Register for Free
Post comments, receive updates via email, gain access to exclusive content, and more.
Spam Safe!
Thorium - an energy solution ?
Following AEP's recent article, I'd like some (preferably informed) discussion on the potential of Thorium to radically improve the energy situation.
Having seen the glacial progress towards fusion, it's easy to be pessimistic about the time needed to debug and scale up the technology, it may well
be that it's not in anyones self-interest to try it for the first time..or on a sufficient scale, and debug.. so a statist (boo! hiss!) collective effort might be required...
But just looking at the sheer *potential* .. it seems a perfect direction to explore... and it perfectly matches Obama's key theme - "Hope".
Since one of my key beliefs is that TPTB are not necessarily stupid or evil..(YMMV) I also wonder whether it has been explored covertly by the US Mil..
by definition, it would be classed as national security sensitive...
if not, then it's a true "road not taken", that should be.. ASAP.
Print
Thorium is not a fissile material, so it can't be used as a nuclear fuel.
That's like saying crushed malt is not digestible by yeast, so it can't be used for alcohol production...
non-sequitur.
malt becomes fermentable when the amylase's are heated to 66 degrees C.
Th becomes fissile U233 when it absorbs a neutron. and produces multiple neutrons when it fissions.. cycle closed.
Given that all the U-233 has to be created in existing reactors,
Umm.. surely once seeded, via Pu / U233 or spallation neutrons + accelerator,
the liquid salt reactor will self breed it's own u233.. ?
I can't comment on the viability of Thorium as a fuel source- if the world's foremost experts are in disagreement , then the question (for us) should be, Should it be pursued? Not Will it work?
I was raised and educated to be strongly anti- nuclear and I still believe it's a nasty, expensive, and dangerous way to get energy- however:
- I would not cut off my nose to spite my face. The stakes are so high, nuclear energy needs to be considered right up there with other energy sources.
- If these guys are correct, this looks like a vast improvement over the way we do it now, on several levels.
I would support a vigorous research program, but then again I would have happily traded a bunch of vigorous R&D programs for two illegal wars and a bailout for a bunch of people who should have been lined up against a wall and shot...
Even if there was the political will, I don't know if there's time.
[Edit] But thanks, Plato, it's an arrow for our quivers.
That's it... and look upon this moment. Savor it! Rejoice with great gladness! Great gladness! Remember it always, for you are joined by it. You are One, under the stars. Remember it well, then... this night, this great victory. So that in the years ahead, you can say, 'I was there that night, with Arthur, the King!' For it is the doom of men that they forget.
zap: Absolutley.. explore everything !!
That's what DARPA has been doing for ages.. and thanks to that research.. you can see this message..
I don't know if there's time either.. but if there isn't time.. it's even more urgent that we try... so...... all roads lead to:
TRY EVERYTHING.. and QUICK. (especially the promising routes.)
.
dupe post. *blush*
CM.com explore "delete" function to spare blushes.. ?
After spending a number of years following the idea of MSR, LFTR, and Thorium I've come to believe that opponents to the system either have current industry interests and down play a system that would be a threat to their current business or are afraid of new and different technologies. I believe Mr. Barton summed it up nicely:
"The manufacture of LFTR would destroy the current business model of LWR manufacturers, who make their money selling fuel rather than reactors. Efficient use of nuclear fuel in LFTRs would mean that the manufacturers would have to make their money selling reactors, and the current manufactures don't know how to do that." - Charles Barton Source
It works, it's proven, it's simple and it's much more clean then current nuclear technology. Toyota, Toshiba and Hitachi, working with IThEMS seem to be ahead of the game.
It has been interesting to watch the coverage of Thorium increase in more mainstream information flows as of late.
Here are a few resources, if you are interested in learning more.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Basics
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A Brief History of the Liquid-Fluoride Reactor - April 22nd, 2006
http://energyfromthorium.com/2006/04/22/...
Summary of MSR Pros / Cons
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Molten_salt_reactor
What is Thorium?
