Guest Post by David Archibald
There is a rich tradition of rational weathermen taking an interest in the potential of thorium-based nuclear power.
Witness this video made by John Coleman:
The irrational have also taken an interest in thorium’s potential. A warmer journalist by the name of Richard Martin has written a book entitled “Super Fuel” published on 8th May, 2012. Like all warmers, his grip on reality is a bit weak. One example of this is on page 55 where he states “the container ship Altona, bound for China and carrying a load of 770,000 tons of uranium concentrate.” The biggest ship on the planet carries some 500,000 tonnes and the world yellowcake market is about 80,000 tonnes per annum. Perhaps he meant 770,000 lbs instead of tons, but nobody else in the editing and publishing chain picked up the mistake either.
A second howler is on page 195 which states “After the Fukushima-Daiichi accident, there was a brief run on supplies of iodine-131. An isotope of iodine produced in specialised reactors, iodine-131 is used to prevent thyroid cancer from radiation exposure.” What he meant was that there was panic buying of potassium iodide which is used to prevent thyroid cancer from iodine-131. For those interested in buying potassium iodide before the next nuclear scare instead of after it, the motherlode is Nasco in Wisconsin who will sell you half kilo of granules for $57.25. That’s enough to treat 360 people.
There is also the warmers’ naïve world view on display. For example, on page 238 he predicts that “Enhanced energy security, and the economic power and diplomatic prestige that come with it, allow India to reach a lasting détente with its perennial foe, Pakistan.” Haste is also evident – on page 132, Alvin Weinberg is referred to as “Weinberger”.
But I wouldn’t be mentioning the book at all if it wasn’t also useful and interesting. A large part of it is taken with recounting the history of two of the main protagonists of the early years of the nuclear age: Alvin Weinberg and Hyman Rickover. Weinberg was the earliest promoter of the molten salter reactor burning thorium. The coup de grace to the thorium programme was delivered by Milton Shaw when he was director of the reactor research and development at the Atomic Energy Commission. The world has been side-tracked on the dead end of uranium-burning light water reactors ever since. While not in the same league of storytelling as “The Making of the Atomic Bomb” by Richard Rhodes, “Super Fuel” gets the reader up to speed on thorium’s history quickly and relatively painlessly.
June 2012
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I hear about Thorium reactors. I heard that there was one the that got turned on every Monday and off on Friday. I read that Thorium reactors are no good for making bombs,I see that Thorium reactors are fail-safe,That Thorium reactors are easly re-fueled. I also know that the E-cat comes out next year. at your local DIY.
Speaking of typoz: “molten salter reactor”.
_________
davidmhoffer says:
June 7, 2012 at 9:24 pm
…
Oddly I cannot think of a single person who thinks we should burn as much coal and oil “as possible”.
Me! A Power has arisen on the planet possibly able to pull the planetary flora back from CO2-famine suicide. Us. As much of the buried sequestered CO2-treasure in crustal rocks and hydrocarbons as possible should be released, as fast “as possible”, for as long “as possible”.
________
Thorium and nuclear “waste” can be burned in CANDU (heavy water) reactors, which have been operational for 5 or 6 decades.
_______
“Liquid fluorine salts” are not corrosive; that’s the whole point of using “salts”. The fluorine-metal bond (in NaF, e.g.) is so strong it is very stable, and hard to break down.
Ok friends. I work in the fuel cycle business and have many peer-reviewed journal articles. Thorium based fuels (Th/U233) just are not so much different than Uranium based fuels (U/Pu239). U233 has U232 to make it nastier. Pu239 has Pu238 to make it nastier. Waste management: I’ve done the calculation myself and it has been accepted for publication in Nuclear Technology – Th/U233 creates fewer transuranic isotopes is true but doesn’t mean what Th advocates says it does. It also has more Th229 and other isotopes in relevant time periods and turns out to be more radiotoxic than U/Pu239 at key time periods. So the comparison depends on a whole lot of details associated with a given disposal approach. Proliferation – if you use internationally known metrics for comparing options there just isn’t much difference. Safety – a molten salt reactor DOES have safety advantages but one can fuel such a concept with either type of fuel. As a nuclear engineer, I totally support nuclear energy. I also support recycling used fuel. But, Th/U233 isn’t a magic answer to U/Pu239 issues. Molten salt reactors offer much promise but do have significant R&D issues.
