Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium

[ao333]

Let me in on the trolling guys. I'll make you look like toddlers.

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

this technology sounds fantastic. maybe china will be the first to break free from coal and oil.

France already produces 75% of its energy requirements from nuclear sources.

 

[marshall]

Thorium sounds great on paper, but it has two drawbacks for China. The known deposits of Thorium are concentrated in U.S, India, Australia and Canada. While they are not hostile, they are certainly far from dependable sources of supply. This is especially true if relationships with them became sour.

China doesn't need thorium imports because it has enough domestic reserves to last it many many thousands of years even if it were burning it up to achieve American per capita electricity levels. Remember, a liquid thorium reactor burns over 99% of its fuel which is over 200 times more efficient than typical gen-2 uranium reactors. Thorium is nearly 4 times more abundant than uranium and infinitely easier and cheaper to extract and refine than uranium. In my opinion, once liquid thorium reactors are commercialized, it will be the end of energy wars, at least in China's case.

Furthermore, it is easier for China to expand its current arsenal of nuclear stockpile through the use of uranium and plutonium. Also, spent uranium and plutonium fuels can be reprocessed into MOX compound for further use.

China has already had dozens of new reactors under construction/planning, so Thorium reactors won't come into the picture for at least 20 years down the road. I see China's roadmap to nuclear power as followed:

Gen III+ fission (present to 2025) -> Gen IV fission reactors (2025 to 2060, possibly with Thorium fuel) -> Gen I fusion reactors

I don't think China will abandon the uranium fuel cycle just because it would have limitless energy from the far safer TMSRs. I speculate China will implement breeder reactors to transmute and extract plutonium for weapons. The BN-800 reactors descendants will probably run in parallel with China's future TMSRs but geared towards plutonium production since I'm sure China will eventually need to stockpile nuclear warheads by the thousands in the future to ensure its defense against a very likely exponential worsening of US containment against China.

 

[Manas]

I will place my big bet on China's future thorium reactors. No hard feelings India.

Old article .

India unveils 'world's safest nuclear reactor'

World's safest N-reactor by India


India unveiled before the international commuity Thursday its revolutionary design of 'A Thorium Breeder Reactor' that can produce 600 MW of electricity for two years 'with no refuelling and practically no control manoeuvres.'


Designed by scientists of the Mumbai-based Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, the ATBR is claimed to be far more economical and safer than any power reactor in the world.

Most significantly for India, ATBR does not require natural or enriched uranium which the country is finding difficult to import. It uses thorium -- which India has in plenty -- and only requires plutonium as 'seed' to ignite the reactor core initially.

Eventually, the ATBR can run entirely with thorium and fissile uranium-233 bred inside the reactor (or obtained externally by converting fertile thorium into fissile Uranium-233 by neutron bombardment).

BARC scientists V Jagannathan and Usha Pal revealed the ATBR design in their paper presented at the week-long 'international conference on emerging nuclear energy systems' in Brussels. The design has been in the making for over seven years.

According to the scientists, the ATBR while annually consuming 880 kg of plutonium for energy production from 'seed' rods, converts 1,100 kg of thorium into fissionable uranium-233. This diffrential gain in fissile formation makes ATBR a kind of thorium breeder.

The uniqueness of the ATBR design is that there is almost a perfect 'balance' between fissile depletion and production that allows in-bred U-233 to take part in energy generation thereby extending the core life to two years.

This does not happen in the present day power reactors because fissile depletion takes place much faster than production of new fissile ones.

BARC scientists say that "the ATBR with plutonium feed can be regarded as plutonium incinerator and it produces the intrinsically proliferation resistant U-233 for sustenance of the future reactor programme."

They say that long fuel cycle length of two years with no external absorber management or control manoeuvres "does not exist in any operating reactor."

The ATBR annually requires 2.2 tonnes of plutonium as 'seed'. Althouth India has facilities to recover plutonium by reprocessing spent fuel, it requires plutonium for its Fast Breeder Reactor programme as well. Nuclear analysts say that it may be possible for India to obtain plutonium from friendly countries wanting to dismantle their weapons or dispose of their stockpiled plutonium.

 

[pluto]

apparently both India and China have achieved s.th in this field.
don't care if India is No. 1 to break through or China No.1, it is good that China now is headed for the safe nuclear plant.
don't want to see the japanese disaster again.

 

[Vinod2070]

China doesn't need thorium imports because it has enough domestic reserves to last it many many thousands of years even if it were burning it up to achieve American per capita electricity levels. Remember, a liquid thorium reactor burns over 99% of its fuel which is over 200 times more efficient than typical gen-2 uranium reactors. Thorium is nearly 4 times more abundant than uranium and infinitely easier and cheaper to extract and refine than uranium. In my opinion, once liquid thorium reactors are commercialized, it will be the end of energy wars, at least in China's case.


