Imagine a form of nuclear energy with greater output and virtually no safety issues.
Such is the promise of liquid flouride thorium reactors (LFTRs), and we've had several past interviews with thorium expert Kirk Sorensen to discuss their potential:
Much safer - No risk of environmental radiation contamination or plant explosion (e.g., Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three Mile Island)
Much more efficient at producing energy - Over 90% of the input fuel would be tapped for energy, vs. <1% in today's reactors
Less waste-generating - Most of the radioactive by-products would take days/weeks to degrade to safe levels, vs. decades/centuries
Much cheaper - Reactor footprints and infrastructure would be much smaller and could be constructed in modular fashion
More plentiful - LFTR reactors do not need to be located next to large water supplies, as current plants do
Less controversial - The byproducts of the thorium reaction are pretty useless for weaponization
Longer-lived - Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium and is treated as valueless today. There is virtually no danger of running out of it given LFTR plant efficiency
Kirk returns to the podcast this week to update us on the current state of thorium power. The bad news is that it still remains a theoretical concept; no operational reactor has been deployed yet -- even as a prototype. But, as Kirk details, we have good "line of sight" on the science to build one -- so, at this point, the limiting factor is mostly funding. In a world of privately-funded space travel, such a gating obstacle shouldn't remain for long.
This is one of the "bright spots" in the technology universe that offers real promise for addressing many of the challenges presented by our global addiction to depleting, pollutive fossil fuels.
Of course, perhaps humanity gaining access to an abundant source of cheap, hi-yielding energy may not be the best thing at this point -- as it will enable us to extract and consume the rest of the world's depleting resources (key minerals, water supplies, developable land, etc) at a much faster rate...
Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Kirk Sorensen (47m:15s).
Other writers on the web cite several problems with Thorium, the worst of which is that it does produce weapons components. See https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-cons-of-thorium-nuclear-energy
Several postings there assert that U233 is a byproduct of the LFTR and that this is an unstable fuel with explosive properties comparable to Plutonium. Supposedly bombs built with U233 can’t be stored for years safely but can readily be used soon after construction. It is also claimed that the LFTR design produces U233 with minimal additional purification or separation required.
Other writers on the web cite several problems with Thorium, the worst of which is that it does produce weapons components. See https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-cons-of-thorium-nuclear-energySeveral postings there assert that U233 is a byproduct of the LFTR and that this is an unstable fuel with explosive properties comparable to Plutonium. Supposedly bombs built with U233 can't be stored for years safely but can readily be used soon after construction. It is also claimed that the LFTR design produces U233 with minimal additional purification or separation required.
It's not a 'byproduct' but U233 *is* the fissile component of the LFTR design. That's the substance actually being 'burned' (fissile target).
Also, the U233 being produced is also riddled with U232, which renders the whole thing rather unusable from a variety of standpoints:
Because the 233 U produced in thorium fuels is significantly contaminated with 232 U in proposed power reactor designs, thorium-based used nuclear fuel possesses inherent proliferation resistance.
232 U cannot be chemically separated from 233 U and has several decay products that emit high-energy gamma radiation. These high-energy photons are a radiological hazard that necessitate the use of remote handling of separated uranium and aid in the passive detection of such materials.
(Source)
So if you are gong to use this as a bomb material your first challenge is just handling the stuff because the U 232 contamination means you are in the presence of a strong gamma emitter. First this burns you up close, second devices containing U 232 can be detected from a long ways off. So no smuggling a device in on a container ship is pretty much out of the question.
But the big problem is that the stuff doesn't make a good bomb even if it's pure, but a slight contamination with U 232 renders the bomb a dud:
[The gamma emitting properties of U 232] makes manual handling in a glove box with only light shielding (as commonly done with plutonium) too hazardous, (except possibly in a short period immediately following chemical separation of the uranium from its decay products) and instead requiring complex remote manipulation for fuel fabrication. The hazards are significant even at 5 parts per million. Implosion nuclear weapons require U-232 levels below 50 ppm (above which the U-233 is considered "low grade";
(Source)
All things being equal, and having to choose between burning the remaining coal for electricity vs solving for how to secure LFTR facilities, I'll take the security problem. We know how to solve that. Nobody can solve for dispersed mercury, CO2, and leveled mountaintops.
