Thorium - Uranium's Successor

[Smurf1976]

So why isn't thorium been looked at by governments as a viable alternative?

The last thing politicians at the national or international level want is an alterantive source of cheap energy.

1. Wipes out existing coal industry with the associated economic dislocation noting that Australia, China and the US are all major world powers in terms of coal reserves and/or extraction rates.

2. Removes the need for any country to hold US Dollars as a means to buy oil.

3. Makes the Middle East irrelevant in world affairs along with Venezuela etc.

4. Removes much of the global role of the US military and the USA itself - a country whose economic strength post-WWII was largely built upon oil and things derived from it.

5. Renders a vast empire of trading and speculation in oil (and to a far lesser extent coal and gas) redundant with consequent losses for the big end of town.

6. Apart from most hydro schemes, it makes the entire existing power generation asset base essentially redundant.

Now, the cynic in me notes that it is the "alternative" energy sources that receive opposition where they threaten the "conventional" sources of black coal, oil and gas.

Nuclear (uranium) - strong opposition until it too became a "conventional" energy source.

Hydro - attracts opposition in any circumstance where it enables an economically disadvantaged location to gain advantage over those relying on "conventional" energy sources. Nobody minds though when it's a small scheme in a Third World backwater or is only a supplement to "conventional" fuels, thus not threatening anyone.

Brown coal - same situation as with anything else that isn't uranium, black coal, oil or natural gas. There's no ability to trade it, no ability to speculate on its price, and it gives an economic advantage to anyone able to mine it on a massive scale. Hence it will be opposed with or without the CO2 issue.

Basically, the world as we know it falls apart if someone comes up with a "silver bullet" to actually replace coal, oil, gas and/or to give some region a comparative advantage in energy production over the major economic powers either globally or within a country. Hence official support for solar, wind, biomass, small hydro schemes, landfill gas, insulating houses and anything else that can't manage to supply the total load meanwhile there's fierce opposition to anything that can.

And likewise the world falls apart if we keep relying on coal, oil and natural gas since they simply are not sustainable.

At some point, a paradigm shift is inevitable but don't expect those who gain from the status quo to be in a hurry for it to happen...

 

[prawn_86]

Fantastic post Smurf.

Sometimes i wish there was a quick way one could create a new country and have it run by sensible, non political people.

 

[So_Cynical]

Fantastic post Smurf.

Sometimes i wish there was a quick way one could create a new country and have it run by sensible, non political people.

Agree on both counts.

---------------

Here is a detailed explanatory video on thorium based power via The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Fantastic post Smurf.

Sometimes i wish there was a quick way one could create a new country and have it run by sensible, non political people.

Hear hear!

 

[prawn_86]

Story on Thorium in the latest issue of Wired:
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

Seem's it is slowly becoming more known, however like every other alternative fuel, probably wont be used until it's too late...

 

[So_Cynical]

I found a great Thorium write up that was published recently in the American scientist magazine....its a detailed yet somewhat easy to understand piece that covers all the Thorium issues....a great read for those new to the energy from Thorium concept.
~

 

[DB008]

So if looking to invest in Thorium, would BHP be the best bet in Australia?

 

[So_Cynical]

So if looking to invest in Thorium, would BHP be the best bet in Australia?

Iluka - ILU actually has the biggest reserves, however please keep in mind that Thorium isn't "burnt" in a liquid fluoride reactor, it's U233 that's "burnt" so very little Thorium is needed to maintain a reaction....and for that matter little uranium is needed as well because U233 taken from decommissioned nukes is available in abundance.

There will never be a thorium boom

 

[DB008]

Iluka - ILU actually has the biggest reserves, however please keep in mind that Thorium isn't "burnt" in a liquid fluoride reactor, it's U233 that's "burnt" so very little Thorium is needed to maintain a reaction....and for that matter little uranium is needed as well because U233 taken from decommissioned nukes is available in abundance.

