- On-Air Google+ Hangout on Presidential Candidates’ Energy & Environmental Policies
- Graph: German Wholesale Electricity Prices Down, Retail Prices Up
- Rebuttals to Paper Criticizing Thorium
- Biofuels Backed by Secretary of the Navy
- New Startup Essess Is Making a Mashup of Google Street View and Zillow, to Perform Efficient Home Energy Audits
- Shell’s Arctic Venture Stalls while MIT Proposes New Oil Spill Clean-Up Concept
- Germany Launches €36M Research Project into Li-ion Battery Safety
- Morocco Envisions 14% of Power from Sun by 2020
- Fisker Automotive Sets 2 New Electric Vehicle World Records (Fun Video)
- New Low-Energy Designer Light Bulb Shrinks
- CleanTechnica Hits 2 Big Milestones This Week
- 174% Increase for Arizona’s Solar Installations
- HP, Intel, & NREL Partner for New High-Performance Computer Data Center
- Super Accurate Wind Energy Forecasts
- EPA Launches California Map to Highlight Land Best Used for Green Energy Sources
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 11:45 AM PDT
The first one is tomorrow (Thursday, September 13) at 4:00pm EST, and it will be covering a topic important to us all, the presidential candidates’ energy and environmental policies. Join in if you can! (Unfortunately, it’s not a great time for me, but I hope some folks from CleanTechnica will jump in there.)
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 11:08 AM PDT
One of our readers actually dropped a tremendously useful link in the comments, a link which included the graph below.
Now, as you can see, the graph is in German, but an explanation of it was translated for me by Google Translate, and I’ve stuck the key points in the caption below.
I don’t think it gets much clearer, coinciding with the penetration of renewable energy on the German grid (and as it has moved away from nuclear power), there has been a drop in the wholesale price of electricity. But, for some reason (a rather obvious reason), those cost reductions have not been passed on to customers.
Funny that we should run across this at almost the same time as it has been revealed that Germany’s electricity grid also saw record reliability in 2011, at the same time as it saw a huge explosion in renewable energy on the grid — completely counter to countless anti–renewable energy claims shouted from the rooftops (er, on blogs, in major media, and in political forums).
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 10:17 AM PDT
Now, before reposting those, two of the comments on the second piece that I’m reposting remain unanswered, so I’m going to repeat them in case someone can answer them here:
The second question seems like it would be very relevant to a discussion on cost (and perhaps, thus, to the first question).
I greatly appreciate the responses in the reposted articles below — they are much better than pretty much everything I have read / been directed to from thorium enthusiasts on this or other sites. But they still leave some questions completely unanswered, including those two above.
In addition to the above, I wonder why countries and companies moving forward with nuclear energy (i.e. the U.S., China, Poland, GE, etc.) continue to pursue the type of nuclear power no sane person wants (for financial and safety reasons). Why do they not change their focus to thorium?
Furthermore, if thorium nuclear in a LFR is so simple, and thorium is so abundant and cheap, and there are no clear limitations to the LFTR design, why has no entrepreneur or company found a way to develop and commercialize a modern LFTR?
Additionally, on the issue of cost, saying that one process is cheaper than another and explaining the theory behind that in a simplistic way is fine, but where are some numbers to back that up? I have never seen numbers showing the price of a LFTR…. perhaps, I guess, because the technology is so far from being developed that nobody has numbers on it. Or perhaps they are out there somewhere and I just haven’t found them. Is LFTR really so cheap? If so, could someone please provide numbers on that based on an actual facility?
Beyond the above, it seems that thorium reactors don’t at all address the issue of energy centralization and monopolization (it doesn’t seem like they are going to help democratize our electricity system any time soon). This is another big issue, but I think it is a discussion for another day….
For now, I’m reposting (what seem like) good rebuttals to the paper I posted the other day. The title of each article below links to the external pages from where I am reposting them.
12 May 2010
Nuclear Information and Resource Service
Taking encouragement from your (PSR's) website's promise: "We encourage the submission of any comments…", I'm writing you in hopes you'll correct errors in a particular paper you've apparently promulgated to many interest groups like NIRS/IEER, worldwide, resulting in misleading them and our fellow Americans on an extremely important issue. As doctors give oath "to do no harm", scientists & engineers too work under an implied oath to serve the needs of humanity, and to do so honestly & completely. The PSR/IEER 'Fact Sheet' you've unfortunately published fails that test. It lacks completeness, accuracy and so, responsibility.
I'm referring to "Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power", by Makhijani & Boyd:
I'll begin at the heart of the inaccuracy and misleading nature of the piece – it considers only solid nuclear fuels. As a result, it achieves three major failings: 1) it displays the authors as unaware of nuclear-reactor designs that are indeed safer than present LWR/BWR solid-fuelled systems; 2) it suggests PSR and/or IEER don't have proper review procedures; and 3) it illustrates the danger of bias in content that gives the appearance of motivation to mislead readers.
