short thorium-15

Thoriumwhat is is it ?it’s an element, a metal... like lead or silveris there much of it ?... it’s more common than tin... and it’s all over the planet

what use is Thorium ?not much, but

45 years ago, they found that

it is, by farthe most powerful fuel

on the planetbut kept it a secret

but, isn’t Uranium...... the only nuclear

fuel ?it is the only one we use...

... with it’s derivative, Plutonium

but Thoriumis also a nuclear fuel

is Thorium different...... from Uranium (&

Plutonium)• it is not radio-active, ie fissile• its reactors are much safer...

... they can’t explode• it leaves no unspent fuel, so...

... it makes no long-term waste

• you can’t make a Thorium bomb

is that all ?• it makes (a little) short-term waste...

... but most of this ash is valuable... used in medicine and hi-tech

• it would make electricity...... cheaper than from coal

• it is as green as renewables

and is that all ?

no, burning Thorium, in a ...molten salt reactor

you can destroyall the unspent fuel from allthe Uranium (& Plutonium)

reactorswhich would otherwise

last 240,000 years

no, I didn’t believe it, either

so this is the story of

Thoriumbut first ...

Chapter 1

so

why might the children

want a silver bullet ?

What’s going on...... in Europe’s two biggest

economies ?• Germany is phasing out all nuclear power

... to close all reactors by 2022

• 80% of France’s electricity is nuclear

... 58 reactors currently operational

... 75% of citizens want to close them

Other Recent News• Lib-Cons have accepted IPCC targets

... Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change

• UK Greens seem to have accepted that• renewables won’t solve the energy-crunch (alone)• carbon-targets imply some nuclear contribution

• post-Fukushima... safety issue is back on the agenda

• Arab-spring brings focus on oil-supply• shale-gas (fracking) is dressing-up as “green”• 500 died in US tornados• big CO2 increases in 2010

business as usual ?

IPCC carbon reduction targets• 34% by 2020 9 years to go

... already agreed

• 60% by 2030 19 years to go

... already agreed

• 80% by 2050 39 years to go

... now agreed, by Lib-Cons

but no-one has said how - yet !

? can we avoid... climate-disaster

...with just• renewables

... solar, wind, tidal, hydro, biomass

• CCS... carbon-capture & sequestration

noaccording to the IPCC

IPCC, electricity sources, by 2050

renewables now 6% up to 40%

nuclear now 16% up to 40%

fossil fuels now 76% down to 20%

why so drastic ?

+ 3 Centigrade• Amazon burns

• sea-level rises... engulfs London, New York, & islands... Bangladesh, etc ... went earlier

• Australia, west-US, southern Africa... become deserts

• billions forced to move... loss of agricultural land

• 30% - 50% less water in Africa, Mediterranean

Thames barrier

+3 Centigrade

replacement design... is 10 miles long

2010 saw a record rise in CO2 emissions

now 30 gigatonnes / annum

so there is now a 50% chance... of +4C rise by 2100

+ 4 Centigrade• Arctic ice disappears• Antarctic melting

... gives 5m rise in sea level• Italy, Spain, Greece, Turkey become deserts• mid-Europe reaches 50C in summer• southern-England’s summer climate

... it would resemble southern Morocco, now

• Arctic permafrost enters danger-zone... Methane & CO2 released to atmosphere... Methane is x 23 stronger greenhouse gas

so, the Human Race...... is at the cross-roads

avoidclimate-change

disaster inserthead in the sand

do we just wait for the apocalypse... drought, floods, famine, refugees, wars

the biggest problem...... our children will face

climate-changefrom the CO2 build-up

versus

the energy-crunchgeneration and conservation

wikipedia

wikipedia

............ ie Coal, Gas, Oil

UK nuclearpower stations ... still operational

Notice• they are all on the coast• away from people, safer• extra transmission losses

DungenessHinkley Point

Oldbury

Wylfa

Hunterston

Heysham1 & 2

Sizewell

Hartlepool

Torness

AGR

PWR

Magnox

Sizewell B ... closes 2035

all other reactors ... by 2023

UK carbon reduction targets...extrapolated to 2050 (IPCC)

2020 2030 2050 wikipedia

...... ie Coal, Gas, Oil

Coal, Gas, Oil

Nuclear

but all

new

Renew

ables

Sizewell B ... closes 2035all other reactors - close by 2023

To meet the IPCC targets for 2050... we must, without delay

• revolutionise electricity generation, the hard bit• renewables x 7, but law of diminishing returns• nuclear x 3, but closing all existing reactors

• the necessary bit• super-grid, local generation, CHP• storage, smart-consumers, reduce demand• the easy bit ?

