Stories tagged with "thorium"

The Future of Nuclear Energy: Facts and Fiction - Part IV: Energy from Breeder Reactors and from Fusion?

This is the fourth part of a four-part guest post by Dr. Michael Dittmar. Dr. Dittmar is a researcher with the Institute of Particle Physics of ETH Zurich, and he also works at CERN in Geneva.

The accumulated knowledge and the prospects for commercial energy production from fission breeder and fusion reactors are analyzed in this report.

The publicly available data from past experimental breeder reactors indicate that a large number of unsolved technological problems exist and that the amount of "created" fissile material, either from the U238 → Pu239 or from the Th232 → U233 cycle, is still far below the breeder requirements and optimistic theoretical expectations. Thus huge efforts, including many basic research questions with an uncertain outcome, are needed before a large commercial breeder prototype can be designed. Even if such efforts are undertaken by the technologically most advanced countries, it will take several decades before such a prototype can be constructed. We conclude therefore, that ideas about near-future commercial fission breeder reactors are nothing but wishful thinking.

We further postulate that, no matter how far into the future we may look, nuclear fusion as an energy source is even less probable than large-scale breeder reactors, for the accumulated knowledge on this subject is already sufficient to say that commercial fusion power will never become a reality.

(Links to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd parts)

Advice to Pres. Obama (#5): One Engineer's Advice for Energy Policy

This article is one of a series of articles, offering energy advice to President Obama and his administration.

The incoming Obama administration has promised a much-needed change in the direction of US energy policy (or non-policy, as some see the current situation).  However, some of those changes appear to be campaign gimmicks or aimed at satisfying special interests rather than solving our various problems.  (The heavy-for-light crude swap in the Strategic Petroleum Reserve proposed in the Obama-Biden energy proposal appears to be one such gimmick.)

For much too long, US energy legislation (I hesitate to call it policy, because it lacks the coherence to justify the label) has been aimed at short-term patches on problems which have only gotten worse.  CAFE regulations have barely held fuel economy steady, while low fuel prices caused consumption to skyrocket.  "Free trade" allowed cheap oil imports to kill movement toward efficiency and substitutes.  The auto industry lobbied against fuel taxes to promote its short-term interest in selling profitable trucks, with the long-term result that all 3 US automakers will go bankrupt in the next year if nothing is done.

We've had change before, but the results put us where we are now.  It's time for the right change. 

The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Paradigm

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:

Continuing the Nuclear Debate

We have run several articles recently on nuclear power and without fail they have stimulated enthusiastic debate. This is an opportunity to continue that debate. To start us off we have three guest contributions:

    Skip Meier - Nuclear Waste
    Bill Hannahan - We have yet to design the Model T of nuclear power plants
    Charles Barton - Thorium Reserves
Last week the UK's Business Secretary, John Hutton gave one of the most pro-nuclear speeches from a Government minister in which he compared the potential of new nuclear development with the North Sea: "the most significant opportunity for our energy economy since the exploitation of North Sea oil and gas," (Platts). Labour MP Colin Challen responded with a letter in The Guardian:
John Hutton's latest reflections on nuclear power demonstrate how rapidly British energy policy is regressing to its default mode - dig it up and burn it. At the same time as we are promised the nuclear pipe dream, we are also set to have new coal-powered power stations without carbon capture and storage. This comes at the same time as we have fought for one of the lowest renewables targets in the EU, are languishing third from bottom in current renewables provision out of 27 EU states, and are announcing yet another microgeneration review.

The message Hutton's department seems to want to promulgate in its energy policy is to reassure everybody that no serious change is needed, that we should carry on increasing our demand for energy and that climate change isn't as urgent as some people make out. One can only conclude that the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform is utterly unfit for purpose and should have the title Department for Fiddling While Rome Burns.
Colin Challen MP
Lab, Morley & Rothwell