Nuclear Options
Scanning the news, you will find several signs the U.S. is preparing for war with Iran. There has been a build-up of U.S. Naval ships in the gulf for some time, but recently things seem to be coming to a head. Plans for attacking Iran seem to be well established, and the White House appears to be softening up public opinion in preparation for war. For example the U.S. military has accused Iran of supplying Iraqi insurgents with roadside bombs, though this has not been independently verified.
I have to admit when I read such accusations I get the feeling of “fool me twice…uh…can’t get fooled again.” The White House stance against Iran plays like Iraq redux, so I’m inclined to take their assertions against Iran with a large grain of salt. Still, it is very clear why the U.S. is nervous about Iran: Iran is developing nuclear power.
For its part, Iran claims its development of nuclear technology is purely peaceful. In fairness, this could be true. There are lots of advantages to nuclear power, even for an oil-rich country such as Iran. If Iran were to develop nuclear power, it would give Iran greater flexibility in developing an industrial base in our information age. If Iran were forced to rely only on its oil resources, it would have a much harder time entering the 21st century. This is particularly true if the world wises up to global warming and demand for Iran’s greatest natural resource wanes. So Iran is perfectly justified in wanting to develop peaceful nuclear power.
Of course it could also be true that Iran will simply use their nuclear plants to make nuclear weapons. It would be phenomenally easy to do, and Iran has plenty of reasons for wanting to join the “big boom” club.
Therein lies the rub. On the one hand, nuclear fission is an extremely powerful source of energy. On the other hand, going from power source to weapon is relatively easy to do. Historically, the U.S. has dealt with this issue by dividing the world into friend and foe. Those countries we like, such as Israel, are given nuclear power, which they quietly (or not so quietly) use to make weapons on the side. Those countries we don’t like, such as Iran, are forbidden to have nuclear power of any kind. Given the ease in transforming peaceful technology into weapons of war, it would seem to be the only option.
But it’s not.
What if I told you there was a type of nuclear power generator that was poorly suited for making weapons grade nuclear material?
What if I told you this kind of generator creates less than half the radioactive waste of regular power stations?
What if I told you this type of power generator can burn the plutonium waste from traditional power plants?
What if I told you this type of power station couldn’t melt-down the way Chernobyl did?
Sounds too good to be true, doesn’t it. It isn’t. In fact we have known about this technology for decades.
Traditional nuclear power is based upon uranium. The alternative is based on thorium. You probably haven’t heard of thorium. It is the element with an atomic number of 90, whereas uranium has an atomic number of 92. Both are metallic solids, both are radioactive, and both occur in the Earth’s crust in significant quantities. In fact of the two thorium is more plentiful by a factor of three.
Despite its advantages, thorium is more difficult to use. Unlike certain uranium isotopes, thorium does not undergo spontaneous fission. This is why a thorium meltdown is impossible, but it also makes it much trickier to induce a nuclear reaction with thorium. But while traditional uranium-based power plants generate plutonium (the stuff of weapons), thorium-based power plants only generate uranium. Thorium nuclear power is really only useful for generating power, which is the other reason why you’ve never heard of it.
The U.S. could allow Iran to have nuclear power. It would give Iran the advantages of nuclear energy without the risks of traditional uranium. But to walk such a path would require a huge political shift for both countries. The U.S. would have to work with Iran to develop the technology, and Iran would have to be open and honest about its nuclear ambitions.
To be honest, I don’t think Iran’s intentions are purely peaceful. I don’t think they would accept a U.S. offer to develop thorium power. But I do think the U.S. would be in a stronger political position if they made such an offer.
Be Brave. Be Human.
Brian
February 13th, 2007 22:12
This is a beautiful idea. Ever since Iran started making noise about its need for nuclear fuel I’ve been wondering if any country would step up and do the logical thing: offer to give it to them. In the long and short run, providing Iran with its fuel needs would be much less expensive than sanctions, hostility and war. If they refused the offer, as you suggest, it would expose the hypocrisy of their intentions clearly to all the world.
But I didn’t know there was an even more brilliant alternative to enriched uranium. Wonderful thought.
February 13th, 2007 23:04
Welcome, David!
