[Texgreen] Thorium makes smarter reactors than uranium

[Roger Baker]

With global warming a factor, it may make sense to turn toward  
nuclear reactors as the better alternative compared to coal. That  
being the case, thorium makes a lot of sense compared to uranium  
because thorium is much more abundant than uranium (its about as  
abundant as lead), plus it produces less nuclear waste and there is  
no need to concentrate the best isotope. Plus it needs a neutron  
source at its core and the plutonium from dismantled nuclear warheads  
could be recycled in this way. In short, lots of advantages, except  
the nuclear industry sees no economic incentive to switch until the  
already soaring price of uranium soars even higher.

India has has been testing a thorium breeder reactor (note that all  
reactors are breeders to some degree) for more than a decade:

<http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/index.html?http://www10.antenna.nl/wise/ 
461/4577.html>

-- Roger

                      **************************************************

<http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,68045-0.html>

Thorium Fuels Safer Reactor Hopes

By Amit Asaravala| Also by this reporter
02:00 AM Jul, 05, 2005

Fueling nuclear reactors with the element thorium instead of uranium  
could produce half as much radioactive waste and reduce the  
availability of weapons-grade plutonium by as much as 80 percent. But  
the nuclear power industry needs more incentives to make the switch,  
experts say.

Scientists have long considered using thorium as a reactor fuel --  
and for good reason: The naturally occurring element is more  
abundant, more efficient and safer to use than uranium. Plus, thorium  
reactors leave behind very little plutonium, meaning that governments  
have access to less material for making nuclear weapons.

But design challenges and a Cold War-era interest in using nuclear  
waste byproducts in atomic bombs pushed the industry to use uranium  
as its primary fuel.

Now, as governments look to prevent the proliferation of nuclear arms  
and as environmentalists want to reduce the volume of nuclear waste  
building up around the world, thorium is again drawing attention.

Over the past several years, studies in the United States and Russia  
have yielded solutions to some of the issues that troubled earlier  
researchers. And in January, India -- which has the world's second  
largest reserve of thorium behind Australia --announced it would  
begin testing the safety of a design of its own.

The anticipated surge in demand for thorium has led at least one  
mining company to begin buying as many thorium deposits and  
stockpiles as it can.

"We feel that it's inevitable that the U.S. and other countries in  
the world -- India of course -- will exclusively use thorium in the  
future," said Novastar Director of Strategic Planning Seth Shaw.

But there's just one problem: The nuclear power industry has already  
built its infrastructure around uranium and has little reason to  
invest in changing it, according to Mujid Kazimi, director of MIT's  
Center for Advanced Nuclear Energy Systems.

"This is a market economy so the economics will have to be in favor  
for thorium to move that way," said Kazimi. "It could take another 50  
years for us to reach the level where uranium prices are so high that  
thorium looks attractive."

As an interim solution, the United States could change the way it  
charges power plants for the nuclear waste that they produce, said  
Kazimi.

Currently, waste fees are calculated as a fraction of the cost of the  
electricity that is produced by the fuel. Kazimi proposes charging by  
the volume of plutonium instead, so as to discourage its creation.

"Right now, it doesn't matter how large the fuel waste is," said  
Kazimi. "But if the government comes in and says we're going to  
increase fees in terms of waste in proportion to plutonium content,  
that will push for thorium."

Seth Grae, president of nuclear fuel development firm Thorium Power,  
said he supported the idea in principle. But he cautioned that it  
wouldn't be fair if the change resulted in an overall fee increase.

"Power plant operators decided to build and run their reactors based  
on one cost, and you can't just change the rules on them," he said.

Grae suggested that public-private partnerships could provide a  
better alternative by funding the development of new technologies and  
showing the benefits of thorium in action.

For instance, Thorium Power has been working with Russian researchers  
to find ways to dispose of stockpiles of weapons-grade plutonium by  
burning it in thorium reactors. In March, the House voted to give $5  
million to the project.

If such demonstrations aren't enough to encourage thorium use, Grae  
noted that the change could be driven by customers from the bottom  
up. As deregulation allows multiple electric providers to compete in  
a region, customers are increasingly getting to choose where to spend  
their money. This means customers can essentially use their money to  
vote for companies that invest in responsible technologies, said Grae.

The tactic has worked before. For instance, in the 1980s the tuna  
industry switched to fishing methods that killed fewer dolphins after  
consumers stopped buying cans missing the "dolphin safe" label.

"When customers choose who their electric provider is, that's a very  
powerful thing," said Grae.