Category Archives: uranium
U – 92 – Actinoid
Fit ending for 2011 Atomic Insights has lengthy discussion on LFTRs
Atomic Insights has a discussion happening that has caught the attention of some of the unconverted old school nuclear advocates as well as some LFTR advocates.
The original post was meant to compliment Kirk Sorensen for his recent Google Tech Talk but now has over 150 comments.
Compliments to Kirk for answering an often difficult to answer question. With all of the advantages of Thorium why did it never take off? Much of the first part gets technical but it appeals to the initiated and technically aware nuclear advocates.
This additional comment is a highlight of the discussion by Robert Steinhaus who also is a regular commenter on the Facebook group EnergyFromThorium
I would like to thank Kirk Sorensen for providing a very excellent review of the history that surrounded the decision to abandon Molten Salt Reactor development .
It would also like to thank Atomic Insights Blog for featuring this recent Google Tech Talk and for making this information available to a broader nuclear interested audience.
I offer the following short quotes from ORNL Laboratory Directors that may also bear on this subject.
Question: Why wasn’t this (Thorium Molten Salt Reactors) not done?
Comments by Dr. Alvin Weinberg – ORNL Director (1955-1973}
1. Politically established plutonium industry –
“Why didn’t the molten-salt system, so elegant and so well thought-out, prevail? I’ve already given the political reason: that the plutonium fast breeder arrived first and was therefore able to consolidate its political position within the AEC.”
2. Appearance of daunting technology –
“But there was another, more technical reason. The molten-salt technology is entirely different from the technology of any other reactor. To the inexperienced, [fluoride] technology is daunting…”
3. Breaking existing mindset –
“Perhaps the moral to be drawn is that a technology that differs too much from an existing technology has not one hurdle to overcome—to demonstrate its feasibility—but another even greater one—to convince influential individuals and organizations who are intellectually and emotionally attached to a different technology that they should adopt the new path”
4. Deferred to the future –
“It was a successful technology that was dropped because it was too different from the main lines of reactor development… I hope that in a second nuclear era, the [fluoride-reactor] technology will be resurrected.”
ORNL Deputy Director H.G. MacPherson:
1. Lack of technical understanding –
“The political and technical support for the program in the United States was too thin geographically. Within the United States, only in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was the technology really understood and appreciated.”
2. Existing bureaucracy –
“The thorium-fueled fluoride reactor program was in competition with the plutonium fast breeder program, which got an early start and had copious government development funds being spent in many parts of the United States. When the fluoride reactor development program had progressed far enough to justify a greatly expanded program leading to commercial development, the Atomic Energy Commission could not justify the diversion of substantial funds from the plutonium breeder to a competing program.”
A new Thorium MSR in Australia
Article on Uranium Blog 11/27/2011
Thorium – another sign it’s the coming nuclear fuel
Another country recognizes the advantages of Molten Salt Reactor concept. Australia will join forces with the Czech Republic.
John Kutsch of Thorium Energy Alliance facebook page was my source for this
UK's Weinberg Foundation Brings Renewed Hope for MSRs
Kirk Sorensen has started a series of posts about his September trip to England. There has always been regret among Kirk and his supporters that Alvin Weinberg was not more recognized for his contributions to MSR research. Weinberg also developed the LWR which is the design behind most of the worlds reactors. Having the foundation launched is an exciting step and to be launched by Baroness Bryony Worthington does add significant credibility to all advocates for Thorium energy. Kirk describes the positive energy in the room and you can also sample that same positive energy when Baroness Worthington talks about the Nuclear industry in the UK at the House of Lords at Westminster.
Does "small" have a better chance of making it to market?
Interview with Hyperion Power Generation CEO John R. “Grizz” Deal
It is a small 70 MW reactor but works in a distributed system as Romania and the Czech Republic are planning for 2013. About the size of an outhouse.
Interesting quotes :
John R. “Grizz” Deal: Transportable, not portable. Once you put it in the ground, it’s there for its life because it’s hot. It’s about a meter-and-a-half across and about 2 meters tall, which is very small.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
“So how do you get dependable, base-load power? Wind is not base-load capable. Solar is certainly not base-load capable. They’re not always there. You can’t store electricity; you generate it and then you use it or lose it.”
Those people—and virtually every country in the world, to some extent—rely upon United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission licensing as a basis for their own licensing. So we are seeking a design certification and a license from the U.S. NRC, even if we never install one in the U.S.
[Other countries] won’t rely on [NRC licensing] completely, but they will leverage that work.
So an NRC license will get you in the door?
John R. “Grizz” Deal: Right. It’s a lot like the FDA and how getting licensed in the [European Union] helps you in the U.S. and vice versa.”
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
“…The difference here is it is really easy to build one computer chip, but it’s really hard to build a million of them because there’s quality control issues, there’s supplier issues, there’s raw material issues, so we’re doing that part of this so we can build—well, of version one, we expect to build 4,000 reactors.
Small or not, that’s a lot of reactors.
John R. “Grizz” Deal: The market opportunity is for half a million units today and it’s growing, so selling 4,000 units of our first design is a pretty reasonable goal. But we’ve still got to be very, very careful about how we get that final design done.
That’s what we’re doing now. We’re finalizing the design so that it’s repeatable, it’s replicatable and it’s got a high degree of quality control behind it because, quite honestly, unlike a lot of products out there, we are extremely regulated. You wouldn’t believe. And I’m glad that we’re highly regulated—it’s nuclear energy, after all; it should be highly regulated.
How tightly regulated is this technology?
