Talk:Thorium-based nuclear power/Archive 1

nuclear propulsion with thorium-based reactors
Some text from Flibe Energy that seems better suited to this article. Leaving here for discussion. -- Limulus (talk) 00:05, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Kirk Sorensen has noted the potential for nuclear propulsion with thorium-based reactors (Ref: Could Thorium solve the world's energy problems?) e.g. in "future cruise ships and cargo vessels". While noting that "nuclear is unsuitable for getting into space from earth", thorium could be used for deep space missions.

Ridiculous debate...
agree with you 100% also the intro is just not that clear This article is not actually about the process and instead is a back and forth about its supposed advantages or disadvantages. It is largely an annoying lecture about how it used to be considered a viable option and how wrong it was to get off its track. Almost the whole dang article is off topic! :-)

108.7.170.149 (talk) 20:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The processes are covered in the linked articles about the different kinds of reactors. This one, as described in the lead, is more about the general overview, including history and the pros and cons. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:19, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but the title suggests the article is actually about the subject, not the circumstances surrounding the subject. A little background is normal and good, but this is nuts. Also, WP articles should not be merely a list of places to go to read up on the subject in the title. We come to WP to get the info directly.

ALL new proposed technologies have experts with their opinions about the workability of them. The ad nauseam details of those debates are distracting, off topic, unnotable, and unencyclopedic.

A new title could technically fix the problem, but it would still be nauseating, excessive, unencyclopedic, "Hollywood gossip style", argument about who did what, who dissed whom, and when.

The other article on (seemingly) exactly the same subject (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor) is better and with more actual information about the subject, but it still contains excessive references to that "ridiculous debate".

108.7.170.149 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I think some examples would help, since any "debate" aspects seem pretty minimal. You're right, that some will click to the article assuming the phrase "nuclear power" would explain "nuclear generators." But the first sentence should set them straight: In recent years there has been renewed interest by experts in using thorium as a nuclear fuel in place of uranium to create nuclear power. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:48, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

What? That sentence doesn't say what you say it says. It simply declares a renewed interest in thorium, not that "This article is about the debate over the viability of thorium-fueled nuclear reactors.". Direct wording like that is needed to clearly state that the article is about a debate which is about the title subject and not actually about the title subject. It makes no sense to assume that saying one thing actually means something else. But, like just changing the name, that leaves the fact that the article would still be "excessive, unencyclopedic, "Hollywood gossip style", argument about who did what, who dissed whom, etc." (like I said before). On top of that by the way, when people click to the article they're going to think it's about the gat-danged subject in the title(!!) (fer cryin' out loud :-) ), not about "nuclear power", nor about "nuclear generators", and certainly not about that ridiculous off-topic debate which is what they actually get.

You're just not making much sense. (Sorry, man.) I stand by my arguments about the article being crazy off topic, and I'll let it be. That's all I can really do. Hopefully, some other watchers can pipe in, and/or do some fixups (or better yet, deletion). I'm really "just passing through" here and now I'm moving on. Goodbye.

108.7.170.149 (talk) 05:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Friends of Earth are supporters?
The article states that " In Britain, a few organizations are either promoting or examining research on thorium-based nuclear plants. One such organization, Friends of the Earth, formerly known for its anti-nuclear power positions, is moving away from calling for an immediate shutdown of the UK’s nuclear power stations, and now supports research into thorium-fueled nuclear power." But there is no source for this. I'm aware that FOE have commissioned a report into nuclear power but the last I heard they thought research spending on any for of nuclear wold be better spent on renewables... happy to be corrected bt really does need a source for this claim.87.112.161.198 (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Source probably though I would not describe their support for Thorium research as more than tepid; see  "it's always handy to have something in the back pocket in case it is needed in the future. This is why it is useful to have research into new technologies such as [examples] and even thorium nuclear reactors." but the same page also dismisses them as not going to be ready in time to avert climate change and being unnecessary due to e.g. conservation. A more accurate phrasing would be something to the effect of 'FoE does not oppose research into thorium-based nuclear power'. -- Limulus (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This blog is not a reliable source. In any case, the author later clarified his position, see, saying that energy saving and renewable energy technologies are the real priorities. Johnfos (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