None of the above are excusable, especially not for any organizations using the words "Responsible" or "Resource Service" in their names. In other words, the result of the report's failings is to mark it as an example of exactly the kind of misleading document we need less of today and in the future. Perhaps it's served as a lobbying tool, but we have far too much of that everywhere today, as well. So, in the interest of responsibility to our fellow citizens across the globe, here are comments you say you "encourage":
a) Paragraphs 2, 9, 10 & 13 are mutually inconsistent as to the danger of natural Thorium (isotope 232), apparently attempting to strike fear in the reader about a mildly radioactive metal that's still half here because its half life is the age of the known universe. By definition, such a long-lived nucleus is hardly a danger. In fact, about every cubic meter of rock on Earth, Moon & Mars has 12 grams of Th232, which turns out to be enough to feed a reactor that meets an American's energy-consuming needs for about a decade.
b) In additional sentences you refer to Th232 mining as "posing long-term hazards", yet you fail to mention that mining for it is unnecessary, because Thorium is a byproduct of most "rare-earth" mining around the world and with a 14-billion year half life, constitutes not only no danger when treated properly, but has been stockpiled by DoE in sufficient pure-metal quantities to obviate any mining to meet all US energy needs for about a decade. How is it that the authors didn't report this?
c) By the way, the company you list as "advocating for Thorium fuel" is no longer under the name you list, but is now LightBridge.
d) Again in the 2nd paragraph, the authors evidence ignorance of the liquid-fuel cycle successfully developed and used at ORNL between 1954 and 1974 – discontinued because it could not be used for weapons. So, saying: "Thorium doesn't solve the proliferation, waste, safety…problems and still faces major technical hurdles…" simply underscores ignorance, intentional or otherwise, of the well-documented successes of Alvin Weinberg's team at Oak Ridge over 40 years ago. They used liquid (molten-salt) fuel cycles, of which Th232-U233 is most relevant & promising today. So the generalizations of paragraph 2 are specious.
e) The 3rd paragraph continues the error above and fails to mention that not only can Th232 be easily bred to U233 in molten salt, but the resulting U233 (which doesn't occur in nature) fissions far more completely than other U or Pu isotopes, leading immediately to lower waste production. See reaction diagram attached summary (your authors could easily have found this).
f) The 4th paragraph is irrelevant for the same reason – the authors for some reason are unaware of the very safe, successful, anti-proliferation fuel cycle invented by Weinberg. The reason we should respect him is not least that he stood up for nuclear safety, despite having patents on the light-water reactors we've been deploying, and which he rightly considered dangerous in operation as well as in waste. In other words, we should all be grateful and study what his team did, in service to the oath scientists, engineers & doctors make for benefit to all.
g) The 5th paragraph is oddly wrong, even manipulative of the facts – "U233 is as effective as PU239 for making bombs". Later in the same piece the authors warn of the natural coexistence of U233 & 232, the latter being highly radioactive (gamma). It can't be had both ways – if a bomb is attempted with U233, enough U232 will naturally occur such that not only will workers be killed very soon, any successfully-constructed weapon would be so radioactive in penetrating gammas that its surrounding controls & delivery mechanisms would be ruined. And, it would be extremely hard to hide & easy to detect. U233 is in no way a military or terrorist weapon, rather it would eliminate any terrorists foolish enough to try to use it. But again, this paragraph is irrelevant because it assumes existence of solid U233 fuel, which is exactly not the Wienberg MSR design. The authors should know this.
h) Paragraph 5 continues the odd ignorance of ORNL's MSR program and talks about enriching Uranium to start "existing reactors using thorium fuel". This is, of course, not at all the issue relating to Thorium & MSRs. In fact, DoE also has a U233 stockpile, which could be used to start a Th232-fed MSR, but there would never be any "enriched fuel" sitting around for theft – it would all exist as, say, Fluoride salts, dissolved into the simple MSR chemistry. The Th232-U233 transmutation can even be started with a medical proton-accelerator, as the Japanese have done. This again is a surprising hole in the authors' writing that proper review would have corrected. We all like our medical procedures & drugs to be properly developed & reviewed, but apparently this has not been PSR's or IEER's objective.
i) The paragraphs from here through 8 are equally irrelevant to Thorium use in MSRs. But, paragraph 7 contains the relevant U232 information cited in g) above.
j) The 8th paragraph is singularly misleading, because there's no "spent fuel" in an MSR – all Th232 & U233 are consumed, and there's never a scheduled shutdown for refueling, because of the very nature of the design – an unpressurized,liquid. ThF4 or UF4 (or even higher U & Pu isotopes as salts) are simply added into the molten mix as it's pumped around the reactor & heat-exchanger plumbing. It's what every chemist understands & loves: liquid, unpressurized chemistry. And, since all fuel is consumed, an MSR can be used to reduce nuclear wastes down to any level desired, even on the site of a de-commissioned U/Pu reactor. This is exactly the kind of ability responsible scientists, engineers, doctors, politicians and citizens care about. PSR/IEER proliferation of this paper hides what is perhaps the most important knowledge we need today to pursue a weapons-free world — MSRs can consume them all. Why the authors say nothing of this deserves intense scrutiny. For details…
k) The 11th & 12th paragraphs continue on the irrelevant tack of "reprocessing" and loose, solid U232/233. The MSR has none of this outside an 800degC molten salt.
l) Paragraph 13 makes an oddly unscientific guess that a "thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly" that a Uranium one. As any nuclear engineer or physicist knows, the enrichment process for Uranium fuel is very expensive. Since Thorium is a common byproduct of such mining as for "rare earths" (ignoring our decade stockpile), and 100% of Thorium supplied to an MSR is consumed over its years of operation, then it's indeed incredulous that anyone would try to say a far less abundant element, whose isotopic concentration must be strenuously altered from its natural state, and which, in solid-fuel form, can only be under 1/10 consumed, is less "costly". For use in an MSR, Thorium simply needs to be Fluorinated to a salt that gets dumped into a pot of sister molten salts sitting aside a reactor.
