India Plans Uranium Powered Export Version of AHWR

The AHWR represents the ultimate third phaser of the three phase Indian nuclear plan for a thorium breeder nuclear economy. In the first phase conventional Light and heavy water reactors will burn uranium based fuel. Once the fuel will no longer sustain a chain reaction, it will be removed from the reactor and processed to separate plutonium from other materials. The Plutonium then is rase to fuel fast breeder reactors. The fast breeders produce more plutonium but also breed thorium, producing U-233. The U-233 is then used to fuel the start up AHWRs which are also thorium Breeders. Once Indian AHWRs start operating, they will produce their own fuel. India has very little uranium and a lot of thorium, so the plan to base the Indian nuclear future on the thorium fuel cycle is sound.

The AHWR is a very technologically advanced small (300 MWe) reactor that would not cost a poor country an arm and a leg to buy, and would is designed to operate outside a highly developed grid. There is a market for such reactorsa outside India, and indeed potentially a very large market, provided the reactor uses low enrichment uranium. At present the Indians are beginning to seek customers for their present generation of small PHWRs, that are low enrichment uranium burners. There would undoubtedly be a marker for a AHWR with its sophisticated safety features, were that reactor adapted for uranium fuel. The Indian Atomic Energy Commission, has recently announced that it will be designing and building a low enriched uranium version of the AHWR. Chairman Anil Kakodkar of the IAEC stated,

"A new version of AHWR named Advanced Heavy Water Reactor-Low Enriched Uranium (AHWR-LEU) that uses low enriched uranium along with thorium as fuel has been designed recently."

Kakodkar added,

"This version can also meet the requirement of medium sized reactors in countries with small grids while meeting the requirements of next generation systems,"

This announcement is another step indicating that Indian plans for atomic energy are now becoming very ambitious. This week Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, announced at a conference of devoted to nuclear energy, that the Indian state was setting a goal of a generating capacity of 470,000 MWs of nuclear generating capacity by 2050. This very ambitious goal represents a hundred fold expansion of nuclear generating capacity over the next 40 years.

The ambitious Indian plan would require factory manufacture of reactor modules if not entire reactors. Automated factory production would lower nuclear costs, allowing India to become a low cost nuclear supplier to under developed countries. The quality of Indian AHWR technology is good enough to find AHWR customers world wide including in Europe and North America.

John Kutsch interviewed by Rod Adams on The Thorium Energy Alliance

The Atomic Show #143 – Thorium Energy Conference Described by John Kutsch
Rod Adams interviews John Kutsch, one of the key organizers for the Thorium Energy Alliance, who is also heading up preparations for the organization’s first face to face meeting in Washington on October 19 and 20.

New East Tennessee Solar Plan, Get Wacked Out by Drinking Hemlock.

I grew up in East Tennessee, and got use to its climate as a child. It rains a lot in East Tennessee, and even when it does not rain, the sky is often cloudy for part or even all of the day. Similar climatic conditions extend over much of the southeastern united States. On an annual basis clouds block the sun in Knoxville and Nashville 44% of the time, while in sunny Chattanooga the sun does not shine 43% of the time. In Knoxville it is cloudy all day long 161 days a year, that is the equivalent of over 5 sunless months a year. November in Knoxville is positively gloomy, with the sun out only 42% of the time.and this is no light cloud cover either. Whole days may be spent in simi-dark conditions. Even during the most sunny months of the summer, clouds will block the sun over 1/3rd of the time. East Tennessee in particular offers a terrible environment for solar power. I am an enthusiast for solar water heating, but when I investigated the potential for solar water heating in East Tennessee, I quickly came to the conclusion that it was a financial no go.

So where does the United States Department of Energy plan to invest $31.5 million dollars in solar energy research? You have got it, at solar research institute associated with the University of Tennessee in Knoxville. The research is expected to begin about the same time the sun emerges from the East Tennessee winter cloud cover in April. With the largess of the DoE, Solar is becomings big business in Tennessee. Two business's have emerged as leading lights in the often murky climate of Tennessee solar business. They are Wacker Chemicals, - I kid you not - and Hemlock Semiconductor - again I kid you not. Well the plan seems to be to wack us with ineffectual solar power which will have the same effect on us that drinking a concoction made from hemlock routs, and on people who were executed in ancient Greece. Well lets hope that hemlock does not grow on East Tennessee's numerous cloudy days.

Hat tip to Rebecca Roller.

Greens, Small Reactors

My online encounter with David Roberts during the spring and summer of 2007 had the indirect impact of radicalizing my thinking about nuclear power. I was certainly willing to meet David half way, and propose ideas that could meet his objections to nuclear power, if he had been willing to participate in a dialogue. I had hoped that a rational alliance of nuclear supporters and Greens could overcome opposition to Global Warming mitigation, but David Roberts and his associates including Joe Romm and Amory Lovins proved to be diehard enemies of nuclear power who preferred burning fossil fuels to reactors, in other words glorified lobbyists for the natural gas industry.

It was probably a mistake to take Roberts complaints about nuclear power literally, the cost of reactors could dramatically lowered by. Roberts' complaints were simply excuses to make his opposition to nuclear power seem rational and socially acceptable. But it was not a bad thing to treat them seriously. One of Roberts' strongest objections was the cost of nuclear power. It struck me that nuclear costs could not be controlled as long as reactors were constructed on site. Manufacturing reactors in factories like other 20th century industrial objects would open the door to lower labor cost and improved manufacturing quality. Small size would ease the problem of transporting complete reactors from a factory. The adoption of Molten Salt Reactor technology, assured large power output from a small size reactor core, design simplicity, safety, virtual solution of the problem of nuclear waste, and rapid reactor scalability as a means of quick replacement of fossil fuel fired power plants, with safe and efficient nuclear power plants. Small factory built reactors built on less sophisticated designs still hold similar advantages. Take for example the Babcock and Wilcox proposed mPower factory built small Light Water Reactor.

Andrew Kadak, a professor of nuclear engineering at MIT, recently explained some of the advantages of small mPower reactor manufacture in factories,

Building a reactor in a factory should save construction time, says Kadak. He estimates that what takes eight hours to do in the field could be done in just one hour in a factory. Once the reactor is manufactured, it would then be shipped to the site of a power plant along with the necessary containment walls, turbines for generating electricity, control systems, and so on.

Reactors like the mPower seem to offer considerable flexibility, but despite their the labor saving potential of the mPower factory built design, even more labor and manufacturing savings may be possible in factory built reactors that utilize advanced Generation IV nuclear technologies. Such reactors have the potential of short construction times and low cost, combined with solutions to the traditional problems of nuclear power. Some Generation IV Reactors produce little or no waste. The same Generation IV Reactors solve the problem of nuclear fuel sustainability. Generation IV reactors use passive safety features and have superior inherent safety. In short a movement to Generation IV nuclear technology would either completely resolve or greatly lesson the problems that the Greens complain about. Do the Greens want that? Do the Greens want the list of problems they recite as reasons for their opposition to nuclear power resolved? No they do not.

At any rate, I did come up with solutions to the problems that David Roberts complained about, and Roberts ignored my solutions.

The small reactor is an idea whose time has come. Lots of people saw the same things that I did. B&W wants to build the small mPower, but the mPower is still a Light Water Reactor, and factory manufacture is not going to make the complexity problem disappear. B&W still says it is going to take a long time to assemble a mPower reactor in a factory. Sandia National has a simpler Generation IV reactor, which no doubt can be assembled in less than a year. They call it the "Right Size" reactor. The beauty of the right size reactor is that it is based on well tested technology. All you have to do is build a production prototype, run some tests on it, and there you go, you have got a commercially viable, factory producible small reactor that will be simpler and lower cost than the B&W mPower.

Once Greens like Roberts catch on to the potential of the "right size" reactor, they will foam at the mouth. The Indians don't care. The Indians are going ahead with a plan to build a middle size fast reactor that will be similar to the "Right Size" reactor but a little larger, but which has revolutionary potential. The Indians have spent a lot of time and money perfecting their design, and the FBPR is likely to work. That will no doubt ease the way for the right size reactor. The greens will fight it of course, but then things will not be going well for the Greens.