There will never be a thorium boom

Cheers for that So_Cynical.

 

[DB008]

Thorium on RT

Very interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOLo73k3OG0&feature=youtube_gdata

 

[Smurf1976]

Iluka - ILU actually has the biggest reserves, however please keep in mind that Thorium isn't "burnt" in a liquid fluoride reactor, it's U233 that's "burnt" so very little Thorium is needed to maintain a reaction....and for that matter little uranium is needed as well because U233 taken from decommissioned nukes is available in abundance.

At some point we must surely run out of decommissioned weapons as a source of fissile material and to my understanding the present program has only a few years left to run.

 

[So_Cynical]

At some point we must surely run out of decommissioned weapons as a source of fissile material and to my understanding the present program has only a few years left to run.

Yes Smurf as usual your on the money, the mainstream nuke power industry is "using" alot of the nuclear material from decommissioned nukes and will shortly need more that will have to come from mining.

What i meant in my previous post was that if the world proceeded down a Thorium MSR rapid development and deployment path then the U233 from decommissioned nukes would be enough to satisfy demand down that development path for a considerable distance into the future....however in reality that's just not going to happen so were going to need more uranium mining to sustain the conventional developments in the pipeline.

Still the projections are that power produced with Thorium via MSR type technology would use significantly less uranium (maybe 95% less) than conventional reactors without the vast majority of risk factors that come with conventional nuclear power.

 

[jtl]

Re: Thorium - China will launch thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor

Great news today from Wired Science

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...tories+2))

China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source.

If the reactor works as planned, China may fulfill a long-delayed dream of clean nuclear energy. The United States could conceivably become dependent on China for next-generation nuclear technology. At the least, the United States could fall dramatically behind in developing green energy.

“President Obama talked about a Sputnik-type call to action in his SOTU address,” wrote Charles Barton, creator of the Nuclear Green Revolution blog, on the Energy From Thorium discussion forum. “I think this qualifies.”

While nearly all current nuclear reactors run on uranium, the radioactive element thorium is recognized as a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel. Thorium is particularly well-suited for use in molten-salt reactors, or MSRs. Nuclear reactions take place inside a fluid core rather than solid fuel rods, and there’s no risk of meltdown.

In addition to their safety, MSRs can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste. Their byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. They can also operate as breeders, producing more fuel than they consume. Blah Blah Blah....

****** end quote

1. Not using uranium and byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. this mean in theory they can sell reactor/know how to rogue states of the world such as Iran and North Korean without the fear of breeding nuclear wepaons or weapons of any kind.

2. A new system of zero meltdown risk. Great!

3. New energy of the future!!!!! Great!!!!!

4. If you hold shares in RMR, you lucky bastards!!!!!!!! Not only is RMR into gold and rara elements, from what is written, it show that from the latter thorium is one of the by-product they can mine, once they get the greenlight from Greenland..

5. B. About Niobium
Niobium and tantalum have a strong geochemical coherence and usually occur together in nature. Besides tantalum, niobium is most commonly associated with thorium, titanium and lanthanides (REE). Niobium (Nb) is soft and ductile and characterized by high melting and boiling points. (Sources: http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au...rces-1429.html)

6. With all these potentials, RMR is currently trading at only 2.5c with current shares issued of under 550m. I think this won't be the case for long once.

7. Should also start looking at other companies that are really into thorium.... please list them in reply if you know any other. Would GGG who is next to RMR in Greenland be one?

 

[sinner]

Re: Thorium - China will launch thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor

Great news today from Wired Science

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...tories+2))

China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source.

If the reactor works as planned, China may fulfill a long-delayed dream of clean nuclear energy. The United States could conceivably become dependent on China for next-generation nuclear technology. At the least, the United States could fall dramatically behind in developing green energy.

“President Obama talked about a Sputnik-type call to action in his SOTU address,” wrote Charles Barton, creator of the Nuclear Green Revolution blog, on the Energy From Thorium discussion forum. “I think this qualifies.”

