I'm on Al Gore's radar – for showing a path forward

Heh. Apparently, I must be destroyed for having an opinion. From Al Gore’s “Reality Drop” project, the GoreBots have been given the orders.

OilPrice_realityDrop

What’s all the hullabaloo about? An interview I gave with a website that covers energy issues. 

I’m sure now the “Cooked up” conspiracy theory ideation that I’m in the employ of “Big Oil” will get even wilder. The fact is though, I’m not employed by “Big Oil” nor any energy company. I’m not employed by any NGO either.

Read the entire interview by James Stafford here to see what’s got them in a tizzy. One of the things I talk about in the interview is the need to move forward with energy, and surprise, it isn’t about oil. It is about Thorium powered reactors.

My observation on Thorium power from the interview last week is backed up today by the fact that the Chinese are moving forward on the taxpayer funded work we discarded in a  big way, and was handed to them by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

From an article in the Telegraph:

The thorium blueprints gathered dust in the archives until retrieved and published by former Nasa engineer Kirk Sorensen. The US largely ignored him: China did not.

Mr Jiang visited the Oak Ridge labs and obtained the designs after reading an article in the American Scientist two years ago extolling thorium. His team concluded that a molten salt reactor — if done the right way — may answer China’s prayers.

See this NYT article from March 11th: In Search of Energy Miracles

Among the new nuclear approaches, fission reactors based on thorium are especially intriguing, offering potentially huge safety advantages. The basic concepts were proved in research by the American nuclear establishment in the 1960s, but the idea was ultimately abandoned by the Nixon administration in favor of a riskier approach called breeder reactors, which turned into an $8 billion black hole.

An engineer in Alabama, Kirk Sorensen, has helped excavate the old thorium work and founded his own tiny company, Flibe Energy, to push it forward. But it will surprise no one to hear that China is ahead of the United States on this, with hundreds of engineers working on thorium reactors.

“They’re doing laps around the track, and we haven’t even decided if we’re going to lace up our shoes,” Mr. Sorensen said.

Here’s a 5 minute video summing it up:

And, there is a petition you can sign if you agree.

US White House Petition

WE PETITION THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION TO:

focus the bulk of American regulatory and technical prowess on developing a test Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor. (LFTR)

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/focus-bulk-american-regulatory-and-technical-prowess-developing-test-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor/CwFTY3DX

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
136 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chuck Nolan
March 13, 2013 8:55 am

Read the interview.
Nice job, Anthony.
Common sense, balance and a wide range of topics is why I visit this site.
This is where intelligent conversation happens.
cn

3x2
March 13, 2013 9:50 am

Andyj says:
Many respondents here talk of fusion. Don’t! It’s vapourware.
Err, I don’t know – Looks pretty real to me …

esarsea
March 13, 2013 10:12 am

Reblogged this on THE BS BLOG.

G. E. Pease
March 13, 2013 10:56 am

In the process of trying to examine many pros and cons on thorium reactors, I noticed that this piece contains a particularly large number of asserted cons:
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype/

TRM
March 13, 2013 11:14 am

” _Jim says:March 12, 2013 at 8:21 pm
Citing a prev post of mine here on this thread: ” one need not understand the complexities of fuel and oxidizer ‘combustion’ to make use of ‘fire’ “. ”
True but it sure helps you optimize the process and get the most out of it.

Ed Zuiderwijk
March 13, 2013 12:48 pm

There’s a Dutch saying that: the host of an inn views his guests in his own image. If he’s an honest decent bloke he will assume that his guests are too, if he’s himself dishonnest, he will view them with distrust.
The fact that the warmists continually repeat the mantra of the skeptic being in the pay of “big energy” simply reflects a mindset in which their own dependency on NGO’s or the public purse is the natural state of affairs and they therefore can’t understand the concept of a truely independent position.
Pathetic, really.

more soylent green!
March 13, 2013 2:39 pm

arthur4563 says:
March 12, 2013 at 11:41 am
Thorium’s a possibility – it even has its own website, which I visit from now and then.
But fast reactors (Generation IV reactors) are the far closer reality and every bit as safe as a Thorium reactor, and has the added ability to burn up all our nuclear waste, which I might add,contains enough residual energy to provide all the energy this country needs for the next 1000 years. Russia’s world class nuclear company has already deployed fast rectors and
they are due for widespread commercialization probably in the next 5 to 7 years. If Thorium
reactors prove more cost-effective they will prevail, otherwise it looks to me like fast reactors will, along with water reactors are the future. I have no bets one way or the other.

