There is no certain bet in nuclear physics but work by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia at CERN (European Organization for Nuclear Research) on the use of thorium as a cheap, clean and safe alternative to uranium in reactors may be the magic bullet we have all been hoping for, though we have barely begun to crack the potential of solar power.
Dr Rubbia says a tonne of the silvery metal – named after the Norse god of thunder, who also gave us Thor’s day or Thursday – produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3,500,000 tonnes of coal. A mere fistful would light London for a week. Thorium eats its own hazardous waste. It can even scavenge the plutonium left by uranium reactors, acting as an eco-cleaner. “It’s the Big One,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA rocket engineer and now chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering.
“Once you start looking more closely, it blows your mind away. You can run civilisation on thorium for hundreds of thousands of years, and it’s essentially free. You don’t have to deal with uranium cartels,” he said.
Thorium is so common that miners treat it as a nuisance, a radioactive by-product if they try to dig up rare earth metals. The US and Australia are full of the stuff. So are the granite rocks of Cornwall. You do not need much: all is potentially usable as fuel, compared to just 0.7% for uranium.
1
Support the Blog — Buy This Book!
For Kindle and with free ePub version. Only $9.49 Great reading.
Here is what Gary Shapiro CEO of the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) said: Dvorak's writing sings with insight and clarity. Whether or not you agree with John's views, he will get you thinking and is never boring. These essays are worth the read!
Put this ad on your blog!
Syndicate
Subscribe to Main Blog feed here:
Subscribe to Comments too (below):
Junk Email Filter
I vote yes.
But just say “nuclear” and the environmentals jump out screaming “Chernobyl” and “3-mile Island”.
The notion that a Manhattan Project is needed to perfect this technology is overblown if this short article is correct. Downside/challenges starts on page 3.
“Obama?”
http://cosmosmagazine.com/features/print/348/new-age-nuclear?page=0%2C2
2, Bobbo,
The U.S. Navy operates most of all the reactors around the United States. And yes it is hard to believe the U.S. Navy wouldn’t try to capitalize on all those benefits unless there are some significant drawbacks.
So where is the other half of this story? you know, the part about the draw backs?
#1 chuck,
But just say “nuclear” and the environmentals jump out screaming “Chernobyl” and “3-mile Island”.
That depends on how you say nuclear. If you say nook yoo lar, we all vomit. If you say uranium, I for one, say bad idea.
This is different. I need to hear a lot more first, but it sounds good so far.
As for environmentalists and nuclear power, many are now for it. I’d be for fusion, if it existed. I might be for this when I get some more information on it. But, I do oppose uranium fission.
Ignoring the whole left/right political al angle, truly cheap, clean lower would upset the entire political / economic power structure. Wouldn’t happen easily.
There’s car that runs on water man !
Big Energy and Big Environment are for once united in their hostility to thorium. And both thoroughly discredit themselves for doing so.
#7 – Al Gore Ate My Hamster,
Ignoring the whole left/right political al angle, truly cheap, clean lower would upset the entire political / economic power structure. Wouldn’t happen easily.
Not easily, no. However, it needs to happen urgently and desperately. I think with the trillions we’ve spent on Iraq, we can probably throw a few billion at this to see if it works.
If it does, we can let the entire middle east sink back into the obscurity it so richly deserves.
Reminds me of the cold fusion excitement of yesteryear until somebody noticed they forgot to stir the mixture.
Hey, anything that gets Republicans excited aside from the oil tit is good with me.
#9 – sargasso_c,
Big Energy and Big Environment are for once united in their hostility to thorium. And both thoroughly discredit themselves for doing so.
Really? What Big Environmental organization have you heard opposing thorium??!!? This is the first I’ve personally heard about it at all.
It sounds as if Big Nukes squashed it in France.
I didn’t hear or read anything about any environmental organization opposing this. Do you have a link? Or, are you just blowing it out your ass?
We should be building nothing but these kind of reactors until we have a working fusion reactor system. Duh. Our current light water reactors based on decades old technology and they generate high level radioactive waste. Thorium reactors eat high level radioactive waste for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks.
Maybe if they rename it to Jesusium. Otherwise it’s a Satanic metal because it was named after a pagan God.
