nuclear-news

The News That Matters about the Nuclear Industry Fukushima Chernobyl Mayak Three Mile Island Atomic Testing Radiation Isotope

Thorium – an irrelevant distraction from the gloomy facts about nuclear power

 — time. It is going to take many decades to  get the thorium fuel cycle happening.  The global nuclear industry has the twin goals of prolonging the life of currently operating nuclear reactors, and of building new ones. Their rationale for this is often that, eventually, the energy solution will be nuclear fusion. So in the meantime, the world needs nuclear power — or so they argue.

The thorium advocates usually promote thorium reactors as a solution to both climate change and energy needs. But in reality, thorium nuclear energy is irrelevant to both.

Again, the first reason is time. Although there are current designs that could be established in 10 to 15 years, the most favoured design – the  Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) – is estimated to have, for a significant deployment, a lead time of 40 to 70 years.

Don’t believe thorium nuclear reactor hype, Independent Austtralia 28 Jan 13,  Thorium reactors are the latest big thing in nuclear spin. Noel Wauchope says: don’t believe the hype.

“…..the present situation of thorium nuclear reactors is a confusing one. While on the one hand, thorium as a nuclear fuel, and thorium reactors are being hyped with enthusiasm in both mainstream media and the blogosphere, the nuclear lobby is ambivalent about this.
Thorium-pie-in-sky

The explanation becomes clearer, when you consider that the nuclear industry has sunk $billions into new (uranium or plutonium fuelled) large nuclear technologies, as well as into lobbying governments and media.  Would big corporations like Hitachi, EDF Westinghouse, Toshiba, Areva, Rosatom be willing, or indeed able, to withdraw from the giant international operations that they already have underway? Would they, could they, tolerate a mass uptake of the new thorium nuclear reactors — which is what would be needed, to make the thorium market economical?….

just one concept — time. It is going to take many decades to  get the thorium fuel cycle happening.  The global nuclear industry has the twin goals of prolonging the life of currently operating nuclear reactors, and of building new ones. Their rationale for this is often that, eventually, the energy solution will be nuclear fusion. So in the meantime, the world needs nuclear power — or so they argue.

But nuclear fusion is still little more than  a super- expensive glint in the eye of nuclear boffins. Some other dream is needed — something  that looks a bit more like it might happen. The thorium excitement fits the bill as, once again, the public can be made to believe that, after all the disasters and disappointment, now there really is safe, cheap  nuclear power.

The thorium advocates usually promote thorium reactors as a solution to both climate change and energy needs. But in reality, thorium nuclear energy is irrelevant to both.

Again, the first reason is time. Although there are current designs that could be established in 10 to 15 years, the most favoured design – the  Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) – is estimated to have, for a significant deployment, a lead time of 40 to 70 years.

In the meantime, renewable energy – notably wind and solar technologies – are being developed and deployed at a fast rate……..

the question of thorium nuclear reactors for Australia. This idea is being touted lately, and we are being told how awful it is that China is beating Australia to the thorium miracle.

Australia’s nuclear lobby doesn’t seem to share the ambivalence of their global peers, about thorium.  This may seem curious, seeing that a thorium success might wreck Australia’s uranium industry. The answer lies in understanding that the thorium idea is, in fact, a bonus for Australia’s nuclear lobbyists

To get to the nitty-gritty of this, while there are many types of thorium reactor designs, the most favoured type is the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), in which the fuel is in form of a molten fluoride salt of thorium and other elements. As thorium itself is not fissile, the process requires plutonium and/or enriched uranium to kick-start it. Therefore, it’s necessary to:

  1. separate plutonium from irradiated nuclear fuel using reprocessing technology; or
  2. produce highly enriched uranium.

This means the presence of a nuclear reprocessing nearby, or the transport of these dangerous materials – with all the security measures that this entails – and monitoring by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

Now, even if it is going to take 70 years to get thorium nuclear reactors going in Australia, the nuclear lobby is keen.

Because, well, the mere idea of these lovely little reactors needing plutonium or enriched uranium suggests the wisdom of Australia having uranium enrichment, nuclear power and nuclear reprocessing . And heck, why not a radioactive waste facility – to take in plutonium and other radioactive waste from other countries – as the start of another lucrative industry?  Use it to facilitate the thorium reactors that will be dotted around the country.  To seriously consider thorium nuclear energy in Australia means a foot in the door for the whole nuclear fuel cycle here……

I really don’t know what a thorium energy revolution would do to the uranium industry. It doesn’t seem to me that uranium mining can rapidly switch to thorium mining. It appears to me that the locations of thorium resources are  quite different from the locations of existing uranium mines. So, I wonder if the thorium hype is really rather bad PR for Australia’s already struggling uranium industry.

Map Aust Thorium

All in all, the thorium nuclear reactor pitch is just another con job by the nuclear industry. They know it won’t happen, but the idea might help resuscitate that industry. And in Australia, it might even give it a kickstart.

Don’t believe the hype.http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/dont-believe-thorium-nuclear-reactor-hype/

January 28, 2013 - Posted by | spinbuster, technology, Uranium

No comments yet.

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.