015. Fuel and lubricants (motor oil, automatic transmission oil, gearbox grease) will be produced with the addition of a biocomponent and completely 100% from biomass.
            Quote: go
            because while the problem with email. nutrition.

            battery capacity, or energy output per 1 kg
            Quote: go
            But as a prototype, I think this electric motor for an airplane is progress.

            if the battery power source is nonsense.
            1. HARM
              HARM 14 November 2013 23: 10
              +1
              Quote: Postman
              if the battery power source is nonsense.

              Read my comments above and nonsense will immediately leave your head.
              1. postman
                postman 15 November 2013 11: 57
                -1
                Quote: HARM
                Read my comments above and delirium immediately

                Comrade
                Can you demonstrate at least a 10-year certificate?
                Judging by the fact that you are fanatic and believe that .cnews.ru is weak with basic education, and with an understanding of the general picture of the world.
                DO NOT READ (before lunch, anyway), the Russian Internet, such as tape (s) ru.
                there daaauna correspondents, dvoeshniki
                1. HARM
                  HARM 15 November 2013 12: 49
                  +1
                  Quote: Postman
                  Judging by the fact that you are a fan and believe bluntly.cnews.ru

                  Quote: Postman
                  DO NOT READ (before lunch, anyway), the Russian Internet, such as tape (s) ru.
                  there daauna correspondents, dvoeshniki

                  News sites like cnews / compulenta do not come up with news themselves, but take them from reliable primary sources (phys.org, sites of Western universities, defense companies Boeing / Northrop Grumman / Lockheed Martin, etc.) in English.
                2. The comment was deleted.
            2. go
              go 16 November 2013 13: 40
              +1
              Quote: Postman
              if the battery power source is nonsense.


              Recently, we discussed the topic of TE under an article about new Japanese submarines - not a desire to repeat themselves. Look if interested.

              The problem is being solved. Fuel cells are already quite effective in terms of efficiency. There are other difficult moments, but a lot of people are already working on this.

              Amount of energy per kilogram: trivial physics - primary and secondary energy. You cannot compare the number of watt-hours in a kilogram of gasoline and a kilogram of a battery to produce useful work. I think it’s clear why.

              In general: while there is a problem with the battery for the mass use of electric motors in transport, but many people work on this problem in Western Europe. I think in five years the result will be.
          3. fennekRUS
            fennekRUS 15 November 2013 01: 20
            +1
            small nuance of biofuel output, well, very modest, from one hectare. if at the same time the whole park is transferred to rapeseed, estimate on the calculator how many fields will occupy. Then look at the directory-how many arable land we have on the ball. counted? not so much fun anymore. And where is the waste from the oil extraction plant? And the funny chemistry that is used to clean the oil?
            1. Misantrop
              Misantrop 15 November 2013 01: 32
              0
              Quote: fennekRUS
              Then look at the directory-how many arable land we have on the ball. counted?
              And also calculate how long these lands will last. Because rapeseed "sucks" the soil for several seasons ... sad
            2. go
              go 16 November 2013 13: 26
              0
              Quote: fennekRUS
              small nuance of biofuel output, well, very modest, from one hectare. if at the same time the whole park is transferred to rapeseed, estimate on the calculator how many fields will occupy. Then look at the directory-how many arable land we have on the ball. counted? not so much fun anymore. And where is the waste from the oil extraction plant? And the funny chemistry that is used to clean the oil?


              Not bad! You have just outlined the problem of why biofuels in Europe did not find such a distribution that could ... moreover, the distribution was: in the 80s in Germany in the agricultural sector areas were seasoned with almost 100% biodiesel. They covered the bench.

              Now I recommend that you get in the car and drive through Mother Russia, even along the Chernozem region of the Voronezh Region, for example, not to mention the less favorable agricultural areas: Kursk, Orel, etc. You will see that weeds and burdocks grow on 80% of the fields ... I mean that for Russia there is no problem of replacing food with biofuel resources, because no one cultivates land anyway and there is enough suitable land for biofuel.