I am a small scale organic farmer (6 acres mixed vegetable CSA farm) and work about 80-90 hours per week. I was harvesting radishes for the CSA after harvesting carrots while listening to this episode. It always strikes me as funny when people start talking about automation and robots taking over and us humans aren’t going to have much to do for work. When the conversation turned to “maybe we will need to reconsider the 40-hour work week,” I had to laugh. What 40 hour work week? I guess maybe in urban areas robotics will rule, but in the countryside, there is much to do. I’m starting to think that the urban mentality still can’t comprehend the fact of severe limits. I am faced with limits every day. We have a 92-member CSA and are always struggling to produce enough food on a weekly basis to fill the shares. I’m always up against limits of my own stamina, the fertility of the ground, water resources, and especially time. If there is a robot that can do my job, it will need to be very good at hundreds of tasks, multi-tasking, and figuring out what is most important, since we are always in triage mode, always up against limits. Anyway, I think people are in for a rude awakening and I’d say get ready for an 80 hour work week of crawling in the dirt weeding, digging, and hoeing when the cities become uninhabitable. It is called Peak Prosperity, and it isn’t a 30 hour work week.
Thorium? AGAIN?? Really???
I’m not going to hold my breath on this one. The history of thorium reactors has been – how can I put this politely? – a lot of smoke and not much fire? Actually, not even all that much smoke until lately.
The world contains exactly one working commercial thorium reactor; the Krakrapar-1 reactor in Gujurat, India. Oh, wait, that is actually a converted uranium reactor. Oh, wait some more! At the moment, it’s not operating due to, uh, “technical difficulties.” For some reason, the pressurized water lines have developed leaks despite being replaced only six years ago.
LFTRs in particular have some pretty intimidating technical “challenges” that tend to temper enthusiasm for their theoretical advantages. In addition to the challenge of starting them up – which generally requires the services of a conventional nuclear fuel – let’s think about what happens to a liquid salt (liquid above 300 degrees C or so, that is) when the heat goes off. While we’re at it, let’s think about the corrosiveness of a salt operating at those kinds of temperatures. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Irradiated plant, toxic byproducts, the notorious problems associated with any kind of breeder reactor, … Suffice it to say, there are reasons that a power generation system with the kind of promise suggested by Mr. Sorensen has not been brought on line, and those reasons have nothing to do with it not producing bomb-grade material.
Of course, the technical issues may in time be solved. The problem is that no one has come up with solutions that are even remotely economic. By now it is common knowledge that even conventional nuclear plants would not be operating without massive public subsides. But if you think conventional nuclear power plants are expensive, you might want to prepare yourselves for some serious sticker shock when it comes to building and operating one of these suckers.
My guess: best case they’ll be demonstration reactors and perhaps used for remote military installations. Americans are already used to dumping trillions of dollars down that particular rat hole, and military bases tend to be off-limits to the public forever, so “clean up” can be – ahhh, what’s the term? – “quick and dirty?” As for facilities that will produce power for ordinary civilians, I’m not holding my breath.
For some reason, the pressurized water lines have developed leaks despite being replaced only six years ago.
Yes, if you read the reports on this you can see that there was even back in the Oak Ridge days a lot of metal cracks in all metal surfaces exposed to the fuel salt. The cause of the embrittlement was tellurium - a fission product generated in the fuel. There were suggestions of possible fixes, but nothing was certain. Just one more big question mark. Oak Ridge was instructive on many levels. The decommissioning brought up several intractable problems too. Supporters say these problems can be solved in theory, but it's just another uncertainty in what would be a VERY expensive process. Meanwhile renewable energy is racing away with the prize. I'd like to see Chris interview someone from the wind, sun, water, geothermal sectors, where workable solutions exist.
Meanwhile renewable energy is racing away with the prize. I'd like to see Chris interview someone from the wind, sun, water, geothermal sectors, where workable solutions exist.
I'd like to see some numbers please. Begin with base load and then move on to intermittency.
I've covered all of these issues in depth and while I am a supporter of alt-energy, it has yet to live up to the hype.