In summary, it's not a bad deal to have a byproduct of strategic materials mining serve to safely provide power around the world, even in space, at about $2/Watt, with no proliferation risk, 0.1% of current Pu waste, and about 50lbs of other wastes per GW-year. Of course, that's what the liquid-salt reactor gives us, when using Thorium as the fertile input. But the same liquid process can even be used to consume all existing and future wastes, as desired. These all exactly result from Alvin Weinberg's sense of honest dedication & responsibility.
Rather than attempting to mislead the world about Thorium in narrow uses, PSR & IEER, and all who passed around, unquestioned, the Makhijani & Boyd paper as gospel, owe the world's citizens an apology and a rewrite of Thorium as a likely useful tool to environmentally meet our energy and fresh-water needs via molten-salt reactors.
In January 2009, the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER) and Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) issued a "fact sheet" called "Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power." The authors of this sheet were Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd.
Last year, Dr. Alexander Cannara wrote a letter to IEER/PSR pointing out errors and omissions in the "fact sheet" and requesting IEER/PSR to implement corrections. To the best of my knowledge no amendment or correction was ever issued.
This is an extended rebuttal of the claims made about thorium by Makhijani and Boyd; the entirety of their original statement is included in the rebuttal and denoted by italics.
Thorium "fuel" has been proposed as an alternative to uranium fuel in nuclear reactors. There are not "thorium reactors," but rather proposals to use thorium as a "fuel" in different types of reactors, including existing light-water reactors and various fast breeder reactor designs.
It would seem that Mr. Makhijani and Ms. Boyd are unaware of the work done at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under Dr. Alvin Weinberg from 1955 to 1974 on the subject of fluid-fueled reactors, particularly those that used liquid-fluoride salts as a medium in which to sustain nuclear reactions. The liquid-fluoride reactor was the most promising of these fluid-fueled designs, and indeed it did have the capability to use thorium as fuel. It was not a light-water reactor, nor was it a fast-breeder reactor. It has a thermal (slowed-down) neutron spectrum which made it easier to control and vastly improved the amount of fissile fuel it needed to start. It operated at atmospheric pressure rather than the high pressure of water-cooled reactors. It was also singularly suited to the use of thorium due to the nature of its chemistry and the chemistry of thorium and uranium.
Thorium, which refers to thorium-232, is a radioactive metal that is about three times more abundant than uranium in the natural environment. Large known deposits are in Australia, India, and Norway. Some of the largest reserves are found in Idaho in the U.S. The primary U.S. company advocating for thorium fuel is Thorium Power (www.thoriumpower.com). Contrary to the claims made or implied by thorium proponents, however, thorium doesn't solve the proliferation, waste, safety, or cost problems of nuclear power, and it still faces major technical hurdles for commercialization.
Mr. Makhijani and Ms. Boyd may wish to update their document since "Thorium Power" is now called "Lightbridge" and no longer advocates for the use of thorium, whereas the community of supporters of liquid-fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) still maintains strong support for the use of thorium because it is indeed a solution to the issues of proliferation, waste, safety, and cost that accompany the present use of solid-fueled, water-cooled reactors.
Thorium is not actually a "fuel" because it is not fissile and therefore cannot be used to start or sustain a nuclear chain reaction. A fissile material, such as uranium-235 (U-235) or plutonium-239 (which is made in reactors from uranium-238), is required to kick-start the reaction. The enriched uranium fuel or plutonium fuel also maintains the chain reaction until enough of the thorium target material has been converted into fissile uranium-233 (U-233) to take over much or most of the job. An advantage of thorium is that it absorbs slow neutrons relatively efficiently (compared to uranium-238) to produce fissile uranium-233.
On the contrary, thorium is very much a fuel because in the steady-state operation of a LFTR, it is the only thing that is consumed to make energy. Makhijani and Boyd are correct that any nuclear reactor needs fissile material to start the chain reaction, and the LFTR is no different, but the important point is that once started on fissile material, LFTR can run indefinitely on only thorium as a feed—it will not continue to consume fissile material. That is very much the characteristic of a true fuel. "Burning thorium" in this manner is possible because the LFTR uses the neutrons from the fissioning of uranium-233 to convert thorium into uranium-233 at the same rate at which it is consumed. The "inventory" of uranium-233 remains stable over the life of the reactor when production and consumption are balanced. Today's reactors use solid-uranium oxide fuel that is covalently-bonded and sustains radiation damage during its time in the reactor. The fluoride fuel used in LFTR is ionically-bonded and impervious to radiation damage no matter what the exposure duration. LFTR can be used to consume uranium-235 or plutonium-239 recovered from nuclear weapons and "convert" it, for all intents and purposes, to uranium-233 that will enable the production of energy from thorium indefinitely. Truly this is a reactor design that can "beat swords into plowshares" in a safe and economically attractive way.
The use of enriched uranium or plutonium in thorium fuel has proliferation implications. Although U-235 is found in nature, it is only 0.7 percent of natural uranium, so the proportion of U-235 must be industrially increased to make "enriched uranium" for use in reactors. Highly enriched uranium and separated plutonium are nuclear weapons materials.