              Regarding waste, if it is biowaste, fertilizers can be made from them or for particularly advanced biogas. About the chemical. waste - familiarize yourself with the "costs" of the oil industry.
  10. goody
    goody 14 November 2013 12: 57
    +1
    It seems to me, or is Peach Bottom (USA) as if built in a funnel?
    1. postman
      postman 14 November 2013 14: 06
      +2
      Quote: goody
      as if built in a funnel?


      Susquehanna River Delta it flows into the Chesapeake Bay






      "Convenient", it was already: the operator fell asleep and 25000 gallons (if I am not mistaken) of radioactive slurry merged into the river
      Exelon is currently investing $ 2 in security, incl. $ 200 to replace 0000 hazard warning sirens ...
  11. Sadikoff
    Sadikoff 14 November 2013 12: 57
    0
    There was still a lot of noise about Helium, they were still going to the moon. Where it comes from, it seems, are adults, responsible people.
    1. HARM
      HARM 14 November 2013 23: 24
      +1
      Quote: Sadykoff
      Where does that come from, like adults, responsible people.

      These are exactly what work at Thor Energy.
  12. zub46
    zub46 14 November 2013 12: 58
    +5
    On the article under discussion: ... Russia must get off the "oil needle", otherwise - the collapse of the economy ... So everyone knows who is against and what is hindering. But otherwise how to get the loot and shove it offshore? Not to move science to "hard earned".
  13. rotor
    rotor 14 November 2013 12: 59
    +4
    In the entire history of nuclear energy with all its accidents, including Three Mile Island in America, Chernobyl in Ukraine and Fukushima in Japan, less radioactivity is released into the environment than the world's coal energy releases in one year.
    1. rotor
      rotor 14 November 2013 13: 12
      0
      Scientists estimate that switching from fossil resources such as coal to nuclear energy has avoided nearly two million deaths due to global environmental pollution.

      http://gearmix.ru/archives/1440
      1. rotor
        rotor 14 November 2013 13: 34
        +1
        Radioactive waste in accordance with the level of activity is usually classified as waste of low level, intermediate level and high level.

        High-level waste accounts for only 3% of all radioactive waste worldwide, but it contains up to 95% of all radioactivity contained in it. Such an amount can be efficiently and economically isolated. The level of radioactivity of such waste is rapidly decreasing. For example, spent fuel cells at the time of extraction from a light-water reactor are so radioactive that they emit several hundred kilowatts of thermal energy, but a year later this radiation decreases to five kilowatts, and after five years - only one kilowatt. After 40 years, the level of radioactivity in them falls, about a thousand times.

        Low-level waste has approximately the same level of radioactivity as low-grade uranium ore. Worldwide, they make up 90% of all radioactive waste, but have only 1% of radioactivity.

        Intermediate level waste mainly occurs in the nuclear industry. They are more radioactive than low-level ones and should be isolated from people before processing and storage. Typically, such waste is bitumenized for further storage in special storage facilities. In addition, the “mid-level” includes waste from nuclear fuel reprocessing, which expired due time in storage facilities for high-level waste. Worldwide, intermediate level waste accounts for 7% of all radioactive waste and has 4% of radioactivity.
    2. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 14 November 2013 14: 46
      0
      By the way, yes! cesium, strontium and others - in coal a lot.
  14. fatalist
    fatalist 14 November 2013 13: 15
    0
    Quote: Canep
    It’s cheaper to throw it outside the solar system and not think anymore, for this you need to disperse the load to 16 km / s, and to drop it in the sun you need a lot of speed. The orbital speed of the earth is 30 km / s and it needs to be extinguished, the first space 8 km / s will come to the rescue, but still 22 km / s.


    In order to get into the sun, you can use the gravitational maneuver around some other planet. Mariner 10 used Venus for this.

    I think you can calculate the flight to the sun with a maneuver near Venus and Mercury, so that the difference with the emission outside the solar system is minimal.

