Register

Peak Oil is You


Donate Bitcoins ;-) or Paypal :-)


Page added on December 24, 2010

Bookmark and Share

New Power Source For Nuclear Plants In The Wings

With energy prices increases likely as economic growth picks up, the next-generation of nuclear energy could prove to be a cleaner, cheaper solution to keeping power prices down.

Several firms are working on new reactor technologies that replace the classic uranium fuel rods with less expensive and less polluting ones, composed of thorium.

“There are no technical hurdles,’ says John Kutsch, executive director of the Thorium Energy Alliance, an industry trade group, pointing out the process itself is already technologically proven.
“At this point, it’s more like a plumbing problem than a technology problem,” he says.

Thorium is a rare earth element that’s more easily found and more widely available than uranium, with a higher energy production capacity.

According to physics Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, a ton of thorium could produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium or 3,500,000 tons of coal.

That gives utilities operating thorium plants abundant energy from a cheap, easy-to-get fuel that creates few waste products itself, while providing a flexible design that allows for smaller power plants at lower price points.

Kutsch estimate you could launch a “fully fuelled and protected” 50MW thorium-powered nuclear for around $100 million.

According to The Keystone Center, an energy think tank, a new 1000MW uranium-fuelled reactor could cost up to $4 billion to build.

Even chaining 10-to-20 of the thorium plants together in a “farm” to rival the uranium plant’s output would halve its cost, coming in at $1-2 billion.

Like many new energy technologies, the time until commercialization is measured in years, not quarters.

Canon Bryan, CEO of thorium technology firm Thorium One, estimates thorium technologies have another 9 to 12 years to go before achieving commercial scale—although a 10-20MW test plant by Norwegian firm THOR Energy could be up and running in as little as five years.

Regulatory requirements are another hurdle to quick adoption.

While these companies and others, like Virginia-based Lightbridge [LBTR Unavailable () ], continue to test their own thorium-based designs, government approval of any new nuclear fuel design will require a lot of performance data “which currently doesn’t exist,” says Albert Machiels, senior technology executive at EPRI, the Electric Power Research Institute.

Machiels describes the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s, NRC, process to qualify new nuclear fuels as “pretty demanding.”

“At the earliest, you’re talking a decade or more,” he adds.

But while the NRC’s “Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future” still has a few months to draft a report that could lead to the biggest expansion of U.S. nuclear energy in decades, thorium should get its place at the table, says Thorium One’s Bryan.

Aside from lower costs, thorium-powered reactors don’t generate anything that can be used for weapons, as is the case with uranium isotopes, meaning that a thorium reactor can only serve to generate electricity.

In addition, thorium, unlike other forms of nuclear energy, does not produce climate-effecting greenhouse gases.

The Thorium Energy Alliance’s Kutsch adds that just pulling uranium and thorium from coal currently mined in the U.S.—and disposing of the combustible portion of the coal—would provide more energy with none of the carbon emissions and other pollution created by firing coal.
As for waste storage concerns, thorium-derived waste has a radiotoxicity period of less than 200 years, compared to the million-year-plus period estimated for uranium fuels, making it easier to handle, says Bryan.

No matter what national policies are set around future nuclear power production, uranium-powered plants are about to get squeezed.

Both Thorium One and Thor Energy say stocks of uranium fuels are stable through 2016, but after that is a question mark.

The $50 billion worldwide nuclear industry is expected to double by then, says Bryan.

“There simply isn’t enough uranium,” he adds.

The U.S. produces less than 4 million pounds of uranium per year, while its 104 nuclear reactors consume 55 to 60 million pounds a year, importing the rest from Australia and Canada.

Bryan says the next decade of domestic uranium production is “sold out”, as is the production of 60 to 70 percent of the top-10 largest uranium mines in the world, to established nuclear energy programs in countries like France and Japan and upstarts like China and India.

In November, uranium prices spiked from their $40 to 45 pound range after the Chinese government said it would build over 100,000 megawatts of nuclear power—roughly equal to the capacity of all U.S. nuclear power plants running today—by 2020.