New journal article
Thorium: Not a near-term commercial nuclear fuel is in the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September/October 2012, vol. 68 no. 5 33-44. Johnfos (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Note this article is confined to discussion of the prospect of using thorium to fuel the existing commercial light water reactor fleet. --Prosopon (talk) 12:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

THTR-300
"The German THTR-300 was the first commercial power station powered almost entirely with thorium. It fed power to Germany's grid for 432 days, before it was shut down for cost, mechanical and other reasons."

This makes it sound as if this wasn't the total desaster if was. "for other reasons"? The German site spells it out as "security reasons". Does not fit into the story of safe thorium power, eh? Of course "cost reasons" would be better described as a complete economical desaster which has cost the tax payer a lot of money. Fed power for 432 days? The truth is that this in in 4 years, because of many serious technical problems they reactor was down more than up. Martin.uecker (talk) 19:33, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Nuclear weapons
The article says:

Uranium-235, purified from natural mined uranium. Most nuclear power has been generated this way. Plutonium-239, transmutated from Uranium-238, from natural mined uranium. Plutonium is also used for weapons. Uranium-233, transmutated from Thorium-232, from natural mined thorium. That is the subject of this article.

so, it says plutonium is used in weapons but it does not say that uranium is used in weapons. Why not?2.101.241.253 (talk) 20:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I have clarified this point in the article.Anythingyouwant (talk) 10:02, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Thorium Plasma battery
This seems to be a rather strange, pseudo - scientific point. Seems to be a strange mix of parts from battery, MHD generator and nuclear reactor. Might be a hoax as well. --Ulrich67 (talk) 17:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC) Here the strange text from the article - just not to delete at once:


 * Thorium Plasma battery: An early attempt to make a nuclear battery that used thorium as a fuel source. The idea was to Use Thorium to ionize hydrorgen or tritium in an ion chamber using thorium as an electrode and using some conductive electrode that might have been porous as another electrode such as steel wool. In this type of nuclear battery two strong perminate magnets were used to seperate ion charges to the respective eletrodes. Source: U.S. Department of Defense and Area 51, Rex Research.

Punctuation cleanup
I was reading this article, found errors, and decided to read and edit at the same time. Mostly just moving some quotes, and repairing some typos. There are lots of "quoted words" where the quotes seemed superfluous, but I left them in place. -- Chris (talk) 03:10, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

POV tag
Despite discussion about better sourcing for the article in a section above, there is still a strong bias towards blog sources and promotional websites (especially Energy from Thorium) and away from serious coverage of the issue in Nuclear Engineering International, IAEA and Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists. This has seriously unbalanced the article in favour of Thorium reactors and so there really is no choice but to add a POV tag. Johnfos (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Balancing information can be found in "Thorium, Not The Nuclear Savior Claimed" http://www.fukuleaks.org/web/?p=3101  Raises the issue of disposal of spent Thorium fuel and a number of other potential problems (dual use for bombs, terrorism, etc.), all absent from the main article.  99.190.133.143 (talk) 23:21, 12 May 2014 (UTC)


 * The BOS article is subscriber based. Maybe you can just add some summary details from these articles with linked citations. Without such counter balancing details, simply adding a POV tag is in itself a form of POV. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some relevant material from the BAS article, from the section on The near-term potential of thorium fuels in existing reactors: Low:

"Within the confines of the thorium scenario most likely to be seen in the next decade, deployment in an open nuclear cycle driven by uranium capped at 6 percent enrichment of uranium-235, a number of the commonly promoted advantages of thorium are significantly crippled. The claim that thorium fuels are “meltdown proof” has no basis in reality, barring the design, development, and construction of completely new reactor types.

