Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

Is thorium the energy source we've been waiting for?
It is currently Sep 10, 2010 11:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Oct 07, 2008 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Dec 07, 2006 10:47 am
Posts: 171
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Quote:
Of course, India made the material for Pokhran I in a Candu, but that's a HWR.


Not quite accurate
http://www.nuclearfaq.ca/cnf_sectionF.htm#x1

The important distinction is that the reactor used to make the plutonium was not a power generating reactor.

_________________
Jim Baerg


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Oct 08, 2008 5:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 2506
Location: Montreal
Ken wrote:
Concerning allowable burn ups, one of the points of establishing a section within the DOE on this would probably be to address issues like this, in the Thorium Power design, they may allow for much higher burn up, since we are talking about burn up of the Thorium rather than of the Uranium. No?

No.
The burnup limit has nothing to do with whether you're burning U or Th.
Its all about the durability of the fuel pin sheath, in the LWR operating environment (though Th fuel pellet swelling may be less).

Further, in the Radkowsky Thorium Fuel (RTF) each fuel bundle contains a center segment of uranium-fueled "seeds" and a thorium- and uranium-fueled "blanket" surrounding the seed. The seed regions are fuel pins containing U-Zr metal fuel. The blanket fuel rods include Zr-clad ThO2 with 10% UO2 , also enriched to 20% U235 (in U238).

Note that while the Th blanket elements stay in the reactor for ~10 years, the seed elements are changed out yearly -- producing LWR-type Pu quality.
And since the metal fuel of the seeds would be easier to re-process, the RTF cycle is potentially more proliferative than recycling LWR fuel -- if you believe that RG-Pu is a proliferation hazard.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Oct 08, 2008 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 21, 2008 5:32 pm
Posts: 87
If this has already been asked and answered, please pardon me, I haven't read the entire thread.

With thorium, can we enrich Uranium up to 20%, then mix with thorium to get 5% U-235 (4:1 ratio of Uranium to thorium)? With this, would the four-fold decrease in TRU's generated by U-238 smolder out at a steady-state level, so that if we reprocessed, the TRU's could be put back in the fuel without build-up or fuel instability? I'm just wondering if thorium is being looked at with the idea of reprocessing.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Oct 08, 2008 6:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 9:18 pm
Posts: 2506
Location: Montreal
robertrichter wrote:
I'm just wondering if thorium is being looked at with the idea of reprocessing.

For solid-fuel reactors, only in India.
You have to be pretty desparate to want to even think about going that route.....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2008 11:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1688
honzik wrote:
About a year ago I wrote a letter to Senators Reid and Hatch explaining the advantages of Thorium reactors. This was in response to their announcement of support for Thorium reactors. The letter is dated November 27, 2007:
Quote:
Dear Senator [Reid, Hatch],

I have just read of your support of the use of the Thorium fuel cycle in future reactor designs. I highly commend this. As you are aware, the Thorium fuel cycle leads to reactors which have smaller waste streams and are more resistant to proliferation.

I'd like to bring to your attention a type of reactor design that uses the Thorium in a particularly safe and efficient manner, namely the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR). This reactor design is quite innovative: it uses a mixture of molten Lithium and Beryllium Fluoride salts as the working fluid in the reactor. Added directly to these molten salts is a relatively small amount of Thorium and Uranium Fluoride salts. The resultant salt mixture simultaneously works as a moderator, coolant, and fuel medium. The initial research on such a reactor was done at ORNL in the 1960s and 70s, and culminated in a successful reactor. Unfortunately, the funding was dropped by President Carter in 1974, despite the enthusiasm of the scientists working on the project. Nevertheless, the MSR design has been included as an option for the Generation IV Reactor Research Initiative sponsored by the federal government. In addition, scientists in France, the Czech Republic, and Russia have recognized the advantages of the MSR, and are carrying forward the research.

The advantages of the MSR are numerous, including:

1. The reactor system is the only practical way of utilizing the Th-U233 fuel cycle, which unlike the U235-Pu239 fuel cycle, produces far less waste than Light Water Reactors and almost no transuranic nuclear waste. As a result, the waste products have decay times measured in hundreds of years, as opposed to millions. This has an enormous impact on the strategies necessary to deal with the radioactive, potentially eliminating the need for a repository like that at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.
2. Because the boiling temperature of molten salts is so high (1500 C), MSRs can be designed to run at higher temperatures. This makes them much more efficient at converting thermal energy to electrical energy (50% as opposed to 35%). This also enables them to use dry air cooling instead of water cooling. The latter fact is important as this, for the first time, enable reactors to be built far from water cooling sources like lakes or rivers, and therefore further away from population centers. This is particularly important in Western states, like Utah and Nevada, where dry air cooling is often a requirement.
3. The Th-U233 fuel cycle is unique in that it can be configured to produce more fissile material than it consumes without requiring the fast neutron spectra and exotic coolants that doomed the previous breeder reactors.
4. The nuclear materials from the molten salt reactors contain as a byproduct of the reaction U232, which is a strong gamma radiator. This makes the reactor products impossible to redirect for illicit purposes due to the inherent detectability of U232. This property is essential in effort to prevent nuclear proliferation and dirty bomb detection.
5. MSRs tend to burn up most of their nuclear waste; this property can be utilized to eliminate excess plutonium waste from other sources if desired.
6. The design of MSRs enables the possibility of including a very small on-line fuel reprocessing loop within the reactor structure. This prevents the need of shipping nuclear fuels over long distances to be reprocessed. This also lowers dramatically the operating costs, as the plant may be operated indefinitely without shut-down.
7. MSRs have an inherent, strong negative coefficient of reactivity as a function of temperature. This means that there is absolutely no possibility of the runaway thermal event that occurred at Chernobyl, which had a regime in which there was a positive coefficient of reactivity.
8. MSRs will be designed with passive safety systems. For example, should the core overheat, a salt plug at the bottom of the reactor would melt, and the working salt mixture would flow into tanks below the reactor. Since the tanks have no moderator, the reaction would become subcritical and immediately stop.
9. The molten salt coolant has a very low working pressure, as opposed to water moderated reactors. Thus the single most catastrophic event for a water moderated reactor, namely, a container vessel rupture, would not be a particularly dangerous situation for molten salt reactors. And, due to the low working pressure, such a rupture is much less likely.
10. Molten salt reactors can be designed to be much smaller than conventional reactors due to the low pressure/ high temperature operation. The compact design should significantly reduce the initial capital costs.
In short, Molten Salt Reactors promise to be inherently safe, efficient and clean, and as such represent a significant improvement on present designs. I would hope that I can count on your support for MSR research in the future.

Best regards,

Dr. Honzik, Ph.D.



(Of course, I used my real name instead of my EfT name...)




Quote:
8. MSRs will be designed with passive safety systems. For example, should the core overheat, a salt plug at the bottom of the reactor would melt, and the working salt mixture would flow into tanks below the reactor. Since the tanks have no moderator, the reaction would become subcritical and immediately stop.



What happens when our design uses only core salt for the moderator? Is this dump tank idea still valid?

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Nov 07, 2008 11:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jul 28, 2008 10:44 pm
Posts: 2127
Yes. The requirement is to absorb more neutrons so that the fuel goes non critical.

Lots of ways to do this.
a) Skinnier dump tanks with absorbers between (more leakage).
b) dump into molten salt with boron in it
c) Vertical columns of absorbers
d) plenty of room for other creativity.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2008 11:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1688
Lars wrote:
Yes. The requirement is to absorb more neutrons so that the fuel goes non critical.

Lots of ways to do this.
a) Skinnier dump tanks with absorbers between (more leakage).
b) dump into molten salt with boron in it
c) Vertical columns of absorbers
d) plenty of room for other creativity.


The dump tank solution should be constrained by the following considerations:

To reuse the core salt from the dump tank again, we don’t want to adulterate (screw up) the salt with boron (or other) that we can’t easily remove. The alternative is to consign the core salt to the waste pile.

We want to be able to gradually remove the neutron absorber (rods?) in a well controlled manor to gently raise the temperature of the core salt to eventually pump it back into a repaired core.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2008 7:56 pm 
Offline

Joined: Aug 29, 2008 4:55 pm
Posts: 434
Location: Idaho Falls, Idaho
Seems to me that rocky flats and the chem plant in Idaho (intec) used rashing rings. glass rings made of boronated glass. They look like thick napkin holders. The idea was to displace the volume needed for a critical configuration. The boron absorbed neutrons. Perhaps the temperature is too high for this. Perhaps simple steel balls that would take up space with little neutron abortion. Graphite balls perhaps.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Nov 08, 2008 9:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 24, 2008 4:54 am
Posts: 547
Location: Cardiff, CA
jaro wrote:
Sen. Hatch wrote:
a thorium fuel rod would remain the reactor about three times as long as conventional nuclear fuel, thereby cutting the volume of spent nuclear fuel coming out of reactors by as much as two-thirds.

The reason why the fuel rod would "remain the reactor about three times as long as conventional nuclear fuel" is mainly because it has 20%-enriched uranium mixed with the thorium.

If you put that kind of fuel, without thorium, into today's LWRs, it could also run for three times longer.

The point is, the NRC doesn't *allow* such high fuel burn-ups, so utilities use fuel with less than 5% enrichment.


I know we have had fuel pin leaks with burnups of more than three fuel cycles, as well as fuel bundle growth and distortion. You guys are discussing nine fuel cycles per fuel assembly. My point is there are ssues that need to be fixed with current design fuel assemblies from a mechanical not a nuclear perspective for these longer burnups.

IIRC, the NRC was saying they did not like how many LWR fuel assemblies were performing with burnups in excess of three cycles. Not that they said no, but that be prepared to jusify any problems you have. If you go to longer burnups I think there may well be some problems with the current assembly construction.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Nov 09, 2008 7:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sep 10, 2008 7:40 pm
Posts: 437
Quote:
One of Obama's chief environmental advisers is Daniel Esty, who is a known Thorium booster. This and Sen. Obama's claim to want the pursuit of safer nuclear power virtually assures his signature if it is re-introduced next session.


