Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement
[1] 2 Next »

Tuesday, November 27, 2007

Cleaner Nuclear Power?

Congress pushes for another look at thorium fuel, saying it could reduce the amount of high-level nuclear waste produced by reactors.

By Peter Fairley

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon
A cleaner glow: Thorium and uranium fuel capsules in this research reactor at Russia’s Kurchatov Institute could help reduce waste from existing and future nuclear power plants. Kurchatov and Thorium Power, based in McLean, VA, are scaling up the capsules into 3.5-meter fuel rods for use in commercial power plants.
Credit: Thorium Power

Senators representing several Western states, including Utah's Orrin Hatch and Senate Majority leader Harry Reid, of Nevada, are working on legislation to promote thorium. They say it's a cleaner-burning fuel for nuclear-power plants, with the potential to cut high-level nuclear-waste volumes in half.

"They're concerned about the spent fuel from nuclear reactors ending up in their states," says Seth Grae, president of thorium-fuel technology developer Thorium Power, based in McLean, VA.

Nuclear watchdogs say that Thorium Power's technology has real potential. Moreover, they say that the legislation is needed. It would force the Department of Energy (DOE) and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which regulates the nuclear industry, to create new offices at the agencies to study thorium-fuel options and promote their use abroad.

"It makes a lot of sense in my view," says Thomas Cochran, director of the nuclear program at the Natural Resources Defense Council, in Washington. He says that congressional action is needed to overcome resistance within the DOE to exploring thorium.

Using thorium in existing reactors means rethinking the "once through" nuclear fuel cycle employed today in most countries, including the United States. The cycle starts with uranium-oxide fuel enriched in the fissile uranium isotope U235. Fission of the uranium in a reactor generates heat to drive a nuclear power plant's turbines, and it produces a highly radioactive blend of fission breakdown products, including plutonium that can be recovered to make nuclear weapons. Other fission products slow the chain reaction, requiring replacement of fuel every one or two years. The spent fuel is removed and stored on site, awaiting burial.

The DOE is working on a high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain, in Nevada. But the facility won't open for at least another decade, and there is little political will to build more such sites. Meanwhile, Private Fuel Storage, based in Salt Lake City, is proceeding with a controversial interim storage site on Native American land, with a 20-year license and an option to renew. "That's quite a stopover," says Grae.

Thorium Power was launched in 1992 to commercialize a process that reduces the amount of toxic waste produced by traditional reactors. The process was developed by the late nuclear scientist Alvin Radkowsky, a seminal designer of the U.S. Navy's reactors and early commercial nuclear plants. Radkowsky's scheme relies on both thorium and uranium fuels, making it more complex on the front end. But doing so keeps most of the fuel in the reactor longer, and it produces waste that's less toxic.

Each fuel assembly carries a mix of two different fuel rods. The majority are rods containing pellets of thorium oxide. The thorium can't sustain a chain reaction on its own like U235 can, but it can absorb neutrons to form another fissile isotope of uranium that will: U233. In Thorium Power's design, these neutrons are supplied by the remaining rods, which are solid alloys of zirconium and fissile U235-enriched uranium.

Grae says that Thorium Power's hybrid-fuel assemblies are designed to perform as drop-in replacements for uranium-oxide fuel in pressurized water reactors, the most common reactor design worldwide. The reactors require only minimal modifications. The most important adjustment is the use of more-precise cranes to insert and remove fuel assemblies to enable separate extraction of the uranium rods. Grae says that this is key to the waste reduction because most of the thorium stays in the reactor core for nine years. (The uranium rods, like conventional uranium-oxide fuel, are swapped out more frequently.)

[1] 2 Next »

Comments

  • better nuclear power
    djs on 11/27/2007 at 4:13 AM
    Posts:
    18
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    Already over 20 years ago a very attractive U / Th cycle was proposed based on the successful CANDU reactor which burns non-enriched U or "waste" U from LWRs. A recent discussion is at
    http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/brat_fuel.htm

    Avoiding Pu isolation and U enrichment looks desirable. Learning how to extract cheap power from the vast overabundance of it that the sun sends our way is the real solution.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: better nuclear power
      wcasino on 11/27/2007 at 10:15 AM
      Posts:
      1
      Avg Rating:
      5/5
      An even better thorium fueled reactor was in development at Oak Ridge National Laboratory using a molten salt based liquid fuel. Such reactors are orders of magnitude safer and cheaper than current solid fuel LWR's. http://energyfromthorium.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=166
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: better nuclear power
      xbox on 11/27/2007 at 10:41 AM
      Posts:
      2
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Thorium Power's fuel cycle is much better than the CANDU thorium fuel cycle.

