Thorium: Earth’s Forgotten Treasure

As we face soaring energy prices, future shortages, and the alarming prospect of dramatic climate change brought about by fossil fuel waste, the one thing we desperately need stands out in stark relief: an abundant supply of clean energy – the Holy Grail of the modern world.

Oil and natural gas are running low. Wind power is limited to a few locations, biofuels require much more land than we have, and solar is still far from practical after decades of intensive research. Nuclear fusion has made even less progress. The supply of uranium for conventional nuclear power will run out within this century. Right now, almost every new power plant has to be fueled by dwinding supplies of natural gas or uranium, or by dirty coal, which spews out not only vast amounts of carbon dioxide but millions of tons of toxic soot, poisonous heavy metals, and radioactive isotopes.

Whenever the construction of a nuclear reactor is delayed because of a false hope in “renewable” energies that never materialize, a coal or natural gas plant has to be built instead, polluting the air we breathe and driving global warming faster and faster. But even conventional nuclear reactors produce waste, and because they use only a tiny fraction of the energy in uranium, that resource is also being depleted.

Enter Thorium. Half a century ago, a different kind of nuclear reactor was invented, one that burns Thorium – an inexhaustible supply of fuel, and much cheaper than the enriched-uranium fuel used by current reactors. It can even use the nuclear waste from other reactors as fuel! The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, or LFTR for short, operates at low pressures, so it could never explode like the reactor at Chernobyl, and its liquid-fuel design makes it physical impossible to overheat, like the reactor at Three Mile Island.

Unfortunately, it was the Cold War – energy was still cheap, global warming was just a theory, and the LFTR wasn’t good for making weapons-grade plutonium, so it was abandoned. Now, a growing group of scientists and engineers are working to bring the LFTR back to life – to free us from filthy coal and turn stockpiles of nuclear waste into the clean, cheap energy we need.

What I have noticed to be the preferred design for a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor on the EnergyFromThorium forum is a two fluid design with breader capability and a uranium kick-start.

The article by Tucker and several postings by Charles Barton on his blog Nucleargreen.blogspot.com show an interest in smaller reactors as a way of the future.

One important PR state of mind to adapt as a LFTR advocate is the idea that these smaller scale reactors are really two plants in one. Producing power at one point and burning up reprocessed fuel at another. They could be run without reprocessed fuel but using up so-called nuclear “waste” which goes hand in hand with non-proliferation is probably the single strongest benefit from a public and political perspective.

Another interesting and useful PR position is the flexibility and adaptability and multi-purpose spin-off applications that can be married to this type of reactor. One of the reasons an LFTR prototype has taken so long to is due to the fact that there are so many directions for the reactor and the modifications that the designs entail.

The forum has discussed desalinization, hydrogen production, medical by-products, cleaner separation of oil from tar sands and I’m sure I’m missing a few.

Kirk Sorenson with the support of some others has expressed an interest in coming up with a prototype to show how far a long the concept has developed and place the link for it on the home page.

Getting the perfect design will not be the goal. It will be largely an exercise and starting point showing the cumulative best ideas that still remain after extensive discussion. A prototype on EnergyFromThorium will go a long way in helping to boost the LFTR cause.

Kirk Sorenson has completed a huge undertaking further organizing the ORNL (Oak Ridge National Laboratory) documents mostly PDF’s into more searchable form as well as some recent HTML adaptations of more significant papers.

The following discussion are selections from EnergyFromThorium.com

I started this discussion
rmaltese
PostPosted: Mar 07, 2009 11:00 pm
I think it’s been mentioned here but thought it important as a strategy to help prevent countries such as Iran and North Korea doing something really stupid.

You know it’s interesting to note that Iran has a geothermal plant and have taken some modern age initiatives to upgrading their energy sources.

Robert Hargraves and others have made the case for other nations starting up their own nuclear facilities and the fact that it is difficult to make nuclear weapons grade materials from LFTR. Well Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden and the rest of the team ought to be considering using “brain power” in exchange for taking Iran in a new nuclear direction. Rather than ask them to halt their nuclear program they could start helping them initiate the first Fourth Generation LFTR’s.

It would serve as both a way of getting free research dollars from an oil-rich country and finding a good prototype to duplicate and improve back in our own countries. I’m Canadian. It would also give Iran a chance to prove it has pure motives. I can see a number of you with low tolerance for friendly relations with Iran but what is the better choice. LFTR technology offers a clear diplomatic solution. Seems obvious does it not?

Response:
Lars
Post subject: Re: Foreign Policy with Countries seeking Nuclear Weapons
PostPosted: Mar 07, 2009 11:14 pm

There are many forms of LFTR. I would oppose a two fluid LFTR to Iran because I can see ways that the technology might get twisted. A break even or even high converter single fluid design would be more appropriate for them for the near term. Later, when we have lights out automation of the power plant with u238 flooding available and continuous positive communication to a international central monitoring station then a completely sealed, self-contained two fluid system would be possible.

