Talk:Thorium fuel cycle/Archive 1

Untitled
This is a work in progress. I'll get back to it tommorow --DV8 2XL 01:07, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Be my guest. I'll translate it into french after that... Michelet-密是力-Me laisser un message 13:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

once-through thorium cycle
This article should not presume reprocessing. A once-through concept using a combination of enriched uranium and thorium can breed U-233 in situ to extend fuel life (burnup) without separation. This may not have the waste reduction benefits claimed for the closed thorium cycle, but it also avoids reprocessing. NPguy (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Major revision
I've posted most of my progress on the rewrite, which is consistent with the organization scheme I discussed earlier. I hoped to consolidate and rewrite the MSR information, as well as writing sections on the LWBR/Shippingport and the use of thorium in HTGR, but I haven't had a chance to do so.

If anyone would like to volunteer to write these sections, be my guest. I have consolidated the paragraphs relating to the MSR on this user page, which would be a good place to start. I also noted that the WNA fact sheet on thorium has lots of information on Shippingport. Ionium Dope (talk) 13:45, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, I relied heavily on IAEA-TECDOC-1450, referencing it several times. In some cases (e.g. discussing physical and nuclear properties of thorium-based fuels) there may have been a better resource.

Also-also, I'm not sure whether I like the format I used to show reactions in thorium. I wanted something that was both succinct, easy to understand, stood out from the text, and contained all of the relevant information. Was I successful? Ionium Dope (talk) 14:48, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

0.1% as much waste?
The table of nuclides and products is not at all well done, and is confusing.... Exactly what is listed in the 3 or 4 right-hand columns? In the left-hand several columns? Column headers, althoug "conmventional", could be helpful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hkerfoot (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC) "Thorium reactors use 97% of their fuel, vs. 3% for a light-water reactor, reducing waste per gigawatt-year to 3/97. The 233U decay sequence produces 3% long lived Neptunium. So, the waste is (3/97)*0.03 = 0.0927% of a light-water reactor."


 * Not a decay sequence, but a neutron capture sequence.
 * (3/97)*0.03 = 0.0927% is dividing by ≈100 twice, incorrectly. Putting it another way, you're using the .03 multiplier twice. This is the most major error.
 * LWR burnup is significantly more than 3% these days. See burnup.
 * LWR burnup does not say how much plutonium and minor actinides are left in the spent fuel. You can find statistics on this, and it should be around 1% or perhaps a bit more with high burnup, but it is not the same as burnup or even linearly related.
 * It also doesn't say how long-lived those actinides are. They have various halflives. Actinides produced by the thorium cycle like 231Pa and 237Np all have their own halflives too. You need to analyze all and will get curves for each cycle, whose ratios will differ at different times in the future.
 * It doesn't take into account decay mode and energy, but for actinides this is mostly alphas of comparable energy, so this is not one of the worse omissions.
 * It doesn't take into account differing hazards that waste nuclides present based on their chemistry. For example, Np is projected to be the most mobile radionuclide at Yucca Mountain.
 * In fluorination reprocessing, Np and Pu can form volatile fluorides, though less stably than U. The next heavier actinide elements, Am and Cm, do not form volatile fluorides.
 * While the existing comparison is to LWRs, it is only fair to note that the 238U/Pu fast breeder cycle can also burn all actinides. In this case actinide waste consists only of what escapes the cycle accidentally.
 * All this analysis is about actinides only, neglecting fission products, which are constant per fission (though the distribution for 233U differs a little from that for heavier fissiles), and activation products.

Very roughly, a LWR may fission 3-6% of the heavy metal in its fuel; let's take the lower figure for the moment, and assume that 1% of plutonium and minor actinides are left in the spent fuel. This means 1 atom of actinide waste for each 3 fissions, or about 33%. (This is also neglecting 236U, which is a very low level hazard and maybe half a percent; and of course neglecting the bulk of unchanged 238U.)

If the thorium cycle reactor fissions 97% of heavy metal and discards 3% as Np, that is 3 atoms of waste per 97 fissions, or about 3%. The ratio of 3% (thorium cycle) to 33% (LWR) is 1:11, which would mean the thorium cycle is producing 9% as much actinide waste, assuming that only 237Np is the waste stream and not 231Pa or others.

