Fissile Thorium Reactor

[kandrathe]

From the "Why don't we invest in better Nuclear technology department?";

Plan for Nuclear Reactor Without Nuclear Waste

When I first entered college 27 years ago, I began down the nuclear physics and engineering path, but changed to computer science once I realized (due to politics) that nuclear energy was a dead end profession. I've been an anti-coal environmentalist for thirty years, but due to my pro-nuclear stance have been and still am shunned by the "green" crowd. That, and that I don't own the prerequisite Che Guevara t-shirt, and carry around the little red book. However, I do have the beret which tends to freak out the police officers at the local gun range (also because I use .357 SIG(loud), and I hit in the bullseye consistently at twice the range at which they practice).

I believe that had we invested more into fission and fusion research throughout the last three decades we'd be nearly free of coal, and fossil fuels entirely by now with far less pollution and nuclear waste than we have today. So, if you believe that we face environmental catastrophe now due to pollution and green house gases, thank the political forces that have impeded scientific progress for the past thirty years. I still have my heavily dog eared copy of "The War Against the Atom" from 1982, which I would recommend to anyone interested in a scientific analysis of energy and it's potential sources.

[eppie]

I believe that had we invested more into fission and fusion research throughout the last three decades we'd be nearly free of coal, and fossil fuels entirely by now with far less pollution and nuclear waste than we have today. So, if you believe that we face environmental catastrophe now due to pollution and green house gases, thank the political forces that have impeded scientific progress for the past thirty years. I still have my heavily dog eared copy of "The War Against the Atom" from 1982, which I would recommend to anyone interested in a scientific analysis of energy and it's potential sources.

Fusion will be the preferred technique for our future energy demands. However it is not easy. Maybe it is even practically impossible to build a working fusion reactor.

But unlike what you are suggesting there is a lot of research done in this field, where a lack of well educated and smart people might be a bigger problem than just money.
Seeing how a good mathematician can make millions per year if he starts working as an investment banker, science funding can never be high enough to attract as many good people as we would like to.

Being an absolute supporter of much more science funding, I don´t believe that with more funding we would have working fusion reactors at this moment.

The idea of this Dr Rubbia seems a bit far fetched to me, but I sure hope researchers can get investors and politicians so far to fund the search for a working reactor.
Nuclear power as it is used now is not a viable option I think. Reports pop up regularly that the waste disposal turns out to be more difficult and expensive than we thought, plus the fact the uranium is also hardly a endless energy source.

[kandrathe]

Fusion will be the preferred technique for our future energy demands. However it is not easy. Maybe it is even practically impossible to build a working fusion reactor.

But unlike what you are suggesting there is a lot of research done in this field, where a lack of well educated and smart people might be a bigger problem than just money.
Seeing how a good mathematician can make millions per year if he starts working as an investment banker, science funding can never be high enough to attract as many good people as we would like to.

Being an absolute supporter of much more science funding, I don´t believe that with more funding we would have working fusion reactors at this moment.

The idea of this Dr Rubbia seems a bit far fetched to me, but I sure hope researchers can get investors and politicians so far to fund the search for a working reactor. Nuclear power as it is used now is not a viable option I think. Reports pop up regularly that the waste disposal turns out to be more difficult and expensive than we thought, plus the fact the uranium is also hardly a endless energy source.

I was under the impression that outside the US there has been vast growth of light water reactors, especially in Asia. And, I was under the impression that the UK, Russia, France, and others are now reprocessing spent fuel reclaiming 90% of it's original energy, reducing and recycling the waste and are nearly break even on the expense and risks of additional mining and processing. I think only the US, is lagging through legal hurdles of doing anything with their waste other than building more containment pools.

Consider the turn around of my former adversaries like Patrick Moore.

[Jester]

I've been an anti-coal environmentalist for thirty years, but due to my pro-nuclear stance have been and still am shunned by the "green" crowd.

I wish I could argue with this, but I can't. It's sad, and far too common. The environmental movement can be its own worst enemy, and the anti-nuclear crusade is the most extreme manifestation of that problem.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Fusion will be the preferred technique for our future energy demands. However it is not easy. Maybe it is even practically impossible to build a working fusion reactor.

Yep. Fission is at least a good bridge solution until the card carrying smart guys come up with a better one after a hell of a lot of hard work and expermientation.

Occhi

[eppie]

I was under the impression that outside the US there has been vast growth of light water reactors, especially in Asia. And, I was under the impression that the UK, Russia, France, and others are now reprocessing spent fuel reclaiming 90% of it's original energy, reducing and recycling the waste and are nearly break even on the expense and risks of additional mining and processing. I think only the US, is lagging through legal hurdles of doing anything with their waste other than building more containment pools.