>Thorium reactors eat high level radioactive waste for breakfast, lunch, dinner and snacks.
That’s the drawback, there isn’t enough food to keep these things alive.
Uranium Cartels? Australia and Canada??
thorium???
OK! if this stuff is so easy to use and everywhere? why are we not using it now?? This story sounds like BS..
Thorium is being tested now in several reactors. It isn’t “too cheap to meter” but it is a useful fertile material than can be used to extend the life expectancy of the nuclear age.
You still need uranium or plutonium/high level radioactive waste to start the reaction, so that isn’t going away. Someday we will use thorium simply because it’s all we have left. We will plate uranium out of seawater (already been proven by Japanese researchers) and these small amounts of uranium will drive the fertile, easily accessible thorium.
This stuff has been around for about 10 years and since the NRC is so slow, expect it to start in reactors near you within another 10 years (when we’ve gone peak-uranium).
Company used to be called “Thorium Power” – now it’s Lightbridge… they work in this area a lot: http://www.ltbridge.com/
Actually the idea of thorium vs uranium power has been around since nuclear day one.
But the US Navy chose enriched uranium high pressure light water reactors for its subs, so here we are.
3rd largest deposit of Thorium is in Norway. Check out Thor Energy: http://www.safe.uio.no/NukEF/mote15des2009/ThorEgy.pdf
Of course, the politicians say no. They are lead by the hydropower cartel that export power during low and dry seasons and drain the reservoirs so when the high season starts, the populus has to pay double even triple tariffs due to low reservoirs.
A couple of Thorium generators and there would be steady and predictable power supply and – God forbid – prices! Can’t have that because then the mob is out of business, and the politicians pockets will be empty…
Nah. The petroleum interests already bought Congress and this will never get off the ground. Just like GM and Firestone killed public transportation.
If it can’t be restricted to a small cartel of producers who can rule the market, it ain’t gonna happen – at least not in the West. Watch China perfect this while the US continues to spend its time building and exploding bombs.
Wikipedia has an excellent page on the subject.
Interesting stuff!
“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium”
I can’t wrap my head around this. When did we learn about this “miracle” dirt?
Before the hype embarrasses us all, what’s the other side of the story? What’s it going to cost, and how long is it going to take to make this a viable energy source?
Maybe this will give the Department of Energy something to do!
Can it be used as fuel for a Pebble Bed Reactor?
The simplicity passive safety of PBR’s makes them a no-brainer for future reactors in my mind. They are gas cooled, instead of high pressure water cooled like we have now.
A water cooled reactor is insane. Water contains oxygen, which is corrosive. Then we pump it though metal pipes in high pressure. It is just a matter of time before it fails, and it does, it is a disaster. The only way to prevent failure is expensive pre-emptive part replacement.
Read about them on Wikipedia. It is so simple if makes you wonder if GE and General Dynamics want to stop it because building expensive water cooled plants is so profitable.
Around 2002, a researcher at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory saw an interesting title on the spine of a book from the 1950s or 1960s. It described Thorium use instead of uranium in reactors. A lot of new research has since followed.
I just don’t believe in the centralized power plant to grid model as the way of the future.
Allot of you are having the same problem as I am..
IN THE BEGINNING..
When the Gov. jumped on the band wagon to make Nuk plants, and all the promises..
AS WELL as..
“DUCK and cover”, but not telling anyone WHY, and if it was a Nuclear Bomb, that “Duck and cover” WASNT going to save you.
Electrical companies got control of these plants, and SOME were really CRAP. Insted of fixing/improving them, they Ran them into the ground. And charged us while doing it.
Lets ask.
IF half of what they are saying has truth in it. Who is going to regulate the COSTS for electrical power, so we DONT GET SCREW’D.
The solar system is the perfect example of a working fusion reactor power plant. It just doesn’t scale well.
Thorium is coming for the same reason we can’t get rid of gasoline- more energy per unit of weight/volume than the competing fuels, and an acceptable risk reward ratio.
Uranium or thorium, we should have been building reactors for the last 30 years. However, the “energy crisis” is multi-faceted and won’t be solved by one technology. Transportation and heating are two examples.
Makes ya wonder why the world hasn’t embraced thorium.
Perhaps the technology isn’t feasible and its just a glint in an engineer’s eye, like fusion.