tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post6140180040948180706..comments2023-04-17T04:37:45.753-07:00Comments on Yottawatts From Thorium: Would Thorium Powered Ships be better for the Navy?Robert Steinhaushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04629054450988038885noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post-56726986894670866072018-08-02T02:34:59.255-07:002018-08-02T02:34:59.255-07:00There are a few companies developing Thorium react...There are a few companies developing Thorium reactors now. It makes good sense to me to use these on large commercial vessels... a large cargo ship can burn through over a hundred metric tons of fuel EVERY DAY. So Thorium reactors could save a lot of space on the ship for more cargo and save huge amounts of money - over a million dollars per trip ... it's a no-brainer so far as I can see. If anyone knows of a company looking into this please let me know as I'd like to buy in! ;-)Philosopher Rexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12503089626878003757noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post-90650513231243658132014-01-16T19:31:23.675-08:002014-01-16T19:31:23.675-08:002. The recent and renewed interest in the Liquid F...2. The recent and renewed interest in the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) stems from work at NASA to find suitable energy production for terra-forming planet outposts. NASA's need for the frugal management of in-space resources...literally down to the molecule...was a key driver behind this approach.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post-31568454213859153102014-01-16T19:24:39.161-08:002014-01-16T19:24:39.161-08:00To my recollection, Alwin Weinberg, the principal ...To my recollection, Alwin Weinberg, the principal inventor behind both the PWR and the MSRE, argued for the PWR for submarine propulsion. It is my understanding he was a key influence behind ADM Rickover's decision to aggressively pursue the PWR for submarine propulsion. It is also my understanding that Weinberg argued against the scaling up of the LWR/PWR for civilian power generation, instead favoring the Liquid Fuel THERMAL BREEDER (due primarily to inherent safety benefits). He is famously quoted as saying the pursuit of the LWR/PWR for civilian power was a "Faustian bargain". Interestingly, Wigner and Teller also favored the THERMAL BREEDER for civilian power needs.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post-17468330657487225472012-05-25T14:04:03.499-07:002012-05-25T14:04:03.499-07:00A MSR reactor looks like a good idea on land, but ...A MSR reactor looks like a good idea on land, but a very bad idea at see: If such a ship sinks, all the waste is dispersed to see, even if the reactor is not damaged - if not kept at temperature the fuel salt will likely get very corrosive like it did at the MSRE after shutdown.<br /><br />Since a reactor needs effective heavy shielding anyway - its not such a bad idea to have it inside a thick walled pressure vessel, even considerably thicker than in a civil ship. It's extra weight, but not much and it has dual benefits of mechanical protection and radiation shielding. As the reactor in a ship is relatively small - thickness will be still nothing unusually. <br /><br />The second point is, that nuclear powered warships are a bad idea per se: they are a type of dirty nuclear weapon - thus undermining the anti-proliferation treaty.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post-80395755383177762942011-06-04T04:21:49.617-07:002011-06-04T04:21:49.617-07:001. Why aren't commercial ships using nuclear p...1. Why aren't commercial ships using nuclear power? One would think that a nuclear powered oil tanker would save the owners a lot money over the lifetime of the tanker. <br /><br />2. What about thorium in space ship designs where mass is real issue?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post-86905922468978738572010-03-30T15:40:27.516-07:002010-03-30T15:40:27.516-07:00I hope I can speak on a tangent. I find the direct...I hope I can speak on a tangent. I find the direction to Thorium reactors & shipping to be a good possibility. While the navy may have good experience, what will we do for maritime logisitics in the future? The "heat" of thorium being so much under current typical nuclear fuels makes it a highly desirable fuel.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post-56764924157731477452010-02-18T16:13:21.791-08:002010-02-18T16:13:21.791-08:00Admiral,
With all due respect, you are being dist...Admiral,<br /><br />With all due respect, you are being distracted into thinking there will be a significant alteration in sea ice and sea level as a consequence of "climate change". If the news of the past 3 months is any indication of where the debate is going, the Navy's carbon footprint is the least of your concerns. Nor should it ever have been.<br /><br />Though I have not been in military service, I support all branches of our military and urge you to focus on your first principles: defend our nation. We don't need additional attempts at social (or in this case, environmental) experiments within our uniformed services. Biofuels don't pass the smell test and, as Rod Adams has posted, perhaps LFTR/MSR don't either, in this application.DocForesightnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2460756946834840196.post-86712099564748186852010-02-04T02:33:04.299-08:002010-02-04T02:33:04.299-08:00Robert - though I agree with your statement about ...Robert - though I agree with your statement about performance and biofuels, I am not sure how thorium reactors would be an improvement in power density over our current models. They are pretty amazing devices. We are now loading our submarine reactors with enough fuel to last their entire lifetime and it is in a dense matrix of corrosion resistant metal that retains fission products in a known location. Pumping molten salt around may be fine, but we have more than 50 years worth of experience with the systems that we have AND we have an existing infrastructure of equipment suppliers, quality assurance, maintenance facilities, training schools and qualification programs.<br /><br />Why start from scratch to build all that again? Why not just build smaller PWR's for the smaller ships? There is plenty of space and weight allowance available - just run the numbers to see how much fuel a diesel powered ship has to carry to be able to operate for even a few days without refueling.Rod Adamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03652375336090790205noreply@blogger.com