Thorium-Based Nuclear Energy

[Flannel_Jesus]

I just watched a documentary on this. Interesting stuff. Apparently Thorium-fueled reactors a) are immensely safer, b) produce less waste, c) use a much more common element as their fuel than current nuclear reactors.

Apparently numerous governments around the world are taking the possibility of thorium nuclear energy very seriously now. China, the US, and India have all invested or are planning to invest big bucks into thorium research.

The story is that thorium-based nuclear energy was proved viable in the 60s, but wasn’t pursued because the reactor didn’t produce anything usable for nuclear weapons. Yes, you heard that right: our energy situation was sabotaged by the government for the sake of nuclear weapons.

But anyway, mistakes in the past, at least now they’re taking it seriously and hopefully we’ll have much cleaner and cheaper energy in the coming decades.

Thought that might interest some of you.

[Drusuz]

Good read, thanks!

[Fixed_Cross]

That sounds plausible, also the reason why no investments were made.
“Sabotage” is a strong term to use here, as nuclear technology was originally developed without any intention of using it for anything else than bombs.

I’m only halfway through it, but the book Turings Cathedral gives a very detailed overview of that period, when the first computers were built in order to calculate and control the impact forces to set off the nuclear reaction.

[phyllo]

One sided.

Thorium fuel cycles offer attractive features, including lower levels of waste generation, less transuranic elements in that waste, and providing a diversification option for nuclear fuel supply. Also, the use of thorium in most reactor types leads to significant extra safety margins. Despite these merits, the commercialization of thorium fuels faces some significant hurdles in terms of building an economic case to undertake the necessary development work.

A great deal of testing, analysis and licensing and qualification work is required before any thorium fuel can enter into service. This is expensive and will not eventuate without a clear business case and government support - abundant uranium is available.

Other impediments to the development of thorium fuel cycle are the higher cost of fuel fabrication h and the cost of reprocessing to provide the fissile plutonium driver material.

Nevertheless, the thorium fuel cycle offers enormous energy security benefits in the long-term – due to its potential for being a self-sustaining fuel without the need for fast neutron reactors. It is therefore an important and potentially viable technology that seems able to contribute to building credible, long-term nuclear energy scenarios

The thorium fuel cycle is sometimes promoted as having excellent non-proliferation credentials. This is true, but some history and physics bears noting.

The USA produced about 2 tonnes of U-233 from thorium during the ‘Cold War’, at various levels of chemical and isotopic purity, in plutonium production reactors. It is possible to use U-233 in a nuclear weapon, and in 1955 the USA detonated a device with a plutonium-U-233 composite pit, in Operation Teapot. Yield was less than anticipated, at 22 kilotons. In 1998 India detonated a very small device based on U-233 called Shakti V. However, the production of U-233 inevitably also yields U-232 which is a strong gamma-emitter, as are some decay products, making the material extremely difficult to handle and also easy to detect.

In 2010 the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory (NNL) published a paper on the thorium cycle, concluding for the short to medium term:
“NNL believes that the thorium fuel cycle does not currently have a role to play in the UK context, other than its potential application for plutonium management in the medium to long term and depending on the indigenous thorium reserves, is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead. The technology is innovative, although technically immature and currently not of interest to the utilities, representing significant financial investment and risk without notable benefits. In many cases, the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle have been over-stated.”

world-nuclear.org/info/Curre … dV52Xekb3U

[Hobbes_Choice]

@Flannel Jesus

I just watched a documentary on this. Interesting stuff. Apparently Thorium-fueled reactors a) are immensely safer, b) produce less waste, c) use a much more common element as their fuel than current nuclear reactors.

Apparently numerous governments around the world are taking the possibility of thorium nuclear energy very seriously now. China, the US, and India have all invested or are planning to invest big bucks into thorium research.

The story is that thorium-based nuclear energy was proved viable in the 60s, but wasn’t pursued because the reactor didn’t produce anything usable for nuclear weapons. Yes, you heard that right: our energy situation was sabotaged by the government for the sake of nuclear weapons.

But anyway, mistakes in the past, at least now they’re taking it seriously and hopefully we’ll have much cleaner and cheaper energy in the coming decades.

Thought that might interest some of you.

It’s no surprise to me that Uranium was pursued for Plutonium, but I’d never heard of Thorium in this context.
Do you have a link?

[Helandhighwater]

Heard about it for ages has real scope. But I personally think fusion is the answer, no nuclear waste product: water and helium/lithium which can then be reused in the reaction, fuel elements are easy to find: sea water (deuterium) and lithium, only the reactor becomes radioactive and then much less so than fusion reactors. Still it’s a nice stop gap till they figure out fusion.

[Flannel_Jesus]

@Hobbes Choice

It’s no surprise to me that Uranium was pursued for Plutonium, but I’d never heard of Thorium in this context.
Do you have a link?

This is the one I watched: http://documentaryheaven.com/thorium-earths-green-energy/
Then I read up a bit on it just online.

[Hobbes_Choice]

@Flannel Jesus

@Hobbes Choice

It’s no surprise to me that Uranium was pursued for Plutonium, but I’d never heard of Thorium in this context.
Do you have a link?

This is the one I watched: http://documentaryheaven.com/thorium-earths-green-energy/
Then I read up a bit on it just online.

It’s not as clear cut as your initial post implies.
Thorium is not fissionable, only fertile, and require uranium and plutonium to get the reaction going.

I’m a bit skeptical, still, as many such innovations are often introduced with much optimism and fanfare, prove to be either less efficient, more dangerous or lead to unforeseen consequences.

Conversely, it seems that the worst example of “Melt-Down” after 30 years, has proved to be far less devastating to the environment that was first imaged. The ‘wastes’ of Chernobyl are not teeming with five legged bird, two headed frogs, or other mutations. It seems living things are tougher than anyone imaged, and the area is now a great sanctuary for wildlife.

[Flannel_Jesus]

@Hobbes Choice

It’s not as clear cut as your initial post implies.

That is why I used the word ‘apparently’. It seemed like that apparently from certain sources, but I was aware that those sources may not be giving the full and complete story as is often the case, so I through in that so as to denote some amount of deserved skepticism and uncertainty.