Response
Axil
PostPosted: Mar 08, 2009 12:09 am

Lars wrote:

There are many forms of LFTR. I would oppose a two fluid LFTR to Iran because I can see ways that the technology might get twisted. A break even or even high converter single fluid design would be more appropriate for them for the near term. Later, when we have lights out automation of the power plant with u238 flooding available and continuous positive communication to a international central monitoring station then a completely sealed, self-contained two fluid system would be possible.

IMHO, the Fluid blanket designs can safely operate in the first world: US, UK, France. The solid blanket design can operate safely in the third world: Iran, Iraq, and Costa Rica.

____________________________________________________________________

StephenT
Post subject: Re: Do We Need An Official Position on LFTR at EnergyFromThorium
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2009 7:31 am

Location: Sydney, Australia
What about proposing a range of reactors, since there are so many possibilities under the broad heading of MSRs. Choose a few designs targeted at the most viable implementation strategies and give a credible costing and design with a realistic assessment of the technical issues needing resolution and the research necessary to resolve them. What about a design just to burn SNF and obsolete nuclear weapons? That’s got to appeal to everyone, even greenies, as it solves a large and currently unsolvable problem. Also, isn’t there money available for nuclear waste disposal? I may be missing something, but isn’t this a perfect angle for MSR technology.

I don’t think anyone who can do this is going to do it because its a good idea, they’ll do it because they have to. I think it is necessary to create compulsion, because no matter how compelling the case is for Thorium fueled reactors, it is either not needed because there isn’t a crisis yet or it can’t be implemented now because there’s a crisis.

rmaltese
Post subject: Re: Do We Need An Official Position on LFTR at EnergyFromThorium
PostPosted: Apr 07, 2009 9:50 am

Don’t forget the profit motive of the competition.
Also, the “This planet’s not big enough for the two of us”
mentality. LFTR has competition on at least three fronts.
Traditional nuclear, anti-nuclear groups and renewables,
and the carbon mongers.

Yes Thanks vakibs “opposition” or “opposing forces” are better
choices of wording than “competition”
The opposition is not always visible is one of my points
and they often would like to block or prevent progress to further their own interests.

vakibs
Post subject: Re: Do We Need An Official Position on LFTR at EnergyFromThorium
PostPosted: Apr 08, 2009 9:44 am
rmaltese

Quote:
LFTR has competition on at least three fronts.
Traditional nuclear, anti-nuclear groups and renewables,
and the carbon mongers.

More than these three, I think the LFTR has stiff opposition (wouldn’t call competition) from financial and political interests who want to have a low-energy world where the energy supply can be strictly monitored.

Only the LFTR (and IFR style fast breeder reactors) can usher in a high-energy world where fuel supply is not an issue.

Tobin
Post subject: Re: Do We Need An Official Position on LFTR at EnergyFromThorium
PostPosted: Apr 08, 2009 2:04 pm

That’s the crux of the problem. The multiple benefit approach only produces multiple opposition. Choose a specific benefit that has the weakest opposition and focus on that as your “killer app.” “Killer app” is a term that describes how a product is so hugely beneficial comes about that it drags all it’s component parts and methods into wide use with it. Feeding livestock was the killer app for agriculture. Disease control was the killer app for plumbing. The incandescent lamp was the killer app for electricity. Spreadsheet processing was the killer app for personal computers. Private distribution of pornography was the killer app for the internet (sad but true).

Waste management is the killer app that will drive development and deployment of LFTR. It doesn’t even really need to be cost effective since it solves an expensive, deep, and long-term problem for DOE. The heavy front-end costs of development and regulatory approval should be done on the DOE dollar and then the design can find more uses.

Presenting a method to “fix everything” is a shotgun approach that will dilute the efforts to gain support. Targeting a specific problem to a specific customer allows you to concentrate resources to getting the product to market.

A good analogy would be the times in medicine where they win FDA approval for use of a drug for a specific ailment and then use the distribution of that medicine to prove the other uses of the medicine. They basically get the product to market and then extend its use to additional therapies. That’s exactly how Wellbutrin (an anti-depressant) found it’s way into smoking cessation programs.

Now look at your opposition members who might stand between you and your one important customer:
Nuclear operators would love to have waste incinerators that allow them to continue using their current fuel cycle.
Energy control freaks can’t see it as a threat because your business is waste, power production is a byproduct of your main goal of waste reduction.
Greens have to love something that reduces the radiotoxicity of the current fuel cycle but doesn’t immediately threaten to displace renewables.
Carbon mongers are a declining influence.

