China takes another step towards global supremacy: Thorium

I've long wondered why the West is so blind when to comes to energy policy and part of that bemusement has been engendered by our refusal to implement thorium reactors. Unlike oil and gas, most thorium lies not in the backyard of brutal dictators but in our own yards (mainly the US, Australia and India). Unlike uranium, it's remarkably benign as a nuclear fuel.

This article notes that the Chinese are not so blind - they appear to be developing a thorium reactor and may well then go down the route of near energy sufficiency from this plentiful fuel. So, not only will they own us, but they will light the hovels we are allowed to sleep in.

I was fascinated by the sentence bolded in this paragraph:

US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation.
The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.

At the risk of sounding naive, can we really have been that short-sighted? Has anyone here got a good insight/reference into the pros and cons of thorium power generation and the policy decisions that have affected its (non) development?

No need to be dramatic. I've never heard of this before but if it works, it's safe to say that it will spread around the globe very quickly. I doubt it will remain exclusive to China. As the last sentence of the article says - We may get through the century without tearing each other apart over scarce energy and wrecking the planet.

The only geopolitical issue of this century is China's rise to power. Everything else is a mere footnote. The entire last decade, from 9-11 to Iraq to the expansion of the EU are irrelevancies, completely dwarved by the largest scale event in world history.


I don't know the frst thing about Thorium. My main thought is that it was probably named by one of those typical Germanic racists of the century before 1945. Who happened to dominate physics and chemistry in this era, those formative years for both fields, with an explosion of new discoveries, and so left a legacy of that Germanic mix of lunacy and brilliance in the very names, the very language, in these fields.

Just like everything in Africa is named Victoria, a historical peculiarity with good timing can leave its trace forever.

I naively thought there were "good" reasons why Thorium wasn't used as a fuel.

Something that not only is safer in itself but can also help make nuclear waste safer whilst generating energy is something to pursue.

~:smoking:

hopefully Chris I'm-A-Nuclear-Bigot Huhne does not write-off Thorium when he talks of the japan business creating a different future for nuclear in Britain.

And people wonder why I am a skeptic.

One of the problems is the fact it is everywhere but not really concentrated in viable deposits, of course that also can be attributed to the fact no one has actually being looking for Thorium lately, it has tended to be treated as a waste or by-product especially in rare-earth mining. However now that rare earths are a big issue again you will find as a happy coincidence that generally wherever were mining rare earth materials there is deposits of thorium.

On an unhappy note the West shortsightedly basically outsourced rare earth production to China 10-15 yrs ago so it will take the same length to get Thorium going again too.

Thorium

http://energyfromthorium.com/


Oh and it's named after Thor so there is a nice coincidence God of Thunder and a new source of electricity

US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power. It has a higher neutron yield than uranium, a better fission rating, longer fuel cycles, and does not require the extra cost of isotope separation.
The plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs. As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner.

In 1940 the physicist and especially their funding overlords (never forget about those) we looking to create a bomb, not solve a non-existent energy crisis. In 1940 the idea oil and coal might run out was not preposterous but certainly not anywhere near as widely “felt” as what we think of it today. Energy needs were considerably lower: for comparison hot running water was not a given in rural areas of say the UK. Nor was central heating.

In fact, the reason why we ended up with boiling water is pretty much this focus on getting weapon grade material: alternative uranium reactors such as molten salt do not have quite the same “yield” of plutonium either. Our nuclear reactors are essentially derivatives of military breeder designs.

EDIT: As I understand it (don't count on this to be accurate) thorium and molten salt reactors are something which were more actively rejected/shelved during the Cold War instead of during WWII. During WWII priorities were getting the bomb and managing the reaction (difficult in itself, there are a number of documented mishaps in project Manhattan). During Cold War funding went to further military research mostly, but a few prototypes of thorium reactors were built. Success having been achieved (in terms of: we can do it, and it works really well) the whole thing was shelved (due to lack of funding/interest in building these things). Designs which are proposed now are essentially based on re-creating the 1950's/1960's designs actually.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I don't know the frst thing about Thorium. My main thought is that it was probably named by one of those typical Germanic racists of the century before 1945. Who happened to dominate physics and chemistry in this era, those formative years for both fields, with an explosion of new discoveries, and so left a legacy of that Germanic mix of lunacy and brilliance in the very names, the very language, in these fields.

---

:beadyeyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Just like everything in Africa is named Victoria,

---

It's a nice name. :goofy:

Concerning the thorium reactors, I wonder why Germany isn't in on that, the whole discussion here seems focused on shifting from nuclear to renewables, I wonder what the greens would say about thorium reactors. Don't really mind China taking a lead in that though.

I wonder if they will do any better with it than we did...

Funny though, all those people in the Cold War who feared the invasion of the Red Chinese. They don't have to fight us, just sit back quietly and wait for us to burn ourselves out.

Because our nations are populated by hordes of ignorant masses who cringe in fear at the mention of "nuclear power", and there are a tireless minority who will exploit this and every legal avenue available to stop development of any new nuclear plants - at least in the US.

