Posted on 02/20/2011 1:02:34 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
An abundant metal with vast energy potential could quickly wean the world off oil, if only Western political leaders would muster the will to do it, a UK newspaper says today. The Telegraph makes the case for thorium reactors as the key to a fossil-fuel-free world within five years, and puts the ball firmly in President Barack Obama's court.
Thorium, named for the Norse god of thunder, is much more abundant than uranium and has 200 times that metal's energy potential. Thorium is also a more efficient fuel source -- unlike natural uranium, which must be highly refined before it can be used in nuclear reactors, all thorium is potentially usable as fuel.
The Telegraph says thorium could be used as an energy amplifier in next-generation nuclear power plants, an idea conceived by Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, former director of CERN.
Known as an accelerator-driven system, it would use a particle accelerator to produce a proton beam and aim it at lump of heavy metal, producing excess neutrons. Thorium is a good choice because it has a high neutron yield per neutron absorbed.
Thorium nuclei would absorb the excess neutrons, resulting in uranium-233, a fissile isotope that is not found in nature. Moderated neutrons would produce fissioned U-233, which releases enough energy to power the particle accelerator, plus an excess that can drive a power plant. Rubbia says a fistful of thorium could light up London for a week.
The idea needs refining, but is so promising that at least one private firm is getting involved. The Norwegian firm Aker Solutions bought Rubbia's patent for this thorium fuel cycle, and is working on his design for a proton accelerator.
The Telegraph says this $1.8 billion (£1.2 billion) project could lead to a network of tiny underground nuclear reactors, producing about 600 MW each. Their wee size would negate the enormous security apparatus required of full-size nuclear power plants.
After a three-decade lull, nuclear power is enjoying a slow renaissance in the U.S. The 2005 energy bill included $2 billion for six new nuclear power plants, and this past February, Obama announced $8.3 billion in loan guarantees for new nuclear plants.
But nuclear plants need fuel, which means building controversial uranium mines. Thorium, on the other hand, is so abundant that it's almost an annoyance. It's considered a waste product when mining for rare-earth metals.
Thorium also solves the non-proliferation problem. Nuclear non-proliferation treaties (NPT) prohibit processes that can yield atomic bomb ingredients, making it difficult to refine highly radioactive isotopes. But thorium-based accelerator-driven plants only produce a small amount of plutonium, which could allow the U.S. and other nations to skirt NPT.
The Telegraph says Obama needs a Roosevelt moment, recalling the famous breakfast meeting when Albert Einstein convinced the president to start the Manhattan Project. A thorium stimulus could be just what the lagging economy needs.
We’re going to have to just start doing things without the “permission” of the dung-beetle-in-chief or his clueless minions.
Who they gonna call when we do? The military?
Like they’re gonna obey that piece of sewage.
Their oath is to protect the constitution not the the head t*rd.
You said it. What they really hate is that we have the freedom to chose abundant affordable energy from any source without their consent.
This is a prospect that could bring prosperity to the US and the world.
Sorry, but Obama has no intentions to bring about prosperity.
You completely nailed it, word for word - a great summary. If we ever re-write the Constitution, we should put in a section that bans Socialism in any form, and put your words in one of the justifying documents, kind of like the Federalist Papers. Good job.
Ain't that the truth.
He'll find a way to ban thorium next.
We need look no farther than to find the names of the venture capitalists who wish to sell this to some government. Preferably a government in need of some dirty bombs.
Can you see the EPA regs on the lead shielding required?
A snowball’s chance in Hell is a better proposition.
“...Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years...”
Maybe somewhere else....but not in the USA! Due to studies, EPA regulations and all of the other crap and hoops that American industry has to go through before building anything, it would be at least 20 years before completion of all of the law suits, environmental studies, and the rest of the useless “blood sucking” regulations and requirements before ground could even be broken for any project. After that, another 20 years would go by before the project was completed due to other things that would drag it down, only to have the original cost multiplied by 1,000,000 times due to these wonderful “mines” planted by the strokes of a governmental pen.
“The rule of thumb is that if a thing is good for America, Barry won’t do it; if it’s bad for America, he will.”
Good point. If it actually shows merit, there is NO WAY today’s Democrats will be able to support it.
an experimental thorium ran successfully for a couple of years in Oak Ridge, TN in the late 1950’s, so the basic engineering and science are proven.
So your sarcasm is baseless.
Currently, in the US, the largest barrier - after regulatory
red-tape - is personnel. If ever Nuclear Reactors - Uranium-based or Thorium-based - are to be built, Chinese, Russian and Indian engineers have to be brought in. The thorium reactors still need uranium for the trigger mechanism.
Besides the PS article is from 2010. Old news.
All that depends on the particle energy you want or need to achieve. (Which, btw, is independent of the particle mass. Running a proton through 500 kV will yield 500 keV protons, same for electrons - though the latter will be faster...)
Remember CRT TVs and monitors? Very compact electron accelerators.
But, looking at the requirements for a proton accelerator to create neutrons in a Rubbia type energy amplifier, you're likely correct: about 800 MeV to 1 GeV are needed, which requires a non-trivial proton accelerator.
“dung-beetle-in-chief”
That’s really good.
I don’t know about that. If it was successful in 1950, why don’t we have thorium reactors now? There was similar hype about cold fusion a few years ago and it turned out to be pure fraud for research dollars. My sarcasm is reserved for the hyped headlines that it would replace oil in 5 years. In effect, no it would not. Nothing would replace oil for at least 30 years because of the infrastructure involved. I doubt that you could plant a reactor on the back of your car. I have seen so many “announcements” like this through the years that it makes me laugh. Why would the pressure be on Obama???? Just someone asking for funding, in my opinion.
I remember that the "nuclear Boy Scout" got his thorium from gas mantles. Would those have been Coleman brand?
Not so tiny, the Folsom Dam in California, for instance, produces about the same amount of power.
***Now, a Thorium reactor, retrofitted into my 2007 Mustang GT, with heavy duty motors to handle the load......nonstop fun from coast-to-coast without fueling...awesome.***
Don’t bet on it! Remember all those rumors of Pogue carburators and GT Energy Chambers back in the 1960s and 70s which could get 200 miles from a gallon of gas, or could turn water into fuel?
The rumors said the oil companies bought up the rights to these carburators to keep people using more oil.
Personally I don’t believe a word of it.
Coleman stopped using thorium during the 1990s, iirc, but
"Coleman" is a brand name, and almost certainly more expensive
than a generic replacement product.
Not unless they make them small enough to fit in cars and they pee lubricant and poop plastic.
Oil is used for a lot of things besides energy.
However I think such a network would be a fine idea because it would cut down on energy lost in transition and it would allow greater localized control of power.
***I do remember them saying it was calibrated using a Coleman
Lantern mantle. They were not happy campers after
observing that...****
I remember years ago when THE MOTHER EARTH NEWS went bonkers over Nuclear power and Coleman lantern mantles.
I also remember when I bought this old farm house, My anti-nuke hypocondriac mother-in-law asked, while I was eating an apple, if I wasn’t afraid of ALAR!
And my worthless hypocondriac Brother-in-law (If you know him he probably owes you money) looked at me wild eyed and said, “ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE YOUR HOUSE TESTED FOR RADON?”
“NO and NO!” was my reply.
Coleman lantern mantles, ALAR and stray magnetic fields from electrical wiring. What is the next FAD to worry the earthers.
Oh yes, GLO-BULL WARMING!
I have no problem with nuclear power done right. The article proposes a network of thousands of ‘tiny’ reactors requiring no security. That is a stupid idea.
If we build nuclear plants, and we should have never stopped, they need to be secure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.