Detail point: here’s an example of what you find when you look at the details. The U/Pu239 fuel cycle works by U238 absorbing a neutron, becoming U239, which decays to Np239, which decays to Pu239. Both decays occur quickly. Th/U233 works by Th232 absorbing a neutron, becoming Th233, which decays to Pa233, which decays to U233. Note the similarity. The difference is that neutron-eating Pa233 sticks around longer than neutron-eating Np239. So, to improve neutron balance, the typical plan is to remove Pa233 from the salt, so that it is not eating neutrons uselessly, and let the Pa233 decay to U233 outside the reactor, then re-inject U233 to the salt. But, this gives you fairly pure U233, hence a proliferation concern.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2011-06/tennessee-valley-authority-looks-build-six-small-modular-nuclear-reactors
http://energyfromthorium.com/2007/04/30/how-tva-could-go-coal-free/
http://www.ccnr.org/Thorium_Reactors.html
We already had one of these in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, back in the 1960’s, and it worked well. Why we con’t continuing doing this is a mystery to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oak_Ridge_National_Laboratory
Most operational nuclear reactors are pressurised water reactor- the high pressure water is normally right next to the fuel rods although some like Fukushima were boiling water reactors with normally lowish pressure with big potential to pressurise to high pressure.
The liquid thorium reactor won’t have anything pressurised or pressurisable inside the reactor- a big difference so its at subatmospheric pressure. Sure after a couple of heat exchangers there will be a high pressure fluid like steam but that’s far from the reactor core.
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348
I find this discussion rather ridiculous, in that, we have done this successfully back in the 1960’s. My father worked at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation for Battelle Pacific Northwest Research Laboratories who were directly involved at Oak Ridge building and operating a Thorium reactor. The problem I see, is we are wasting time jibber jabbering about it and not doing anything. This is a joke. It’s just another distraction from actually doing anything constructive. We could have fully operational Thorium reactors virtually over night if we really wanted to. I am tired of all of the BS talk about this sort of crap while nobody has the balls to actually accomplish anything. Talk is cheap.
I think a few thorium reactors would be good just to reprocess the spent fuel rods. However, the article referenced a few days ago on direct carbon conversion fuel cells seems like it would make cheaper energy and the only waste product is CO2 (which is easily captured if desired). This product works on cheap coal or natural gas and with coal it doubles the energy captured.
https://www.llnl.gov/str/June01/Cooper.html
I would think this technology could be made available sooner as well. Just think if we could convert all the coal power stations to this technology rather than shutting them down as Obama is doing.
The lower containment shell in Fukushima has not ruptured that would be far worse disaster- you talking about big amount of solid concrete and steel, some water lines have leaked a great deal of radioactive fission products but very little (nanograms) of solid fuel. No solid fuelled reactor is ever designed to normally have their fuel rods melt (that’s the potential China Syndrome) , the steel/concrete is there for a totally structural purposes and didn’t you see the the mess of the upper structure at Fukushima – fantastic containment- not possible at with liquid low pressure Thorium reactor.
Here are many links on Thorium power in my Nuclear power subforum:
http://globalwarmingskeptics.info/forum-106.html
I would like to clarify one statement that Mr. Coleman had in the video. At 3:50, he states that the was a Thorium powered reactor in Ashville, Tn. In reality, it was the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, that was fueled with Uranium, not Thorium. My understanding is that intention was to eventually use Thorium, once the technical difficulties were resolved with Thorium. I believe the Thorium reaction pollutes itself and that the pollutants have to be removed in real time, hence the need for the MSR, aka LFTR. Being that they can remove those pollutants in real time, also means that it can be refueled in real time. No scheduled shutdowns for refueling.
On of the BIG obstacles is GE. They have the refueling infrastructure for our nuclear plants, and they don’t want to have a simplified Thorium reactor upsetting that golden goose. I remember a recent video I saw of an Peter Lyons for his nomination to Assistant Sec of Enegry being questioned by Sen. Al Franken, he was asked (casually) about Thorium (at 3:30) and are they pursuing that technology, basically his response was that they already have a Uranium fuel cycle infrastructure and were not pursuing Thorium. There was no further discussion, Mr. Lyons basically blew it off.
BUT, the pros of Thorium definitely outweigh the cons. The technical hurdles can be overcome. I liked this simplified chart to outline them..
With all that said, all that I would like to add is..
Go Thorium!.
I am going to slightly off-topic here to ask the commentators (who know a lot about the nuclear industry, from their very insightful comments) to comment in a similar vein on the Deuterium-cooled reactors being promoted in Canada. They call them “Candu” reactors (yuk, but we live in a world of marketing) and my simple analysis suggests they are an advantage in using essentially unrefined Uranium so no enrichment issues. Plus, the coolant is its own moderator so much of the engineering seems simpler.