The Green problem is simple. They have no real solution to the problem of global warming. Green thinking on AGW mitigation is so messed up that they actually think that making electricity with natural gas is a superior option to producing it with nuclear power. This is just crazy. I keep holding out the LFTR as a reactor which answers all or almost all Green objections to nuclear power. Some Greens are listening. Laurence Aurbach left this comment on my post "David Roberts and intellectual narcissism":

I have been a nuclear skeptic and I've posted my skeptical comments to Grist and other sites. Compared to fossil fuels, I see LWR's as a "less bad" option for decarbonized baseload power, but that doesn't mean I am enthusiastic about them.

On the other hand, LFTR's resolve 90% of the concerns I have with LWR's. They are far more robust and forgiving of error, and the volume of waste is much less and it's shorter-lived. And your ideas about modularity are very important from a financial and political point of view. Smaller, cheaper reactors are far easier for investors and utilities to sign on to compared to the multibillion dollar behemoth reactors that are the status quo.

I think one thing that would help generate enthusiasm for LFTR's is a comprehensive FAQ written for laypeople. The introductory material that's available doesn't cover all the important issues that policymakers, environmentalists, investors, and other potential supporters need to make their own judgments. If I could write it myself I would -- I can think of a lot of questions, but I don't know a lot of the answers.

The Green choices are simple, accept he necessity of of nuclear power for AGW mitigation, and back the "greenest" possible option, or to make a common cause with AGW skeptics in the services of the interests of coal and Natural Gas.

David Roberts and intellectual narcissism

In January 2007, David Roberts wrote,

Each nuke plant is fantastically expensive, uninsurable, subsidized out the wazoo, vulnerable to terrorist attack or accident, and constantly generating waste that we still don't know what to do with. Nuclear is a market Frankenstein, kept alive with jolts of taxpayer cash and bully-pulpit support from political, military and business elites.

What does Roberts think we should use instead of nuclear?

Natural gas really does seem like an important tool when it comes to short- and mid-term reductions in the electricity sector. Efficiency—getting more power from less fuel—should be the top and overwhelming priority, but natgas can certainly help at the margins.

Why does Roberts take such a drastic position?

Of the nuclear debate, I said that there's an array of great arguments against nuclear power, and one real argument in its favor: There's no other way to cut our CO2 emissions fast enough. That argument, I said, "strikes me as decisive if it's true."

Since then it's become clear to me that it's not true. The pressing realities of climate change argue against nuclear power, not for it, because they argue for the cheapest, fastest, most adaptable and resilient response, and that's not nuclear power. Money spent on capital-intensive hard infrastructure (run by a rent-seeking, politically connected industry with a crappy record of regulatory compliance) is money that would have more positive effect spent on distributed renewables and efficiency. The opportunity costs of nuclear power are too high.

My problem with David Roberts is that Roberts reaches numerous conclusions about nuclear power, but never tells us upon what facts those conclusions are based.

I wrote several comment to post by David Roberts, in a comment dated Jun 7, 2007 I pointed out that David's anti-nuclear stance was leading to a failure of green goals, and was actually promoting the interests of coal

David, rather losing patience with congress, we ought to focus on what can be learned from this fiasco. First we ought to recognize who we are. There are two different constituencies that are concerned about the CO2/Global warming problem. One might be called the post-carbon based economy constituency. The post-carbon based view wants practical solutions for transferring the energy economy from carbon-based fuels, to non-carbon based fuels. The post-carbon view holds that environmentalist goals like habitat and species diversity preservation are likely to be untenable if there is significant global climate change. The post-carbon view is that priority should be given to proven solutions to the carbon-fuel replacement problem. The post-carbon viewpoint is not opposed to alternative energy sources, including wind, tidal, solar generation of electricity. But the post-carbon perspective harbors serious doubts that a successful transition to a post carbon economy can occur without a replacement of coal fired electrical generating plants by nuclear reactor generated electricity.

The second constituency is the environmentalist community. To say the least, environmentalists seem to be confused. I have pointed out that global warming will defeat many environmentalists' goals. Environmentalists have traditionally opposed Nuclear power. In light of the CO2/Global warming crisis, continuing this opposition seems highly irrational. Environmentalists seem to think that nothing has changed since Three Mile Island. We are now a generation later. There have been a lot of changes in thinking about nuclear safety. New reactor designs are both safer and cheaper to build. Practical solutions for the disposal of nuclear waste are available as well. In light of these developments, environmentalists ought to rethink their opposition to nuclear power. Some have. But many have not.

We see coming from the environmentalist community proposals that we turn to unproven technologies as replacements for carbon-based technologies. Thus we see claims being made for geothermal power that are quite unrealizable with current technology. We see questionable claims being made about the potential for biomass energy sources. We see claims about the cost of wind power, that reflect the costs of wind power as a part time supplement to coal based power generation. The basic problem with wind that in most places the wind only blows part of the time. To have electrical power available when the wind is not blowing is going to be very expensive.

The problem with the part of the environmentalist community that opposes nuclear is that their thinking about other power options is weak. What seems clear is that the anti nuk environmentalist community has no practical alternative to coal. Thus the anti-nuk message of environmentalist like you David, serves the interest of the coal industry. People who are concerned about global warming need to get their message straight. They need to focus on practical solutions. They need to speak with a single rational voice.

Charles Barton

My plea to David Roberts fell on deaf ears. David was not interested in being rational. David repeatedly argued that nuclear power would be too expensive to serve as a post-carbon energy solution. But when I looked at Roberts preferred post carbon energy solutions, I found that they were far from cheap. In pointed out in a Grist comment how expensive offshore wind had become in 2007

The idea of off shore power is neat, but the offshore wind in the United States is far more expensive than nuclear power. Wendy Williams, in an December 9, Op-ed in the New York Times discussed the some of those costs. A 40-turbine offshore wind project off Long Island was finally scrapped after the price rose to nearly $1 billion. At full capacity, the facility was rated at 140 megawatts. Even if it produced half of it's rated power the facility would have produced power at 11,000 per KWh. David, had this been a nuclear facility you would have been screaming bloody murder, but since it is green you ignore the cost issue. The same Op-ed mentioned the Cape Cod 468-megawatt off-shore wind project which might cost as much as $1.7 billion the project is expected to average 182 MW. The Cape Cod project is a real deal, only $9,400 per KW. Cheep enough to make David Roberts jump flips.

Despite my use of sources like the New York Times David ignored the issue and continued to insist that nuclear alone was too expensive.

This lead to the question of whether David was engaged in the logically fallacious debate tactic of special pleading. That is setting up rules intended to apply to nuclear power alone, even though the same rules when applied to renewables suggested that David's favorite power sources were even more expensive than nuclear.

David did not answer this argument, he ignored it. This was a typical David Roberts debate tactic. David would set out an easily falsifiable position. critics would point out the factual errors and logical weaknesses of David's position, David would then then ignore the criticism and repeat the same erroneous assertions. Reality for David Roberts was what ever he said it was, and no evidence to the contrary could prove him wrong.

Roberts appears to believe that anyone who disagrees with him is narcissistic

But most irksome is Brand's (and Tierney's) decree that the pro-nuke stance represents the "scientist" wing of environmentalism, as opposed to the anti-nuke "romantics." You see a lot of this kind of thing on blogs and forums: the guy -- and it's usually a guy -- who insists that he alone is being rational and that his interlocutors are mired in emotion, if not hysteria. The self-proclaimed rational people are also prone to martyrdom: when they can't convince the benighted, irrational masses to accept their positions, they become, in their own eyes at least, brave "heretics." Nuclear proponents love this kind of intellectual narcissism.

No wonder David does not acknowledge what nuclear supporters tell him, we are all engaged in intellectual narcissism. David Roberts is of course so closed minded to think that anyone who disagrees with him has to be wrong, and there fore has nothing to say worth listening too let alone responding too. Anyone who disagrees with Roberts is clearly guilty of intellectual narcissism.

