tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post6193067167233192100..comments2024-02-16T17:52:44.944-06:00Comments on The Nuclear Green Revolution: The NNL doesn't like ThoriumCharles Bartonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comBlogger17125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-13471714484482296652011-07-19T06:36:00.857-05:002011-07-19T06:36:00.857-05:00Looks like these guys had an agenda. Govt types- a...Looks like these guys had an agenda. Govt types- always that way. No unbiased analysis to be expected from that quarter.<br /><br />SioneAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-77557665537995921862011-07-10T21:32:52.562-05:002011-07-10T21:32:52.562-05:00It seems likely that the LFTR idea will not fly in...It seems likely that the LFTR idea will not fly in the UK until some of the senior members at the NNL shuffle off this mortal coil.gallopingcamelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08490747443886030893noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-84216769742204929882011-07-10T13:17:58.370-05:002011-07-10T13:17:58.370-05:00Anon, google appears to have sent your comment int...Anon, google appears to have sent your comment into the mist. They do that a lot.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-19031376456557243792011-07-10T11:14:57.296-05:002011-07-10T11:14:57.296-05:00NNL Report: Thorium fuel concepts which require fi...<b>NNL Report:</b> <i>Thorium fuel concepts which require first the construction of new reactor types (such as High Temperature Reactor (HTR), fast reactors and Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS)) are regarded as viable only in the much longer term (of the order of 40+ years minimum) as this is the length of time before these reactors are expected to be designed, built and reach commercial maturity.</i><br />What a load of nonsense that is, did it take 40 years before PWRs were designed? Magnox? MSRE?<br /><br />Give some competent engineers and chemists a decade and a bit of money and provided you leave them alone they could probably come up with a viable LFTR power plant in less than a decade (probably just a few years).<br /><br /><b>Joffan:</b> <i>And for the thorium enthusiasts - and I will absolutely grant that LFTR is an exciting potential technology - I find them often guilty of spreading proliferation FUD about current reactors. Something which will only strengthen those nuclear power opponents who will not hesitate to use the same deceptive arguments againt thorium breeders as they do today against uranium reactors.</i><br />While molten salt thorium breeders have the potential to be better than current uranium burners (as well as plutonium breeders) the nuclear reactors currently on the market are still much better than anything which isn't nuclear so we do need to be careful when stating the advantages of thorium reactors not to diss LWRs and the like too badly.<br /><br />Being able to solve many perceived problems of LWRs (much exaggerated as they are, at least in public opinion) might also help with getting people who were formerly against nuclear power to be in favour of at least one type of it.<br /><br />Splitting the anti-nuclear movement could be a very useful thing to do.<br /><br /><b>Martin:</b> <i>LFTR seems to have very good answers to the major problems of the light water reactor because the processes are so different. However, I worry that the major problems of LFTR will be different than the major problems of light water reactors. Such as:<br />1. Beryllium poising,</i><br />Beryllium can be used safely if the proper precautions are taken (and there are industrial uses of the stuff), I don't see this being a show stopper, just something those using Be (you can make an MSR without it, though you might have trouble getting a breeding ratio greater than 1) will need to address.<br /><br /><b>Martin:</b> <i>radioactive molten salt would seem to be a very dangerous processes to fix when something goes wrong.</i><br />The proposals with basically all fluid fuel reactors was to use extensive remote maintenance, I'm sure we can handle that (and being at low pressure would mean the worst that can happen is a leak which would solidify on the floor).<br /><br /><b>Martin:</b> <i>It really bothers me that nuclear engineers are saying that the chemistry will be easy. I think that chemical engineering to go from a four month run to a 40 year run will be more difficult that the nuclear engineering.</i><br />As I understand it a lot of chemists were involved in the work at ORNL.Anonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-79788217800248310422011-07-09T05:06:17.421-05:002011-07-09T05:06:17.421-05:00Oak Ridge K-25 Scientists practically wrote the bo...Oak Ridge K-25 Scientists practically wrote the book on recovery of Uranium from Fluoride salts. That is what you do as part of the gaseous diffusion process.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-91107982904370212232011-07-09T01:12:34.054-05:002011-07-09T01:12:34.054-05:00Excellent work Charles. It is amazing to me how ma...Excellent work Charles. It is amazing to me how many pro nuclear people do not understand the proliferation issue. There are two relatively easy, fast, cheap paths to nuclear explosives;<br /><br />1... Extraction of U235 from natural or reactor grade uranium. (enrichment technology).<br />2... Plutonium production using a simple unpressurized graphite reactor with natural uranium fuel.<br /><br />There is at least one difficult, time consuming, and expensive path to nuclear explosives; using a commercial nuclear power plant.<br /><br />If a group or nation wants to build nuclear explosives, the optimum level of proliferation resistance is that which is just barely easy enough to convince them to take the most difficult, time consuming, and expensive path to nuclear explosives.<br /><br />All proposed future reactor designs are beyond this standard, so it makes no sense to add complexity and cost to a plant design in response to the proliferation issue. That just makes it harder to build energy sources that are much cheaper than burning fossil fuel, and there lies a real risk.<br /><br />The solution to the proliferation issue is education. Keep it up.<br /><br />Bill HannahanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-9634366009281823292011-07-08T19:03:53.885-05:002011-07-08T19:03:53.885-05:00Sorry about the incomplete line.
