Saturday, April 22, 2006

Welcome and Introduction

This weblog is intended to be a location for discussion and education about the value of thorium as a future energy source. Despite the fact that our world is desperately searching for new sources of energy, the value of thorium is not well-understood, even in the "nuclear engineering" community.

The fundamental basis for considering nuclear energy over chemical energy is the binding energy released in each case. Chemical energy is released when the electron configuration of atoms is rearranged through a chemical process (combustion, digestion, etc.) Electrons are bound to nuclei with binding energies measured in electron volts (eV).

The protons and neutrons in an atomic nucleus, on the other hand, are bound with energies measured in millions of electron volts (MeV). Thus, rearranging the nucleus of an atom (through fusion or fission) releases roughly a million times more energy than chemical energy release.

There are four basic nuclear "fuels" found in nature: deuterium, lithium, thorium, and uranium. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen that is found wherever hydrogen is found (such as water). Lithium is a light metal found in lake evaporates. In a traditional fusion reactor, lithium is converted to tritium (another hydrogen isotope) and then fused with deuterium, releasing energy and additional neutrons. But fusion is fundamentally difficult because positively charged particles tend to repel each other strongly, and only extraordinary temperatures, magnetic confinement, and complicated engineering can coax them to fuse. Despite all this effort, the goal of economical fusion energy is distant and perhaps unreachable, even if the physics can be conquered.

Fission of uranium or thorium, on the other hand, is much easier because neutrons are used to induce destabilization and splitting of the nucleus. The neutron is uncharged, so there is no magnetic repulsion to contend with in the fission process. No magnetic confinement or vacuum chambers are required either. The downside of fission is the generation of unstable, neutron-rich fission products that seek stability through successive beta decay.

Fission of natural uranium requires the construction of reactors that maintain high neutron energies (fast-spectrum reactors) throughout their operation. This is because the fission of plutonium-239 (the result of neutron absorption in uranium-238, the dominant isotope) does not produce enough neutrons to sustain the process unless it is bombarded by high-energy neutrons.

Fission of natural thorium, on the other hand, is much easier because its absorption product (uranium-233) produces enough neutrons from collision with a slowed-down (thermal) neutron to sustain the fission reaction, given that the reactor is designed to be frugal with its neutrons. This feature, and the abundance of thorium worldwide, give thorium a profound advantage over the other nuclear fuels for sustained energy generation.

Thorium is abundant in the Earth's crust and widespread across the United States and around the world:






This is a storage cask containing 200 lbs of thorium nitrate. This thorium was formed in a supernova over five billion years ago, and during its formation, it was infused with vast amounts of energy in the structure of its nucleus. For five billion years this material has stored its energy, and only in the last 60 years have we realized how to utilize it.


Inside the cask we see the thorium nitrate, with a consistency much like sugar. It is mildly radioactive, not so much from the thorium itself but from decay products that have formed. The material can be handled with only a rubber glove as shielding.

Releasing the energy from thorium is a three-step process. First, the thorium must be exposed to neutrons. When it intercepts and absorbs a neutron, it will transmute from thorium-232 to thorium-233. In a few minutes, the thorium-233 will decay into protactinium-233.

Next, the protactinium-233 must be isolated from neutrons. The Pa-233 nucleus has a half-life of 27 days, and when it decays it will decay into uranium-233. But during its time as Pa-233, it has a great affinity for capturing another neutron. This is undesirable since it will lead to the formation of Pa-234, which will then decay to U-234, which is not fissile.


But if the Pa-233 is isolated from neutrons, it will decay as planned, and a nucleus of uranium-233 will be formed. Then the uranium-233 is reintroduced into the reactor and exposed to neutrons. It will undergo fission, releasing additional neutrons to continue the consumption of additional thorium.


This technique of "expose, isolate, expose" is essentially impossible to do in a typical solid-fueled reactor, because it would require the fuel to be almost continually reprocessed. This is why "fluid-fueled reactors" were examined as thorium burners almost from the outset of the nuclear age. As early as 1948, scientists like Eugene Wigner were proposing ways to build reactors with nuclear fuel in a fluid form to consume thorium. Several of these reactors were built, and as a class, they had tremendous safety and operational advantages.

But one was superior on practically all counts--the liquid-fluoride reactor. This reactor represents the ideal thorium burner, in my opinion, and I shall attempt to show why I think so.

15 comments:

Randal Leavitt said...

"The neutron is uncharged, so there is no magnetic repulsion to contend with in the fission process."

Is the above quote correct?

Kirk Sorensen said...

Yes, the neutron is electrically neutral, and therefore it does not electrically interact with the positively charged nucleus. This electrical neutrality allows the neutron to penetrate the electron cloud surrounding the nucleus and collide with the nucleus. Momentum is not exchanged between the particles unless there is a collision, unlike interactions between charged particles, which can take place at (relatively) great atomic distances. Electromagnetic scattering is the fundamental reason why fusion reactors must operate at such extraordinary temperature (~10 keV), density, and confinement.

nuke1 said...