Hardly anyone is familiar with thorium as a nuclear power source. To be honest, it isn’t a panacea. There are technical difficulties involved, as well as the same drawbacks with any nuclear material. Still, from what I know of it thorium seems to be a much better alternative. It is unfortunate that its development hasn’t been encouraged more.
Brian
February 14th, 2007 00:55
sounds like a great idea. just one thing… if the result from thorium fission is uranium, can’t that be used to make plutonium? I’m no physicist, just looking at the facts you presented and wondering… is it the wrong kind of uranium for further procesing or what? on a more political slant, why is this country (congress in particular) allowing Bush to do this again?
February 14th, 2007 09:06
Regarding “Nuclear Options” (2007-02-14), there is absolutely no need for nuclear power in Iran or anywhere else in the Middle East (or Europe or North Africa or the USA) because there is a simple mature technology available that can deliver huge amounts of clean energy without any of the headaches of nuclear power.
I refer to ‘concentrating solar power’ (CSP), the technique of concentrating sunlight using mirrors to create heat, and then using the heat to raise steam and drive turbines and generators, just like a conventional power station. It is possible to store solar heat in melted salts so that electricity generation may continue through the night or on cloudy days. This technology has been generating electricity successfully in California since 1985 and half a million Californians currently get their electricity from this source. CSP plants are now being planned or built in many parts of the world.
CSP works best in hot deserts and, of course, these are not always nearby! But it is feasible and economic to transmit solar electricity over very long distances using highly-efficient ‘HVDC’ transmission lines. With transmission losses at about 3% per 1000 km, solar electricity may, for example, be transmitted from North Africa to London with only about 10% loss of power. A large-scale HVDC transmission grid has also been proposed by the wind energy company Airtricity as a means of optimising the use of wind power throughout Europe. A recent report from the American Solar Energy Society says that CSP plants in the south western states of the US “could provide nearly 7,000 GW of capacity, or ***about seven times the current total US electric capacity***” (emphasis added).
CSP offers substantial benefits to people in North Africa and the Middle East, including desalination of sea water using waste heat from electricity generation - a major benefit in arid regions. In addition, the shaded areas under the solar mirrors can be used for many purposes including horticulture using desalinated sea water. And of course, there would be plentiful supplies of inexpensive, pollution-free electricity and earnings from the export of that electricity to countries with less sunshine.
In the ‘TRANS-CSP’ report commissioned by the German government, it is estimated that CSP electricity, imported from North Africa and the Middle East, could become one of the cheapest sources of electricity in Europe, including the cost of transmission. That report shows in great detail how Europe can meet all its needs for electricity, make deep cuts in CO2 emissions, and phase out nuclear power at the same time.
Further information about CSP may be found at http://www.trec-uk.org.uk and http://www.trecers.net . Copies of the TRANS-CSP report may be downloaded from http://www.trec-uk.org.uk/reports.htm . The many problems associated with nuclear power are summarised at http://www.mng.org.uk/green_house/no_nukes.htm .
February 14th, 2007 22:00
Is the risk worth the reward?
February 14th, 2007 23:45
Welcome, tomawesome.
It is possible to make plutonium from the waste uranium of a thorium reactor, but it is much harder to do. The standard uranium reactors actually make plutonium simply as a part of the process. The thorium reactors don’t due this, and the uranium they make is a “light” uranium rather than a “heavy” uranium. It is the heavy stuff that leads to plutonium.
So it can be done, but it is far from easy. And the type of equipment you would need to do it would be much harder to hide.
February 14th, 2007 23:52
Gerry,
Welcome to BraveHumans!
You make an excellent point on the alternative I specifically avoided in the post. I stepped around the issue of alternative energy in the post simply to avoid comparing apples and oranges.
You are right, there are alternatives to nuclear power, and these may eliminate the nuclear option. It would be interesting if the U.S. made an offer of CSP technology to Iran in exchange for stopping its nuclear program. But again, this would require a open discussion with Iran, which the White House seems to be against.
February 14th, 2007 23:55
Welcome, political grind.
Risk vs. reward is a tough one. In this case, I honestly don’t know.
February 15th, 2007 17:26
That’s an interesting insight about thorium. I hope it will be put to use by other countries that need and want to develop nuclear power. I don’t agree making useful nuclear weapons is quite as easy as you make it out to be.