--JWB (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

GNEP: Constituents of Used Nuclear Fuel (from LWR) says 95.6% uranium, 1.0% transuranics, 3.4% fission products. The fission products weigh only slightly less than the heavy metals that fissioned, so we can take 3.4% as the percentage of heavy metal fissioned. (i.e. burnup was around 34 MW-d/ton, if I remember units correctly) So the ratio of transuranics to fissions is 1.0/3.4, or 29.4%. The last digit is not significant so we can round to 29% or 30%, which would mean that thorium cycle ending at neptunium would produce a tenth as much transuranics as LWRs. Neptunium is also more mobile in the ground than plutonium or uranium. --JWB (talk) 20:13, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * To assess the once-through LWR, you could also start with natural uranium. All that depleted uranium is wasted too, even though it's not in the spent fuel. Waste in the sense of potential energy discarded, rather than of waste products created that need to go to Yucca Mtn. And if neptunium looks like such a problem, you could leave it in the thorium reactor and fission most of it as plutonium.
 * —WWoods (talk) 04:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The above analysis is a comparison of transuranics, not uranium. The quote it is discussing is "0.1% of the long-term high-level radioactive waste", and reprocessed uranium is not a high-level waste. The quote also said it was assuming neptunium is removed. If all actinides are instead returned to the reactor until fission, then 0% as much actinide waste is produced. --JWB (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm just starting to contribute, so I'm starting here to avoid causing damage. I have seen the 0.1% of the waste number stated for the liquid fluoride thorium reactor in the case that all the transuranics are left in the molten salt to either fission or transmute. The chemical removal of fission products from the salt is not 100% efficient, drawing out some plutonium as well (0.1% reportedly for the electrorefining in the integral fast reactor). In my talks I just say "<1% of the long lived waste". In posts on the Energy from Thorium discussion of IFR vs LFTR it seems that the IFR number was about 2%. Any suggestions on where to look for more valid data? Robert Hargraves (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It is hard to say because neither the fluoride volatility nor electrolytic reprocessing methods are currently in production. Both of those as well as other methods are likely capable of further improvement, or on the other hand they could run into problems. Also, the wastes with some leakage could be further processed at some point to recover some of the leakage.
 * These figures are so dependent on the assumptions for reprocessing leakage that I think the only honest thing to do is to give projections for several different leakage figures. Either that, or don't give a % comparison for actinide waste at all, but just say that breeder fuel cycles are capable of burning their actinides if retained.
 * Also, specifying actinide wastes (or even more specific) is more accurate than "long lived waste" because there are also LLFPs.
 * And one more point - the reprocessing method is not tied to the choice of fertile material and fuel or the choice of solid vs. liquid fuel. Fluoride volatility is an easier and obvious choice when the fuel is already fluorides, but it could also be used for a solid-fuel plutonium-breeding fast reactor. --JWB (talk) 04:43, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

China R&D
Apparently the PRC is engaging in thorium R&D. Currently the specific details are unknown, but once more is revealed to the public, we could possibly expand the list of existing reactors. --  李博杰   | —Talk contribs email 14:40, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, 20 March 2011, Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium, Telegraph UK

