Thorium-based nuclear power

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A sample of thorium

Thorium-based nuclear power is nuclear reactor-based, fueled primarily by the nuclear fission of
the isotope uranium-233produced from the fertile element thorium. According to proponents,
a thorium fuel cycle offers several potential advantages over a uranium fuel cycleincluding
much greater abundance on Earth, superior physical and nuclear fuel properties, and reduced
nuclear waste production. However, development of thorium power has significant start-up costs.
Proponents also cite the lack of weaponization potential as an advantage of thorium, while critics say
that development of breeder reactors in general (including thorium reactors, which are breeders by
nature) increases proliferation concerns. Since about 2008, nuclear energy experts have become
more interested in thorium to supply nuclear fuel in place of uranium to generate nuclear power. This
renewed interest has been highlighted in a number of scientific conferences, the latest of which,
ThEC13[1] was held at CERN by iThEC and attracted over 200 scientists from 32 countries.
A nuclear reactor consumes certain specific fissile isotopes to produce energy. The three most
practical types of nuclear reactor fuel are:

Uranium-235, purified (i.e. "enriched") by reducing the amount of uranium-238 in natural

mined uranium. Most nuclear power has been generated using low-enriched uranium (LEU),
whereas high-enriched uranium (HEU) is necessary for weapons.

Plutonium-239, transmuted from uranium-238 obtained from natural mined uranium.

Plutonium is also used for weapons.

Uranium-233, transmuted from thorium-232, derived from natural mined thorium. This is the
subject of this article.
Some believe thorium is key to developing a new generation of cleaner, safer nuclear power.
[2]
According to an opinion piece by a group of scientists at the Georgia Institute of Technology,
considering its overall potential, thorium-based power "can mean a 1000+ year solution or a quality
low-carbon bridge to truly sustainable energy sources solving a huge portion of mankinds negative
environmental impact."[3]
After studying the feasibility of using thorium, nuclear scientists Ralph W. Moir and Edward
Teller suggested that thorium nuclear research should be restarted after a three-decade shutdown
and that a small prototype plant should be built.[4][5][6]

Contents
[hide]
 1Background and brief history

2Possible benefits

3Possible disadvantages

4Thorium-based nuclear power projects

o 4.1Canada

o 4.2China

o 4.3Germany, 1980s

o 4.4India

o 4.5Israel

o 4.6Japan

o 4.7Norway

o 4.8United Kingdom

o 4.9United States

5World sources of thorium

6Types of thorium-based reactors

7See also

8Notes

9External links

Background and brief history[edit]

Early thorium-based (MSR) nuclear reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s
After World War II, uranium-based nuclear reactors were built to produce electricity. These were
similar to the reactor designs that produced material for nuclear weapons. During that period, the
government of the United States also built an experimental molten salt reactor using U-233 fuel, the
fissile material created by bombarding thorium with neutrons. The MSRE reactor, built at Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15,000 hours from 1965 to 1969. In 1968, Nobel
laureate and discoverer of plutonium, Glenn Seaborg, publicly announced to the Atomic Energy
Commission, of which he was chairman, that the thorium-based reactor had been successfully
developed and tested.
In 1973, however, the US government settled on uranium technology and largely discontinued
thorium-related nuclear research. The reasons were that uranium-fueled reactors were more
efficient, the research was proven, and thorium's breeding ratio was thought insufficient to produce
enough fuel to support development of a commercial nuclear industry. As Moir and Teller later wrote,
"The competition came down to a liquid metal fast breeder reactor (LMFBR) on the uranium-
plutonium cycle and a thermal reactor on the thorium-233U cycle, the molten salt breeder reactor.
The LMFBR had a larger breeding rate ... and won the competition." In their opinion, the decision to
stop development of thorium reactors, at least as a backup option, was an excusable mistake. [4]
Science writer Richard Martin states that nuclear physicist Alvin Weinberg, who was director at Oak
Ridge and primarily responsible for the new reactor, lost his job as director because he championed
development of the safer thorium reactors.[7][8] Weinberg himself recalls this period:
[Congressman] Chet Holifield was clearly exasperated with me, and he finally blurted out, "Alvin, if
you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it may be time for you to leave nuclear
energy." I was speechless. But it was apparent to me that my style, my attitude, and my perception
of the future were no longer in tune with the powers within the AEC.[9]

Martin explains that Weinberg's unwillingness to sacrifice potentially safe nuclear power for the
benefit of military uses forced him to retire:
Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have
zero risk of meltdown. . . . his team built a working reactor . . . . and he spent the rest of his 18-year
tenure trying to make thorium the heart of the nations atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium
reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, de facto head of the US nuclear
program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly
shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973. [10]

Despite the documented history of thorium nuclear power, many of todays nuclear experts were
nonetheless unaware of it. According to Chemical & Engineering News, "most peopleincluding
scientistshave hardly heard of the heavy-metal element and know little about it...," noting a
comment by a conference attendee that "it's possible to have a Ph.D. in nuclear reactor technology
and not know about thorium energy."[11] Nuclear physicist Victor J. Stenger, for one, first learned of it
in 2012:
It came as a surprise to me to learn recently that such an alternative has been available to us since
World War II, but not pursued because it lacked weapons applications.[12]

Others, including former NASA scientist and thorium expert Kirk Sorensen, agree that "thorium was
the alternative path that was not taken "[13][14]:2 According to Sorensen, during a documentary
interview, he states that if the US had not discontinued its research in 1974 it could have "probably
achieved energy independence by around 2000." [15]

Possible benefits[edit]
The World Nuclear Association explains some of the possible benefits[16]
The thorium fuel cycle offers enormous energy security benefits in the long-term due to its potential
for being a self-sustaining fuel without the need for fast neutron reactors. It is therefore an important
and potentially viable technology that seems able to contribute to building credible, long-term nuclear
energy scenarios.[17]