Amory Lovins Debates, sort of

Amory Lovins withdrew from a debate on the Gristmill Web site over a year ago. His withdrawal was discernible. He promised at least three more posts in response to posts by posts by David Bradish of the NEI. Those posts never appeared. In addition, Lovins had promised a response to a 2007 post by Robert Bryce. Like the Bradish responses, Lovins response to Bryce never appeared. I have recently charged that Lovins failure to produce his promised posts amounted to abandoning the field in debate.

Lovins has now announced that he will participate in a "debate" in San Francisco, next Friday. Lovins opponent will be Robert Rosner, Yhe Director of Argonne National Laboratory. In addition Peter Darbee and Al Fohrer are to participate in a panel discussion following oral presentations by Lovins and Rosner. All of this is set to occur within a span of 90 minutes. 90 minutes is not much time to pin a Lovins down, The whole thing smacks of a set up, designed to get Lovins off of the hook for the stigma caused by his bailout from the last two debates. But Lovins certainly does not deserve a pass on this one. He has set up a situation in which he can get away with his usual trick of offering a bunch of invalid considerations, with his opponent not having been offered enough time to refute his misleading assertions. In short another of AL's shabby tricks.

Windows 7 house party

Who says that Windows 7 house parties have to be dull? Microsoft recently released this variation of their Windows 7 house party video. Believe me people have sat up and taken notice while watching this version. The other, supposably "official version, has reportedly already driven hundreds of people to suicide. Before you do anything drastic to yourself, watch Micros0ft's plan to make the Mac look like the computer for the sexually repressed.

Atomic Energy Commission of India Press Release

Nuclear Green is following the development of the Indian nuclear program, the world's only nuclear development program that has as its long term goal a commitment to the Thorium Fuel Cycle. The Indians hope to accomplish this through a refinement of old technologies. Indian progress today has been impressive, and if the keep to their present schedule, it will be far more impressive during the next 10 years. While the Chinese appear likely to outbuild in new reactor starts over the next 10 years, Indian reactor technological developments may far outpace the developments of the Chinese.

DR. Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission of India

BY SANTO DASGUPTA

IDN-InDepthNews Service

VIENNA (IDN) – India, barred from international nuclear trade since 1992 until early this year, plans to export atomic power reactors and is developing an advanced design for the purpose, a top official said at the annual general conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Dr. Anil Kakodkar, chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), said at the IAEA conference concluded Sep. 18 in Vienna that India had designed a new version of AHWR named Advanced Heavy Water Reactor-Low Enriched Uranium (AHWR-LEU) that uses low enriched uranium along with thorium as fuel.

The announcement did not come as a surprise to the general conference. The long-term goal of India's nuclear program has been to develop an advanced heavy-water thorium cycle.

The first stage employs the pressurized heavy-water and light water reactors, to produce plutonium. Stage two uses fast neutron reactors to burn the plutonium and breed uranium-233 from locally mined thorium. The blanket around the core will have uranium as well as thorium, so that further plutonium is produced as well.

In stage three, AHWRs burn the uranium-233 from stage two with plutonium and thorium, harnessing about two thirds of their power from the thorium.

The first AHWR is expected to start construction in 2012, although no site has yet been announced. A prototype 500 MWe (Megawatt electric) fast neutron reactor being built at Kalpakkam in southern India should be complete in 2011.

"This version can also meet the requirement of medium sized reactors in countries with small grids while meeting the requirements of next generation systems," AEC's head Dr. Kakodkar said indicating that India was ready for export of such reactors in the near future.

"While we strongly advocate recycle option, AHWR-LEU would also compete very favourably even in once through mode of fuel cycle (where spent fuel is stored without reprocessing)," he said adding that the Department of Atomic energy has circulated a brochure of AHWR-LEU at the Vienna conference for the benefit of potential customers.

The LEU variant is suitable for export because it does away with the plutonium, replacing it with uranium enriched to 19.75% uranium-235.

The prospect of exporting power reactors is significant in view of the fact that India was effectively isolated from international nuclear trade from 1992 until early this year when a U.S.-led initiative resulted in special arrangements for India under the Nuclear Suppliers Group (NSG), based on an India-specific safeguards agreement with the IAEA.

Overseas firms can now do business with India, which is keen to import uranium and large power reactors. In turn, India looks forward to offering its goods and services to the wider world.

Producing 300 MWe (Megawatt electric; electric output of a power plant in megawatt), the unit is less than one-third the capacity of a typical large reactor. "It is designed to operate for up to 100 years and has a 'next generation' level of safety that grants operators three days' grace in the event of a serious incident and requires no emergency planning beyond the site boundary under any circumstances," the World Nuclear News (WNN) says.

The design is intended for overseas sales, and the AEC says that "the reactor is manageable with modest industrial infrastructure within the reach of developing countries".

The new fuel mix, AEC says, produces less plutonium than mainstream light-water reactors and what it does produce contains three times the proportion of plutonium-238, lending it proliferation resistance. Furthermore, it leaves only half the amount of long-lived radioactive waste per unit of energy compared to mainstream light-water reactors.

Apart from introducing India as a potential new major player in reactor sales -- especially to new markets – Dr. Kakodkar's announcement reaffirms India's commitment to proceeding with the thorium fuel cycle using the original AHWR as the final stage, says the London-based WNN.

India has a flourishing and largely indigenous nuclear power program and expects to have 20,000 MWe nuclear capacity on line by 2020 and 63,000 MWe by 2032. It aims to supply 25% of electricity from nuclear power by 2050.

The country has vision of becoming a world leader in nuclear technology due to its expertise in fast reactors and thorium fuel cycle.

Nuclear power for civil use is well established in India. Its civil nuclear strategy has been directed towards complete independence in the nuclear fuel cycle, necessary because it is excluded from the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) because of acquiring nuclear weapons capability after 1970.

The five countries (Britain, France, USA, Russia and China) doing so before 1970 were accorded the status of Nuclear Weapons States under the NPT.

As a result, India's nuclear power program has proceeded largely without fuel or technological assistance from other countries. Its power reactors to the mid-1990s had some of the world's lowest capacity factors, reflecting the technical difficulties of the country's isolation, but rose impressively from 60% in 1995 to 85% in 2001-02.

India's nuclear energy self-sufficiency extended from uranium exploration and mining through fuel fabrication, heavy water production, reactor design and construction, to reprocessing and waste management. It has a small fast breeder reactor and is building a much larger one. It is also developing technology to utilise its abundant resources of thorium as a nuclear fuel.

The Atomic Energy Establishment was set up at Trombay, near Mumbai, in 1957 and renamed as Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) ten years later. Plans for building the first Pressurised Heavy Water Reactor (PHWR) were finalised in 1964, and the prototype Rawatbhata-1, which had Canada's Douglas Point reactor as a reference unit, was built as a collaborative venture between Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd (AECL) and NPCIL. It started up in 1972 and was duplicated Subsequent indigenous PHWR development has been based on these units.

The Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd (NPCIL) is responsible for design, construction, commissioning and operation of thermal nuclear power plants. It has 15 small and two mid-sized nuclear power reactors in commercial operation, six under construction -- including two large ones and a fast breeder reactor, and more planned. (IDN-InDepthNews/23.09.09)

Copyright © 2009 IDN-InDepthNews Service

The Green Reactor: The LFTR and Green Chemistry

This is another repost. In contrast to the principles of Green Engineering which appear to be sound, the principles of Green chemistry need substantial revision, as is demonstrated by this exercise. The exercise demonstrates that it is possible to fulfill the goals of Green Chemistry wihile violating its principles. The most startling conclusion is that living organusms violate the principles of Green Chemistry and thus should be engineered. This is of course absurd.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is considered a chemists reactor. As such its operations will probably be evaluated by the so-called 12 principles of green chemistry. The Wikipedia describes the 12 principles of green chemistry. According to the Wikipedia:

"the principles cover such concepts as:

* the design of processes to maximize the amount of raw material that ends up in the product;
* the use of safe, environment-benign substances, including solvents, whenever possible;
* the design of energy efficient processes;
* the best form of waste disposal: do not create it in the first place.