John R. “Grizz” Deal: Just as highly regulated as the drug industry is the way that we put it. People are familiar with 20-year development cycles for biotech products. Well, we pre-empted the first 10 years of our quote-unquote product cycle because of the work that we’re leveraging from Los Alamos. So, if you wanted to make an analogy between the regulatory environment for nuclear reactors and a medical device or drug, you could say we’re getting ready to start clinical trials.
Do you have a working prototype?
John R. “Grizz” Deal: We’re leveraging the design of a very common reactor, called a TRIGA reactor. There are 60-something of those reactors around the world. They are the only reactor that the NRC has licensed for unattended operation, meaning it’s so safe that you can literally walk away from it. It’s walk-away safe.
So we’re taking that basic concept and …”
Vending Machine analogy helps explain Fast Molten Salt Reactor
http://blogs.forbes.com/kirksorensen/2011/07/29/waste-digester-2/
Kirk Sorensen has recently contributed a couple of posts to the Blogs at Forbes Magazine.
This is his part two of A Simplified Nuclear “Waste” Digester
"What garbage…a Thorium reactor needs an accelerator like a fish needs a bicycle."
This is Kirk Sorensen’s comment on his Facebook group page EnergyFromThorium which has encouraged 60 interesting responses.
What garbage…a thorium reactor needs an accelerator like a fish needs a bicycle.
-
You and 34 others like this.
-
50 of 58
-
-
Cavan StoneEvery scientist has their obsession, for those who tried to go into particle physics most have found that the problems there are best described as being akin to trench warfare. The accelerator crowd is probably made up of the folk who realized just how bleak particle physics is and need to get out. However the particle physics remains their true love and to make this problem “interesting” they over-complicate it by contorting the design to include their true love. One thing many scientists are guilty of is seeing their one true love as a golden hammer and everything else as a nail. I now I have fallen into this trap sometimes.15 hours ago · Like · 2 people -
Energy from Thorium”‘This means the margin of safety is far greater than with a conventional plant,’ says Cywinski. ‘If the accelerator fails, all that will happen is that the reaction will subside. To stop the reactor, all you would have to do is switch off the accelerator.’”More mistakes from this ignorant fellow. If you walk away from any reactor with a negative temperature coefficient it shuts down without intervention, and that includes LWRs, LFTRs, and any other Western-licensed reactor.
15 hours ago · Like -
Adam Burke Oh hey, they cover my point right here:‘In fact,’ says Cywinski, ‘you’d probably need two or preferably three accelerators for each plant.’ One reason is that each accelerator would need regular maintenance.
‘You can’t just switch them on and expect them to work continuously for ten years.’
15 hours ago · Like -
Energy from Thorium”And if hit by an earthquake, he adds, even one as powerful as the one that wrecked Fukushima, a thorium plant would be ‘intrinsically safer’. ‘There’d be some residual radioactivity heating the core, but sustained nuclear fission would simply stop. Everything would cool much faster. You’d be left not with potential catastrophe, but just a heap of molten metal and metal oxides.’”I’m actually embarrassed for this fellow. Fukushima’s reactors shut down immediately after detecting the quake, LONG before the tsunami reached the plant. It was the WASTE HEAT that melted the fuel elements and EXACTLY the same problem exists in their design. If they knew nuclear engineering they would know this. I hope the British government examines just how little this man knows about nuclear engineering before he gets any funding.
15 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Energy from Thorium”In a letter to Cywinski, he admitted the science behind thorium reactors was ‘well based’, and said the main reason he couldn’t recommend government support was because there had never been research on how to reprocess thorium fuel ‘on an industrial scale’.But this, says Cywinski, totally missed the point: not only would thorium plants produce far less waste, but their fuel – which would only need to be refreshed every ten years, as opposed to 18 months in a conventional nuclear reactor – wouldn’t need to be reprocessed at all.
‘This is a one-time fuel cycle,’ Cywinski says. ‘It’s yet another of thorium’s attractions.’”
No, it is Cywinski that misses the point entirely, without recycle of bred U-233 into the reactor, there is no point in using thorium. One of the things we discovered at last year’s ThEC2010 conference during the accelerator-driven presentations was just how little thought had been given in their reactor design to fuel elements, cooling, power conversion systems, reprocessing, safety…you know…all the real elements of a reactor design.
They were thoroughly obsessed with telling you every little detail of the least important component of the system–the accelerator.
15 hours ago · Like -
Cavan StoneThat’s what physicists tend to do, obsess, and well I hate that the level of science funding has gotten to the point where everyone is in crisis mode, and its every-man for himself. Even though I would wish there’s funding available for these accelerator guys to stick with building accelerators, the politics right now will only tolerate research with immediate payoff so for them its find an immediate payoff or die. What they are advocating right now is a sub-optimal mismatch of technologies, and of course props to EFT for calling them out on that.14 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Cavan StoneI would also say to these accelerator guys: “What the hell are you doing trying to get into Thorium, especially when you have Proton Cancer Therapy literally starring you in the face?” It simple you go the public and say hey we got this accelerator that we can zap more energy into the cancer and worry less about zapping the healthy stuff. For crying out loud they can do cancer research and the research in this area is highly promising. If you can’t sell promising cancer research you shouldn’t be in the business of writing grant proposals.14 hours ago · Like -
Energy from Thorium My favorite part of ThEC2010 was listening to the gal from Aker tell us about how the “accelerator-driven, subcritical reactor” would incorporate a control rod to hold it 0.5% subcritical so that the accelerator would have something to do. It was pretty hard to suppress a laugh at that point at the utter Rube-Goldbergian-ness of the whole idea.14 hours ago · Like · 3 people -
Energy from Thorium”Possibly because there remains a powerful vested interest in the ‘old’ uranium nuclear industry, this commitment hasn’t yet been matched by the UK Government. But according to Cywinski, ‘we shouldn’t be asking whether we can afford to invest in this technology. We should be asking whether we can afford not to.’ Like oil and gas, uranium is a finite resource, and its cost is already rising. Some economists estimate that by the middle of the century, it will be prohibitive.”Sorry man, if the United Kingdom does absolutely nothing at all with your accelerator research it will have no bearing on whether or not it can realize the promise of thorium. You’ve tried to connect two things that have no real reason to be connected, for your own advantage.