The advantages in terms of waste disposal would be minimal, at best. Use of thorium-uranium dioxide would provide a small but legitimate reduction in the inventory of transuranic elements such as neptunium, plutonium, and americium in spent fuel. These gains, however, would not meaningfully impact the radioactivity, handling procedures, or storage requirements of spent fuel. If the United States chose to change its waste disposal policies and impose a charge on utilities for their nuclear waste output based on quantity, the reduced waste production facilitated by the use of thorium in existing reactors could serve to make it more attractive as a fuel. But there is no reason to suspect that the federal government will change long-standing policy. Spent fuel from a thorium-uranium oxide-powered nuclear plant would not have a nonproliferation advantage over currently used fuel. Thorium would not eliminate plutonium production in current reactors and would provide a second weapons-usable isotope, uranium-233, to spent fuel.11 More important than arguing for or against the particular merits of the proliferation outcomes of thorium is to recognize a practical reality: Commercial entities and fuel vendors will assign minimal value to any minor differences in theoretical proliferation risks. Certainly this is an area that the government must fully understand before deployment of thorium in existing reactors is undertaken. But from the utilities’ point of view, the only legitimate driver capable of motivating pursuit of thorium is economics. One of the historically cited benefits of a thorium cycle is the availability of fuel, given thorium’s abundance relative to uranium. But this benefit is often hypothesized from a situation many decades past, when a significant expansion of nuclear energy was anticipated. The reality of the current and forecast marketplace, however, is one of stable uranium prices. Additionally, the need for a uranium-235 driver to initiate all once-through cycles will never completely free current reactors from the need for uranium. The only other possible significant economic impact of thorium would come from extended fuel cycles. A capability to operate the reactor for longer periods of time without stopping to refuel would be viewed as a significant triumph. Studies executed to date, however, suggest that it will be exceedingly difficult for thorium introduced into existing reactors in the form of thorium-uranium dioxide pellets to meet the currently required performance metrics in cycles longer than currently used. Thorium-uranium dioxide fuels may well contain a range of properties that make them superior to uranium dioxide. To justify further consideration for use in the current reactor fleet, however, basic property studies are needed to characterize parameters of fundamental importance to both normal operating conditions and severe accident scenarios. It may be possible to trade the current uranium dioxide fuel for an alternative that shows improved in-reactor behavior and achieves identical reactor output at a negligible cost difference. Unfortunately, the capacity of thorium-uranium fuels to match existing reactor performance benchmarks remains uncertain, and fabricating thorium-uranium oxide fuel would require up-front development costs and qualification efforts. It seems extremely unlikely that utilities would make such an investment for the minimal payoffs discussed above. Looking forward, policy makers and nuclear operators should not discount the possibility of translating America’s nuclear infrastructure toward a full thorium fuel cycle as the existing fleet of reactors approaches the end of service. A true closed thorium cycle that incorporates full recycling of uranium-233 would provide clear benefits in the area of reduced waste generation, whether deployed in reactors using traditional solid fuels and coolants or perhaps in advanced designs that have yet to be fully developed or tested. Unfortunately, within current policy restraints, adaptation of thorium fuel for use in existing water-cooled reactors would require too great an investment and provide no clear payoff. For thorium to hold an important role within the nuclear future of the United States, advocates must include these qualifiers. Presenting thorium as a silver bullet capable of instantly converting the nuclear industry to a meltdown-proof, waste-free power source, free from proliferation concern is not only inaccurate, but also does a significant disservice in communicating the many intricate political and economic drivers that converge to shape the future of nuclear power generation around the globe".


 * There are some good points here about the practical realities and limitations of Thorium which do not yet appear in the article. Johnfos (talk) 06:21, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Since the summary covers a wide range of topics, with much of it discussing current uranium-based reactors vs. undeveloped thorium-based ones, could you isolate some key points to help neutralize the article? Better yet, you can just add some material from the article in relevant sections. It seems that economics is among the key reasons behind the BAS opinion, so maybe some financial topic expansion could be added.