While nearly all current nuclear reactors run on uranium, the radioactive element thorium is recognized as a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel. Thorium is particularly well-suited for use in molten-salt reactors, or MSRs. Nuclear reactions take place inside a fluid core rather than solid fuel rods, and there’s no risk of meltdown.

In addition to their safety, MSRs can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste. Their byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. They can also operate as breeders, producing more fuel than they consume. Blah Blah Blah....

****** end quote

1. Not using uranium and byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. this mean in theory they can sell reactor/know how to rogue states of the world such as Iran and North Korean without the fear of breeding nuclear wepaons or weapons of any kind.

2. A new system of zero meltdown risk. Great!

3. New energy of the future!!!!! Great!!!!!

4. If you hold shares in RMR, you lucky bastards!!!!!!!! Not only is RMR into gold and rara elements, from what is written, it show that from the latter thorium is one of the by-product they can mine, once they get the greenlight from Greenland..

5. B. About Niobium
Niobium and tantalum have a strong geochemical coherence and usually occur together in nature. Besides tantalum, niobium is most commonly associated with thorium, titanium and lanthanides (REE). Niobium (Nb) is soft and ductile and characterized by high melting and boiling points. (Sources: http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.au...rces-1429.html)

6. With all these potentials, RMR is currently trading at only 2.5c with current shares issued of under 550m. I think this won't be the case for long once.

7. Should also start looking at other companies that are really into thorium.... please list them in reply if you know any other. Would GGG who is next to RMR in Greenland be one?

This article is making the rounds, and I knew it wouldn't be long before it appeared here.

A friend is in the industry in research capacity and had the following to say

1)"burns existing nuclear waste" - burning existing waste is really expensive and you have to run the reactor at a lower power level so it is not economically viable until uranium becomes prohibitively expensive(30-50 years from now)
2)"uses abundant thorium as a base fuel" - while thorium is abundant the fuel behavior in a reactor is not as well known and more importantly its much less stable and more prone to clad failure(fuel leaking into the primary coolant) which usually forces an unplanned shutdown or reduction in output power until the next refueling.
3) "produces far less toxic, shorter-lived waste than existing designs" - blatant lie.
4) can be mass produced, run unattended for years, and installed underground for safety - This is a claim that can only be made after years of experience because we(both the US and China) lack the capability to model fast reactors well.

Generation IV reactors like this one will probably be much more practical in 20 years time, but currently they make little sense unless you don't have access to uranium(ie India).

I hold no claim as to whether his statements are true or not but thought I would put it out there as the "Devil's Avocado" to the "thorium craze" that seems to be sweeping bits of the net right now.

Although, I do believe in the Chinese example given, the fuel is unclad.

 

[So_Cynical]

Re: Thorium - China will launch thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor

Great news today from Wired Science

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...tories+2))

China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source.

Absolutely brilliant news....go team China, selling clean Nuke technology to the world...bet no one saw that coming, i certainly didn't.

-----------------------------------

This article is making the rounds, and I knew it wouldn't be long before it appeared here.

A friend is in the industry in research capacity and had the following to say

1)"burns existing nuclear waste" - burning existing waste is really expensive and you have to run the reactor at a lower power level so it is not economically viable until uranium becomes prohibitively expensive(30-50 years from now)

MSR technology produces significantly less waste than conventional nuke technology...also produces a less dangerous waste in comparison.

2)"uses abundant thorium as a base fuel" - while thorium is abundant the fuel behavior in a reactor is not as well known and more importantly its much less stable and more prone to clad failure(fuel leaking into the primary coolant) which usually forces an unplanned shutdown or reduction in output power until the next refueling.

Maybe showing my technical lack of detail here but...i didn't think coolant was a big deal with MSR, anyway not like how critical it is in conventional reactors.


3) "produces far less toxic, shorter-lived waste than existing designs" - blatant lie.

