Thorium lives!

[Peter Ward]

I have long been a fan of Thorium based nuclear power.

Despite decades of vested interested and naysayers, China has just announced a game breaking clean energy achievement. They now have a working Thorium cycle reactor.

The US first developed the process in the late 1950/early 1960's, but abandoned Thorium reactors in the 1970's (as it is no good for the fossil fuel industry or making Nukes) but left their research in the public domain.

China picked up their research and played the long game. Kudos to them.

They now have a working system that is safe, cheap and scalable: big cities/ small towns/container ships can all use this technology which is significantly safer and cheaper than Gen 4 uranium reactors AND produces almost no waste.

I doubt the SMH, Australian or tabloid TV news will run with this "moon-landing" moment. I suspect they simply don't understand its significance.


Link here
https://interestingengineering.com/energy/china-builds-world-first-thorium-reactor?group=test_b

[anthony2302749]

If it was dress up as Christopher Hemsworth the media may pay attention. See what I did there, Christopher Hemsworth, Thor, Thorium :rofl::rofl::rofl:

[gregbradley]

Thanks for pointing out this technology. That is a big breakthrough. I remember when you posted about this tech a few years ago.

As I recall Thorium is very abundant and the US has enough of it to last them 300 years.

Greg.

[DarkArts]

Valhalla or Ragnarök?

Thorium has been looked at many times over decades. As a nuclear fuel, it has certain attractive properties but also has its own problems:
https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/
https://www.nsenergybusiness.com/news/newsmajor-pros-and-cons-of-thorium-nuclear-power-reactor-6058445/
https://www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear-power-plant/reactor-types/thorium-reactor/advantage-and-disadvantages-of-thorium-reactors-pros-and-cons/
https://www.nature.com/articles/492031a

Although there have been useful developments, and this one is interesting, there's also an awful lot of hype (see any number of YT videos) around Thorium reactors that I've been tracking for years.

In the Chinese development, the scale vs timeframe isn't that impressive. The current reactor is 2 MW - roughly the output of a diesel generator (https://www.cat.com/en_US/products/new/power-systems/electric-power/diesel-generator-sets/1000028937.html). The next iteration, in around 2030, will be 10 MW. That's tiny - a typical power station is 1000 - 2000 MW and a typical nuclear reactor for power is in the same range. In the same timeframe, the US plans to deploy Uranium-based micro-reactors (up to 10 MW) on multiple military bases:
https://www.ans.org/news/article-6931/us-advances-microreactor-program-for-military-sites/

Meanwhile, in comparison, every wind farm in Australia is several times larger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wind_farms_in_Australia), and they're relatively small on the world stage (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_onshore_wind_farms). Moreover, we already install more solar capacity each year (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_power_in_Australia) than any single nuclear reactor - just establishing scale here, not pushing one over the other.

Thorium reactors may have their place in the long-term - and the theoretical promise (such as for waste re-processing) is good if the problems can be solved - but the relevance for Australia is nearly zero, so it would be unusual for any Australian news outlet to cover the development in a prominent way. IMHO, it's not the 'moon landing' moment that some advocates want you to believe - everybody is trying to sell you something - but it is interesting.

[Peter Ward]

Certainly, one swallow does not a summer make, yet the Chinese look to have solved most, if not all, problems with the Thorium cycle.

Australia has abundant reserves of the stuff.....and the scalability of these reactors allows you to place them where power is needed without the "poles and wires" that stretch over the horizon.

Given recent events in Ukraine, you only need to look at the strategic value of decentralised energy that is on tap 24/7.

P.S. We have 11kw of PV solar on our roof, with 28Kw of battery storage, so I've heavily invested in renewables....but there are days when it still falls short. Thorium (read cheap/clean grid power) for me is a no-brainer.

[DarkArts]

I figured that's where you were going with this, which is why I responded.


I agree wholeheartedly with distributed/decentralised power, but disagree strongly that Thorium, or any, nuclear reactors are the solution for Australia.


I disagree strongly. I do not "read cheap/clean grid power" at all. Regardless of whether the reactor is powered by Thorium (which is never Thorium alone) or Uranium (which is never Uranium alone), it's still a nuclear reactor. It still requires a nuclear industry (that we don't have), fuel cycle management, waste management (which may be easier then Uranium, but it's still there), proliferation protection (still a problem if less so than Uranium), safety management (not necessarily better in reality and in the short-term than Uranium, depending on reactor type), and, above all, construction of reactors - an enormous endeavour of eye-watering cost on the scale required. As I mentioned, there is considerable hype around Thorium - I've been following the argument for 25 years or so - it's interesting, has some advantages, but is no panacea.

And whether it's 10, 100 or 1000 reactors, that's nowhere near as decentralised as 5+ million (or more) solar rooftops and batteries and thousands of community-scale batteries not to mention the rest of the renewable sources and other storage mechanisms.

