Large vs. Small Nuclear Reactors
A comradely debate and discussion has been going on for a number of years over on the energyfromthorium.com/forum web site, the pre-eminent web site for all things concerning the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
This contribution to that discussion will focus on the LFTR but a few other items of important to note.
This week, Babcock and Wilcox announced their new mPower reactor. It's a light water, pressurized water reactor like almost all currently running reactors but they are very, very small: 125MW modularly build, sited underground, reactors. B&W is suggesting that costs will run between $4,000 and $5,000 a KW installed, or, about $1 billion and change for one of these modules.
B&W joins a host of other companies and proposals for small reactors that include:
Hyperion Power Generations [http://www.hyperionpowergeneration.com/] Hyperion Power Module, designed for process heat (approx 70MW thermal) and 30 MWs of electricity if hooked up to turbine generator stet.
Toshiba's 4S (Super Safe, Small and Simple) reactor. [http://www.roe.com/about_techGalena.htm] This power plant is designed to provide 10 Megawatts of electrical power.
Even the Russians have developed one off of their advanced lead-cooled submarine reactors: The The SVBR-100 reactor. [http://sovietologist.blogspot.com/2009/06/svbr-russia-makes-it-modular.html]
Lastly, but certainly not least, Rod Adams, from Adam's Atomic Engines, also has a very small reactor design using a brayton cycle gas turbine with nitrogen as it's cooling source for the reactor and the propulsion for the turbine.
Modular Construction
All these reactors offer modular construction, transportability of those modules or even whole units to a siting, simplified and passive intrinsically safe designs, and affordability, items that for the most part the larger 1000+ reactors currently being deployed cannot, for the most past, offer.
Before getting into the question of 'large' vs. 'small' reactors, we need to parse out what the various reactors can be used for based on their 'product' and use and how the LFTR fits into all this.
Scalability/Uses
The LFTR is unique from all of the above because it is amazingly scalable...there is no real downward or upward limit to the size or use a LFTR can be employed in. Say, from a small LFTR 'battery' of 20 MWs to a large, base load plant offering 1800 MWs gross base-load power to the grid.
It is my contention that there will be a 'market' for all these sizes. We should first review what these markets are.
On the smaller end, the LFTR, as a high temperature reactor, can provide process heat. A small chemical plant, requiring thousands of tons of steam an hour, can use a LFTR to provide this heat and, to electrically power the plant. A slightly larger version may be able to provide power and vast qualities of heat to an oil refinery or a tar-sands operation thus providing carbon-free process heat to what otherwise would be a huge carbon-spewing operation.
These smaller LFTRs, from 20 to 200 MWs could provide, also, site specific load balancing for a grid that has a lot of load in place but generation many hundreds of miles away. Using a 200 MW LFTR to 'anchor' the grid would be very helpful to any utility. Additionally these smaller LFTRs could be plopped down in various transmission substations to provide quick, peaking power or variable load changing that responds to frequency changes throughout the day.
Additionally, along the process heat scenarios, these small and, larger LFTRs can be used to cheaply crack sea water into various products including and most desirably, hundred of thousands of cubic meters of fresh, potable water for drinking and agriculture, thus allowing a huge increase in agricultural output in drier climates, like California, Egypt or Tunisia. Thus electrical generation would be, or could be, the co-generation product of such plants. Additionally, another such product from process heat could be the cracking of hydrogen from water using high-temperature electrolysis, thus providing yet another alternative fuel for automotive transport.
Larger LFTR units could be would be used for base-load generation. Phasing out gas and coal plants with big 1000+ MW units.
There are many uses for all sizes of LFTRs that are all designed basically the same. Energyfromthorium.com has papers and discussion on how all this works, so I won't go into basic LFTR technology here.
One thing that is important for this discussion to note, however, is that LFTRs, from the get go, are cheaper to produce, having a much higher power density than any currently running or under-construction Generation II or III Light Water Reactors. From the reactor core itself to the turbine, size is about 1/2 to 2/3 smaller, thus allowing for a cheaper, and therefore far more efficient, product based on size/cost per MW output. We are looking at, generally a similar ratio in cost reduction.
So...to the meat of the issue
It is my contention, or thesis, that there is a use for both the smaller scale, sub-300 MW LFTR units AND the larger, up though 1800MW LFTRs as well.
The argument is poised this way: is it cheaper (safer, easier, efficient, etc etc) to build, for example, 15 100 MW LFTRs vs one 1500 MW LFTR to achieve a 1500 MW requirement for a single location? This is the heart of the debate.
Charles Barton over at nucleargreen.blogspot.com and a keen observer of nuclear and 'renewable' energy costs. Many nuclear bloggers have as well. I'm not an economist, financial expert or engineer. My experience is simply one of a interested observer, and commentator, on energy issues. Charles is an advocate of the LFTR deployment being one of small reactors. He has many blog posts on this question and I urge all left-atomics readers to go to his site and look for these posts.
Advantages of Smaller LFTRs...
So...what ARE the advantages of a small, sub-300 MW, or sub-100 MW LFTR? Because the overall size of a LFTR is at least 1/2 the size of the equivalent LWR to start with, and these smaller lifters are 2/3 to 1/10 the out put, small LFTRs may able to be transported, in total, on three tractor-trailers or rail cars (reactor core/housing, turbine, generator). Given that construction costs of large, LWR amount to almost half the costs of a large reactor today, this is a tremendous savings.
Additionally, almost the entire module assemblies may well be assembled in a factory, on a production line similar to that of the building of passenger and cargo aircraft today. Production costs for smaller, but quantitatively greater, components ARE the cheaper form of production based on economy of scale.
The reality, however, is that even for larger reactors of the LFTR variety, almost all their components are also factor built, just like in today's' fleet of reactors. There is something of a 'production myth' that these large reactors are somehow built more primitively. Almost every single component in a modern nuclear reactors is built 'on a line'. But even small pumps, motor, controls, etc are built 'by hand', albeit in a factory. A 100 HP pump is hand assembled for the most part, albeit the parts that compose the whole pump are more likely to be manufactured on a true assembly line process.
I suspect as we parse out the true production costs for larger and small components, even the smaller ones for the small LFTRs that the costs are not that different from the larger units.
The advantage for the smaller LFTR is that many more modules for different aspects of the plant can be cobbled together in a factory as opposed to hand assembled on site. Generally, the rule holds that a system that comes 'ready-to-install' it is cheaper than one assembled by hand on site. A CO2 fire suppression system is an example of this. While the pipe runs to each piece of electrical equipment has to be hand run, the CO2 discharge assembly, composed of dozens of small, say 1" diameter, pipe runs, regulators, pilot and stop valves, on unit that is, say, 10 feet by 10 feet, can easily be built in a factory and shipped to the site. But in a bigger plant, where you need pipe discharge valves and runs that use use, say, 2 and 3" diameter pipe and valves, and is 20 feet by 15 feet, then assembly on site may have to occur. Thus an increase in expense.
But If...
But if...and this is the big "IF", this bigger assembly which can service a 1000 MW plant is more expensive per unit, say by a factor of 3 (for the labor it takes to assemble it on site as opposed to a factory, and the large individual sub-components cost more as well), but you need 10 of the smaller cheaper assemblies for the 10 separate LFTR units, then those cost savings for the 10 smaller units disappear and are actually more expensive by a factor of 3.
So, what all of us need to do, and it would help if actual operations engineers, construction engineers, and manufacturing engineers chimed in here, is actually parse out the true costs of a complete, say, 100MW LFTR and that of a 1800MW LFTR. I argue that it will be *impossible* to determine until all sized units are built in mockups to scale, during the R&D that precedes actual deployment. We simply will not know.
Some more things to think about. A big expense for any reactor and turbine generator set are controls. This including things like monitoring radiation, temperatures throughout the reactor-to-heat exchanger loops to the turbine and, of course, volts/amps/watts on the generator. A generator, regardless of the size, has a voltage relay device that reads the system voltage and the voltage of the generator. A set of leads from the high and low side of the transformer banks "potential transformers" (PTs) runs back to a relay and monitor in the plant's control room. There are *hundreds* of these sorts of systems on any modern power plant, regardless if they are geothermal, conventional steam plants or hydro units.
The PTs generally are all the same size and installation uses the same methods. Their testing, 'stressing' and maintenance are all the same based on conditions at the plant. So, regardless of the size of the LFTR, they will all get the same sort of PTs and all the costs associated with them. So, for 1500 MW plant, the costs for 15 100 MW LFTRs for the PT sets required are *likely* to be 15 times more expensive than for the 1500 MW unit (to be fair, there may be a larger redundancy for the larger units as they often have more than one transformer bank). But even if divided by 2, the costs, or "economy of scale", is now reversed and favor the single larger 1500 MW unit.
And this, fellow nukes, is my point. All these factors have to be taken into account when supplying what the customer wants in terms of gross MWs installed in a single location.
To be fair, this is VERY, very simplified presentation of counter-positions. But this does need to be seriously parsed out, eventually.
I believe the real advantage of the smaller units will be it's flexibility in installations, where they can be located, how, etc. Many times utilities want the bigger units because the are compelled by many reasons to group their "MWs together" in one big unit. The smaller LFTR modules can be "distributed" for, in some/many cases, a more reliable grid. Thus the same 1500 MWs the big public utility may want can now be distributed over a greater, and therefore more reliable area. Because the price difference and environmental impact for doing this with conventional fossil plants was prohibitive, you did not see this occur. Thus the LFTR gives advantage because if it's "infinite scalability" to distribute it's power production.
Secondly, and more importantly, while I will continue to put an "equal sign" between the big and small versions of the LFTRs that will be deployed in the future, for many, perhaps most, parts of the world, the smaller LFTR versions will be highly desirable. Many countries have electric grids that have, because of the legacy of colonialism and imperialism, war and revolution, dilapidated, incomplete or basically retarded development and mass under or non-electrified sections of their countries. This is one of the reasons why India is still interested in nuclear energy in *under* 700 MW units.
