The Molten Salt Reactor Building

Storm van Leeuwen

Comment: anonymous said...
Aside from your usual dose of ad-hominem fallacies, do you have specific information about van Leeuwen's alleged errors?

My Response: I would not classify my argument as ad-hominem. I did not argue that Storm van Leeuwen was wrong because of the facts I laud out, rather I argued that his background did not qualify him to be an authority on nuclear power. The fallacy is the assumption that Storm van Leeuwen is an authority without carefully examining criticisms of SvL's work.

If you are interested in Storm van Leeuwen's errors I can provide you with some discussions. David Bradish discusses some "Storm-Smith" math errors here.

Roberto Dones compared "Storm-Smith" findings on CO2 emissions associated with nuclear power to several studies published in peer reviewed journals. Dones notes, "SvLS guesstimate relatively high to very high energy requirements and hence corresponding CO2 emissions for the electricity of nuclear origin, the highest to be found in the literature circulating in Internet,2 especially when low grade uranium ores are considered. The main explanation for SvLS’ high figures lies in their extreme assumptions (often rough guesses, as the authors admit themselves) and partially flawed methodology."

Dones, whose paper is published under the letterhead of the Paul Scherrer Institute, like other critics argues that "Storm-Smith" cherry pick data: "the authors do not critically address their own evaluation in view of findings from those studies. Instead, they extract worst data from just one presentation (Orita 1995: Preliminary Assessment on Nuclear Fuel cycle and Energy Consumption), which is a highly incomplete survey, was never reviewed, nor it reports the used sources. ISA (2006, #35) discard figures reported in Orita (1995) on mining as “outliers”. . . SvLS qualify the data presented at that meeting as oversimplified and incomplete as if this were representing the whole of studies on the nuclear chain. Incidentally, several studies whose intermediate results were presented at the IAEA had and have been published in reports and journal papers and are acknowledged as reference LCA studies."

Dones points to methodological errors:
"SvLS (2005) often convert costs into energetic terms using generic factors, not reported in the text, lacking critical consideration of cost components, and lacking use of technical match to compare with real energy expenditures."

"SvLS (2005) add thermal to electric energy directly to give “total energy”, which is certainly not recommended practice."

"SvLS do not provide explicitly conversion factor(s) PJe or PJth to CO2 mass."

Dones also notes, "SvLS (2005) comparison of CO2 emission from nuclear with natural gas is not consistent.." and "SvLS (2005) use references that are likely to be outdated."

Dones also states, "SvLS (2005) is not accounting for mine industry practices." Dones, as well as other critics reports, SvLS (2005) pay no consideration of co-production of minerals as common practice for economically viable mining and milling (processing) of the ore especially in case of low grades. If co-production or by-production occurs, the energy expenditures shall be allocated to the different products according to the specific needs, accurately analyzing (to the extent possible) the complete process flow."

Dones then points to "Storm-Smith's" notorious Olympic Dam mine error:

"[A]s reported in (ISA 2006), in the Olympic Dam mine, where uranium is extracted as
a byproduct of copper, “most energy requirements would have been attributable to the recovered copper” under consideration of energy allocation to different products by process flow analysis.  ISA (2006) reports the results of Olympic Dam’s own calculations based on such energy allocation, obtaining 0.012 GJ of energy to uranium “for every tonne of ore that we process in its entirety (from mining through to final product)”. This would correspond to 0.012/0.7/0.85/0.82 = 0.024 GJ/kgU for U-grade of 0.07% (proved ore reserves), or 0.041 GJ/kgU for 0.04% U-grade (total resources).9 Application of the formula in (SvLS 2005, Chapter 2, #5) would give for 0.07%  grade the energy intensity of 4.4 GJ/kgU and 10.6 GJ/kgU, respectively for soft and hard ores, while with 0.04% the energy intensity would be 8.2 GJ/kgU and 19.5 GJ/kgU, respectively for soft and hard ores: i.e., SvLS formula would calculate two to three orders of magnitude higher values than this specific case."

Dones argues, "SvLS (2005) systematically overestimates energy expenditures, thus the associated GHG."

Rather than continue a summation of Dones devastating critique of "Storm-Smith", I suggest that you read the whole thing.

Martin Sevior's well known critique of Storm-Smith together with the debated between Sevior and "Storm-Smith" are to be found here with links. Savior's arguments are presented along with an extensive discussion, are presented on The Oil Drum here, and here.

