Thorium-fuelled reactors might be the key to a safer, cleaner power supply
Credit: Justin Randall
SYDNEY: Safer, cleaner nuclear power is a step closer to reality after Norway's state-owned energy company, Statkraft, this week announced plans to investigate building a thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor.
Statkraft (which translates to "state power") announced an alliance with regional power providers Vattenfall in Sweden, and Fortum in Finland, along with Norwegian energy investment company, Scatec AS, in a bid to produce the thorium-fuelled plant.
Thorium (Th-232), has been hailed as a 'greener' alternative to traditional nuclear fuels, such as uranium and plutonium, because thorium is incapable of producing the runaway chain reaction which in a uranium-fuelled reactor can cause a catastrophic meltdown. Thorium reactors also produce only a tiny fraction of the hazardous waste created by uranium-fuelled reactors (see 'New age nuclear', Cosmos, issue 8).
Statkraft, which is already Europe's second largest producer of renewable energy - mainly thanks to Norway's abundant hydroelectric resources - has recently made thorium-fuelled nuclear power a point of serious consideration. "It would be a sin of omission not to consider it," said Bård Mikkelsen, CEO of Statkraft, in an interview with the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet.
To date, thorium has seen only limited application, such as by U.S. company, Thorium Power, which produces mixed uranium-thorium fuel for use in conventional nuclear reactors. However a reactor fuelled entirely by thorium would have significant advantages over conventional uranium or mixed-fuel reactors.
Besides their inability to go critical and their low generation of waste, thorium-fuelled reactors don't suffer from the same proliferation risks as uranium reactors. This is because the thorium by-products cannot be re-processed into weapons-grade material.
Thorium also doesn't require enrichment before use as a nuclear fuel, and thorium is an abundant natural resource, with vast deposits in Australia, the United States, India and Norway.
Another advantage of thorium-powered reactors is they can be used to 'burn' highly radioactive waste by-products from conventional uranium-fuelled power plants.
Over the past eight months, there has been a substantial rise in public support for thorium reactors in Norway. In June 2006, polls showed 80 per cent of the population were completely opposed to any form of nuclear technology. Then in February 2007, the same percentage were in favour of investigating thorium reactors as a potential energy source.
"It is an absolutely incredible surprise that it has been possible to turn around the population in a country, just by quietly campaigning and explaining the benefits of the technology," said Egil Lillestøl, a nuclear physicist at the University of Bergen, Norway.
Lillestøl is a keen supporter of the ADS (Accelerated Driven System) technology used in thorium-fuelled reactors. Because thorium is incapable of achieving a self-sustaining chain reaction – unlike uranium or plutonium – it needs energy to be injected into the reactor to keep it running. This energy comes in the form of neutrons from a particle accelerator. For this reason, a thorium-fuelled reactor is also sometimes called a sub-critical reactor.
Statkraft is the third Norwegian company to express interest in thorium reactors this year; Thor Energi and Bergen Energi, have both applied for government licenses to build plants.
The announcement by Statkraft coincides with the first meeting of the Thorium Report Committee – an initiative commissioned by Norway's Ministry of Petroleum and Energy, in association with the Norwegian Research Council, to investigate the benefits and risks of thorium reactors.
The committee will submit its report at the end of 2007. Norwegian legislation currently bans the use of nuclear power, so the report is critical for gaining Government consent to build thorium plants in Norway.
"Norway has taken the lead on this. We are an energy nation; we have large supplies of thorium – not as much as Australia of course – but we have a very advanced energy industry, and we have a responsibility to the world," said Lillestøl. "Without nuclear energy we will destroy the world, we will spend all the coal, oil and gas, and we will be left with an energy desert."
Reza Hashemi-Nezad, a nuclear scientist at the University of Sydney in Australia agrees that thorium is a promising alternative energy source. However, while the European Union, India, the US, Japan and Russia are all working on thorium technologies, Australia is lagging behind.
"Australian industry is very interested in investing in this type of clean, safe and cheap nuclear energy," says Hashemi-Nezhad. "But I am afraid that if Australian scientists and industry do not get adequate support from the government and research institutes in Australia, they may move offshore."
Do the Research Dude!!!
Quote"Sir,
Why bother with something that is still unsafe and dangerous. Hydrogen extracting from seawater is surely safer and cheaper solution, think lateral and live dangerous materials where they belong, underground!!James"
You sound like last Generation's Jane Fonda Wannabe. I would posit that The Thorium Process is not used in the U.S. and other countries currently for one reason only: It's cleaner process is incapable of producing any significant Weapons Grade Material. I really appreciate you exposing your ignorance on the subject matter though. It just shows us that some of our well meaning brethren have been perhaps too successful in brainwashing everyone into believing flat out that "Nuclear is BAD! (grunt)" IF you were fighting against Uranium Power, I'd say you have a point. Extracting Hydrogen to use as a fuel may SEEM safe, but there are greater perils with massive bombs on wheels if using that as your only alternative for energy. you may suggest others and others are part of the comprehensive solution. But you are being narrow minded in not suggesting a more comprehensive explanation. So for you to categorically call something "unsafe" without explaining your understanding or lack thereof is the pinacle of ignorance and hypocrisy...
