Th Solves Global Energy Shortage?

Thorium that is. The element known as Th. According to a news release this past week Professor Egil Lillestol has been trying to convince Norway that a nuclear reactor based on thorium would be a viable solution to the worlds growing energy demands without the environmental impact of coal, or the hazards of traditional nuclear energy. Is he onto something? Read on to see the gory details.
From the article:
•There is no danger of a melt-down like the Chernobyl reactor•It produces minimal radioactive waste•It can burn Plutonium waste from traditional nuclear reactors with additional energy output•It is not suitable for the production of weapon grade materials•The energy contained in one kilogram of Thorium equals that of four thousand tons of coal•The global Thorium reserves could cover the world’s energy needs for thousands of years•Norway has an estimated 180 000 tons of Thorium which based on the current price of oil is equivalent to 250 thousand billion US$, or 1000 times the Norwegian oil fund.
Now I don't speak Norwegian, or have a PhD in physics, but apparently this idea has been proposed by some fairly brainy people so I will assume their calculations are better then anything I can come up with (safe assumption). I know many of you will scoff at "produces minimal radioactive waste", what is a good minimum to have? Or might take issue with what happens after the thousands of years of "minimal pollution", what do we do then? (I hope we have some new ideas in a few thousand years...). It also appears that there are significant technical challenges to overcome. And the 15 years to development that the article quotes sounds very similar to other 15 year projects (fusion, hydrogen, etc.). I'm glad that thorium is not useful as a nuclear weapon, but it still has dangerous possibilities compared to... say- wave power. For those of you who feel a need to know more details about thorium take a peak at the energy from thorium blog.
I have the gut feeling that thorium technology is inevitable, and you can't ignore how important advances in nuclear energy development could be to the world. Not only could Thorium energy generation ease political tensions, relieve environmental stress, but development could create safer long term space exploration (people are a little nervous about launching a uranium enriched spaceship on a rocket), and heck with a name like Th what could go wrong? ::Innovations Report