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/
'Nuclear Reactor Revolution' translated provisionaly in English
http://www.ithems.jp/e_books.html
International Thorium Energy Organisation, IThEO
http://www.itheo.org/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Articles by Date
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
August 30, 2010 :: Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-08/thorium-reactors-could-wean-world-oil-just-five-years
August 29, 2010 :: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html
July/August 2010 :: American Scientist - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/feature/2010/4/liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors
July 30, 2010 :: DEBATE OF THE WEEK: IS THORIUM A VIABLE OPTION FOR THE FUTURE?
http://www.nucleartownhall.com/blog/debate-of-the-week-is-thorium-a-viable-option-for-the-future/
June 12, 2010 :: The LFTR in the American Scientist
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2010/06/lftr-in-american-scientist.html
May 2010 :: Too Good to Leave on the Shelf
http://memagazine.asme.org/Articles/2010/May/Too_Good_Leave_Shelf.cfm
March 23, 2010 :: Energy Cheaper than from Coal
http://energyfromthorium.com/2010/03/23/energy-cheaper-than-from-coal/
March 16, 2010 :: Thorium, a Readily Available and Slightly Radioactive Mineral, Could Provide the World with Safer, Clean Energy
"Thorium-based reactors could be more efficient and create less waste than today’s uranium-based generating plants."
http://machinedesign.com/article/thorium-a-readily-available-and-slightly-radioactive-mineral-could-provide-the-world-with-sa
December 21, 2009 :: Uranium Is So Last Century — Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/
December 17, 2009 :: A LFTR deployment plan for Australia
http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/12/17/lftr-in-australia/
March 20, 2010 :: Scaling the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: The Big Lots Reactor and the Aim High Reactor
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2009/03/scaling-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor.html
April 26, 2008 :: Nice summary comment on the oil drum and industry resistance
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3877#comment-335174
China has announced it will be launching a Thorium MSR project. I have a feeling they will jump ahead on this tech before the US nuclear regulatory commission ever approves thorium MSR or LFTR designs. Sad...the US had this going in the 50-60's.
http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/01/30/china-initiates-tmsr/
Here is a great info graphic on Thorium and LFTR.
http://www.wellhome.com/blog/2010/12/thorium-the-next-generation-of-nuclear-power/
First truly 2.5E aware post I've seen from Karl. He's usually more focussed on economics, law and tech...
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=181373
Can we solve America's long-term energy problems with thorium and similar? Yep. We can do it today, with technology we know how to exploit, as soon as we BBQ the environmentalists. I'll donate a case of BBQ sauce for that festival, as it would usher in a generation of competitiveness for America that would make our nation the envy of the world. But that will not scale for the world as a whole at 10x, and it certainly won't scale if we have 7 or 10 billion humans on the planet in 2050 instead of 5. Not a prayer in Hell.
Here I disagree.. plentiful energy solves many issues.. desalination for one.. I would hesistate to put an upper bound on the medium term maximum population, or a long term sustainable population for that matter... but the finite number isn't the problem.. it's the endless GROWTH that is ALWAYS and EVERYWHERE insoluble..... Malthus and Bartlett have that part right....
Where is the Jeff Rubin of demographics.. ?
To bastardise Kunstler, we need to make new arrangements... tricky.. both politically, ethically.. yadda yadda..
A "new deal" for humanity..
Failing that.. a Hari Seldon..
AEP - another Thorium article.
"This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.
If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption."
and interview with James Engdahl on Jim Puplava's, FSN.
HERE's what someone I trust thinks of this...
Thorium is not a fissile material, so it can't be used as a nuclear fuel. First it has to be put in a conventional U-235 or Pu-239 reactor and irradiated, during which time a tiny fraction of the Thorium-232 is converted to U-233 and whole lot of other crap that you don't want, so the U-233 has to be refined out of the crud (all highly radioactive). The unchanged Thorium-232 can be extracted and reused, (techniques are "still under development"), but there are 5 other Thorium isotopes that don't occur in nature but could be created in the irradiation process, so you would need to do isotope purification as well. U-233 is fissile, but doesn't occur in nature, so all the fuel will have to be made this way.
Then you can run the U-233 reactor with Th-232 around it to be irradiated. The intention is that this will breed more U-233, and it probably will breed some, but again it also produces a lot of other crap and so the refining has to be done every cycle. Given that all the U-233 has to be created in existing reactors, and then all the U-233 reactors have to be built it will take decades to get off the ground.
The first such reactor was built in the US (Oak Ridge) in 1960 and discontinued in 1976. I should add that to a certain extent, the U-233 fission reaction can occur alongside conventional U-235 reactions, so putting Thorium-232 in conventional fuel could add to the heat produced. It is misleading to call these "Thorium fuelled" as it is the U-233 that acts as the fuel. And finally, isn't it funny how when it suits their argument, the limitations on the abundance of Uranium is taken for granted, and the abundance of Thorium is assumed to be limitless.
Peace on Terra http://damnthematrix.wordpress.com/ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/roeoz/