Australian Thorium Reserves
Given the fact that Australia has the world's largest reserve of Thorium, it only makes sense to pursue a research program with the aim of producing a viable Thorium reactor. One initiative being explored world wide (US, Czech Republic, Russia) to develop Thorium technology is based on the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR). This reactor design is quite innovative: it uses a mixture of molten Lithium and Beryllium Fluoride salts as the working fluid in the reactor. Added directly to these molten salts is a relatively small amount of Thorium and Uranium-233 Fluoride salts. The resultant salt mixture simultaneously works as a moderator, coolant, and fuel medium. As it happens, the technology was first successfully tested in the 1960s, but recent advances in materials, fuel processing, and energy recovery systems, have made the technology very compelling.
The advantages of such a technology are numerous:
In short, Molten Salt Reactors promise to be inherently safe, efficient and clean, and as such represent a significant departure from present designs. I believe that Australia, with its large Thorium reserves, would benefit immensely from such a technology.
Appreciation
Well thought addition. It is helpful to know that some people are trying to get helpful information out. Despite the fact that your average person could not hope to comprehend what you point out without some help, those of us who do can help explain your answers in ways that they can understand. Keep up the good work!
Molten Salt Reactor
A good resource for Molten Salt Reactor information may be found at the Energy from Thorium website, which contains an online reference library, a discussion forum, and a blog.
Australian Use
Can somebody please get this article to the government.
It is an election year, and you never know what could
happen.
hydrogen is not the future,
hydrogen is not the future, mentioning is silly.
Hydrogen is created by conventional fuel, with a loss %.
its not possible to make energy once with traditional fuel, then make hydrogen and with that energy make more hydrogen,
the cylce would be less energy each time, its no perpetuem mobile
hydrogen always needs to be created with energy from other sources.
tehrefor a nuclear start point woudl enable hydorgen production for small use such as in cars, u cant fit every car with a nulcear reactor aftehr all ;)
Norway Reactions
Lief Erikson was radio active so have been all plants and animals from the beginning. The potassium in our blood exposes us and the people around us to radiation every day. It also comes from the earth and sky. Airplane flights result in substantial exposure above standard as do X rays. So far, far more people have been directly killed by by dam failures than by nuclear power plants, including Chernobyl. Automobiles kill far more people. Many, including polititians, have implied that radiation and nuclear power is far more dangerous than they know it to be and hide the fact that it is far less dangerous than many regular human activities, so that they can retain power or falsely promote some agenda. There is no such thing as nuclear waste only more or less concentrated forms of radiation than the soil around us. There are no spent fuel rods just some that are not suited for some form of reactor. With no chemical reprocessing, used light water fuel elements will yield more energy in a CANDU reactor than the elements now made of freshly prepared Uranium. In some cases the fuel does not even have to be removed from the original Zirconium tubes. The radiation from the sun kills thousands of people every year, but solar energy is considered safe and benign. Nuclear power has been demonized by people who don't understand that the dangers of it are far less than most dangers including driving your own car or walking along a road. Burning gasoline from auto wrecks will kill far more people than the most dangerous accident of a truck transporting nuclear materials. A small propane tanker wreck can and has wiped out whole villiages. We have not yet built a SAFE town or even a safe single building. We, ourselfs, are not safe for others or ourself. Life is not perfectly safe, in fact, not at all safe; only death is. Nuclear reactors are safer than we ourselfs are but are still alive and bring aliveness to people. Even in Norway some people are dead because of the high price of oil, even if it was only because they died of working so hard to have enough money to fill the car's tank or keep the house warm, and Norway produces more oil per inhabitant than almost any othe country. Electricity from nuclear plants may not be cheaper than that from coal in Australia, but it is far cheaper than that from any kind of petroleum. So go out and buy a new or old TH!NK and run your car from water falls or from imported nuclear power from France through Belgium or Holland on the newly installed cables....hg...
thorium master
THORIUM RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
YAY
Inordinate ignorance
Some of the posts here indicate that a year of physics should be required for high school graduation, and that it should be impossible to get a degree without one year of physics at the college / university level.
Perhaps the worst thing about people who lack even an elementary understanding of basic physics is that some of them are totally unaware of their incompetence. And, unfortunately, these people sometimes, through the political system, cause decisions to be made which make no sense.
It's fine to explain to people that the laws of physics make their ideas impossible. However, in addition to doing that, I suggest recommending physics texts which they can read so that they will acquire a good knowledge of basic physics. Unfortunately, I don't have a list of physics texts available, but perhaps some posters here can recommend suitable and readily available physics texts.