19Comments
Similar stories from Technorati » Treehugger / alternative_energy /
Comments
Here's to hoping this isn't another one of those crazy, loopy, government-suppression-conspiracy-related ideas. The benefits sound wonderful, and almost too good to be true. I'd really like to see where this goes.
Posted by: Thomas October 12, 2006 09:42 AM flag a problem
Nuclear power definitely has its place. Mars, for example, is perfect. Or the moon, where there's no wind for wind power and no solar power for two weeks at a time. (Unless you're at the poles.)
But on Earth there's enough extra energy floating around to give us plenty of power along with increases in efficiency.
I've read about thorium reactors, though, and the nuclear waste produced is about 10% of the waste from current reactors, and it's perfectly safe after 49 years, not a couple thousand.
But that still doesn't solve the problem of the radioactivity of the containment vessels.
Posted by: Icelander October 12, 2006 10:10 AM flag a problem
If thorium is so great, how come we do not see W trying to push Thorium on Iran? Nuclear weapon problem solved? Go thorium
Posted by: Anonymous October 12, 2006 10:41 AM flag a problem
Are you kidding? George W. couldn't even pronounce thorium.
Like so many technologies that actually could provide a base for a long term strategy for greater energy and political stability, this is so far off the Bush administrations radar it borders on the absurd.
If it isn't petroleum (or hydrogen, haha) Bushe's buddies couldn't sell it. Why invest in new technologies when we can just invade an oil producing country???
Posted by: never gonna happen with Bush in office October 12, 2006 12:03 PM flag a problem
I suspect this is the MOX publicity bandwagon trying to keep the nuclear industry alive in the hope that full scale fast reactors will eventually be available.
Even with different feedback and different delayed neutrons no one fissile fuel is magically safe without engineering work comparable to existing reactors.
Not that I'm opposing the idea - just apply suitable scrutiny to the claimed properties.
Posted by: Peter October 12, 2006 01:09 PM flag a problem
My father used to work in the nuclear energy sector and talked about using Thorium for years. Appearently it has been known that this stuff can be used for a long time. The only problem is the initial investment to research and build the first thorium power plants (think Manhatten Project II). The research challengers are, however, much smaller than those of fusion.
He always says that there was a conscious decision to go for Uran and Plutonium because back in those days they WANTED the stuff to build bombs.
Posted by: Valentin October 12, 2006 01:16 PM flag a problem
The thorium reactor described is an interesting concept proposed by reputable scientists (the physicists at the CERN accelerator). Some of these folks are working on fusion. The proposed "Energy Amplifier" uses a proton beam to extract energy from the fuel. It is very different than the current nuclear technology - it is not just a matter of replacing uranium fuel with thorium fuel. It may have some safety and non-proliferation advantages - and it is interesting that proponents note its waste will be less radioactively nasty than common coal ashes after 500 years. (Yep, coal has radionuclides in it naturally - most stays in the ashes but some goes into the air as tiny particulates.) One interesting feature is that the fluid used with the fuel is not water as in today's reactors, or air as in the proposed Pebble Bed Reactor - but liquid lead. And this illustrates some of the problems with this approach. Dealing with liquid metals on a large scale as part of a heat exchanger mechanism present their own special engineering problems which will have to be solved. The proponents note that more R&D is needed in the area of material corrosion and material endurance. (BTW: Liquid sodium was tried in early reactors, and there were a lot of problems.)
In short - the Thorium Energy Amplifier nuclear reactor is a decent idea to look into but it's going to take a lot of work to get the practical engineering aspects solved and plants which work consistently well. Decades, most likely - if it proves feasible at all.
In the meantime, the electricity we use (and we should use less) has to come from somewhere. Few really understand how electricity is produced on a mass scale today - - which isn't so good if we're to make the right decisions for our energy future.. If you would like an entertaining profile of U.S. electric generation, and nuclear energy in particular, see my novel "Rad Decision". It is available free to readers at http://RadDecision.blogspot.com - and they seem to like it judging from their homepage comments. It's also been endorsed by Stewart Brand, founder of "The Whole Earth Catalog", internet pioneer and noted futurist. I've spent over twenty years working in nuclear power plants, and in my novel I profile the people, the politics and the technology. Incuded are overviews of Chernobyl, TMI and a detailed look at a fictional accident. RadDecision.blogspot.com
Posted by: James Aach October 12, 2006 01:44 PM flag a problem
Why is Thorium not used? Like was said its not weapon grade. I wouldn't doubt that the aquisition of uranium for weapons is masked by the need of uranium for power plants.
Posted by: Alex October 12, 2006 02:28 PM flag a problem
Don't be confused, there is some risk of use for weapons, dirty bombs of course and with much refinement nuclear bombs. No reactor makes weapons grade fuel. It all needs to be enriched, even power plant fuel. Weapons grade is just more refining.
Posted by: JiltedCitizen October 12, 2006 02:43 PM flag a problem
My father used to work in the nuclear energy sector and talked about using Thorium for years. Appearently it has been known that this stuff can be used for a long time. The only problem is the initial investment to research and build the first thorium power plants (think Manhatten Project II). The research challengers are, however, much smaller than those of fusion.
He always says that there was a conscious decision to go for Uran and Plutonium because back in those days they WANTED the stuff to build bombs.
I think you're right, Valentin. I've been trying to figure out for years why we didn't pursue the thorium option for nuclear energy instead of uranium, and the only reason that makes any sense has to do with nuclear weapons.
When the Atomic Energy Commission was formed in 1946, priority 1, 2, 3, and 4 was to produce more weapons grade nuclear material (uranium enriched to >93% U-235 or plutonium consisting of >93% Pu-239). The reactors that the AEC operated in Hanford, Washington didn't produce any electrical energy--they produced plutonium for weapons.
Power-producing reactors were scarcely even on the AEC's roadmap. They gave some support to early efforts at Argonne and in Idaho to produce liquid-metal fast breeder reactors, but those reactors promised to produce large amounts of very high quality (>96% Pu-239) plutonium for weapons.