... closing 75% of all fossil-fuelled power stations

• limit & manage climate change... storms, droughts, floods, refugees, resources

but how can we meet those targets ??

Fukushima

fuel ... Uranium (& Plutonium)reactor design ... solid-fuelproblem ... needs active cooling

result ... hydrogen explosions ... fuel melt-downs ... contamination

So every nation has an urgent problem• we must phase out fossil fuels

... or we’ll roast & drown the planet• renewables (alone) won’t keep the lights onSo why is “nuclear” not the answer

... where nuclear = Uranium (& Plutonium)

• reactors can explode• 99% of fuel is left “unspent”

... making long-term radioactive waste• fuel supply may be limited, precarious ?• enrichment and reprocessing are dangerous

... pollution, weapons proliferation risks

so, the Human Race...... is at the cross-roads

Thoriumliquid-fuelledUraniu

mSolid-

fuelled

and we do not have much time to decide

Chapter 2

so, why are weonly looking at

Uranium (& Plutonium)&

solid-fuelled reactors ?

To understand where we are now...... we must remember how we got

hereThe first 30 years ... on which, more to follow1941 - Manhattan Project1946 - McMahon Act, weapons build-up1954 - naval propulsion, subs, carriers1956 - electricity, Uranium solid-fuel1965 - Molten Salt Reactor - Weinberg1973 - Nixon sacks WeinbergThe next 40 years - Weinberg vindicated

1979 - Three Mile Island1986 - Chernobyl2011 - Fukushima

1941 Manhattan Project Robert Oppenheimer

• objective - build an atomic bomb... before Hitler does

• only 2 nuclear “fuels”... Uranium, Thorium

• but bombs need fissile isotopes... heat, neutrons >> chain reaction ((O))

• Uranium is fissile, twice over<1% is U-235 (needs enrichment) >> ((O))>99% is U-238 (fertile) >> Plutonium >> ((O))

• Thorium is not fissile, it can’t make a bomb... Th-232 (fertile) >> U-233 ((O))

1945 Manhattan Project - outcome• the decision

... to meet the objective

... make bombs from Uranium

Hiroshima ... Uranium-235Nagasaki .... Plutonium-239

• BTW ... Manhattan Project also mined Thorium• 3,200 tonnes• but never used it• it is still in Nevada

• Commission's right to seize...... "property containing deposits of uranium or thorium”

• It defined a new legal term “restricted data” as “all data concerning the manufacture or utilisation of atomic weapons, the production of fissionable material, or the use of fissionable material in the production of power”

• The phrase “all data” included every suggestion, speculation, scenario, or rumor - past, present, or future, regardless of its source, or even of its accuracy - unless it was specifically declassified

a culture of secrecy ... not just covering weaponsbut including electricity generation, thorium

1946 Atomic Energy (McMahon) Act... formed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• USS Nautilus - 1954• first nuclear powered submarine• PWR - Pressurised Water Reactor • built by Westinghouse

• USS Enterprise - 1962• first nuclear powered aircraft carrier• 8 x PWRs (A2W)• used U-235 enriched to 93%• built by Westinghouse

1950s ... Nuclear-Powered US Navy

convenient operational model• at sea, sealed power units, Uranium, solid fuelled• on land, fuel enrichment & reprocessing

>> weapons grade materialthe first use of nuclear power reactors

all Uranium, solid fuelled

1956 ... Calder Hall, Windscale ... electricity

• dual purpose• initially, mainly for Plutonium• then, for Plutonium and electricity (1964)• finally, just for electricity (1995 – 2003)

• US ... Shippingport reactor (1957) - electricity• Russia ... Obninsk reactor (1954) - electricity

all Uranium, solid-fuelled

• Oak Ridge Lab ran the experimental MSR... MSRE went live in 1965, ran until 1969

• proved the basic concepts, including• working at atmospheric pressure, unlike U/Pu-solid• fluid fuel, unlike U/Pu-solid• passive cooling, unlike U/Pu-solid• no long-term waste, complete-burn, unlike U/Pu-solid• burned U-233 (from Thorium), plus U-235, Pu-239• produced fission-products (ash), same as U/Pu-solid

• operated 24/5 ... switched off at the weekends... would have been handy at Chernobyl, Fukushima

• 1970-76 ... refined the design – for a LFTR... ie an operational Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor

Oak Ridge (National Lab) Director was Alvin Weinberg

1965... Molten Salt ReactorUTh

Th

Molten Salt technology ... nothing to do with nuclear

• captures / stores / transfers heat, to turbines• stays liquid to very high temperatures, 1400C• replaces water, which boils at 100C

solar power, mirrors ... California

They found that...... it stored enough heat during the day

... in the molten salt... to keep the turbines running

... through the night

<< heat collector

^^ hot & cool salt tanks, I think ?

by the way“common salt” is Na Cl...

ie Sodium Chloride

but to chemists, the term “salt” ...... covers a whole class of compounds

they found that the best salt for a LFTR...

