The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm - From the Drum
Excitement has recently been rising about the possibility of using thorium as a low-carbon way of generating vast amounts of electricity. The use of thorium as a nuclear fuel was extensively studied by Oak Ridge National Laboratory between 1950 and 1976, but was dropped, because unlike uranium-fueled Light Water Reactors (LWRs), it could not generate weapons' grade plutonium. Research on the possible use of thorium as a nuclear fuel has continued around the world since then. Famed Climate Scientist James Hanson, recently spoke of thorium's great promise in material that he submitted to President Elect Obama:
The Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is a thorium reactor concept that uses a chemically-stable fluoride salt for the medium in which nuclear reactions take place. This fuel form yields flexibility of operation and eliminates the need to fabricate fuel elements. This feature solves most concerns that have prevented thorium from being used in solid-fueled reactors. The fluid fuel in LFTR is also easy to process and to separate useful fission products, both stable and radioactive. LFTR also has the potential to destroy existing nuclear waste.
(The) LFTR(s) operate at low pressure and high temperatures, unlike today’s LWRs. Operation at low pressures alleviates much of the accident risk with LWR. Higher temperatures enable more of the reactor heat to be converted to electricity (50% in LFTR vs 35% in LWR). (The) LFTR (has) the potential to be air-cooled and to use waste heat for desalinating water.
LFTR(s) are 100-300 times more fuel efficient than LWRs. In addition to solving the nuclear waste problem, they can operate for several centuries using only uranium and thorium that has already been mined. Thus they eliminate the criticism that mining for nuclear fuel will use fossil fuels and add to the greenhouse effect.
The Obama campaign, properly in my opinion, opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear repository. Indeed, there is a far more effective way to use the $25 billion collected from utilities over the past 40 years to deal with waste disposal. This fund should be used to develop fast reactors that consume nuclear waste, and thorium reactors to prevent the creation of new long-lived nuclear waste. By law the federal government must take responsibility for existing spent nuclear fuel, so inaction is not an option. Accelerated development of fast and thorium reactors will allow the US to fulfill its obligations to dispose of the nuclear waste, and open up a source of carbon-free energy that can last centuries, even millennia.
It is commonly assumed that 4th generation nuclear power will not be ready before 2030. That is a safe assumption under "business-as-usual”. However, given high priority it is likely that it could be available sooner. It is specious to argue that R&D on 4th generation nuclear power does not deserve support because energy efficiency and renewable energies may be able to satisfy all United States electrical energy needs. Who stands ready to ensure that energy needs of China and India will be entirely met by efficiency and renewables?
Nor would exhausting the USAEC’s 1969 estimated thorium reserve exhaust the American thorium supply. Even at average concentrations in the earth’s rocks, thorium can be recovered with a good EROEI, without making the cost of electricity impossibly expensive. Read more from the Drum
Comment 1 of 456 that make inarugable facts....
My complaint about renewable advocates is that they tend to not look carefully at their ideas before they turn them into slogans.. it always amuses me when renewables advocates get carried away and imagine that Jevons paradox and the law of thermodynamics can be repealed.
While I favor energy efficiency I am not under any illusion that it can lead to a greatly diminished energy demand. Energy efficient makes energy cheaper, and the history of modern civilization tells us that cheap energy will always find its uses.
Negawatts is a bumper sticker slogan, not a solution to our energy issues. The words "smart grid" are held to have magic powers when spooken or written by renewables advocates, who seldome tell us what a smart grid will and will dont do, and even less frequently tell us what a smart grid will cost.
HVDC lines are expensive as is energy storage. Both are nice, but the expense will be a serious impediment to fighting global warming. Mixing renewables means replicating generating capacity. Replicating energy capacity is also very expensive. Building LFTRs would be far cheaper that as mixed system of renewables. Using existing peaking plants means producing CO2, so it is not a post carbon solution. Electrified transportation will not work well with negawatts. You need more rather than less electricity to make an electrified transportation system work.
