Group items tagged

The misinformation on thorium is highly promoted by the nuclear industry and various companies that want investment dollars for thorium reactors and fuel

One myth is that thorium is safe. Thorium-232 has a half life of 14 billion years (billions, not millions). Thorium-232 is also highly radiotoxic, with the same amount of radioactivity of uranium and thorium, thorium produces a far higher dose in the body. If someone inhaled an amount of thorium the bone surface dose is 200 times higher than if they inhaled the same amount of uranium. Thorium also requires longer spent fuel storage than uranium. With the daughter products of thorium like technetium‐99 with a half life of over 200,000 years, thorium is not safe nor a solution to spent fuel storage issues.

Another myth is that thorium reactors can run at atmospheric temperatures, in order to produce power they must be run differently and would not be at atmospheric temperatures. Many of the thorium reactors use liquid sodium fluoride in the reactor process. This material is highly toxic and has its own series of risks. The creation of thorium fuels is also not safer than creating uranium fuels. Thorium poses the same nuclear waste and toxic substance problems found in mining and fuel milling of uranium.

After Fukushima a great deal of awareness on the dangers of nuclear energy has ignited a series of reactions in society, mainly a generalized rejection to nuclear energy and a call to develop cleaner and safer sources of energy. When thinking about nuclear energy mainly 2 sources come to peoples minds, solar and wind power condemning any sort of nuclear power.  Nuclear power has been associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction, radiation sickness and disease.  However, this is not due to the nuclear power itself but due to the nuclear fuel used to generate this nuclear power.

The above are just some of the most common byproducts, (better known as nuclear waste) of a nuclear fuel cycle, all of these substances are extremely poisonous, causing a variety of diseases, cancers and genetic mutations to the victim.  The worst part is that most of them remain in the environment of decades or even thousands of years, so if accidentally released to the environment they become a problem that future generations have to deal with.  Therefore, in nuclear energy the problem is in the fuel not in the engine. Lets start with the Thorium Reactors.  Thorium is a naturally occurring radioactive chemical element, found in abundance throughout the world.  It is estimated that every cubic meter of earth’s crust contains about 12 grams of this mineral, enough quantity to power 1 person’s electricity consumption for 12-25 years.  Energy is produced from thorium in a process known as the Thorium Fuel Cycle, were a nuclear fuel cycle is derived from the natural abundant isotope of thorium.

In today’s world the main fuel for nuclear power is a naturally occurring radioactive mineral, Uranium.  This mineral is one of the most dense metals in the periodic table which allows it to reach a chain reaction that can yield huge amounts of energy that can be exploited for an extended period of time.  Unfortunately the nuclear fuel cycle of Uranium produced extremely dangerous byproducts, commonly known as nuclear waste.  These are produced in liquid, solid and gaseous form in a wide variety of deadly substances, such as: Iodine 131 Strontium 90 Cesium 137 Euricium 155 Krypton 85 Cadmium 113 Tin 121 Samarium 151 Technetium-99

conversations have been popping up about thorium in recent years and how it can be a game-changer in the energy industry. Thorium has incredible potential as an ultra-safe, clean, and cheap nuclear energy source which can power the world for millennia.

Thorium is found naturally in rocks in the form of thorium-232, and has a half-life of about 14 billion years. Estimates by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) show it is about three times more common in the Earth's crust than uranium. It can be obtained through various methods, most commonly through the extraction from monazite sands. Known reserves of thorium are not well-known due to lack of exploratory research. The US Geological Service estimates that the USA, Australia, and India hold the largest reserves. India is believed to have the lion's share of thorium deposits. In the United States, Idaho contains a large vein deposit. The world has an estimated total of 4.4 million tons

A newly created organization known as the Weinberg Foundation has taken up the cause of promoting thorium energy. The foundation was named after Dr. Alvin Weinberg, a nuclear energy researcher in the 1960s who laid out the vision of safe and abundant thorium power. He pioneered the Molten Salt Reactor using thorium in its liquid fuel form at the US Oak Ridge National Laboratory. This reactor had an inherently safer design and dramatically reduced the amount of atomic waste in comparison to typical nuclear reactors. Unfortunately, the thorium reactor program was not fully pursued due to political and military reasons.

The Telegraph's commentator also thinks, along with many nuke proponents that inhabit the world, that "there has never been a verifiable death" in the West from the nuclear power. (I suppose he doesn't include Russia as part of the West.)Right.In his own words, from The Telegraph 3/20/2011 right before he headed off to the Mayan Highlands:

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thoriumA few weeks before the tsunami struck Fukushima’s uranium reactors and shattered public faith in nuclear power, China revealed that it was launching a rival technology to build a safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper network of reactors based on thorium.