      In the Thorium Power fuel cycle, Uranium-233 is burned as fuel in the reactor as it is being produced.

      In the CANDU thorium process, or any other thorium process, the Uranium-233 is a waste byproduct of the fuel cycle. Since Uranium-233 is valuable, it can be reprocessed and re-introduced as fuel into the reactor. Reprocessing is a very expensive proposition – which is the real reason why there isn’t a single thorium fuel reactor in the world. Thorium Power’s process is plain common sense – and well ahead of any other thorium-based concept.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: better nuclear power
        paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:15 AM
        Posts:
        7
        Avg Rating:
        3/5
        This is true that all the current designs require reprocessing, except the one being studied by Norway. This is a Carlo Rubbia design that burns the 233 as fuel without reprocessing. It is to build the reactor that Carlo invisioned with a liquid lead based heat transporter, with a window tube down to the core through which an accelerator would shoot 250mev nuclei to produce the neutrons, instead of relying on enriched uranium. The neutrons spalled off the target would initiate the reaction in the thorium. The benefit is that without the uranium, all waste would be below background radioactivity in less than 500 years. The disability is that it requires 1/3 of the reactors power to produce the high speed nuclei.
        Rate this comment: 12345
  • impossible nuclear power
    jstack6 on 11/27/2007 at 2:57 PM
    Posts:
    5
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    cleaner ? Safer ? Less water use ? Less costly ? Sustainable fuel ? These are just the top 5 issues that Nuclear has to fix before it could even be considered. Anyone looking at this solution doesn't have the facts.

    Only renewable energy is safe and sustainable. It actually gets cheaper as time goes on instead of more expensive.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: impossible nuclear power
      xbox on 11/27/2007 at 3:09 PM
      Posts:
      2
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Less water use? I think your "facts" are off.

      This fuel solves most of the issues in the nuclear industry today.

      Renewable energy will never produce the amount of MW needed the world needs for power generation going forward. Nuclear will need to have a major role and the point is to get nuclear as safe, clean, and efficient as possible which is exactly what thorium fuel does.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: safe nuclear power
        petergrynch on 11/27/2007 at 8:46 PM
        Posts:
        1
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        Interestingly, the most DANGEROUS way of producing electricity is hydroelectric, which most tree-huggers embrace. In mainland China, the Shimantan Dam collapsed in the '70's an killed an estimated 230,000 people. Only one guy died at Three Mile Island (he had a heart attack while watching the CNN coverage), and maybe 100 people died during and after Chernobyl.

        Nuclear power releases no pollutants into the atmosphere. All wastes are contained on-site for safe disposal. If you believe Al Gores Global Warming schtick, nuclear power produces no CO2. It doesn't even chop up migrating endangered species birds, like wind turbines do.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: safe nuclear power
          hamid on 11/28/2007 at 4:22 AM
          Posts:
          11
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          Obviously you are deluded.  Us progressive enviros have a superior value system -- the environment is sacrosanct.  It shall not be altered or stressed in any form or manner.  230,000 people getting killed due to dam burst in China?  Who cares.  Its trees and birds that count, not people.
          Rate this comment: 12345
          • Re: safe nuclear power - value systems
            gabrielg01 on 11/28/2007 at 12:46 PM
            Posts:
            314
            Avg Rating:
            3/5
            Hamid, perhaps you should not accuse others of delusions.

            You can only achieve systemic environmental changes in society, if you gather enough social capital and turn it into a successful political movement. That means you need to get large numbers of people to support you. How are you going to obtain people's support, when saying things like "230,000 people getting killed due to dam burst in China?  Who cares.  Its trees and birds that count, not people"?...and this is supposed to be a "superior value system" now?

            You might as well go and become an enviro-terrorist, if you haven't already.
            Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: safe nuclear power
          Siphon on 12/05/2007 at 7:10 AM
          Posts:
          104
          Avg Rating:
          3/5
          Uh guys, let's not bring in China as an example when it comes to the safety of electric generation.

          Large coal mining accidents, killing tens or even hundreds of people happen almost every month. Even worse are the atmospheric pollutants caused by antiquated coal burning plants and techniques, less strict pullution controls and regulation etc.

          Nuclear power in China? The Chinese government may mean well but the reality is, the regulatory framework isn't strict enough to prevent eventualities (leaking, sometimes even intentionally dumping the waste into the environment).
          Rate this comment: 12345
  • France is already 80% nuclear
    gabrielg01 on 11/28/2007 at 1:12 PM
    Posts:
    314
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    It is funny and sad to see all the people in denial about nuclear power. They are stonewalling reality.