EROEI analyses show solar to be a lot less than favorable, and even as good as wind might be, we still don't have anything remotely close to grid scale storage worked out. And, no, a demo project in southern CA doesn't cut it.
Nuclear has a possible role and just because we haven't spent anything recently on coming up with new designs and such is not the same thing as saying that the issues are insolvable.
That's all we're exploring here. Seems to me that the detractors of Thorium saying that some details from the 1960's remain sketchy is grasping a bit. I trust that metallurgy, design, and technology have processed somewhat in since the 1960's.
I also trust that eventually the US and Europe will have to buy the next gen nuclear designs from China and/or India. Hopefully the dollar still has some value then and we're not bartering shiploads of grain or something.
GerrySM
thank you very much for your thoughtful insight and observation.
You are absolutely correct, as solar has good EROEI is “favorable” and quite good already and is getting even better rapidly. A lot of the advances have come and continue to come from the same industry that gives us advances in semiconductor chip technology.
Furthermore, the main demerit constantly trotted out by detractors (“the grid scale storage problem!”) is chimerical for two reasons: 1. the future is NOT favorable for expensive over regulated large grid scale management (a technical-political civil war has started over this (utilities want to keep and harvest their legally mandated captive audience vs. local production and use which is inherently lower cost and superior); and 2. most (probably 90%) of the total energy used in the home can be easily shifted to sunlight hours of operation. Cheap batteries can handle the rest.
I have reviewed the statistics on this at diygrid.net and find that all water heating (30% of total energy) can be sunlight only, air conditioning can be mostly sunlight only, cooking can be mostly (I use solar electric to cook after 8 AM or maybe a little later if it is raining) etc. A little modification of HOW we use solar (run dish washer and washing machine in afternoon) removes the “grid scale storage!!!” problem…
All major changes in society come from technology advances and result in behavior changes. The old burn-carbon-on-demand lifestyle where we are encouraged to flick on a switch anytime day or night for our fun and their profit, will give way to a extremely-cheap-abundant-energy-during daylight lifestyle. And, by the way, rain and overcast conditions are handled by using more very cheap solar panels in parallel, which is easy if the grid is direct current. Works for me.
I am a small scale organic farmer (6 acres mixed vegetable CSA farm) and work about 80-90 hours per week. I was harvesting radishes for the CSA after harvesting carrots while listening to this episode. It always strikes me as funny when people start talking about automation and robots taking over and us humans aren't going to have much to do for work. When the conversation turned to "maybe we will need to reconsider the 40-hour work week," I had to laugh. What 40 hour work week? I guess maybe in urban areas robotics will rule, but in the countryside, there is much to do. I'm starting to think that the urban mentality still can't comprehend the fact of severe limits. I am faced with limits every day. We have a 92-member CSA and are always struggling to produce enough food on a weekly basis to fill the shares. I'm always up against limits of my own stamina, the fertility of the ground, water resources, and especially time. If there is a robot that can do my job, it will need to be very good at hundreds of tasks, multi-tasking, and figuring out what is most important, since we are always in triage mode, always up against limits. Anyway, I think people are in for a rude awakening and I'd say get ready for an 80 hour work week of crawling in the dirt weeding, digging, and hoeing when the cities become uninhabitable. It is called Peak Prosperity, and it isn't a 30 hour work week.
Ever read Thoreau's "Walden Pond?" He strived to reduce his needs, rather than increase his output.
Thoreau wrote:
It is not necessary that a man should earn his living by the sweat of his brow unless he sweats easier than I do.
Indeed I have thought of that. We were able to purchase our 15 acre farm property for $190k because it didn’t have a house on it. It is zoned EFU, Exclusive Farm Use. Oregon law requires that any property zoned EFU earn $85k for two years in a row, or 3 out of 5 years, in order to build a dwelling on it. This law was designed to protect farmland from being developed into subdivisions, etc… So the $85k per year has been our goal and we have met it for two years in a row now. So yes, now that we can potentially build a house, the question is how to afford it. Even though the farm grossed just over $100k last year, my wife and I only draw $600/month each from the business, meaning I’m making about $1.50 or so an hour. So yes, we would love to downshift our hectic life to a saner one, but the way forward is unclear. Good problems to have I guess.