Moir and Teller agree, noting that the possible advantages of thorium include "utilization of an
abundant fuel, inaccessibility of that fuel to terrorists or for diversion to weapons use, together with
good economics and safety features "[4] Thorium is considered the "most abundant, most readily
available, cleanest, and safest energy source on Earth," adds science writer Richard Martin. [14]:7

Thorium is three times as abundant as uranium and nearly as abundant as lead and gallium
in the Earth's crust.[18] The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates "there is enough thorium in the
United States alone to power the country at its current energy level for over 1,000 years." [17]
[18]
"America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining," notes Evans-Pritchard.
[19]
Almost all thorium is fertile Th-232, compared to uranium that is composed of 99.3% fertile U-
238 and 0.7% more valuable fissile U-235.

It is difficult to make a practical nuclear bomb from a thorium reactor's byproducts. According
to Alvin Radkowsky, designer of the world's first full-scale atomic electric power plant, "a thorium
reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor,
and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear
detonation."[14]:11[20] Several uranium-233 bombs have been tested, but the presence of uranium-
232 tended to "poison" the uranium-233 in two ways: intense radiation from the uranium-232
made the material difficult to handle, and the uranium-232 led to possible pre-detonation.
Separating the uranium-232 from the uranium-233 proved very difficult, although
newer laser techniques could facilitate that process.[21][22]

There is much less nuclear wasteup to two orders of magnitude less, states Moir and
Teller,[4] eliminating the need for large-scale or long-term storage;[14]:13 "Chinese scientists claim
that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium."[19] The radioactivity of the
resulting waste also drops down to safe levels after just a one or a few hundred years,
compared to tens of thousands of years needed for current nuclear waste to cool off. [23]

According to Moir and Teller, "once started up [it] needs no other fuel except thorium
because it makes most or all of its own fuel."[4] This only applies to breeding reactors, that
produce at least as much fissile material as they consume. Other reactors require additional
fissile material, such as uranium-235 or plutonium.[17]

Thorium fuel cycle is a potential way to produce long term nuclear energy with low radio-
toxicity waste. In addition, the transition to thorium could be done through the incineration of
weapons grade plutonium (WPu) or civilian plutonium.[24]

Since all natural thorium can be used as fuel no expensive fuel enrichment is needed.
[23]
However the same is true for U-238 as fertile fuel in the uranium-plutonium cycle.

Comparing the amount of thorium needed with coal, Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia of CERN,
(European Organization for Nuclear Research), estimates that one ton of thorium can produce
as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal. [25] Coal, makes up 42% of US
electrical power generation and 65% in China.[26]
 Liquid fluoride thorium reactors are designed to be meltdown proof. A plug at the bottom of
the reactor melts in the event of a power failure or if temperatures exceed a set limit, draining
the fuel into an underground tank for safe storage. [27]

Mining thorium is safer and more efficient than mining uranium. Thorium's ore monazite
generally contains higher concentrations of thorium than the percentage of uranium found in its
respective ore. This makes thorium a more cost efficient and less environmentally damaging fuel
source. Thorium mining is also easier and less dangerous than uranium mining, as the mine is
an open pit which requires no ventilation, unlike underground uranium mines,
where radon levels can be potentially harmful.[28]
Summarizing some of the potential benefits, Martin offers his general opinion: "Thorium could
provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying all public concernweapons
proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and fuel that is both costly and complicated to
process.[14]:13 From an economics viewpoint, UK business editor Ambrose Evans-Pritchard has
suggested that "Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium," suggesting a
"new Manhattan Project," and adding, "If it works, Manhattan II could restore American optimism and
strategic leadership at a stroke "[25] Moir and Teller estimated in 2004 that the cost for their
recommended prototype would be "well under $1 billion with operation costs likely on the order of
$100 million per year," and as a result a "large-scale nuclear power plan" usable by many countries
could be set up within a decade.[4]
A report by the Bellona Foundation in 2013 concluded that the economics are quite speculative.
Thorium nuclear reactors are unlikely to produce cheaper energy, but the management of spent fuel
is likely to be cheaper than for uranium nuclear reactors. [29]

Possible disadvantages[edit]
Some experts note possible specific disadvantages of thorium nuclear power: [30]

Breeding in a thermal neutron spectrum is slow and requires extensive reprocessing. The
feasibility of reprocessing is still open.[31]

Significant and expensive testing, analysis and licensing work is first required, requiring
business and government support.[17] According to a 2012 report by the Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, about using thorium fuel with existing water-cooled reactors, it would "require too
great an investment and provide no clear payoff," noting that "from the utilities point of view, the
only legitimate driver capable of motivating pursuit of thorium is economics." [30]

There is a higher cost of fuel fabrication and reprocessing than in plants using traditional
solid fuel rods.[17][29]

Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very
dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be altered slightly by
removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232,
which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel. [32]

Thorium-based nuclear power projects[edit]

Research and development of thorium-based nuclear reactors, primarily the Liquid fluoride thorium
reactor (LFTR), MSR design, has been or is now being done in the United States, United
Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, India, China, France, the Czech
Republic, Japan, Russia, Canada, Israel, and the Netherlands.[12][14] Conferences with experts from as
many as 32 countries are held, including one by the European Organization for Nuclear
Research (CERN) in 2013, which focuses on thorium as an alternative nuclear technology without
requiring production of nuclear waste.[33] Recognized experts, such as Hans Blix, former head of
the International Atomic Energy Agency, calls for expanded support of new nuclear power
technology, and states, "the thorium option offers the world not only a new sustainable supply of fuel
for nuclear power but also one that makes better use of the fuel's energy content." [34]