The 12 principles of Green Chemistry are:

1. Prevent waste: Design chemical syntheses to prevent waste, leaving no waste to treat or clean up.
2. Design safer chemicals and products: Design chemical products to be fully effective, yet have little or no toxicity.
3. Design less hazardous chemical syntheses: Design syntheses to use and generate substances with little or no toxicity to humans and the environment.
4. Use renewable feedstock: Use raw materials and feedstock that are renewable rather than depleting. Renewable feedstock is often made from agricultural products or are the wastes of other processes; depleting feedstock are made from fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, or coal) or are mined.
5. Use catalysts, not stoichiometric reagents: Minimize waste by using catalytic reactions. Catalysts are used in small amounts and can carry out a single reaction many times. They are preferable to stoichiometric reagents, which are used in excess and work only once.
6. Avoid chemical derivatives: Avoid using blocking or protecting groups or any temporary modifications if possible. Derivatives use additional reagents and generate waste.
7. Maximize atom economy: Design syntheses so that the final product contains the maximum proportion of the starting materials. There should be few, if any, wasted atoms.
8. Use safer solvents and reaction conditions: Avoid using solvents, separation agents, or other auxiliary chemicals. If these chemicals are necessary, use innocuous chemicals. If a solvent is necessary, water is a good medium as well as certain eco-friendly solvents that do not contribute to smog formation or destroy the ozone.
9. Increase energy efficiency: Run chemical reactions at ambient temperature and pressure whenever possible.
10. Design chemicals and products to degrade after use: Design chemical products to break down to innocuous substances after use so that they do not accumulate in the environment.
11. Analyze in real time to prevent pollution: Include in-process real-time monitoring and control during syntheses to minimize or eliminate the formation of byproducts.
12. Minimize the potential for accidents: Design chemicals and their forms (solid, liquid, or gas) to minimize the potential for chemical accidents including explosions, fires, and releases to the environment.

The LFTR conforms to the principles of Green Chemistry in many ways, first by
1. Prevent waste: Design chemical syntheses to prevent waste, leaving no waste to treat or clean up.
The fuel cycle of the LFTR is the LFTR is the thorium fuel cycle rather the Uranium fuel cycle of the Light Water Reactor. In order to produce the same amount of power produced by one ton of thorium in a LFTR, the Light Water reactor wastes 200 tons of depleted Uranium and over 18 tons tones of U-238 in the form of nuclear waste. Thus the LFTR is about 200 times more efficient that the LWR in its conversion of the materials found in nuclear fuel into energy. The materials that are left over after nuclear energy has been extracted from thorium are not waste, and indeed have many uses. Thus the LFTR performs the first principle of green chemistry.

2. Design safer chemicals and products: Design chemical products to be fully effective, yet have little or no toxicity.
The electricity produced by a LFTR is no more toxic than electricity from any other source. LTFRs produce some material byproducts. And some are toxic. Toxicity is, however, a function of concentration. In high levels of concentration, many common substances essential to life and good health, including common table salt, iron, vitamins A and D, chlorine, oxygen and even water are detrimental to life, but their absence is even more detrimental to life. If all toxic materials were removed from chemical use, modern civilization might well be impossible. If human beings are completely protected from every substance that it toxic, our lives would be impossible, quite literally. According to green principles, life itself has been poorly engineered, and needs to be redesigned. It should be noted that LFTR byproducts are far less toxic than the waste from LWR's, and from coal fired power plants. The LFTR, if properly designed and operated, would not produce toxic plutonium, which is produced by LFTR. In the case of most byproducts, "green" chemistry can convert then into non-toxic forms in consumer products. In the case of radioactive byproducts, the very properties that make them toxic also make them valuable, for example the uses of radioisotopes in medicine. Radiation from radioisotopes, can prolong the shelf life of foods, and kill off undesirable microbes in human and animal waste, thus protecting the environment.

Thus the production of relatively small amounts of toxic materials by the LFTR does not automatically and need not lead to undesirable human and environmental outcomes, especially in an overall system that is governed by green principles.

Finally the LFTR can eliminate the discharge of CO2, which is toxic to the planet earth. In comparison, wind and solar generation systems. "Soft path" energy guru Amory Lovins, acknowledges the continued use of fossil fuels including natural gas, in future "green" electrical generation systems. Thus until the reliability and base load problems associated with renewable electric generation are solved, all renewable generation systems require the continued use of fossil fuel burning and CO2 emitting electrical generating plants, if reliable electricity is to be available on the grid. Thus renewables, in their present form, are toxic to life on the planet earth.

3. Design less hazardous chemical syntheses: Design syntheses to use and generate substances with little or no toxicity to humans and the environment.
While this is a lofty goal, it is also completely impractical, and indeed when applied to electrical production systems, this principle if systematically applied would make not only nuclear but also solar and wind generating systems impossible. Wind generating systems use large amounts of steel and cement. The manufacture of both produces a large amount of planet toxic CO2. Solar is metals intensive, and uses a large amount of glass, that requires heat that is produced by burning fossil fuels in its production. Renewables advocates have not indicated how they will remove CO2 from renewables building materials.

On the other hand reactors require far less steel and cement than wind, and require no glass and far less metals than solar generating facilities per amount of electricity generated. The LFTR uses less steel and cement in its manufacture than conventional reactors. Thorium and fluorides, the two principles material input into the LFTR, have already been mined, and are at present considered waste. Energy inputs into their extraction from existing mine tailings would be minimal. Further more, the LFTR can produce a great deal of electricity while consuming small amounts of thorium, and no fluorides. Fluorides are recyclable in LFTRs. At the very least, the LFTR is a candidate for the title of least toxic electrical source possible.

4. Use renewable feedstock: Use raw materials and feedstock that are renewable rather than depleting. Renewable feedstock are often made from agricultural products or are the wastes of other processes; depleting feedstock are made from fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas, or coal) or are mined.
This criterion is built on the confusion of sustainable and renewable. I received the following comment from donb on Nuclear Green yesterday:

With regards to sustainability, it strikes me that the "greenies" are stuck in the old paradigm of fossil fuels. In this old paradigm, the major sustainability concern is with the fuel, which is consumed in vast quantities, and thus becomes more scare and harder to extract as time goes on. The minor concern is with the materials needed to burn the fuel and use the energy. One of the results of this mindset is the less-than-critical examination of "renewable" energy sources such as wind and solar. These sources must be "good" because the fuel is inexhaustible (within the lifetime of the earth orbiting the sun).

The new paradigm that must be adapted is that with advanced nuclear (and renewables), the fuel is essentially inexhaustible. That being the case, we then need to look at the resources needed to harness the energy. Nuclear wins hands down due to its extremely high energy density, and the ability to produce energy on demand, not just when natural conditions allow.

Donb thus argues that nuclear fuel, unlike fossil fuels is inexhaustible in an practical sense. This viewpoint has received substantial support. Arguments that nuclear fuels are a limited resource have been found to contain numerous errors, and aappear to have never been published in peer reviewed scientific journals. Thus the case against the sustainable resource view of nuclear fuel does not appear to be strong.

5. Use catalysts, not stoichiometric reagents: Minimize waste by using catalytic reactions. Catalysts are used in small amounts and can carry out a single reaction many times. They are preferable to stoichiometric reagents, which are used in excess and work only once.
Here again we have to ask how realistic such a principle is. Is it practical or even possible to produce all the chemicals we would chose to have, by limiting chemical processes to those which can be conducted with catalysts. Until this point is clarified, the Greenness of this principle is open to question.

6. Avoid chemical derivatives: Avoid using blocking or protecting groups or any temporary modifications if possible. Derivatives use additional reagents and generate waste.
Not involved in MSR/LFTR operations.