I know getting a lot of deuterium is expensive, but once you have it, you are set and these reactors have been working in Canada for a pretty long time now. I guess what I am looking for is their downside since all I get here in Canada is the upside.
Thanks for the comments on Thorium – nice to have a good set of knowledgeable people getting into the discussion.
As in the previous thread there seems to be a lot of confusion talking about “power” generating plants. Much of the new concept designs discussed are prototype, demonstration plants. Small reactors of this type have a lot of wiggle room which allow unconventional use of such things as air cooling, gas driven turbine, etc. If a reactor is small and prototypical, one can use jello for cooling and twirly birds for turbines.
But when we talk of large power production, with 1000+ MW(e) per unit outputs, reality of choices are quite limiting. Any exotic process may be used for the thermal production, however the water-steam cycle will remain conventional as well as turbine/generator sets. These are water cooled units.
Some believe to utilize a new heat supply, the conversion of heat to electrical power must undergo similar transformation to exotic processes. Think about the amazing properties, safety and abundant cheapness of water. Now… what are you going to replace it with? At what cost and where are the extremely large supply that is required found. In order to produce 1000 MW(e) nearly 2000 MW(th) is being produced. That is a lot of heat that must be rejected instantaneously when the generator or grid trips. Failure to reject = some meltdown. GK
Bill Gates seems to be supporting a ‘traveling-wave,’ uranium-plutonium breeder reactor development project, which he justifies on a settled assumption that governments around the world will be forced to restrict all carbon burning by mid century to prevent disastrous climate deterioration from CO2. When asked about thorium on one interview, he seemed to ignore the question and talked about the rationale behind his project.
Climate change considerations have also been cited as justification for thorium reactors, however, from what I have seen about the logarithmic effect of CO2, we should be able to continue burning carbon for a long time at the current rate before having a serious problem.
The basic issue, as I see it, is carbon energy depletion, otherwise known as ‘Peak Oil.’ We will need a new energy source online and ready to go long before the time when petrochemical energy really begins to fail. Based on the time it took steam to replace sail on ships, this conversion may take on the order of 40 years.
Just when this will become critical is a controversial issue. The professional speakers and writers who earn their living on this issue seem to be indicating that this could become a problem in the next few years. They point out that we already have peaked out on “Easy Oil” and from now on, we must depend on petrochemical energy that is becoming ever more difficult to find and extract.
Government and industry experts, (See recent video: Unconventional Oil and Gas: Reshaping Energy Marketshttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiS77aLLU40) on the other hand, seem to be saying this problem is many decades away and we are now increasing production as we begin to harvest the more abundant degraded coal, petroleum, and natural gas. The alarming fall-off in new oil discoveries since 1970, they say were due, at least in part, to investment bankers classifying oil exploration as a waste of money, perhaps given the huge discoveries made in the past. As an example, one speaker said we had only one ship looking for offshore oil in 1990 and now there are about 250. However, I doubt that they are now discovering 250 times more offshore petroleum.
If molten salt or liquid fueled reactors are to become the new safe means of exploiting nuclear energy, a whole support infrastructure will need to be developed. That means training a cadre engineers and technicians who are expert in working on and regulating these reactors. The design of structures exposed to a neutron flow presents a special problem in *any* nuclear reactor as progressive neutron capture will degrade any such structure. This is because each atom exposed to a neutron flow eventually captures enough neutrons to become very unstable and quickly transform into a new element.
The main advantage of a liquid fueled reactor is the fuel can continually be recycled and refreshed. This means nearly 100 percent of the fuel is used. Also, operation at ambient pressure eliminates the possibility of explosive decompression. The most dangerous radioactive contaminants are expected to remain trapped in the salt.
Dr. David LeBlanc seems to be very knowledgeable on liquid fueled reactor design and he does not appear to anticipate problems other than the need to qualify various components for safe and reliable use. Here is one of his recent technical presentations.
David LeBlanc – Potential of Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactors @ur momisugly TEAC3
“Uploaded by gordonmcdowell on Nov 27, 2011”
54 likes, 0 dislikes; 3,300 Views;
“Dr. David LeBlanc explores the diversity of Thorium Fueled Molten Salt Reactor design options, and their rational and value.
“Presented at the 3rd Thorium Energy Alliance Conference, in Washington DC.”