Speaking of nuclear waste, we have absolutely no plan to deal with it. Other countries recycle, reuse and reprocess their nuclear waste; afterwards, the amount of waste you have to deal with may be only 10% of what you started with (sorry, I don’t have time for attribution on that).
If there’s one thing we should emulate France on, maybe it’s nuclear power.

D.J. Hawkins
March 13, 2013 3:15 pm

G. E. Pease says:
March 13, 2013 at 10:56 am
In the process of trying to examine many pros and cons on thorium reactors, I noticed that this piece contains a particularly large number of asserted cons:
http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype/

The article (and I use the term loosely) is heavy on references to a variety of “no nukes ever!” web sites, at least one authored by Oliver Tickell who may be best known as the author of Kyoto2. There is much declamation and little information.

Pamela Gray
March 13, 2013 5:19 pm

Men. They have no clue how to ask questions.
Boxers or briefs?

E.M.Smith
Editor
March 13, 2013 7:04 pm

It is important to realize that there are two very different topics being mixed when folks talk about “Thorium Reactors”. One is a “Molten Salt Reactor” and the other is using Thorium as fuel.
The two are separate.
They only get mixed if you want them to be mixed.
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/04/12/nuclear-reactor-types/
So we can run Thorium, now, in our existing reactors if we wished. A small company has worked out the fuel pins to do it. Also, as noted above, the CANDU reactor works on Thorium, as does the Indian “knock off” of the CANDU.
You can even run mixed fuel beds of Thorium and Uranium and MOX (Pu / U )
So we can start the whole “develop a thorium fuel infrastructure” process now, if we wanted to do so. Mining (by product “waste” of “rare earth mining” at present) and fuel fabrication. Certification trials, etc. Then, whenever desired or complete, start running MSR types with Thorium in them.
We’ve already made Thorium “go”.

BORAX-IV, built in 1956, explored the thorium fuel cycle and uranium-233 fuel with a power of 20 MW thermal. This experiment utilized fuel plates that were purposely full of defects in order to explore long-term plant operation with damaged fuel plates

Note that U-233 is what is produced from Th when it gets irradiated.

I must lead this section with my favorite reactor design. The CANDU. This Canadian design is, IMHO, just stellar. The US designs of the era are compromised by the US Government’s demand for ever more proliferation resistance, even if that meant kludgy designs The CANDU was made to use natural uranium (so no first step enrichment needed to be in the nuclear business) and have active refueling while on line (so easier and in many ways safer operation as the whole core does not need to be shut down and opened). It is also flexible enough in the use of moderator and absorber plates that the fuel used is highly flexible. From U to MOX (mixed oxide with U and Pu) to Thorium.

Fuel cycles the CANDU can use (nice drawing):
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/CANDU_fuel_cycles.jpg
This Indian reactor uses U-233 metal bred from Thorium in other reactors.

KAMINI (Kalpakkam Mini reactor) is a research reactor at Indira Gandhi Center for Atomic Research in Kalpakkam, India. Its first criticality was on October 29, 1996. It produces 30 kW of thermal energy at full power.
KAMINI is light water cooled and moderated, and fueled with uranium-233 metal produced by the irradiation of thorium in other reactors.