7. Maximize atom economy: Design syntheses so that the final product contains the maximum proportion of the starting materials. There should be few, if any, wasted atoms.
Here again we encounter a conceptual problem with the so-called Principles of Green Chemistry. It is quite possible, with the LFTR to have an output of useful materials with a number of atoms that considerably exceeds the number of atoms in the original process materials input. The explanation is that thorium input atoms have undergone fission. However, most nuclear material from the thorium atoms is discharged from the LFTR process as useful materials. Much of the rest will be in the form helium, which is a potentially useful material

8. Use safer solvents and reaction conditions: Avoid using solvents, separation agents, or other auxiliary chemicals. If these chemicals are necessary, use innocuous chemicals. If a solvent is necessary, water is a good medium as well as certain eco-friendly solvents that do not contribute to smog formation or destroy the ozone.
No solvents are used in the LFTR, or in internal processing it fuel or the recovery of fission products.

9. Increase energy efficiency: Run chemical reactions at ambient temperature and pressure whenever possible.
In terms of EROEI the LFTR is quite possibly the most energy efficient electrical source ever devised.
In order to produce electricity the reactor must operate at far above ambient temperature but it does operate at ambient pressure, unlike Light Water Reactors.

10. Design chemicals and products to degrade after use: Design chemical products to break down to innocuous substances after use so that they do not accumulate in the environment.
It would appear that the LFTR produces little or no chemical waste. Material inputs into the process are largely accounted for in the output, or recycled into the reactor, radioisotopes output will break down to innocuous substances, most of which have uses.

11. Analyze in real time to prevent pollution: Include in-process real-time monitoring and control during syntheses to minimize or eliminate the formation of byproducts.
The formation of byproducts from the nuclear reactor is inevitable, the byproducts are almost all either desirable materials, or highly desirable materials, and properly managed they are very unlikely to produce pollution.

12. Minimize the potential for accidents: Design chemicals and their forms (solid, liquid, or gas) to minimize the potential for chemical accidents including explosions, fires, and releases to the environment.
There is no potential for explosions or fire with LFTR technology. The LFTR possesses notable inherent safety features. Although leaks are unlikely, a system of fission product recovery and multiple containment barriers will prevent fission products from escaping to the environment if leaks do happen.

Conclusion: Significant questions have emerged from this discussion concerning the Green Chemical Principles. While the goals of preventing waste and pollution are undeniably laudable legitimate questions can be raised about the practicality of several of these principles. The problem of toxic chemicals would appear to be more complex than assumed by the principles. Finally the applicability of some of the principles to electrical generation in general and to the operation of the LFTR is questionable. The 12 Principles of "Green Chemistry" clearly are not canonical science and are unlikely to become so in their present form. However, from the viewpoint of its low materials input, high-energy output relative to energy input, lack of waste in materials output, safety and lack of environmental pollution as a consequence of its operation, the LFTR would seem to fulfill the objectives of Green Chemistry. The failure of the LFTR to fulfill all of the principles of Green Chemistry are thus due to the inadequate formation of some of those principles and/or the lack of applicability of those principles to the LFTR, rather than any failure of that reactor concept to meet green goals.

The Road to Copenhagen, Route to Failure

When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him." - Jonathan Swift

Please consider signing your organization on to a new international effort to prevent nuclear power from claiming any benefits and incentives during the December 2009 UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, Denmark. Called Ni Nucléaire, Ni Effet de Serre (neither nuclear nor the greenhouse effect) in France, where the campaign is based, and Don't Nuke the Climate, in English, the goal is to create a campaign document signed by organizations from across the world to be used in Copenhagen.

Nuclear power has been kept outside of climate change mitigation mechanisms to date. However, some evidence shows that the nuclear lobby could be preparing its comeback in Copenhagen to have this dirty energy labeled as clean or carbon-free and thus benefit from new subsidies. - Beyond Nuclear

Fortunately nuclear power will be represented in Copenhagen. In July, Kirk Sorensen traveled to Manchester, England, where he gave a presentation on the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, to a pannel that was preparing a report, called the Manchester Report, on alternative AGW mitigation technologies. Kirk talked to the Manchester Report Panel about The Thorium energy cycle, and using the Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactor as a source of low-carbon energy. No doubt this was considered a quite exotic message by the Report Panel, but it appeared to be well received. We will know more when the report is published sometime between now aqnd the beginning of the Copenhagen Conference in December.

It is too soon to expect that Kirk's message, transmitted to the UN conference, will by itself bring about big changes in thinking about climate change mitigation. Still the fact that the message will be presented at all on an international stage.

From the early 19th the end of the 20th century modern society relied on fossil fuels for most of its energy. The reliance on fossil fuels had by the end of the 20th century brought an enormous transformation in human material life. Yje transformation first occurred in Europe and North America, but by the end of the 20th century, the transformation appeared to have spread to Japan and South Korea, and to be spresding to China, India and much of South East Asia. At the same time the fossil fuel sector of the world's economy began to face a double crisis. First the world's fossil fuel resources appear to be reaching or will soon reach the point peak production. Especially in the case of fuel oil, we can expect to see an increase in demand from Asian consumers during the next few years, while many experts believe that wold oil production will peak and then begin to drop.

Coal an Natural gas will noit creat the sort of near run problem that Oil will, but debatyed about the World's coal reserve has started.

The second issue with fossil fuels is that of Greenhouse Gas emissions. Burning Fossil Fuels produces CO2, and armospheric CO2 is a major driver for Anthroogenic Global Warming. Scientist believe that adverse consequences, that could effect ti some, most or even all of the world's population could come about as a result of continued CO2 emissions asa the result of burning fossil fuels.

During the 19th and 20th centuries practices related to and dependent on the burning of fossil fuels, transformed the lives of a large minrity of the human populzation and inpated the lives of most of the human population. Most of the changes were deemed beneficial, but others were viewed as deleterious. A whole way of life emerged that entailed the use of large amounts of energy. Most people thought that such an energy rich would continue in its present form for a long time to come. There was a characteristic set of attitudes, beliefs, symboles and brehaviors that centered around energy and regulated both the individual relationship toward enery, and ordered social life with energy, Those patterns, beliefs, attitudes, behaviors, ad symbols solved most human problems as peoples lives became entangled with energy use. Voices were raised, however, suggesting that the first energy paradigm, the first pattern of attitudes, beliefs, symboles and behaviors engaged with energy.

In 1956 Geologist M. King Hubbert predicted that ther production of oil would peak soon and then decline:

A year latter In December 1957 Edward Teller was invited to address the Annual meeting of the American Chemical Society. Teller was at the height of his fame. He was an honest to God celebrity, with reporters at his side, jotting down his comments, photographers snapping his picture, and as disgusting as it might seem now, women volunteering to sleep with him on the basis of his fame. (I know this because a beautify but wayward woman once describe an encounter with Teller to me. She would have slept with Teller had he consented to the arrangement.) He was referred to in the press as the Father of the "H-Bomb." He was also a darling of the American right-wing. No doubt the ACS thought by getting Teller to speak, they had achieved some coup. They must have been a little bit bewildered then when Teller started to talk about carbon dioxide and global climate. Teller told the assembled chemists that continued burning of carbon based fuels would increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, eventually warming the planet to the extent that the polar ice caps would melt, and the resulting rise in sea level would submerge costal cities under water.

Ways of life are forms of being. They do not die quickly and they die with much confusion, We only understand things, the philosopher Hegel told us, after they stop working. By then it is too late to save them. By the 1970's harbingers of the impending death of the fossil fuel energy paradigm had begun to emerge, but its replacement was far from certain. I will in my next post point how the fossil fuel paradigm was able to survive into the next century but probably will not survive much longer.

I hoop to continue my account of the Road to copenhagen before the week is over.

Atomic Podcast 141

Atomic Podcast 141, with Robert Hargraves, Rod Adams talk about the Thorium Energy Alliance Conference and other miscellaneous atomic topics.

The Green Reactor: LFTR Green Engineering

This repost was one of a series in which I examined the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor from a "green" perspective. My basic view if the words "not nuclear" are removed from a list of green engineering standards for electrical generation, the LFTR conforms to objectives expectations for "green" technology.

