|
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
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.) |


Comments
djs on 11/27/2007 at 4:13 AM
16
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.
wcasino on 11/27/2007 at 10:15 AM
1
xbox on 11/27/2007 at 10:41 AM
2
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.
paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:15 AM
7
jstack6 on 11/27/2007 at 2:57 PM
4
Only renewable energy is safe and sustainable. It actually gets cheaper as time goes on instead of more expensive.
xbox on 11/27/2007 at 3:09 PM
2
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.
petergrynch on 11/27/2007 at 8:46 PM
1
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.
hamid on 11/28/2007 at 4:22 AM
10
gabrielg01 on 11/28/2007 at 12:46 PM
282
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.
wbdeville on 11/28/2007 at 1:19 PM
8
gabrielg01 on 11/28/2007 at 6:00 PM
282
Siphon on 12/05/2007 at 7:10 AM
65
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).
gabrielg01 on 11/28/2007 at 1:12 PM
282
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.
killian on 11/28/2007 at 1:30 PM
54
gabrielg01 on 11/28/2007 at 6:17 PM
282
Siphon on 12/05/2007 at 7:21 AM
65
- 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.
killian on 11/28/2007 at 1:36 PM
54
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?
dmm on 11/30/2007 at 1:16 PM
135
killian on 12/12/2007 at 4:02 PM
54
Capo on 12/12/2007 at 11:31 PM
6
paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:01 PM
7
suevanden on 11/29/2007 at 10:37 AM
1
paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:05 PM
7
phoenix on 12/01/2007 at 2:35 PM
80
dmm on 12/03/2007 at 2:58 PM
135
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.
paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:07 PM
7
hewesj on 12/03/2007 at 2:11 PM
1
nicknirm on 12/14/2007 at 4:52 PM
2
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.
paul higginbotham on 01/08/2008 at 2:15 PM
7
lowilliams on 12/03/2007 at 5:46 PM
17
Capo on 12/04/2007 at 6:32 AM
6