Change in notation
An editor recently changed the notation used for isotopes to one where the atomic mass number is shown in a preceding superscript to the element symbol. This is a standard technical notation, but I believe it is inappropriate for a popular encyclopedia and propose to revert. Comments? NPguy (talk) 16:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am the editor in question and I am (of course) opposed, and for the following reasons:
 * I don't know of any standard that describes the "U-231" notation and Wikipedia shouldn't invent it's own notations. (I may be wrong here - feel free to reference the standard in question).
 * I don't see how U-231 is less technical than
 * These notations are widely used on Wikipedia (the transclusion counts for the templates in Category:Nuclide_templates are in the hundreds).
 * I believe the only two reasons for the use of U-231 over on Wikipedia are:
 * the first is easier to write for the editor
 * the templates did not exists or were unknown to the editor when the page was created.
 * I think both should be fixed by applying the templates everywhere. However, if I am wrong, all pages that currently use the templates should be changed as well as well pages that use to show similar symbols, of which there are many (maybe even more than those that use the nuclide templates, as they've not all been converted yet).
 * — SkyLined (talk) 21:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This is an article intended for non-technical readers. Virtually every book or article article on these topics for general readers uses notation U-235 rather than, and none use .  Using unfamiliar notation simply makes the article less accessible. NPguy (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * As a non-technical reader I prefer either spelling out Uranium-235 or to U-235. For the most part, a majority of what is written in the article will be over most non-technical reader's heads. Wouldn't it be enough to use the formal notation while making a note in the header i.e. "Uranium-235 or,, is..." That way you use the proper notation while making it clear up front at the top of the article for others not in the know. AlfredCheese (talk) 09:59, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree, but why make a note when a link can take you to a page that explains it in detail? 86.89.144.60 (talk) 11:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Concise and complete description of the actual nuclear cycle?
There's no single place in this article where the exact thorium cycle is given. It's mostly there in the first paragraph (with confusing asides), and mostly there in the first paragraph of section 2 (with another unnecessary aside). In neither place does it say where the neutron needed in the first step comes from, what happens to the, or where the heat comes from.

Here's what I'd like to see (although I don't have the knowledge to know whether it is correct):

The initial step of the thorium cycle is when captures a neutron to become. This normally emits an electron and an anti-neutrino by  decay to become. This then emits another electron and anti-neutrino by a second decay to become. This is the "fuel", which generates the majority of the heat by fissioning, and also provides neutrons for the initial step.

Note that I don't have the knowledge to know whether this is correct (e.g. I suspect that the requires another neutron before it will fission).

Would someone with the requisite knowledge add something like this to the article? -- Dan Griscom (talk) 10:45, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

SSR-LFTR
10:26, 20 December 2011 edit by NPguy "I could not find information on intended military applications in any of the citations" FWIW, there are refs here: Flibe_Energy -- Limulus (talk) 08:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nuclide name convention?
I am in the process of a substantial update to this section, but I'm undecided as to which nuclide name convention to use, i.e. uranium-238 or 238U (or U-238). Usage in the article is inconsistent at the moment. Thoughts? --Ionium Dope (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The current use of symbols instead of names renders the article nearly unreadable, the extensive use of superscript makes line height vary with almost every line, so I would much prefer Uranium-238 or U-238 over 238U. --Arve (talk) 13:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree, and complained when the changes were made. I recommend using the more common notation (U-238) throughout the text, but using the technical notation in the figures, formulas and tables. NPguy (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

A mixture of both conventions should be used deliberately to show that both are in actual use. --JWB (talk) 09:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I've always preferred 'uranium-238' when in text for ease of writing and reading, particularly for lay audiences who might be unfamiliar with chemical symbols, although '238U' strikes me as more formal. Also, it seems strange to begin a sentence with a superscript. Any more concrete recommendations as to when to employ either convention? I probably won't worry about it until I finish updating the content of this article. Ionium Dope (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

You could use 'uranium-238' on the first usage and then abbreviate to 'U-238' and '238U' in some of the following usages.

If you are planning a major change to the article, could I and other editors look at it and discuss it with you first? --JWB (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, although perhaps I am not going about this the right way. I had in mind to rewrite much of the text, incorporating nearly all of the current information but with a new organization scheme and additional information.

In any case, I am new to contributing, and I am not sure how best to share my work without uploading. I have been working in a text editor in my spare time, but perhaps I could save the page on my user talk page. What is the best way to do this?

The article is presently a bit disorganized and MSR-centric. I had in mind to change the organization scheme to:
 * Nuclear reactions in thorium
 * Advantages of thorium as a reactor fuel
 * Resource abundance, nuclear properties, physical/chemical properties, proliferation resistance, & transuranics
 * Disadvantages of thorium as a reactor fuel
 * Limited experience/data, no fissile content, fabrication/reprocessing challenges, U-233 proliferation, & protactinium
 * Reactor designs using thorium
 * HTGR,HWR,LWR,MSR,etc.
 * List of reactors that have used thorium

My primary reference is IAEA TECDOC-1450 Thorium fuel cycle — Potential benefits and challenges. I wouldn't have normally opted for the advantages/disadvantages approach, but it worked well in this report and seems appropriate given the hypothetical nature of the fuel cycle. Ionium Dope (talk) 05:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

This outline sounds reasonable to me so far.