I have no problem with the safety aspects - Australia is a smart and stable country that I'm confident could implement the required regulatory regime and uphold rigorous engineering standards given enough time and money - but the economics and required timeframes rule out nuclear energy regardless of fuel or reactor type.

In Australia, through to 2050 and probably long after, there is no way in hell that nuclear power is cost-effective when compared to renewables, firming and storage. Australia does not need nuclear power.

But it is interesting, and for that, thanks for posting.

(Just for info: I'm actually pro nuclear-powered subs, but that's a different argument altogether. Even so, in the end, the economics of that venture may not add up either).

[Peter Ward]

Suggesting thorium salt reactors will increase nuclear proliferation is a stretch to say the least. Here's Wiki's take.

"a thorium reactor's plutonium production rate would be less than 2 percent of that of a standard reactor, and the plutonium's isotopic content would make it unsuitable for a nuclear detonation."

As for the other points you raise, regarding safey/cost, given a sample of one, at this point they are rather moot. No one really knows what the cost will be, but the Physics of salt reactors is such that
it is impossible to have nuclear meltdown or hydrogen explosion (i.e. Fukushima). They operate at or close to atmospheric pressure rather than the 75–150x that of a typical light water reactor.

The Wuwei prototype can provide energy for around 1,000 homes. The cost was reportedly $500 million. Not bad for a prototype. Peanuts really, as the NBN has cost Australia about $60 Billion to date. (and I'm still on fibre to the node!)

One would expect an order of magnitude improvement with commercial production. It is however the world's first nuclear molten-salt reactor and its 100 MW successor is expected to be 3 meters tall and 2.5 meters wide, yet capable of providing energy to 100,000 homes (hardly "small").

I'd rather see a regional town's energy provided by a small soccer-field sized facility than endless rows of wind turbines, and square kilometres of PV panels blighting the landscape.

Interestingly ANSTO worked with the Chinese to develop the nickel alloy that was pivotal for the Wuwei facility. Saying "never" around here may prove foolish ;)

[DarkArts]

I didn't say 'increase'. But there is a proliferation issue as dirty-bomb or high-grade material can still be processed and it therefore requires monitoring. Renewables obviously do not have this problem, not to mention the risks from terrorist or military attack (which you may scoff at, but terrorism is at the top of the list of risks for nuclear countries and as for risks from military attacks, see Ukraine). However, in peacetime, as I said, I think Australia could manage these problems.


Not the only risks. And I'm well aware that Thorium is fertile not fissile (one of its main attractive points) but it still requires a neutron source to achieve criticality. Why introduce these risks at all if you don't have to?


Simple maths would suggest that the cost to power Australia's 10+ million homes is therefore $5+ trillion. And when will the technology be commercially ready? And what is the cost and timeframe to build the supporting industry in Australia (or do you want us to be beholden to China for our power)? And what is the cost of managing the fuel cycle? And, most of all, how long would it take to build and commission so many reactors even once the project gets started? Would there even be a single Thorium reactor online by 2050 in Australia given the technology is still in prototype?

Since you seem to like Wikipedia, see the Levelised Cost of Energy (LCOE) charts here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

Not to hand, but studies in Australia also show that renewables are dramatically cheaper than nuclear and getting cheaper still.


It was 10MW in the article. The facility itself is far larger and there is no account for support facilities or fuel cycle management.


Of course, you're entitled to your own preferences, though I think that is a rather extreme take.


Australia at one time invented the world's most efficient PV cell. The multi-billion Chinese PV industry is largely based on Australian research. So what?


I stand by my statement that there is no way in hell that nuclear power is cost-effective against renewables in Australia through to 2050 and probably long after. Note my emphasis - I've been very clear about that. What other countries do, when they already have a nuclear industry and stockpiles of uranium waste, and far less access to renewable energy, is a different matter.

Clearly, you want to believe in nuclear power for Australia. That's your right. In the end, though, someone has to pay for it.

[Peter Ward]

I'd not be in favour of MSR's if they could not be made cost effective, but as I said, the cost will almost certainly fall by an order of magnitude or more once
"mass produced" designs are developed.

I think you vastly overstate the "risks". Rocks also fall from space, but I don't wear a hard hat while gardening. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that :).

Having a diverse energy mix would be far more prudent than only renewables which have large real estate footprints and simply don't work well during extreme weather events, which are sadly becoming more frequent as our atmosphere gains more energy due ever increasing CO2 levels.

As a matter of nation building/ self reliance I'd very much like Australia not rely on China (BTW I think the USA is buggered) and commence our own MSR research/production and possibly export locally produced systems. This clearly will not happen anytime soon, but I believe it should be a national goal and is achievable by mid-century.