Since so many nuclear weapons have already been built and are being decommissioned, one might assume that Makhijani and Boyd would welcome a technology like LFTR that could safely consume these sensitive materials in an economically-advantageous way, beating swords into plowshares and using material that was once fashioned as a weapon as a material that can provide light and energy to billions. Enriched uranium or plutonium can't simply be "thrown away". LFTR puts these materials to productive use as they are destroyed in the reactor and uranium-233 is generated.
In addition, U-233 is as effective as plutonium-239 for making nuclear bombs. In most proposed thorium fuel cycles, reprocessing is required to separate out the U-233 for use in fresh fuel. This means that, like uranium fuel with reprocessing, bomb-making material is separated out, making it vulnerable to theft or diversion. Some proposed thorium fuel cycles even require 20% enriched uranium in order to get the chain reaction started in existing reactors using thorium fuel. It takes 90% enrichment to make weapons-usable uranium, but very little additional work is needed to move from 20% enrichment to 90% enrichment. Most of the separative work is needed to go from natural uranium, which has 0.7% uranium-235 to 20% U-235.
In a fluoride reactor, all of the fuel processing equipment will be located in a containment region containing the reactor and its primary heat exchangers, under very high radiation fields, and under the high heat needed to keep the fuel liquid. Once the system is properly designed to direct uranium-233 created in the outer regions of the reactor (the "blanket") to the central regions of the reactor (the "core") there will be no possibility of redirection of the material flow. Such a redirection would necessitate a rebuild of the entire reactor and would be vastly beyond the capabilities of the operators. Furthermore, the nature of U-233 removal and transfer from blanket to core involves the operation of an electrolytic cell that will allow very precise control and accountability of the material in question. Unlike solid-fueled reactors the uranium-233 never needs to leave the secure area of the containment building or come in contact with humans in order to continue the operation of the reactor. This is another important point that the authors have failed to distinguish as they have ignored the existence or implications of fluid-fueled thorium reactors.
To claim that uranium-233 is just as effective as plutonium-239 for nuclear weapons is gross simplification bordering on outright deception. They have similar values for critical mass, but this leaves out a very important point. The nuclear reactions that consume uranium-233 also produce small amounts of uranium-232, a contaminant that will later be mentioned by the authors but ignored at this stage of the criticism. U-232 has a decay sequence that includes the hard gamma-ray-emitting radioisotopes bismuth-212 and thallium-208. Indeed, the half-life of U-232 is short enough that this decay chain begins to set up within days of the purification of the uranium, and within a few months that gamma-ray flux from the material is intense. These gamma rays destroy the electronics of a nuclear weapon, compromise the chemical explosives, and clearly signal to detection systems where the fissile material is located. This is one of the key reasons why no operational nuclear weapons have ever been built using uranium-233 as the fissile material.
It has been claimed that thorium fuel cycles with reprocessing would be much less of a proliferation risk because the thorium can be mixed with uranium-238. In this case, fissile uranium-233 is also mixed with non-fissile uranium-238. The claim is that if the uranium-238 content is high enough, the mixture cannot be used to make bombs without a complex uranium enrichment plant. This is misleading. More uranium-238 does dilute the uranium-233, but it also results in the production of more plutonium-239 as the reactor operates. So the proliferation problem remains either bomb-usable uranium-233 or bomb-usable plutonium is created and can be separated out by reprocessing.
In my opinion, mixing uranium-238 with uranium-233 during the normal operation of a LFTR is a bad idea because it compromises the capability of the reactor to "burn" thorium to a degree that it then becomes necessary to add fissile material to keep the reactor running. This is because uranium-238 will absorb many of the neutrons that would otherwise convert thorium into uranium-233, instead converting uranium-238 into plutonium-239. Plutonium-239 is a poor fuel in a LFTR due to the limited solubility of plutonium trifluoride (PuF3) and the poor performance of plutonium in a thermal-neutron spectrum (only 2/3 of the plutonium-239 will fission when struck by a neutron).
But something is possible in the fluid fuel of a LFTR that is impossible in the solid fuel of a conventional reactor with regards to the "downblending" of uranium. Under extreme scenarios, it may be desireable to have a separate supply of uranium-238 inside the reactor containment that could be irreversibly mixed with the uranium-233 in the core. This would have the effect of making the reactor unable to restart, and despite the contention of Makhajani and Boyd, there is no feasible way to isotopically separate uranium-233 (contaminated with uranium-232) from uranium-238 because of the severe gamma radiation that would be emitted during any attempt to separate the isotopes. This approach to "just-in-time" downblending is only possible with fluid fuel, and its absence of consideration in the document again shows that the authors are unaware of the fluid fuel option and its implications.
Further, while an enrichment plant is needed to separate U-233 from U-238, it would take less separative work to do so than enriching natural uranium. This is because U-233 is five atomic weight units lighter than U-238, compared to only three for U-235. It is true that such enrichment would not be a straightforward matter because the U-233 is contaminated with U-232, which is highly radioactive and has very radioactive radionuclides in its decay chain. The radiation-dose-related problems associated with separating U-233 from U-238 and then handling the U-233 would be considerable and more complex than enriching natural uranium for the purpose of bomb making. But in principle, the separation can be done, especially if worker safety is not a primary concern; the resulting U-233 can be used to make bombs. There is just no way to avoid proliferation problems associated with thorium fuel cycles that involve reprocessing. Thorium fuel cycles without reprocessing would offer the same temptation to reprocess as today's once-through uranium fuel cycles.
