Total Pageviews

Search This Blog

Friday, August 10, 2012

Why Don’t We Have Thorium Molten Salt Reactors Today?


A couple of weeks ago, I gave a speech on the wonders of thorium molten salt reactors to my Toastmasters club.  They were so impressed by the benefits  of the reactor, that they asked why we don't have them today.

That is a great question that deserves a great answer.  I did some research and discovered 8 reasons:

1.     Thorium did not support a bomb cycle.  Fission was discovered in 1939, just at WWII was starting.  "America's Greatest Generation" as some like to call them, chose to use the new discovery to create weapons of mass destruction.  The thorium fuel cycle was ignored because it did not lend itself to the building of bombs; uranium and plutonium did.  Therefore, those fuels were developed and later turned to peaceful uses. 

2.      Right after WWII US Navy Admiral Rickover wanted an atomic powered submarine.  For expeditious reasons he chose solid, uranium fueled reactors.  This was partly because of the precious decisions made by the Manhattan project, which developed the uranium and plutonium bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  This also led to the design (uranium and solid fuel) of the first commercial nuclear power plant at Shippingport, PA. 

3.      This further established vendors in the nuclear industry as providers of solid fuel for uranium light water reactors. 

4.      Since the Manhattan project, scientists had underestimated the world's supply of uranium.  There turned out to be a lot more than they thought. 

5.      However, this supposed shortage of uranium led the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) to develop liquid metal fast breeder reactors using uranium instead of thermal spectrum reactors using thorium.  Again thorium got snubbed. 

6.      Of course, the need for ever more plutonium for bombs during the cold War also figured greatly into the decision to develop liquid metal fast breeders. 

7.      This was one major reason the thorium molten salt project at Oak Ridge National Lab was canceled, even though the benefits of the reactor were touted by the developers.  The molten salt reactor was canceled to free up more funds for the liquid metal fast breeder reactor. 

8.      Abundant, clean, limitless fuel for mass prosperity across the world.  Does ExxonMobil really want this?  What about the rest of the oil companies?  Do you think they want to see their revenue decline by a factor of about a *million? The world consumes about 85 million barrels per day at about ~$100 per barrel that equals about $3.1 trillion per year, for oil alone.  What about coal and gas companies?  Here are the top 10 oil companies in the world.  Notice that Exxon is number 5 at nearly $500 billion per year in revenue.

1.      Saudi Aramco
2.      National Iranian Oil Company
3.      Petroleos Mexicanos
4.      Iraq National Oil Company
5.      Exxon Mobil ($490 billion revenue in 2011)
6.      BP
7.      Petrochina
8.      Abu Dhabi National Oil Company
9.      Kuwait Oil
10.  Petroleos de Venezuela

*I figured that oil company revenue would decline by a factor equal to the density factor between chemical reactions and nuclear reactions; about a million.  Nuclear is a million times more concentrated than chemical fuel (coal, gas, and oil).  So, a million times less fuel is needed.

Now you see why the coal, gas, and oil companies are always sponsoring negative reporting about nuclear power - raw, self interest masquerading as "green" concern for the planet against evil radiation.

No comments:

Post a Comment