A grid that is relying on 200 MWs of diesel powered in 10 locations and subject to blackouts, fuel shortages, can add, for example, as part of a rural and small town electrification program, a set of, say, 3 100 MW LFTRs to boost over all capacity to 500 MWs while load increases from 200 to, say, 300 over a year or two. Multiple non-joined grids could be developed this way and then joined as transmission finally ties the country or region together. Smaller, 50 MW LFTRs can be installed incrementally. Eventually you'd have a larger, regional grid composed of about a dozen or more variable sized LFTRs. As the economy improves because of the addition to the *physical* economy of the nation gets stronger, larger LFTR units could be installed in more centralized locations with the smaller ones previously installed used to balance frequency/voltage and provide peaking power.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Monday, April 27, 2009
Toward a Thorium Economy: the Future of Nuclear Energy Part II: the technology. A discussion with D. Walters.
Toward a Thorium Economy: the Future of Nuclear Energy
Part II: the technology. A discussion with D. Walters.
"So, David, can you explain more on the "Thorium Economy" and what you mean by that now that we pave the basics of the technology down?"
Sure. Just remember what was part of Part I was only the basics, it can be a far more complex system and one should read more. Going to energyfromthorium.com will help increase your knowledge of the subject so will you do that?
"Sure, thanks."
Not a problem. So, let's continue.
Given that the LFTR can provide energy based on the abundance and easy processing of it's fuel, Thorium (Th), we need to talk some more about the technology.
"...but you said..."
I know, but there is a bit more. Because of the design of the LFTR, it can produce the same amount of power as a Light Water Reactor for a much, smaller footprint. Probably 1/3 or even smaller on a megawatt to megawatt basis. This is important because it will lead us to discuss how we can deploy the LFTR and for what kind of usages.
"Usages? You mean to make electricity."
Yes, but there is more. The LFTR can produce a tremendous amount of heat, and this heat can be used directly in a variety of energy intensive industries, like oil refining and chemical production, desalination of sea water, synthetic fuels and a variety of other purposes. And, of course generate electricity. And, do it very cheaply.
So we have smaller sizes of LFTRs and, it's process heat, we can deploy these reactors in thousands of industries around the world.
"Wait. Go back. What's this 'synthetic fuel' you mentioned?"
Syn-fuel can be made by combining hydrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms in the proper chemical compound. With enough process heat from nuclear power plants, specially our thorium powered LFTR, we can "thermo-chemically" crack hydrogen from water. The H2 can then be used directly as a fuel, or, be combined with carbon drawn from atmospheric CO2 to create either methanol, a gasoline substitute, or di methyl ether, a diesel substitute. Most estimates see approx $2/gal to make this. Not to shabby.
In effect, we can replace all liquid fuels, which is about 50% of the worlds energy form, for cars, trucks, trains, planes and even motorcycles, with synthetic fuel made in part from water and atmospheric CO2. A totally carbon neutral, zero particulate, fuel regime for the world.
Additionally the LFTR can be mass produced in factories, that is the smaller, 50 MW or there abouts, size, or as big as the biggest any turbine-generator around, the 1800 MW Alstrom. The scalability is, basically 'total'...from 30 MW (or smaller) totally sealed "LFTR batteries" that are fueled once and run for, say, 30 years, to the bigger plants.
Because of the ability to use what is called a "Brayton cycle" turbine (like the design of a jet engine), much less cooling water is needed. In fact, the waste heat from the bottom of this cycle can actually be put to use directly in flash-distillers to crack fresh water from sea-water. Not to shabby, huh? The LFTR can actually solve, almost completely, the major world wide issue fresh water shortages (for drinking and irrigation).
"OK, I'm impressed".
Is that why you are down on one knee?
"No, I have to scratch my ankle"
OK. So, do you want to hear more?
"OK".
The Thorium Economy concept is a paradigm of the physical economy of the planet that can say, with optimism if not certainty, that the planet can be fueled totally by one form of energy derived from the use of the element Th in the form of molten salt reactors, called the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or LFTR for short.
"Yeah but what about "diversity", "conservation/efficiency" "sustainability" and "decentralization? What about that, huh?"
What's with the attitude? Look, lets define what the issues are vis-a-vis energy before we get into catch-phrases and haikus, OK?
"Alright, sorry".
Don't worry about. The issues are these, but they are not ranked in order of importance, they are all important:
1. Carbon particulate. This is what kills people everyday as the result of the burning of coal and, diesel fuel. It's the cause of mercury and other heavy metal poisoning world wide, on land and in the oceans. See those warning signs about mercury at fish stores? Coal. It kills, in the U.S., 30,000 people a year and at least 10 times that number are made ill.
2. CO2. If you don't know this as an issue, please turn your computer off and go away, I don't want educate you on this. Thank you for reading this far.
3. Energy abundance. Every advance in human culture has come about as the result of the development of the productive forces, that is, increasing skills in labor, the number of workers, the efficiency of applied technology in industry, the ability of industry to produce commodities and higher technologies that make our lives better and less drudgery, in a healthier and safer lifestyle. This has been, historically, dependent upon the increase in energy efficiency through the use of denser and denser, more efficient generation of energy. The more abundant the energy, the more more advanced civilization can become.
The world is awash in poverty and underdevelopment. It is most easily measured in two ways:
A. Calorie intake and
B. Kilowatt hour usage over a year.
The average KW usage in the developed world is around 2,000 - 6,000 a year. Yes, it's used inefficiently and we can talk about that, but over all, this is about 10 times the amount used in the underdeveloped world. What does this mean practically?
"No flat screen TVs in Gabon or margarita mixers in Nepal?"
Don't be an idiot.
"Sorry..."
It means that simple things like a light-switch, which gives students the ability to read after the sun goes down, or the use of a refrigerator, to prolong foodstuffs longevity and store medicines, are simply absent, with the resultant lowering of life spans and increases in diseases. That's what it means. The more electrical energy there is, the healthier we can become, the more prosperous our a society, the higher the cultural level our people can achieve.
Oh, and the internet, home and school computers, vaccine production, operations, recordable music, etc etc. We don't think about that often in the U.S. or other better developed countries but electricity provides the material basis for advanced civilization. Without, our life expectancy drops, education drops, health care drops or disappears.
This is whey the catch phases you use above are completely secondary to the the points A. and B. I noted after that. We should be for conservation and efficiency simply because it's a cheap thing to do. Why waste resources? But it should be done in the frame work of a massive, truly massive expansion of the productive forces as I described above based on the ability to produce super-abundant sources of energy. Everything else should be subordinate to that and that alone.
"...diversity and decentralization?"
Oh, yeah. OK. So, there is nothing intrinsically 'good' about diversity. Many, especially those on the political left, tend to see diversity of energy as some sort of liberal paradigm extended from our multi-cultural society. It's a false analogy by them to do this. Brazil, to site a VERY culturally diverse society, derives almost ALL it's electrical energy from hydro-electric power. What is wrong with this? Absolutely nothing. It's essentially carbon/particulate free and it's totally renewable. Remember the two issues that are really under discussion. This was my point "1." Diversity of energy sources is a paradigm brought on by those who reject the vision of energy abundance and believe that either we have no choice and we have to ration energy (those that believe in energy scarcity) or those that advocate intermittent and unreliable sources of energy in the renewable crowd, like wind and solar. The renewable energy paradigm is basically based on energy scarcity, not abundance, thus a major difference.
Decentralization is basically the same as diversity. There is no intrinsic value in 'decentralization' as it's often not defined and can mean anything to any one. Does it mean people "living of the grid and cutting wood for warmth"? Does it mean every community having it's own wind farm some place praying for the wind to keep blowing? Does it mean having wind and solar farms spread about the land tied together by so-called "smart grid" technology and high voltage DC lines?
Nuclear energy, especially LFTR nuclear energy, can be anything anyone wants as it can be located almost anywhere and give reliable power 24/7 365 days a year.
"How do we get there, then, from here...?"
Good question. That will be part III
Part II: the technology. A discussion with D. Walters.
"So, David, can you explain more on the "Thorium Economy" and what you mean by that now that we pave the basics of the technology down?"
Sure. Just remember what was part of Part I was only the basics, it can be a far more complex system and one should read more. Going to energyfromthorium.com will help increase your knowledge of the subject so will you do that?
"Sure, thanks."
Not a problem. So, let's continue.
Given that the LFTR can provide energy based on the abundance and easy processing of it's fuel, Thorium (Th), we need to talk some more about the technology.
"...but you said..."
I know, but there is a bit more. Because of the design of the LFTR, it can produce the same amount of power as a Light Water Reactor for a much, smaller footprint. Probably 1/3 or even smaller on a megawatt to megawatt basis. This is important because it will lead us to discuss how we can deploy the LFTR and for what kind of usages.
"Usages? You mean to make electricity."
Yes, but there is more. The LFTR can produce a tremendous amount of heat, and this heat can be used directly in a variety of energy intensive industries, like oil refining and chemical production, desalination of sea water, synthetic fuels and a variety of other purposes. And, of course generate electricity. And, do it very cheaply.
So we have smaller sizes of LFTRs and, it's process heat, we can deploy these reactors in thousands of industries around the world.
"Wait. Go back. What's this 'synthetic fuel' you mentioned?"
Syn-fuel can be made by combining hydrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms in the proper chemical compound. With enough process heat from nuclear power plants, specially our thorium powered LFTR, we can "thermo-chemically" crack hydrogen from water. The H2 can then be used directly as a fuel, or, be combined with carbon drawn from atmospheric CO2 to create either methanol, a gasoline substitute, or di methyl ether, a diesel substitute. Most estimates see approx $2/gal to make this. Not to shabby.
In effect, we can replace all liquid fuels, which is about 50% of the worlds energy form, for cars, trucks, trains, planes and even motorcycles, with synthetic fuel made in part from water and atmospheric CO2. A totally carbon neutral, zero particulate, fuel regime for the world.
Additionally the LFTR can be mass produced in factories, that is the smaller, 50 MW or there abouts, size, or as big as the biggest any turbine-generator around, the 1800 MW Alstrom. The scalability is, basically 'total'...from 30 MW (or smaller) totally sealed "LFTR batteries" that are fueled once and run for, say, 30 years, to the bigger plants.
Because of the ability to use what is called a "Brayton cycle" turbine (like the design of a jet engine), much less cooling water is needed. In fact, the waste heat from the bottom of this cycle can actually be put to use directly in flash-distillers to crack fresh water from sea-water. Not to shabby, huh? The LFTR can actually solve, almost completely, the major world wide issue fresh water shortages (for drinking and irrigation).