What form is the Th in when it is exposed to neutrons....Thorium-Nitrate or something else?

Kirk Sorensen said...

Hi Nuke1, the thorium is in the form of a tetrafluoride (ThF4) dissolved in a solvent of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride. Upon neutron absorption, it will break apart (ionically) and reconstitute as 233ThF4, which will then beta-decay and reconstitute as PaF4. After decay to protactinium, it will be removed from the blanket by a processing system and be allowed to decay to UF4 outside of the reactor's neutron flux, then be reintroduced into the core salt of the reactor as a fuel.

nuke2 said...

Thanks Kirk. Another question if you don't mind???

What is the sequence of events to get the monazite sand into ThF4?

Is Th-Nitrate a step in that process? If not where did the 200lb barrel of that come from?

I appreciate you time.

Sorry but for the life of me I couldn't remember my password, so now I am nuke2.

CG129 said...

Hi. I don't know a lot about thorium as an energy source, but I was wondering, what is the advantage of using it over fusion energy?

Kirk Sorensen said...

Hi. I don't know a lot about thorium as an energy source, but I was wondering, what is the advantage of using it over fusion energy?

Since I used to be a real aficiando of fusion energy, I'm happy to answer this. The major distinguishing factors between thorium and fusion are feasibility and power density.

Controlled thermonuclear fusion is intensely difficult. The more you learn about it, the more you realize just how difficult. It's easy to point to the Sun as an "existence-proof" for fusion, but the fusion type and conditions in the Sun are totally different than what we try to do on the ground. The fundamental reason that fusion is so difficult is that positively-charged nuclei repel each other. Strongly. To give them enough energy to overcome this repulsion, you must get them very very hot. So hot that measuring temperature in degrees kind of breaks down, and we go to measuring temperature in electron-volts. The typical temperature needed in a deuterium-tritium fusion reactor (the easiest one to build) is about 10,000 electron-volts, or about 200 million degrees Fahrenheit. Even at these temperatures, fusion of nuclei is still very improbable. Most interactions simply scatter (deflect) away from one another. Only once in a great while do you have a head-on collision that doesn't scatter, and then you can have a fusion reaction and energy release. This is why the other two components of the Lawson criteria (the basic blueprint of fusion) come into play: density and confinement.

You have to have the nuclei hot enough, you have to have enough of them, and you have to keep them there long enough for fusion. Up to this point, we have not built a fusion machine that maintains these conditions in sufficient quantity to release more energy than it consumes. We may someday, but we haven't yet.

Even if we did build such a machine, it would have a very low power density. This is because fusion plasmas are a pretty good vacuum, and the amount of fusion power taking place (per unit volume) is pretty low. So you need a very big machine. And a fusion machine is not a simple machine. It's essentially a very, very good vacuum chamber, surrounded by intensely power superconducting magnets, held together by a huge steel superstructure to keep it from ripping itself apart. (the magnets don't like each other) As if this wasn't enough, it also needs to be a nuclear breeder reactor, converting the neutrons from D-T fusion into more tritium. This is done by surrounding the inner chamber with lithium (the precursor of tritium) and beryllium (as a neutron multiplier). And all the extraction systems to remove gaseous tritium generated in the breeding blanket.

It's a very complicated machine.

Contrast that with a thorium reactor, which operates at relatively low temperatures (<1000 K), has no magnets, vacuum chamber or high-pressure systems, and no huge superstructure holding it together. A liquid-fluoride thorium reactor is very power dense, compared to fusion, meaning that it physically has a smaller "footprint" and could conceivably be built small enough to fit in submarines or trailers. You won't be able to do that with a fusion machine.

Energy Amplifier said...

Have you had a look at Carlo Rubbia's Energy Amplifier? It's an accelerator driven fast-neutron system with additional beneficial effects.

The main fuel would still be thorium, but the fact that its accelerator driven means that you can make the reactor subcritical.

Furthermore fast-neutrons allows you to burn a mixture of Pu and Th (still sub-critical) reducing the global stockpiles of weapon-grade Pu.

All cooling systems are passive (heat convection), and thus cannot fail due to mechanical or electronic failure. So no melt-downs.

Fuel recycling allows any long-lived isotopes in the waste that can be chemicly (or otherwise) seperated from the waste, to be put back into the reactor and burned further.

All in all you have a good source of fuel (thorium), you solve most proliferation issues (including present stockpiles of weapongrade plutonium), the reactor is safe and you almost solve the waste issue. (At 500 years the radioactive waste will have the same radiotoxicity as coal burnt to produce the same energy)

A prototype reactor hasn't been built yet and there are some R&D issues, mainly related to the accelrator and materials used in the reactor walls.

More info

Oh, a few more details, primary fuel is ThO2. The accelerator is a cyclotron producing fast protons 1GeV which upon hitting lead produces a continous spectrum of neutrons ranges from zero and up. The passive primary cooling is molten lead running the reactor at some 700'C

Frederick said...