14 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Bram Cohen Do the accelerator-driven designs not use a freeze plug? If they don’t, that’s insane, and if they do, that raises a serious question as to what the whole thing is doing. The freeze plug is a lot more reliable than a computer-controlled accelerator is.14 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Cavan StoneI am a guy who loves particle accelerators. They are great devices, awesome devices, that provide phenomenal data for basic scientific research and they are highly effective at treating cancer. The people that research these areas do really significant work. However I am totally with you on this. Although if I may add something, I would say “you know what accelerator guys, we’ve called you out on this. Prove us wrong. Show us how in comparison to all the other thorium ideas, why your accelerator driven system delivers the best performance, because right now I am just not seeing it.” Nothing would make more happier for high energy physics to have them prove you and me wrong. However right now I just don’t see that happening.14 hours ago · Like -
Energy from Thorium No Bram, the accelerator-driven designs typically feature solid thorium fuel elements and a liquid-metal coolant, which makes them as unsafe as a fast breeder reactor and removes the central advantage of thorium: thermal breeding.The advocates spend about 99.5% of their time looking at the accelerator for the reactor and 0.5% looking at everything else.
14 hours ago · Like · 2 people -
Energy from Thorium Cavan, we did exactly what you say at ThEC2010 for a whole day and heard nothing from the accelerator people. They couldn’t defend their idea and scarcely tried.14 hours ago · Like -
Energy from Thorium I’m having no luck posting on the article on the Daily Mail, anyone else having problems too?14 hours ago · Like -
Cavan Stone @EfT Oh well sorry accelerator guys, that’s just how science works. Its a cruel mistress who doesn’t care about how strongly in love you are with your own idea, you either double-down, struggle, fix whats wrong or you give up, go home, and cry yourself to sleep.14 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Aaron Keskitalo Why… Why in the hell does a nuclear reactor need an accelerator? What on earth could that possibly accomplish? It’s like spraying a river with a garden hose.14 hours ago · Like · 7 people -
Energy from Thorium Aaron, that’s a fantastic analogy, mind if I steal it?14 hours ago · Like · 3 people -
Emerson FordAn accelerator would be more vulnerable to large scale seismic events than any of the other systems. If the shockwave overcomes the stabilization equipment, the beam could be thrown out of alignment, magnets could fracture, and cryogenic coolant lines could be broken. Any of those could cause major damage to the accelerator, leading to expensive repairs or damage so severe that the reactor would have to be pulled permanently.However, from the standpoint of the people manufacturing and repairing the power systems, such a high maintenance platform is EXTREMELY profitable. One of the myriad reasons that electric vehicles are taking so long to become main stream is electric vehicles are inherently more durable than vehicles using a combustion engine. The LFTR system is to the Accelerator system as the electric car is to an SUV.
13 hours ago · Like · 2 people -
Rick Maltese By the way at the Equinox Summit in Waterloo Ontario there were two individuals Yacine Kadi and Jakob Sogard pushing the IFR and the Accelerator Driven Thorium reactor as the most likely candidates to be the next generation of new nuclear reactors.http://wgsi.org/blog/behind-closed-doors mentions it.13 hours ago · Like -
Bram Cohen Yeesh, do they have any explanation as to why their system is superior to a conventional fast breeder reactor, or why an accelerator couldn’t be applied to a conventional fast breeder reactor? Thorium’s fuel cost may be a rounding error, but a conventional fast breeder’s is only slightly higher, and fuel cost isn’t the biggest issue for even ordinary once-through plants anyway.13 hours ago · Like -
Bram Cohen It took me a minute to realize how profoundly true the ‘spraying a river with a garden hose’ analogy really is.13 hours ago · Like · 2 people -
Scott Phillips Article Snippet: Cywinski and Nuttall are members of ThorEA, the Thorium Energy Amplifier Association, a coalition of experts from several British universities and research institutes. The type of thorium plant they want to build is effectively ‘proliferation-resistant’. Cywinski says, ‘It just wouldn’t produce material you could weaponise. You could happily sell it to Iran or North Korea.’12 hours ago · Like -
Robert SteinhausI think Cavan expressed it well; trying to marry a particle accelerator to a Thorium Reactor is a sub-optimal mismatch of technologies. A LFTR is a much less expensive and practical approach for generating real power for communities that need it.
The accelerator mentioned in the article “EMMA” is only capable of accelerating electrons (20MeV). This is far short of what would be needed to produce energetic protons to use with a spallation target to produce neutrons that could drive an ADS system. A great deal of difficult nuclear engineering would have to be done to allow Non-scaling fixed-field alternating gradient accelerators to be connected to Thorium fission reactors to produce real energy.