However, in Iran’s case such concerns are probably beside the point. You have to begin by asking, “What do the Iranians want?”
Common sense indicates they’re not desperate for low-cost energy. They’ve got the kind of oil reserves we wish we had. Enough to tide them over indefinitely.
The assumption in Washington and Jerusalem is that the Iranians want a first-strike nuclear capability. With it, the conventional neocon wisdom goes, they will vaporize the Zionists who occupy Palestine and establish a radical Islamic caliphate that extends across the Mideast. Or if not that, the Iranians at least plan to perpetrate nuclear blackmail. Whatever their immediate aims, they’re supposedly pursuing an ultimate goal of total world domination.
I said after the fall of the Soviet Union that it would only be a matter of time before the John Birchers and other radical right-wing types come up with another ominous, monolithic foreign threat that’s supposedly on the march to destroy and enslave us. Sure enough. . .
Being realistic, though, it doesn’t take a doctorate in international relations to figure out such an undertaking would be suicidal for the Iranians. Just as important, it doesn’t take a degree in psychiatry to be confident they know it would be suicidal.
What they’re really after is a sensible, workable concept we pursued with overall success for 45 years: deterrence.
Look at the world through Iranian eyes and what do you see?
Across the way you’ve got Israel, which has the toughest military in the region, has nuclear weapons, and has pursued an aggressive policy of expansion and reprisal against enemies. What’s more, Israel has successfully perpetrated a pre-emptive sneak attack before — against Iran itself.
Next door, you’ve got a large, dangerous U.S. military presence in not one, but two, countries. Off shore you’ve got two U.S. carrier groups. And oh, by the way, the U.S. just happens to be the Israelis’ best friend and ally in the whole world, one that’s good for billions in aid, much of it in the form of military assistance, including advanced weapons technology.
So, it comes as no surprise to me the Iranians want nukes. If we were in their situation, we’d want a nuclear deterrent capability just as much.
February 15th, 2007 17:55
Although expensive, aren’t fusion reactors another alternative? I recently wrote about fusion’s potential here…
http://www.gorillasushi.com/?q=node/78
February 16th, 2007 08:40
S.W.,
This may seem myopic to you, but I don’t want to look at the world through Iranian eyes. I am an American first, not a world citizen. Each country, if they have any nationalistic pride at all, will look for self-preservation. There’s nothing wrong with that.
Conventional neocon wisdom listens to every not-so loony imam that declares each nation should have Sharia law imposed upon it, and if not, then the nation should be destroyed.
Idealists believe everyone is inherently good. Safety forces believe everyone inherently has a bad side. You look for trends and signs to make your judgment.
I don’t believe appeasement will work here, and I’m not willing to risk my wife and kids to find out.
Sorry for the drive-by nature of the comments; my time is extremely limited right now.
February 17th, 2007 00:27
Rick, in peace or war it simply makes sense to determine what other countries want and, for that matter, what they feel they need. Doing so helps in understanding them, in evaluating what if any threat they may pose. It’s essential if you’re ever going to bargain with them.
Nowhere in anything I wrote did I suggest appeasement.
To the extent Iran considers itself under threat, its leaders will take steps to counter that threat. The worst potential threat being nuclear, it’s not surprising that they’re probably working to develop nuclear weapons.
I believe if they’re determined they will eventually succeed. They have the technological knowhow and the wherewithal.
This neeed not and should not mean war, any more than it meant all-out war with the Soviet Union — for 45 long years. Any more than it meant war with the People’s Republic of China.
One thing both sides came to learn in the Cold War is that nuclear attack invites nuclear retaliation. No first strike can be so complete that the attacker can be assured its opponent won’t be able to launch a retaliatory response. It’s a concept called mutually assured destruction, or fittingly, MAD, and it makes nuclear war impractical.
Consequently, we need not and should not view Iran getting nuclear weapons as an imminent threat to us, to Israel or a causus belli, no questions asked.
February 18th, 2007 00:32
Welcome Jason!
While fusion reactors may be productive in the future, at present they aren’t effective power generators. So they wouldn’t be an option for Iran.
February 18th, 2007 01:18
Rick,
Personally, I don’t put much credence in the Imam statements that non-Muslim countries should be destroyed, any more than I put credence in Ann Coulter when she declares we should convert Muslim countries to Christianity.