No its not, this is well documented....i think your mate needs to have another look at MSR cos i think he talking about using thorium in a conventional reactor.

4) can be mass produced, run unattended for years, and installed underground for safety - This is a claim that can only be made after years of experience because we(both the US and China) lack the capability to model fast reactors well.

The idea for mass production is to bring down costs so they can be rapidly deployed world wide...no need to build em under ground as they are really very safe...even a worst case scenario doesn't produce any really big problems, a china syndrome or Chernobyl type event is impossible.

Generation IV reactors like this one will probably be much more practical in 20 years time, but currently they make little sense unless you don't have access to uranium(ie India).

And a 15 year development period would delivery the perfected and tested technology right on time.


I hold no claim as to whether his statements are true or not but thought I would put it out there as the "Devil's Avocado" to the "thorium craze" that seems to be sweeping bits of the net right now.

Although, I do believe in the Chinese example given, the fuel is unclad.

There is a very large and established global nuke industry and like all things old and established and big (very well funded) they do not want change....stand by for a concerted (well funded) dirty tricks campaign against Thorium.

 

[So_Cynical]

Yep i was right....just for clarification, from the MSR wiki.

2)"uses abundant thorium as a base fuel" - while thorium is abundant the fuel behavior in a reactor is not as well known and more importantly its much less stable and more prone to clad failure(fuel leaking into the primary coolant) which usually forces an unplanned shutdown or reduction in output power until the next refueling.

Maybe showing my technical lack of detail here but...i didn't think coolant was a big deal with MSR, anyway not like how critical it is in conventional reactors.

A molten salt reactor (MSR) is a type of nuclear fission reactor where the primary coolant is a molten salt mixture, which can run at high temperatures (for higher thermodynamic efficiency) while staying at low vapor pressure for reduced mechanical stress and increased safety, and is less reactive than molten sodium coolant. The nuclear fuel may be solid fuel rods, or dissolved in the coolant itself, which eliminates fuel fabrication

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

 

[DB008]

Thorium Remix 2009 - LFTR in 16 Minutes

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium
A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.


Thorium could be a much safer option for China which has been unsettled by the nuclear crisis in Japan where fears over radiation levels are rising Photo: AP


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/8393984/Safe-nuclear-does-exist-and-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html#dsq-content

 

[tech/a]

Great Vid
Leading edge stuff.

 

[DB008]

Thorium Energy Future

 

[DB008]

Chinese going for broke on thorium nuclear power, and good luck to them

The nuclear race is on. China is upping the ante dramatically on thorium nuclear energy. Scientists in Shanghai have been told to accelerate plans (sorry for the pun) to build the first fully-functioning thorium reactor within ten years, instead of 25 years as originally planned.

“This is definitely a race. China faces fierce competition from overseas and to get there first will not be an easy task”,” says Professor Li Zhong, a leader of the programme. He said researchers are working under “warlike” pressure to deliver.

The project began with a start-up budget of $350m and the recruitment of 140 PhD scientists at the Shanghai Institute of Nuclear and Applied Physics. It then had plans to reach 750 staff by 2015, but this already looks far too conservative.

The Chinese appear to be opting for a molten salt reactor – or a liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) ”” a notion first proposed by the US nuclear doyen Alvin Weinberg and arguably best adapted for thorium.

This in entirely different from thorium efforts in the West that rely on light water technology used in uranium reactors. The LFTR has its own problems, not least corrosion caused by the fluoride.

“We are still in the dark about the physical and chemical nature of thorium in many ways. There are so many problems to deal with but so little time,” said Prof Li.

The great hope for thorium is that it could restore faith in the safety of nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster. It can be done on a much smaller scale, at atmospheric pressure, without the need for the vast structures than encase uranium reactors. You could have micro LFTRs for each steel mill or a small town, hidden away, almost invisible.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/ambroseevans-pritchard/100026863/china-going-for-broke-on-thorium-nuclear-power-and-good-luck-to-them/