"OK, I'm impressed".
Is that why you are down on one knee?
"No, I have to scratch my ankle"
OK. So, do you want to hear more?
"OK".
The Thorium Economy concept is a paradigm of the physical economy of the planet that can say, with optimism if not certainty, that the planet can be fueled totally by one form of energy derived from the use of the element Th in the form of molten salt reactors, called the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or LFTR for short.
"Yeah but what about "diversity", "conservation/efficiency" "sustainability" and "decentralization? What about that, huh?"
What's with the attitude? Look, lets define what the issues are vis-a-vis energy before we get into catch-phrases and haikus, OK?
"Alright, sorry".
Don't worry about. The issues are these, but they are not ranked in order of importance, they are all important:
1. Carbon particulate. This is what kills people everyday as the result of the burning of coal and, diesel fuel. It's the cause of mercury and other heavy metal poisoning world wide, on land and in the oceans. See those warning signs about mercury at fish stores? Coal. It kills, in the U.S., 30,000 people a year and at least 10 times that number are made ill.
2. CO2. If you don't know this as an issue, please turn your computer off and go away, I don't want educate you on this. Thank you for reading this far.
3. Energy abundance. Every advance in human culture has come about as the result of the development of the productive forces, that is, increasing skills in labor, the number of workers, the efficiency of applied technology in industry, the ability of industry to produce commodities and higher technologies that make our lives better and less drudgery, in a healthier and safer lifestyle. This has been, historically, dependent upon the increase in energy efficiency through the use of denser and denser, more efficient generation of energy. The more abundant the energy, the more more advanced civilization can become.
The world is awash in poverty and underdevelopment. It is most easily measured in two ways:
A. Calorie intake and
B. Kilowatt hour usage over a year.
The average KW usage in the developed world is around 2,000 - 6,000 a year. Yes, it's used inefficiently and we can talk about that, but over all, this is about 10 times the amount used in the underdeveloped world. What does this mean practically?
"No flat screen TVs in Gabon or margarita mixers in Nepal?"
Don't be an idiot.
"Sorry..."
It means that simple things like a light-switch, which gives students the ability to read after the sun goes down, or the use of a refrigerator, to prolong foodstuffs longevity and store medicines, are simply absent, with the resultant lowering of life spans and increases in diseases. That's what it means. The more electrical energy there is, the healthier we can become, the more prosperous our a society, the higher the cultural level our people can achieve.
Oh, and the internet, home and school computers, vaccine production, operations, recordable music, etc etc. We don't think about that often in the U.S. or other better developed countries but electricity provides the material basis for advanced civilization. Without, our life expectancy drops, education drops, health care drops or disappears.
This is whey the catch phases you use above are completely secondary to the the points A. and B. I noted after that. We should be for conservation and efficiency simply because it's a cheap thing to do. Why waste resources? But it should be done in the frame work of a massive, truly massive expansion of the productive forces as I described above based on the ability to produce super-abundant sources of energy. Everything else should be subordinate to that and that alone.
"...diversity and decentralization?"
Oh, yeah. OK. So, there is nothing intrinsically 'good' about diversity. Many, especially those on the political left, tend to see diversity of energy as some sort of liberal paradigm extended from our multi-cultural society. It's a false analogy by them to do this. Brazil, to site a VERY culturally diverse society, derives almost ALL it's electrical energy from hydro-electric power. What is wrong with this? Absolutely nothing. It's essentially carbon/particulate free and it's totally renewable. Remember the two issues that are really under discussion. This was my point "1." Diversity of energy sources is a paradigm brought on by those who reject the vision of energy abundance and believe that either we have no choice and we have to ration energy (those that believe in energy scarcity) or those that advocate intermittent and unreliable sources of energy in the renewable crowd, like wind and solar. The renewable energy paradigm is basically based on energy scarcity, not abundance, thus a major difference.
Decentralization is basically the same as diversity. There is no intrinsic value in 'decentralization' as it's often not defined and can mean anything to any one. Does it mean people "living of the grid and cutting wood for warmth"? Does it mean every community having it's own wind farm some place praying for the wind to keep blowing? Does it mean having wind and solar farms spread about the land tied together by so-called "smart grid" technology and high voltage DC lines?
Nuclear energy, especially LFTR nuclear energy, can be anything anyone wants as it can be located almost anywhere and give reliable power 24/7 365 days a year.
"How do we get there, then, from here...?"
Good question. That will be part III
Saturday, April 25, 2009
Toward a Thorium Economy: the Future of Nuclear Energy Part I
Toward a Thorium Economy: the Future of Nuclear Energy
Part I: the technology. A discussion with D. Walters.
This is not a diary on what we need to do tomorrow to solve fossil fuel carbon particle caused death or an immediate solution to climate change (or even an entry on that debate). No, this is more or less along the same lines as other "Grand Plans" that are presented in the popular press like Scientific American and Greenpeace who try, through smoke and mirrors, to present a non-Nuclear future (but fail miserably).
This Thorium Economy Grand Plan will not use smoke or mirrors or engage in scientific or economic make-believe. It is designed to look outward, forward, to a "Physical Economy" that is based on heavy metal fission with an abundance, not scarcity, of energy.
[I should point out here that I am a left-wing Socialist. That's with a capital "S". I helped found the Marxists Internet Archive and Left-Atomics.blogspot.com. I'm not a liberal, I'm a believer in working class power and an end to religion of the "Marketplace". I want to make this clear from the get-go: I'm a big advocate of "Public Power" and a nationalized energy system. But I oppose those that under capitalism would hinder the development of technological progress because of their unscientific understanding of technology, physics and the need to provide a material basis for a future that puts human needs ahead of profits and is based on a rising, not shrinking standard of living for the world. 'nuf said on politics]
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is a Generation IV reactor. The R&D for the basic technology has already been proven and deployed in test reactors at Oak Ridge National Labortories in the 1960s and early 1970s. Because of politics, the link between the Military and the "Uranium Industrial Complex" that sought to marry military nuclear WMD with civilian nuclear energy through the original Fast Breeder Reactor experiments, technologies that did not rely on uranium and produce weapons grade plutonium, like the LFTR, was denied funding. The old Atomic Energy Commission killed the LFTR (called various names like the Molten Salt Reactor) and fired Dr. Alvin Weinberg (holder of the Light Water Reactor patent and original herald of the issue of global warming and who gave Ralph Nader his first 'class' on the issue in the 1970s), then head of the MSR experiment team.
Most of the information garnered here comes from the two leading on line sites for LFTR technology: energyfromthorium.com and The Nuclear Green Revolution [nucleargreen.blogspot.com] sites. Both assemble a multitude of professional engineers and alternative (REAL alternative) energy advocates who are trying to publicize the issue of LFTR and how this does in fact represent a "Thorium Bullet" to the future of the world's energy needs.
This also is not the only diary/blog here that I've done on the LFTR. There will be more as our job is to publicize and develop LFTR concepts and get serious funding to re-start and then jumpstart the LFTR R&D deployment program via either the Department of Energy and/or University/Academic interest and/or private investors and entrepreneurial type interests. We don't really care. We have our preferences (Public Power) but it is the technology I we are focusing on here.
Thorium is No. 90 on the Periodic Table. Its symbol is "Th". Two to the left of Uranium. It is a fertile, not fissile material. This means that while the atoms of Th can split and produce more nuetrons when hit by a nuetron, it can under nuclear 'alchemy' turn into something called "protractium". Protractium, after 27 or so days, decays into another isotope of uranium called "U-233". This material makes excellent fuel for a nuclear reactor. That is the basics.
Our intervenor asks:
"More?"
OK, since you asked. There is 4 times more Th than uranium in the earth's crust. But wait! There is more! The basis of the LFTR is that it 's a reactor where the fuel is suspended in liquid fluoride salt and thus, because it's liquid, it can be chemically treated. This means that the nasty fission producets and anticides produced by fissioning of U233 can easily be removed.
"But David, that's W-A-S-T-E!".
Yes, it is. But the differences is that the LFTR burns up 99.9% of the U233 and leaves very little waste behind.
"Explain this please?".
OK, the LFTR is a BREEDER. It doesn't breed vast qunatiies of plutonium like a "Fast Breeder". This is what is called a 'thermal spectrum breeder'. Actually it can also be a 'fast breeder' and anything in between. But the basis of this is that Th is totally fertile and ALL of it can be turned into U-233. Unlike a light water reactor (LWR) where only a very small percentage of the overall uranium is used for energy, the LFTR uses all of the Th injected into it.
"So what?"
What do you mean "So What?". This means that you don't need a lot of Th. In fact, you need VERY little of it. The average LWR uses about 30 tons of uranium fuel for a GW year (I'm NOT going to explain what that is, you look it up, ok?). Suffice it to say about the energy out put in electricity for a large power plant that can power a city of a million for about one year. A lot of energy for a mere 30 tons. But that is for a LWR. The LWR then produced about 30 tons a year of Spent Nuclear Fuel, or, coloquealy speaking, "nuclear waste".
The LFTR is different. It uses only ONE TON a year. That's it. And not refined, enriched or otherwise expensive 'manufactured' fuel like in a LWR but RAW Th with only the soil and dirt removed through standard low-energy using milling processes like removing chaf from the wheat. Really. One Ton! For One GW Year! This means that LFTR can supply a city of one million people for a year with enough electrical generation on a fuel that works out to be 6.5 lbs of fuel a day. 4 people with shovels can mine enough of this Th for a LFTR to run for a 1 GW year by digging Th ore between morning coffee break and lunch in one day. See where I'm going with this?
Secondly, but as importantly, because it's one ton of Th a year that goes in, a little less than one ton of SNF comes out. And because the anticides and fission products are removed chemically through recycled chemical reprocessing train on site, never leaving the LFTR compound, the SNF is only dangerous for about 300 years after which the SNF, in the form of a metal, can simply be...recycled for other non-nuclear purposes. The LWR produces over 20 tons of highly radioactive long lived wastes (which is still very little compared to polluting wastes from coal and gas plants).
"But you said it was a 'Breeder'".
Yes, you are correct, and I digressed. The breeding ratio of the LFTR is can be anywhere from <1 to 1.09, meaning it produces as much fuel as it uses or a little bit more, making a doubling of the actual fuel in the form of U233 every 9 years or so. This means we only have to add that 1 ton of Th a year and we actually gain on the fuel used, the U233 for start up charges for new LFTRs.