Critics of nuclear power continuously miss represent "Storm-Smith's" authority. For example, David Thorpe, in the Guardian's "Comments are Free" blog, claimed "extensively peer-reviewed empirical analysis of the energy intensity and carbon emissions at each stage of the nuclear cycle has produced much higher figures. In fact, nuclear power produces roughly one quarter to one third as much carbon dioxide as the delivery of the same quantity of electricity from natural gas, ie 88-134g CO2/kWh." In fact Thorpe did not supply a link to any peer reviewed study. Indeed Thorpe provided a link to the Storm-Smith web page. None of the "Storm-Smith" studies were ever published in reputable, peer reviewed journals, so Thore is clearly either ignorant or dishonest.

Other common misrepresentations of Storm van Leeuwen's authority are the titles Professor and Doctor which are used with his name. To point out that SvL does not qualify for either title is surely not an ad-hominem fallacies.  It is simply a counter to common misrepresentation of SvL's credentials.   The fallacy then is the overblowing and misrepresentation of SvL authority, by people who for ideological purposes, use SvL's alleged authority to hid the flawed nature of his work.  

David Fleming and Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen

David Fleming argues in his booklet, "The Lean Guide to Nuclear Energy: A Life-Cycle in Trouble," that the era of nuclear energy is over.

Fleming argues that "The world’s endowment of uranium ore is now so depleted that the
nuclear industry will never, from its own resources, be able to generate the energy it needs to clear up its own backlog of waste." I have previously demonstrated in Nuclear Green that it is not the case that we have exhausted the world's uranium resources, and indeed given current technology, it is possible to extract abundant amounts of uranium for a period of time that would extend many tens of thousands of years into the future. Thorium is three to four times abundant as uranium, and through nuclear alchemy, thorium can be converted into U233. I have discussed David Fleming's numerous errors in his discussion of thorium. Fleming, however, committed numerous other errors in his pamphlet.

A review of Fleming's booklet reveals that he relies on one source for his information, that is the work of Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen and the late Dr. Philip Smith. Fleming acknowledges that before he wrote his booklet, he had a consultation with Storm van Leeuwen that lasted many months, and he mentions Storm van Leeuwen 86 times in his 50 page booklet.

Fleming argues that: “Back-end” energy – the energy needed to clear up all the wastes produced at each stage of the front-end processes, including the disposal of old reactors – is of two kinds: (1) the energy needed to dispose of the new waste – that is, the waste produced in the future, and (2) the energy needed to dispose of the whole backlog which has accumulated since the nuclear industry started-up in the 1950s. Back-end energy is the combined total of both of these.

Thus according to Fleming if the industry really had 60 years’ supply of uranium left for its use, it would only have some fifteen years left before the decisive moment; from that turning-point, its entire net output of energy would have to be used for the essential task of getting rid of its
stockpile of wastes, plus the wastes produced in the future.

How does he know this is true? Fleming gives us a footnote:
"Oxford Research Group (2006a); and Storm van Leeuwen (2006B), and (2006E).
SVL, Parts C2, C4. " In case you are wondering Storm van Leeuwen is listed as the source of the Oxford Research Group's findings by Fleming himself.  The title "the Oxford Research Group," itself is something of a misnomer, since none of the listed authors appears to have any connection with Oxford.     

Thus Fleming placed a great deal of reliance on Storm van Leeuwen authority. It is clearly questionable if Storm van Leeuwen, can be uncritically relied on in matters involving such broad judgements. He is not a nuclear scientist or a resource economist, indeed it is not clear if Storm Van Leeuwen has ever published a paper in a peer reviewed journal. He is listed as a Senior Scientist, Ceedata Consultancy, Chaam, Netherlands. A search for Storm Van Leeuwen uncovered the following information:

"Jan Willem Storm van Leeuwen, M.Sc., was born in Indonesia in 1941. He attended gymnasium (high school) in Utrecht. After graduation he served in the armed forces for two years. He then studied chemistry and physics at the University of Utrecht, B.S. He took his degree of M.Sc. at the Technical University Eindhoven in chemical technology (catalysis) in 1971. During the US exhibition 'Atoms at Work' in Utrecht in 1966, he was reactor assistant, with great interest in nuclear sciences."

