Crazy question.
Is there any possibility to convert these decommissioned reactors to Thorium MSR ?
Seems the existing reactors have the containment that would provide a much higher level of comfort than is ever required by MSR and perhaps save significant capital construction costs.
Not really. The basic site could be re-used, but current radiation standards make it almost impossible to remove a decommissioned reactor (even after years to cool down and reduce radioactivity).
It's a result of the LNT radiation model.
Its assumed that any radiation coming from the reactor is bad, no matter how small.
It would however be very possible to build new reactor types as an expansion to the site, leaving the decommissioned reactors going through their slow and very expensive retirement process.
I would add however that there is interesting evidence to disprove LNT:
1 - Calculations using LNT and Chernobyl predicted 2 million deaths at some point. To date actual radiation sickness / aggressive cancers deaths add up to less than 100, you can consider 1000 deaths (rounding up) if you include all cases of suicide by Vodka (if you think you're going to die a horrible death long term, for some dying sooner from Alcohol better). Long term studies passing peer review expect 10000 total premature deaths (mostly cancers). How come the 10k to 2M disparity (factor of 200) ? Precisely the fact that LNT is wrong and that rather hormesis instead should be used.
2 - Real world exposure to high radiation levels, specially situations where people have moderate ingestion of radionuclides. For instance radioactive hot springs / monazite sand beaches involve low radiation levels VS cancer thresholds but up to 100x normal sea level background levels. Yet the data shows normal cancer levels, even slightly lower cancer levels than normal in many cases.
3 - Disparities in background radiation levels not correlating with LNT. Lowest background radiation levels is 0.2 uSv/hr (NYC, LA, London). Levels in Denver/SLC altitude cities is at least 3x higher. Levels at 12000ft (4Km) altitude is around 5x higher. If LNT were true, Cancer levels would HAVE to be higher. It's actually lower, perhaps lower due to less air pollution, but still lower. Flying on a typical modern jet cruising altitude (35000ft and higher) involves radiation doses around 20x higher. If LNT were even remotely correct, Cancers incidence among pilots/cabin crew would have to be substantial. It isn't. Final example, the ISS (Intl Space Station), radiation levels 100x higher than background at sea level, 6 month missions. We're talking about a single mission resulting in exposure to radiation = 50 years at background sea level.
That's the core single BIG nuclear problem, LNT. If the whole model were recalculated using even a threshold model using 100x background levels as the threshold where more radiation begins to cause more cancers, then the costs to build/decommission a reactor would drop massively. Current radiation HOT areas around Fukushima are far below ISS levels (and concentrated on fairly small areas), so EVAC could have been optional with a mandatory area of two 1 mile radius circles (the hotspots) vs a 20 mile radius at peak.
The fact is big govt agencies have no incentive to seek lower costs or to minimize inconvenience to humans. Consider how many times Tsunami alerts in Hawaii were issued for tsunamis originated 3000 miles away, with waves hitting at tiny levels. If there's another tsunami tomorrow at the same levels that we know is going to be a non event, every precaution will be taken anyway, that has a financial cost. The US NRC is that times 100.
It has been demonstrated that the human tool of forced evac in Fukushima was much higher than if no evac at all was taken. Hundreds died (mostly the elderly), as people with advanced age can get depression from being home sick. EVAC radius was taken to avoid ANY elevations in cancer cases, without any acceptable cancer case as a parameter.
Its unacceptable that the US NRC has in its core a severe case of radiophobia.
We live in a radioactive world. We are continuously exposed to alpha, beta and gamma particles. Beta and gammas are even created by our own bodies. Comic rays and solar radiation is also ionizing. Radon decay produces alphas, and as Radon is a heavy noble gas, we inhale it all the time. (Radon is a by product of Uranium and Thorium decay, the earth's core is a massive nuclear decay rector - not fission).
Those that seek to inflict radiophobia on the general population willingly ignore the fact that we live in a radioactive world.
I sun bathed for years on monazite sands resulting in exposures unacceptable even to a paid nuclear worker. The doses received in Guarapari for a typical 2 month summertime every day at the beach for 3 hours = many times yearly maximum exposure permitted for radiation workers except in emergencies. Guarapari is a tourist hot spot, with many millions of yearly visitors (with the many monazite beaches being the main attraction). Studies have been made, local cancer levels are in line with nationwide averages. People grab the sand and bring it home, cover their skin with the sand as treatment for chronic arthritis and other circulatory ailments.
That's why I have no faith in GreenPeace and other anti nuclear organizations. They are demonstrably biased. They have a vested interest in doing their anti nuclear routine. GreenPeace is a half a billion USD / year organization. They have no interest with science. When was the last time GreenPeace apologized for being wrong on anything (nuclear or not) ?