I don't think China will abandon the uranium fuel cycle just because it would have limitless energy from the far safer TMSRs. I speculate China will implement breeder reactors to transmute and extract plutonium for weapons. The BN-800 reactors descendants will probably run in parallel with China's future TMSRs but geared towards plutonium production since I'm sure China will eventually need to stockpile nuclear warheads by the thousands in the future to ensure its defense against a very likely exponential worsening of US containment against China.

This is interesting. Any source for this information?

Why doesn't China show up in the list of top countries with Thorium reserves in that case?

 

[Brotherhood]

China Takes Lead in Race for Clean Nuclear Power | Wired Science | Wired.com
By Richard Martin February 1, 2011

China has officially announced it will launch a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten-salt nuclear reactor, taking a crucial step towards shifting to nuclear power as a primary energy source.

The project was unveiled at the annual Chinese Academy of Sciences conference in Shanghai last week, and reported in the Wen Hui Bao newspaper (Google English translation here).

If the reactor works as planned, China may fulfill a long-delayed dream of clean nuclear energy. The United States could conceivably become dependent on China for next-generation nuclear technology. At the least, the United States could fall dramatically behind in developing green energy.

“President Obama talked about a Sputnik-type call to action in his SOTU address,” wrote Charles Hart, a a retired semiconductor researcher and frequent commenter on the Energy From Thorium discussion forum. “I think this qualifies.”


While nearly all current nuclear reactors run on uranium, the radioactive element thorium is recognized as a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel. Thorium is particularly well-suited for use in molten-salt reactors, or MSRs. Nuclear reactions take place inside a fluid core rather than solid fuel rods, and there’s no risk of meltdown.

In addition to their safety, MSRs can consume various nuclear-fuel types, including existing stocks of nuclear waste. Their byproducts are unsuitable for making weapons of any type. They can also operate as breeders, producing more fuel than they consume.

In the 1960s and 70s, the United States carried out extensive research on thorium and MSRs at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. That work was abandoned — partly, believe many, because uranium reactors generated bomb-grade plutonium as a byproduct. Today, with nuclear weapons less in demand and cheap oil’s twilight approaching, several countries — including India, France and Norway — are pursuing thorium-based nuclear-fuel cycles. (The grassroots movement to promote an American thorium power supply was covered in this December 2009 Wired magazine feature.)

China’s new program is the largest national thorium-MSR initiative to date. The People’s Republic had already announced plans to build dozens of new nuclear reactors over the next 20 years, increasing its nuclear power supply 20-fold and weaning itself off coal, of which it’s now one of the world’s largest consumers. Designing a thorium-based molten-salt reactor could place China at the forefront of the race to build environmentally safe, cost-effective and politically palatable reactors.

“We need a better stove that can burn more fuel,” Xu Hongjie, a lead researcher at the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, told Wen Hui Bao.

China’s program is headed by Jiang Mianheng, son of the former Chinese president Jiang Zemin. A vice president of the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the younger Jiang holds a Ph.D. in electrical engineering from Drexel University. A Chinese delegation headed by Jiang revealed the thorium plans to Oak Ridge scientists during a visit to the national lab last fall.

The official announcement comes as the Obama administration has committed itself to funding R&D for next-generation nuclear technology. The president specifically mentioned Oak Ridge National Laboratory in his State of the Union address Jan. 25, but no government-funded program currently exists to develop thorium as an alternative nuclear fuel.

A Chinese thorium-based nuclear power supply is seen by many nuclear advocates and analysts as a threat to U.S. economic competitiveness. During a presentation at Oak Ridge on Jan. 31, Jim Kennedy, CEO of St. Louis–based Wings Enterprises (which is trying to win approval to start a mine for rare earths and thorium at Pea Ridge, Missouri) portrayed the Chinese thorium development as potentially crippling.

“If we miss the boat on this, how can we possibly compete in the world economy?” Kennedy asked. “What else do we have left to export?”

According to thorium advocates, the United States could find itself 20 years from now importing technology originally developed nearly four decades ago at one of America’s premier national R&D facilities. The alarmist version of China’s next-gen nuclear strategy come down to this: If you like foreign-oil dependency, you’re going to love foreign-nuclear dependency.

“When I heard this, I thought, ‘Oboy, now it’s happened,’” said Kirk Sorensen, chief nuclear technologist at Teledyne Brown Engineering and creator of the Energy From Thorium blog. “Maybe this will get some people’s attention in Washington.”