"What's the start up charge"?
It's the initial 'charge' or supply of fissionable material. Remember, Th is fertile, it can decease into fissionable material, but only after 27 days. So each new LFTR needs needs a charge of something fissionable. This can be highly enriched U235, Plutonium 239 from weapons or the waste of LWRs, or U233 produced in other Th breeder reactors like the LFTR.
"So we need only that 1 ton of Th per gigawatt of power for a year?".
Now you are getting it.
"How much is there? We keep hearing that their are limits to uranium fuel..."
Th is 4 times as more abundant than say, Uranium. The U.S. in particular is blessed with hundreds of thousands of tons of it. The US gov't had refined during the 1960s and 1970s about 3500 tons of Th which are buried in a shallow vault in Nevada. That 3500 tons alone can be used to run 100 1 GW (1,000 MW) LFTR type reactors for 35 years each. 100GWs is about how much nuclear or, 1/5 of the US energy supply. And, we have 200 times that amount that we know if.
"What do you mean "that we know of"?"
No looks for it any more and so we don't know if there are more economically recoverable reserves because we simply haven't prospected for it in the last 30 years. This also true with other heavy metal fuels like uranium.
"David, what then is in Part II of this discussion?"
Part II will deal with both techinical and political aspects of this struggle for a Thorium Economy and will define better what we mean by a "Thorium Economy", what it would look like, how we can get there.
END PART I
Part I: the technology. A discussion with D. Walters.
This is not a diary on what we need to do tomorrow to solve fossil fuel carbon particle caused death or an immediate solution to climate change (or even an entry on that debate). No, this is more or less along the same lines as other "Grand Plans" that are presented in the popular press like Scientific American and Greenpeace who try, through smoke and mirrors, to present a non-Nuclear future (but fail miserably).
This Thorium Economy Grand Plan will not use smoke or mirrors or engage in scientific or economic make-believe. It is designed to look outward, forward, to a "Physical Economy" that is based on heavy metal fission with an abundance, not scarcity, of energy.
[I should point out here that I am a left-wing Socialist. That's with a capital "S". I helped found the Marxists Internet Archive and Left-Atomics.blogspot.com. I'm not a liberal, I'm a believer in working class power and an end to religion of the "Marketplace". I want to make this clear from the get-go: I'm a big advocate of "Public Power" and a nationalized energy system. But I oppose those that under capitalism would hinder the development of technological progress because of their unscientific understanding of technology, physics and the need to provide a material basis for a future that puts human needs ahead of profits and is based on a rising, not shrinking standard of living for the world. 'nuf said on politics]
The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is a Generation IV reactor. The R&D for the basic technology has already been proven and deployed in test reactors at Oak Ridge National Labortories in the 1960s and early 1970s. Because of politics, the link between the Military and the "Uranium Industrial Complex" that sought to marry military nuclear WMD with civilian nuclear energy through the original Fast Breeder Reactor experiments, technologies that did not rely on uranium and produce weapons grade plutonium, like the LFTR, was denied funding. The old Atomic Energy Commission killed the LFTR (called various names like the Molten Salt Reactor) and fired Dr. Alvin Weinberg (holder of the Light Water Reactor patent and original herald of the issue of global warming and who gave Ralph Nader his first 'class' on the issue in the 1970s), then head of the MSR experiment team.
Most of the information garnered here comes from the two leading on line sites for LFTR technology: energyfromthorium.com and The Nuclear Green Revolution [nucleargreen.blogspot.com] sites. Both assemble a multitude of professional engineers and alternative (REAL alternative) energy advocates who are trying to publicize the issue of LFTR and how this does in fact represent a "Thorium Bullet" to the future of the world's energy needs.
This also is not the only diary/blog here that I've done on the LFTR. There will be more as our job is to publicize and develop LFTR concepts and get serious funding to re-start and then jumpstart the LFTR R&D deployment program via either the Department of Energy and/or University/Academic interest and/or private investors and entrepreneurial type interests. We don't really care. We have our preferences (Public Power) but it is the technology I we are focusing on here.
Thorium is No. 90 on the Periodic Table. Its symbol is "Th". Two to the left of Uranium. It is a fertile, not fissile material. This means that while the atoms of Th can split and produce more nuetrons when hit by a nuetron, it can under nuclear 'alchemy' turn into something called "protractium". Protractium, after 27 or so days, decays into another isotope of uranium called "U-233". This material makes excellent fuel for a nuclear reactor. That is the basics.
Our intervenor asks:
"More?"
OK, since you asked. There is 4 times more Th than uranium in the earth's crust. But wait! There is more! The basis of the LFTR is that it 's a reactor where the fuel is suspended in liquid fluoride salt and thus, because it's liquid, it can be chemically treated. This means that the nasty fission producets and anticides produced by fissioning of U233 can easily be removed.
"But David, that's W-A-S-T-E!".
Yes, it is. But the differences is that the LFTR burns up 99.9% of the U233 and leaves very little waste behind.
"Explain this please?".
OK, the LFTR is a BREEDER. It doesn't breed vast qunatiies of plutonium like a "Fast Breeder". This is what is called a 'thermal spectrum breeder'. Actually it can also be a 'fast breeder' and anything in between. But the basis of this is that Th is totally fertile and ALL of it can be turned into U-233. Unlike a light water reactor (LWR) where only a very small percentage of the overall uranium is used for energy, the LFTR uses all of the Th injected into it.
"So what?"
What do you mean "So What?". This means that you don't need a lot of Th. In fact, you need VERY little of it. The average LWR uses about 30 tons of uranium fuel for a GW year (I'm NOT going to explain what that is, you look it up, ok?). Suffice it to say about the energy out put in electricity for a large power plant that can power a city of a million for about one year. A lot of energy for a mere 30 tons. But that is for a LWR. The LWR then produced about 30 tons a year of Spent Nuclear Fuel, or, coloquealy speaking, "nuclear waste".
The LFTR is different. It uses only ONE TON a year. That's it. And not refined, enriched or otherwise expensive 'manufactured' fuel like in a LWR but RAW Th with only the soil and dirt removed through standard low-energy using milling processes like removing chaf from the wheat. Really. One Ton! For One GW Year! This means that LFTR can supply a city of one million people for a year with enough electrical generation on a fuel that works out to be 6.5 lbs of fuel a day. 4 people with shovels can mine enough of this Th for a LFTR to run for a 1 GW year by digging Th ore between morning coffee break and lunch in one day. See where I'm going with this?
Secondly, but as importantly, because it's one ton of Th a year that goes in, a little less than one ton of SNF comes out. And because the anticides and fission products are removed chemically through recycled chemical reprocessing train on site, never leaving the LFTR compound, the SNF is only dangerous for about 300 years after which the SNF, in the form of a metal, can simply be...recycled for other non-nuclear purposes. The LWR produces over 20 tons of highly radioactive long lived wastes (which is still very little compared to polluting wastes from coal and gas plants).
"But you said it was a 'Breeder'".
Yes, you are correct, and I digressed. The breeding ratio of the LFTR is can be anywhere from <1 to 1.09, meaning it produces as much fuel as it uses or a little bit more, making a doubling of the actual fuel in the form of U233 every 9 years or so. This means we only have to add that 1 ton of Th a year and we actually gain on the fuel used, the U233 for start up charges for new LFTRs.
"What's the start up charge"?
It's the initial 'charge' or supply of fissionable material. Remember, Th is fertile, it can decease into fissionable material, but only after 27 days. So each new LFTR needs needs a charge of something fissionable. This can be highly enriched U235, Plutonium 239 from weapons or the waste of LWRs, or U233 produced in other Th breeder reactors like the LFTR.
"So we need only that 1 ton of Th per gigawatt of power for a year?".
Now you are getting it.
"How much is there? We keep hearing that their are limits to uranium fuel..."
Th is 4 times as more abundant than say, Uranium. The U.S. in particular is blessed with hundreds of thousands of tons of it. The US gov't had refined during the 1960s and 1970s about 3500 tons of Th which are buried in a shallow vault in Nevada. That 3500 tons alone can be used to run 100 1 GW (1,000 MW) LFTR type reactors for 35 years each. 100GWs is about how much nuclear or, 1/5 of the US energy supply. And, we have 200 times that amount that we know if.
"What do you mean "that we know of"?"
No looks for it any more and so we don't know if there are more economically recoverable reserves because we simply haven't prospected for it in the last 30 years. This also true with other heavy metal fuels like uranium.
"David, what then is in Part II of this discussion?"
Part II will deal with both techinical and political aspects of this struggle for a Thorium Economy and will define better what we mean by a "Thorium Economy", what it would look like, how we can get there.
END PART I
Monday, August 18, 2008
Two, Four Six, Eight, We Don't Want to Proliferate
[this is a guest blog from Charles Barton, blogmaster of Nuclear Green at nucleargreen.blogspot.com. Left-atomics agrees with the general understanding of the technological explanation for nuclear weaspons/WMD proliferation given by Charles--DWalters]
Two, Four Six, Eight, We Don't Want to Proliferate
Members of the British House of Commons have the right to submit questions to members of the Government . In 1992, Labor MP Bob Cryer ask the following question:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about how North Korea was able to build a military grade plutonium production reactor outside international safeguards based on blueprints of the United Kingdom military magnox plants at Calder hall, Sellafield."
The British Foreign Secretary Mr. Douglas Hogg responded : "Technical information about the Magnox reactors at Calder hall, Sellafield has been in the public domain for over 25 years. We continue to urge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to fulfil her obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and sign an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency which would place all of her nuclear facilities under safeguards".
The British government, in its great wisdom, allowed the blueprints of the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors to be declassified. The Magnox reactor was, after all, a primitive power generating reactor, that had been offered for sale to other countries. By the mid 1960's its design was dated.
But the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors were not just innocent power reactor, they were graphite reactors capable of burning natural uranium as fuel. Natural uranium burning required frequent fuel changes, but military planners knew that it the fuel change cycle was speeded up, the post reactor fuel would be an excellent source of reactor grade plutonium. The primary function of the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors was weapons grade plutonium production. Power production was an after thought.