"After completing his study, he chose a mixed occupation as a part-time teacher of chemistry and physics at a high school (A-level) and as a free-lance investigator. He has more than 30 years of experience in technology assessment. The main fields of his expertise are chemistry and energy systems (solar, fossil and nuclear), with related ecological aspects. The profile of his consulting work is making complex systems transparent and to make relevant data accessible to policy makers. During the years 1981-1982 he was a senior consultant of the Centre for Energy Conservation (CE), Delft, as member of a team working on the development of an innovative social-economic scenario and to assess all aspects of large-scale implementation of nuclear power. His technology-assessment studies of nuclear power started at the CE in 1978 and continued until 1987. During the last few years, these studies have become topical again, since the nuclear industry began claiming a practically zero emission of CO2. "

Another biography adds:

"Storm prepared, in collaboration with other experts, two reports on nuclear energy on in-vitation of the Dutch government, published in 1982 and 1987 respectively. During that pe-riod Storm was a senior consultant at the Centre for Energy Conservation and Sustainable Technology (CE) at Delft, and member of a team working on the development of an innovative social-economic scenario. In collaboration with Prof. Philip Smith he assessed all aspects of large scale implementation of nuclear power, including the forgotten ones. The CE scenario had a significant effect on the Dutch energy policy during the 1980s and 1990s. During the 1990s the discussion on nuclear power faded into the background. In 2000 the Greens of the European Parliament asked Storm, then independent consultant, to update his report from 1987, and to prepare a background document for the UN Climate Conference COP6 (The Hague, 13-24 November 2000).From 2000 on, again with Philip Smith, Storm van Leeuwen continued the broad and in-depth reassessment of nuclear power. The results were published on the web, to facilitate interaction with the target group: scientists, policy makers and interested individuals. From then on the authors keep in close contact with many scientists all over the world.Storm van Leeuwen is one of the international group of expert reviewers of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) of the IPCC."

Storm van Leeuwen is the secretary of the Dutch Association of the Club of Rome.

Storm Van Leeuwen does appear to come from a distinguished Dutch family. His biography suggests that most of the first four years of his life were probably spent in a Japanese internment camp in Indonesia.  Such early experiences can have a negative impact on the life of a very young child from whom much is expected.  Storm Van Leeuwen's was educated as a chemical engineer who does not appear to have worked as a chemical engineer, and who appears to have struggled to find his place in society. His place appears to be associated with the the Malthusian wing of the European Green movement. The "Storm-Smith" study appears to have been paid for by the anti-nuclear, European Green Lobby.

Thus Fleming rests his argument that back end energy requirements of nuclear power represent such a singular energy demand, that it would consume all of the output of reactors, on the rather slender authority of "Storm-Smith" and in particular on the even more slender authority of Storm Van Leeuwen.

Breeding or Conversion?

"the Sure Way, (though most about,) to make Gold, is to know the Causes of the Severall Natures before rehearsed, and the Axiomes concerning the same. For if a man can make a Metall, that hath all these Properties, Let men dispute, whether it be Gold, or no?" - Frances Bacon

I recently stumbled across an internet discussion of the idea of transforming thorium 232 into uranium 233 in a reactor.   The term breeding was used, and this lead to confusion.  Someone mentioned plutonium.  There is a natural linguistic association between the term "breeder reactor" and the word "plutonium".   

The word "breeder" is "breeder reactor" is used metaphorically.  What happens inside reactors is arguably nothing at all like the biological process of reproducing.  Nothing new is produced in the nuclear transformation process, but something is changed.  So not only are the words  "breeding" and "breeder" problematic from the standpoint of associations, they represent a weak metaphor.

A breeder is someone who selects animals for desirable characteristics to reproduce in offspring, and who controls the reproductive process.   But what happens inside reactors is that certain physical processes occur, that lead to the transformation of isotopes of one element into isotopes of another element.   Is there an appropriate name for the transformation process?  The word alchemy comes to mind.  The goal of alchemy was the transformation of elements as understood by the alchemist.  Such a transformation takes place inside a reactor. Thus the term nuclear alchemy would seem appropriate for the nuclear processes that transforms one element into another.  In fact it is quite possible to turn lead to gold inside a reactor.  

Thus the word "alchemy" captures something about the nuclear process that the term breeding misses, but the word is awkward to use in some expressions.  Nuclear alchemy takes place in all reactors.  Describing a reactor designed to produce more new fuel than it burns as an alchemy reactor thus is to say the least confusing.  

