Nuclear power greener/A Critique of "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors An old idea in nuclear power gets reexamined".

(Review Paper) Cited in

Points Made
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors address the environmental, social, and safety concerns created by solid fuel Uranium reactors.

Thorium reactors are:


 * 1) More cost effective: Approx $2.30 vs $4.00/watt;
 * 2) Are cheaper to manufacturer: $200million;
 * 3) Able to be constructed in as little as 36 months;
 * 4) 45% efficient vs 33% effective in electrical conversion;
 * 5) 90% vs 4% efficient in fuel consumption;
 * 6) Less environmentally dangerous, waste has a half-life of 300 years vs 10,000;
 * 7) Thermally self regulating, they prevent run-away reactions and cannot meltdown;
 * 8) Able to consume existing stored waste from solid fuel Uranium reactors;
 * 9) Unable to produce weaponize materials for use in thermonuclear ordinance;
 * 10) Able to cooled in hours vs months or years;
 * 11) More stable, the fluoride salts don't degrade like Uranium rods do (which require replacement every 18 months);
 * 12) Thorium is more abundant, a waste by-product of mining for rare earths, a fact that has stalled domestic mining;
 * 13) Able to run with little per-processing and doesn't require any enrichment;
 * 14) Not pressurized, and therefore are at no risk of explosion like solid fuel Uranium reactors;

Methods
Dr. Hargraves completed a meta-analysis of the existing literature on the topic. He is an expert on the topic.

Results
Dr. Hargraves feels the government is missing out on the use of thorium technology. Thorium reactors could address our energy problems and the consequenes that come with them, and they should be considered as an equal or better option as solid fuel designs.