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?

Comments

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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

Making Clouds for a Living

Donell Banks works at Southern Nuclear’s Plant Vogtle units 3 and 4 as a shift supervisor in Operations, but is in the process of transitioning to his newly appointed role as the daily work controls manager. He has been in the nuclear energy industry for about 11 years.

I love what I do because I have the unique opportunity to help shape the direction and influence the culture for the future of nuclear power in the United States. Every single day presents a new challenge, but I wouldn't have it any other way. As a shift supervisor, I was primarily responsible for managing the development of procedures and programs to support operation of the first new nuclear units in the United States in more than 30 years. As the daily work controls manager, I will be responsible for oversight of the execution and scheduling of daily work to ensure organizational readiness to operate the new units.

I envision a nuclear energy industry that leverages the technology of today to improve efficiency…

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…

Nuclear: Energy for All Political Seasons

The electoral college will soon confirm a surprise election result, Donald Trump. However, in the electricity world, there are fewer surprises – physics and economics will continue to apply, and Republicans and Democrats are going to find a lot to like about nuclear energy over the next four years.

In a Trump administration, the carbon conversation is going to be less prominent. But the nuclear value proposition is still there. We bring steady jobs to rural areas, including in the Rust Belt, which put Donald Trump in office. Nuclear plants keep the surrounding communities vibrant.

We hold down electricity costs for the whole economy. We provide energy diversity, reducing the risk of disruption. We are a critical part of America’s industrial infrastructure, and the importance of infrastructure is something that President-Elect Trump has stressed.

One of our infrastructure challenges is natural gas pipelines, which have gotten more congested as extremely low gas prices have pulled m…