Your point about nationalism is a good one. Personally I see dangers in patriotism on some level, but your point about self-preservation is well taken. Still, I think S.W. makes a good point that we should see things from Iran’s perspective as well. At the very least we can try to understand their goals. Clearly Iran has a desire to have nuclear weapons, and I don’t think they necessarily intend to use them. Simply having them would put them in a stronger position. At the same time it is clear they shouldn’t have the bomb.
The thing is, a nuclear reactor has only three possible uses: generation of electricity, scientific research, and the bomb. Iran claims its nuclear program is for the first two. My point is that it’s possible to give them the first two without giving them the third. We could work with Iran to develop thorium power (or concentrated solar power as Gerry suggested).
This wouldn’t be appeasement, since we could clearly state that Iranian nukes are off the table. But we can’t take that position diplomatically without offering something in return. So we could offer to invest in Iran to develop solar power or Thorium nuclear in exchange for the dismantling of their current nuclear program (and verification of such). We wouldn’t have to spend money and lives on a war with Iran, and Iran could save face claiming it stood up to us.
What bothers me most about the Bush administration’s eagerness to go to war with Iran is the fact that Iran actually has a native secular democratic movement. Iran has several assets which would favor the creation of a democracy: unlike most Muslim countries, it is not a monarchy or dictatorship, but a theocratic republic. Although Shia Islam is the official state religion, Zoroastrianism, Christianity and Judaism are protected religions, and have representation in Iranian parliament. Their president is currently democratically elected. They are not a democratic republic by any sense of the word, but many of the forms are there. Add to this a young and fairly well-educated population, and you have the necessary foundations of democracy.
Helping Iran become democratic would be difficult, but not impossible. It would certainly be easier to create one in Iran than in Iraq. But we can only do that if we give Iran options. That doesn’t mean conceding to their desires on their terms, but it does mean making it easier to walk the path toward democracy.
And that is only possible if we stop beating the war drums.
March 19th, 2007 06:11
The comparison of Iran and it’s intentions and probabilities of using the Bomb within a MAD construct, vis-a-vis the USSR and China would appear quite invalid to me.
These two states have acted in limited areas regarding use of force. They both valued their own survival too much to chance MAD. They both were quite sure that any use would be tracked to them, with the concommitant consequences.
Iran has fought one major war in the area. It is under no threat, absent nuclear weapons from the US. With
nuclear weapons, it invites our close attention. The idea that a nation of their energy reserves needs nuclear power is ludicrous. The technology is much more difficult and expensive compared to what they currently have easy access to. The threats of annihilation of a hated enemy are not to be taken lightly. This is another nation which is thumbing it’s nose at the legitimate concerns of neighbors, and concerned countries around the world. This is a nation which is explicitly supporting terrorists around the world.
Are you all so open minded as to allow this rogue state to give the technology to a terrorist cell to immolate the center of one or more of our cities ? One thing since about 1950, war is no longer a conflict one calls up reserves for, trains troops, and moves into the field to confront the enemy.
It is now a “come as you are party” ! If you are not ready yesterday, you are not ready at all. The notice that open hostilities have begun will be a cloud of dispersed particles, or a mushroom cloud, over one or more of our cities. If we are wrong and prevent their getting the Bomb and they only seek peace and more energy, they will have lost the ability to produce electricity quickly and easily. If we are right in their intentions to destroy Isreal and to shatter the West, we will have lost a trusted and invaluable ally and several of our cities for many years to come.
The equating of the threatening statements of Ann Coulter as a private citizen, to the statements of the President of a sovereign nation is a specious comparison. She is a private citizen, holding no official or unofficial influence, while the other currently is the point man for an aggressive and threatening militarism and racism toward a neighbor. It holds just as much truth as if I compared Al Franken or Michael Moore to Khruschev or Hitler.
Bear in mind, this Arab/Islamic culture does believe only in might. If one can do it, one must do it. Nothing else makes sense to them. They only respect strength, not moderation or reserve. Allegiances are fleeting, shifting constantly to confront the greater threat at any one time. “The enemy of my Enemy is my friend” is an operative mode for them.