Just for the record, the Chinese have licensed the German Thorium HTR technology. Germany has stopped its pursuit in 1989 due to cost issues. It works with solid pebbles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
crosspatch says:
June 7, 2012 at 8:16 pm
But we don’t NEED thorium. There’s enough energy in just spent fuel rods sitting around to power us for a very long time…
________________________________________
True and thorium can be used to “burn it up” leaving less “spent fuel” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
David Archibald: “One of the wise things that Obama did (the only one?) was to not have the fuel rods buried in Yucca Mountain.”
No, David this was not a wise decision. Yucca Mountain was intended to take all of the waste streams from both civilian and military nuclear processes. This includes all of the wastes from places like Savanah River, Rock Flats, Hanford Reservation, as well as spent fuel and contaminated byproducts from fuel enrichment.
Even if you remove spent fuel rods from the mix, Yucca Mountain is still needed for all the other streams. And if you adopt a policy of fuel reprocessing you need a repository for all of the trans uranics and fission fragments, which Yucca Mountain was designed to be.
No, the cancellation of Yucca Mountain was an incredibly stupid act, serving only to provide seeming justification to the anti-nukes that there is no solution to nuclear waste.
John Coleman says:
June 7, 2012 at 9:46 pm
There are two new generation nuclear reactors currently competing to become the next generation of nuclear technology…..
___________________________________
Thank you Mr. Coleman. We could have had the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) commercialized by now if the greedy politicians and their buddies were not so intent on ripping off the Tax Payers and crippling the USA. The proof of design reactor ran for four years before it was shut down so it is not Unicorn Rainbows and Pixie Dust like much of green energy.
from memory pretty sure the reason thorium was used decades ago is because it is TOO SAFE meaning it could NOT be weaponized and at that time they were looking for a weapon and not concerned about generating electricity.
the technology already exists for SAFE clean electricity production using thorium AND the old “spent” fuel rods.
Steve Piet says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:37 am
Ok friends. I work in the fuel cycle business….
_________________________________
Mr. Piet, how about writing WUWT a full article on the subject?
@Steve Piet:
Although the Pa233 is separated from the blanket for decay to U233, it’s not a good idea to let it cool because some U233 can be extracted shortly thereafter. Decay is a logarithmic process. The half-life is about a month but the first U233 could be produced “immediately” the Pa233 is first produced by decay from Th233. Keeping the salt as a molten liquid facilitates extraction. It’d be at about 500°C, so it’s not easy to walk away with a bucket full of it.
Brian H says:
June 8, 2012 at 4:30 am
Me!
Me too.
John is correct in his assessment and David left out one critical adjective….ADMIRAL Hyman Rickover over-ruled Throium reactors in the sixties. If you trust Wiki…. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium ….then the first Thorium reactor was Unit 1 at Indian Point in 1962, which was converted to Uranium and shut down in 1974. Thorium has a half life of 14 billion years, meaning low radioactivity and there is four times the amount of Thoruim as Uranium. What “MikeH” said is correct, at a time when the USA still had “industry” the need to have rate payers subsidize the Military-Industrial (GE) use of Uranium over rode the practicle development of nuclear energy.
Carbon Climate Forcing, ‘renewable’ energy and peak oil are the trifecta of government funded science lies. Hydrocarbons are a natural by-product of Earth’s variable fission process and as such, PETROLEUM IS RENEWABLE and it is NOT peaked. Humans are quite possibly consuming Hydrocarbons at higher than the natural production rate, but Hubbert’s peak oil was a Malthus extention and a gross error.
The greens will be all for thorium until it becomes feasible. And it will likely become feasible whether or not ‘we’ pursue it, because the Indians are pursuing it. ‘We’ don’t have a lock on all technology, and this may turn out to be the thing that brings India into the 21st century.
Once that happens, watch the greens wage jihad against it.
Yucca Mountain was a very poor choice as a site to store nuclear waste. There are better geological formations available in other states, but were eliminated on political grounds.
The state of Nevada is mostly owned by the federal government, and Yucca Mountain does have the advantage of being in a very isolated area in the middle of the Nevada Test Site which is itself surrounded by government owned land.
I lived in Nevada and never believed the hype about the dangers of storing nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. But the site has many well known geological problems that make it less than ideal.
Still, we need to do something with the nuclear waste, and burying it an a mountain made of volcanic ash in a site that sits about the water table isn’t a good way to take care of it. We need to reuse, recycle and reprocess our nuclear waste. The volume of high-level waste can be reduced by up to 90% in this manner. What to do with the remainder? Bury it somewhere more geologically suited than Yucca Mountain.