This passed unnoticed –except by a small of band of thorium enthusiasts – but it may mark the passage of strategic leadership in energy policy from an inert and status-quo West to a rising technological power willing to break the mould.

After Fukushima, the Chinese governement have decided to finance the development of the much safer Thorium Fuelled Molten Salt Reactor - this way of producing energy is far safer than Pressure Water Reactor - it does not need pressure and there is no meltdown possibility at all. Further Thorium reactors cannot be used to make nuclear bombs.

Thorium is as common as lead, and should have been chosen after the war.At the end of the 2nd World War war plutonium was needed to make nuclear bombs, and this was the main reason for taking the PWR route, because Thorium reactors cannot. Edward Teller - the designer of the atomic bomb - on his death bed - said that a Thorium Fuelled Molten Salt Reactor was a safer design and that the basic Thorium fuel more available than Uranium. He was working on a paper for this type of reactor at his death (see below).

It would cost about 1 billion to design a Thorium reactor (Twitter is valued at 7 billion).

What do you do with the waste? – Kirk Sorensen’s answers by Rod Adams on October 13, 2011 in Fuel Recycling , Nuclear Batteries , Nuclear Waste , Plutonium , Thorium Share3   Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix , has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field . My friends who like the Integral Fast Reactor have another answer . I am pretty certain there are dozens of other good answers to the question – the primary obstacle to implementing them comes from the nefarious forces that LIKE raising (artificial) barriers to the use of nuclear energy. On another note, I want to point to a story published in the evening of October 12, 2011 on the Wall Street Journal web site titled WSJ: Fluor Buys Stake In Reactor Maker NuScale Energy . I am happy to see that NuScale has found a suitable, deep pockets investor with a lot of nuclear plant engineering and construction experience. One more short note. Jay Hancock, a writer for the Baltimore Sun, has taken note of some of the work published on Atomic Insights regarding Exelon’s decision to destroy the Zion Nuclear power station rather than allowing it to compete against existing power plants to increase the supply and decrease the price of electricity. On October 8, 2011, Hancock published a column titled State should pull plug on Constellation-Exelon deal that explored whether or not it would be beneficial for Marylanders to allow a company like Exelon to own a dominant number of electrical power generation facilities in the state. One of the pieces of evidence that has convinced Hancock to oppose the proposed merger is the way that Exelon has acted with regard to the Zion nuclear station. He recognizes that the company has adequately demonstrated a history of using market power to drive up prices and profits at the expense of customer interests. Additional reading related to Exelon bear hug attempt: EDF Asks Maryland Regulators To Block Exelon-Constellation Merger

What do you do with the waste? – Kirk Sorensen’s answers by Rod Adams on October 13, 2011 in Fuel Recycling, Nuclear Batteries, Nuclear Waste, Plutonium, Thorium Share3  Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix , has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field . My friends who like the Integral Fast Reactor have another answer. I am pretty certain there are dozens of other good answers to the question – the primary obstacle to implementing them comes from the nefarious forces that LIKE raising (artificial) barriers to the use of nuclear energy. On another note, I want to point to a story published in the evening of October 12, 2011 on the Wall Street Journal web site titled WSJ: Fluor Buys Stake In Reactor Maker NuScale Energy. I am happy to see that NuScale has found a suitable, deep pockets investor with a lot of nuclear plant engineering and construction experience. One more short note. Jay Hancock, a writer for the Baltimore Sun, has taken note of some of the work published on Atomic Insights regarding Exelon’s decision to destroy the Zion Nuclear power station rather than allowing it to compete against existing power plants to increase the supply and decrease the price of electricity. On October 8, 2011, Hancock published a column titled State should pull plug on Constellation-Exelon deal that explored whether or not it would be beneficial for Marylanders to allow a company like Exelon to own a dominant number of electrical power generation facilities in the state.

Gordon McDowell, the film maker who produced Thorium Remix, has released some additional mixes of material gathered for that production effort. One in particular is aimed at those people whose main concern about using nuclear energy is the often repeated question “What do you do with the waste.” Many people who ask that question think that it is a trump card that should end all conversation and let them win the hand. I used to play bridge and enjoyed it when I could “no trump” a smug contestant who thought he had a winner. Kirk’s discussion below is one example of how that can be done in the nuclear energy field

There are many terrific reasons to favor the rapid development of nuclear fission technology.