... is a combination of...• Lithium Fluoride Li F• Beryllium Fluoride Be F2

1973 ... Alvin Weinberg was fired• AW was Director at Oak Ridge NL 1945 - 73• LWR (PWR and BWR) developed at Oak Ridge• AW held patents to both PWR and BWR

... majority of today’s commercial nuclear reactors

• AW co-authored the first Nuclear Reactor textbook

...The Physical Theory of Neutron Chain Reactors

... with Nobel Laureate Eugene Wigner, 1958• AW ran the Molten Salt Reactor, 1965 - 69 (MSRE)• 1973 ... AW was fired, by Nixon administration

... for arguing that MSR was safe, and LWR was not

• all MSRE records were kept secret... even other National Labs knew nothing of MSREand that remained the situation for the next 33

years

problem withhigh pressure

Uraniumreactors

which needactive cooling

----even after shutdown

----boiling water

can lead tohydrogen explosions

andfuel melt-downs

All reactors contain both ...• unspent fuel ................. makes long-term waste• fission products (ash) ... makes medium-term waste

So, if they could explode ...... they would spread both types... locally, and even globally

Uranium solid-fuelled reactorscan explode

Thorium liquid-fuelled reactorscannot explode

Exploding Uranium Reactors

• spread fission products (ash) over wide areas• eg Caesium(55), Strontium(38), Iodine(53) • medium-term waste• 90% gone in100 years, all gone in 300 years• Iodine is all gone in 3 months ... thyroid threat

• also spread unspent fuel over wide areas• eg Uranium(92), Plutonium(94)• long-term waste• lasts 240,000 years

In normal (non-exploding) mode

Uranium (solid-fuel) reactors...... only burn ~ 1% of their fuel... so leave ~ 99% as unspent fuel... this long-term waste...

... is bundled up, with the ash

... in the old extracted fuel-rodsFor comparison, non-exploding ...Thorium (liquid-fuel) reactors...... burn 100% of their fuel... so only produce ...

... medium-term fission products, ie ash

The Nuclear Industry... ... does need strong regulation

but through a combination of• secrecy• restrictive licensing & investment• vested interests ...

... government, military, industrial

it seems to have become...... the Uranium Industry

The Uranium industry...• thrived and expanded, in the 70s, 80s

... there was no other game in town• but has suffered a series of setbacks

... they stopped building new reactors

• out of about 500 nuclear power stations

... 7 have had “uncontrolled incidents”

• to-date, notably...• Windscale• Three Mile Island• Chernobyl• Fukushima

all Uranium solid-fuelled

2006 ... MSRE files, went publicOak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Tennessee

• the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment ... which ORNL ran from 1965 to 1969... and the files had been kept secret

• the papers were scanned onto 5 CDs... by Kirk Sorensen, et al... when given access in 2002

• 2006 ... MSRE files uploaded to the Internet

this kick-started the interest in Thoriumin the modern era

and here comes

the snake-oil moment ?

or is that the silver bullet ?

Thorium

...is so energy-dense that you could hold

your whole lifetime supply

in the palm of your hand

Chapter 3OK

tell me about

this silver bullet

one person’s fuel supply

... for one year Thorium ... one gram

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

Uranium ... ¼ kg(250 grams)

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

Coal ... 3.2 tonnes

How much fuel is left...??... assuming current usage

• Uranium without breeding Plute .. about 100 years• coal ............................. about 400 years

...but if they burn it all (without CCS)......the planet will become uninhabitable

How much Thorium is there... compared to Uranium

• ore ........... 4 times as much, known, so far• heat .......... 1000 times, 100,000 years• electricity.. 1600 times, 160,000 years

and Thorium is spread all over the planet

Where is Thorium ?? “known reserves” are probably an under-estimate

... not much incentive to search, yet ... low value

Country Known Reserves (tonnes)

United States 440,000Australia 300,000

Brazil 16,000Canada 100,000

India 290,000 to 650,000Malaysia 4,500

South Africa 35,000Other Countries 90,000

World Total 1,300,000 to 1,660,0003,200 tonnes, Manhattan left-overs, Nevada“rare-earth” mines ... tailings are high in

Thorium

How much Thorium ore is there..??