Makhijani and Boyd really betray a fundamental lack of understanding of the nature of uranium isotope separation facilities with their simplistic and cursory description of U-233 separation from U-238. Such a process would be so difficult due to the presence of U-232 that it simply would not be considered, even by the hypothetical "suicide" operators that they postulate. Anyone who had invested the large sums of money into a uranium isotope separation system would never risk permanently crippling its ability to operate by introducing U-232-contaminated feed into the system.
Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight and long-term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uranium-only fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long-lived fission products like technetium-99 (half-life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository.
Again, the authors make blanket statements about "thorium" but then confine their examination to some variant of solid thorium fuel in a conventional reactor. In a LFTR, thorium can be consumed with exceptionally high efficiency, approaching completeness. Unburned thorium and valuable uranium-233 is simply recycled to the next generation of fluoride reactor when a reactor is decommissioned. The fuel is not damaged by radiation. Thus thorium and uranium-233 would not enter a waste stream during the use of a LFTR.
All fission produces a similar set of fission products, each with roughly half the mass of the original fissile material. Most have very short half-lives, and are highly radioactive and highly dangerous. A very few have very long half-lives, very little radioactivity, and little concern. A simple but underappreciated truth is that the longer the half-life of a material, the less radioactive and the less dangerous it is. Technetium-99 (Tc-99) has a half-life of 100,000 years and indeed is a product of the fission of uranium-233, just as it is a product of the fission of uranium-235 or plutonium-239. Its immediate precursor, technetium-99m (Tc-99m), has a half-life of six hours and so is approximately 150 million times more radioactive than Tc-99.
Nevertheless, it might come as a surprise to the casual reader that hundreds of thousands of people intentionally ingest Tc-99m every year as part of medical imaging procedures because it produces gamma rays that allow radiography technicians to image internal regions of the body and diagnose concerns. The use of Tc-99m thus allows physicians to forego thousands of exploratory and invasive surgeries that would otherwise risk patient health. The Tc-99m decays over the period of a few days to Tc-99, with its 100,000 half-life, extremely low levels of radiation, and low risk.
What is the ultimate fate of the Tc-99? It is excreted from the body through urination and ends up in the municipal water supply. If the medical community and radiological professionals intentionally cause patients to ingest a form of technetium that is 150 million times more radioactive than Tc-99, with the intent that its gamma rays be emitted within the body, and then sees no risk from the excretion of Tc-99 into our water supply, where is the concern? It is yet another example of fear, uncertainty, and doubt that Makhijani and Boyd would raise this issue as if it represented some sort of condemnation of the use of thorium for nuclear power.
If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium-232 is very-long lived (half-life:14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium-232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing an amount (mass) of insoluble thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium.
Statements like this really cause me to wonder if Makhijani and Boyd understand the nature of radioactivity. Yes, thorium-232 has a 14-billion-year half-life, which means that the radioactivity of thorium is exceptionally low. It will rise as the decay chain of Th-232 begins to form, but it is still at a very low level. To be concerned with the radioactivity of thorium in spent fuel, while neglecting to mention the five billion kilograms of thorium contained in each meter of the Earth's continental crust again appears to be another example of fear, uncertainty, and doubt levied unfairly against the use of thorium. The buildup of thorium-228 as part of the decay of thorium will happen on a scale within the Earth's crust so titanically in excess of any activity on the part of man so as to render that point utterly immaterial to any discussion of thorium as a nuclear fuel.
Since both thorium and uranium are natural and common constituents of the Earth's crust, discussing a bone surface dose obtained by breathing insoluble thorium—a very strange exposure pathway—and contrasting it with uranium is again utterly immaterial to the use of thorium as a nuclear fuel. Do Makhijani and Boyd mean to say that it would be preferable to be breathing uranium instead? The criticism seems to have no structure.
Furthermore, LFTR will not reject thorium to a waste stream nor generate "spent fuel" in the conventional sense. Thorium remains in the reactor until consumed for energy. At shutdown, unconsumed thorium is transferred to the next generation of reactor.
Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long-term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non-radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings.
Thorium is found with rare-earth mineral deposits, and global demand for rare-earth mining will inevitably bring up thorium deposits. At the present time, we in the US have the strange policy of considering this natural material as a "radioactive waste" that must be disposed at considerable cost. Other countries like China have taken a longer view on the issue and simply stockpile the thorium that they recover during rare-earth mining for future use in thorium reactors. In addition, the United States has an already-mined supply of 3200 metric tonnes of thorium in Nevada that will meet energy needs for many decades. The issues surrounding thorium mining are immaterial to its discussion as a nuclear energy source because thorium will be mined under any circumstance, but if we use it as a nuclear fuel we can save time and effort by avoiding the expense of trying to throw it away.
Research and development of thorium fuel has been undertaken in Germany, India, Japan, Russia, the UK and the U.S. for more than half a century. Besides remote fuel fabrication and issues at the front end of the fuel cycle, thorium-U-233 breeder reactors produce fuel ("breed") much more slowly than uranium-plutonium-239 breeders. This leads to technical complications. India is sometimes cited as the country that has successfully developed thorium fuel. In fact, India has been trying to develop a thorium breeder fuel cycle for decades but has not yet done so commercially.