It is a reliable and affordable alternative to hydrocarbon combustionIt is a technology that can use less material per unit energy output than any other power sourceIt is a technology where much of the cost comes in the form of paying decent salaries to a large number of human beingsIt is a technology where wealth distribution is not dependent on the accident of geology or the force of arms in controlling key production areasIt is an energy production technology where the waste materials are so small in volume that they can be isolated from the environmentIt is a technology that is so emission free that it can operate without limitation in a sealed environment – like a submarineIt is an important climate change mitigation too

Our current economy is built on an industrial foundation that removes about 7-10 billion tons of stored hydrocarbons from the earth’s crust every year and then oxidize that extracted material to form heat, water and CO2 – along with some other nasty side products due to various impurities in the hydrocarbons and atmosphere. The 20 billion tons or so of stable CO2 that we dump into the atmosphere is not disappearing – there are some natural removal processes that were in a rough balance before humans started aggressive dumping, but most of the mass of CO2 that we are pumping into the thin layers of atmosphere that surround the Earth is not being absorbed or used.

NuScale Power–one of the pioneers in small, modular nuclear reactors—is back from the dead, thanks to a $30 million infusion from global construction giant Fluor.

Under the terms of the deal, Fluor will invest $30 million into Corvallis, Oregon-based NuScale, as well as help the company navigate the arduous and technically complex approval and licensing process. Fluor will also cooperate with NuScale on procurement, logistics and construction when it comes time to build its power plants.

NuScale suspended operations in January amid a cash crunch. Modular nuclear reactors take uranium, or in some cases thorium, and produce steam for turbines via heat generated in fission reactions. That is pretty much how large nuclear power plants operate. The difference comes in manufacturing and construction.

Professor Kodama is the head of the Radioisotope Center at the University of Tokyo.Professor Kodama's anger is now directed toward the government's non-action to protect people, especially children and young mothers, from internal radiation exposure. His specialty is internal medicine using radioisotope, so he says he has done the intense research on internal radiation:

I have been in charge of antibody drugs at the Cabinet Office since Mr. Obuchi was the prime minister [1998-]. We put radioisotopes to antibody drugs to treat cancer. In other words, my job is to inject radioisotopes into human bodies, so my utmost concern is the internal radiation exposure and that is what I have been studying intensely.

The biggest problem of internal radiation is cancer. How does cancer happen? Because radiation cuts DNA strands. As you know, DNA is in a double helix. When it is in a double helix it is extremely stable. However, when a cell divides, the double helix becomes single strands, doubles and becomes 4 strands. This stage is the most vulnerable.

Kazue Tazaki is a professor emeritus at Kanazawa University in Ishikawa Prefecture. She took the contaminated soil from Iitate-mura in Fukushima Prefecture where the villagers were required to evacuate, and grew rice using that soil.Rice planting and growing was banned in Iitate-mura this year.Professor Tazaki just harvested the rice, and measured the concentration of cesium-137. The result?From the rice grains: 2,600 becquerels/kgFrom the straw: 2,200 becquerels/kgFrom the roots: 1,500 becquerels/kgSoil contamination: 50,000 becquerels/kgRoughly an equal amount of cesium-134 is to be expected. The transfer rate of cesium-137 in this case was about 0.05.

From Toyama Shinbun, local paper in Ishikawa Prefecture (9/27/2011):

Kazue Tazaki, professor emeritus at Kanazawa University has compiled the result of her experiment of growing rice using the soil from Iitate-mura in Fukushima Prefecture where high radiation levels have been recorded. 2,600 becquerels/kg of radioactive cesium was detected from the harvested rice, more than 5 times the provisional safety limit (500 becquerels/kg) set by the national government. It was prohibited to plant rice in Iitate-mura because of the Fukushima I Nuclear Power Plant accident. The professor's data will be extremely valuable in studying the effect of radiation in the soil on the agricultural crops.

Economies around the world continue to grow, and the need for electricity, near-carbon-free, reliable, and low-cost energy is growing tremendously. In order to reap the benefits of nuclear energy, to effectively bridge the demand supply gap for India and to also necessitate the need to bring the industry at one platform, UBM India is pleased to bring the 3rd edition of ‘India Nuclear Energy 2011’ – International Exhibition and Conference. India Nuclear Energy 2011 will be held from 29th September – 1st October, 2011 at the Bombay Exhibition Centre, Goregaon (East), Mu

India Nuclear Energy 2011 is co-partnered by Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), the nodal Government body in the Indian Nuclear Energy sector and Supported by Indian Nuclear Society (INS). The topic of discussion at the press conference revolved around India’s use of nuclear energy to meet growing electricity demand and to endorse programs to expand the peaceful use of nuclear energy while minimizing the risks of proliferation. The Conference provides a platform for luminaries from the power sector and the government to share their views on India’s Nuclear Power future. Mr. S.K. Malhotra, Department of Atomic Energy (Government of India), Mr. M.V. Kotwal, Senior Executive Vice-President and Director, L&T, Mr. Eric P. Loewen, President, American Nuclear Society, and Mr. Sanjeev Khaira, MD, UBM India, addressed the media.