The "green" status of nuclear power has been challenged because nuclear power allegedly does not conform to "Green" principles. Whether or not the supposed green principles are in fact environmentally sound is of course open to question. The current post, however will not travel down that route, rather I intend to demonstrate that one form of nuclear reactor, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor conforms to "green" standards.

The 12 Principles of Green Engineering are said to be:

Principle 1: Designers need to strive to ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently nonhazardous as possible.
Principle 2: It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is formed.
Principle 3: Separation and purification operations should be designed to minimize energy consumption and materials use.
Principle 4: Products, processes, and systems should be designed to maximize mass, energy, space, and time efficiency.
Principle 5: Products, processes, and systems should be “output pulled” rather than “input pushed” through the use of energy and materials.
Principle 6: Embedded entropy and complexity must be viewed as an investment when making design choices on recycle, reuse, or beneficial disposition.
Principle 7: Targeted durability, not immortality, should be a design goal.
Principle 8: Design for unnecessary capacity or capability (e.g., “one size fits all”) solutions should be considered a design flaw.
Principle 9: Material diversity in multicomponent products should be minimized to promote disassembly and value retention.
Principle 10: Design of products, processes, and systems must include integration and interconnectivity with available energy and materials flows.
Principle 11: Products, processes, and systems should be designed for performance in a commercial “afterlife”.
Principle 12: Material and energy inputs should be renewable rather than depleting.

1: Designers need to strive to ensure that all material and energy inputs and outputs are as inherently nonhazardous as possible.
Materials inputs into the structure of the LFTR, its fuel and carrier salts are not highly hazardous. The reactor can be built from a variety of materials, and variety fluoride salts can be used as carrier salts. Most of the hazards of LFTR are internal to its operation, and can be controlled through the application of principles containment barriers to the design of LFTRs and their housing facilities. Containment barriers will protech the biological environment, by preventing accidentally released hazzardous materials from reaching it. The LFTR makes little to no intrusion on the landscape. There need be no tall towers associated with the siting of LFTRs as there is with windmills,. Indeed LFTRs can be sited underground or underwater and thus have absolutely no undesirable aesthetic aspects. Unlike "green" windmills, LFTRs can be built to be wild life safe. Unlike huge solar or wind arrays, LFTRs use little space, and thus are far less likely to have unintended negative consequences for local ecology.

2: It is better to prevent waste than to treat or clean up waste after it is formed.
The material outputs from the fission process in the LFTR can be inputs into industrial processes, or can be used in medicine, agriculture, food preservation, and sanitation. Heat not lost to the second law of thermodynamics can be put to a variety of uses. All long lived hazardous materials can be recycled as fuel in LFTRs until they are completely dissipated.

Principle 3: Separation and purification operations should be designed to minimize energy consumption and materials use.
Proposed fission product separation and extraction technologies are energy efficient and they would be operated either continuously or periodically as part of the reactor system. Extraction and purification systems are understood to be a vital and required part of LFTR design.

Principle 4: Products, processes, and systems should be designed to maximize mass, energy, space, and time efficiency.
The LFTR is outstanding performance in its minimization of mass, energy, space and time efficiency:
* The structure of the LFTR requires less material per kW of electrical output than conventional reactors.
* The LFTR requites fewer materials inputs per KW of rated electrical output than solar or wind generating system.
* The fuel and coolant inputs into the LFTR are tiny compared to conventional nuclear power plants. The LFTR can be air cooled, eliminating water use.
* The EROEI of the LFTR is potentially superior to the EROEI of not only Light Water Reactors, but also wind generators, and all forms of solar electrical generators. The EROEI superiority is at least two orders of magnitude.
* The LFTR is smaller than Light Water Reactors and its gas turbines are also smaller the steam turbines of LWRs. Since the LFTR produces a small percentage of the radioactive byproduct produced by the LWR, far less space needs to be devoted to the storageof radioactive fission products.
* Not only is the energy density of LFTR is superior to conventional LWRs, but is superior by several order of magnitude to either solar generation or wind generation systems.
* The LFTR produces as much energy per unit of time as the LWR, and it produces far more electricity per unit of time than solar or wind generation systems with comparable output ratings.

Principle 5: Products, processes, and systems should be “output pulled” rather than “input pushed” through the use of energy and materials.
The LFTR potentially has a materials, and energy output to input ratio to any other electrical generation system. Virtually 100% of the fuel input into the generation process is potential useful output. The EROEI of the LFTR is far superior to any "renewable" generating system.

Principle 6: Embedded entropy and complexity must be viewed as an investment when making design choices on recycle, reuse, or beneficial disposition.
The energy input into recycling, reuse, or beneficial disposition of reactor materials and fission products is a far smaller fraction of total electrical output than is the case with either conventional LWRs or "renewable" electrical generation sources. Heat not lost to the second law of thermodynamics can be recaptured for space heating, water heating, low tempreture industrial process, and desalinization.

Principle 7: Targeted durability, not immortality, should be a design goal.
Nearly 100% of the fuel input into the LFTR is recyclable. The extraction and separation of many recyclable materials is part of the basic LFTR technology. Carrier salts can be reused. Materials used in te construction of the reactor are recyclable.

Principle 8: Design for unnecessary capacity or capability (e.g., “one size fits all”) solutions should be considered a design flaw.
The LFRT has outstanding potential for modular design. Factory production of small 100 MW to 300 MW LFTRs, and the clustering of several small LFTRs allow for the production of large amounts of electricity without the enormous capital investment required for both large conventional reactors and large renewable power generating projects.

Principle 9: Material diversity in multicomponent products should be minimized to promote disassembly and value retention.
A high degree of materials standardization is possible with the LFTR. the LFTR can easily be designed to facilitate decommissioning, and the recycling of parts.

Principle 10: Design of products, processes, and systems must include integration and interconnectivity with available energy and materials flows.
The LFTR is unique among reactors in that its system is designed to facilitate the integration and interconnectivity of energy and materials flows. In this regard it shows superior qualities to both renewable electrical generators and conventional reactors. It possess the ability to respond instantaniously to electrical load demand, and can serve as back up generating capacity.

Principle 11: Products, processes, and systems should be designed for performance in a commercial “afterlife”.
In this regard the LFTR is far superior to the LWR and superior to renewable power generation systems. Not only does the LFRT produce far fewer materials outputs than the LWR, but its materials outputs can either be safely recycled as useful and even valuable materials, or have value in medicine, industry, food processing, agriculture, and sanitation because of their radioactive properties. Waste heat from electrical generation with LFTRs can be reused for space or water heating, or in desalinization.

Principle 12: Material and energy inputs should be renewable rather than depleting.
All materials use in electrical production are either present in the earths crust in such large amounts that they cannot be depleted given the efficiency of the LFTR or are indefinitely recyclable. The amount of recoverable thorium in the earths crust greatly exceeds the amount that would be to produce all human energy till the time that solar evolution destroys the potential of earth to sustain human life. Thus the capacity of LFTRs to produce massive amounts of energy is indefinitely sustainable in cosmic terms, and has equivalent sustainability to other renewable electrical generating systems.

It is clear that not only is does the LFTR meet the requirements for green engineering, but far surpasses many of the "green engineering" characteristics of other renewable electrical sources. It possesses superior EROEI to all other renewable electrical generating systems. The LFTR makes more efficient use of all of its inputs compaired to both LWRs and other "renewable" electrical generating systems, and the use of its outputs is only limited by the laws of nature.

Paradigm Shift: The Liquid Thorium Bullet

I am returning at least briefly to the paradigm shift theme that I developed last year. My posting are again touching on the theme, and I want to remind my readers, and in some cases inform my readers of my earlier statements on paradigm change. I originally posted this post originally on December 29, 2008.