Consider the turn around of my former adversaries like Patrick Moore.

For me it is a combination of factors that still make me oppose nuclear reactors.

Danger; I know reactors are super safe but an accident happening in western Europe might just kill of the total economy of a country. The costs of 1 accident (apart from lives and environment) would be so huge that you can't talk about cheap anymore. So small risk, big impact once it goes wrong. And until we can commercialize superconducting electrical cables we need to put power stations close to were the consumers are....we can't put them all in the Sahara for example.

Stock: 85 years says wikipedia. I would guess a lot less if we start 10 folding the amount of reactors (increasing the price again by the way getting closer and closer to wind and solar). So we anyway have a temporary solution here (unlike fossil fuels uranium does not get formed not even after 50 million years).
As for oil a lot of uranium is coming from instable countries (ate least the two biggest producers Canada and Australia seem safe allies).

This, together with the waste problem that also in Europe still exists gives me a 'let's try something better' feeling.

Still which ever way we go research is the tool and it needs to be funded...a lot.....and luckily I am in the natural sciences so plenty of work for me until I retire.:)

Solar cells: a higher chance of success than fusion to get commercially attractive energy and so many options.
storage: when going for wind or solar we need to be able to store energy for days without sun and wind
hydrogen economy: because planes don't fly on electricity
etc.
energy conservation: whatever we do, we need to use less energy, period.
Personally I would wait a little more before we start investing in new uranium reactor.

[Swiss Mercenary]

For me it is a combination of factors that still make me oppose nuclear reactors.

Danger; I know reactors are super safe but an accident happening in western Europe might just kill of the total economy of a country. The costs of 1 accident (apart from lives and environment) would be so huge that you can't talk about cheap anymore. So small risk, big impact once it goes wrong. And until we can commercialize superconducting electrical cables we need to put power stations close to were the consumers are....we can't put them all in the Sahara for example.

The consistent world-wide costs of coal power (Air pollution, global warming, health hazards) far out-weigh the highly unlikely possibility of a nuclear accident.

And don't kid yourself - solar cells won't be used for anything but pretty roof tiling, even in thirty years' time. We'll still be burning coal to meet the majority of our energy needs.

[kandrathe]

Solar cells: a higher chance of success than fusion to get commercially attractive energy and so many options.

Assume an annual Kwh consumption of 4200Kwh (source). Divide by 365 days in the year and you get 11,500 watt hours/day. The sun yields roughly 1,366 watts/meter2. But, it's never going to be such that you have constantly good sun, or 100% efficient solar conversion. We also have clouds, dust, albedo, ozone, water vapor, etc absorbing 53% of the suns energy before it hits the ground. Assuming 20% efficiency of solar cells (yes, maybe we'd get to 40% some day but not now for commercially available ones). Coincidently the basic system described in Solar Power 101 generates optimally 11.5 kWh/day, but actually about 20 to 30 percent less on the best days. The cost of solar is estimated to be roughly 20 to 24 cents per kilowatt hour over the life of the array and battery storage, whereas I'm paying $0.0834 per Kwh on my electric bill now. So, if my electric bills happen to triple in price and the cost of solar arrays drops significantly then it might be more viable.

Thinking about this another way, at 10-watts per square-foot solar collection to replace the electrical energy generation of New York (12,133,000 MW or 12,133,000,000,000 watts) with solar cells would cover 1,213,300,000,000 square feet, or 43,521 square miles, while the actual land mass of New York State is only 49,112 square miles. (source)

Here is a calculator to see if solar is a good choice for locations in America. (link). For me plugging in the values from my average energy bills, the system to replace 80% of my current consumption(meaning I'm still on the grid) would cost about $125,000 and would pay for itself in just 45 years. Of course, I would probably replace it at least once in that time period.

The bottom line here is that solar power is too dilute to adequately replace our current consumption, or even half our current consumption. I see that Ontario is moving ahead with spending 100 million dollars to build two 10MW solar concentrating plants (at a price of $.42/Kwh CDN), which is enough to help power up to 7000 households(probably less). Ontario has about 3,924,515 households, so you will need 560 more solar plants of this size to replace the consumption of all Ontario homes, then there is industry and business. I couldn't find specifications on the scale of the projects to determine the land mass required for these power plants.

storage: when going for wind or solar we need to be able to store energy for days without sun and wind

Better to not store it, due to the risks and costs of storage infrastructure.

hydrogen economy: because planes don't fly on electricity

Jets fly on thrust. I'm not stuck on burning stuff to produce thrust if there is a better way.

energy conservation: whatever we do, we need to use less energy, period.