Particle accelerators are low reliability devices, and designing accelerators into systems that are designed just to produce energy is not something that a nuclear engineer would choose to do (it would might take a real physicist or perhaps a chemist like Dr. Carlo Rubbia to be this audacious).11 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Adam Freidin Robert, while I don’t understand what you just said but the point is well taken. Accelerator = Complicated.11 hours ago · Like -
Emerson Ford With another generation of material advancement, and a major innovation in energy harnessing technology, an accelerator reactor could be miniturized down to the point where it could be used to power vehicles. Although, in my opinion, such a system would more likely be a fusion reactor utilizing Boron-11 and hydrogen protons, not the Thorium fission cycle.11 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Adam Freidin ‘You’d be left not with potential catastrophe, but just a heap of molten metal and metal oxides.’Hahahahaha *cries*
11 hours ago · Like -
Michael Michalchik Perhaps not necessary, but who knows it might have advantages.10 hours ago · Like -
Suzie Sheehy The whole point is that the reactor with an accelerator would be sub-critical. I agree thorium would be a great way to go without the accelerator-driven side of things, but the accelerator driven subcritical reactors have a lot of inherently nice features.9 hours ago · Like -
Suzie SheehyI see I’ve commented on a thread with a lot of people who know a lot about thorium reactors, but very little about politics. Sorry darlings, you’re not going to to sell the idea of a critical reactor right now. You just can’t divorce the public’s ideas of a critical nuclear powerplant with Chernobyl & Fukushima. Besides, the assumption that “these guys” spend 95% of their time working on the accelerator is just completely wrong. I too am not sold on the necessity of having an accelerator system to generate power (the accelerator, for the record, is probably the least developed part of the system right now due to the very high power & high reliability requirements) – what I think is a REALLY good idea though is having an accelerator driven system for transmutation of the nuclear waste from existing powerplants. Particularly in the US where they have nowhere to put their waste this is fast becoming a necessity. The advances in technology (particularly for the accelerator side) that this research will bring about is not JUST for the ADSR concept but will help to improve the general reliability of accelerators for cancer treatment applications (and yes, this is a HUGE application right now for the disparaging person who asked why the research isn’t sold on these grounds).9 hours ago · Like -
Suzie Sheehy Sorry, one more: these guys are selling your cause as well. They want to see thorium reactors in any guise. Accelerator-driven or not.9 hours ago · Like -
Bill MooreI do not necessarily agree with the arguments for the accelerator option, the LFTR does seem better to me. I HAVE to make one comment in it’s defense however: It could be politically/conceptually more palatable to the general public…”Oh, you just have to flip a switch and turn off the accelerator. Well, that sounds simple and safe.” Granted, it is sad that we have to consider that, but it could help usher in an attitude of acceptance of thorium. We should, of course continue to pull for LFTRs, but the accelorators could be an early step in that direction.8 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Daniel Ruppert @Bill Moore: I prefer not even having to flip a switch, since most errors are made by humans. Reactor designs like LFTR with their freeze plug CAN be switched off with a “switch-flipping” but they also switch themselves off if anything goes wrong.
I agree with Suzie Sheehy that the public doesnt accept critical reactor designs right now – which is only again a proof of how ignorant people actually are.8 hours ago · Like -
Verita Nuda Oppps my bad.. Was not thinking straight Lord Dr Robert Winston (typical Labour stooge) . Oddly enough I cannot seem to find that video now on youyube.. Hmmm wonder if I have it lying around somewhere.. It’ll make you want to cringe.7 hours ago · Like -
Verita Nuda Ahh found it.. !!!! Wow.. talk about LFTR rising in the rankings. You can’t do a search not for Thorium Reactor without coming across LFTRs Fantastic!!! anyway.. here it is.. and boy is it slick.. but TOTALLY misses the point. An ADSR Reactor they call it 😉7 hours ago · Like -
Richard Mathews A liquid fluoride reactor won’t need an accelerator and there are more reliable ways to produce thermal neutrons for solid thorium reactors.6 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
George Carty I mentioned LFTR in the comments, but I’m getting loads of “dislikes” — I wonder why?6 hours ago · Like -
Gene Herron ”Thorium atoms only start to undergo fissile nuclear reactions and thus to release their energy when they’re bombarded with neutrons, and these would have to be supplied by an external source – ultimately, an accelerator.”Ultimately this paragraph is patent non-sense.
5 hours ago · Like -
Tom Owen Don’t knock it. It’s building the “Thorium:Safe” brand image. And if you start worrying about the tabloid press…5 hours ago · Like -
Gene Herron The reason was that a thorium reactor is effectively useless at producing material for weapons.”This isn’t true either. The US has tested weapons from U-233 derived from Thorium. Teapot MET per Wiki.
Wasn’t very effective but it worked. 22Kt device is nothing to sneeze at it.
4 hours ago · Like · 1 person -
Chris Huang-Leaver It’s in ‘The Daily Mail’ the paper that supported Hitler back in the day. Does the article mention Lady D BTW?4 hours ago · Like -
Adam Freidin The last thing we need is some accelerator driven accelerator to suffer some sort of meltdown (or even have the public educate themselves in the possibility of a meltdown!). The inherent safety is in MSR, not thorium, and I would feel dirty letting ADSR help sell thorium safety.3 hours ago · Like -
Robert SteinhausIt should be more widely understood that practical subcritical designs, like Dr. Carlo Rubbia’s ADS, operate at a keff (neutron multiplication factor) of 0.95 or greater because even the largest accelerators available (football field size SRF linear accelerators) are not strong enough to operate any further from full criticality. Most of the ADS designs actually propose to operate at keff of about 0.99, so an expensive and unreliable accelerator only manages to produce a subcritical reactor that is subcritical by a totally measly amount (0.01). Accelerators of the class needed are equivalent in cost to a full commercial LFTR (around $2 billion dollars) and they would consume about one third of a commercial LFTRs power (~300 MWe) output to operate.
