Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on December 27, 2013

Bookmark and Share

China’s Interest in Thorium

Reuters is running a series titled Breakout: Inside China’s Military Buildout. Installment number 6 is titled The U.S. government lab behind Beijing’s nuclear power push. The title is misleading; it is not about China’s world-leading, multibillion-dollar program. That program includes 29 large commercial nuclear plants currently under construction. Instead, the article focuses on a $350 million research program to evaluate the use of thorium as an alternative nuclear fission fuel source.

The Reuters piece includes a number of statements about the comparison between thorium and uranium that are debatable, at best, but whose source should be obvious to anyone that has been involved in any discussions with thorium advocates. It neglects the fact that uranium and thorium produce approximately the same mix of radioactive fission products. Systems using thorium need to pay just as much attention to decay heat removal as systems using uranium.

The article partially blames Admiral Rickover for the nuclear industry’s initial focus on uranium, without ever mentioning that the single most impressive use of thorium in an operating reactor took place under Admiral Rickover’s direction.

The die was cast against thorium much earlier. In the early 1950s, an influential U.S. Navy officer, Hyman Rickover, decided a water-cooled, uranium-fueled reactor would power the world’s first nuclear submarine, the USS Nautilus. Rickover was instrumental in the 1957 commissioning of a similar reactor at Shippingport, Pennsylvania – the world’s first nuclear-power station.

Admiral Rickover was a towering figure in atomic energy and became known as the father of the U.S nuclear navy. He had clear reasons for his choice, engineers say. The pressurized water reactor was the most advanced, compact and technically sound at the time. More importantly, these reactors also supplied plutonium as a byproduct – then in strong demand as fuel for America’s rapidly growing arsenal of nuclear warheads.

There is not a single mention in the article that Rickover’s Shippingport nuclear power plant was the site of the successful test of the Light Water Breeder Reactor (LWBR) between 1977 and 1982. That demonstration plant — which was far larger than the non-electricity producing prototypes that Oak Ridge operated in the 1960s — supplied about 28,000 effective full power hours (average capacity factor of 65%). It used a carefully engineered nuclear reactor core with uranium-233 as the fissile material and thorium-232 as fertile material. After producing 2.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, detailed destructive post irradiation testing determined that the core contained about 2% more U-233 at the end of operation than it did at the beginning.

Admiral Rickover’s primary core designer, Alvin Radkowsky was so enthusiastic about using thorium to expand the amount of nuclear fission fuel available that he was one of the founders of a company that was initially born as Thorium Power, but is now known as Lightbridge. Dr. Radkowsky did not develop his interest in thorium because Admiral Rickover was so interested in uranium that he sabotaged efforts to develop thorium technology.

Bottom line: Reuters got it wrong. There is nothing especially worrisome or important from a military perspective that China is interested in learning more about thorium as an additional nuclear fission fuel source.

Atomic Insights



5 Comments on "China’s Interest in Thorium"

  1. Northwest Resident on Fri, 27th Dec 2013 11:07 pm 

    29 large commercial nuclear plants currently under construction in China? That’s great news, just great. Now I hope total economic collapse happens AT LEAST before they get those world-killers operational.

  2. J-Gav on Fri, 27th Dec 2013 11:24 pm 

    Thorium, shmorium!

  3. Makati1 on Sat, 28th Dec 2013 12:16 am 

    China: 27 plus their original 10 = 37
    The US: original (as of Jan.2013) = 104

    If you allow them the same number per capita as the US they could have at least 400 plus.

    Then there are the 200+ nuclear powered war ships which are swimming the oceans of the world carrying nuclear reactors. The US and Russia have the most but China, India, UK, France also are in the nuclear navy game.

  4. surf on Sat, 28th Dec 2013 8:16 pm 

    Two problems with this article:
    1. fuel rode containing only thorium, uranium 233 will not generate any plutonium, americium, neptunium, or any other element heavier than uranium. Elements heavier than uranium account for most of the long lived waste. That reduces the time need to store the waste from millions of years down to about a 300 to 1000years.

    The elements heavier than uranium mainly come from Uranium 238 which makes up 90% of the fuel in current power plants.

    2. All the plutonium used in nuclear weapons was made using about 6 specially built reactors that didn’t make any electricity. A nuclear weapon needs pure plutonium 239. Nuclear power plants and submarines make a mix of plutonium 238,239, 241 and 242. Plutonium 239 cannot be separated out from the other plutonium atoms. Plutonium from nuclear power plants generates too much radiation and heat for it to be used in a bomb.

  5. synapsid on Sat, 28th Dec 2013 10:59 pm 

    surf,

    It’s worth keeping in mind that U233 itself can be used to make a bomb, just as U235 can. Thorium reactors are too often presented as devoid of proliferation hazard (I’m not saying that you have done so here) because they produce no plutonium; they aren’t.

    I think thorium-reactor technology should be pursued. My point is that those reactors should not be described (as they are, far too often) as presenting no proliferation hazard.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *