Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Postby madeupname452 » Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:07 pm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/7970619/Obama-could-kill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html

We could have had safe and reliable nuclear power from Thorium decades ago but TPTB did not want it to happen.

There is no certain bet in nuclear physics but work by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) on the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors may be the magic bullet we have all been hoping for, though we have barely begun to crack the potential of solar power.

Dr Rubbia says a tonne of the silvery metal – named after the Norse god of thunder, who also gave us Thor’s day or Thursday - produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. A mere fistful would light London for a week.

Thorium eats its own hazardous waste. It can even scavenge the plutonium left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner. "It’s the Big One," said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer and now chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering.

"Once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away. You can run civilisation on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s essentially free. You don’t have to deal with uranium cartels," he said.

Thorium is so common that miners treat it as a nuisance, a radioactive by-product if they try to dig up rare earth metals. The US and Australia are full of the stuff. So are the granite rocks of Cornwall. You do not need much: all is potentially usable as fuel, compared to just 0.7pc for uranium.

After the Manhattan Project, US physicists in the late 1940s were tempted by thorium for use in civil reactors. It has a higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed. It does not require isotope separation, a big cost saving. But by then America needed the plutonium residue from uranium to build bombs.

"They were really going after the weapons," said Professor Egil Lillestol, a world authority on the thorium fuel-cycle at CERN. "It is almost impossible make nuclear weapons out of thorium because it is too difficult to handle. It wouldn’t be worth trying." It emits too many high gamma rays.

You might have thought that thorium reactors were the answer to every dream but when CERN went to the European Commission for development funds in 1999-2000, they were rebuffed.

Brussels turned to its technical experts, who happened to be French because the French dominate the EU’s nuclear industry. "They didn’t want competition because they had made a huge investment in the old technology," he said.

Another decade was lost. It was a sad triumph of vested interests over scientific progress. "We have very little time to waste because the world is running out of fossil fuels. Renewables can’t replace them. Nuclear fusion is not going work for a century, if ever," he said.

The Norwegian group Aker Solutions has bought Dr Rubbia’s patent for the thorium fuel-cycle, and is working on his design for a proton accelerator at its UK operation.

Victoria Ashley, the project manager, said it could lead to a network of pint-sized 600MW reactors that are lodged underground, can supply small grids, and do not require a safety citadel. It will take £2bn to build the first one, and Aker needs £100mn for the next test phase.

The UK has shown little appetite for what it regards as a "huge paradigm shift to a new technology". Too much work and sunk cost has already gone into the next generation of reactors, which have another 60 years of life.

So Aker is looking for tie-ups with the US, Russia, or China. The Indians have their own projects - none yet built - dating from days when they switched to thorium because their weapons programme prompted a uranium ban.

America should have fewer inhibitions than Europe in creating a leapfrog technology. The US allowed its nuclear industry to stagnate after Three Mile Island in 1979.

Anti-nuclear neorosis is at last ebbing. The White House has approved $8bn in loan guarantees for new reactors, yet America has been strangely passive. Where is the superb confidence that put a man on the moon?

A few US pioneers are exploring a truly radical shift to a liquid fuel based on molten-fluoride salts, an idea once pursued by US physicist Alvin Weinberg at Oak Ridge National Lab in Tennessee in the 1960s. The original documents were retrieved by Mr Sorensen.

Moving away from solid fuel may overcome some of thorium’s "idiosyncracies". "You have to use the right machine. You don’t use diesel in a petrol car: you build a diesel engine," said Mr Sorensen.

Thorium-fluoride reactors can operate at atmospheric temperature. "The plants would be much smaller and less expensive. You wouldn’t need those huge containment domes because there’s no pressurized water in the reactor. It’s close-fitting," he said.
madeupname452
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Postby justdrew » Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:22 pm

America isn't strangely passive. America has no money. The vast majority of capital is in the hands of 1% of the population that has decided they'd rather pass it around among themselves and take turns holding it than build anything, research anything, risk anything. They certainly didn't risk anything with the housing bubble collapse. Only the little schmucks lost real money from that.

America is dead, stick a fork in us. India and South Africa and Brazil and possibly China will lead the way in Thorium reactor development (and the 1% will get some of it's money in those deals too, while the other 99% of us sit and stew).
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Postby madeupname452 » Tue Aug 31, 2010 2:25 pm

lots of good info in the comments of the Telegraph article.
see also http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ for Wired's take on Thorium
madeupname452
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Postby operator kos » Tue Aug 31, 2010 3:09 pm

madeupname452 wrote:lots of good info in the comments of the Telegraph article.


Really? They seemed to mostly be from trolling idiots when I looked. Take this gem:

I don't buy all this conspiracy stuff about how the oil and nuclear weapons industries collaborated to strangle the use of thorium.
If thorium (and I've never heard of this stuff before - is AEP having a laugh?) was really such a perfect solution, someone, some ambitious corporation, would have done something serious with it before now.
So, come on physicists, before we all get too excited, please will one of you explain why thorium, if it exists, is unable to solve our energy needs?