Since we are talking about a process that transforms one element into another we could I suppose call the reactor a transformer.  But everyone knows that transformers are toys that change from one thing into another.  How about a changer?   I don't think so.  That leaves with converter.

Former Presidential science advisor, John (Jack) H. Gibbons uses the term converter to describe a reactor that produces hydrogen, but the term converter could also be used for a reactor that transforms thorium 232 into uranium 233.   Although the term converter is not without problems, it seems to work better than anything else I have considered.   Of course conversion suggests something religious happens, but we should not speak of conversion, rather we should speak of something magical that happens inside a reactor.  I would say magical in the way the greatest of all alchemists, Francis Bacon used the term, as in "practical magic," that is science.  

The reactor enables us to achieve the goal of the ancient science of alchemy, that is the conversion of atoms of an otherwise useless material, into atoms of a material that is of value.

Thus the term converter reactor would seem the best to use for a reactor which transforms Thorium into nuclear fuel. Nuclear alchemy is the name of the process, and is the name of any process by which elements are transformed as a consequence of controlled nuclear fission.

Nuclear Green Current Priorities and Projects Report

I have set the current priority of Nuclear Green is the relaunching of the development of the LFTR/MSR as a high priority United States energy project. This is an ambitious project. I also intend to continue my documentation of my father's career as a scientist, using documents he has given me.  

I am working on a number of projects at the moment, but nothing has reached the point where I am ready for a post. I wrote an email to Jack Gibbons, requesting a virtual interview. Jack was one of my bosses, during my year at ORNL. He went on to become the Science Advisor to Bill Clinton from 1993 to 1998. Jack is always very diplomatic, but I would like to tease some candid observations out of him on a number of topics. If I can get Jack to open up, he would undoubtedly have some interesting things to say.

My second project is to compile a list of scientists, living and dead, who have supported or support the LFTR/MSR concept.

My third project will be a comparison of the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor and the LFTR/MSR concepts.

A fourth project will be a further investigation of the current status of research on the potential use of carbon-carbon composites in LFTRs.  This might require another virtual interview.

I intend to continue cross posting on Energy from Thorium since Kirk Sorensen and I have common goals.  

Interview with Ralph Moir: Part I

Introduction: I wrote Dr, Ralph Moir last week, seeking an email interview. Dr. Moit was an extremely distinguished scientist at Lawerence-Livermore Laboratory, and a personal associate of Dr. Edward Teller. Dr. Moir was extremely gracious in answering all of my questions. I jave split the three pasts of the interview into three separate posts. The first questions address Dr. Moir's work with fission/fusion hybred reactors.

On Mar 13, 2008, at 9:49 AM, Charles Barton wrote:

Dear Dr. Moir, There are numerous questions I would like to ask you. This would be of course contingent on your willingness to spend the time required to respond to my questions. I take the view that scientist are people who work on important questions, and their views should be known to a broader public. I have posted a number of my father's public papers along with an account of his career at ORNL on my blog, Nuclear Green. I have also given a considerable focus to the writings and career of Alvin Weinberg. Since you are a senior scientist, your knowledge and experience should be of considerable public interest. If you so choose, I would very much appreciate if you answer some or all of these questions.

During much of your own working career, you worked on the fusion/fission hybrid concept. I have a number of questions in connection with that:

1. Do you still think that concept is viable?
Yes

2. What would see as its strengths and weaknesses?
Fusion holds the promise yet to be full filled of providing a supply of neutrons that can be used to produce fissile fuel for fission reactors. Even if fusion cost twice that of fission per unit of thermal power produced, its fuel would be competitive with mined uranium at $200/kg. Fusion will be even more competitive as its cost come down. This produced fuel can be used in fission reactors to completely burn up the fertile fuel supply, that is depleted uranium or thorium. Its weakness is fusion is not here and past slow progress suggests future progress might be slow. Furthermore, we are not assured that fusion's costs will be less than twice that of fission.

That fusion can produce or breed fissile fuel is an advantage and simultaneously any facilities must be guarded against their misuse towards making fissile material for unauthorized explosives.