5 feet1 metre

@ average ~ 10grams / cubic-metrewe are standing on our personal lifetime

supply

Atomic Numbe

r

Element Code

Most Commo

n Isotope

Half-Life

89 Actinium Ac 227 22 years90 Thorium Th 232 14 billion years91 Proactiniu

mPa 231 32,760 years

92 Uranium U 238 4.5 billion years93 Neptunium Np 237 2.1 million years94 Plutonium Pu 244 80 million years

the Actinide Series... ... from the Periodic Table

Uranium is the heaviest naturally occurring element

Thorium is the second ... but there’s more of it

the rest (and above Plutonium) are too unstable to survive

Breed & Burn ... Uranium & Thoriumatomic no

>Th - 90

PA - 91 U - 92 Np - 93

Pu - 94

isotope239 O - e

> O - e

>((O))

238 O + n ^

237236235 ((O))234233 O - e

> O - e

>((O))

232 O + n ^

O + n = fertile, absorbs a neutronO - e = unstable, loses an electron (ie beta decay)((O)) = fissile, splits up, giving off heat

U-235fissile

U-238fertile

Th-232fertile

OK, how does it work ?

... a Thorium Reactor

... using Molten Salt

it’s known as a LFTRpronounced “lifter”Liquid Fluoride Thorium

Reactor

newThorium-232

FissileU-233

Core-Fluid

Dual-Fluid LFTR

fissionproducts

‘ash’

half-life = 27 days

Pa-233decays to

U-233

HeatExchange

r&

Turbine

draintanks

U-233Pa-233

U-233

FertileBreeder Fluid

WasteSeparator

Thorium-232Blanket

freeze-plugpassive cooling

neutrons neutrons

FissileSeparator

100% burn ...... no unspent fuel

cool salt

Th-232

hot salt

neutrons neutrons

fissile-trigger

fan

At Oak Ridge Lab...... where they ran the MSR... they all went home for the weekend

When they switched off the power... that included the fan... which kept the freeze plug frozen

The hot salt just ran...... into the drain tanks

The chain reaction ((O))... relies on compact geometry

so it stopped ... passive cooling

freeze-plug

Fuel Cycle ... Thorium

products££

Thoriumminingtailings

convertto metal

blanketfluid

decay

100%burn

LFTRdual-fluid

reactor

surfacestorage

300 yearwaste

83%

17%

fission products

100% fueldisposal after

10 years

> 3% U-235

unspent fuel &

fission products

Fuel Cycle ... Uranium / Plutonium

Uraniumminingtailings

convertto UF6

fabricatefuel

partialburn

solid-fuel reactor

vitrify

240,000 year waste

fuel rods

DepletedUranium

wastelong & medium

reprocessPlutonium

wastelong & medium

Uranium

Plutonium

??

??

long & medium wasteMOX

enrich

0.7% U-235

onlyonce!

Things that Thorium / LFTR ...does not do, or need• fuel enrichment

... it comes out of the ground as 100% fuel

• partial burn – leaving unspent fuel• high pressure reactor – it runs at atmospheric• high pressure containment building

... it cannot explode• active cooling

... LFTR design provides passive cooling• reprocessing – no unspent fuel in the waste• long-term waste management – there is none• make Plutonium

Things that Thorium / LFTR ...does do, or can do• uses cheap, plentiful fuel - not radioactive• runs safe, self-limiting

... at atmospheric pressure

... it’s already “melted-down”

... “negative feedback coefficient” - cannot explode

... works like an accelerator (within one minute)• makes green electricity

... runs hotter, more efficient generator, less cooling

... can make hydrogen >> petrol, NH4, fertilisers (eating CO2)

• makes medium-term waste... 83% can be isolated and sold - medicine, hi-tech... compact residue ... 17% (gone in 300 years)

• can burn up existing long-term waste ... U-235, Pu-239• allows large / small power units, safe and local

... reduced transmission losses• can support CHP, combined heat & power

Uranium / Plutonium• ~ 1GW (typical)• large footprint• difficult siting

Thorium / LFTR• ~ 10MW >> ~ ?GW• small footprint• easy siting

LFTRs could be manufactured on a production-line

like aircraft

How Efficient Is Thorium..??In order to getthe same energy out

thermal energy (ie heat) ............................ x 250electricity (at factory-gate value) .................. x 320

Electricity (with savings from “local generation” ) user-value (transmission losses, ½ the 16%?) ..... x 350CHP (waste heat, deliver ½?) ........................... x 380

Combination of both “local savings” (28%)ie ½ transmission losses & ½ CHP ......... x 410

this is a comparison of materials, not costs

How much more Uraniumdo we need to put in ??