    Quote: Canep
    But there is one "but" in the event of an accident at the start, what will happen to the cosmodrome?

    It is necessary to make an emergency rescue system for such a cargo - such as in unions with astronauts on board.
  15. Corsair
    Corsair 14 November 2013 13: 38
    0
    Extract from the article, full version onhttp://eco.uniq.spb.ru/index.html

    Thorium energy will lead Russia to the lead!

    Why are Western intelligence agencies worried?

    Moscow. Lubyanskaya square. Office of the Research Information and Analytical Center "Strategy of the Future". July 2001. Interview of the prominent nuclear scientist LN Maksimov to the editor of the newspaper "Society and Ecology".

    - Please introduce yourself to the readers of our newspaper.

    -My name is Lev Nikolaevich Maksimov. I have devoted my entire conscious life to nuclear energy, atomic weapons, the processing of radioactive materials, and various technical aspects from the field of metallurgy and mechanical engineering.

    - Totally different people come to the "Strategy of the Future" center with completely different ideas, which, however, fit into the matrix of strengthening security and reviving Russia. Apparently, your appearance is no coincidence. What did you come to the center with?

    -Today I wanted to talk about affairs related to thorium energy. Many people know our President’s speech at the UN Millennium Summit, where he literally reared the entire world community, including our technical community, expressing the opinion that the use of enriched uranium and pure plutonium would be excluded from peaceful nuclear energy. This caused astonishment in scientific and technological circles, as the words spoken by the President contained gigantic hopes, including the anti-nuclear movement and environmentalists from almost all countries of the world. There has been a decline in the development of nuclear energy. In memory of all Chernobyl. Let me remind you that the United States over the past 20 years have not built a single nuclear power plant. In Germany, a legislative decision was made to ban the construction of nuclear power plants. And such a wave is building up in the world. At the same time, more than 400 nuclear power plants operate in the world. This is a giant capital invested in them. The cost of a nuclear power plant with a capacity of about one million kilowatts is about 2-3 billion US dollars. Huge money and, of course, this capital should be amortized. Therefore, on the one hand, the calls of the world anti-nuclear movement to shut down nuclear energy are dictated by very powerful motivations, and, on the other hand, you need to understand that humanity has invested huge capital and you need to look for some compromises, because it’s just that you’ll close what’s built on such amounts are not quickly paid. So, with Putin’s speech, great hopes arose.

    -What could the President mean?

    -From the point of view of nuclear physics it clearly follows that only thorium can be a substitute for enriched uranium and pure plutonium! In principle, nature is structured so that only thorium is an alternative to uranium and plutonium. This has been known for a long time, it has been known from the very beginning of nuclear energy, and I am not making any discoveries. This was established shortly after the discovery of plutonium and the uranium-35 fission process. It was found that thorium 232, which is found in nature, almost 100% consists of the isotope 232. Upon neutron capture, it can convert through two beta decays into uranium-233. This is one of the artificial isotopes of uranium, which is similar to uranium-235 and plutonium-239 capable of fission ...

    P \ S:So that work is being done in our country too, our groundwork in the theory and practice of nuclear energy is widely known and recognized.
    So we will wait for good news!
  16. rotor
    rotor 14 November 2013 14: 18
    0
    Thorium revolution

    Back in the early fifties of the XX century, various designs of safer thorium nuclear reactors were proposed. However, uranium was chosen because it combined better with nuclear weapons development programs.

    Over the past half century, low-power thorium reactors have been tested. Today it is already a rather mature branch and you won’t have to start from scratch.

    Thorium potentially has several advantages as a nuclear fuel. Firstly, its reserves in the earth's crust are many times greater than that of uranium.
    Secondly, after mining, thorium can be loaded almost immediately (without enrichment) into the reactor. Thirdly, thorium is utilized more fully, and after a series of intermediate reactions it produces uranium-233, which is also an excellent nuclear fuel.