 * Did the BAS article have an author? According to the BAS article, "The Bulletin's primary aim is to inform the public about nuclear policy debates while advocating for the international control of nuclear weapons." Their opinions are obviously worth including. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Possible benefits Section

The last item in this section 'reduced use of coal' does not seem to fit as the previous comparisons compared it to other nuclear fuels. Reduced reliance on fossil fuels is a characteristic result of ANY nuclear energy program not just thorium.I think the coal section should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.19.127.37 (talk) 10:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * The section is cut down now to just compare volumes of thorium with coal and uranium, and some data about coal use percentages.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:31, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Thorium-based nuclear power is not the same as the LFTR concept
Thorium-based nuclear Power is not the same as the LFTR. The LFTR is just one concept to use thorium in a reactor. Most of the reactors in the list are more conventional solid fuel reactors. Also the LFTR concept by itself is highly controversial and has still many open points. The concept of a molten salt reactor is also rather independent of the fuel used, so much of it would apply to uranium/plutonium fuel as well. So claimed properties of a possible future LFTR (with still many questions on how it might look like) are speculative and in most cases not thorium specific.--Ulrich67 (talk) 20:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Dubious source - IEER criticism
IEER is known to have anti-nuclear bias, and their criticism of thorium reactors ("Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power") contains many factual errors. See rebuttals here: http://energyfromthorium.com/ieer-rebuttal/

http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/05/13/cannaras-rebuke-of-psrieer/ --ShotmanMaslo (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is considerable debate about Thorium-based nuclear power and we need to explain both sides of the debate in this article for NPOV. So far there has been too much emphasis on pro-nuclear sources such as the World Nuclear Association and Superfuel, and I have tried to balance this with some other views, for NPOV. As you would expect, the intractable debate involves claims and counter-claims, rebuttals and counter-rebuttals.


 * I note that the IAEA's 2005 report (p.3) supports Makhijani's view that there are still major technical hurdles to be overcome before possible commercialization. Johnfos (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Unreliable source: Energy from Thorium website
Thankfully an editor has tagged this promotional website as unreliable. I totally agree. I find it particularly disturbing that this site often resorts to personal attacks on those who do not agree with its pro-thorium position. Johnfos (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Good, reliable, sources
-- Johnfos (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Nuclear Engineering International
 * IAEA

Actually they are reliable sources, depending on how framed
The sources themselves are clearly biased, but the assertions in the text weren't restating the claims of the sources. The text was merely claiming that "some parties have 'opinion X'", then giving the sources as existence proofs of those actually very limited assertions. I removed the "unreliable" tags because they were reliable in the limited way required.

The sources (both sides) are also not kooks, they are biased yes (maybe very biased), but it is also reasonable to consider them both experts. And, it is normal to have differing opinions among experts about the feasibilities (for differing purposes) of new and/or unproven ideas. The linking to them should not be removed based a (wrong) idea that they are crackpots and crackpots only. (Although linking to them could be removed for other better reasons)