Uranium Thorium

one tonne of ashfission products

one tonne of ashfission products

2222 MW*yr thermal-energy

2222 MW*yr thermal-energy

1111 MW*yr electricity

740 MW*yr electricity

one tonne of

natural thorium

33.4t uranium-238

0.3t uranium-235

0.3t plutonium

1111 MW*yr waste heat

1482 MW*yr waste heat

35t enriched uranium

(1.15 t U-235)

215t depleted uranium

(0.6t U-235)

250t natural uranium

(1.75 t U-235)

35 tonnes wastelasts 240, 000 years

170 kg wastelasts 300 years

830 kg £££valuable isotopes

33% 50%

equatingfission

products

Numberscourtesy ofKirk Sorensen

equatingthermalenergy

6,000 tonnes of thorium(455 quads)

and that’s without any extrasavings from local generation

5.3 billion tonnesof coal (128

quads)31.1 billion barrelsof oil (180 quads)

2.92 trillion m3

of natural gas(105 quads)

65,000 tonnesof uranium ore

(24 quads)

World Energy Consumption …2007

The Future…Energy from Thorium

…total 437 quads quad = quadrillion BTU (10 ){ie one million billion BTU}

or 33.5 GigaWatt-Years

15

Numberscourtesy ofKirk Sorensen

So the whole planet’s fuel supply for one year

... 6,000 tonnes of Thorium

... could be delivered by 150 lorries

... (eg @ 40 per)

But including “local generation savings”

... this comes down to 117 lorries

Chapter 4Alvin

gets the last laugh----

but will theyget the message ?

Renewables - prospects

time

increasing marginal costscost / MW

decreasing marginal CO2 benefits

carbonsavings

“low-hanging fruit” ... the long-term downside

so set off ... but don’t expect to go all the way

capacity

MW

OK ???

2nd dash-for-gas ?• more than 50% of UK fossil capacity...

... is already gas• natural-gas carbon-footprint...

... is about 35% of coal• but fracking-gas footprint is > than coalIn a 2nd dash-for-gas, assume for

example ...• ½ of residual coal is converted to gas• and ½ of new gas includes CHP• but if ½ of gas goes natural >> fracking• then, total carbon-footprint ...

would increase !!

2nd Dash for Gas - prospects

gas replacing coal ?

time

steady marginal costs

cost / MW

natural gas

replacing coal

CHP would reduce foot-printhigh fracking % might get worse than coal

need to move away from fossil fuels

MW

capac

ity

fracking gas

replacing natural gas

carbonsavings

The Uranium Industry...... would (no doubt) be very happy... to replace all / most existing reactors... with Uranium (solid-fuel) of course

That may even be...... the most they could hope to do

They would make a lot of £££, but ...

that would not reduce carbon

Uranium & Plutonium - prospectsUranium replacing Uranium ?

time

cost / MW

poor CO2 benefits

carbonsavings

closure of obsolete nuclear reactorswould drive the schedule ?

MW

steady marginal costs

replac

ing nuclear

replacing coal

• 2006 - Oak Ridge papers scanned >> internet... that was the starting gun

• scientist & engineers now working on updated designs

... see Washington Conference, TEAC, May 2011

• EURATOM / France have Project EVOL... working towards a prototype LFTR in 2013

• other work in Russia, Japan, Czech Rep

• India is looking at Thorium, but solid-fuel

• China (Jan 2011) launched a Thorium / LFTR program

interest is growing - despite inertia of governments

LFTRs ... who is doing what..??UTh

Th

Thorium / LFTR - prospects

time

decreasing marginal costs - scale

cost / MW

increasing marginal CO2 benefits

carbonsavings

slow start ... rapid growth ... no ceilings

replacement priorities ... coal, fracking, oil, gas

Uranium will phase itself out

MW

replacing nuclear & coal

replacing fo

ssil

Modern management methods...... for comparing options...

... are fine, when you can...... put a value on all the risks

When you can’t...... NPV & DCF tend to favour (misleadingly)...

... quick wins and short-termismDidn’t 2008 teach us that...

... the sheer scale of human systems...... is no guarantee against...

... fundamental systemic failureHow can you price an insurance premium...

... against a 5 metre rise in sea-level ?... who do you buy it from ?

Chapter 5

what next

so, the Human Race...... is at the cross-roads

Thoriumliquid-fuelledUraniu

mSolid-

fuelled

and we do not have much time to decide

UTh

Th

• Thorium / LFTR offers the way forward... in solving the problems of the energy-crunch... in (contributing to) dealing with climate-change

• the approach is basically proven... they ran the Oak Ridge reactor for five years... but for development, it requires investment

• the business/regulatory context prevents progress

... only Uranium & Plutonium (solid-fuel) is allowed

• the traditional approach was aimed at weapons

... with risk of explosions, and long term waste

... the problem now is all about power generation

• the only viable solution ... is a combination of... demand reduction, renewables, Thorium / LFTR

Conclusions

Who to watch...• Germany is gambling on renewables• France is making an each-way bet ??• US seems frozen, in the headlights...