Good thought. But US and Europe populations are shrinking, if you subtract emigration. The growth in consumption worldwide will be in the under-developed world as it begins to industrialize. I don't think we have time to watch this all unfold. All alternative energy accounts for just 2.2% to 3% of energy production. It would take a massive shift in investment to even double it, so do you really think we can wait for 40 to 50 years until Fusion or alternative energy becomes significant?

[eppie]

Very much research is done on organic solar cells. The cost data you mentioned are all for single crystal silicon solar cells which indeed is very expensive.
Organic solar cells still have their problems, and are not as efficient as the silicon ones but they cost far less. And when you think about it (from a physical chemical point) possibilities are endless. We absolutely need to start a working solar power industry and research funding scheme, it might take a few years but I am confident we will be able to get a nice part of our energy from solar power.

[Vandiablo]

I wish I could argue with this, but I can't.

Well, I can and I will. It's not the black and white of nuclear good/bad, it's k's preposterous statement that 30 years ago would have been nice.

Nuclear is safe now. Or I should say, nuclear is safe enough now. And it's been that way for 10-15 years (sometime in the 90's). Exactly when safe enough occurred depends on your own personal definition of safe enough.

The nuclear of 1970's was not safe enough. Would you build a 1970's reactor today? Definitely not.

If you ask those in the nuclear industry, however, things have always been safe. Accidents were virtually impossible. But things are safer now -- so how safe were they back then?? We've had at least two accidents with 1970's tech (were we informed about all of them?) One of them was catastrophic.

So, we've seen that the nuclear industry will always say it's safe whether it is or not. So it is up to those outside the industry to decide. Personally I think enough progress has been made that, if done right, I would not object to one built in my neighborhood. (Especially if it would mean cheaper energy costs.)

Now, should we have started reactors 10 years ago? Yes. And yes, that would have helped reduce greenhouse emissions, less particulates, less asthma and all that.

But to me, saying we should have building them 30 years ago is just plain wrong. I feel it's revisionary, and in this particular case I feel it's just another part of the constant blame-the-liberals whining that is a big part of the noise pollution these days.

-Van

[kandrathe]

Very much research is done on organic solar cells. The cost data you mentioned are all for single crystal silicon solar cells which indeed is very expensive.
Organic solar cells still have their problems, and are not as efficient as the silicon ones but they cost far less. And when you think about it (from a physical chemical point) possibilities are endless. We absolutely need to start a working solar power industry and research funding scheme, it might take a few years but I am confident we will be able to get a nice part of our energy from solar power.

Ok, take my example, "Thinking about this another way, at 10-watts per square-foot solar collection to replace the electrical energy generation of New York (12,133,000 MW or 12,133,000,000,000 watts) with solar cells would cover 1,213,300,000,000 square feet, or 43,521 square miles, while the actual land mass of New York State is only 49,112 square miles."

Make the solar collectors 5x more efficient. The theoretically impossible 100%! You are still using 1/5th the land mass of New York State for power generation, not to mention maintaining the infrastructure that covers 1/5th the land mass of New York State. A global effort to use solar to replace just 1/5th of global energy demand would make the Great Wall of China look like a toothpick sculpture. There are many places where the populations are more dense than New York.

I'm saying to people like you eppie, that you have blinders on, and are focusing money, effort, time on technologies that are too dilute to make a difference. On the one hand you claim to be driven by science and evidence, on the other hand you refuse to look reality in the face. DO THE MATH! Does it work? I say no. This has been the problem for 30 years, meanwhile more COAL gets burnt, more OIL gets burnt.

We might instead look at recent successful work in Finland at Olkiluoto and Loviisa (source).

[kandrathe]

Accidents were virtually impossible. But things are safer now -- so how safe were they back then?? We've had at least two accidents with 1970's tech (were we informed about all of them?) One of them was catastrophic.

I would point out that TMI was a containment success actually, which shows that even when all the wrong things were done containment happened with very little release of vent gases. Yes, the core melted and dripped onto the containment floor, and it might have been worse, but it wasn't mostly due to the design.

The other, Chernobyl, is an invalid comparison because this ancient graphite design would never have been used to build power plants. At that time, the Soviets built all their infrastructure without adequate safety and containment, and in their weapons programs killed thousands(perhaps hundreds of thousands) with radioactive contamination. I think it is unfair to ascribe that lack of compassion, or outright ignorance on the rest of humanity. Chernobyl is an example of what happens when you do everything wrong on a badly designed reactor.