One way to do drafts is as subpages of your user page, for example User:JWB/Nuclide_chart_with_skew_1. You can change the article directly of course, it's just that in cases where there's likely to be conflict, discussing first avoids edit warring. I don't have any objections in this case. --JWB (talk) 05:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I posted my work so far on a user page. I have tried to make note of the areas in which I am still working, although you are welcome to contribute if you like. My update is a little more qualitative, and I need to add references. User:Ionium_Dope/Thorium_fuel_cycle Ionium Dope (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it looks good so far. It looks like you are adding to the article rather than massively deleting or replacing content. I have no objection to your working directly in the article as well. --JWB (talk)

I agree, though I would encourage you to do two things first: copy edit for grammar, readability, accuracy; and add citations. NPguy (talk) 08:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

NPguy: Did you have specific concerns with regard to accuracy?

I hope to wrap this up this weekend. Further updates include expanding the list of reactors that used thorium fuel, trying to consolidate the MSR information, and adding citations. I would like to have sections on the use of thorium in LWR and HTGR as well, the former because of the prevalence of that reactor and the latter because early HTGR development centered around a thorium fuel cycle. Thoughts? Ionium Dope (talk) 18:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

From where it may be got
THe sources of supply and location of reserves of Th are relevant to this topic, I think. Kashmir, right? Midgley (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * This information is in the main article to thorium, the logical place to look for it. The I see no need to repeat it here. One practical source is the waste from rare earth production. --Ulrich67 (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes; it is already covered in the Thorium section. -- Limulus (talk) 19:07, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Statement about u-233/232 contamination and proliferation needs sourcing or editing
The statement "Because the 233U produced in thorium fuels is inevitably contaminated with 232U, thorium-based used nuclear fuel possesses inherent proliferation resistance." should be sourced, no? This report suggests that the idea that thorium-based used nuclear fuel is inherently resistant to proliferation is a bit exaggerated: http://www.torium.se/res/Documents/9_1kang.pdf. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.151.229.105 (talk) 19:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh! I hadn't noticed that the Kang paper was already linked on the talk page :) See below for further discussion. -- Limulus (talk) 19:10, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Clarify about MSRE ORNL
The MSRE at ORNL is listed under the thorium-fueled reactors although it is stated in the Disadvantages section above that it did not use thorium in the reactor. I do not believe these two things are inconsistent, I understand the MSRE used U233 bred from thorium in other reactors, but perhaps this should be stated more clearly in the disadvantages section and it could address why this is a disadvantage or at least an unknown in the potential of the technology to avoid information that may appear to conflict to someone who doesn't have that understanding already. Phil (talk) 05:07, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

These are not "cycles".
Every single one of these reactions is an single direction A -> B. In no case do we get a return B -> A. So they are not "cycles". 124.187.146.52 (talk) 08:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Whether or not you think the terminology is appropriate, it is the standard terminology. There's no point arguing semantics. 01:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Word usage?
[ ] Would someone please check the word usage in the phrase: "report analyses only" in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.110.134.2 (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This may be a spelling issue. The British spelling of the verb is "analyse."  If you're used to American spelling, read this as "report analyzes only."  Does that help?  Perhaps we should use American spelling here. NPguy (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Units
What kind of unit is MWt? Is it mega watt x t? The SI-unit is MW! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.251.57.154 (talk) 10:26, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * MWt - megaWatt-thermal. The distinction is made between the thermal power (the rate of heat generation in the reactor) and electrical power (power transmitted to the grid).  The ratio is the thermal efficiency of the reactor. NPguy (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

To technical discusion in the "advantages as nuclear fuel" section?
I found the sections on advantages and disadvantages to be a bit to detailed.