... of its own military-industrial complex... but US scientist & engineers leading on Thorium

• China’s Thorium LFTR program...... might be the planet’s best news

• UK is due to close nuclear reactors...

... almost as fast as Germany

... but we expect to replace them, x 3

... but with what ... watch this space

U

Th

Th

??

Thorium is so energy-dense

that you could hold

your whole lifetime supply

in the palm of your hand

but only if we invest in LFTR technology

UTh

Th

Health Warning ... and acknowledgements• this is not an engineering paper• its author claims no expertise in nuclear engineering

... but has worked in the nuclear industry

... and has a degree in physics - long ago

... Fukushima prompted him to catch up with Thorium• if you wish to pursue any aspect of this topic ...

... it’s all on the web, including wikipedia

... some search suggestions, which I leaned on, thanks

• energy from thorium• thorium energy alliance• Kirk Sorensen, Robert Hargraves• Alvin Weinberg, Dr David LeBlanc• MSRE, ORNL

• the papers suggest that there are development obstacles...

... but no showstoppers ... telescope to blind eye ?• but for further info, please feel free to contact...

john.mcgrother@gmail.com

Uranium / Plutonium solid-fuel fuel - limited supply .........fuel - poor efficiency ........needs enrichment ............dangerous reactors .......... no CHP or transmission savings stops to refuel ..................unspent fuel, partial burn long term waste, 240K years fission products, “ash” ....... no £ from fission products bulky waste, long & mediumcannot make green H2some proliferation riskcannot burn-off long waste

Thoriumliquid-fuel4 x as much orex 250 heat, x 320 elecdoesn’t, 100% fuelsafe, localcan do bothcontinuous operationnone, complete burnnonesame, 300 years£, medical, hi-techcompact, medium onlycan, & NH4 > fertilizersreducedcan, the only way ??

can something be...

... too good to be true

... but still be true ??

There have been three ...... strategic nuclear decisions• to make bombs from Uranium• to power ships with Uranium• to make electricity from Uranium

We are now facing the 4th decision...

... how to make electricity... to meet the carbon-challenge

let’s get it right, this timechoose Thorium LFTR

thanks, Alvin

but what about the children ?

did they all

live happily ever after ?

tune in next year

to hear ifthe children manageto pick up the bullet

and slay thecarbon dragon

thank you for

persevering to the end

of something

which still seems

quite difficult to believe

Annex A

Re-processingof waste fuel

Reprocessing ... Victor Gilinsky (NRC)Reprocessing and recycle: Why renewed

interest?How would they relate to Yucca Mountain?presentation to the Nevada High Level Radioactive Waste

Committeeat the May 14, 2008 meeting Las Vegas

 Three Mile Island

Reprocessing – purpose

Reprocessing – of (un)spent fuel

World commercial reprocessing...• Commercial reprocessing and recycle, as carried out in France and Britain and now in Japan, with some subsequent recycle of plutonium, adds very little, at great expense, to the fuel supply ~20%

• We already use plutonium in reactors...... about 40% of power from US reactors comes from plutonium

• Very difficult to recycle more than once...... because you build up contaminants that mess up the process

• After one cycle you still have spent fuel to dispose of

• So there is little gain (say, 20%) in terms of repository space

Why do the French and others do it?...• First their nuclear bureaucracies are more powerful and ideological

... and believe in future plutonium use• Reprocessing of foreign fuel was a moneymaker ...

... just because something is not economic...... doesn’t mean you can’t make money at it

... so long as someone foots the bill, as the Japanese did

• Note the British don’t reprocess their own LWR fuel...... and will likely phase out reprocessing altogether... and will be left with 100 tons of plutoniumTHORP

ThermalOxideReprocessingPlant

Yucca MountainRepository

• funding for development of Yucca Mountain waste site was terminated...

... 2011 federal budget - passed by Congress on April 14, 2011

• leaves the US with no long term storage site for high level radioactive waste

• currently stored on-site at various nuclear facilities around the country

worldwide, the majority of waste

is not reprocessed

Annex B

Risk Comparisonspollution

proliferation (weapons)

Risk .... Types and Phases

Phases of Operation....• pre-op ... fuel enrichment (eg centrifuges)• operational reactor• post-op ... waste management

Types of Risk....• radiation release / pollution• proliferation (of weapons)

Phase Uranium/PlutoniumSolid Fuel (Rods)

Pre-OpFuel Enrichment

(centrifuges)

medium / low riskU-235 >> Weapons Grade

OperationalReactor

high riskhigh pressure, hydrogen

---------------------------Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)medium-term pollution

