Thorium: the future of nuclear power?

[sicetaitsimple]

It is one of the rare interests of this kind of reactor. So afterwards, if what Reinhard Uhrig of the environmental organization Global 2000 claims, atomic power stations produce 88 to 146 g CO2 / kWh, I find it hard to see what they have left compared to wind and solar power, which except that they work 24 hours a day ...

The 88 to 146g / kWh is rubbish.
Do you have a link to the study?

[izentrop]

The problem with molten salts is that they end up polluting each other, so it will be necessary to develop a filtration system that can operate at the same time as the reactor, which is no small task.

Jancovici explains that the Chinese have opted for another solution

It is one of the rare interests of this kind of reactor. So afterwards, if what Reinhard Uhrig of the environmental organization Global 2000 claims, atomic power stations produce 88 to 146 g CO2 / kWh, I find it hard to see what they have left compared to wind and solar power, which except that they work 24 hours a day ...

The 88 to 146g / kWh is rubbish.
Do you have a link to the study?

It is clear, for the SFEN, in France it is 6 g.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

It is clear, for the SFEN, in France it is 6 g.

This is indeed the figure advanced by this nuclear lobby which denies the effects of Chernobyl on thyroid cancer. Monsanto also says that yabon glyphosate and BASF that yabon GMO ...
https://wiseinternational.org/sites/def ... uclear.pdf

[sen-no-sen]

At 36 'he confirms what I noted above: for the moment we do not yet know how to operate a molten salt reactor continuously.

[Bardal]

At 36 'he confirms what I noted above: for the moment we do not yet know how to operate a molten salt reactor continuously.

This is only true for the version currently being tested by the Chinese; the versions studied by the other countries (including France and Europe) practically all include a permanent purification system (of the order of 20 to 40 L per day) which evacuates the various fission products liable to poison the reaction. It is fairly basic chemistry, the gaseous products evacuating themselves at the top of the vessel, and the rest of the “fuel” being subjected to the necessary chemical treatments before being reinjected into the reactor core; the only remaining problem to be solved is that of zirconium (the research track, which remains to be validated, is that of a "cold trap" on the bypass line, allowing the condensation of this metal).

The latest developments, and problems, are fairly well summarized in the proceedings of the Massy conference (https://irfu.cea.fr/Meetings/seminaires ... rs2018.pdf), with a complete update on the state of studies in progress in the various countries of the world.

Very complete document on the "molten salts" branch: https://fissionliquide.fr/tag/sel-fondu/

In addition, the most fanciful figures circulate on the net concerning the CO2 emissions of nuclear power.
Several details: an essential part of this CO2 comes from the uranium enrichment process, which uses a lot of electrical energy. It is clear that the final balance will strongly depend on the production of this electricity (carbon or carbon-free); in France, a country with very low-carbon electricity, nuclear energy emits around 4g of CO2 per kWh, while in China (electricity mainly produced by coal) the final balance is rather 80-100g per kWh. Add to this certain malicious attentions (some of which are specialists) and we can easily understand the variety of figures circulating.

It should be noted that the molten salt sector, using by nature non-enriched fuels, definitively resolves this problem.

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

; in France, a country with very low-carbon electricity, nuclear power emits around 4g of CO2 per kWh ...

Who says less ...? Grotesque and untrue, of course ... Getting to put forward a figure even lower than that advanced by the nuclear lobby cited by Izy, had to be daring.

[izentrop]

With us, the centrifuges run on nuclear energy my good Guy

[GuyGadeboisTheBack]

Start by reading the very detailed study that I posted, then you can come back delirious.

[Christophe]

; in France, a country with very low-carbon electricity, nuclear power emits around 4g of CO2 per kWh ...

Who says less ...? Grotesque and untrue, of course ... Getting to put forward a figure even lower than that advanced by the nuclear lobby cited by Izy, had to be daring.

Bardal, I liked everything you posted about nuclear power, but here the 4 gr / kWh cannot hold ...

The proof in a little table corner calculation that I like!

A power plant directly employs 1000 employees roughly * (a priori on 3 workstations) ... and the average journey in France to Boulot Dodo is 25 km ... A / R = 50 km ...

Every day 50 km are traveled just for the employees to run the plant.

At 140 gr of CO2 / km that makes 7 Tons of CO2 ... or 7 grams ... do we agree?

If it is a plant with 2 reactors of 900 MW at 80% load rate (annual average when no trouble) we have an electricity production over 24 hours of 2 * 900 *. 8 * 24 = 34 560 000 kWh. ..

We therefore already have 0.20 gr / kWh of CO2 just for the movement of employees in normal operation (in the event of a prolonged shutdown or hassles, this result must be multiplied ...) ... hard to believe that just travel already represents 5% of the nuclear CO2 balance ...

[Christophe]

For more precise figures for example: https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrale_ ... t-des-Eaux

https://www.insee.fr/fr/statistiques/4805238

Electricity production

10,57 TWh (2019)

Load factor
65,9% (in 2019)

The Saint-Laurent-des-Eaux nuclear power plant employs 870 people and supports 5 people