Probably no more than a thousand people in the entire world fully understands the paradigm, although thousands more understand bits and pieces of it. Much of the paradigm was shaped by Eugene Wigner, a authentic genius and a man of singular vision. Wigner foresaw the need for extracting the enormous energy potential from thorium and using it to sustain human civilization. Wigner's vision included a heavy-water fluid-core reactor as the instrument through which thorium was to be transformed into nuclear fuel. Alvin Weinberg, Wigner's former student and another genius, later realized that the Molten Salt Reactor was a far superior tool for realizing the full energy potential of the thorium fuel cycle, and the potential to increase energy efficiency to increase its energy potential even further by coupling it with massive desalinization projects in desert countries.

Later Oak Ridge scientists pointed out the potential of Molten Salt Reactors to destroy nuclear weapons materials, the very real safety potential molten salt reactors and the potential to use closed-cycle gas turbines rather than steam turbines to enhance energy conversion efficiency. Lars Jorgensen, following the lead of researchers in several countries has proposed that a type of molten-Salt Reactor, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, can destroy nuclear waste while producing vast amounts of energy. The Chinese and the South Africans plan to build large numbers of small, low cost Pebble-Bed Reactors in factories and to set up clusters of small reactors to duplicate the power output of large nuclear plants. Kirk Sorensen and I have pointed out that the model of factory-built small reactors clusters as a flexible low cost alternative to large and expensive Light Water Reactors works even better with LFTRs than with PBRs. Kirk Sorensen has proposed underwater siting for LFTRs, while Ralph Moir and Edward Teller have proposed underground siting.

During the last year I have worked on a conceptual level to explore the LFTR paradigm and its limitations on a conceptual level. That is I have attempted to explore the Paradigm as it presently stands. My findings are that the LFTR paradigm answers all of the traditional objections to nuclear power. It is very safe, it is proliferation resistant and the paradigm works best if the LFTR is used to destroy nuclear waste as well as nuclear weapons material. Because the LFTR is safe, unconventional siting approaches are possible. I have pointed out the environmental advantages of the LFTR. It would occupy a very small foot print. The LFTR would produce little tp no nuclear waste. It could be used to destroy transuranium reactor products rather than produce them. Fission products have uses in the economy, and in an era of increasing resource scarcity, LFTRs will become an important source of rare and valuable materials. Design concepts for the LFTR conforms to the standards of Green Engineering, and its input output matrix is consistent with the goals of Green Chemistry.

The LFTR is capable of providing base power at a very attractive price, but because of its potential for load following and rapid power output buildup from a standby condition, and its potential for low cost manufacture, the LFTR holds potential use as a peak power generating source.

There is enough Thorium in the United States that is above ground in the form of mine tailings to provide the United States with all of its energy needs for thousands of years. AEC sponsored research, during the 1960's showed that the total recoverable thorium reserve in the United States was large enough to provide all of the United States' energy needs for millions of years.

Research conducted in Oak Ridge from 1948 onwards solved many of the technological problems Molten Salt Reactors. Other researchers have solved other potential problems of the LFTRs indirectly. If a crash LFTR development program that would be similar in scope to the World War II Manhattan Project were to be undertaken by 2012, large scale factory production of LFTRs could be undertaken by 2020.

Given a crash program of LFTR development in the next decade, and the potential for rapid deployment through factory production, most American electrical production could be coming from post carbon sources by 2030, and at a lower cost than from either conventional nuclear or renewable energy sources.

The LFTR paradigm offers a comprehensive low cost solution to the problem of switching the generation of electricity to post carbon sources. Because of its potential for rapid expansion, LFTR technology could also provide the generating capacity to support the electrification of ground transportation. Mini-LFTRs could be used to power ships. Stand alone small and mini LFTRs could provide electrical energy and heat to isolated communities. LFTRs can be cooled by either water or air. Waste heat from sea side LFTRs can be used to desalinate sea water.

The LFTR paradigm then suggests that the technology for a low cost transformation of American electrical generation already exists, and is capable of rapid development and deployment in little more than a decade provided Manhattan project type resource commitments are made to realizing the paradigm. Like all new paradigms, the LFTR paradigm is poorly understood, and its potential is only seen by a limited number of people. However the LFTR paradigm is being discussed on the internet, and knowledge of the paradigm could spread rapidly. Skeptics might argue that there is no such thing as a silver bullet to solve the energy problem, yet the paradigm suggests that there is a liquid thorium bullet.

Update: Early phases of paradigm shifts are often periods of confusion. There is now a great deal of confusion about the LFTR. People, who fail to understand how radically different the LFTR is from better understood Light Water Reactors still wonder how the LFTR could not have all of the flaws of LWRs. In fact the LFTR paradigm offers solutions to all of the major problems of LWRs without difficult and expensive fixes and workarounds. Until people adjust their thinking to include the new paradigm, the confusion will continue to be common

What the media reports

[T]hese days, the media are more characterised by what they do not report, than what they do.

- Richard North

My Oil Drum post on The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm

Posted by Gail the Actuary on January 20, 2009 - 8:05am
Topic: Alternative energy
Tags: lftr, liquid-fluoride thorium reactor, original, thorium [list all tags]

This is a guest post by Charles Barton. Charles is a retired counselor who writes the Energy from Thorium blog. His father Dr. Charles Barton, Senior, worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory for 28 years. He was a reactor chemist, who worked on the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) concept for about 2/3 of his ORNL career. Charles Barton, Junior gained his knowledge of the LFTR concept from his familiarity with his father's work. Neither his father nor Mr. Barton will gain financially from the advancement of this idea.

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm

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?
_________

Development of the first large 4 generation nuclear plants may proceed most rapidly if carried out in China or India (or South Korea, which has a significant R&D program), with the full technical cooperation of the United States and/or Europe. Such cooperation would make it much easier to achieve agreements for reducing greenhouse gases.

Uranium-235 is the only fissionable material that is observed in usable amounts in nature. Thus pioneering nuclear physicist like Enrico Fermi and Eugene Wigner had no other choice of but to use U-235 to create their first chain reaction under the bleachers of the University of Chicago’s unused football field.

But Fermi and Wigner knew early on that once a reactor was built, it was possible to create other fissionable substances with the excess neutrons produced by a U-235 chain reaction. Thus if U-238 absorbed a neutron, it became the unstable U-239, which through a two stage nuclear process was transformed into plutonium-239. Plutonium-239 is very fissionable. The physicists also calculated that if thorium-232 was placed inside a reactor and bombarded with neutrons, it would be transformed into U-233. Their calculations also revealed that U-233 was not only fissionable, but had properties that made it in some respects a superior reactor fuel to U-235 and Pu-239.

During World War II, Fermi and Wigner, who were geniuses with active and far ranging minds, collected around themselves a group of brilliant scientists. Fermi, Wigner and their associates began to think about the potential uses of the new energy they were discovering--uses that would improve society rather than destroy it.

The capture of nuclear energy and its transformation into electrical energy became a central focus of discussions among early atomic scientists. They were not sure how long the uranium supply would last, so Fermi proposed that reactors be built that would breed plutonium from U-238. Wigner counted that thorium was several times as plentiful as uranium, and that it could produce an even better nuclear fuel than Pu-239.

The first nuclear era was dominated by uranium technology, a technology that was derived from military applications, and carried with it, rightly or wrongly, the taint of association with nuclear weapons. As it turned out, there was far more uranium available than Fermi or Wigner had originally feared, but other rationales propelled scientific interest in developing thorium fuel cycle reactors. First, Pu-239 was not a good fuel for most reactors. It failed to fission 1/3 of the time when it absorbed a neutron in a conventional Light Water Reactor (LWR). This led to the most difficult part of the problem of nuclear waste. Plutonium made excellent fuel for fast neutron reactors, but the fast neutron reactor that Fermi liked used dangerous liquid sodium as its coolant, and would pose a developmental challenge of enormous proportions.

Advocates of the thorium fuel cycle point to its numerous advantages over the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle. B.D. Kuz’minov, and V.N. Manokhin, of the Russian Federation State Science Centre, Institute of Physics and Power Engineering at Obninsk, write:

Adoption of the thorium fuel cycle would offer the following advantages:

- Increased nuclear fuel resources thanks to the production of 233U from 232Th;

- Significant reduction in demand for the enriched isotope 235U;

- Very low (compared with the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle) production of long-lived radiotoxic wastes, including transuraniums, plutonium and transplutoniums;

- Possibility of accelerating the burnup of plutonium without the need for recycling, i.e. rapid reduction of existing plutonium stocks;

- Higher fuel burnup than in the uranium-plutonium cycle;

- Low excess reactivity of the core with thorium-based fuel, and more favourable temperature and void reactivity coefficients; . . .