    If you want to snap these people back to reality, just remind them that France is already 80% nuclear. This is not some assumption or projection. This is reality NOW. Plus, the French nuclear system slowly keeps developing, which means that in the next few decades France will be edging close to 100% nuclear power. The remaining gap will probably be filled by renewable energy sources.

    And the last time I checked, France was not some kind of polluted, nightmarish place. On the contrary, they are one the biggest tourist destinations in the world, and one of the biggest food exporters as well. You cannot accomplish such things with a polluted country.

    All the nuclear fears are proven wrong. Proof is on the ground. Whether you want to play ostrich and ignore these proofs or not, that is up to you.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: France is already 80% nuclear
      killian on 11/28/2007 at 1:30 PM
      Posts:
      55
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      That works for France, which is small, but there is not enough economically recoverable U235 to power the world.  U235 reactors will also be a minority of the world's power.  Please read MIT's report The Future of Nuclear Power (http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/).  The U235 supplies I remember MIT citing were sufficient to power 1000 1GW reactors for 40 years.  Breeder reactors (using U238 or Th232) are a different story, but the world has so far avoided breeder reactors because of proliferation concerns.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: France is already 80% nuclear
      Siphon on 12/05/2007 at 7:21 AM
      Posts:
      104
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      It is funny and sad to see the France argument again. It's getting very old now.

      - French power is a socialistic dream but a liberal's nightmare. Solution: liberalise. But then, without subsidies (ie taxpayers money) it will not be as cheap as it is now.

      - France has access to the European grid, which can be used as a buffer ('battery') to allow a higher percentage baseload generation (which nuclear is right now). There is a discrepancy between the CF that contemporary nuclear power plants provide, and what is actually needed (demand CF and shape of the curve)

      Solution: load-following nuclear power plants. Unfortunately these do not yet exist in our solar system however I'm convinced that they may prove to be cost effective in the future.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Why Th232 over U238?
    killian on 11/28/2007 at 1:36 PM
    Posts:
    55
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    If someone proposes a breeder reactor, why use Th232 instead of U238?  A textbook gives Known Reserves of Fissionable Materials as
    U235 2,000 EJ
    U238 320,000 EJ
    Th232 11,000 EJ
    (EJ = 10^18 joules)
    So yes Th232 is more abundant than U235, but if you are willing to take the proliferation risk of breeder reactors, why not U238, which is in much greater supply?
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Why Th232 over U238?
      dmm on 11/30/2007 at 1:16 PM
      Posts:
      148
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
      Abundance ratio of Th:U235 is only 11:2, but the article states that the Th only needs replacing every 9 years instead of every 2.  So the "years of available fuel" ratio is 11*9:2*2=99:4 or almost 25:1.  That will buy us lots of time, while we work out how to do U238 breeders safely.
      Rate this comment: 12345
      • Re: Why Th232 over U238?
        killian on 12/12/2007 at 4:02 PM
        Posts:
        55
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
        Note that the data I cited was not abundance, but exajoules (exa = 10^18, joules being a measure of energy).  According to da Rosa, there is 5.5 times as much *energy* available in Th as U235.  Multiplying by the fuel rod lifetime is not correct.  Of course 5.5 times as much as U235 is still a lot, but then so is the projected world consumption of energy in 2050 (over 900 EJ/year according to MIT's The Future of Coal, figure 2.4).  At that rate, 2000 EJ of U235 and 11,000 of Th would last just 14 years.  While it can be a useful temporary "wedge", it is important to remember that nuclear energy is not unlimited and not renewable.
        Rate this comment: 12345
        • Re: Why Th232 over U238?
          Capo on 12/12/2007 at 11:31 PM
          Posts:
          6
          Avg Rating:
          4/5
          Another unmentioned advantage of Th232 over U238: A Th232-U233 fueled thermal reactor was installed and operated at the Shippingport (Pennsylvania) Atomic Power Station before it was decommissioned in 1982. This test reactor for the US Light Water Breeder Reactor Project demonstrated that a thermal Th232-U233 reactor can breed, albeit only marginally at best. A U238-Pu239 fueled reactor can breed only if it is designed and operated as a fast reactor, with the additional complexity - e.g. sodium coolant - and safety issues associated with fast reactors. I am not saying that fast reactors are not a good idea. After all, France has operated them for many years. However, the advantages inherent in a thermal water moderated/cooled breeder or high gain converter should not be underestimated.
          Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Why Th232 over U238?
      paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:01 PM
      Posts:
      7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      I would never forget the proliferation threat. All governments foreign and domestic have a lifetime, at the end of which weapons become available to seperatist parties. With pure thorium without reprocessing, at least it would only be a dirty bomb, not a fissioning nuclear one. And not nearly as bad radiologically as a Uranium one with all the bio iodine isotopes.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Thorium
    suevanden on 11/29/2007 at 10:37 AM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    The smaller volume of spent fuel in thorium-fueled nuclear reactors is not a large advantage over uranium and plutonium fueled reactors. The major problem with spent fuel is not its volume but its radioactivity.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Thorium
      paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:05 PM
      Posts:
      7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      It is a major advantage, in the lifetime of the actinide series isotopes. Thousands of years shorter dangerous halflifes for thorium.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • newclear nuclear
    phoenix on 12/01/2007 at 2:35 PM
    Posts:
    133
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    It's fairly obvious that you all have done the requisite amount of graduate work in nuclear physics to have earned your degrees on the subject. So as experts in your chosen fields, of using thorium fuel in closed loop reactor cycles to reduce any radioactive waste to acceptable levels, I'm sure that you wouldn't mind having this byproduct of this fissionable thermonuclear reaction shipped directly to where you live so that it can be disposed safely in your backyards.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Nuclear waste in my backyard?
      dmm on 12/03/2007 at 2:58 PM
      Posts:
      148
      Avg Rating:
      2/5
      Sure, no problem, if I had a 1000-acre lifeless salt flat for a backyard, and you were going to pay me (and my heirs) handsomely to use it.