4. Fluoridation u...Sorry about the incomplete line.<br />4. Fluoridation using pure fluorine to remove uranium from the molten salts is bound to cause dangerous repair problems.<br />Note: Fluorine gas is bobbled through some blanket salt to remove uranium. Then hydrogen gas is used to recover the uranium. Both of these gases provide potential problems when combined with high temperature and high radioactivity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-61013588864673885782011-07-08T18:27:31.025-05:002011-07-08T18:27:31.025-05:00Joe, the MSR is largely ignored by graduate nuclea...Joe, the MSR is largely ignored by graduate nuclear engineering, and nuclear science programs. I would not expect anything different in the UK.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-44458518771202982362011-07-08T18:21:56.041-05:002011-07-08T18:21:56.041-05:00I have downloaded the document and I see that it w...I have downloaded the document and I see that it was published in August 2010. I have been interested in LFTR for the last year or so and a search through the PDF using find shows no mention of Liquid, Flouride, LFTR etc.. I would have expected any valid review of Thorium technology to have at least mentioned these technologies. Especially given the experience gained at Oakridge. <br /><br />Joe Heffernangourock_swimminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14335774217647552326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-52449706518629568702011-07-08T17:03:31.455-05:002011-07-08T17:03:31.455-05:00Martin said:
4. Fluoridation using pure fluorine i...Martin said:<br /><i>4. Fluoridation using pure fluorine in highly</i><br />Charles Barton said:<br /><i>4. I am not sure what you intended to say.</i><br /><br />I am not sure what Martin intended to say either, but it might be something about the chemical dangers of pure fluorine.<br /><br />If that is the concern, I don't think it need be too great of a concern. Usually such dangers are accentuated when large amounts of a hazardous chemical such as flourine is stored in (say) pressure tanks. The way around the concern is to make flourine as needed from a stable flouride. Then essentially there is no inventory of fluorine.donbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-45873720046815444642011-07-08T16:14:38.686-05:002011-07-08T16:14:38.686-05:00Martin, thank you for your comments.