---------------------------U-235, U-238, Pu-239long-term pollution

Post-OpWaste Management

medium risk (but long time)Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)medium-term pollution

---------------------------U-235, U-238, Pu-239

Un-Spent Fuel (long-term)

Risk of Radiation Release / Pollution

Phase Uranium/PlutoniumSolid Fuel (Rods)

ThoriumLiquid Fuel (LFTR)

Pre-OpFuel Enrichment

(centrifuges)

medium / low riskU-235 >> Weapons Grade

no riskno Enrichment

no Fissile Material

OperationalReactor

high riskhigh pressure, hydrogen

---------------------------Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)medium-term pollution

---------------------------U-235, U-238, Pu-239long-term pollution

no riskno pressure or hydrogen

----------------------------Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)medium-term pollution

---------------------------U-233, U-232

long-term pollution

Post-OpWaste Management

medium risk (but long time)Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)medium-term pollution

---------------------------U-235, U-238, Pu-239

Un-Spent Fuel (long-term)

low riskFission Products (Cs, Sr, I)medium-term pollution

---------------------------no Un-Spent Fuel

Risk of Radiation Release / Pollution

Phase Uranium/PlutoniumSolid Fuel (Rods)

Pre-OpFuel Enrichment

(centrifuges)

U-235 >> weapons gradenuke

OperationalReactor *

Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)dirty bomb

---------------------------U-235, U-238, Pu-239

nuke

Post-OpWaste Management

Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)dirty bomb

---------------------------U-235, U-238, Pu-239Un-Spent fuel ... nuke

Risk of Proliferation (of weapons)

* probably need to distinguish between “materials bandits”and rogue states (running reactors)

Phase Uranium/PlutoniumSolid Fuel (Rods)

ThoriumLiquid Fuel (LFTR)

Pre-OpFuel Enrichment

(centrifuges)

U-235 >> weapons gradenuke

no Enrichmentno Fissile Material

no risk

OperationalReactor *

Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)dirty bomb

---------------------------U-235, U-238, Pu-239

nuke

Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)dirty bomb

---------------------------U-233, U-232 (gamma)

no real risk..?? **

Post-OpWaste Management

Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)dirty bomb

---------------------------U-235, U-238, Pu-239Un-Spent fuel ... nuke

Fission Products (Cs, Sr, I)dirty bomb

---------------------------no Un-Spent fuel

no nuke risk

Risk of Proliferation (of weapons)

* probably need to distinguish between “materials bandits”and rogue states (running reactors)

** need to read Kirk Sorensen’s “rebuttal” of IEER ‘fact sheet’

Annex C

Miscellaneous

nuclear story has many threads

commerce industrymilitary

science research engineering

weapons naval motors electricity

ecology society politics

history

and they are all inter-woven

Generation IV...... new nuclear reactor designs

• “Thermal-neutron” reactors• Very-high-temperature reactor (VHTR)• Supercritical-water-cooled reactor (SCWR)• Molten-salt reactor (MSR) - Thorium / LFTR

• “Fast-neutron” reactors• Gas-cooled fast reactor (GFR)• Sodium-cooled fast reactor (SFR)• Lead-cooled fast reactor (LFR)

• Energy amplifier (ADS) – accelerator + Thorium

otherwise, Uranium/Plutonium, solid-fuelled

Radioactive Decay... .... a Half-Life is how long it takes an isotope .... .... to decay down to half of its initial level

time

level

Radioactive Decay Curve

initial

half

halflife

eg - radioactive isotopes........ in 3 Half-Lives decay down to <13%.... in 6 Half-Lives decay down to <2%.... in10 Half-Lives decay down to less than a tenth of 1%

Radioactivity.... .... distinguish between three timescales....

Type of Waste Product in 3 H-Ls

in 6 H-Ls

in 10 H-Ls

Time

short-term (fission products)... <13% <2% <0.1% Units.... Iodine-131, H-L = 8 days 24 48 80 days

medium-term (fission products)....

.... Caesium-137, H-L = 30 years

90 180 300 years

.... Strontium-90, H-L = 29 years

87 174 290 years

long-term (unspent fuel)........ Uranium-235, H-L = 700 million

years2.1 4.2 7.0 bn-yrs

.... Plutonium-239, H-L = 24,200 years

73 145 242 k-yrs

All radioactive isotopes........ in 3 Half-Lives decay down to <13% (of original).... in 6 Half-Lives decay down to <2%.... in 10 Half-Lives decay down to less than a tenth of 1%

Carbon Footprints ... of common fuelsSource Grams(CO2) /

KW.HrCoal 955

Oil 893Natural Gas 599

Photo-Voltaics 106Nuclear - Uranium 60

Wind 21Hydro-Electric 15

Derive Thorium / LFTR footprint from Uranium (60), but...• easier mining, no enrichment• no re-processing or long-term waste• simpler reactor, at atmospheric pressure• Thorium (fuel-efficiency) = Uranium x 320• looks like ...“similar to Hydro-Electric”..??