Yet in the technical press, Thorium LFTR and Thorium ADS are featured as being about equal in standing as future prospects. To this old relic of America’s strategic weapons field test program, there is no comparison between LFTR and ADS, with LFTR being by FAR the better and more practical concept that would safely and cost effectively produce power.2 hours ago · Unlike · 3 people
-
Public Comment to BRC by Mike Conley
Mike Conley is a writer from L.A., California. He is working on a novel. Has a book being published and working on a script for a documentary. He also attended the Blue Ribbon Commission hearing on May 13th the same week and same city that hosted the third Thorium Energy Alliance Conference. Washington, D.C.
They only give each person three minutes so he was only able to read the first page. He was one of five people who had a statement to support the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor which was originally called a Thorium Molten Salt Breeder Reactor. Keep in mind that any details outlined about the actual design is purely a speculation and broadly based on the original designs from the 1960s by Alvin Weinberg’s team at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. LFTR has flexibility of function and application.
- Liquid-fuel reactor technology was successfully developed at Oak Ridge National Labs in the 1960s. Although the test reactor worked flawlessly, the project was shelved, a victim of Cold War strategy. But LFTRs have been gathering a lot of attention lately, particularly since the tragic events in Japan.
- A LFTR is a completely different type of reactor. For one thing, it can’t melt down. It’s physically impossible. And since it’s air-cooled, it doesn’t have to be located near the shore. It can even be placed in an underground vault. A tsunami would roll right over it, like a truck over a manhole cover.
- Imagine a kettle of lava that never boils. A LFTR uses liquid fuel.nuclear material dissolved in molten fluoride salt. Conventional reactors are atomic pressure cookers, using solid fuel rods to super-heat water. That means the constant danger of high-pressure ruptures and steam leaks. But liquid fuel can always expand and cool off.
- LFTRs don’t even use water. Instead, they heat a common gas like CO2 to spin a turbine for generating power. So if a LFTR does leak, it’s not a catastrophe. Just like lava, the molten salt immediately cools off, quickly becoming an inert lump of rock.
- LFTRs burn Thorium, a mildly radioactive material as common as tin and found all over the world. We’ve already mined enough raw Thorium to power the country for 400 years. It’s the waste at our Rare Earth Element mines.
- LFTRs consume fuel so efficiently that they can even use the spent fuel from other reactors, while producing a miniscule amount of waste themselves. In fact, the waste from a LFTR is virtually harmless in just 300 years. (No, that’s not a typo.) Yucca Mountain is obsolete. So are Uranium reactors.
- LFTR technology has been sitting on the shelf at Oak Ridge for over forty years. But now the manuals are dusted off, and a dedicated group of nuclear industry outsiders is ready to build another test reactor and give it a go. Will it work. If it doesn’t, we’ll have one more reactor to retire.
But if it does work and there is every reason to believe that it will the LFTR will launch a new American paradigm of clean, cheap, safe and abundant energy.
Let’s build one and see!
A Uranium reactor is an atomic pressure-cooker – it works just fine until it pops a gasket. Then you’ve got a mess on your hands. Even when it works properly, it wastes 95% of its fuel, making another mess. And the same procedure for making that fuel is used to make nuclear weapons. Is that any way to power a planet.
A Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR, pronounced “lifter” ) is a completely different approach to generating power, with none of the problems inherent in Uranium reactors and several unique advantages. If the reactors at Fukushima had been LFTRs, Fukushima would never have happened.
The Molten Salt Reactor was the precursor to the LFTR. Developed at Oak Ridge National Labs in the sixties, the MSR performed flawlessly for 20,000 hours. But in spite of its superior design and stellar performance, the program was cancelled – a victim of professional rivalry, personality conflicts, and Cold War strategy.
LFTR technology has literally been sitting on the shelf for over forty years, but it’s been gathering a lot of keen attention lately. Because if LFTRs perform as predicted (and there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that they will) they will go a long way toward resolving the four main problems that everyone has with nuclear energy – Waste, Safety, Proliferation, and Cost.
WASTE: Yucca Mountain is obsolete. Why. Because LFTRs will eat nuclear waste for lunch. They’re designed to burn fuel so efficiently, that they can also consume the spent fuel that’s wasted by Uranium reactors. LFTRs will also be able to consume the cores of dismantled nuclear weapons.
No reactor is waste-free, but a LFTR’s waste will be miniscule. For a LFTR big enough to power a city of one million, the yearly long-term waste would be the size of a basketball, and becomes virtually harmless in just 300 years.
No, that’s not a typo. That’s how clean a LFTR will run. Its main fuel will be Thorium, a mildly radioactive element found all over the world. We have thousands of tons of it already dug up – it’s in the slag piles at our Rare Earth Element mines. (“REEs” are typically found with thorium ore.)
A 1-gigawatt LFTR, big enough to power a city of one million, will run on one ton of pure Thorium a year. The current price for a ton is $107,000 (that’s not a typo, either.) At the end of each year, 1,660 pounds of that ton will be “short-term” waste, meaning it’s virtually harmless in one year. The other 340 lbs (the size of a basketball) will take while longer to mellow out.
SAFETY: Imagine a kettle of lava that simmers but never boils. It’s super-hot, but it’s not under pressure. A LFTR is essentially a kettle of atomic lava. The analogy is accurate – Thorium and Uranium reactions are what keep the earth’s core molten. In a LFTR, Thorium is dissolved in molten (liquefied) fluoride salt. That’s why the Molten Salt Reactor is now called a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
If this “lava” ever leaks out (actually, it looks and flows just like green dish soap) there’s no explosion, because there’s nothing around the power plant for the molten salt to react with – LFTRs don’t use water to keep cool, or make steam to spin a turbine. They heat a common gas like CO2 instead.