The bad behaviors of the opposition parties will come to an end at some point but it doesn’t have to be from a direct assault of a competing and as-yet undeveloped method. We don’t have to take these guys on, we just need to let our “killer app” evolve and surface as the right thing to do.

charlesH
Post subject: Re: Do We Need An Official Position on LFTR at EnergyFromThorium
PostPosted: Apr 08, 2009 2:13 pm

Tobin wrote:
Waste management is the killer app that will drive development and deployment of LFTR. It doesn’t even really need to be cost effective since it solves an expensive, deep, and long-term problem for DOE. The heavy front-end costs of development and regulatory approval should be done on the DOE dollar and then the design can find more uses.

Presenting a method to “fix everything” is a shotgun approach that will dilute the efforts to gain support. Targeting a specific problem to a specific customer allows you to concentrate resources to getting the product to market.

A good analogy would be the times in medicine where they win FDA approval for use of a drug for a specific ailment and then use the distribution of that medicine to prove the other uses of the medicine. They basically get the product to market and then extend its use to additional therapies. That’s exactly how Wellbutrin (an anti-depressant) found it’s way into smoking cessation programs.

Yes, I agree. There may be others but that is one killer app. That is why the next big step in the political realm is the LFTR briefing to the DOE yucca alternative “blue ribbon panel” once it is selected.

StephenT
Post subject: Re: Do We Need An Official Position on LFTR at EnergyFromThorium
PostPosted: Apr 09, 2009 6:07 am
Location: Sydney, Australia
I couldn’t agree more, Tobin. The waste management issue is definitely the chink in the armor. Everyone would like to see it solved except the carbon lobby and their days are numbered. All the other benefits have the potential confuse the issue. Even the Thorium fuel cycle is a possible weak point as the Thorium blanket was never fitted to the Oak Ridge reactor, so the whole Thorium breeder concept is still theoretical or, at best, experimental.

Once we have a MSR in every reactor complex, quietly churning away on the reactor’s spent fuel, the benefits will be undeniable and the technology will have a chance to mature in the real world. Proving the validity of the Thorium blanket will be much simpler when the issue of the MSR is an accomplished fact (successful ORNL tests notwithstanding).

In the meantime, insert the thin end of the wedge into the waste management issue and apply a large hammer. The situation is urgent and the benefits are compelling. The world needs this technology sooner rather than later (my house is only a few meters above sea level).
_________________________________________________________________

Axil first posted article on Future Nuclear Power (pdf)
And here is his response
Axil
Post subject: Re: Combating Nuclear Proliferation
PostPosted: Apr 09, 2009 8:45 pm

Thorium Fuel Options vs. Standard Uranium Once-Through Cycle

The preceding discussion suggests that denatured thorium cycles, such as the RTR (Radkowsky Thorium Reactor) and the DMSR (Denatured Molten Salt Reactor) considered here, have a higher degree of proliferation resistance than standard LWRs (Light Water Reactors) operating on the once-through cycle. They could also stretch uranium resources and reduce the production of long-lived waste actinides. However, it is questionable whether these benefits alone are sufficient to motivate the substantial costs involved in introducing a new fuel cycle on a large scale. In particular, the fact that the RTR utilizes existing LWR reactor technology is an advantage in terms of reducing the need for further R&D, but is also a disadvantage with regard to the consensus view that future reactors must have a much higher degree of inherent safety with regard to major radioactive releases than LWRs.

Their uranium savings are also modest, and the higher fuel burn-ups potentially achievable in both modular gas reactors and future LWRs would also result in plutonium of poorer isotopic quality in their spent fuel than in today’s LWRs. By contrast, the uranium savings potentially available with the DMSR are substantial, and some of the characteristic features of all molten salt reactors, especially their small fissile inventory, which can be continuously monitored and the presence of U- 232, facilitate the application of safeguards. They also are designed with a high degree of passive safety, which could limit the likelihood and potential consequences of accidents and sabotage, especially when combined with underground siteing.

While a substantial effort would be required to revive the molten salt reactor concept, which has languished since the operation of two experimental reactors in the 1950s and 1960s, such an effort should be seriously considered, but not for the goal of validating the DMSR per se.

Rather, through modification of the chemical processing system in a DMSR to remove more fission products, it may be possible to combine the proliferation resistance features of the DMSR with the potential for breakeven breeding of a molten salt reactor operated on the pure thorium cycle. After startup, such a Sustainable Denatured Molten Salt Reactor (SDMSR) wouldn’t require any more enriched uranium, and the total amount of mined uranium would be reduced by a substantial factor, 90%. Such a reactor would provide a more proliferation-resistant, and potentially also a safer and more economic alternative to the standard plutonium fast breeder in a situation where there isn’t a need for a rapid growth in installed nuclear capacity unconstrained by a lack of uranium.
Axil

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.

Lars