Perhaps there should be a more in depth section explaining the technical aspects of of using thorium as nuclear fuel and the advantages/disadvantages section only to summarize facts from that section?

E2npau (talk) 20:21, 9 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The sections about advantages and disadvantages are rather technical and are also problematic because it is not clear what to compare, because there are different ways to use thorium and uranium as a fuel: With thorium the current (still prototyping to experimental) use is in an open fuel cycle as solid fuel. In this case most of the listed advantages don't apply. The big difference comes when you a closed fuel cycle (with chemical separation / reprocessing) to a once through cycle. In a closed cycle U-238 can (and is) used rather similar to the proposed thorium cycle, with the main difference of requiring a fast reactor. So there is much more to do than just writing these two sections less technical.--Ulrich67 (talk) 20:45, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Efficiency of breeding
The article states that the different cross-sections of Th compared to U-238 cause more efficient fertile conversion. This is not true, or at least not significant: The higher cross section of Th only mean that less Th is needed in the core compared to U-238. In both cases the conversion form fertile to fissile is rather efficient - the main side reactions are n,2n reactions (e.g. production U-232) and n-capture in Pa-233. Here the rather long lifetime of Pa-233 (compared to Np-239) is more of a negative factor for the Th cycle. The more efficient breeding in the Th cycle compared to U-238/PU is due to the poor properties of Pu-239 as a fissile material in a thermal reactor.

The large cross-section of Th makes it an attractive blanket material. For use in the core itself it can be even more on the negative side, requiring a larger fissile to fertile ratio.--Ulrich67 (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Less risk of proliferation?
I don't see why the article mentions a lesser risk of proliferation. U-233 is an excellent bomb material just like U-235, and it would be comparatively easy to produce pure U-233 from Th-232. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.16.49.104 (talk • contribs)
 * Please see Uranium-233. In a reactor designed to produce power you won't get Weapons-grade out. -- Limulus (talk) 16:10, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't think this answers the question. First of all, you would produce pretty much isotopically pure U-233 by neutron absorption since Th-232 is virtually 100 percent Th-232, and secondly the plant wouldn't be primarily designed to produce power if the context is about proliferation. That argument would be true for for instance RBMK or CANDU reactors as well, but if plutonium production (which they were designed for but are no longer used for) is desired then they are excellent for that purpose.

I think the main argument against proliferation with thorium is that you get U-232 as a byproduct and that U-232 is really nasty to handle, but on the other hand you could just use robots when separating it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.43.214 (talk) 10:49, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * U-232 is produced through the further irradiation of U-233 through the neutron knock-off reaction 233U (n,2n) 232U. So unless the uranium is removed after a very short irradiation time, contamination with U-232 is inevitable.  This makes the resulting uranium isotopically unattractive for use in nuclear weapons compared to HEU or Pu, bur far from unusable if more attractive materials are unavailable.  It is possible to get relatively pure U-233 from a molten salt reactor, through real-time separation of protactinium from the molten fuel.  Pa-233 is the intermediate product in the reaction Th-232+n → Th-233 → Pa-233 → U-233, and has a long enough half-life (27 days) that it can be separated in reasonable quantities and allowed to decay into nearly pure U-233.
 * U-232 notes an n,2n reaction on Pa233 that can make Pa232 → U232; I strongly suspect that the best way to weapons-grade U233 is for very short irradiation times and lots of reprocessing, ala Hanford_Site. Also, given the relatively low breeding ratio, wouldn't you end up shutting down your MSR by siphoning off bred material? -- Limulus (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The fission cross section in U-232 is about 100 times higher than in U-238, so you could do a lot worse in terms of making a bomb material if you do happen to have some U-232 contamination in the U-233 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.236.208.126 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The question is not of U232 fissility, but of hard gamma from it's decay chain being a health hazard to workers and bad for electronics and high explosives in the bombs even at PPM levels. -- Limulus (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

That is true, but still it would be possible to make a bomb with/without separation of U-232 and I think the whole statement of the thorium cycle being proliferation resistant is debatable and shouldn't be stated as a fact in the original article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.80.43.214 (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Proliferation resistance is referenced, not just in this article, but in Weapons-grade too (not weapons grade if U232 >50PPM). Please provide alt. refs to support disagreement. -- Limulus (talk) 17:28, 29 May 2012 (UTC)


