The Atomic Show #040 - Thorium power - interview with Kirk Sorensen
Thorium is a nuclear fuel source with a lot of potential. Kirk Sorensen blogs at Energy from Thorium; he talked with Rod and Shane on December 5, 2006
(MP3 - 15.7 MB - 46 min)
[audio:http://atomic.thepodcastnetwork.com/audio/tpn_atomic_20061205_040.mp3]
Listen to Atomic Show #040 Here!
Thorium is a heavy metal that is not directly useful as a nuclear reactor fuel. In certain kinds of reactors, however, it can provide high quality heat for a very long time.
Kirk Sorensen became intrigued with thorium fueled reactors after reading about the Light Water Breeder on Atomic Insights. (Disclosure - Rod Adams is the primary author of the articles on Atomic Insights.) He now blogs at Energy from Thorium. Kirk has provided an incredible resource for the world by gathering a number of papers from Oak Ridge and other national laboratories that discuss the technical details of a number of different thorium reactor concepts.
As someone once said, there is a word for interesting people that are one important step removed from crazy - that word is passion. Kirk has a passion for thorium and sees it as a way to overcome many arguments against the use of nuclear power.
Warning - this conversation gets into enough technical detail to excite hard core geeks, but we try to go back and explain our thoughts in more accessible English.
December 10th, 2006 at 6:56 am
It’s clear from the discussion above that essentially only two kind of reactors can use thorium cycle: CANDU heavy water reactor and HTGR in the form of “pebbles” or block type like those developed in Germany and Us.LWR (like Shippingport experience showed) are not excluded,but if I understood correctly,are less efficient
So is it possible to compare HWR and HTR fuel economy regarding thorium use?
IMHO,heavy water is a better moderator than graphite,although helium or other gases allow higher temperatures/thermal efficiencies;on the other hand,HTR have higher burn-ups than HWR which enhance conversion/breeding.However,HWR fuels are far simpler than TRISO to reprocess.
It’s not worthless to note that India choices heavy water reactor to developed its ambitious thorium strategy,of course without forget fast breeders program
http://in.rediff.com/news/2005/aug/25nuke.htm
http://www.indiaenews.com/business/20061205/31242.htm
December 11th, 2006 at 6:44 pm
Of course I don’t forget molten salt reactors
December 11th, 2006 at 7:41 pm
Alessio:
It is certainly possible to compare HWR and HTR fuel economies and to add in comparisons to other coolant possibilities.
There are probably papers on Kirk’s Energy from Thorium blog that do a reasonable job in making those kinds of reactor distinctions.
For my money, the more interesting question is the overall practicality and profitability of the application. Though it may not be the most “fuel efficient” use, there is a serious company (Thorium Power, Ltd. with a plan to use thorium in existing light water reactors because it sees that as a significant market - there are 440 operating light water reactors in the world that all need fuel on a regular (if some infrequent) basis.
There is certainly also opportunity for thorium in pebble bed reactors - after all, the second German pebble bed reactor was called the THTR - Thorium High Temperature Reactor. However, any company that wants to sell thorium based fuel soon will not spend too much time on this yet, since there is a tiny market for pebble bed reactor fuel.
January 2nd, 2007 at 1:50 am
Thanx Rod for your response.To use in existing LWR is certainly the best thing to do in the short time
However,it could be interesting to look at other strategies;for example I found some numbers in these docs regarding thorium use in LWR and German pebble beds
http://www.iaea.org/inis/aws/fnss/abstracts/abst_te_1319_18.html
http://www.nea.fr/html/science/docs/1976/neacrp-l-1976-169.pdf
“Near breeding” is achievable in pebble bed reactors (conversio ratio in the order of 0,97 in the uranium 233-thorium cycle),while in LWR according to the second doc
“the 233U-232Th fuel consumes only 12 kg/TWh of uranium (85 kg/TWh of 235U in a conventional uranium fuel)”. I’m not very sure about the uranium cycle value (85 kg/TWh ?),but it’s important to note that thorium is not only an “other” energy source,but definitely a “better” energy source than uranium
January 8th, 2007 at 2:37 pm
Hi, I just wanted to invite everyone who’s interested in this subject to participate in the
Energy from Thorium Discussion Forum
Energy from Thorium Weblog
March 12th, 2007 at 6:34 am
do you think investing in thorium laden land is a practical idea?
July 12th, 2008 at 6:50 am
What is the difference between a Thorium reactor and a fast neutron or integral fast reactor?
August 15th, 2008 at 6:49 am
What company/mine along the idaho border has this reserve of thorium? Perhaps “thorium power” will continue its relations beyond the “UEA” into the thorium rich India and someday gain the recognition that this thorium deserves.
August 20th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
John:
Sorry it has taken me a while to get around to responding - you can find the information that you want regarding the Lehmi Pass thorium deposit on the Thorium Energy web site.