During the 1950's and 1960's the militant British Coal Miners Union, was a thorn in the flesh of the British Government, the British Economy, and the British public. Electrical power generation in the UK was dependent of Coal mined by Union Miners, and thus the possibility existed that the British ability to generate electric power would be lost in the event of a long coal miners strike. Thus the British government proposed to give the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors the ability to generate electricity. The catch was that electricity produced by Calder Hall Magnox Reactors would be far more expensive than electricity produced by coal fired plants, but the British government had an answer to that. The real function of the Calder Hall reactors was the production of weapons grade plutonium. Thus the British built a series of Magnox reactors for dual purpose use.
By the mid 1960's Magnox reactors were technologically obsolete, and the British saw no reason to withhold the blueprints from the public. Thus anyone who could cough up the considerable blueprint copying fee, could obtain a copy of the Calder Hall blueprints for his or her personal use and pleasure. There was one tiny question about this British government decision. The Calder Hall Magnox Reactors were built for decidedly military purposes. They were relatively simple, and easily to duplicate, by nations which possessed a far less substantial knowledge and industrial base than the United Kingdom. The plans for the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors, were open to be stolen by soviet spies, and probably were. The Soviets in turn would have been in a position to pass on the Magnox plans to what they regarded as friendly countries. The Soviets might well have regarded the technologically unsophisticated Magnox as a perfect "nuclear research starter kit", for North Korea, exactly because building one was within North Korea's industrial and technological reach. It would, however, not been beyond the capacity of North Korea to obtain the Magnox plans without Soviet help.
The Magnox reactor is the ideal type reactor for the anti nuclear types, and indeed the Greenpeace script sounds as if every reactor is a Magnox . This is not true, and the North Koreans knew exactly what they were doing, when they decided to focus their nuclear weapons program on plutonium production from the Magnox type reactor.
Only two nuclear moderators have been ever been used for Weapons grade plutonium production. They are Graphite, and Heavy Water. All of the major nuclear powers appeared to have exclusively relied on graphite reactors for military Plutonium production. Israel and India have used heavy water reactors for the same purpose. Which ever type of reactor is used, the presence of the moderator allows natural Uranium to be used as a nuclear fuel. The fuel is burned for a relative short period of time in order to maximize the production of Pu-239. The longer the fuel stays in the reactor, the more other types of Plutonium - Pu-238, Pu-240, Pu-241, and Pu-242 - build up. From the stand point of the weapons designer, the creation of other forms of plutonium in a nuclear reactor is an highly undesirable development.
Pu-238 is just plain hot, in addition to being radioactive. Managing the heat and radiation from from Pu-238 would be a significant challenge for weapons designers, because in a weapon incased with a outer shell of high explosives, the heat will build up until the layer of explosives melt, rendering the weapon useless. PU-240 poses an even bigger problem. Although it is not not fissionable under reactor conditions, it fissions spontaneously at an alarming rate. No less than 415,000 Pu-249 atoms fission every second, for every 2.2 pounds (1 kg) of Pu-240. Pu-241 is fissionable in a reactor, but it is quite radioactive. Furthermore, Pu-241 emits beta particles, and transmutes itself into even more highly radioactive Americium-241. When withdrawn from LWRs, Reactor grade plutonium is 53% Pu 239, 25% Pu-240, 15% Pu-241, 5% Pu-242 and 2% of Pu-238.
According to Carson Marks. "Reactor-grade material would generate more than 10.5 watts per kilogram. As Gerhard Locke has recently emphasized, a crude nuclear explosive containing perhaps eight kilograms of reactor-grade plutonium would put out nearly 100 watts of heat-much more
than the eight watts emitted from the approximately three kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium he suggests would be in a modern nuclear warhead. Since the high-explosive (HE) around the plutonium core would have insulating properties only a few times poorer than wood (about 0.4 watts m-oC-1 ) only 10 centimeters of HE could result in an equilibrium temperature of the
core of about 190°C.5 Apparently, the breakdown rate of many types of HE begins to become significant above about 100°C.
Johan Swahn of the Technical Peace Research Group of Chalmers University in Goteborg, Sweden has developed data indieating that the surface dose exposure rate of material such as the reactor- grade plutonium is about six times larger (and MOX-grade over eight times larger) than that from the weapons-grade material which, again, is handled routinely.Marks speaks of nuclear explosions with reactor grand plutonium, but not nuclear weapons.
Two nuclear weapons designers, Carson Marks and Alexander DeVolpe have debated the usefulness of reactor grade plutonium in weapons. DeVolpe pointed to two tests:
1. The two UK "Totem" 1953 experiments in Australia, which were designed to evaluate the yield reduction resulting from plutonium of less than weapons grade".
2. The 1962 United States nuclear test which appeared to involve an intermediate grade plutonium.
DeVolpe argues that "[a]lthough the Totem explosive yield was highly destructive, they evidently confirmed that it was not good enough for military-quality weapons. Because these results would have been shared with the US, we can guess that the [1962] Nevada test might have been conducted with plutonium closer to the low end (81%) of the definition". He adds, that the British were quite disappointed with their 1950's test results.
DeVolpe argued that information about the 1962 test was probably distorted for political reasons. Most of what we know about the test comes from a series of terse statements:
"The 1962 detonation involved plutonium of a quality below that of weapons grade. To reinforce its 1967 announcements that "high-irradiation level reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons," the US government added in 1977 that "a nuclear test was conducted using reactor grade plutonium" and "it successfully produced a nuclear yield." As a result of the Openness Initiative formulated by Secretary O'Leary, DOE announced in 1994 that the plutonium was "provided" by the UK and the upper limit of explosive yield was 20 kt."
DeVolpe also pointed out, "[c]ompared to data released about other nuclear detonations, the information disclosed about the 1962 test has little substance". According to DeVolpe the French "scorned the US government affirmation that it successfully exploded a weapon made with 'reactor-grade' plutonium."
DeVolpe argues that the quality of the plutonium in the 1962 device would have then been considered "reactor grade", but in the 1990's it would have been classified as fuel grade. He argued that public accounts of the 1962 Nevada test was inconsistent with published data on the 1950's British "Totem" experiments.
DeVolpe complains about the continued classification of information the 1962 test, long after far more information of conventional plutonium devices had been declassified. This would include general information on device design, plutonium quality, plutonium metallurgical chemical form, and Explosive yield. DeVolpe argues, "A lower yield would be suggestive of greater resistance to proliferant use. No nation with other options would choose such material as the basis for a nuclear-weapons program, and none are known to have done so".
Los Alamos chief weapons designer Carson Marks, together with Marvin Miller and Frank von Hippel, responded to DeVolpe's argument. Many of their arguments would seem very ambiguous. For example, they state, "The information disclosed about this test in 1977 represented a compromise between policy makers in the Carter Administration who wished to high-light the proliferation risks of of civilian plutonium use and those responsible for protecting classified weapons-design information".
This statement highlights the political influence on the 1977 statement, but does not respond to DeVolpe's argument that more was classified on the 1962 tests, than was classified on nuclear weapons test conducted at that time. If the goal of the Carter Administration was to high-light the proliferation risks of of civilian plutonium use, maintaining the classification of information that was inconsistent with that goal would have certainly been possible. DeVolpe argued that the classification of the 1962 was idiosyncratic, the Marks et al statement does not conflict with DeVolpe's argument.
Marks et al, made a further statement: "To our knowledge, all U.S. nuclear weapons use weapon-grade plutonium, i.e. plutonium with an isotopic fraction of at least 93.5 percent Pu-239. The same is probably true of the weapons in the arsenals of the other weapon states. There are several reasons for this. One of these is that the natural-uranium-metal fuel used in early production reactors had to be discharged after low U-235 burnup because of both reactivity and metallurgical fuel constraints. Such reactor operation naturally produces plutonium with a high Pu-239 fraction. It was also recognized that radiation exposure to workers fabricating plutonium weapons components in glove boxes would be minimized if the plutonium had a low fraction of the higher plutonium isotopes".
They added,
"However, the most important factor in motivating the high Pu-239 content plutonium in early nuclear weapons was the problem of pre-initiation of the chain reaction. In nuclear designs such as the Nagasaki weapon, where the chain-reaction was designed to be initiated at the point of maximum core compression, neutrons from the spontaneous fission of the even plutonium isotopes (primarily Pu-240) could pre-initiate the chain-reaction leading to significant reduction of the yield of the device.
Even with very high Pu-239 plutonium used in the Nagasaki bomb, there was an estimated 12 percent of reduced yield from this cause. For weapon-grade plutonium as defined today, this probability would have been considerably higher -- on the order of 50 percent -- unacceptably high to the U.S. military. This provided one of the many motivations for going to more sophisticated designs of fission weapons which incorporated faster assemblies and smaller quantities of fissile material. The introduction of "boosting," i.e. having a low-yield fission explosion ignite deuterium-tritium fusion in the primary releasing neutrons which increase the fission yield by an order of magnitude, further reduced the sensitivity to pre-initiation".
They conclude, "we are not arguing that a proliferator would not prefer weapon-grade plutonium or highly-enriched uranium to reactor-grade uranium. However, the possible use of reactor-grade plutonium cannot be discounted".
It is also important to note that Marks et al, did not challenge DeVolpe's discussion of to the British "Totum" tests.
A 1998 Indian test might be shine a little more light on the subject. In May, 1998, India tested a series of nuclear devices. At least one of those devices was believed to use reactor grade plutonium. The yield was reported to be between 0.2 and 0.6 kilotons, but some Indian scientists speculated that it was much smaller.
Finally, we ought to take a further note of the "Totum" experiments. These experiments used plutonium from the Calder Hall Magnox reactors and were conducted because plutonium from the Calder Hall reactors had a relatively high Pu-240 content, although probably >10%. The first test is reported to have produced an explosion on around 10 kilotons. But the exact sized of the second explosion is something of a mystery, with estimates running as high as 7 kilotons, and as low as 0.25 kts.
Finally we ought to look at the 2006 North Korean nuclear test, which probably used "fuel grade plutonium from their Magnox type reactor. Prior to the test, the North Koreans told the chinese that they intended to set off a 4 kt nuclear device. Estimates of the actual size of the North Korean device varied widely with estimates running as low as 0.1 kts and as high 1.0 kt. Since the seismic reading fell into to the range of a large conventional explosion, some experts suggested that the North Koreans had not used a nuclear device at all. The Wall Street Journal suggested that the blast was equivalent to the explosive force of about $100,000 worth of ammonium nitrate. It was not clear if the North Korean test had been a success, a failure, or not even a test.