In the US, it was adequately safe in the 70's, and with improvements in sensing and technology has only become safer. I think also, with better funding in science we would be further ahead in fuel technology maybe even finding a fissile fuel/process that creates nearly inert by products.

I'm not blaming the liberals, I'm blaming the people who politically marched around with "No Nuke" signs and squelched science and innovation. In my experience it was the same people who yearned for those commune days from the 60's when it was all about love man. The same people who lied about glow in the dark mollusks in the rivers. The same people who scared the general public about the massive risks to forward their own misguided quest for the nirvana of alternative energy. In my mind, they were wrong, and still are wrong. They either don't understand science, or they choose not to understand, or they understand and keep silent because it forwards their political agenda and they don't really care about the environment.

[Quark]

I would point out that TMI was a containment success actually, which shows that even when all the wrong things were done containment happened with very little release of vent gases. Yes, the core melted and dripped onto the containment floor, and it might have been worse, but it wasn't mostly due to the design.

Let's not forget many scientists involved during the TMI accident were arguing with each other over whether or not there could actually be an explosion, and how to respond in such a scenario - and the error of those who thought it was going to explode (and were willing to take a bad action because of this thought) was a simple arithmetic error.

I'm a proponent for nuclear power, but I'd argue the only thing we should consider "safe enough" for new power are those that are passively safe - in the event on an accident or problem the reaction naturally slows down rather than speeding up, without any intervention. As far as I'm seeing, there's not a single passively safe reactor in the US that's yet active.

[Vandiablo]

THANK you, Quark . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I'm a proponent for nuclear power, but I'd argue the only thing we should consider "safe enough" for new power are those that are passively safe - in the event on an accident or problem the reaction naturally slows down rather than speeding up, without any intervention. As far as I'm seeing, there's not a single passively safe reactor in the US that's yet active.

THANK you, Quark, I agree with you. I was finally getting back to this thread and you have already stated my view. I don't have much free time and I spend much time agonizing over the wording of any "issue" post I write. (I have 12 days left of my one remaining class, yay! but busy busy)

Watch out, in that other thread, having such an unscientific opinion will get you labeled as "emotional"!

-V

[Occhidiangela]

Well, I can and I will. It's not the black and white of nuclear good/bad, it's k's preposterous statement that 30 years ago would have been nice.

Nuclear is safe now. Or I should say, nuclear is safe enough now. And it's been that way for 10-15 years (sometime in the 90's). Exactly when safe enough occurred depends on your own personal definition of safe enough.

The nuclear of 1970's was not safe enough.

Horseapples. Post hoc much?

Your arbitrary paranoia hardly substitutes for sober risk management.

Would you build a 1970's reactor today? Definitely not.

Just as I wouldn't build a P-51 Mustang for my front line fighter. Nor would I make cars with plate glass for windows. Nor would I build cars without seatbelts. That doesn't mean one should not build cars, planes, etc.

The safe enough standard was met decades ago, though I welcome any process improvement that reduces risks.

Safer works for me.

Van, here's a mental exercise for you: consider the entire population of operationg nuclear plants, circa 1978, in the US alone, and the number up for licensing, and try to sell anyone who isn't paranoid that it wasn't "safe enough." (I commented in the other thread on one I am familiar with, the North Anna plant in Virginia. )

You might want to stop standing is as exhibit A of hardheaded nuclear ostrich.

Occhi

[Vandiablo]

Risk Analysis in the 1970's . . . . is the subject of this post.

Van, here's a mental exercise for you: consider the entire population of operationg nuclear plants, circa 1978, in the US alone, and the number up for licensing, and try to sell anyone who isn't paranoid that it wasn't "safe enough." (I commented in the other thread on one I am familiar with, the North Anna plant in Virginia. )

I know enough about mathematics (my area) to understand risk analysis.

I also know enough about the real world to know that a lot of risk analysis is faulty because of underlying false assumptions. I would also venture that some of the RA from the 1970's was based on "not enough data".

The risk assessments we were fed in the 1970's would have us have one accident in, what was it, every million reactor-years or some such fantasy. I would wager that the point that TMI got to was supposed to only happen once every hundred-thousand reactor-years...

...and yet, with only a small number of reactors, and a small number of years, we got to that point. Just unlucky, and it would never happen again? I doubt it. Not when "human factors" play such a part.

We were lied to. Oh, I'm sure the people who developed the risk assessments believed them. They didn't think they were lying. But it was still wrong. And that is why new construction stopped in 1978. . . until safety improved.