Thorium/U233 reactors like LFTR produce sufficient U-233 to make up for U-233 consumed in the fission process. This may be what the authors meant by "breeding more slowly", but since they consider plutonium a dangerous substance and eschew the use of nuclear power, it is a wonder why they would consider a reactor that does not produce plutonium as having some sort of deficiency. They neglect to elaborate on what sort of "technical complications" this very attractive feature would entail.
The thorium effort in India has been centered around the use of thorium in solid-oxide form, and has suffered from the deficiencies of using this approach, which are transcended through the use of thorium in liquid fluoride form. This is further evidence that the authors are unaware of the implications of the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor.
One reason reprocessing thorium fuel cycles haven't been successful is that uranium-232 (U 232) is created along with uranium-233. U-232, which has a half-life of about 70 years, is extremely radioactive and is therefore very dangerous in small quantities: a single small particle in a lung would exceed legal radiation standards for the general public. U-232 also has highly radioactive decay products. Therefore, fabricating fuel with U-233 is very expensive and difficult.
Previously I mentioned the implications of the presence of uranium-232 contamination within uranium-233 and its anti-proliferative nature with regards to nuclear weapons. U-232 contamination also makes fabrication of solid thorium-oxide fuel containing uranium-233-oxide very difficult. In the liquid-fluoride reactor, fuel fabrication is unnecessary and this difficulty is completely averted.
Thorium may be abundant and possess certain technical advantages, but it does not mean that it is economical. Compared to uranium, thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once-through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly. In addition, as noted, inhalation of thorium-232 produces a higher dose than the same amount of uranium-238 (either by radioactivity or by weight). Reprocessed thorium creates even more risks due to the highly radioactive U-232 created in the reactor. This makes worker protection more difficult and expensive for a given level of annual dose.
The liquid-fluoride thorium reactor has an exceptionally simple and self-contained fuel cycle that has every promise of being less-expensive than today's wasteful and complicated "once-through" approach to uranium fuel utilization. Makhijani and Boyd try to assign thorium to the wasteful "once-through" fuel cycle, point out deficiencies, and then condemn thorium as having no promise. This might analogous to putting diesel fuel in a gasoline-powered car and then pointing out how deficient diesel fuel is when the car will no longer operate. It is disingenuous and deceptive, and the kindest thing that can be said is that Makhijani and Boyd are ignorant of the implications of the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor and its fuel cycle, which they should not be if they presume to issue a "position paper" such as this.
Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long-term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non-radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings.
This is a repeat of the issue previously considered, as is immaterial as a factor for or against the use of thorium in nuclear powered reactors since thorium will be mined anyway during the mining of rare-earth minerals. The only question will be whether the mined thorium will be wasted or not.
In conclusion, Makhijani and Boyd fail to consider the implications of the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor on all aspects relating to the benefits of thorium as a nuclear fuel. They fail to consider its strong benefits with regards to nuclear proliferation, since no operational nuclear weapon has ever been fabricated from thorium or uranium-233. They fail to consider how LFTR can be used to productively consume nuclear weapons material made excess by the end of the Cold War. They fail to consider the reduction in nuclear waste that would accompany the use of LFTR. They fail entirely to account for the safety features inherent in a LFTR—how low-pressure operation and a chemically-stable fuel form allow the reactor to have a passive safety response to severe accidents. They fail to account for the improvement in cost that would be realized if LFTRs were to efficiently use thorium, reduce the need for mining fossil fuels, and increase the availability of energy.
Mr. Makhijani and Ms. Boyd should retract this statement in its entirety as flawed and deceptive to a public that needs clear and accurate information about our energy future.
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 07:30 AM PDT
Secretary Mabus identified increasing fuel costs as a very significant problem in terms of the Navy’s military readiness, because being dependent on external sources for fuel is simply not a stable way of conducting operations or business. He said that, this year alone, the Navy will spend over $500 million because of fluctuating oil prices.
Even so, there has still been some resistance to advanced biofuel development in Congress, as documented several times recently on CleanTechnica. Eight new biorefineries are being funded by the USDA to help begin generating biofuels in America. In fact, on September 8th, USDA Secretary Secretary Tom Vilsack toured the USS Monterey in Norfolk, VA and said, “Developing the next generation of advanced biofuels for our nation's military is both a national security issue and an economic issue. By utilizing renewable energy produced on American soil, our military forces will become less reliant on fuel that has to be transported long distances and often over supply lines that can be disrupted during times of conflict.”
Image Credit: U.S. Navy Photo by Chief Mass Communication Specialist Roger S. Duncan (RELEASED)
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 07:00 AM PDT
The approach that is currently used to detect the leaks in buildings is the “blower door test, which is time-consuming, inconvenient and certainly doesn’t scale the way it must in order to become cheap and ubiquitous. And it doesn’t scale the way the venture community requires of its portfolio companies.”
A new startup, Essess, is aiming to change that. (The company’s name is pronounced ēssess.)
The scans, which will need a contrast of images taken in cold and hot weather, will only cost the company around $1.00 per building.
“Armed with that data, the plan is to identify every weak link and thermal problem with the building and then provide a tangible ROI-based solution to the building owners,” according to CEO Storm Duncan.