    For the entire multi-stage cycle, one ton of thorium can produce about two hundred times more energy than a ton of uranium. Additionally, weapons-grade plutonium can be processed in thorium reactors.

    Now India, Norway and China are striving to give a second life to the idea of ​​American nuclear physicist Alvin Martin Weinberg (Alvin Martin Weinberg). Back in the sixties, he proposed a version of the LFTR thorium reactor (pronounced "lifter - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.) Thorium oxide is introduced into the molten fluoride salts. Maintaining the reaction in the core requires a neutron source - this opens up wide control possibilities and allows you to stop the main reaction in any time.

    An advantage of the LFTR type reactor is reverse scalability. For the first time, it will be profitable to create small nuclear power plants with a capacity of several megawatts. The estimated lifetime of thorium nuclear power plants is from forty years to a century. Among the advantages of an LTFR type reactor is the fact that its core operates at normal or even reduced pressure, and the safety problem is solved by negative feedback. With increasing pressure, the volume of the mixture increases and its density decreases, which leads to a slowdown of the nuclear reaction and the cessation of the increase in pressure. The explosion of such a reactor is excluded by the physical laws themselves.

    Since thorium oxide is more refractory than uranium oxide, cooling systems can be made simpler and more reliable. One of the original options for passive protection is the idea of ​​placing a tank with a cooled plug of the same fluorides under the reactor core. If the cooling system fails, the plug melts and the superheated mixture is removed from the core, flowing into the tank.

    http://www.computerra.ru/55648/thorium/
    1. rotor
      rotor 14 November 2013 14: 33
      0
      Thorium reactors in our country can be built today, ”Lev Maksimov is convinced in the recent past, director of the Institute of Physical and Technical Problems of Metallurgy and Mechanical Engineering in Novosibirsk. The modernization of the reactors of one nuclear power plant to operate on a new element base is estimated at approximately $ 100 million. But the power of the station at the same time increases at least twice. Building a nuclear power plant from scratch usually costs $ 2-3 billion.

      Today, only 20% of the needs of uranium are mined in Russia, and we have complete order with thorium in Russia. 20 km from the Siberian Chemical Plant (SCC) in Tomsk-7 is a giant thorium deposit. There is a railway nearby, the industrial structure of the agricultural complex is developed. Russian thorium will be extremely cheap. There are giant deposits of thorium in the Novokuznetsk area. Given that almost no one touched them, today we have very cheap deposits.
    2. fennekRUS
      fennekRUS 14 November 2013 14: 54
      +2
      simpler and more reliable-name for example a little more profitable source of neutrons.
      With the exception of the chain reaction, I don’t remember something. The rest is energy consuming, KVM.
      Then what is the benefit of a thorium reactor if, in conjunction with it, an ordinary one should plow?
      1. rotor
        rotor 14 November 2013 16: 14
        0
        In natural thorium, there is not enough fissile material (thorium-231) to support a nuclear chain reaction. Criticality is achieved by adding 10% plutonium oxide to thorium oxide. Such a fuel is called mixed oxide, which can be converted into rods and used in traditional nuclear reactors.
      2. gridasov
        gridasov 16 November 2013 21: 56
        0
        For some reason, everyone considers only the static processes of nuclear transformations. Everything is much simpler if you create inside the material (not only radioactive) such a potential difference with a directed EMF vector at which the effect of radiation of particle masses will manifest itself. Each speed corresponds to a separation of the corresponding particle mass. Moreover, why use radioactive materials at all in order to then receive steam and its excess pressure to use in inefficient turbines. The concept of a new turbine provides such an algorithm for the interaction of the blades and the substance of expiration, in which this last substance is simultaneously creating a kinetic momentum and its transformation. And in the end it turns out the same steam, but with kin. impulse on the shaft of the turbine rotor. Everything is just like a bicycle. BUT!!! Nobody can just think of how to exceed the limits of centrifugal destruction of the rotor device. Because they don’t know how to compensate for radial centrifugal force. All inventions about neurons, electrons, etc. These are games of inventors. In nature, everything is simpler and more rational, but in order to be more reasonable than to ensure the existence of this world, you need to at least understand them, and only then be more reasonable.
  17. saag
    saag 14 November 2013 16: 18
    0
    Well, why didn’t they recall the America reactor, to the heap of the same electric aircraft turbines, probably because there is no deposit there? :-)
  18. JIaIIoTb
    JIaIIoTb 14 November 2013 17: 11
    -1
    Another horror story like shale gas. Poor how you pressed that))))
    And everyone shouts that he is a Russian citizen. "Partners" your mother.
    1. HARM
      HARM 14 November 2013 23: 29
      0
      Quote: JIaIIoTb
      Another horror story like shale gas. Poor how you pressed that))))