108.7.170.149 (talk) 20:46, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Quality of the Sources maybe acceptable for a direct quote. So formally the sources can be good enough for a direct quote of something like a personal view of some person. However an article should not be a collection of direct quotes, and direct quotes should not be used to make sources acceptable that are not good enough as normal reference. The big Questions with these direct quotes is, whether the authors are accepted experts and/or of sufficient importance to warrant a personal view.--Ulrich67 (talk) 15:48, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Comparison of fuel reserves
But in a related vein you removed comparison to thorium abundance to U-235 abundance. While I certainly agree that Th is not simply useable in place of U-235, at the same time its high thermal neutron cross section (3 times U-238's) and thus ability to be bred in thermal neutron systems (CANDU and the like) where you cannot "over-unity" breed U-238, makes it something special which IS in a way comparable with U-235. Once you charge a CANDU reactor with enough fissile material, you can burn Th in it as though Th WAS U-235. You burn a LOT of Th this way without reprocessing. How much, I cannot tell because nobody has (incredibly) bothered to do the experiment. But a lot. So that makes Th in a way more like U-235 and less like U-238. Once you have fast breeders, Th and U-238 are not very distinguishable. But our electric system doesn't run on fast breeders. If there's anything to Th, it might be able to run on CANDU thermal breeders without nasty molten salts or liquid poison metals. So in that case, the amount of Th vs. U-235 in the world is very relevant. How can we not mention it? S B Harris 23:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thorium is an fertile material only. This is a big difference: you can use thorium only together with a fissile material. Once you have breeding reactors thorium is very much equivalent to U238. The development of the U/Pu fast breeder is more advanced (essentially ready but not economic) than the Thorium cycle - in the thorium cycle reprocessing is still rather experimental and recovering the thorium is very far from being economical - so a current thorium breeder would only use a small fraction (e.g. 0.5-5%) of the thorium. Including breeding, it would be acceptable to use uranium extracted from the oceans - making the accessible amount of uranium likely even larger than that of thorium. The second point is, that even conventional reactors without reprocessing use about as much U238 as U235. With reprocessing for MOX fuel, efficient thermal reactors can use even more (e.g. 2 times) U-238 than U-235. I don't have numbers on how much Thorium one can use with U235 in a CANDU reactor, but the AVR, a graphite reactor made to use Th with a U235 driver was still using slightly less Th than U235, though it was designed to use something like 2/3 thorium and 1/3 highly enriched U-235. With CANDU being a very thermal reactor, I don't think it could use very much thorium in situ, without reprocessing - as it is rather sensitive to absorption by fission products. It would not be necessary to do this experimental, experts have very likely calculated this quite accurate. Its just a question of finding the result, especially from India. Even then if Th might multiply the fissile amount by a factor of maybe 5 or even 10, the use would still be limited by the fissile U-235. As a side note: The possibility to breed in the thermal (and intermediate) spectrum is not due to the high cross section of thorium, but because of the better fissile properties of U-233 compared to Pu-239. So the big difference is, that thorium/U233 can theoretical do breeding in the thermal spectrum while the Uranium / Plutonium cycle needs the fast breeding reactor.--Ulrich67 (talk) 22:41, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Fission products
The waste discussion makes no mention that the same amount of fission products are produced, which are the major radiation hazards from nuclear power. Only actinide wastes are produced in lower quantity. --JWB (talk) 10:48, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, no, by far the largest amount of waste in conventional reactors is the unburned U-235 and the mainly "inert material" U-238 (ignoring the afore-mentioned actinide wastes, which are the two fuels' by-products from neutron activation). These were intended in the early years of reactor deign to be extracted from the fuel and re-used, but it has proven economically cheaper to simply throw it all away and mine new fuel. Most thorium designs maintain the idea of recycling; with it, more than 90% of what we waste today will get reused, and not appear as waste; in the liquid fuel form, that can even be be made to happen continuously in the power production process. Thorium also produces different actinides, many of which fill niche roles (such as Pu-238's use in space vehicle power generation) and are valuable enough to pay for their separation out (and thereby a good chunk of the cost of total separation). SkoreKeep (talk) 23:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Thorium-based nuclear power. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120323114548/http://solarcellsguide.com/nuclears-future-fission-or-fizzle-as-ottawa-readies-to-sell-its-candu-operations-industry-insiders-wonder-why-nuclear-energy-cant-get-any-respect.htm to http://solarcellsguide.com/nuclears-future-fission-or-fizzle-as-ottawa-readies-to-sell-its-candu-operations-industry-insiders-wonder-why-nuclear-energy-cant-get-any-respect.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 10:23, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Background and brief history
This section is rather misleading: The main reason to look at thorium as a fuel was because it was feared that with increasing use of nuclear power there would not be enough uranium and thus the need to use breading reactors. Either a fast breeder in the U-PU cycle or a thermal breeder in the Th-U cycle. From the beginning there were different reactors using thorium (light water, CANDU, gas cooled graphite moderated) and only a first try on molten salt. So the molten salt type of reactor is only a very small part of thorium based nuclear power, hardly worth mentioning in the background section. --Ulrich67 (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'll attempt to clarify this, using primary sources. Echawkes (talk) 05:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Not true
Article currently reads in part ''After World War II, uranium-based nuclear reactors were built to produce electricity. These were similar to the reactor designs that produced material for nuclear weapons.'' (, my emphasis)