It wasn't until 1957 that the US even bothered to build a reactor for making electrical power, and that was done by simply adapting the design they had done for the Nautilus nuclear submarine three years earlier into a quick and minimum-development power plant.
So when confronted with the thorium option, it's not surprising the AEC showed little interest. The fissile material bred from thorium (uranium-233) is nearly worthless in nuclear weapons because it is always contaminated with U-232, which has a decay product that emits penetrating radiation.
Lightweight bombs and sensitive electronics couldn't afford the shielding mass that would be associated with using U-233 as a weapon material. U-235 and Pu-239 are alpha-emitters and are easy to shield against.
So the weapons-angle, which doomed thorium to a low priority fifty years ago, is one of the prime reasons we should be considering thorium-powered reactors today.
Posted by: Kirk Sorensen October 12, 2006 02:48 PM flag a problem
How much money would it cost to rush develop a Thorium reactor in 5 years?
Do you consider Thorium power green?
Right now energy companies have a tough time keeping up with the demand for green energy. I would consider Thorium a green technology, and willingly pay a little extra for the clean(er) energy. Anyone else?
Posted by: Plumaria October 12, 2006 03:20 PM flag a problem
Before the discussion proceeds further here, recognize there are two different types of "thorium" reactors being discussed.
* the Norway proposal of the beginning article, which is a radically new reactor design using a particle beam and liquid lead, and producing no sustained nuclear fission (safer), no plutonium (for bomb) and no really horrible waste, and
* use of fuel containing more thorium within today's reactor design (or an upgrade of today's design). Less bomb material is produced - But because you still need some uranium in the fuel it's not eliminated entirely. I believe there would also be waste of similar health nastiness to today's reactors (with somewhat less plutonium, the bomb-maker's favorite.) This approach to using thorium eliminates many engineering aspects of the Norway proposal (like dealing with large amounts of liquid lead), but it does change the physics of today's reactor core and it's response to events. Fortunately, much of the basic research in this area has already been done. This second option is more likely to bear fruit in the short term.
Posted by: James Aach October 12, 2006 03:57 PM flag a problem
There is a company working on Thorium power plan designs and has been for years. They work with the Russians and have some US Government contracts.See:http://www.thoriumpower.com/
Posted by: Synergy October 12, 2006 04:53 PM flag a problem
The energy contained in one kilogram of Thorium equals that of four thousand tons of coal
How about you compare apples to apples and compare it to the energy contained in 1 kg of plutonium? I'm not being cute here, I really want to know the answer to that question, whereas coal vs. nuclear doesn't really do anything for me unless you also tell me how much coal 1 kg of plutonium equals.
Posted by: Duc October 12, 2006 05:01 PM flag a problem
1 kg of firewood corresponds to about 1 kWh of electricity
1 kg of coal and oil correspond to respectively 3 and 4 kWh of electricity,
1 kg of natural uranium corresponds to about 50,000 kWh of electricity and
1 kg of plutonium corresponds to about 6,000,000 kWh of electricity.
http://www.world-nuclear.org/sym/2001/blix.htm
as1 short ton = 907.18474 kilogramsthen,4,000 ton ~ 3,628,739 kgat 3 kWh per kg for coal we get 10,886,217 kWh which is = 1 kg of Thorium
Thus, 1 kg of thorium corresponds to about 1.8 kg(s) of plutonium
Posted by: Tim McGee October 12, 2006 05:10 PM flag a problem
Well I think that depends on the reactor type too. The thorium designs are breeder reactors. Meaning they make fuel once started. The current nuclear reactors are not breeders.
Posted by: JiltedCitizen October 12, 2006 06:05 PM flag a problem
1 kg of coal and oil correspond to respectively 3 and 4 kWh of electricity,
Bituminous coal is around 25,400 BTU/kg and 1 kWh of electricity is 3,412 BTU. So, a kilogram of coal is more like 7.4 kWh of electricity.
A kilogram of oil is around 41,760 BTU, which would make it equivalent to about 12.2 kWh.
Not sure about the others, but you might want to check your numbers again.
Posted by: Anonymous October 12, 2006 06:16 PM flag a problem
Ugh,Those numbers were from the site I sourced... not my own.
The point of the comparison is not that thorium has more energy/kg- because really- who knows?
The point is thorium has vastly more energy/kg then coal... for whatever milage you get out of that
Posted by: Tim McGee October 12, 2006 06:22 PM flag a problem
Before the discussion proceeds further here, recognize there are two different types of "thorium" reactors being discussed.
There's even more than that. There were at least three different types of "fluid-fueled reactors" being considered by the AEC in the 1950s, each of which was a thorium reactor. (see "Fluid Fuel Reactors" or TID-8507, the AEC report downselecting to the liquid-fluoride (molten-salt) reactor)
There were also the solid-core variants of thorium reactors. Most of these couldn't breed (convert as much thorium to U-233 as they consumed U-233) so they weren't truly thorium-burning reactors, but some of them got close. WASH-1097 described several of these reactors.
As of these precede the accelerator-driven thorium reactor mentioned by the Norwegian fellow, which I consider unnecessarily comples. But hey, when you're a Nobel laureate who works with accelerators, it's like a hammer looking for a nail.
The molten-salt reactor was the best reactor on the thorium cycle, because it was capable of continuous reprocessing and complete consumption of the thorium resource. It was also the most developed, with two reactors that were built and operated very successfully. It's no secret that I think the technology should be resurrected. In fact, I gave a seminar at Ohio State University earlier this week on just this topic. My presentation slides are available here
Posted by: Kirk Sorensen October 12, 2006 06:33 PM flag a problem

obfuscator('y7BoAIyo7I', 'RhwxNzMoDAS8kb4WmVsLnHpP7UirqClFEX9GJ1da6jt2BQ5IgfOTZyceKvY3u0', 'hidden_input', '', '');

Post a comment


If you have a TypeKey identity, you can sign in to use it here.
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)
« Name
« Email Address
« URL
Subscribe to This Entry - Receive new comments via email.
Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style) Please keep comments civil and on topic. Any comments made with the intention of instigating trouble will be removed. Discussions and debates are welcomed, insults and flamatory remarks are not.



Email this entry to a friend
Email this entry to:Your Name:Your email address:

Message (optional):
(separate multiple email addresses with commas)
Copyright 2004-2006 :: Privacy Policy :: Terms of Use:: Graciously hosted by Pair