While the international “Generation IV” nuclear R&D initiative includes a working group on thorium MSRs, China has made clear its intention to go it alone. The Chinese Academy of Sciences announcement explicitly states that the PRC plans to develop and control intellectual property around thorium for its own benefit.

“This will enable China to firmly grasp the lifeline of energy in its own hands,” stated the Wen Hui Bao report.

 

[Brotherhood]

Experts estimate that China has nearly 300,000 tons of thorium reserves, which is enough for the nation to use for 300 years.

Global energy giants tapping local market

 

[Vinod2070]

I disagree. Solar is also a very viable competitor. Photovoltaics can be integrated into building materials, the technology exists, is proven and uses existing process equipment, it will only get cheaper, and even 20% of the urban space in China being covered with photovoltaics (easy to do once integrated into building materials) at 10% efficiency can double our electricity production.

The first step is to pull the plug on Suntech, the Australian owned but government sponsored low tech traitor company that suppresses newcomers in the market.

What is the installation cost/MW? I guess operating cost would be negligible.

Is is cost competitive right now? I have always read it is much more expensive per unit than the fissile alternatives. Not sure if that has changed.

Is there a pilot anywhere running to prove the concept?

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

What is the installation cost/MW? I guess operating cost would be negligible.

Is is cost competitive right now? I have always read it is much more expensive per unit than the fissile alternatives. Not sure if that has changed.

Is there a pilot anywhere running to prove the concept?

The standard capital cost for coal powered plants is around Indian Rupees 4 crores per MW. Current operational solar powered plants have capital costs of around 10-12 crores per MW. However, as you rightly said, the life of a solar cell is very high (around 25 years) and the O&M costs are negligible when compared to other modes.

New solar cell technologies are aiming to reduce this cost to 8 crores per MW, but none of those are operational yet.

 

[Vinod2070]

The standard capital cost for coal powered plants is around Indian Rupees 4 crores per MW. Current operational solar powered plants have capital costs of around 10-12 crores per MW. However, as you rightly said, the life of a solar cell is very high (around 25 years) and the O&M costs are negligible when compared to other modes.

New solar cell technologies are aiming to reduce this cost to 8 crores per MW, but none of those are operational yet.

True, but there are other issues as well. The need for vast amounts of land that may not be feasible in India where land acquisition is a problem, even in deserts like Rajasthan.

Then, the fact that the power output is not stable and depends on the time of day and season. So it can't be used as a base load and you will need alternate capacity anyway for peak loads.

I think using the buildings to double as a solar cells is a good mitigation for the land issue, not sure we have proven out this concept anywhere.

 

[Skull and Bones]

True, but there are other issues as well. The need for vast amounts of land that may not be feasible in India where land acquisition is a problem, even in deserts like Rajasthan.

Then, the fact that the power output is not stable and depends on the time of day and season. So it can't be used as a base load and you will need alternate capacity anyway for peak loads.

I think using the buildings to double as a solar cells is a good mitigation for the land issue, not sure we have proven out this concept anywhere.

Chicago’s Willis Tower (formerly Sears Tower), North America’s tallest building, is already an icon in the city. But it could soon be an icon for solar energy use in cities?

A new project will take advantage of the tower’s vertical surface area by adding up to 2 MW of solar glass panels — equivalent to a 10 acre solar field — on the south side of the building’s 56th floor.

This pilot project will use photovoltaic glass units developed by Pythagoras Solar. From Inhabitat:

The new windows, dubbed high power density photovoltaic glass units (PVGU), are a clever hybrid technology that lays typical monocrystalline silicon solar cell horizontally between two layers of glass to form an individual tile. An internal plastic reflective prism directs angled sunlight onto the solar cells but allows diffuse daylight and horizontal light through. Think of it as a louvered shade which allows for views but cuts out the harsh direct sun.

If the project is successful, it could lead the way to other similar projects in cities. It’s a great way for cities to harvest energy without using up precious space in the city or limited rooftop space.

The product is also a potential breakthrough in energy efficiency in glass towers, where solar heat gain is the bane of energy-efficient design.

Tallest building in U.S. will add vertical solar farm - SmartPlanet

 

[twoplustwoisfour]

True, but there are other issues as well. The need for vast amounts of land that may not be feasible in India where land acquisition is a problem, even in deserts like Rajasthan.

Land requirements are not as high as imagined. It's only the exposed surface area which matters, and that can be utilized side by side other infrastructure.

Then, the fact that the power output is not stable and depends on the time of day and season. So it can't be used as a base load and you will need alternate capacity anyway for peak loads.

The electricity produced by these cells is stored for consumption at a later stage. However, because of problems listed by you, solar energy is generally supplemented with other sources so as to satisfy demands.