I don’t know much about thorium reactors other than what I read on internet site, usually by what seem to be overly starry eyed believers. It seems good technically. There are engineering challenges that i’m sure could be solved with enough funding and determination. Based on what I’ve heard it would be … better than any of our other sources of energy, even if all the rosy praise turns out to be less than accurate.
My issue with it is not that it wouldn’t be a better way of harnessing energy than the way we do it now, but that many seem to think it would provide a solution to our environmental problems. I’m sure those at peak prosperity are not so naive to believe that but I think the majority of people would.
We are nearing ecological limits of the planet and more energy, even if it’s made cleanly, won’t increase it.
Historically, no new energy source has usurped consumption of a previous energy source, except maybe crude oil put the whale oil industry out of business. Coal is up, oil is up, natural gas is up, biomass, they are all up. It is not reasonable to think that if thorium gained traction that it is going to DISPLACE the traditional fuels: it will just add to them, as justification to promote further economic growth. Consumption of fossil fuels will not drop until their price becomes high from scarcity. Unfortunately there is still a LOT of coal left to make electricity.
And ultimately, thorium only produces electricity. Coal already does that cheaply. That is what it is up against. I believe that electricity was the same price a hundred years ago as it is today (can some confirm?) accounting for inflation it has never been cheaper. That is what thorium is up against.
Also, after the western world sinks into social decay after the financial transition, I’m not too sure how societies will manage to construct and maintain such high tech centralized infrastructure.
But, i’m all for thorium reactorss, I hope we see the results many tout. I just don’t think they will provide any substantial relief from our predicament unless societyy recognizes that economic growth must stop, and reverse.
My issue with it is not that it wouldn't be a better way of harnessing energy than the way we do it now, but that many seem to think it would provide a solution to our environmental problems. I'm sure those at peak prosperity are not so naive to believe that but I think the majority of people would.
We are nearing ecological limits of the planet and more energy, even if it's made cleanly, won't increase it.
This is, of course, why thorium, or alt-energy won't "solve" anything. As long as humans do not recognize that we are a part of, not apart from, nature and its ecological limits, then there's no such thing as a "solution."
In fact, I fear a new energy solution as much as I want one. No...I think I fear one more because so far we've not shown that we have any clue about how to effectively regulate ourselves, with each other and with nature.
Perhaps, with a big enough "reset" a new awareness might dawn, but as it is now the brain-stem crowd is in charge, and I can't see how a big new source of energy would fix that. Worse, it would only reinforce the wrong lessons.
Amen Chris.
As individuals, we can do a lot of internal work (meditation or spiritual practices oreinted towards generating realization of the mystical dimensions of life) to alter our neurology in ways that makes it more likely that one could modulate the brain-stem drivers of our behavior that, through collective and synergistic action of individual actors, has brought the life support systems of the planet on which we depend on to the brink. If our collective behavior – and hence our trajectory, is unaltered, the earth will change in ways will be impossible for humans to adapt to a scale any larger than a small fraction of the current planetary human population load.
While these spiritual practices can be profoundly influential at the individual level, the notion that enough people in the world are going to be able to do enough of this kind of work to make a difference in our overall planetary trajectory is on par with the kind of magical thinking so appropriately excoriated elsewhere on this website.
Brain-stem impulse drivers of our planetary crisis need to be regulated by cultural normative mechanisms so that they are deeply encoded in a culture’s rituals and ways of life. For us humans, it’s the only thing that has ever worked over a longer time scale. In contrast, our culture’s current set of values, norms, and mythology values, enables, and encourages the amplification and expression of these brain-stem impulses.
In this sense, an unlimited source of cheap and clean energy would be a disaster, because our culture would run amok with it well beyond where we already are. The longer we put off humanity’s inevitable downscaling, the poorer the planet will ultimately be in terms of richness and diversity of life – including human life.
My issue with it is not that it wouldn't be a better way of harnessing energy than the way we do it now, but that many seem to think it would provide a solution to our environmental problems. I'm sure those at peak prosperity are not so naive to believe that but I think the majority of people would.
We are nearing ecological limits of the planet and more energy, even if it's made cleanly, won't increase it.
This is, of course, why thorium, or alt-energy won't "solve" anything. As long as humans do not recognize that we are a part of, not apart from, nature and its ecological limits, then there's no such thing as a "solution."