Finally we ought to observe that all but one tests of nuclear devices with more than weapons grade levels of Pu-240 were conducted with Plutonium from Magnox reactors. The British 1953 Totum tests were conducted with a >10% level of Pu-240 and were deemed less than satisfactory. Given the published statement that the Plutonium for the 1962 Nevada test came from a UK source, it would appear that the source was a Magnox reactor. The Pu-240 content ran up to 15%. Finally the plutonium for the Indian sub lt test came from a heavy water reactor. The exact Pu-240 content was unclear.
Thus it would appear that no nuclear test has ever been conducted using plutonium extracted from LWR "spent fuel". Such Plutonium can include as much as 25% Pu-240. With so much Pu-240, the dangers of a spontaneous and premature explosion would be enormous. The amount of neutron radiation from such a device would be significant enough to require more than glovebox containment.
Finally it should be noted, that as Carson Marks has suggested, no nation has chosen to build nuclear weapons from using "reactor grade plutonium". Even North Korea chose to use plutonium that was near weapons grade, and their test of the explosive properties of that material may well have ended in failure.
Considering that no nation has ever even attempted to build a nuclear device using plutonium from
spent light water reactor fuel, the case that reactor grade plutonium containing as much as 25% Pu-240 can be weaponized is open to question. In fact the history of nuclear proliferation efforts i9s not consistent with the notion that reactor grade plutonium woule ever be used as a nuclear proliferation tool. Even if such a reactor grade plutonium weapon were possible, easier routes to nuclear proliferation seem likely. The North Koreans seem willing to sell their possibly defective technology to the highest bidder. The many members of the A.Q. Kahn nuclear proliferation gang
have never been arrested, and Kahn appears to be on the loose again. Kahn was able to procure of Pakistan the technology to build nuclear weapons, and the Kahn gang was known to have sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Lybya. The South Africans developed an uranium separation technology that allowed them to enrich about 80 kgs of uranium every year to the 80% U-235 level, that is required for weaponized use.
The evidence is thus that even small nations like South Africa, given a determined government, may posses sufficient industrial, scientific and technical resources, may be able to develop the technology to produce a small number of nuclear weapons, without using reactor grade plutonium. The evidence is further that the cost of producing conventional nuclear weapons by conventional routes is not highly expensive, and the weapons produced are far more likely to produce predictable results. The probable continued survival of the A.Q Kahn criminal proliferation organization, and recent reports of North Korean involvements in building a reactor in Syria suggest that conventional proliferation resources are available to rogue states which wish to produce nuclear weapons. Thus alleged the civilian power reactor-proliferation link appears to be utterly without merit. Reactor grade plutonium produced by civilian power reactors, would appear to be a very undesirable proliferation tool, while inexpensive and far superior proliferation tools are available through criminal organizations and rogue states, to even small countries which wish to acquire nuclear weapon.
Granted the availability of superior, low cost proliferation options, arguments that reactor grade plutonium from light water reactors constitute an added proliferation risk appear irrational. Thus the so called danger of nuclear proliferation risk ought to be taken off the table in discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of power production from reactors. building power reactors effectively adds no added risk of proliferation avove the super means already available to the would be proliferator.
Two, Four Six, Eight, We Don't Want to Proliferate
Members of the British House of Commons have the right to submit questions to members of the Government . In 1992, Labor MP Bob Cryer ask the following question:
"To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has about how North Korea was able to build a military grade plutonium production reactor outside international safeguards based on blueprints of the United Kingdom military magnox plants at Calder hall, Sellafield."
The British Foreign Secretary Mr. Douglas Hogg responded : "Technical information about the Magnox reactors at Calder hall, Sellafield has been in the public domain for over 25 years. We continue to urge the Democratic People's Republic of Korea to fulfil her obligations under the non-proliferation treaty and sign an agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency which would place all of her nuclear facilities under safeguards".
The British government, in its great wisdom, allowed the blueprints of the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors to be declassified. The Magnox reactor was, after all, a primitive power generating reactor, that had been offered for sale to other countries. By the mid 1960's its design was dated.
But the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors were not just innocent power reactor, they were graphite reactors capable of burning natural uranium as fuel. Natural uranium burning required frequent fuel changes, but military planners knew that it the fuel change cycle was speeded up, the post reactor fuel would be an excellent source of reactor grade plutonium. The primary function of the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors was weapons grade plutonium production. Power production was an after thought.
During the 1950's and 1960's the militant British Coal Miners Union, was a thorn in the flesh of the British Government, the British Economy, and the British public. Electrical power generation in the UK was dependent of Coal mined by Union Miners, and thus the possibility existed that the British ability to generate electric power would be lost in the event of a long coal miners strike. Thus the British government proposed to give the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors the ability to generate electricity. The catch was that electricity produced by Calder Hall Magnox Reactors would be far more expensive than electricity produced by coal fired plants, but the British government had an answer to that. The real function of the Calder Hall reactors was the production of weapons grade plutonium. Thus the British built a series of Magnox reactors for dual purpose use.
By the mid 1960's Magnox reactors were technologically obsolete, and the British saw no reason to withhold the blueprints from the public. Thus anyone who could cough up the considerable blueprint copying fee, could obtain a copy of the Calder Hall blueprints for his or her personal use and pleasure. There was one tiny question about this British government decision. The Calder Hall Magnox Reactors were built for decidedly military purposes. They were relatively simple, and easily to duplicate, by nations which possessed a far less substantial knowledge and industrial base than the United Kingdom. The plans for the Calder Hall Magnox Reactors, were open to be stolen by soviet spies, and probably were. The Soviets in turn would have been in a position to pass on the Magnox plans to what they regarded as friendly countries. The Soviets might well have regarded the technologically unsophisticated Magnox as a perfect "nuclear research starter kit", for North Korea, exactly because building one was within North Korea's industrial and technological reach. It would, however, not been beyond the capacity of North Korea to obtain the Magnox plans without Soviet help.
The Magnox reactor is the ideal type reactor for the anti nuclear types, and indeed the Greenpeace script sounds as if every reactor is a Magnox . This is not true, and the North Koreans knew exactly what they were doing, when they decided to focus their nuclear weapons program on plutonium production from the Magnox type reactor.
Only two nuclear moderators have been ever been used for Weapons grade plutonium production. They are Graphite, and Heavy Water. All of the major nuclear powers appeared to have exclusively relied on graphite reactors for military Plutonium production. Israel and India have used heavy water reactors for the same purpose. Which ever type of reactor is used, the presence of the moderator allows natural Uranium to be used as a nuclear fuel. The fuel is burned for a relative short period of time in order to maximize the production of Pu-239. The longer the fuel stays in the reactor, the more other types of Plutonium - Pu-238, Pu-240, Pu-241, and Pu-242 - build up. From the stand point of the weapons designer, the creation of other forms of plutonium in a nuclear reactor is an highly undesirable development.
Pu-238 is just plain hot, in addition to being radioactive. Managing the heat and radiation from from Pu-238 would be a significant challenge for weapons designers, because in a weapon incased with a outer shell of high explosives, the heat will build up until the layer of explosives melt, rendering the weapon useless. PU-240 poses an even bigger problem. Although it is not not fissionable under reactor conditions, it fissions spontaneously at an alarming rate. No less than 415,000 Pu-249 atoms fission every second, for every 2.2 pounds (1 kg) of Pu-240. Pu-241 is fissionable in a reactor, but it is quite radioactive. Furthermore, Pu-241 emits beta particles, and transmutes itself into even more highly radioactive Americium-241. When withdrawn from LWRs, Reactor grade plutonium is 53% Pu 239, 25% Pu-240, 15% Pu-241, 5% Pu-242 and 2% of Pu-238.
According to Carson Marks. "Reactor-grade material would generate more than 10.5 watts per kilogram. As Gerhard Locke has recently emphasized, a crude nuclear explosive containing perhaps eight kilograms of reactor-grade plutonium would put out nearly 100 watts of heat-much more
than the eight watts emitted from the approximately three kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium he suggests would be in a modern nuclear warhead. Since the high-explosive (HE) around the plutonium core would have insulating properties only a few times poorer than wood (about 0.4 watts m-oC-1 ) only 10 centimeters of HE could result in an equilibrium temperature of the
core of about 190°C.5 Apparently, the breakdown rate of many types of HE begins to become significant above about 100°C.
Johan Swahn of the Technical Peace Research Group of Chalmers University in Goteborg, Sweden has developed data indieating that the surface dose exposure rate of material such as the reactor- grade plutonium is about six times larger (and MOX-grade over eight times larger) than that from the weapons-grade material which, again, is handled routinely.Marks speaks of nuclear explosions with reactor grand plutonium, but not nuclear weapons.
Two nuclear weapons designers, Carson Marks and Alexander DeVolpe have debated the usefulness of reactor grade plutonium in weapons. DeVolpe pointed to two tests:
1. The two UK "Totem" 1953 experiments in Australia, which were designed to evaluate the yield reduction resulting from plutonium of less than weapons grade".
2. The 1962 United States nuclear test which appeared to involve an intermediate grade plutonium.
DeVolpe argues that "[a]lthough the Totem explosive yield was highly destructive, they evidently confirmed that it was not good enough for military-quality weapons. Because these results would have been shared with the US, we can guess that the [1962] Nevada test might have been conducted with plutonium closer to the low end (81%) of the definition". He adds, that the British were quite disappointed with their 1950's test results.
DeVolpe argued that information about the 1962 test was probably distorted for political reasons. Most of what we know about the test comes from a series of terse statements:
"The 1962 detonation involved plutonium of a quality below that of weapons grade. To reinforce its 1967 announcements that "high-irradiation level reactor-grade plutonium can be used to make nuclear weapons," the US government added in 1977 that "a nuclear test was conducted using reactor grade plutonium" and "it successfully produced a nuclear yield." As a result of the Openness Initiative formulated by Secretary O'Leary, DOE announced in 1994 that the plutonium was "provided" by the UK and the upper limit of explosive yield was 20 kt."