So there are several and sundry ways of using Thorium even in our present reactor fleet.
As a distinct issue, there are Molten Salt Reactors that may use Thorium, or can use other fuels.
Oh, and we can use MSR to get “process heat” for turning coal (or trash or…) into Diesel fuels and gasoline if we so desired:

There are also the Very High Temperature Reactors that have an outlet temp of up to 1000 C and are the reactor I usually talk about in the context of making nuclear “process heat” for cheap “Coal To Liquids” facilities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Very_high_temperature_reactor
That includes a liquid salt cooled variation as well, the LS-HTGCR

The molten salt cooled variant, the LS-VHTR, similar to the advanced high temperature reactor (AHTR) design, uses a liquid fluoride salt for cooling in a pebble core. It shares many features with a standard VHTR design, but uses molten salt as a coolant instead of helium. The pebble fuel floats in the salt, and thus pebbles are injected into the coolant flow to be carried to the bottom of the pebble bed, and are removed from the top of the bed for recirculation. The LS-VHTR has many attractive features, including: the ability to work at high temperatures (the boiling point of most molten salts being considered are >1,400°C), low pressure operation, high power density, better electric conversion efficiency than a helium-cooled VHTR operating at similar conditions, passive safety systems, and better retention of fission products in case an accident occurred.

Note that this does NOT say “Thorium”. It can be, or it can be other fuels.
The simple fact is that we can use Thorium any time we want and we can proceed with MSR design and testing any time we want and we can mix those two, or not.
I looked at some of the more recent efforts here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2013/01/08/thorium-china-india-piigs-demographics/
that shows how various countries and consortia are shifting positions. (Along with looking at some demographic connections).
So we have made “MSR” in the past. We can make them again. We have used Thorium fuel in the past, it is being used now in India (as they have lots of Thorium).
It just isn’t all that much of a Brave New World so much as knocking the dust off the old world and sprucing it up some. In fact, the first full scale commercial reactor used it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shippingport_Atomic_Power_Station

The Shippingport Atomic Power Station was the world’s first full-scale atomic electric power plant devoted exclusively to peacetime uses.[notes 1][notes 2][2] It was located near the present-day Beaver Valley Nuclear Generating Station on the Ohio River in Beaver County, Pennsylvania, USA, about 25 miles (40 km) from Pittsburgh.
The reactor reached criticality on December 2, 1957, and remained in operation until October 1982. The first electrical power was produced on December 18, 1957 as engineers synchronized the plant with the distribution grid of Duquesne Light Company.
Shippingport was created and operated under the auspices of Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, whose authority included a substantial role within the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). Its design team was headed by Alvin Radkowsky.
Its final core was an experimental, light water moderated, thermal breeder reactor and is notable for its ability to transmute (inexpensive) Thorium 232 to Uranium 233 (the latter being the fissile material that fueled the reaction within the reactor core). The reactor was capable of an output of 60 MWe. The reactor was designed with two uses in mind: for powering military ships, and serving as a prototype for commercial electrical power generation. In 1977, it was converted to a Pressurized Light-Water Breeder Reactor (PLWBR). Over its 25-year life, the power plant operated for about 80,324 hours, producing about 7.4 billion kilowatt hours of electricity.

So many folks have already consumed electricity from Thorium.

Spector
March 23, 2013 9:14 am

Dr. David Leblanc points out that thorium is primarily a source of uranium (U233) via protactinium. Thorium, by itself, is not a fuel! The only reason that I can see for developing the proposed uranium-breeding, thorium reactors, would be a lack of natural uranium. All the advantages often quoted for liquid fueled (uranium-breeding) thorium reactors seem to also apply to basic Liquid Fueled Uranium Reactors. It would seem that the higher efficiency of liquid (molten salt) fueled reactors would greatly extend the availability of natural uranium, because today’s high-pressure, solid fuel reactors only burn a small percentage of their fuel before the fuel-rods become too contaminated with fissile waste products for continued use. Liquid fueled reactors appear to be self-cleaning.
David LeBlanc – Molten Salt Reactor Designs, Options & Outlook TEAC4
Likes 44, Dislikes 0; Views 3541; 19 min, 46 sec
” Published on Jul 20, 2012
“Canadian David LeBlanc describes the benefits of liquid fuel Molten Salt Reactors over solid fuel reactors, emphasizing reactor design over any relative advantages of thorium or uranium.
“‘Come for the thorium, stay for the reactor!'”

1 4 5 6