 

[Skull and Bones]

The electricity produced by these cells is stored for consumption at a later stage. However, because of problems listed by you, solar energy is generally supplemented with other sources so as to satisfy demands.

No, electricity cannot be stored for future use, existing battery system is not efficient enough and their capacity is not high enough to meet that requirement. You can sell the unused energy to the grid, and buy back from the grid at the time of peak demand.

 

[Vinod2070]

Expensive solar power can mean another Enron

What's desirable is often not practical. The National Solar Mission has set a target of 20,000 MW of solar electricity by 2020. This may be desirable, but at today's solar technology costs, it will be economic suicide.

Remember that just 700 MW of high-priced power from Enron in 2001 was enough to bankrupt the Maharashtra government, which therefore refused to pay. At the time, Enron's power cost Rs 4 per unit if run at 90% capacity, and Rs 7 per unit if run at less than half capacity, as was often the case. Solar power today costs Rs 9 to Rs 10 per unit in roof-top photovoltaic panels and other applications.


Hopefully, technological breakthroughs in the next decade will send costs crashing and make solar power economical. Rich countries are spending billions of dollars on solar R&D. The National Solar Mission Plan hopes to reduce the cost to Rs 4 to Rs 5 per unit by 2017-20 in order to make solar power competitive with coal-based power. But this represents a hope unsupported by any track record and grossly overestimates the cost of rival coal-based power.

Globally, no technical breakthrough may come. After the second oil shock in 1980, many hoped that amorphous silicon and other photovoltaic technologies would make solar power economical. Alas, photovoltaics remain hopelessly uneconomical today.


Meanwhile a breakthrough has come in concentrated solar thermal (CST) technology, using parabolic mirrors. Pilot CST projects in the US and Spain have raised hopes of solar power at Rs 5 per unit. But this is still far higher than the tariff per unit for India's ultra-mega power projects at Sasan (Rs 1.19), Tilaiya (Rs 1.77), Mundra (Rs 2.26) and Krishnapatnam (Rs 2.33). The first two are based on Indian coal, and the other two on imported coal. Even allowing for rising coal import prices and a heavy carbon tax, coal-based power looks much cheaper.


Now, some private power plants are selling limited amounts of electricity at Rs 6 to Rs 7 per unit to industries desperate for power. This encourages the government to think it can bundle expensive solar power with cheap coal-based power, and remain viable. Maybe, but remember, this was exactly the argument used for Enron — that expensive Enron power could be bundled with cheap power from MSEB stations — and it proved a financial fiasco.


Besides, solar power needs a lot of land. This can be neglected in a small pilot project, but not in large, commercial projects. The biggest CST projects in the US use 6 to 10 acres per MW of power. By this yardstick, even a pilot project of 100 MW requires 600 to 1,000 acres of land. A commercial project of 1,000 MW needs 6,000 to 10,000 acres. After the troubles of Tata Motors at Singur and Posco in Orissa, we must be cautious about land-intensive projects.


State governments rightly want companies to buy land at commercial rates, not ask for acquisition. The market rate in many states is now Rs10 lakh to Rs 20 lakh per acre. So, 1,000 acres for a small solar project could cost a whopping Rs 100 crore to Rs 200 crore, making it totally uneconomical.


Cheaper land is available in the deserts of Kutch and Rajasthan. But even in Kutch, industrialists have paid Rs 2 lakh to Rs 10 lakh per acre. Besides, CST projects need huge amounts of water for cooling towers, and the Rajasthan desert is inappropriate for that. However, CST plants in Kutch could use sea water.


So, while solar power is desirable, we should proceed cautiously. Global spending on solar R&D runs into billions, and any breakthroughs will come from abroad. We should not waste money duplicating global R&D. Rather, we should limit ourselves to pilot projects, testing the best global technologies in Indian conditions.


If global technical breakthroughs arrive, then we can scale up in a big way. That will not require fancy National Solar Missions. Private entrepreneurs will flock to build solar plants once they are proved viable. But if no breakthrough comes, we must not waste money on an arbitrary target of 20,000 MW of solar power by 2020. We must learn from the fiascos of Enron and Singur.


A small voice in my head tells me i may be on the wrong track. "Swami, the government knows all this. But it needs to do something in global climate negotiations. The US will not come on board unless China and India are seen contributing, and without US participation the climate talks will fail. So, we have made fancy long-term projections — 20,000 MW by 2020; 100,000 MW by 2030 — getting good publicity. But our near-term target of 1,000 MW by 2013 implies no more than some pilot projects. This will keep climate negotiations going at little cost."


Is that the government's hidden agenda? If so, I need to think again.