DeVolpe also pointed out, "[c]ompared to data released about other nuclear detonations, the information disclosed about the 1962 test has little substance". According to DeVolpe the French "scorned the US government affirmation that it successfully exploded a weapon made with 'reactor-grade' plutonium."
DeVolpe argues that the quality of the plutonium in the 1962 device would have then been considered "reactor grade", but in the 1990's it would have been classified as fuel grade. He argued that public accounts of the 1962 Nevada test was inconsistent with published data on the 1950's British "Totem" experiments.
DeVolpe complains about the continued classification of information the 1962 test, long after far more information of conventional plutonium devices had been declassified. This would include general information on device design, plutonium quality, plutonium metallurgical chemical form, and Explosive yield. DeVolpe argues, "A lower yield would be suggestive of greater resistance to proliferant use. No nation with other options would choose such material as the basis for a nuclear-weapons program, and none are known to have done so".
Los Alamos chief weapons designer Carson Marks, together with Marvin Miller and Frank von Hippel, responded to DeVolpe's argument. Many of their arguments would seem very ambiguous. For example, they state, "The information disclosed about this test in 1977 represented a compromise between policy makers in the Carter Administration who wished to high-light the proliferation risks of of civilian plutonium use and those responsible for protecting classified weapons-design information".
This statement highlights the political influence on the 1977 statement, but does not respond to DeVolpe's argument that more was classified on the 1962 tests, than was classified on nuclear weapons test conducted at that time. If the goal of the Carter Administration was to high-light the proliferation risks of of civilian plutonium use, maintaining the classification of information that was inconsistent with that goal would have certainly been possible. DeVolpe argued that the classification of the 1962 was idiosyncratic, the Marks et al statement does not conflict with DeVolpe's argument.
Marks et al, made a further statement: "To our knowledge, all U.S. nuclear weapons use weapon-grade plutonium, i.e. plutonium with an isotopic fraction of at least 93.5 percent Pu-239. The same is probably true of the weapons in the arsenals of the other weapon states. There are several reasons for this. One of these is that the natural-uranium-metal fuel used in early production reactors had to be discharged after low U-235 burnup because of both reactivity and metallurgical fuel constraints. Such reactor operation naturally produces plutonium with a high Pu-239 fraction. It was also recognized that radiation exposure to workers fabricating plutonium weapons components in glove boxes would be minimized if the plutonium had a low fraction of the higher plutonium isotopes".
They added,
"However, the most important factor in motivating the high Pu-239 content plutonium in early nuclear weapons was the problem of pre-initiation of the chain reaction. In nuclear designs such as the Nagasaki weapon, where the chain-reaction was designed to be initiated at the point of maximum core compression, neutrons from the spontaneous fission of the even plutonium isotopes (primarily Pu-240) could pre-initiate the chain-reaction leading to significant reduction of the yield of the device.
Even with very high Pu-239 plutonium used in the Nagasaki bomb, there was an estimated 12 percent of reduced yield from this cause. For weapon-grade plutonium as defined today, this probability would have been considerably higher -- on the order of 50 percent -- unacceptably high to the U.S. military. This provided one of the many motivations for going to more sophisticated designs of fission weapons which incorporated faster assemblies and smaller quantities of fissile material. The introduction of "boosting," i.e. having a low-yield fission explosion ignite deuterium-tritium fusion in the primary releasing neutrons which increase the fission yield by an order of magnitude, further reduced the sensitivity to pre-initiation".
They conclude, "we are not arguing that a proliferator would not prefer weapon-grade plutonium or highly-enriched uranium to reactor-grade uranium. However, the possible use of reactor-grade plutonium cannot be discounted".
It is also important to note that Marks et al, did not challenge DeVolpe's discussion of to the British "Totum" tests.
A 1998 Indian test might be shine a little more light on the subject. In May, 1998, India tested a series of nuclear devices. At least one of those devices was believed to use reactor grade plutonium. The yield was reported to be between 0.2 and 0.6 kilotons, but some Indian scientists speculated that it was much smaller.
Finally, we ought to take a further note of the "Totum" experiments. These experiments used plutonium from the Calder Hall Magnox reactors and were conducted because plutonium from the Calder Hall reactors had a relatively high Pu-240 content, although probably >10%. The first test is reported to have produced an explosion on around 10 kilotons. But the exact sized of the second explosion is something of a mystery, with estimates running as high as 7 kilotons, and as low as 0.25 kts.
Finally we ought to look at the 2006 North Korean nuclear test, which probably used "fuel grade plutonium from their Magnox type reactor. Prior to the test, the North Koreans told the chinese that they intended to set off a 4 kt nuclear device. Estimates of the actual size of the North Korean device varied widely with estimates running as low as 0.1 kts and as high 1.0 kt. Since the seismic reading fell into to the range of a large conventional explosion, some experts suggested that the North Koreans had not used a nuclear device at all. The Wall Street Journal suggested that the blast was equivalent to the explosive force of about $100,000 worth of ammonium nitrate. It was not clear if the North Korean test had been a success, a failure, or not even a test.
Finally we ought to observe that all but one tests of nuclear devices with more than weapons grade levels of Pu-240 were conducted with Plutonium from Magnox reactors. The British 1953 Totum tests were conducted with a >10% level of Pu-240 and were deemed less than satisfactory. Given the published statement that the Plutonium for the 1962 Nevada test came from a UK source, it would appear that the source was a Magnox reactor. The Pu-240 content ran up to 15%. Finally the plutonium for the Indian sub lt test came from a heavy water reactor. The exact Pu-240 content was unclear.
Thus it would appear that no nuclear test has ever been conducted using plutonium extracted from LWR "spent fuel". Such Plutonium can include as much as 25% Pu-240. With so much Pu-240, the dangers of a spontaneous and premature explosion would be enormous. The amount of neutron radiation from such a device would be significant enough to require more than glovebox containment.
Finally it should be noted, that as Carson Marks has suggested, no nation has chosen to build nuclear weapons from using "reactor grade plutonium". Even North Korea chose to use plutonium that was near weapons grade, and their test of the explosive properties of that material may well have ended in failure.
Considering that no nation has ever even attempted to build a nuclear device using plutonium from
spent light water reactor fuel, the case that reactor grade plutonium containing as much as 25% Pu-240 can be weaponized is open to question. In fact the history of nuclear proliferation efforts i9s not consistent with the notion that reactor grade plutonium woule ever be used as a nuclear proliferation tool. Even if such a reactor grade plutonium weapon were possible, easier routes to nuclear proliferation seem likely. The North Koreans seem willing to sell their possibly defective technology to the highest bidder. The many members of the A.Q. Kahn nuclear proliferation gang
have never been arrested, and Kahn appears to be on the loose again. Kahn was able to procure of Pakistan the technology to build nuclear weapons, and the Kahn gang was known to have sold nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Iran and Lybya. The South Africans developed an uranium separation technology that allowed them to enrich about 80 kgs of uranium every year to the 80% U-235 level, that is required for weaponized use.
The evidence is thus that even small nations like South Africa, given a determined government, may posses sufficient industrial, scientific and technical resources, may be able to develop the technology to produce a small number of nuclear weapons, without using reactor grade plutonium. The evidence is further that the cost of producing conventional nuclear weapons by conventional routes is not highly expensive, and the weapons produced are far more likely to produce predictable results. The probable continued survival of the A.Q Kahn criminal proliferation organization, and recent reports of North Korean involvements in building a reactor in Syria suggest that conventional proliferation resources are available to rogue states which wish to produce nuclear weapons. Thus alleged the civilian power reactor-proliferation link appears to be utterly without merit. Reactor grade plutonium produced by civilian power reactors, would appear to be a very undesirable proliferation tool, while inexpensive and far superior proliferation tools are available through criminal organizations and rogue states, to even small countries which wish to acquire nuclear weapon.
Granted the availability of superior, low cost proliferation options, arguments that reactor grade plutonium from light water reactors constitute an added proliferation risk appear irrational. Thus the so called danger of nuclear proliferation risk ought to be taken off the table in discussions of the advantages and disadvantages of power production from reactors. building power reactors effectively adds no added risk of proliferation avove the super means already available to the would be proliferator.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
The Benefits of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
While so much is going on in the nuclear world, especially the blogging world, it's hard to pay attention to this, our own nuclear blog. It's hard still to balance technology and political discussions. So, since Left Atomics is on record in support of the use of thorium, I thought I'd repost this great little synopsis of why "Thorium" (Th), specifically the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is the ideal candidate for the future of humanity's (and in our opinion, socialized, energy system) future energy needs. To REALLY read up on this, go to: energyfromthorium.com and read up on it.
This repost was written by fellow nuclear and LFTR advocate Charles Barton whose father worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory when these engineers developed the first LFTR prototypes. Charles's web site is Nuclear Green, bookmark it today!
The Benefits of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
1. The LFTR is an extremely safe reactor design. It is self regulating. Core meltdown is absolutely not a problem. Continuous removal of radioactive gases insure that only small amounts of radioactive gases would be released in a worst case accident. Coolant leaks do not lead to fires or explosions. There would be little or no solid fission product release/radiation problem in the event of a leak. Because of the chemical properties of the liquid salt coolant/fuel attacks by terrorists using explosives or aircraft, would not create a wide dispersal of radioactive materials. The use of liquid salts eliminating a threat to public safety from terrorists attack on LFTRs.
2. The thorium fuel cycle is efficient. Up to 98% of thorium used in a LFTR can be burned. In contrast only about 0.6% of uranium involved in the LWR/uranium fuel cycle is burned.
3. Virtual elimination f the problem of nuclear waste. The LFTR produces 0.1% of the waste that light water reactors produce, per unit of power produced. Instead, the spent fuel of LFTRs contains many useful and some rare and very valuable metals and minerals. LFTR "spent fuel" represents a potential means of providing industry with rare materials in an increasingly resource starved world.
4. Lowest fuel cycle costs coupled with very high fuel safety. A LFTR is more than a reactor. It is a fuel processing/reprocessing system. The liquid salts approach enables fuel and breeding materials to be processed on a continuous basis while the reactor is producing power. This includes continuous removal of gases produced in the nuclear reaction, the processing of newly breed reactor fuel, the removal of fission products. Nuclear fuel (U-233, U-235, and plutonium) can be continuously added to the reactor. Thus the reactor never needs to stop operating for refueling. The nature of the LFTR fuel cycle makes reactor fuel theft by terrorist impossible, while diversion of reactor fuel for weapons purposes a very unlikely approach to nuclear proliferation.
