Skip to main content

Meanwhile, in the World of Thorium

jons_jakob_berzelius The Thorium Energy Alliance had its first annual conference in Washington earlier this week, so The New York Times decided to take a look at the potential of Thorium as a fuel for nuclear energy plants.

Rajendran Raja, a physicist at Fermilab — the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois — said by telephone that the benefit of adding thorium to the fuel mix would be to create much more fuel using existing abundant resources and to reduce waste.

That sounds promising.

This could be done by building a high-intensity proton accelerator with the capacity to produce fast neutrons that could convert nuclear waste, thorium-232 and uranium-238 into fuel, he said.

In case you thought there wasn’t a but:

But to accomplish this, a proton accelerator would need to be 10 times more power-intense than anything that has been produced to date.

And as you can imagine, such an accelerator would need considerable amounts of electricity itself to do the job. The article goes on to say that Fermilab is trying to overcome the issue, but has not quite got there yet.

The Indians are doing without the accelerator:

India has been making advances in the field of thorium-based fuels, working to design and develop a prototype for an atomic reactor using thorium and low-enriched uranium.

Which, if we understand the history of thorium energy is the “traditional” way of leveraging the element. We had hoped the article would be more hopeful itself, but not so much:

[John Boldeman, an Australian specialist in nuclear science and engineering] acknowledged that creating any thorium systems would be a long process that could take decades before finding success.

We suspect countries like Australia and India – which sit on piles of Thorium – as well as Fermilab will find ways to get those decades down to years. Too promising to do otherwise.

See here for much more about thorium – potentials and pitfalls - from the World Nuclear Association. And pay a visit to Kirk Sorenson’s terrific blog about Thorium – and here you thought we were niche.

This is Jons Jakob Berzelius, who identified Thorium as an element in 1828. Why not call it Berzelium? Here’s the thing: Berzelius is Swedish. Hmmm! Thorium, Thorium. Where did he get that name?


Ioannes said…
So what's wrong with the idea of the Carlo Rubbia Energy Amplifier?

Normally subcritical pile with a particle beam to cause neutron spallation off lead to activate Th-232 and turn it into U-233?
Kirk Sorensen said…
Thanks for the shout-out Mark! I'm planning to have some blog posts up soon talking about the TEA Conference and how it went. I think the video from the conference will also be available soon.
Kirk Sorensen said…
Ioannes, there's nothing "wrong" with the Rubbia "Energy Amplifier", but it solves a "problem" that doesn't exist. The EA uses a complicated particle accelerator to create additional neutrons that allow you to run the reactor subcritical. Shut off the beam and the reactor shuts down.

But LFTRs (along with many other kinds of reactors) have strong negative temperature coefficients of reactivity. Shut off heat removal and they shut down anyway. You don't need the complication of a particle accelerator to run the reactor--you can run it critical and have confidence that it can do a safe shutdown. In addition, LFTR has a "freeze plug" that melts from the decay heat of the fission products, and drains the salt into a passively cooled configuration.

A particle accelerator is not needed to unlock the potential of thorium. Just some good salt and good engineering.
A large enough ADS reactor should produce more energy than it consumes. It could also be used to produce uranium 233 by destroying waste plutonium 239, producing more than twice as much fissile uranium 233 as the original fissile plutonium 239.
The perceived advantage of Rubbia's ADS reactor is that a criticality accident is not possible, because the core is always slightly subcritical, only being critical when the accelerator is switched on, so if a problem occurs it can be switched off.

But all other license-able designs have intrinsic physical properties that prevent runaway criticality. No control system action is required in the liquid fluid thorium reactor because heated fluid expands out of the moderated core, reducing criticality. The freeze plug is a secondary backup.
Kirk Sorensen said…
I've put up a blog post about the first day of the TEA conference:

Day One Highlights at the TEA Conference

Popular posts from this blog

How Nanomaterials Can Make Nuclear Reactors Safer and More Efficient

The following is a guest post from Matt Wald, senior communications advisor at NEI. Follow Matt on Twitter at @MattLWald.

From the batteries in our cell phones to the clothes on our backs, "nanomaterials" that are designed molecule by molecule are working their way into our economy and our lives. Now there’s some promising work on new materials for nuclear reactors.

Reactors are a tough environment. The sub atomic particles that sustain the chain reaction, neutrons, are great for splitting additional uranium atoms, but not all of them hit a uranium atom; some of them end up in various metal components of the reactor. The metal is usually a crystalline structure, meaning it is as orderly as a ladder or a sheet of graph paper, but the neutrons rearrange the atoms, leaving some infinitesimal voids in the structure and some areas of extra density. The components literally grow, getting longer and thicker. The phenomenon is well understood and designers compensate for it with a …

Why America Needs the MOX Facility

If Isaiah had been a nuclear engineer, he’d have loved this project. And the Trump Administration should too, despite the proposal to eliminate it in the FY 2018 budget.

The project is a massive factory near Aiken, S.C., that will take plutonium from the government’s arsenal and turn it into fuel for civilian power reactors. The plutonium, made by the United States during the Cold War in a competition with the Soviet Union, is now surplus, and the United States and the Russian Federation jointly agreed to reduce their stocks, to reduce the chance of its use in weapons. Over two thousand construction workers, technicians and engineers are at work to enable the transformation.

Carrying Isaiah’s “swords into plowshares” vision into the nuclear field did not originate with plutonium. In 1993, the United States and Russia began a 20-year program to take weapons-grade uranium out of the Russian inventory, dilute it to levels appropriate for civilian power plants, and then use it to produce…

Missing the Point about Pennsylvania’s Nuclear Plants

A group that includes oil and gas companies in Pennsylvania released a study on Monday that argues that twenty years ago, planners underestimated the value of nuclear plants in the electricity market. According to the group, that means the state should now let the plants close.


The question confronting the state now isn’t what the companies that owned the reactors at the time of de-regulation got or didn’t get. It’s not a question of whether they were profitable in the '80s, '90s and '00s. It’s about now. Business works by looking at the present and making projections about the future.

Is losing the nuclear plants what’s best for the state going forward?

Pennsylvania needs clean air. It needs jobs. And it needs protection against over-reliance on a single fuel source.

What the reactors need is recognition of all the value they provide. The electricity market is depressed, and if electricity is treated as a simple commodity, with no regard for its benefit to clean air o…