In what way were they similar? They mostly used different moderators (water or heavy water or none rather than graphite) and different fuel (enriched uranium rather than natural). And they were designed to operate to high fuel burnup, with online or even frequent refueling being in most cases difficult or impossible.

The only graphite-moderated power reactors were the Magnox and UNGG plants, which were dual purpose and specifically designed to be able to produce both power and military plutonium (but not both at once) and the RBMK of course. The AGR came later, but there aren't many of these, or RBMKs for that matter. And these plus the CANDU were the only ones that used natural uranium.

The PWR was the first dedicated power station design to be constructed in any number, and is still the most popular design. Overwhelmingly! And it's nothing like a plutonium production reactor.

Or to put it another way, Generation I reactors were prototypes including the PWR, which took over in Generation II. There's no particular type which could be said to be representative of uranium-based nuclear reactors built to produce electricity after World War II, but if we needed to pick one it would be the PWR.

And the point is it certainly would not be in any way similar to the reactor designs that produced material for nuclear weapons.

It's a puzzle! Andrewa (talk) 05:09, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nuclear weapon fuel
Only discussing plutonium production is deceptive. The main fissile in the thorium cycle is U-233 which is usable in nuclear weapons. This article does not even mention U-233 much less the claim that U-232 contamination disqualifies it from nuclear weapons use because it can't be handled manually. --JWB (talk) 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

U233 can be used as the casing for a TN device. So can U238. That doesn't make U233 weapons-grade material.220.244.72.128 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See, Thorium power has a protactinium problem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.28.86 (talk) 13:39, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

The impression I got from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists article is that very pure proactinium 233 can be obtained using extremely crude techniques (not centrifuges or lasers), which will then shortly turn into very pure uranium 233 without human interference; and that uranium 233 is at least easier to use for an efficient weapons package than plutonium. While this might not be seen as a concern in Western nations or those that already have nuclear weapons, it could be a serious one where corruption, security, or questionable governments are factors. Thus it seems the article isn't sufficiently making clear the weapon proliferation concerns. Dillsom (talk) 16:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

"Systemic bias" in favor of thorium-based power
I'm not sure I understand this cleanup tag here. In what way is this article biased in favor of thorium-based power? Jarble (talk) 08:59, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Since about 2008, nuclear energy experts have become more interested in thorium to supply nuclear fuel in place of uranium to generate nuclear power. This renewed interest has been highlighted in a number of scientific conferences, the latest of which, ThEC13 was held at CERN by iThEC and attracted over 200 scientists from 32 countries." is not necessary to thorium-based nuclear power, and nor is "Some believe thorium is key to developing a new generation of cleaner, safer nuclear power." Or "According to a 2011 opinion piece by a group of scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology, considering its overall potential, thorium-based power "'can mean a 1000+ year solution or a quality low-carbon bridge to truly sustainable energy sources solving a huge portion of mankind’s negative environmental impact.'"

The former is apparently unnecessary but can be argued for, and the latter are from unreliable sources, including a fairly obvious blog post and an opinion piece. Justin J. Liu (Dylan Smithson) (talk) 13:58, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

" In what way is this article biased in favor of thorium-based power?"