1 Beryllium ...Martin, thank you for your comments.<br /><br />1 Beryllium is also part of a tritium problem, so maybe it would be simpler just to use a low cost substitute.<br />2. ORNL had good success controlling moisture. Surely we can do better over 40 years later.<br />3. ORNL had plans for capturing nobel gases.<br />4. I am not sure what you intended to say.<br />5. ORNL came up with two solutions to the scaling problem.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-87544712746664464222011-07-08T14:23:42.900-05:002011-07-08T14:23:42.900-05:00"If a nation already has access to centrifuge..."If a nation already has access to centrifuges capable of separating U-233 from U-238, it already possesses the means to separate weapons grade U-235 from U-238."<br />There may be a typo in the above line (U-233 from U-233).<br />LFTR seems to have very good answers to the major problems of the light water reactor because the processes are so different. However, I worry that the major problems of LFTR will be different than the major problems of light water reactors. Such as:<br />1. Beryllium poising,<br />2. Moisture in molten salt causing HF causing corrosion,<br />3. Capturing and storage of radioactive gasses,<br />4. Fluoridation using pure fluorine in highly <br />5. Scaling up will find at least one more problem<br />radioactive molten salt would seem to be a very dangerous processes to fix when something goes wrong. <br />It really bothers me that nuclear engineers are saying that the chemistry will be easy. I think that chemical engineering to go from a four month run to a 40 year run will be more difficult that the nuclear engineering.<br /><br />So I also believe that the NLL report shows a complete lack of understanding of LFTR.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-4544560225979594752011-07-08T11:03:36.938-05:002011-07-08T11:03:36.938-05:00Charles - thanks very much for this critique. Kirk...Charles - thanks very much for this critique. Kirk Sorensen at <a href="http://energyfromthorium.com/" rel="nofollow">Energy From Thorium</a> posted a House of Lords debate including this very issue: <a href="http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/07/07/thorium-lords/" rel="nofollow">Thorium Discussion in the House of Lords</a>. I've left a comment there pointing people back here for your critique. I hope you have ways of getting this in front of the right eyes; the politicians need to be on this.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/blog/2010/nov/19/labour-peer-bryony-worthington" rel="nofollow">Baroness Bryony Worthington</a> seems to be the one making the noise; sounds like someone to cultivate.Andrew Jaremkohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07781060305332803073noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-2705455971680349182011-07-08T10:35:46.645-05:002011-07-08T10:35:46.645-05:00Joffan, My position in this review is that the tho...Joffan, My position in this review is that the thorium fuel cycle offers significant proliferation resistance with ou without denaturing. I would not disagree with you that the thorium fuel cycle may not offer more proliferation resistance than the uranium cycle does in light water reactors. I am not sure who he LLN had in mind when it spoke of a clim by thorium supporters that that the thorium fuel cycle was proliferation proof.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-53150033887880606642011-07-08T10:24:43.523-05:002011-07-08T10:24:43.523-05:00First I think you should note that this is just a ...First I think you should note that this is just a short position paper, not a full scientific study paper. You can find comfort, if you want it, in the fact that they really don't touch at all on LFTR technology, although I'd say that is a deficiency in the report.<br /><br />Like the NNL, I disagree with the contention that thorium reactors offer some special level of proliferation resistance over existing power reactor designs. But my argument is that present-day power reactors are already not of any significant interest to a would-be weapons developer, so there is nothing to choose between two values of "proliferation-resistance" which are both extremely close to zero.<br /><br />And for the thorium enthusiasts - and I will absolutely grant that LFTR is an exciting potential technology - I find them often guilty of spreading proliferation FUD about current reactors. Something which will only strengthen those nuclear power opponents who will not hesitate to use the same deceptive arguments againt thorium breeders as they do today against uranium reactors.Joffanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18025437863119781181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-85513779643596706322011-07-08T09:26:14.988-05:002011-07-08T09:26:14.988-05:00As quoted by Charles Barton, in the NNL report it ...As quoted by Charles Barton, in the NNL report it stated:<br /><i>In the foreseeable future (up to the next 20 years), the only realistic prospect for deploying thorium fuels on a commercial basis would be in existing and new build LWRs (e.g., AP1000 and EPR or PHWRs, [e.g. Candu reactors]. Thorium fuel concepts which require first the construction of new reactor types (such as High Temperature Reactor (HTR), fast reactors and Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS)) are regarded as viable only in the much longer term (of the order of 40+ years minimum) as this is the length of time before these reactors are expected to be designed, built and reach commercial maturity.</i><br /><br />Interesting how the LFTR is not on this list. Its development is as far if not further along than High Temperature Reactors, fast reactors and Accelerator Driven Systems. Methinks I see a blind spot in the NNL report.donbnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7597656451205429515.post-75377334435427203762011-07-08T08:38:58.485-05:002011-07-08T08:38:58.485-05:00Charles,
You said "Centrifuges can be used t...Charles,<br /><br />You said "Centrifuges can be used to separate U-233 and U-232.."<br /><br />This would be extraordinarily difficult to accomplish. These isotopes are so close in weight that a mass based separation (centrifuge or diffusion) is not practical. <br /><br />Other than picking this nit, I agree with your premise that the NNL assessment is either poorly done or published with an agenda.Bill Youngnoreply@blogger.com