5. Lower manufacturing, construction and siting costs coupled with great manufacturing time efficiencies. The LFTR can be designed in a size that can be mass produced on assembly lines. Many external parts including heat exchanges can be made from low cost carbon-carbon composite materials, dramatically lowering materials, parts, and assembly costs. High reactor operating temperatures mean that electricity can be generated using low cost-highly efficient closed cycle gas turbines. Compact reactor/generation unit means smaller, less expensive reactor/power unit housing is required. The inherently safer design means that less money needs to be spent on reactor safety systems, and on accident containment, while assuring the highest possible public safety. Small reactor/power generator size can simplify siting problems LRTRs can be manufactured and set up in weeks or months, compared years for custom built LWRs.
6. Liquid core reactors can be used to dispose of existing stocks of nuclear waste..
This repost was written by fellow nuclear and LFTR advocate Charles Barton whose father worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory when these engineers developed the first LFTR prototypes. Charles's web site is Nuclear Green, bookmark it today!
The Benefits of the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor
1. The LFTR is an extremely safe reactor design. It is self regulating. Core meltdown is absolutely not a problem. Continuous removal of radioactive gases insure that only small amounts of radioactive gases would be released in a worst case accident. Coolant leaks do not lead to fires or explosions. There would be little or no solid fission product release/radiation problem in the event of a leak. Because of the chemical properties of the liquid salt coolant/fuel attacks by terrorists using explosives or aircraft, would not create a wide dispersal of radioactive materials. The use of liquid salts eliminating a threat to public safety from terrorists attack on LFTRs.
2. The thorium fuel cycle is efficient. Up to 98% of thorium used in a LFTR can be burned. In contrast only about 0.6% of uranium involved in the LWR/uranium fuel cycle is burned.
3. Virtual elimination f the problem of nuclear waste. The LFTR produces 0.1% of the waste that light water reactors produce, per unit of power produced. Instead, the spent fuel of LFTRs contains many useful and some rare and very valuable metals and minerals. LFTR "spent fuel" represents a potential means of providing industry with rare materials in an increasingly resource starved world.
4. Lowest fuel cycle costs coupled with very high fuel safety. A LFTR is more than a reactor. It is a fuel processing/reprocessing system. The liquid salts approach enables fuel and breeding materials to be processed on a continuous basis while the reactor is producing power. This includes continuous removal of gases produced in the nuclear reaction, the processing of newly breed reactor fuel, the removal of fission products. Nuclear fuel (U-233, U-235, and plutonium) can be continuously added to the reactor. Thus the reactor never needs to stop operating for refueling. The nature of the LFTR fuel cycle makes reactor fuel theft by terrorist impossible, while diversion of reactor fuel for weapons purposes a very unlikely approach to nuclear proliferation.
5. Lower manufacturing, construction and siting costs coupled with great manufacturing time efficiencies. The LFTR can be designed in a size that can be mass produced on assembly lines. Many external parts including heat exchanges can be made from low cost carbon-carbon composite materials, dramatically lowering materials, parts, and assembly costs. High reactor operating temperatures mean that electricity can be generated using low cost-highly efficient closed cycle gas turbines. Compact reactor/generation unit means smaller, less expensive reactor/power unit housing is required. The inherently safer design means that less money needs to be spent on reactor safety systems, and on accident containment, while assuring the highest possible public safety. Small reactor/power generator size can simplify siting problems LRTRs can be manufactured and set up in weeks or months, compared years for custom built LWRs.
6. Liquid core reactors can be used to dispose of existing stocks of nuclear waste..
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
30 nuclear plants a year...ONLY?
An new report from the IEA suggests a rapid increase in nuclear...and coal! Let's examine this:
--Left Atomics
World needs 30 nuke plants/year for power, emission cuts: IEA
Speaking on the sidelines of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change's Bali talks Tuesday, IEA executive director Nobuo Tanaka said that to achieve the reduction of greenhouse gases recommended by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world would need to build 30 nuclear plants of 1000 MW each year between 2013 and 2030. It would also need 22 coal- fired plants with carbon capture and storage at 800 MW each; 20 gas-fired plants with carbon capture and storage at 500 MW each; Two hydro dams of the size of China's Three Gorges Dam (1.7 million MW each); 400 combined heat and power units at 40 MW each; and 17,000 wind turbines of 3 MW each.
Well, this is 'progressive' in that they recognize the need for nuclear energy to be part "of the mix" of energy resources in the near future. But is the need only 300 plants in 10 years? And adding coal! There is not one item in additional to nucelar that is actually need beyond a more aggressive building program in nuclear. The IEA is bending to the Renewable Lobby that seeks to poise 'altnerative' sources of generation on the world when nuclear can handle all the needs. From around 1968 through 1986, the world build 430 nuclear power plants, usually through state sponsored power plant construction schemes (except in the US where private companies had their profits subsidized while building expensive 'free enterprise' plants that went bankrupt).
The World could easily build 50 to 100 plants a year if it decided...in a serious plant to 'gear up' to build the several thousand plants the planet needs to eliminate fossil fuel generating facilities.
Under world socialist planning, this could be accomplished. For that to happen,the working classes of the world needs to rid it self of the capitalist class. -- That, for another blog...
--Left Atomics
Saturday, September 22, 2007
Being opposed to carbon emissions
While there is some healthy skepticism about climate change...the climate is changing. Even if it's not changing on a epoch meaning upswing from the last ice age or the one before that, things are heating up at least in the current period of the last century. Perhaps humanity isn't the number one cause or perhaps there is no stopping it given the positive feedback nature of the CO2 to temperature. However it doesn't mean the climate change debate ends and everyone should panic and start burning skeptics at the stake. It needs to remain a scientific debate even if at the end of the day humanity takes action one way or another.
But...believe it or not, I'm not posting this about climate change at all. Rather, about something more immediate and certainly deadly and that's the kind of carbon emissions that are occurring and why it's unhealthy now.
I don't think the climate change debate is useless but there are more immediate concerns. Coal is the largest concentration of carbon emissions there is. Coal burning for electrical energy and steel production is the largest single emitter of particles (soot) and heavy metals around: uranium, thorium, mercury and other nasties.
The costs in health and clean up (after dumping) of these pollutants is never calculated into the cost of burning coal, where as nuclear has to account for everything from mining to final decommissioning and waste disposal.
Coal in the US may, according to the NIH, kill upward of 40,000 people per year. This is just from respiratory problems. It does not include the effects of the heavy metal content of coal ash which is spread all over the country in roads, concrete, and just laying around dumps near coal plants.
Coal kills now and, it is only going to get worse. "Clean Coal" is a marketing strategy by the coal industry. It only knocks down some of the pollutants, not all. CO2 emissions are only slightly brought under control. Costs for "Clean Coal" is above that of nuclear. Add the carbon tax and it becomes prohibitively expensive.
Most "Greens"…do not seem to care about any of this. Yes, they honestly do oppose the use of coal but they put no serious plan ahead that can either pay for alternatives for coal or plan any serious campaigns against it. No, the only really plan against nuclear energy, the safest, least polluting form of energy around. This is quite serious. The Greens campaign against what is arguable the lowest carbon emitter there is. Why do I say this?
In Germany, the origin of the Green political movement, is in power. They are part of the German gov't. They moved to "phase out" Nuclear and in it's place they are building 26 COAL plants to make up for the massive shortfall in electricity as a result. Wind and certainly solar can't replace the almost 20,000 MWs of power generated from Germany's cheap and clean nuclear plants, so, they are building coal fired plants to replace the power. This is a reactionary political stance by the German Greens. There are only two solution to coal after all alternatives and efficiency changes have been made: natural gas and nuclear. The Greens have chosen not to eliminate coal, but to eliminate nuclear. This needs to be fought by everyone concerned with the future of humanity.
There needs to be a broad based, left, pro-nuclear movement built here in the US and in Germany to get rid of coal, replace it with nuclear energy.
David Walters
Left-atomics
But...believe it or not, I'm not posting this about climate change at all. Rather, about something more immediate and certainly deadly and that's the kind of carbon emissions that are occurring and why it's unhealthy now.
I don't think the climate change debate is useless but there are more immediate concerns. Coal is the largest concentration of carbon emissions there is. Coal burning for electrical energy and steel production is the largest single emitter of particles (soot) and heavy metals around: uranium, thorium, mercury and other nasties.
The costs in health and clean up (after dumping) of these pollutants is never calculated into the cost of burning coal, where as nuclear has to account for everything from mining to final decommissioning and waste disposal.
Coal in the US may, according to the NIH, kill upward of 40,000 people per year. This is just from respiratory problems. It does not include the effects of the heavy metal content of coal ash which is spread all over the country in roads, concrete, and just laying around dumps near coal plants.
Coal kills now and, it is only going to get worse. "Clean Coal" is a marketing strategy by the coal industry. It only knocks down some of the pollutants, not all. CO2 emissions are only slightly brought under control. Costs for "Clean Coal" is above that of nuclear. Add the carbon tax and it becomes prohibitively expensive.
Most "Greens"…do not seem to care about any of this. Yes, they honestly do oppose the use of coal but they put no serious plan ahead that can either pay for alternatives for coal or plan any serious campaigns against it. No, the only really plan against nuclear energy, the safest, least polluting form of energy around. This is quite serious. The Greens campaign against what is arguable the lowest carbon emitter there is. Why do I say this?
In Germany, the origin of the Green political movement, is in power. They are part of the German gov't. They moved to "phase out" Nuclear and in it's place they are building 26 COAL plants to make up for the massive shortfall in electricity as a result. Wind and certainly solar can't replace the almost 20,000 MWs of power generated from Germany's cheap and clean nuclear plants, so, they are building coal fired plants to replace the power. This is a reactionary political stance by the German Greens. There are only two solution to coal after all alternatives and efficiency changes have been made: natural gas and nuclear. The Greens have chosen not to eliminate coal, but to eliminate nuclear. This needs to be fought by everyone concerned with the future of humanity.
There needs to be a broad based, left, pro-nuclear movement built here in the US and in Germany to get rid of coal, replace it with nuclear energy.
David Walters
Left-atomics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.png){kind=spacer}