I wrote and offered to present Aim High to Esty.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: S 3680: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Dec 05, 2008 5:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 20, 2008 1:12 pm
Posts: 4
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtex ... =s110-3680

I didn't see this posted anywhere, so I thought I'd bring it up. ((Found from R. Hargraves $2.7 M post))

This is definitely a move in the right direction. Here's to hoping they get it passed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Feb 10, 2009 4:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Jan 27, 2009 12:09 am
Posts: 453
Location: Toronto, Canada
Would anyone object if I put that letter on my personal blog at

http://okfrank.blogspot.com

Rick Maltese

Quote:
3. The Th-U233 fuel cycle is unique in that it can be configured to produce more fissile material than it consumes without requiring the fast neutron spectra and exotic coolants that doomed the previous breeder reactors.


What does this mean? Why is it important? I should start by asking what is consumed to create the fissile material and what is created at the other end besides fissile material and is it the same fissile material that get consumed in the final stage to create the energy?

_________________
JUST ONE LFTR PROTOTYPE WOULD BE A HUGE BOOST


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Feb 10, 2009 6:44 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 24, 2008 4:54 am
Posts: 547
Location: Cardiff, CA
rmaltese wrote:
Would anyone object if I put that letter on my personal blog at

http://okfrank.blogspot.com

Rick Maltese

Quote:
3. The Th-U233 fuel cycle is unique in that it can be configured to produce more fissile material than it consumes without requiring the fast neutron spectra and exotic coolants that doomed the previous breeder reactors.


What does this mean? Why is it important? I should start by asking what is consumed to create the fissile material and what is created at the other end besides fissile material and is it the same fissile material that get consumed in the final stage to create the energy?


This is a pretty long drawn out explanation. I will give it my best shot.

In current generation US nuclear plants U235 is fissioned with neutrons that have been slowed down by a moderator (in this case plain old water). Each fission produces on average about 2.5 neutrons. You need at least 1 of those neutrons to stay in the core long enough to get slowed down without getting snapped up by other stuff and cause another fission. This is what self-sustaining means. Now U238 does not like to fission much but does moderately like to absorb neutrons of certain speeds. I will skip all the nuclear reactions involved to simply say some U238 will be converted into Plutonium-239 (Pu239) which also likes to fission with slow neutrons like U235 does. You can in effect make or "breed" new fuel online. Now this is not that easy to set up such that you can make more fuel than you are burning. The neutron losses are critical to having a design that lets you do that. Solving that neutron loss problem before they get to find a U238 and breed some Pu is not easy. And some pretty esoteric plant designs have been tried many with good success. All expensive and some dangerous from an industrial design point of view.

Uranium in nature is like 99.5% U238 and .5% U235 (I know that is not exact but but for simplicity sake let it go). In a current design PWR/BWR you like to have 3.0% to 5.5% U235 and the rest U238 for operation. So you have to go through a lot of ore and separate out some extra U235 or "enrich" a final mixture to what you need. This is expensive. In a breeder reactor after that initial core load you would end up with a nice chunk of Pu239 in the core that you can process out and put back into another core reload and burn it. Effectively making more fuel than you dug up from the ground. Making your Uranium supplies last longer.

Now all the above applies the Uranium238-Pu239 breeder chain. An LFTR uses another Uranium isotope, U233. Along with Thorium-232 (Th232) to do the same thing. You put Thorium into a neutron flux you get (eventually) a fissionable material you can then put back into the core and burn. The really nice thing about a Th-U breeder cycle is you do not need liquid metal coolant designs and so on to do it. It's actually much simpler and IMHO appears more "doable". So after a startup charge of enriched U a Th reactor can conceivably operate indefinitely since it makes and processes it's own fuel right at the plant site.

Now this bred fuel from a Thorium chain is unsuitable for nuclear weapons use, UNLIKE the U238-Pu239 chain. That is quite useable for weapons development, otherwise known as a proliferation (of nuclear weapons grade material) risk.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Feb 10, 2009 6:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 24, 2008 4:54 am
Posts: 547
Location: Cardiff, CA
See also:

viewtopic.php?f=7&t=1258&p=13977#p13977


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008
PostPosted: Feb 11, 2009 4:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 19, 2008 1:06 am
Posts: 932
jaro wrote:
No.
The burnup limit has nothing to do with whether you're burning U or Th.
Its all about the durability of the fuel pin sheath, in the LWR operating environment (though Th fuel pellet swelling may be less).

The designers of AHWR, with previous experience of PHWR, have set the life of thorium-based fuel as much higher than that of PHWR. Higher burn up possible in thorium was the obvious reason.
Of course higher burn up in a shorter period in the FBR demands a much more durable cladding. So the durability of the pin sheath has to be matched to burn up (actually the expected radiation damage in course of burn up) rather than the other way round.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 65 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group