Talk:Thorium-based nuclear power

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thorium-based nuclear power article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Energy High‑importance

	Energy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Energy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Energy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EnergyWikipedia:WikiProject EnergyTemplate:WikiProject Energyenergy articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Physics High‑importance

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Huge and direct self-contradiction in the page

"Not suitable for bombs. It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's by-products"

Later:

'Harvesting weapons-grade plutonium. The thorium fuel cycle is a potential way to produce long term nuclear energy with low radio-toxicity waste. In addition, the transition to thorium could be done through the incineration of weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or civilian plutonium."

even later:

"The decay of the protactinium-233 would then create uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232 for use in nuclear weapons"

This says it is possible and suitable in a great and several ways to produce products for a nuclear bomb. 2003:C1:B720:C800:D565:433:BA0C:399B (talk) 06:40, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No. A suitable process is needed to turn u-233 into weapons material. For far-more relevant materiel, see Plutonium-239. The refinement processes were the purpose of the Manhattan Project. -- Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 12:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a better introduction

This article doesn't give a good, brief, basic, explanation of a thorium reactor in the introduction but instead starts with a discussion of fuel and other details. Could someone please fix that? Mondebleu (talk) 14:40, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will take several editorial passes. There are multiple factors involved. The Generation IV reactors are a large list. In this list the molten-salt reactors (MSRs):

Nuclear reactors have historically been uranium-based, which historically operate at lower temperatures, so that working pressures for uranium-based reactors power generation are higher than for thorium-based molten salt reactors, which can safely operate at lower working pressures and higher working temperatures.
Thorium is more abundant than uranium, but thorium has been ignored because thorium is not as easy to weaponize.
It still takes consumption of a little uranium or plutonium to start the generation of neutrons for the nuclear reaction. But the neutron generation process in a molten-salt thorium reactor can be self-sustaining when the appropriate elements are filtered out during processing.
The high-temperature reactors could even consume weapons-grade material but would require inspection to detect any diversion into plutonium production.
Ultimately reprocessing by specialized centers is needed, but in far less volumes than conventional power generation.

For pebble bed reactors (PBRs)

Thorium can be used but the tennis-ball sized TRISO pebbles are usually made with uranium.
The working fluid is an inert gas. The operating temperature of the working fluid is higher than that of a molten salt reactor. Cooling of the reactor is by the working fluid.
The reaction is once-through, and the pebbles are not as easily reprocessed as molten fuels due to the silicon carbide coating of the pebbles.
Like molten-salt reactors, PBRs are safer than traditional nuclear reactors.

--Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 01:04, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article is missing discussion of the successful light water breeder reactor (LWBR) at Shippingport, PA from 1977 to 1982

The Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR) at Shippingport Atomic Power Station, Shippingport, PA. operated from 1977 (initial criticality Aug. 26, 1977) until 1982, at rated power of about 237 MW(th). It was connected to the grid of Duquesne Light Company, producing commercial power for the Pittsburgh area. LWBR had seed assemblies of U233 and blanket assemblies of thorium. After shutdown, assays conducted at the Idaho National Laboratory showed that the LWBR produced at least 1.4% more U233 than it started with. 73.250.225.30 (talk) 06:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC) Reference is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Atomic_Power_Station#Cores (the text of which I include here) The third and final core was a light water breeder, which began operating in August 1977 and after testing was brought to full power by the end of that year.[3] It used pellets made of thorium dioxide and uranium-233 oxide; initially the U233 content of the pellets was 5-6% in the seed region, 1.5-3% in the blanket region and none in the reflector region. It operated at 236 MWt, generating 60 MWe and ultimately produced over 2.1 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. After five years (29,000 effective full power hours)[14] the core was removed and found to contain nearly 1.4% more fissile material than when it was installed, demonstrating that breeding had occurred.[9][15] -- contibution timestamp 03:35, 15 November 2024.[reply]

See the updates to the article as of 07:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC).

--Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs) 07:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]