LFTR: The perfect energy source

The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is the perfect energy source that no one has heard about. It is nuclear reactor that runs on thorium instead of uranium. It has all the benefits of nuclear power with none of the drawbacks. LFTR has less than 1% of the waste of a light water reactor. LFTR reactors cost about a billion dollars per GWe so that means it will cost around 3 cents/kwh. That is 1/4th the cost of the average energy price in the U.S. LFTR's are far safer than the BWR's in Japan. There is a 0% chance of meltdown for these type of reactors. LFTR's are proliferation resistant. LFTR's would be the safest and cleanest energy source there is. These reactors are already fully developed, and were demonstrated in the 60's and 70's. These reactors are scalable to many different sizes and can be used for many different things. If we start building these right away, we can easily run our entire country on safe, reliable, cheap, clean energy by 2030. We need to get this out to the public and influence the government to fund the development of the LFTR.

More information at: www.energyfromthorium.com

 

I it's such a great energy source it doesn't need government funding.

 

Agreed. Whomever would develop it would rule the world.

 

That is why capitalism fails, and it does need government funding because no one has heard of it, and there are false claims of nuclear energy being dangerous. Without government, these would have never been in even basic research. Because of government, these reactors are fully developed. Government has also been the problem though, because they shelved it because it couldn't make nuclear weapons.

 

Hahahaha. No one has heard of it?? Except you? Dude please.

Seriously, if that's true, write up a venture proposal and get urself some capital and make bank. That's how capitalism works, and magnificently.

 

No one has ever heard of? I've been reading about it for years.

The great thing is that Australia has 40% of the world's thorium.

 

Design challenges

Fuel Cycle concerns

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

I think it has possibilities the negatives do not out weigh the positives.

 

A very small percentage of the public and government officials knows about it. What do you think of it then?

 

From what I've read it'd be a good compromise for nations wanting nuclear power but no one would trust with nuclear weapons.

 

I think most of those problems have already been solved. There are different types of molten salt reactors and some are better than others. energyfromthorium.com is a good site to learn more about these reactors.

 

As an engineer, I am very certain that you are missing some facts in there somewhere. There are always positives and negatives of every energy source. Just because you might not be able to see right away what it is.... there will always be a drawback. Either the expense of it, rarity of matierials, difficulty of construction, energy in vs energy out. The list goes on and on....

Every time in my life that I hear of the PERFECT solution for anything, it is always very far from perfect.

I think solar energy is the greatest example. On the surface of it, solar cells seem pretty perfect. They make electricity out of sunlight. No moving parts to break down, the sun is free, zero emissions, what could possibly be wrong with it? First question an engineer would ask.... how long do they last? Contrary to popular belief it is very far from FOREVER... maybe 15 years, and they start to become really inefficient years before that, so say 10 good years a panel.

Then you have to look at how much energy does it actually take to produce the solar cell in the first place. Yes... it actually does take a certain amount of energy to build a solar panel. Trucks to ship matierials, engines to power factories, etc. From some of the reports that I have seen the energy into and out of a panel over that 10 year life span, is just not all that. In comparison to say oil or coal that is pretty much ready to go as soon as you can dig it out of the ground.

And what about environmentally? Surely a zero emission solar panel is better than buring fossil fuels right? In some ways yes... but in other ways... not so much. Take a look at the following article to see what I am talking about....

http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2008/03/the-ugly-side-o.html

Any engineer will tell you... that the devil is in the details.... the same is true here... nothing gets you nothing.... and everything has a cost... even "clean" energy....

 

No. I am not missing much. There is definitely more specifics to it and there are some problems, but compared to everything else it is perfect.

 

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:World_Thorium_Fuel_(WTF)_Cadillac_concept_car

 

I prefer Integral Fast Reactors.

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shkFDPI6kGE"]Bloom Industries[/ame]

 

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k20jqtZiYvo&feature=related"]More Bloom[/ame]

 

So why isn't it being used?

 

When it was developed, the U.S. was in the middle of the Cold War and needed nuclear weapons. The material used for LFTR reactors are useless for nuclear weapons so they chose to develop uranium reactors.

 

ooooooookkkk.... And the Cold War ended basically two decades ago.

My question was as to the present tense: Why isn't it being used, as in, today?

 

Politicians don't know about it. The people don't know about it.

 

Haha. Politicians don't start businesses. If it's so great and only you know about it why arent you making billions?

 

Why would a politician need to know about it?

 

Government has favored a lot of research and completely controls our energy supply with energy companies.

Because of favoritism in scientific research many good ideas have never been brought to fruition. This is no failure of capitalism. In thinking this, you are highly mistaken. You are choosing to overlook the obvious inefficiency associated with government intervention in the market.

 

I can imagine it is a two-way street. It's not all the government's fault.

Greed/power are playing at BOTH ends. What we (the people) need, are the BEST solutions however... not those that are particularly convenient in the eyes of one or a few with 'special' interests.

 

There is nothing wrong with being greedy or wanting power. Those are not the causes of our problems.

Rational self-interest is always good, and it promotes the best in everyone. It is irrational to use greed for a short-term gain that has long-term pitfalls. That is not true greed; it is self-destruction.