When I read that "warning" I began to wonder why there was not a "warning" that the article might in fact be biased in favor of uranium over thorium .... 61.68.161.148 (talk) 02:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Missing fission info
Standard Uranium fueled reactors thermalize neutrons to take advantage of U235 higher reaction rate with low energy neutrons. However fission bombs have no moderator so all fission of U235 in bomb is fast neutrons. Thorium fissions with fast neutrons like U238. U238 ever only generates ~1.7 neutrons per fission (U235 is 2.6) so unsustainable. However in a reactor, some of the energy generated is from U238 fission (as well as fission of Plutonium from breeding). My question is how many neutrons are generated from a Th232 fission. And what % of Th232 is fissioned by fast neutrons in a reactor. If Th generates more neutrons per fission, would that make a better tamper than depleted Uranium. Shjacks45 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge?
Woudnt it be better to merge this new article into the Liquid fluoride thorium reactor one, or into the Thorium fuel cycle? Do we really need new thorium energy article? --ShotmanMaslo (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It was created per Talk:Thorium explanation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:25, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

I think that one warrants a seperate article. It's a very specific type of reactor and there are many designs that use thorium. EnergyIntel (talk) 05:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Article intended for the average non-tech reader
Just a note that one of the primary uses of this article should be to make the subject understandable by the average non-scientific visitor. Hence, the technical "how" details will hopefully be kept minimal, but the "what" details are more complete. For example, the recently added "how" details about the "no meltdown possible" benefit is probably too jargon loaded, and could act as a barrier to understanding.

What I feel should be left for either cites or other related articles, would be "how" details like the following, which will mean little to average readers:


 * "Alternative thorium reactor design, so called Energy amplifier is a subcritical reactor in which an energetic particle beam is used to stimulate a reaction." and "The liquid fuel expands when its temperature increases, which reduces its density and thus lowers the reactivity in the core. It can also include a freeze plug at the bottom of the molten liquid fuel loop, actively cooled by a small electric fan to keep it solid. If the cooling fails, say because of a power failure, the fan stops, the plug melts, and the fuel drains to a subcritical passively cooled storage facility, stopping the reaction."

If the fine "how" details are in a cite, we can keep them there. Anyone who is interested can find out. I'm not trying to "own" the article, just laying out the hoped-for purpose of it. With the other linked articles, this one would hopefully stay more of a clear introduction. In fact, except for the Teller paper, most of the cites are from general media sources like "Wired" and general interest magazines. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be renamed to "Introduction to thorium-based nuclear power", similary as we have non-technical introductions to relativity, QM etc. --ShotmanMaslo (talk) 10:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Especially the Introduction should be simplified and freed from quotes to list controversial pro and con arguments. The main part should be the what it is all about and maybe that the properties are controversial. I see no need for the details right there. Especially for the non-tech reader it is rather difficult to understand those claims quoted from popular sources. Its just easier to understand a normal text, than a collection of quotes, taken from different contexts.--Ulrich67 (talk) 11:56, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

I would oppose "dumbing the article down". A clear "how" enriches understanding of the material. "What" something does is pretty useless without explaining "how". 99.127.226.225 (talk) 20:15, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There's always simple english wikipedia for the simplified version. EnergyIntel (talk) 05:50, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Add Table with existing designs
Similar to the Small Modular Reactor article adding a table with the (status of) thorium desings could be a nice addition. What do y'all think about that? EnergyIntel (talk) 05:52, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

is abundance of thorium an advantage
the article states that since there is more thorium then uranium, this is an advantage but this is true only if a) there is in fact a shortage of uranium b) it is possible to mine thorium more cheaply


 * It's a clear advantage. Abundance means you can use it as your fuel source for a long time before having to switch to an even more abundant source like hydrogen. The heavier the element, the less abundant it is, generally. Avindra talk / contribs 16:51, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

It's a clear advantage if you look on longer timescales. Combined with uranium we have MUCH more energy avaialble from fission than with uranium alone because Thorium is so abundant in seawater (IRC). EnergyIntel (talk) 05:53, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Artificial islands and sufficient underwater cables
Nuclear energy is the superior and more efficient source of energy; but it has a disadvantage. It sometimes conquers land.