The poster then went on to add, "MAGNETS- HOW THE FUCK DO THEY WORK?"
User avatar
operator kos
 
Posts: 1288
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:45 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Postby madeupname452 » Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:00 pm

:roll:
madeupname452
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Postby justdrew » Tue Aug 31, 2010 4:14 pm

I hope I didn't give you snark...

anyway kos was just sharing an annoyance with a foolish poster who seems to think "
companies" will save the world and just can't understand why they wouldn't have done it already...

such a view fails to understand how corporations make money, and some other points:
1. let the government pay to research a new technology
2. once it's all figured out, commercialize it
3. The only US companies that make anything big like a nuke plant are defense contractors.
4. foreign companies able to do such are also in the nato pocket. and commited to uranium for the same reasons.
5. what's more all along these great companies were being told by the governments that uranium was the way to go, because they wanted the plutonium. but the idiot poster just thinks that's all a "conspiracy theory"

There are some issues with making Thorium work for us, last I checked (about a year ago) the wiki article went into great detail about the pros and cons.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_as_a_nuclear_fuel
By 1964 there were 1.5 million mobile phone users in the US
User avatar
justdrew
 
Posts: 11966
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 7:57 pm
Location: unknown
Blog: View Blog (11)

Re: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Postby madeupname452 » Tue Aug 31, 2010 6:06 pm

The use of thorium was new to me and the Telegraph article piqued my interest. I have been reading more about the problems with its use as fuel around the net. Thanks for the links. I still feel that the technical problems with alternative reactor designs is more tractable than the problems with vested interests who would prefer to deny us all the benefits.
madeupname452
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2006 10:40 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash

Postby Stephen Morgan » Wed Sep 01, 2010 1:08 pm

Fine. Call me when a nuclear motorbike becomes available.
Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia
User avatar
Stephen Morgan
 
Posts: 3736
Joined: Thu Apr 19, 2007 6:37 am
Location: England
Blog: View Blog (9)

Re: Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear d

Postby semper occultus » Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:33 am

bumped for dear old Ambrose back on his thorium hobby-horse..so..what's the catch

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium
A few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 9:30PM GMT 20 Mar 2011

www.telegraph.co.uk

This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.

If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption.

China’s Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”. The liquid fuel idea was pioneered by US physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s, but the US has long since dropped the ball. Further evidence of Barack `Obama’s “Sputnik moment”, you could say.

Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.

“The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.

“If it begins to overheat, a little plug melts and the salts drain into a pan. There is no need for computers, or the sort of electrical pumps that were crippled by the tsunami. The reactor saves itself,” he said.

“They operate at atmospheric pressure so you don’t have the sort of hydrogen explosions we’ve seen in Japan. One of these reactors would have come through the tsunami just fine. There would have been no radiation release.”


Thorium is a silvery metal named after the Norse god of thunder. The metal has its own “issues” but no thorium reactor could easily spin out of control in the manner of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, or now Fukushima.

Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University said thorium must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the fission process. “There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam. There are not enough neutrons for it continue of its own accord,” he said.

Dr Cywinski, who anchors a UK-wide thorium team, said the residual heat left behind in a crisis would be “orders of magnitude less” than in a uranium reactor.

The earth’s crust holds 80 years of uranium at expected usage rates, he said. Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country’s next great phase of wealth. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years.

I write before knowing the outcome of the Fukushima drama, but as yet none of 15,000 deaths are linked to nuclear failure. Indeed, there has never been a verified death from nuclear power in the West in half a century. Perspective is in order.

We cannot avoid the fact that two to three billion extra people now expect – and will obtain – a western lifestyle. China alone plans to produce 100m cars and buses every year by 2020.

The International Atomic Energy Agency said the world currently has 442 nuclear reactors. They generate 372 gigawatts of power, providing 14pc of global electricity. Nuclear output must double over twenty years just to keep pace with the rise of the China and India.

If a string of countries cancel or cut back future reactors, let alone follow Germany’s Angela Merkel in shutting some down, they shift the strain onto gas, oil, and coal. Since the West is also cutting solar subsidies, they can hardly expect the solar industry to plug the gap.

BP’s disaster at Macondo should teach us not to expect too much from oil reserves deep below the oceans, beneath layers of blinding salt. Meanwhile, we rely uneasily on Wahabi repression to crush dissent in the Gulf and keep Arabian crude flowing our way. So where can we turn, unless we revert to coal and give up on the ice caps altogether? That would be courting fate.

US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation.

The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.

Dr Cywinski is developing an accelerator driven sub-critical reactor for thorium, a cutting-edge project worldwide. It needs to £300m of public money for the next phase, and £1.5bn of commercial investment to produce the first working plant. Thereafter, economies of scale kick in fast. The idea is to make pint-size 600MW reactors.

Yet any hope of state support seems to have died with the Coalition budget cuts, and with it hopes that Britain could take a lead in the energy revolution. It is understandable, of course. Funds are scarce. The UK has already put its efforts into the next generation of uranium reactors. Yet critics say vested interests with sunk costs in uranium technology succeeded in chilling enthusiasm.

The same happened a decade ago to a parallel project by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research). France’s nuclear industry killed proposals for funding from Brussels, though a French group is now working on thorium in Grenoble.

Norway’s Aker Solution has bought Professor Rubbia’s patent. It had hoped to build the first sub-critical reactor in the UK, but seems to be giving up on Britain and locking up a deal to build it in China instead, where minds and wallets are more open.

So the Chinese will soon lead on this thorium technology as well as molten-salts. Good luck to them. They are doing Mankind a favour. We may get through the century without tearing each other apart over scarce energy and wrecking the planet.
User avatar
semper occultus
 
Posts: 2974
Joined: Wed Feb 08, 2006 2:01 pm
Location: London,England
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 156 guests