I am an investor and believer in nuclear energy and was wondering if you saw
Thorium ore (or any form of mined thorium) being traded the way uranium is
today? Would it make sense to invest in the fuel of thorium or the
technology? Perhaps the technology of uranium reactor conversion to thorium
(in other words companies that deal in thorium technology).

Also, are there functioning thorium reactors at present or is this something
that is needed to be developed?

Finally, do you see the energy amplifier as preferred to a thorium reactor
given the need for commercial use of a small machine?

Kirk Sorensen said...

Hi Frederick,

Nice name! (it's my middle name)

I've been asked the same question about thorium investment by a number of different people and I'll give you the same (free) advice I gave them--it's not really worth doing right now. Of all the problems relating to getting thorium to the point of being a viable global energy source, thorium supply is about problem number #962.

The investment opportunity is not in the thorium itself, it's in the technology that unlocks the value of thorium.

A hundred years ago, Marie Curie and her husband would pain-stakingly process tonnes of pitchblende ore, throwing out the worthless uranium, to get at the very small amount of radium in the ore. Later on, she figured out that the radium was coming from the uranium--it was part of the decay chain. Later on after that, Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner figured out that that uranium could be fissioned (at least the U-235). So the technological breakthrough made the uranium non-worthless.

Right now, thorium is so "worthless" that the US government buried 3200 metric tonnes of it in the Nevada desert due to lack of demand. If it was economically advantageous to go and put thorium in today's light-water reactors, it would have already been done. This has been looked at for decades, examined in documents like WASH-1059, and even attempted in the last core of the Shippingport reactor. Can it be done? Yes. Is it economically advantageous? No.

We need the reactor that can advantageously use thorium. All of my research points me to the liquid-fluoride reactor as the machine that can make thorium useful. Fluoride reactor technology was developed and demonstrated in the United States at Oak Ridge National Lab. But because it threatened the AEC's committment to sodium-cooled plutonium fast-breeder reactors, the AEC killed it in 1974.

I think someday history will record that as one of the biggest mistakes in nuclear development.

Are there functioning thorium reactors today? Yes, the Indians have a research reactor that's using thorium, but it's solid-core and not a thorium burner.

The energy amplifier--unnecessary complexity proposed by scientists who've made their careers on particle accelerators. See this discussion thread on the thorium-forum.

SteamTeam1 said...

This is a great bolg and i am learning tons of interesting information....but I am not able to find definitions for some of the jargon/references that are made. A glossary would be great, can you direct me to one?

Specifically I could not figure out what C.R. means....Three values have been discussed, such as 1.0 CR and 0.9 CR....does this have to do with radioactivity and criticality?

Kirk Sorensen said...

Sorry about that!

CR stands for "conversion ratio"...it's how much new fissile material is made from the consumption of existing fissile material. For instance, if 1000 kg of existing U-233 is fissioned and 900 kg of new U-233 is produced from thorium, you have a CR of 0.9.

Obviously, you've got to have a CR of 1.0 or better if you really want to claim you're "burning" thorium. Getting to a CR of 1.0 or better is really important.

By way of comparison, today's light-water reactors only achieve a CR of about 0.6, so they're not even close to making more fuel from fertile materials like thorium or U-238 than they're consuming.

Steve said...

Are you discussing the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) in this blog?

I've yet to see a realistic assessment of the viability of the in-containment reprocessing system. In order to achieve high fuel burn up, and low residual radiotoxicity in the waste, the system has to accurately separate fission products and activation products from the actinides.

First, is it even chemically possible to do this without "leaking" a significant quantity of actinides into the waste?

Is it possible to do this without generating secondary chemical waste streams (possibly radioactive)?

Can it be done safely in the event of an accident?

I note that the Generation IV project includes reactors of this type, but apparently only for very long term study. Why?

Anonymous said...

Hi Kris, I am very interested in the last comment. How is the intermediate step isolated from neutrons for 27 days?

Could you also break down the amount of energy released from each step?

As you said, the Pa would yeild U234 if it received additional neutrons, and in solid (pebble bed?) reactors, it would require almost continious reporcessing. How far would the efficency fall if the reaction were allowed to produce U234?

Is there any use for U234? Is it completely stable? Is it easily separated from the waste handling process?

The answers may be self evident to a nuclear scientist, unfortunately for me I am not that smart.

Thanks for your time.

Jack

Anonymous said...

jack

i dont know if i'm completely right but i've been researching nuclear reactors for a high school ap essay and it seems that u234 is not very common and not fissile.
most isotopes at that size are usually not 100% stable even the noble gas at the end of the period which are noted to be stable. i think cause of the shielding effect?

from basic chemistry i assume you could make u235 out of u234 but it would be painstaking and inefficient. u234 to u235 i think would be done by adding a neutron but adding the neutron would be the hard part.

i am interested in the answer to steve's question and can someone check the validity of my answer, i'm just a high school kid : P

-akoreankid