Since the liquid fuel is never under pressure, a leak would simply “pool and cool” just like lava, quickly forming a blob of solid rock on the reactor room floor. If it spilled into a flooded reactor room, it would behave like the lava flows in Hawaii. A bit of steam would billow off the cooling blob of salt, and that would be it.
Only two percent of the salt mixture is the actual radioactive fuel, and every atom of atomic fuel is chemically bonded to the salt. There are no radioactive particles floating around inside a LFTR, ready to escape. Every particle is bonded to the salt itself, and stays that way until it is burned as fuel. The big problem at Fukushima wasn’t radioactive material such as Cesium leaking out of the reactors. The big problem was that it leaked out and spread into the environment. But if a LFTR leaked any Cesium at all, it would be trace amounts of Cesium Fluoride locked into the fluoride salt. Liquid fuel solves a crucial problem of environmental safety.
Once the salt has cooled, it’s an inert radioactive blob with the consistency of cast iron, and dissolves in water very, very slowly. In fact, the minerals in both fresh and salt water would form a protective crust over the blob, enhancing its ability to withhold contaminants from the environment. So if the reactor room were flooded,
by a tsunami or a hurricane or even sabotage, the amount of material transferred to the environment would be negligible.
Liquid fuel is stable stuff. Below 450°C (about 750°F) it’s just a lump of rock, and can be broken up and collected by robots or other remote machinery. A year after the spill, it can be manually recovered by workers in radiation suits. Like any nuclear fuel, it’s dangerous. But at least it’ll stay put until you can clean it up.
A LFTR will naturally regulate its own temperature, but a Uranium reactor will naturally overheat, unless it’s held back by a robust cooling system. Solid fuel rods get hot, and they also heat each other up, which is a good thing, but they can’t expand or move away from each other to cool themselves off. For a lot of technical reasons, the coolant of choice is super-heated water, which stays liquid as long as it’s kept under pressure. Hence the term “atomic pressure cooker.”
In the partial meltdown at Three Mile Island in 1979, the cooling system failed for a mere ten seconds. That’s all it took. At Fukushima, all the control rods dropped the moment the earthquake hit. Which was good; that stopped the fission process. But the fuel rods were still red hot, and they were still tightly packed together. And, there was no electric power to run the cooling system. So when the tsunami flooded the backup generators, everything went to hell in a hand basket.
Nuclear power is wonderful stuff, but after a series of spectacular near misses and disasters, a lot of people have written off Uranium reactors as accidents waiting to happen. The numbers on the dice are too big, they’ll tell you. The risks are too great. They’ve had it up to here with nuclear power…
But nuclear power isn’t the problem. The problem is with the reactors
we’ve been using to produce it.
LFTRs are completely different. For one thing, they can’t melt down.
Ever. The reason is simple: How do you melt a liquid. Solid fluoride salt melts
at 450°C. With a full load of atomic material, the temperature rises to about 700°C (1,300°F.) If the liquid fuel starts to overheat, it expands, which separates the radioactive
particles and slows the fission process, cooling the molten salt back down again.
This completely eliminates the need for control rods and a cooling system, as well as all of the problems, costs, and risks associated with a pressurized light water reactor. It also entirely eliminates any possibility of a meltdown. Better yet, the fuel will be piped through a processing unit, where the contaminants that spoil solid fuel rods are easily removed. This increases the fuel-burning efficiency of a LFTR to 99%, which greatly reduces the volume and the radioactivity of its waste.
Liquid fuel changes everything.
A LFTR never operates under pressure because even with a full load of nuclear material, the molten salt is still more than 500°C below its boiling point. And if it ever does start to get too hot, a freeze plug of solid salt in a drainpipe below the reactor will melt away. The fuel will empty into a large holding tank and solidify.
On Friday afternoons at Oak Ridge, the research scientists would switch off a common household fan that cooled the freeze plug. The hot salt above the plug would melt it, and the fuel would drain out of the reactor by gravity. On Monday mornings, they would switch on the heating coils and re-melt the fuel, then pump it back into the reactor and turn on the freeze plug fan. Even Homer Simpson couldn’t screw that up. For five years, the reactor practically ran itself. They used to joke that the biggest problem they had was finding something to do.
Passive safety isn’t just built into the LFTR; it’s built into the actual fuel itself. The genius of liquid fuel is that the stuff won’t even work unless it’s held within the confined space of a reactor. In a Uranium reactor, the solid fuel rods keep radiating heat even when the control rods are dropped. The cooling system never rests. But when a LFTR shuts down, the fuel shuts down and sleeps like a rock.
Because of the constant and absolutely critical need for cooling, all Uranium reactors are located near a large body of water. It’s a tragedy that some were installed near the seashore, in the most earthquake-prone nation in the world, the very country that coined the word tsunami. But when you’re a small, crowded island nation hungry for carbon-free energy, you don’t have much of a choice…
Until now. Because LFTRs are air-cooled. That changes everything as well. Because that means they can be installed anywhere. They can even be placed in underground vaults to ward off an attack or a natural disaster. If a vault is near the ocean, a tsunami would roll right over it, like a truck over a manhole cover.
PROLIFERATION: Any rogue nation can build a 1940s-style graphite pile reactor and make the Plutonium for a bomb. That’s what North Korea did. Or they can use centrifuges to purify Uranium for a bomb. That’s probably what Iran is doing. Or, with a lot of expense and difficulty, they can convert a Uranium power reactor into a Plutonium breeder. The genie has been out of the bottle for over sixty years.
LFTRs convert Thorium into Uranium-233, an incredibly nasty substance. It’s an efficient, hot-burning reactor fuel, but it’s a very problematic weapons material. By contrast, U-235 and Pu-239 are very well behaved substances, and can be easily worked with in the lab or the factory. Out of the tens of thousands of nuclear weapons that were ever produced, the U.S. military built and tested only one U-233 “ device.” It was a partial fizzle, and we promptly abandoned the idea.
Even though LFTRs and LFTR fuel will be “denatured” to prevent weapons production, a rogue nation could possibly get around the fix and start a U-233 bomb program. But they’d have to start from scratch. There’s a wealth of information about U-235 and U-239 weapon design, and several experienced scientists could probably be recruited. But making a U-233 bomb is a lost art.
So, yes, in theory, you could make a bomb with a LFTR. But the development of a workable device would be an expensive and painstaking affair. Even though LFTRs won’t be “bomb-proof” per se, Uranium and Plutonium technology is very well known, thoroughly proven, and fully developed. So why reinvent The Bomb.
One last point: Nuclear weapons are not dependent on nuclear power. Even if every commercial power reactor in the world were taken out of service, that still wouldn’t stop the bad guys from pursuing nuclear weapons. North Korea developed the bomb without generating a single watt of nuclear power.
COST: The cost of a nuclear power plant is largely determined by four elements: The reactor itself; the structure that contains it; the inspection process; and the lawsuits that are piled on the project.
This last element adds an enormous amount of time and money to the endeavor, which raises utility rates and turns off investors and insurance firms and voters. So a rational comparison can only be made with the first two elements – the cost of the reactor and the cost of the containment structure.
The inspection process varies, depending on which reactor technology is used, and a Uranium reactor’s custom-made high-pressure systems require a bewildering thicket of inspections, tests, and reports. You’d think they were trying to go to the moon.
But LFTRs are an entirely different technology. In fact, it’s a lot more like high-temperature plumbing than nuclear physics. And because molten salt sheds heat quite easily, an elaborate cooling system isn’t even needed. A simple radiator will suffice.
Since LFTRs don’t operate under pressure, high-strength valves and fittings and high-pressure pipes aren’t needed, either. Off-the-shelf parts will do. Back-up generators, emergency cooling systems, control rod mechanisms, spent fuel storage pools, the crane for replacing fuel rods, the reactor pressure vessel, the airtight containment dome – all of these pricey items and more are eliminated.
For various reasons, every Uranium power reactor in America was designed and built from scratch, which significantly added to their build time as well as their cost. The plans alone would often exceed $100 Million in today’s dollars.
But LFTRs will be small and standardized, allowing them to be mass-produced in factories and shipped by rail. Their low-pressure components will be much easier to assemble, allowing for faster and simplified inspection. LFTRs will be modular, so a power plant will be able to grow along with the city it serves. All these factors and more will combine to produce a trickle-down effect, greatly reducing the complexity, cost, size, and build time of each project.
The current estimate for 1-gigawatt Thorium power plant is somewhere in the neighborhood of $2 Billion. That makes Thorium competitive with coal.
CONCLUSION: Liquid fuel is the killer app of nuclear power. It’s a whole new ball game. In fact, LFTRs could even replace the furnaces of our existing fossil fuel power plants, including coal. (Don’t get me started about coal…) LFTRs will provide carbon-free power wherever it’s needed, 24/7/365.
We’ve already mined enough fuel for over 400 years. They’ll be mass-produced right here in America, providing plenty of good jobs, and they’ll get us off of foreign oil and domestic natural gas, and even King Coal, by providing us with all the safe, clean energy we need.
Will they work as promised? Let’s build one and see. Power to the Planet!
Mike Conley Los Angeles p.s.
One more thing: Last fall, a delegation from China visited Oak Ridge National Labs. When they returned home, they announced that they would be embarking on an aggressive Molten Salt Reactor program, and would be patenting everything they can think of along the way. The Chinese are eating our lunch again, and using our own damn recipe. If this isn’t a Sputnik Moment, then I don’t know what is.
[I recall he did improvise a few words at the end in regard to building.the LFTR: Let us build one even if we make total fools of our selves as if to say “What if we’re right?”]
“THE THORIUM PARADIGM” soon to be a one-hour documentary
from B2MR PRODUCTIONS
Executive Producer: James Blakeley III
310-283-8632
Producer: Marina Martins
310-666-9213
Thorium Molten Salt Reactor covered in Wall Street Journal
The Wall Street Journal wrote this on Thorium MARCH 19, 2011
…Does a Different Nuclear Power Lie Ahead? By MATT RIDLEY
Might the Fukushima accident eventually create a chance for the nuclear industry to “reboot”? In recent years some have begun to argue that solid-fuel uranium reactors like the ones in Japan are an outdated technology that deserves to peter out and be replaced by an entirely different kind of nuclear energy that will be both safer and cheaper…
The attention brought by the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant break down has had unexpected attention brought to the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor which by the way has no need for water or containment and cannot melt down and will not radiate the worst nuclear isotopes.
There was a time when the Americans chose a path based on the perceived need to compete with the Russians for military supremacy. Nuclear weapons needed Plutonium. The method at the time was to breed Plutonium in a reactor. But Thorium Molten Salt Reactors could not produce Plutonium. This was viewed as a negative and became shelved.