+ explosions

not shale

wikipedia

|161 including

particulate pollution

|disputed, eg

post - Chernobyl

|171,000 atBanqiao

Annual Deaths per TW.Hr

Industrial Nuclear stats look good...• but disputed due to hidden, delayed deaths..??• Thorium / LFTR should beat Uranium• many risks avoided, no explosions

nextbigfuture

Uranium

Thorium / LFTR, with all its savings, is predicted to be...

... so much cheaper than Uranium...... that it would be cheaper than coal

LWR (BWR & PWR)

• most common types• solid-fuel (rods)

• need enriched Uranium• water as coolant• water as moderator• very high pressure, x 150• need active cooling• only a partial-burn• so long-term radioactive waste (U, Pu), plus fission products• Fukushima, 6 x BWRs• Three Mile Island was a PWR• Chernobyl RBMK (Russian ‘BWR’)...

... but graphite moderator, so unenriched Uranium

reactorsteam turbine, electric

generator

coolingpump, condenserAuthor: Robert Steffens

Boiling Water Reactor

 Author: European Nuclear Society

His concern ... solid-fuel reactors can be unstableUranium &/or Plutonium• solid fuel-rods• U-235 needs enrichment (LWR)

Water used as coolant• heated to ~ 500C• also slows down neutrons• so sustains chain reaction

Very high pressures• 150 x atmospheric pressure• strong container vessel• eg 20cm steel• plus massive concrete outer

Only “partial-burn” of fuel (~1%)• so U-235, Pu-239 in waste

Fuel rods damaged/replaced• eg after 1 or 2 years• scheduled closedowns

If reactors overheat ... ... water splits >> hydrogen

How good is Uranium.... ... as a nuclear fuel..??

Good news...• U-235 is fissile – so provides its own neutron source• U-238 is fertile – so converts into fissile Pu-239Bad news...• U-235 is very low % (0.7%) ... so it needs enrichment• Uranium burns (1%) in a solid-fuel reactor...

... so only an incomplete (partial) burn

... long-term waste, high-level, (99%)Question...

is residual Pu-239 an asset (weapons) ...??... or a liability (proliferation, pollution) ...??

How good is Thorium.... ... as a nuclear fuel..??

Bad news...• it needs a fissile trigger – to get the neutrons startedGood news...• once started, it is self-sustaining, in neutron flux• Th-232 is fertile – so converts into fissile U-233• there is no need for enrichment - already 100%• Thorium can breed & burn in a liquid-fuel reactor...

... so it can perform a complete (100%) burn• no U-238 to breed into Pu-239• four times more available than Uranium

UTh

Th

The US fuel supply for one year ...... which is about 20% of planet’s

... would be about 1200 tonnes... of Thorium

So, the 3,200 tonnes in Nevada ...... left over from the Manhattan Project...

... would cover about 3 years US supply

If they converted all US supply to Thorium...

... steadily, over (say) 40 years... then, the US would not need to mine

... any new Thorium... for about 12 years

After that, just to give...... only one example ...

the Lemhi Pass...... on the Montana-Idaho border...

... has ~ 1,800,000 tons...... of high-grade thorium ore

That alone...... adds up to about ~ 1,000 years...

... fuel supply...... for the whole USA

rises inSea-Level,from meltingIce-Sheets

Greenland ... 7m

West Antarctic ... 6m

Antarctic ...61m

more evaporation more cloud more rain more wind more severe events

Changesin theWeather

growth of deserts forced migrations

water supply problems agricultural changes

impacts on food production

OceanCurrentsNorthAtlanticConveyor• energy equivalent

... one million nuclear power stations• it warms northern Europe, by 5C to 10C• it’s being slowed (stopped ?) by climate-change

... maybe an ice-age for Europe ??

Breed & Burnatomic no

>Th - 90

PA - 91 U - 92 Np - 93

Pu - 94

isotope239 O - e

> O - e

>((O))

238 O + n ^

237236235 ((O))234233 O - e

> O - e

>((O))

232 O + n ^

O + n = fertile, absorb a neutron ((O)) = fissile O - e = unstable, lose an electron (ie beta decay)

first questionis Uranium (solid-fuel)...

...the only type of nuclear reactor ?

nothere is also

Thorium (liquid-fuel)

second questionhas the alternative been

tried ?

yesthey ran a

Thorium reactor (liquid-fuel)

for five years

third questionwas the alternative

successful ?

yesit was much more efficient

it was much saferit did not produce long-term

waste