3. What technical advantages, if any would you see for a fusion/fission hybrid over a conventional molten salt reactor?

A conventional molten salt reactor can produce almost all of its own fuel but needs initial fuel for start up and needs some make up fuel and also some fuel to be used to burnout certain wastes. So the fusion/fission hybrid can be this fuel supplier. In this way the combination of a hybrid fuel supplier and molten salt burners can supply the planets power for many hundreds or even thousands of years at an increased nuclear power level enough to make a big impact in decreasing carbon usage. Such a combination might have one hybrid fusion fission reactor for every fifteen fission reactors.

If a hybrid reactor produces both fuel and power by fissioning this fuel insitu, I am afraid the system will be uneconomical relative to the combination of a fuel producer and separate burner fission reactors and relative to other fission reactors.

4. In what timeframe might we expect to see an technically and economically viable product?

So far fusion concepts that are approaching the feasibility stage suffer from being very expensive. Tokamak magnetic fusion and laser fusion facilities are very expensive making "productizing" uneconomical based on our present state of the art. The next tokamak called ITER might be built and tested in 15 years and with advances the projected costs in a follow-on might be low enough that a product or viable product can come out after another 15 years or 30 years from now.

The laser fusion facilities are also too expensive but with advances in the next five years a follow on set of facilities might be an economical product in another 15 years or 20 years from now. A key to progress in fusion is getting better performance in smaller lower cost facilities.

Ralph Moir Interview: Part II

Ralph Moir's Post-retirement Interest in the Molten Salt Reactor

After your retirement you seem to have shifted your focus from fusion/fission hybrids toward more conventional molten salt reactors. In addition to the paper you wrote with Edward Teller, you appear to have some involvement with the Fuji Molten Salt Reactor Project.
1. Can you tell us why you shifted your interest from fission/fusion hybrids to more conventional Molten Salt Reactors?

My job at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory involved studying and designing fusion/fission hybrid reactors. I lead the effort of many terrific researchers including those at other labs: ORNL, ANL, INL, PPPL and industries: Westinghouse, GE, GA, Bectel. During this time I became increasingly more familiar with all the fission reactor concepts. My favorite technology for fuel production was the use of molten salt pumped through the blanket surrounding the fusion reactor.

My favorite fission reactor was the molten salt reactor whose program was terminated in the 1970s. While others were forgetting about the molten salt reactor I became more interested but this was not a part of my job. After retiring from full time work in 2000 I increased my effort on the molten salt reactor.

2. Why do you think that the Molten Salt Reactor is important?

It holds the promise of being more economical than our present reactors while using less fuel. I published a paper on this topical that the ORNL people did not feel they could publish. It can come in small sizes without as much of a penalty as is usually the case and can be in large sizes. It can burn thorium thereby getting away from so much buildup of plutonium and higher actinides.

3. What is your relationship to the Fuji Molten Salt Reactor project?

I became familiar with this effort and its leader Professor Furukawa in about 1980 and appreciate his carrying on the ORNL work after they stopped. He has been a friend and colleague ever since.

4. What project is that project making?

The next step in molten salt reactor development should be the construction and operation of a small <10 MWe reactor based largely on the MSRE that operated at ORNL at about & MWth but without electricity production. The FUJI project has not gotten funding and is making no progress other than a paper here and there on some particular aspect.

5. Do you believe that a crash development of the Molten Salt Reactor concept is warranted?

Yes, that is in fact the conclusion of the paper Teller and I wrote. Surprisingly the cost of a crash program is not so great, less than $1B but its progress could be rapid owing to the feasibility proven by the work at ORNL so long ago on MSRE.

6. What is your opinion of the use of carbon-carbon composites in Molten Salt Reactors?

I am impressed by the ideas for use of carbon-carbon composites for high temperature heat exchangers and maybe piping and vessels. If metals are not used in the primary system then the temperature could jump from the 700°C of MSRE to 1000 °C by use of carbon-carbon composites. This development could be rapid by building on the work taking place in industry today.

7. What is any techniques would you suggest to counteract the effects of neutron radiation of graphite and carbon-carbon composites?

I am not very knowledgeable on graphite technology and can only assume small incremental improvements in its radiation damage abilities can be expected. However, I am intrigued by the dedicated effort of a number of individuals who are studying ways of eliminating the use of graphite as a moderator in the molten salt reactor. Perhaps carbon-carbon composites might be used as replaceable shields to protect walls from the direct neutron damage or be used to separate two fluids, an old concept at ORNL that was dropped over three decades ago but composites might resurrect it.