      They are not pressed. They live well, and will be even better!
  19. Sour
    Sour 14 November 2013 17: 40
    -1
    Already tired of the nonsense about the "oil needle".
    The whole of humanity depends on oil, only someone depends on its exports, and someone on its imports. Still need to figure out which is worse.
    Here, for example, Japan. For decades, it has boasted of its high technology, and, it turns out, these decades have lived on credit. External public debt is already 226% of GDP. What is Greece there? Greece with its miserable 160% rests against the backdrop of advanced, high-tech Japan.
    But among the main creditors of Japan are the Saudis, the Emirates, etc. "Commodity appendages," so to speak.
    This is how else to see who is an appendage to whom.
    If anything, Russia has a public debt of 11% of GDP, Saudi Arabia has 8%, and high-tech Germany has long exceeded 80%.
    1. go
      go 16 November 2013 14: 10
      +1
      Quote: Sour
      Already tired of the nonsense about the "oil needle".
      The whole of humanity depends on oil, only someone depends on its exports, and someone on its imports. Still need to figure out which is worse.
      Here, for example, Japan. For decades, it has boasted of its high technology, and, it turns out, these decades have lived on credit. External public debt is already 226% of GDP. What is Greece there? Greece with its miserable 160% rests against the backdrop of advanced, high-tech Japan.
      But among the main creditors of Japan are the Saudis, the Emirates, etc. "Commodity appendages," so to speak.
      This is how else to see who is an appendage to whom.
      If anything, Russia has a public debt of 11% of GDP, Saudi Arabia has 8%, and high-tech Germany has long exceeded 80%.


      Oil needle is not nonsense. An economy built on oil is very dependent on fluctuations in its prices; fluctuations in prices on a Russian scale can lead to resonance.

      You are right about the figures of government debt. But does it really matter? For example, Estonia's public debt is 10% and what does Estonia rule the world? Debt and generally modern. money is a relative concept. What matters is the equivalent of national production and the supply of their goods to the domestic. and foreign market. Modern the world cannot work without machines and technologies that are produced in developed countries, despite the fact that they have a lot of debt. This just means that they are trusted. This, of course, is not equivalent to the fact that if Russia had a big debt, because There is almost nothing to give Russia. Modern money is paper, cat. subject to inflation - goods and services that have demand are of real importance.