The solution: artificial islands far enough to dissipate any possible radiation leak, and isolated tubes with electrical cables inside. The tubes reduce energy loss. (Chinese islands and Norwegian cables)

Add link.

Also after the period of an explosion (days), if the island is far enough, the radiation is dissipated well enough; but the public doesn't accept that solution for emotional reasons (persuasion and not strict comparison of facts). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4108:D600:E0B9:55D8:5435:419A (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

How is this related to Thorium? EnergyIntel (talk) 05:54, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Theoretical reactor?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but has anyone ever built a thorium reactor? If not, should not the first sentence of the intro include a word making clear a thorium reactor has yet to built? I don't think you can say "Thorium-based nuclear power is nuclear reactor-based, fuelled primarily by the nuclear fission of the isotope uranium-233 produced from the fertile element thorium" when it has never been built. A thorium reactor might be just science fiction with no more reality than Star Trek warp drive. If so, a word like " theoretical" should be used.--BashBrannigan (talk) 02:08, 18 February 2017 (UTC) ---
 * "The Oak Ridge National Laboratory designed and built a demonstration MSR which operated from 1965 to 1969. It used U-233 (originally bred from Th-232) as its fuel during its final year." Doesn't this half demonstrate a thorium reactor, half sort of?  It demonstrates that a reactor can be run from fuel derived from thorium.  It doesn't demonstrate that a single reactor can burn thorium.  It doesn't demonstrate that it is economically sensible.  I don't think that it deserves comparison with warp drive, but maybe the word "proposed" or "conceived" should be included.  The text does make repeated use of the word "design", including near the end "there are seven types of reactors that can be designed to use thorium as a nuclear fuel" which makes "thorium-based nuclear power" sound definitely hypothetical.  Thorium-based nuclear power implies a net power output, which has to take into account the energy costs of making the U-233.  Breeding, I presume, incurs the cost of the source nuclear material for the breeder reactor, against the energy that would have been provided by simply burning the breeder reactor fuel, I think it is demonstrated for breeding Pu-239 from U-238, but not for thorium.  I see no signs of these calculations, even of energy costs, let alone financial costs of a multi-stage reactor cycle.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Using thorium in an MSR is still very much in the theoretical stage. But at least this are scientific calculations. The Shippingport reactor was used as the thorium breeder, demonstrating a TH breading cycle is possible. Though usually not reaching break even breeding there are other reactors that used or use thorium. So the status is more like not yet fully developed and in operation, but all essential part are at least demonstrated. However some of the claims mentioned in the article are still rather hypothetical and not all scientific sound.Ulrich67 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * According to Technology Review Sustainable Energy: China Could Have a Meltdown-Proof Nuclear Reactor Next Year—Two high-temperature, gas-cooled reactors under construction in Shandong will make up the first commercial-scale plant of its type in the world. Richard Martin February 11, 2016, "Several other advanced-reactor projects are under way in China, including work on a molten-salt reactor fueled by thorium rather than uranium (a collaboration with Oak Ridge National Laboratory, where the technology originated in the 1960s),...." User:HopsonRoad 22:21, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Adding a Table as I suggest above would make it very easy to see that at a glance. I came to look for an answer to that that question anno 2021 EnergyIntel (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

India
The article says: "The reactor was expected to go critical by September 2014." Did it? Dawright12 (talk) 12:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Good question. I'll go look for it. EnergyIntel (talk) 05:57, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Sorce about Thorium reactors in 2021 is from 1999
Shouldn't we use a sorce from the past few years when talking about currently in use plants? JackForWiki06 (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

https://www.livescience.com/china-creates-new-thorium-reactor.html Nellas Galadhon (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)