And then it wasn't just small incremental changes in monitoring, it was the whole shift that errors, instead of leading to meltdown, led to breakdown instead. That is a huge difference, because the penalty of an error is reduced from a humongo negative (my very technical term) to a mild, even acceptable negative. If you have four pebble mini-reactors, instead of one huge active-controlled one, who cares if one of them breaks down? Oopsie, just get it going again, no harm done (except the lost power).

As for North Anna, your question is laughable. If I'm the emotional one, the one who can't understand risk, how come YOU are the one asking a question that has the implicit assumption that N. Anna should have blown up by now? Do you really think I'm that stupid? Evidently you do.

I'm talking about the risk of having a whole country full of "generation II" reactors for a century and you're asking me why a certain one hasn't had an accident (that we know about)? That's not a trick question, that is a foolish question. So either you are a fool or you believe me to be one. Heh. I can guess which one. So, anytime I say anything, you will be there to either disagree or give welcome to being enlightened; if I dig up my source, you will just say it's repetitive. I didn't catch whether you were saying SciAm is a good source or not. Please let me know; if not, could you please kindly send a suitable replacement?

As for the Navy, their record is commendable. I would bet that they stick to the procedure scripts more closely than civilians do and thus have less issue with human factors. Maybe the Navy should run the inland power plants. Of course, I do wonder that if they did have any mishaps (that weren't externally obvious) if the American public would hear about them.

So .. I am the one who switched my opinion on the issue, and yet you accuse me of being hard-headed, just because I won't backdate as far as you. Our difference is about the "when" things were "safe enough". And you are being just as repetitive, if not more. Just as repetitive, if not more. If not more.

-V

ps. Do you know that ostriches really don't bury their heads in the sand? They put their heads down near the ground to get a closer look, and to protect their offspring.

[Vandiablo]

I will stop harping for a few days ... I really need to get back to my work. In the meantime, Pete made a good post on the other parallel thread that I will mull over in quiet moments. But for now, I will be dead meat if I don't stop posting. See ya.

-V

[kandrathe]

Let's not forget many scientists involved during the TMI accident were arguing with each other over whether or not there could actually be an explosion, and how to respond in such a scenario - and the error of those who thought it was going to explode (and were willing to take a bad action because of this thought) was a simple arithmetic error.

I'm a proponent for nuclear power, but I'd argue the only thing we should consider "safe enough" for new power are those that are passively safe - in the event on an accident or problem the reaction naturally slows down rather than speeding up, without any intervention. As far as I'm seeing, there's not a single passively safe reactor in the US that's yet active.

I like the Toshiba 4S. Hopefully, we'll get to see some come online soon.

[kandrathe]

Watch out, in that other thread, having such an unscientific opinion will get you labeled as "emotional"!

Maybe even dogmatically faithful!

[Occhidiangela]

We were lied to. Oh, I'm sure the people who developed the risk assessments believed them. They didn't think they were lying. But it was still wrong. And that is why new construction stopped in 1978. . . until safety improved.

Your rhetoric betrays your emotion. Lied to? They were lying? Jesus wept, that's an irresponsible indictment of an entire class of professional engineers and scientists. (Nuclear waste is a related issue, and IMO it still needs work, and the funding to get that work done. )

As for North Anna, your question is laughable. If I'm the emotional one, the one who can't understand risk, how come YOU are the one asking a question that has the implicit assumption that N. Anna should have blown up by now? Do you really think I'm that stupid? Evidently you do.

The intent was to point out the absurdity of your attempt to defend a dead end argument. For a man with as refined a wit as you have, I wonder at your choosing to miss that. Get blinded by emotion much?

As for the Navy, their record is commendable. I would bet that they stick to the procedure scripts more closely than civilians do and thus have less issue with human factors. Maybe the Navy should run the inland power plants. Of course, I do wonder that if they did have any mishaps (that weren't externally obvious) if the American public would hear about them.

I'd bet against that. There was a lot of cross fertilization of the talent pool from the Navy to the private sector, indeed, such was a big talent drain on Rickover's nuclear navy in the seventies, and I'll not indict the civil nuclear engineers and plant operators simply because they didn't wear a uniform. No one I know in the nuclear industry (a couple of nuke engineers from my HS graduating class, some academy classmates as well ) is anything other than serious about getting it right.

So .. I am the one who switched my opinion on the issue, and yet you accuse me of being hard-headed,

You sure are, given my welcoming you to the right side, (prodigal son returns and all that) and adding that you made my day, to which you responded by spitting in my face. That's twice that you chose to start it with me, the original being your crap slinging at me in re Obama. I'm your huckleberry if that's what you want.

Or we can knock this off.

The choice, Willow, is yours.

Occhi