Thorium, however, is three- to four-times more abundant than uranium, and typically found in surface deposits that are easier and cheaper to mine.

“There’s enough (easily available) thorium to power the entire globe for thousands and thousands of years,” says Bryan.

Another plus is that it is possible to repower existing power plants with thorium reactors—which some expect China to do down the road with its new coal and nuclear ones.

Kutsch agrees that thorium technology may not be entirely groundbreaking, but he says it’s still a big leap forward compared to the decades-old technology in America’s current nuclear fleet.

“We could easily do that here in the U.S.,” says Kutch. “This is what fusion wanted to be.”

CNBC



11 Comments on "New Power Source For Nuclear Plants In The Wings"

  1. Simon in BC on Fri, 24th Dec 2010 3:27 pm 

    Is thorium is so much more efficient and safer than uranium then why have we been using uranium all these years???

    Rhetorical question – because thorium can’t be used in nuclear weapons. Or for shells like depleted uranium.

    Have we been the victims of a “uranium lobby” and the military industrial complex all these years? Same would apply to the French and British.

    My God Flying Spaghetti Monster, we really don’t deserve to survive as a species.

  2. Robert Hargraves on Fri, 24th Dec 2010 8:59 pm 

    In particular, the liquid fuel form of thorium has great promise. Check the website here, or
    http://energyfromthorium.com

  3. Kenz300 on Fri, 24th Dec 2010 10:32 pm 

    How much did it cost to clean up Chernobyl?

    Oh, I forgot, it was never fully cleaned up.

  4. Rick on Sat, 25th Dec 2010 1:08 am 

    An article from CNBC, that says it all.

    Anyway, thorium is not going to save us. First, the economy is dead. Even if it wasn’t, it takes oil to build power plants, it takes oil to produce just about everything we depend on. In a Peak Oil world, it will be very difficult to build anything. Also Peak Oil and credit (or growth) go hand in hand. No oil, no credit/growth, no nothing.

  5. Don S on Sat, 25th Dec 2010 3:33 am 

    “Aside from lower costs, thorium-powered reactors don’t generate anything that can be used for weapons, as is the case with uranium isotopes,”

    According to Wikipedia, this is not true. Both fuel cycle types produce U-233 in various quantities.

  6. Roderick Beck on Sat, 25th Dec 2010 4:07 am 

    Chernobyl is irrelvant. This plant built during the Soviet Union era. It had no protective dome and was frankly primitive and run by a state for whom meeting production targets was paramount.

    Actually wildlife abounds around Chernobyl. The truth is that the dangers of low levels of radiation are exaggerated. The American diet is a bigger threat to life expectancy …

  7. Roderick Beck on Sat, 25th Dec 2010 4:10 am 

    Rick,

    That’s rubbish. It doesn’t take significant oil to build nuclear power plants. Fear mongering is a waste of time.

  8. DC on Sat, 25th Dec 2010 5:04 am 

    I have to laugh at articles like this. ‘Cheap’, ‘Clean’ and ‘safe’ nuclear is not. Nuclear costs have gone in one direction since the start, up, way up. As for clean, not by any stretch. We dont need nuclear, end govt support for nuclear and lets build the wind farms and solar plants that are proven-now.

  9. Don S on Sat, 25th Dec 2010 6:32 am 

    Roderick,

    It takes a whole lot of oil to dig up the fuel, process and ship it, etc.

  10. Abaris on Sat, 25th Dec 2010 7:36 pm 

    What else is unproven is the effect wind will have on the global warming/pollution scale. That is if energy is removed from a system something else happens, conservation of mass and energy. Even free lunches are not free, anecdotally, heartburn is prevalent, what is going to happen when/if global wind patterns are changed. I would be interested in peer reviewed references on that matter.

  11. Dave Ranning on Sun, 26th Dec 2010 6:50 am 

    I would not hold my breath on thorium.

    It may be like the speed of light and special relativity- always 20 years away no matter how viewed , or when you enter.

Leave a Reply

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