Essess is, essentially, doing away with the need for utility workers, energy auditors or contractors to spend any time inspecting the leaks and insulation in a building. Potential clients will simply be presented with a detailed report and potential steps to be taken.
The company, which aims to have 10 percent of the U.S. imaged by the end of the year, has already raised $6 million dollars from DFJ Athena, Vocap Ventures, and the founders of BlackRock.
Source: Greentech Media
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 06:59 AM PDT
Yes, Magnets Could Probably Clean Up Oil Spills
The research team, lead by Shahriar Khushrushahi of MIT's Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, already has a leg up on the science behind the new method.
To put it mildly, your basic household magnet is not involved. According to MIT writer Larry Hardesty, the new process draws on previous research into magnetic fluids. Also known as ferrofluids, a magnetic fluid contains tiny nano-magnets in suspension.
The idea, quite simply, would be to draw the spilled oil into a ship and mix it with a water repellent ferrofluid. That would effectively magnetize the oil, while any water captured by the operation would remain neutral.
A set of larger magnets would be used to draw off the magnetized oil, which would then be separated from the ferrofluid in another step.
So far, researchers have shown that ferrofluids can be mixed with water and then separated with a high degree of efficiency, but only under controlled conditions.
An Energy Efficient Way to Clean Up Oil Spills
The team has come up with a promising avenue in the form of an array of cylindrical magnets embedded vertically in a reservoir. When a mixture of magnetized oil and water is introduced, beads of oil are forced to the tops of the magnets, which stick out above the water line.
Once exposed, the oil beads can be scooped up by a set of large magnets configured in a Halbach array, which Hardesty describes as a boxy-looking device that produces a stronger magnetic field at one end and a weaker one at the other.
Aside from achieving an “excellent separation,” the process uses less energy than conventional practices. Since it is designed to take place on board a ship, it also reduces the need for energy to transport an oil-and-water mixture to a land site.
More Green Jobs for Magnets
The MIT team still has a long way to go from the lab to the next big oil spill, which hopefully will not come any time soon, though the 30-mile ice sheet drifting toward Shell’s Arctic oil rig doesn’t exactly instill optimism.
In the meantime, magnets are already beginning to play a big role in new clean technology.
One particularly interesting example is the use of magnets in the new generation of high-tech flywheels, adding a 21st century twist to an energy storage device that has been around for hundreds of years.
Yale researchers have been developing a new “liquid magnet” that could serve as a non-toxic soldering compound to replace lead in electronic devices, and Columbia University is partnering with IBM and Cornell University to develop a new energy efficient, magnet-based computer chip.
Follow me on Twitter: @TinaMCasey.
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 06:52 AM PDT
The German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF) is going to contribute €19 million ($24 million) to the €36 million ($46 million) public-private research project intended to improve the safety of lithium-ion batteries for battery-electric (BEV) and hybrid-electric vehicles (HEV).
Financial private sector contributions to this project amounted to €17 million ($22 million).
This research initiative is to last three years, and will focus on new materials, semiconductor sensors, and test methods (this reminds me of a recent rapid test method that enabled a machine to invent a new type of lithium-ion battery).
The German government selected Safebatt as one of the nine lighthouse projects of Germany’s National Electric Mobility Platform. Safebatt ("active and passive measures for intrinsically safe lithium-ion batteries") is intended to further the country’s position has a centre for industry, science, and technology, and to shift to more climate-friendly and cost-effective mobility.
The Safebatt project will investigate certain things such as how cell chemistry (particularly that of the cathode material and the electrolytes) can be optimized to increase the intrinsic safety of lithium-ion battery cells.
Li-ion batteries are also used in almost all portable electronics except cordless phones now — all laptops, all cellphones (including lithium polymer, because lithium polymer is li-ion), and all tablet PCs. They don’t explode either, despite being dropped down stairs, into water, being run over by vehicles, etc.
Efforts to improve safety, and particularly successful ones, do ease public discomfort about this topic, though.
Source: Green Car Congress
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 06:43 AM PDT
“Our target is that in 2020, 42 percent of our power supply will come from renewable energy, including 14 percent from solar,” he said.
“At the moment we have only one solar installation, in the east of Morocco, at Ain Beni Mathar, with an installed capacity of 20 megawatts.” However, the country is planning to build five new solar plants over the coming eight years which will furnish the country with a combined production capacity of 2,000 megawatts at an estimated cost of “less than 9 billion dollars.”
“We are sure that a lot of investors will be interested and that we can find the money for these projects. We are very confident about that,” Zniber added.
Morocco doesn’t have access to the massive reserves of hydrocarbon its North African neighbours do, and as a result the country has been spending billions of dollars each year on importing fuel and relying on Spain to provide its surplus electricity.
As a result of their lack of old-school power generation capabilities, the country has positioned itself as a world-class producer of renewable energy, focusing primarily on two readily abundant resources — wind and sun.
“This is the biggest project of its kind in the world,” said Obaid Amrane, from the Moroccan Agency for Solar Energy (MASEN), explaining that it was being built in two phases and, when completed in 2015, would cover 3,000 hectares.
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 06:32 AM PDT
The 45 Karma Electric Vehicle owners also helped set the world record for “Highest Number of Mixed-Brand Electric Vehicles to be Charged Simultaneously,” which now stands at 50, up from the previous record of 43 set in May of this year.
Both records were confirmed by Stichting E-Laad, the Dutch foundation for the promotion of electric driving.
Fisker Nederland is Fisker Automotive’s most successful European representative, having sold more than 130 Karmas since the beginning of this year. The gathering was organised for Sunday the 2nd of September at the Floriade Horticultural World Expo in Venlo, Netherlands, where 60 240-volt charge points were temporarily installed for the occasion.
“We are excited that as an American car company we have had so many European Karma owners make this world-record attempt a success," said Fisker Automotive co-founder Mr. Bernhard Koehler. “They have helped make history and show that electric vehicles with extended range are the future."
Source: Fisker Automotive
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 05:55 AM PDT
So that’s why I’m so stoked about the new Baby Plumen 001 from Hulger & Samuel Wilkinson.
The Baby Plumen 001 is simply a more compact version of the Original Plumen 001 design (seen in the video below), but now allows you the options provided by a smaller light bulb. The Baby Plumen 001 works just like any other low-energy bulb, saving you 80% on your energy bills and lasting 8 times longer than your standard incandescent bulb.
The 220V version is now available to buy from Plumen.com in both screw and bayonet fits for £18.95 (or €28,95), while the 120V will be avilable to buy later this year.
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 05:48 AM PDT
And that brings me to the second milestone we’ve hit this week:
CleanTechnica is currently the #1 ‘Green’ blog according to Technorati (out of 9,873). We rose to #3 in January of 2011, but I didn’t really think we’d rise higher than that — there were some big names (publishing great content) above us. But, somehow, we have! (Fits rather nicely with our Compete.com & Quantcast.com statistical rankings as the #1 cleantech or clean energy site in the world.) Of course, Technorati’s rankings change from day to day, and I’m sure we won’t hold the top spot forever, but we have actually been holding steady all week.
One more milestone we’re actually on the verge of hitting will probably be surpassed within a week or so. I’ll update you when that happens.
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 05:30 AM PDT
Most of Arizona’s surge in solar installations was for utility facilities, rather than residential sites. Residential solar construction is still happening, though, due to incentives such as the federal residential energy-efficient property credit. Arizona Public Service rebates also are aiding these efforts.
Image Credit: Schwnj, Wiki Commons
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 05:24 AM PDT
The $10 million HPC system will reside at the Energy Systems Integration Facility (ESIF) that is under construction on the Golden Colorado campus. Leading the way with progressive and deeper understanding of biological and chemical processes, "This unique capability sets NREL apart in our ability to continue groundbreaking research and analysis," NREL Director Dan Arvizu said. "In partnership with HP and Intel, NREL is acquiring one of the most energy efficient, high performance computer systems in the world for our research.
NREL will maximize the reuse of heat generated by the HPC system. The "waste heat" from the computer system will be used as the primary heat source in the ESIF offices and lab space. Excess heat can also be exported to adjacent buildings and other areas of the NREL campus
NREL needed a system that would deliver on its commitment to energy efficiency while achieving the highest levels of performance for their researchers," Scott Misage, director of HPC at HP, said. "HP ProLiant servers and innovative water cooled design provide the foundation needed to make this data center one of the most efficient in the world, while reaching petascale performance."
For more on this exciting progress and all things related, visit NREL online at www.nrel.gov.
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 05:03 AM PDT
In order to run a wind farm as efficiently as possible, the designers need know before building what wind speeds are most common at the site, and what type of turbulence to expect.
The problem: “With conventional methods, it is almost impossible, or possible only at great effort and expense, to measure projected power when planning modern, large-scale facilities,” says Tobias Klaas, a scientist at the Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy and Energy System Technology IWES in Kassel, and also the head of the “Inland Wind Energy Use” research project sponsored by the German Federal Ministry for the Environment. “Moreover, forests and hills hamper the analysis of wind conditions. Experts refer to this aspect as ‘complex terrain,’ where topography influences wind conditions, even at great heights.”
“Indeed, there are theories about how wind speed increases with height, yet these no longer apply at such great heights. Hence, actual measurement values are needed to further develop the models,” explains Klaas.
The very specific measurements taken with the mast help not only to optimally alignment the wind turbines, but also to decide the appropriate size and proportions. This helps a great deal with the efficiency of the turbine, and also helps to cut down expenses.
“With the aid of the wind measuring mast, it should additionally be possible to develop standards for LIDAR (light detection and ranging), the new ground-based remote measurement process. The laser-optical measurement process is considered the key to wind profile measurements up to heights of several hundred meters. Due to the lack of standards, LIDAR remains unapproved as the sole measurement process for expert reports on wind, which are the basis for yield calculations. If successfully granted one day, thanks to the Fraunhofer measuring mast, then such approval would make expert reports on wind superfluous, because LIDAR would render measuring masts obsolete.”
Posted: 12 Sep 2012 04:58 AM PDT
The EPA’s online map, called Renewable Energy Siting Tool, highlights areas prime for large- and small-scale renewable energy projects on California land that is contaminated or degraded. There are about 11,000 venues screened on the map, including brownfields, old mines, and Superfund sites.
To see some different maps of California’s degraded land and locations ideal for solar, wind, geothermal, and hydropower installations, take a look here.
|You are subscribed to email updates from CleanTechnica |
To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.
|Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610|