And these nations are 'led' by enthusiastically ignorant politicians who put playing politics with issues and getting reelected ahead of objective assessment of what they should support.

The last oil refinery built in the US was over 34 years ago. A whole generation past, because of legal and political opposition by politicians and environmentalists.

Nuclear has those issues and the big scare about meltdowns. All nuclear plants in the US started construction before 1975 - one is still being constructed.

CR

Technological development to supersede an older industry would take ages. 10-20 years at least before they could have full thorium-plant power creation.
Good technology. If they crack thorium's usage before anyone else, then selling that technology will be the most lucrative thing China has ever created.

Still it's disconcerting to think that our (Australia's) largest export partner will soon perhaps have little need of our LNG and coal, and our $85 billion AUD market will grind mostly to a halt. Silly Australia.

Sooner or later the world will realize how critical thorium reactors and nuclear power in general is for the future of energy. Once the world switches over, we can again have cheap energy fueling otherwise more cost prohibitive endeavors.

CERN has been trying to get funding for a Thorium prototype. It is based on Carlo Rubbias' design (molten lead). The big EU nations has said no, but there are a few scientists in CERN hoping to get Norway to fund it all. If Norway says yes, they will drop everything and get a prototype up and running, saying it will take no more than 4 - 5 years getting one into production.
They have been actively lobbying since 2003, but their patience ran dry in 2007 and are no longer pushing for this.
After Oil - Thorium reactors should be the next adventure for us as we have the 4th largest deposit of Thorium.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raz

Technological development to supersede an older industry would take ages. 10-20 years at least before they could have full thorium-plant power creation.
Good technology. If they crack thorium's usage before anyone else, then selling that technology will be the most lucrative thing China has ever created.

Still it's disconcerting to think that our (Australia's) largest export partner will soon perhaps have little need of our LNG and coal, and our $85 billion AUD market will grind mostly to a halt. Silly Australia.

---

Even if Thorium reactors could be created tomorrow, it'd be at least a decade before they were constructed. And as the standard of living of China increases their energy requirements are going to increase for the forseeable future - efficiencies are only going to take the edge of requirements.

Selling fuel isn't oging to be a problem.

~:smoking:

Once the West and China moves onto to nuclear, the fossil fuels will be sold to the third world who still need them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Once the West and China moves onto to nuclear, the fossil fuels will be sold to the third world who still need them.

---

No we will still need huge amounts of fossil fuels even if no power is generated by oil, we need it for polymers, engine lubricants, food production and even to make the surface of our roads.

It's still running out but we will end the oil age with billions of unusable barrels underground cos there too energy intensive to extract, once we go to a barrel of oil in for a barrel extracted the oil age will end over night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

CERN has been trying to get funding for a Thorium prototype. It is based on Carlo Rubbias' design (molten lead). The big EU nations has said no, but there are a few scientists in CERN hoping to get Norway to fund it all. If Norway says yes, they will drop everything and get a prototype up and running, saying it will take no more than 4 - 5 years getting one into production.
They have been actively lobbying since 2003, but their patience ran dry in 2007 and are no longer pushing for this.
After Oil - Thorium reactors should be the next adventure for us as we have the 4th largest deposit of Thorium.

---

Well you don't really need to do much, your domestic power is all hydroelectic. Speaking of which I thought Norway was also experimenting with osmosis as a power source: use a semi permeable membrane and two saline solutions of different concentrations (ordinary water and sea water) to create a pressure difference to drive a turbine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

No we will still need huge amounts of fossil fuels even if no power is generated by oil, we need it for polymers, engine lubricants, food production and even to make the surface of our roads.

---

Well we need it because our current infrastructure is set up to do it this way, more than because there are no alternatives. Polymers will probably become more expensive as a result, though. As for the surface of our roads, did you know that in the USA some farmers converted pig manure for road building? It does have a bit of a smell, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

No we will still need huge amounts of fossil fuels even if no power is generated by oil, we need it for polymers, engine lubricants, food production and even to make the surface of our roads.

It's still running out but we will end the oil age with billions of unusable barrels underground cos there too energy intensive to extract, once we go to a barrel of oil in for a barrel extracted the oil age will end over night.

---

Dang, Tellos already answered before me. But yeah, there are alternatives which although more expensive right now, will probably be driven to a more cost effective price when as you said, it takes a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil.

Once we have nuclear though, you can view the energy situation as unlimited and cheap to the point where producing alternatives won't be an issue anyway. Cheap energy makes everything cheap.

What gets me is the lack of impetus to ye know actually scale back the wasted energy we all consume, why do so many companies not have power factor correctors or even proper natural light systems etc etc etc I could go on all night.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

What gets me is the lack of impetus to ye know actually scale back the wasted energy we all consume, why do so many companies not have power factor correctors or even proper natural light systems etc etc etc I could go on all night.

---

There was no incentive until recently. When energy is cheap, the cost of a light or even a couple dozen running for an extra couple hours isn't expensive at all.