Fifty years later, the worst nuclear breakdown since Chernobyl in 1986 has turned turned out to be relatively minor and the 50 remaining nuclear reactors in Japan remain safe. The different circumstances are so obvious. For instance human error was responsible for the Chernobyl accident. A natural disaster of such an unexpected strength that has not been experienced by Japan in modern history caused the disruption of 4 reactor units at the same plant in Fukushima Daiichi. The safety record for nuclear power plants has been unsurpassed by any other power facility or other industry.
The antinuclear movement has unwittingly helped the progress of nuclear energy. Articles such as these will now become more common over the next few months. The reality is that people are asking why has there been so little innovation over the last 30 years? Can reactors be made safer?
One of the main inventors of the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor, Alvin Weinberg, knew that they were superior to the solid fueled reactors and pushed for their acceptance. He eventually lost his job for making too much noise about it when the politics of the time were more about arms than climate change. Weinberg was ahead of his time. He also designed the Light Water Reactor, currently the most popular reactors, which he himself turned against.
Now considered a fourth generation technology the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor shows the most promise as a nuclear energy design precisely because they solve the problems that made the older nuclear power plant designs unpopular.
South African Scientists Like Thorium
From South Africa
Nuclear matters
Thorium could be answer to South Africa’s energy woes
Published 3 March 2011 in HSNW
…South African scientists are increasingly touting thorium as a viable solution for the country’s energy woes; scientists believe that South Africa could use its plentiful reserves of thorium, a radioactive rare earth metal, to generate greenhouse gas-free electricity; South Africa’s aging energy infrastructure has led to rolling blackouts and energy rations; South Africa currently generates 78 percent of its energy from coal making it one of the largest contributors of greenhouse gases in the world; thorium is a better alternative to uranium in nuclear power production as it cannot be weaponized, does not need to be converted or enriched, its radioactive waste breaks down faster, and is less expensive and environmentally friendlier to extract…
…
According to Professor Mulder thorium was the preferred material for the nuclear industry for nearly twenty years, before it was eventually replaced by uranium because it could not be weaponized.
In pushing for the use of thorium, columnist Dave Gleason of NewsTime writes, the rare earth metal “is inherently incapable of causing a meltdown; it doesn’t need to be converted or enriched; it is very energy efficient; its waste lasts for tens of years unlike uranium which hangs around malevolently for thousands; it is much less expensive than uranium extracts and is reasonably environmentally friendly to mine.”
Eskom, the state owned utility company which generates 95 percent of the country’s power, says that it will not consider using thorium until it is licensed by the National Nuclear Regulator.
South Africa contains vast reserves of rare earth metals and in the 1950s was the world’s largest source of rare earth minerals.
South Africa’s thorium mine was closed in 1963, but last October a Canadian mining company was granted a license to extract thorium from the mine, located north of Cape Town.
The metal is not currently available for commercial use yet as a reprocessing plant must be built to “breed” uranium 223 from thorium before it can be used to generate power…
What’s Critical to the UK’s ADSR Subcritical Reactor
The success of the Accelerator Driven Subcritical Reactor (ADSR)
will depend on the progress of their Accelerator Programme
First in order to understand the significance of why the ADSR is so attractive in theory is that it can run without Uranium or Plutonium as a startup fuel. That’s where the word “subcritical” comes in. From my initial observations it appears to be very different from a molten salt reactor. I will leave it to other more qualified bloggers to comment.
It’s going to be an interesting year for accelerator technology. Some are hoping for fusion!. But the ADSR needs less ambitious results but still challenging. They need a steady high energy, high current proton energy beam.
One principal limiting technology is that of the proton accelerator driver (Appendix I):
- Cyclotrons can deliver appropriate continuous currents in the mA range, but cannot deliver sufficiently high proton energies.
- Synchrotrons can deliver appropriate proton energies, but only at lower, pulsed currents.
- Linear accelerators can deliver both the required currents and energies but are too large and expensive to be considered as a feasible commercial proposition.
Perhaps more significantly, no existing accelerator technology can meet the stringent reliability demands of a fully functioning ADSR power system. All accelerators are subject to numerous and frequent “trips” or loss of beam for periods extending from milliseconds to seconds, often many times an hour. As the spallation neutrons produced by the proton driver are responsible for the giga-Watt thermal power within the core, repeated loss of beam, even over such short periods, results in rapid thermal cycling and therefore intolerable thermal stress on the ADSR core sub- and super-structure.
It is significant that particle accelerators of a power appropriate for deployment as ADSR drivers (5-10MW) are at the forefront of accelerator technology and are generally developed individually for specific particle or nuclear physics experiments, or as drivers for major scientific facilities such as the planned European Spallation Source (5MW) and the recently commissioned Spallation Neutron Source (1.5MW) in the United States. Moreover, accelerator reliability on the scale demand by ADSR deployment remains a key performance issue and must be explored through appropriate R&D programmes.
The principal challenge of ADSR technology is thus to develop an appropriately powerful and sufficiently reliable accelerator. Fortunately the UK is able to draw upon its internationally recognised expertise in accelerator design and innovation, and is therefore well placed to meet this challenge.
Seems like quite a challenge but it does raise an interesting question. If the LFTR needs a fissile fuel source to kick start the thorium cycle why can’t it use an accelerator beam? Maybe one of the followers can help with that question.
Here’s the proposed plan for their own portable (my word choice) accelerator system
A phased accelerator development programme: AESIR The principal objective of the five year AESIR (Accelerator Energy Systems with Inbuilt Reliability) R&D programme is to design, build and demonstrate a robust and reliable prototype accelerator system which will be suitable for mass production and commercialisation as an ADSR proton driver. The AESIR programme must therefore, on the one hand, be coherent and focussed, whilst on the other undertake the task of comprehensively evaluating the suitability of all potential advanced accelerator architectures and components.