      The Untold Story of Creation
      God was letting the angels help with making the universe.  Michael happily reported that Earth was almost done.  "You did remember that they'll need someplace to put their nuclear waste, didn't you?" asked God.  "WHAT?!" exclaimed Michael.  "Gabriel said that was all going into hell!"  Upon hearing that Gabriel was just funnin' him, Michael ditched his plans for a giant inland sea, and made Nevada instead.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: newclear nuclear
      paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:07 PM
      Posts:
      7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      Only if I and my great great grandchildren can make a lot of money storing it safely.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Nuclear power produces CO2
    hewesj on 12/03/2007 at 2:11 PM
    Posts:
    1
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
    One needs to consider the life cycle costs and carbon footprint of any energy source. I understand that nuclear power plants ultimately produce as much CO2 as coal plants considering mining, transport, refining, transport of waste materials, etc., etc. A complex process heavily underwritten by corporate welfare.
    Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Nuclear power produces CO2
      nicknirm on 12/14/2007 at 4:52 PM
      Posts:
      2
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
      One key factor that is ignored in the anti-nuke arguments of many environmental hucksters is that while nukes also need mines for its fuel and generate dangerous waste, it is the relative scale of it that separates Nukes from the rest. The amount of fuel and waste in terms of weight/volume of fuel/waste per kilowatt capacity for nukes is miniscule compared to other power sources. Perhaps there should be a weighted index like a hypothetical unit of pollution or toxicity per kilogram or cubic meter per kilowatt-hour of power generated. Nuke may even beat solar/wind here. Renewables also needs materials to be mined, equipment to be manufactured, transported, installed, maintained and disposed of. Transportation costs cam be huge considering the potentially wide geographical dispersion of low capacity generators.

      Another factor that is ignored is land area required. Nukes require the least amount of land area per watt of power capacity by a huge margin. This is a major advantage for obvious reasons – especially in densely populated regions of the world. We could build fewer extra-high capacity nukes concentrate and hide them in a few remote and undesirable low grade real estate, instead of blotting the landscape with large number of low capacity solar/ wind power generators. Just ask Ted Kennedy.
      Rate this comment: 12345
    • Re: Nuclear power produces CO2
      paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:15 PM
      Posts:
      7
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
      As with anything in the environemental sphere, it is somewhat akin to the environementalists saying that the Glenn Canyon dam and Boulder Dam would be full of silt by now and wouldn't be generating any power or water for people or agriculture. They told me this back in the 60's, but dams built in the tropics without land clearing like here in the civilized world do generate significant amounts of greenhouse gases. There are methods of extracting the thorium if done soon enough before the oil runs out to make it very co2 tolerant. After that the collapse of society would curtail further need for it.
      Rate this comment: 12345
  • Thorium
    lowilliams on 12/03/2007 at 5:46 PM
    Posts:
    17
    Avg Rating:
    2/5
    You are all missing the fact that Uranium 233 has a smaller critical mass then either Plutonium or Uranium 238.  Thus, Thorium energy systems increases the potential for the spread of nuclear weapons.
    Rate this comment: 12345