In fact, I fear a new energy solution as much as I want one. No...I think I fear one more because so far we've not shown that we have any clue about how to effectively regulate ourselves, with each other and with nature.
Perhaps, with a big enough "reset" a new awareness might dawn, but as it is now the brain-stem crowd is in charge, and I can't see how a big new source of energy would fix that. Worse, it would only reinforce the wrong lessons.
In a sense, we need another near infinite energy source to clean up the pollution we have already released to date. However, unless we are very wise with that energy it will be another deadly bargain. Growth is probably coded directly into our genes. It will take a lot to overcome this.
Yup, and actinides removable was never figured out. Xenon isn’t the only neutron poision that needs to be removed.
Kirk’s Recommendation of using CO2 for coolant, turbine working gas is also flawed since CO2 is corrosive, especially at high temperatures.
A Thorium MSR is a very elaborate Rube Goldberg machine.Nuclear power needs to be simple to be safe and reliable. The more complex the more problems and the more risks. A MSR is not safe from a meltdown.
I think the only cost effective Thorium reaction would be a heavy water reactor like the CANDU. CANDU reactors just use tubes where new fuel enters one end, and spent fuel exits the other side. no need to shutdown the reactor to remove spent fuel and no need of complex systems to extract the fuel from the molten salt. The only hurdle is the cost for heavy water. Yes, CANDU reactors can be fuelled with Thorium.
Another factor that Kirk avoided is the mining and smelting Thorium ore. Its basically a death sentence for the miners and the who is going to pick up the clean up costs for all the pollution created from mining and smelting? My guess is the Kirk would never voluteer to work in a Thorium mine. Next time you run into a Thorium reactor supporter, ask them if they are willing to work in a Throrium mine.
That said Nuclear power is dead. It takes too much capital, about a decade or more of construction to build about 1GWth, and way too much red tape. Currently the Vogtle plant construction is stalled do to a $2 Billion cost overrun and the bullder, Westinghouse has filed for bankruptcy. http://www.powermag.com/southern-company-could-delay-plant-vogtle-decisi…
There is a 50% chance that the project will get cancelled which is a good thing in my opinion. We need to start decommissioning all of the operating power plants ASAP. with the US economy buried in debt and aging population we need to have a have these plants shutdown, so that when the global economy collapses or there is a nuclear war that the planet isn’t made uninhabitable by plant meltdowns.
" I’d like to see Chris interview someone from the wind, sun, water, geothermal sectors, where workable solutions exist."
Intermittent power systems cannot replace base load power plants. Based upon articles I read years ago, the grid can only support about 7% of intermittent power before become vulenable stability problems. Intermittent power systems would need to be coupled to storage systems to avoid stability issues,which are the achilles heel since they are very costly. The only way solar & wind can be practically be used, is at the individual level where the household makes major adjustments to the way they use electricity. (ie apply the bulk of their energy consumption when the sun is shinning or when the wind is blowing). Most people are at work during the peak solar production hours and thus can’t readily take advantage unless they apply automation (ie start cloths washer on timer).
Another issue is that a Solar install is between $10K and $50K (depending on size). Something like 50% of the US population does even have $1K for an emergency fund. Thus, Solar power is unobtainium for the masses. Only the top 10% to 25% of the population can afford Solar. As more people head into retirement and as good paying jobs disappear (automation, outsourcing, etc) the pool of people able to afford alternative energy systems is shrinking. Also a lot of people live in apartments where Alternative energy installs are not pratical due to the lack of surface area to install panels.
As far as geothermal there is no where near enough capacity and usually the sources of geothermal energy are very distance from deman areas.Perhaps geothermal production can be doubled or tripled but its still not going to make a dent in fossil fuel consumption.
Finally any power transistion is going to cost trillions and the West is drop dead broke. Western economy are dangling on a frayed string with QE and rock bottom interest rates. A majority of gov’ts and business are using credit to keep operating. This is completely unsustainable and doomed to fail. I just hope that dozens more plants are shutdown before the collapse or war begins. I doubt all of them will get shutdown in time, unless there is a plant meltdown in the US that triggers mass public outrage.