      Yes, oil is in demand. But what will happen to countries like Saudi Arabia when this demand drops or when oil runs out (and sooner or later it runs out)? These countries will not be. Therefore, Russia also has a simple choice - either live today and sit on the pipe or look to the future and develop a diversified economy.
  20. kind
    kind 14 November 2013 19: 24
    -1
    Thorium needs a "starter", the same uranium, you are the "ignition". True, then the decomposition reaction is safer, but the effect is not very much.
  21. disa
    disa 14 November 2013 21: 34
    +1
    ..that is good ... everyone will work ... to make ends meet .. we really don’t care ... for now ... we have space, science, talented people. What will Qatar do with its loose and forever washed-out shores of the sea? .. without the money of petrodollars.
  22. erofich
    erofich 14 November 2013 22: 55
    0
    An article by a person who has received a "modern" education. Nowadays. Quoting from Wikipedia is now considered an argument.
    1. HARM
      HARM 14 November 2013 23: 16
      +1
      In fact, the article cites the words of a specialist from Thor Energy, and not quotes from Wikipedia.
  23. badger1974
    badger1974 15 November 2013 00: 24
    0
    guys, there is no point in dispute, in order to "start" thorium, "fast neutrons" are necessary, with a very huge mass of thorium itself relatively enriched uranium oxide (180 tons of enriched uranium oxide against 2000 tons of thorium), children from the west can put both francium and mendelevium into the reactor for some reason, they don’t do this, the only thing is the Russia-France thermonuclear fusion project, this is the future, but on the basis of actinides, this is the enrichment and production of isotopes of dubious direction
  24. chunga-changa
    chunga-changa 15 November 2013 01: 28
    +1
    Actually, everyone somehow forgot that nuclear energy is a by-product.
    Uranium was mined for the production of nuclear weapons. Uranium reactors were built primarily to produce weapons-grade plutonium. Civilian use of uranium is such a free bonus, which for some reason everyone considers the main. I don’t know how it is to get plutonium from this same thorium, but it’s unlikely that you will make a decent atomic bomb out of it. But there will be no nuclear weapons than we will restrain the Anglo-Saxons in the framework of decency?
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 15 November 2013 01: 48
      0
      moreover, the Anglo-Saxons use the same tactics, and not the thorium, and even the pseudoscientific theory of cold fusion of the nucleus is "forced", nonsense and only
  25. Wolf 1
    Wolf 1 15 November 2013 07: 07
    0
    Strange article. What is the thorium challenge, if the work is still at the stage of experiments. They write that "The risk of an accident at a nuclear power plant with a uranium reactor was a serious deterrent to the widespread use of nuclear power. New safe thorium reactors do not have this drawback." And right there, "In 2011, the UK government announced a list of eight locations in England and Wales, where a new generation of nuclear power plants will be built by 2025, still with a URANIUM reactor. New nuclear power plants will be built taking into account the causes of the accident at the Japanese nuclear power plant" Fukushima- 1. "The new generation reactors are practically safe and, unlike many other types of energy production, they have the least impact on the environment." Where is the thorium challenge if they are building "old" uranium reactors ??
    - "The latest developments in the field of accumulators will also contribute to the complete abandonment of hydrocarbon fuels." --- anyway, it will not be soon. Oil reserves are not unlimited, the demand for it is growing every year, so that prices for it will only grow, regardless of any shale revolution.
  26. lotar
    lotar 15 November 2013 14: 06
    -1
    Nobody will allow you to switch from an oil and gas needle to a needle of a different kind. If only, a new needle will not bring even more income. Considering that the oil and gas industry provides trillions of dollars in revenue, then you should not expect something else that is equally profitable in the near future It is no secret that many corporations and states deliberately hold the initial technological revolution in many fields of science and technology. Each technology must squeeze the maximum possible profit out of itself before it is replaced by another.
    1. badger1974
      badger1974 21 November 2013 23: 47
      0
      this is so, but thorium decay is a path to nowhere, just like "cold fusion", there is a thermonuclear fundamental fusion of the nucleus, this is the path to the energy of the future, everything else is surrogate, and you are right a thousand times each technology must squeeze the maximum possible profit out of itself before another will replace it.-some idea
  27. sird64
    sird64 24 November 2013 14: 51
    0
    I do not agree with the piles that the safety of a modern reactor is very great. And about innovations, we have a lot of them. External combustion engine for example. And so on, and about thorium I can say one thing, it is not suitable for use as a nuclear fuel. As well as deuterium tritium for thermonuclear fusion, although on our cocomaki there was an absolute record for the duration of nuclear fusion. Humanity is not yet ready for this. And at the expense of an innovative power source. Biological batteries were invented in the USSR. Plus an invention called a DAC. Plus beological flies