Just wait until the energy crunch starts hitting hard, then you will see it. It's very backwards, but you have to have the incentive before you get the action.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Well you don't really need to do much, your domestic power is all hydroelectic.

---

If distributed correctly, yes. But due to the fact that this hydroelectric is a commodity on the global marked - we sell power when the price is high and buy when it is low. Which in turn, means selling during winter and buying during summer. This does affect our water reservoirs which in turn makes our domestic prices sky-rocket during winter - when we use more electricity. I can no longer count on two hands the times I have received the message: Due to low water reservoirs, we need to limit the power produced and set the price high as a deterrent against high consumer usage. I have paid insane power prices all winter - and are quite frankly peeved. I would welcome other more stable systems when it comes to price - such as nuclear. Thorium? yes please.
Oh, and... we sell hydro power to foreign countries, but buy coal power back. Yeah... we are such forerunners when it comes to the global environment. As long as we have our own backs in the clear... right?

Quote:

---

Speaking of which I thought Norway was also experimenting with osmosis as a power source: use a semi permeable membrane and two saline solutions of different concentrations (ordinary water and sea water) to create a pressure difference to drive a turbine.

---

Yes, we have a prototype power plant at Hurum, producing somewhat in the range of 2-10 Kw. Great concept and can be placed anywhere where a river runs into the ocean. They plan on building a full scale by 2015.

It seems that Nuclear would be there to provide say, 40% of the energy a country needs - which the country requires 24/7. For fluctuations, alternatives which can be gainfully turned "on" and "off" can be used.

~:smoking:

the term we used when i worked in the environmental industry was baseload.

That is still the term used today. You're not ancient yet. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sigurd

If distributed correctly, yes. But due to the fact that this hydroelectric is a commodity on the global marked - we sell power when the price is high and buy when it is low. Which in turn, means selling during winter and buying during summer. This does affect our water reservoirs which in turn makes our domestic prices sky-rocket during winter - when we use more electricity. I can no longer count on two hands the times I have received the message: Due to low water reservoirs, we need to limit the power produced and set the price high as a deterrent against high consumer usage. I have paid insane power prices all winter - and are quite frankly peeved. I would welcome other more stable systems when it comes to price - such as nuclear. Thorium? yes please.
Oh, and... we sell hydro power to foreign countries, but buy coal power back. Yeah... we are such forerunners when it comes to the global environment. As long as we have our own backs in the clear... right?

Yes, we have a prototype power plant at Hurum, producing somewhat in the range of 2-10 Kw. Great concept and can be placed anywhere where a river runs into the ocean. They plan on building a full scale by 2015.

---

So, if you stopped selling you would be energy independant?

Hydro is a dead end in my view, there are so many problems and even when they are overcome that still doesn't mean the river near you is suitable.

Not to mention potential ecological problems. Rivers are usually slowed down before dams and everything they've been carrying gets accumulated there.

two big things that work against are

1: they only actually work at certain levels of water if it's high or low there can be problems with the equipment.

2: if the flow in is too great like during a flood then the dam has to let more out but it can often be filling faster than it can let it out, if the water overtops then the flow can undermine the dam or the bank and then your in the :daisy:

I disagree. If you have to build a dam, then yes you will have problems.

But there are many systems where one can use the natural flow of the water, used where there is already a steel incline present. No, these are not going to be massive projects that are going to singlehandedly generate Megawatts - but they are comparatively cheap, simple, almost enviromentally neutral and if done well almost invisible. No, they are not suitable for everywhere, so build them where they can be built. Scotland would be a good site, as would Wales; the South East far less so.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

So, if you stopped selling you would be energy independant?

---

We should be energy independent, at least we have been the last 100 years with hydro power. During the last two decades though, the net import has been negative for at least 7 of those years (not successive). Meaning we have imported more than we have exported. We need new power plants, but our "green" policy is hampering the development.
As gaelic mentions, new water based power plants will make impacts to the nature. People don't want their favourite waterfalls in pipes. We have plenty of gas in the North Sea, but we don't want to emit more CO2. We have large deposits of Thorium, but we are scraping our feet, thinking we should wait and see.
While we debate - not so green coal power finds its way to our homes. A Paradox I tell you...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I disagree. If you have to build a dam, then yes you will have problems.

But there are many systems where one can use the natural flow of the water, used where there is already a steel incline present. No, these are not going to be massive projects that are going to singlehandedly generate Megawatts - but they are comparatively cheap, simple, almost enviromentally neutral and if done well almost invisible. No, they are not suitable for everywhere, so build them where they can be built. Scotland would be a good site, as would Wales; the South East far less so.

~:smoking:

---

That is know as microgeneration and is not only not cost effective it is generally in areas where there is no need for said power, the cost of high voltage lines to the wilds of Scotland to tap that source would mean it would not be viable in the end.

However it can be handy for small scale settlements to supplement there power, however they would still require outside sources to ensure security of supply.

While using the natural flow of the water sounds great it misses the point that the water may still go above or below the needed flowrates for generation even in rainy Scotland