Thorium could replace U-238 in conventional LWRs, and could be used to breed new nuclear fuel in specially modified LWRs. This technology was successfullytested in the Shippingport reactor during the late 1970’s and early 1980’s.

WASH-1097 remains a good source of information on the thorium fuel cycle. In fact, some major recent studies of the thorium fuel cycle rely heavily on WASH-1097. A recent IAEA report on Thorium appears to have been prepared without overt reliance on WASH-1097.

One of the first things physicists discovered about chain reactions was that slowing the neutrons involved in the process down, promoted the chain reaction. Kirk Sorensen discusses slow or thermal neutrons in one of his early posts.

Under low energy neutron conditions, Th232 can be efficiently converted to U233. The conversion process works like this. Th232 absorbs a neutron and emits a beta ray. A neutron switches to being a proton and the atom is transformed into Protactinium 233. After a period averaging a little less than a month, Pa 233 emits a second beta ray and is transformed into U233. U233 is fissionable, and is a very good reactor fuel. When a U233 atom encounters a low energy neutron, chances are 9 out of 10 that it will fission.

Since U233 produces an average of 2.4 neutrons every time it fissions, this means that each neutron that strikes U233 produces an average of 2.16 new neutrons. If you carefully control those neutrons, one neutron will continue the chain reaction. That leaves an average of 1.16 neutrons to generate new fuel.

Unfortunately the fuel generation process cannot work with 100% efficiency. The leftover U-234 that was produced when U-233 absorbed a neutron and did not fission will sometimes absorb another neutron and become U-235. Xenon-135, an isotope that that is often produced after U-233 splits, is far more likely to capture neutrons than U233 or Th232. This makes Xenon-135 a fission poison. Because Xenon in a reactor builds up during a chain reaction, it tends to slow the nuclear process as the chain reaction continues. The presence of Xenon creates a control problem inside a reactor. Xenon also steals neutrons needed for the generation of new fuel.

In conventional reactors that use solid fuel, Xenon is trapped inside the fuel, but in a fluid fuel Xenon is easy to remove because it is what is called a noble gas. A noble gas does not bond chemically with other substances, and can be bubbled out of fluids where it has been trapped. Getting Xenon 135 out of a reactor core makes generating new U233 from Th232 a whole lot easier.

It is possible to bring about 1.08 neutrons into the thorium change process for every U-233 atom that splits. This means that reactors that use a thorium fuel cycle are not going to produce an excess of U-233, but if carefully designed, they can produce enough U233 that burnt U233 can be easily replaced. Thus a well designed thorium cycle reactor will generate its own fuel indefinitely.

Research continues on a thorium cycle LWR fuel that would allow for the breeding of thorium in LWRs. There is however a problem which makes the LWR a less than ideal breeding environment for thorium. Elisabeth Huffer, Hervé Nifenecker, and Sylvain David note:

Fission products are much more efficient in poisoning slow neutron reactors than fast neutron reactors. Thus, to maintain a low doubling time, neutron capture in the fission products and other elements of the structure and coolant have to be minimized.

India has only a small uranium supply, but an enormous thorium reserve. Millions of tons of thorium ore lie on the surface of Indian beaches, waiting to be scooped up by front loaders and hauled away to potential thorium reactors for a song. (For those of you who are interested in the EROEI concept, the EROEI for the recovery of thorium from Indian beaches would be almost unbelievably high, and the energy extracted could power the Indian economy for thousands of years, potentially making India the richest nation in the world.)

India has for 50 years been following a plan to gradually switch from uranium to thorium cycle reactors. That plan is expected to finally come to fruitionby the end of the next decade. At that point India will begin the rapid construction of a fleet of thorium fuel cycle reactors.

A commercial business, Thorium Power, Limited, continues research based on the Shippingport Reactor experiment. Thorium Power plans to offer a thorium cycle based nuclear fuel with a starting charge of enriched U-235 for modified LWRs. Thorium Power has sponsored Throium fuel research at the Kurchatov Institute in Moscow, and a Russian VVER has been used to conduct thorium cycle fuel experiments.

Research on thorium cycle liquid fuel reactors is ongoing world-wide. The best-known effort is being performed in Grenoble, France at the Laboratoire de Physique Subatomique et de Cosmologie. The Reactor Physics Group there is the only one in the world that has the resources and backing needed to actually develop a fluid core thorium cycle reactor that can be commercialized. In terms of organization size, the Thorium Molten Salt Reactor research group is much smaller than would be required to sustain a full-scale rapid development of thorium cycle reactor technology. The LPSC group thus is working in a business as usual time frame, and has no urgent motivation to do otherwise. After all, 80% of French electricity already comes from nuclear power plants.

Thorium fuel cycle research is also being carried on in the Netherlands, Japan, the Czech Republic. There is also presently a small-scale effort in the United States.

Thorium is extremely abundant in the earth's crust, which appears to contain somewhere around 120 trillion tons of it. In addition to 12% thorium monazite sands, found on Indian beaches and in other places, economically recoverable thorium is found virtually everywhere. For example, large-scale recovery of thorium from granite rocks is economically feasible with a very favorable EROEI. Significant recoverable amounts of thorium are present in mine tailings. These include the tailings of ancient tin mines, rare earth mine tailings, phosphate mine tailings and uranium mine tailings. In addition to the thorium present in mine tailings and in surface monazite sands, burning coal at the average 1000 MWe power plant produces about 13 tons of thorium per year. That thorium is recoverable from the power plant’s waste ash pile.

One ton of thorium will produce nearly 1 GW of electricity for a year in an efficient thorium cycle reactor. Thus current coal energy technology throws away over 10 times the energy it produces as electricity. This is not the result of poor thermodynamic efficiency; it is the result of a failure to recognize and use the energy value of thorium. The amount of thorium present in surface mining coal waste is enormous and would provide all the power human society needs for thousands of years, without resorting to any special mining for thorium, or the use of any other form or energy recovery.

Little attention is paid to the presence of thorium in mine tailings. In fact it would largely be passed over in silence except that radioactive gases from thorium are a health hazard for miners and ore processing workers.

Thorium is present in phosphate fertilizers because fertilizer manufactures do not wish to pay the recovery price prior to distribution. Gypsum present in phosphate tailings is unusable in construction because of the presence of radioactive gasses associated with the thorium that is also present in the gypsum. Finally organic farmers use phosphate tailings to enrich their soil. This has the unfortunate side effect of releasing thorium into surface and subsurface waters, as well as leading to the potential contamination of organic crops with thorium and its various radioactive daughter products. Thus the waste of thorium present in phosphate tailings has environmental consequences.

The world’s real thorium reserve is enormous, but also hugely underestimated. For example the USGS reports that the United States has a thorium reserve of 160,000 tons, with another 300,000 tons of possible thorium reserve. But Alex Gabbard estimates a reserve of over 300,000 tons of recoverable thorium in coal ash associated with power production in the United States alone.

In 1969, WASH-1097 noted a report that had presented to President Johnson that estimated the United States thorium reserve at 3 billion tons that could be recovered for the price of $500 a pound – perhaps $3000 today. Lest this sound like an enormous amount of money to pay for thorium, consider that one pound of thorium contains the energy equivalent of 20 tons of coal, which would sell on the spot market for in mid-January for around $1500. The price of coal has been somewhat depressed by the economic down turn. Last year coal sold on the spot market for as much as $300 a ton, yielding a price for 20 tons of coal of $6000. How long would 3 billion tons last the United States? If all of the energy used in the United States were derived from thorium for the next two million years, there would be still several hundred thousand years of thorium left that could be recovered for the equivalent of $3000 a pound in January 2009 dollars.

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.