 * One place to look is this article on material attractiveness. -- User:NPguy 20:59, 30 May 2012
 * Had a look; only mention of U232 appears to be a reference point on some of the graphs (point "d") for weapon attractiveness of U233 with 10PPM U232 (clearly weapons-grade per definition, as previously described). I did a little looking and a paper of interest is  which notes "the proliferation resistance of thorium fuel cycles depends very much upon how they are implemented." specifically, related to U232 levels. On P. 23 it states "gamma radiation from U-232 makes the U-233 from high-burnup U-233-thorium fuel cycles more of a radiation hazard than plutonium."  There is proliferation concern with a Thorium fuel cycle from low-burnup fuel (as there is with U238->Pu239 with low-burnup -- Limulus (talk) 16:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)), but there is clearly support for "better resistance to nuclear weapons proliferation" as mentioned in the lede. -- Limulus (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I was one of the co-authors on the paper (Bathke et al.) that NPguy cites. I cannot and will not comment on that paper, nor can I edit this article myself; however, it is obvious from comparing Bathke et al. and Kang/von Hippel that there are diverse and sometimes conflicting viewpoints in the community as to just how proliferation-resistant the Th fuel cycle is.  It would be reasonable to incorporate some language to that effect, and to include Bathke el al. as a reference (note that it is more recent than Kang), but someone else is going to have to do it. -- Bill-on-the-Hill (talk) 13:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an important point: the conflicting articles show that there are conflicting views on the proliferation resistance of Th fuel. This is not such a big surprise, as there are different ways to use thorium (and alternative fuels as well), and there are both pro's an con's. So less proliferation risk is claimed, but not generally accepted. So we do not have to decide this here, we just have to write, that there is no agreement on this topic (not here in this discussion, but in the available literature). This topic also gets difficult, as many articles have a kind of political incentive and have a strong point of view in one direction or the other. There is just some neutral secondary literature missing. --Ulrich67 (talk) 20:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

LMAO
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/11/the-thorium-dream-an-investigation-of-the-new-nuclear-power/248312/

Probably one of the most technically incompetent pieces of science journalism out there. I stopped counting the ineptitudes after 20 or so, and that's only half-way through the movie. The LMAO moment was their claim that Th produces 90 times more energy than Uranium. What that video is good for however is seeing who is behind all these Th foundations. 86.127.138.234 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Fission of U-233
The article doesn't give details to the (IMO) most important part of the "fuel cycle": the fission reaction of U-233. So what does U-233 usually/typically decay into upon being hit by a neutron? How many neutrons are released per fission? You'd need more than 2 to keep the chain reaction going and replenish the U-233... --Roentgenium111 (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Assumed jargon and undefined abbreviations
This article has a lot of assumed jargon and undefined abbreviations. I am trying to fix. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to split of sub-section: List of thorium-fueled reactors
The subsection "List of thorium-fueled reactors" is proposed to be split to a new article List of thorium-fueled reactors for the following reasons:
 * This list is an important piece of information on thorium use, especially,Thorium and Thorium-based nuclear power, hence merits an independent article.
 * This information is useful for many other thorium related articles; a separate article will help in cross linking.
 * This list needs updating as many past experiences in thorium use is missing. Many future cases of thorium use could come up. It helps the maintenance if it part of an independent article.
 * It could be show up as an important article in related categories.
 * It could show up better in wikipedia and web searches.
 * It will improve the readability of this article for general readers.

Please record your agreement/disagreement to this proposal. Tharik Rish 17:14, 23 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The stated reasons are entirely unpersuasive.  If the article were too long I might support, but it is simpler and easier for virtually any reader to have the information in a single article. NPguy (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose for the same reasons as NPGuy suggested. Star Lord -   星爵 (talk) 12:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

List of thorium-fueled reactors (2)
It seems more appropriate to move the list to Thorium-based nuclear power or combine it with the section Thorium-based nuclear power projects there and indeed make it a new article.--Wickey (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)