Mr. Sanjeev Khaira, MD–UBM India said: “India’s effort has been to achieve continuous improvement and innovation in nuclear safety.  The basic principle being, for all projects the Government gives priority to people’s safety as generation of power. This is important at a time when we are in the process of expanding nuclear capacity at an incredible pace.” In tandem with the Asian peers India is recording a high growth rate and the demand for energy is always on the upper curve. India is facing an acute shortage of fuel, like the coal and gas. Primarily, India has coal-fired (thermal) stations; however the shortage is forcing the power producers to resort to importing coal, which is more expensive. This in turn has caused prices of power to increase and the shortage has also resulted in certain regions facing power failures.

Nuclear power is no magic solution, argues Pervez Hoodbhoy — it's not safe, or cheap, and it leads to weapons programmes. A string of energy-starved developing countries have looked at nuclear power as the magic solution. No oil, no gas, no coal needed – it's a fuel with zero air pollution or carbon dioxide emissions. High-tech and prestigious, it was seen as relatively safe. But then Fukushima came along. The disaster's global psychological impact exceeded Chernobyl's, and left a world that's now unsure if nuclear electricity is the answe

Core concerns The fire that followed the failure of emergency generators at the Daiichi nuclear complex raised the terrifying prospect of radiation leaking and spreading. The core of the Unit 1 reactor melted, and spent nuclear fuel, stored under pools of water, sprang to life as cooling pumps stopped. Fukushima's nuclear reactors had been built to withstand the worst, including earthquakes and tsunamis. Sensors successfully shut down the reactors, but when a wall of water 30 feet high crashed over the 20-foot protective concrete walls, electrical power, essential for cooling, was lost. The plume of radiation reached as far as Canada. Closer, it was far worse. Japan knows that swathes of its territory will be contaminated, perhaps uninhabitable, for the rest of the century. In July, for example, beef, vegetables, and ocean fish sold in supermarkets were found to have radioactive caesium in doses several times the safe level. [1]

The Japanese have been careful. In the country of the hibakusha (surviving victims of Hiroshima and Nagasaki), all reactors go through closer scrutiny than anywhere else. But this clearly wasn't enough. Other highly developed countries — Canada, Russia, UK, and US — have also seen serious reactor accidents. What does this mean for a typical developing country? There, radiation dangers and reactor safety have yet to enter public debate. Regulatory mechanisms are strictly controlled by the authorities, citing national security reasons. And individuals or nongovernmental organisations are forbidden from monitoring radiation levels near any nuclear facility. Poor and powerless village communities in India and Pakistan, that have suffered health effects from uranium and thorium mining, have been forced to withdraw their court cases.

A high-powered nuclear energy delegation from the United States, led by American Nuclear Society President Eric Loewen, is visiting India this week to participate in the Indo–U.S. Nuclear Energy Safety Summit being held here on September 30.

Explaining the objective ahead of his first ever visit to India, Loewen said, “Twenty of my ANS colleagues, who come from academia, the government, and industry will join me in seeing first-hand how India develops nuclear energy to provide safe, clean, and affordable electricity to a growing population and economy.”

Loewen added, “Of course, as a nuclear engineer, I am particularly eager to visit some of India’s leading nuclear sites.” Loewen’s delegation will tour the Indira Gandhi Atomic Research Centre and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) government sites, and will meet with government and industry officials in both Chennai and Mumbai. ANS last led a mission to India in 2007.

An increase in anti-nuclear sentiment after the Fukushima disaster in Japan in March has stalled India's ambitious plan for nuclear expansion. The plan, pushed forward by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, aims to use reactors imported from the United States, France and Russia to increase the country's nuclear-power capacity from the present 4,780 megawatts to 60,000 megawatts by 2035, and to provide one-quarter of the country's energy by 2050. But now there are doubts that the targets will ever be met if safety fears persist.

Officials say that safety precautions are sufficient to make the proposed reactors, some of which are to be sited along the coasts, immune to natural disasters. But protesters are not listening. In April, violent protests halted construction in Jaitapur in the western state of Maharashtra, where Parisian company Areva is expected to build six 1,650-megawatt European Pressurized Reactors. In August, West Bengal state refused permission for a proposed 6,000-megawatt 'nuclear park' near the town of Haripur, which was slated to host six Russian reactors. The state government said that the area is densely populated, and the hot water discharged from the plants would affect local fishing.

On 19 September, following hunger strikes by activists from the People's Movement Against Nuclear Technology, the chief minister of Tamil Nadu state asked Prime Minister Singh to halt work at Koodankulam, about 650 kilometres south of Chennai, where Russia's Atomstroyexport is building two reactors and plans to build four more.