As for options, I hear no rhetoric or official statements of acceptable options open to negotiation. Diplomacy also is the art of signaling your possible avenues of compromise. I only see the Iranian Govt responding positively when a real threat is being brought to bear. One cannot negotiate when the other side is not willing to trade anything in their position. The public statements all show a regime absolutely committed to acquiring nuclear weapons absent an imminent threat to invade or strike in an overwhelmingly destructive manner.
March 20th, 2007 19:05
In the thousands of years of recorded history, the society with the most advanced weapons has dominated other societies. Cultures with inferior weapons have been marginalised, diminished and extinguished.
The most advanced weapons of our times are nuclear, so, inevitably those societies that want to survive will get the weapons. They may not use them to dominate others, but they will come in handy to hold aggressors at bay.
Given this dynamic that has played out throughout human history, it can’t be realistic to think we can prevent countries from having nuclear weapons. We are playing a delaying game, not a prevention game. There is a lot of ‘huff and puff’, threatening, negotiating, wheeling and dealing in delaying games. We see all this playing out as countries like Korea and Iran play their nuclear cards knowing that the US will pay a high price to delay their acquisition.
The US will pay and pay again over the next decades, as nuclear-acquisition countries wring maximum value out of the fact that they don’t have nuclear weapons yet.
Ultimately, though, these countries will HAVE to get nuclear weapons, or ally themselves closely with countries that have them. Their cultural survival will depend on it. We need to build effective ‘good neighbour’ relationships as the foundation for relations with these countries when they are armed well enough to do us damage.
I agree that the recent confrontations are about weapons, not energy.
I do worry about the possibility of a future when nuclear weapons are in the hands of cultures that support suicide missions.
And, Rick, I am beginning to worry about your resolute myopia. In a caring kind of way.
March 21st, 2007 14:27
Gillian,
When was the last time you saw a conservative initiate any of the following activities in the U.S.?
Link #1
Link #2
Link #3
Link #4
I can’t find any. So, maybe you can tell me why democrats and liberals are labeled the “peace people”. This doesn’t look like peace to me, and these aren’t isolated incidents; they happen on a regular, frequent basis.
If I don’t protect my country, you won’t. Well, at least your Prime Minister will attempt to do help.
March 21st, 2007 14:51
Hi Rick,
Myopia is akin to putting your head in the sand. It is about NOT SEEING.
The best defensive positions (literally and figuratively) are from positions with a clear view of the landscape. To protect and defend, you need to climb the hill and take a look. What are the aggressors doing? What is triggering their actions? This information gives you the best basis for making effective strategy.
Deeply patriotic, fiercely defensive - and clear-seeing, outward-looking, compassionate.
You can still hate the bastards, but it’s a bloody good idea to keep an eye on them. No place for myopia.
Then, after a while, it’s a good idea to let go of the hate too. Let’s not raise our kids to hate. I agree - your links don’t look like peace to me either. The best defenders are not clouded by hate - they are simply effective.
Well, these are my ideals, and my efforts in life go towards letting go of hate, without getting run over by others.
March 21st, 2007 15:30
So my resolve is myopia? That’s confusing. You are assuming my positions come from ignorance, which is about as inaccurate as you can get.
How can you judge me when you don’t know what daily information I digest on an, er, daily basis? I don’t gloat about my knowledge, my sources, my being “in the know”. So, therefore, since I don’t name names, or at least the “right” ones, my points are perceived as inferior and uninformed.
Where’s the “Brave”-ity? It left the building.
March 21st, 2007 16:30
Sorry Rick, I am sure I’ve mistaken something. I was picking up on your comment –
“This may seem myopic to you, but I don’t want to look at the world through Iranian eyes. I am an American first, not a world citizen. Each country, if they have any nationalistic pride at all, will look for self-preservation. There’s nothing wrong with that.”
I agree that there is nothing wrong with self-preservation. I am also suggesting that ‘looking through the world with Iranian eyes’ is a useful tool in the armory of self-preservation.
Yes, be an American first, and a world citizen second. But please don’t put your head in the sand and deny you are a world citizen at all!
You’re absolutely right about my perceptions of you - I have no idea what you really know - I am only gleaning from what you say here. I’m sorry if I have caused any confusion … I’ll try to be clearer next time about the particular thing I am referring to. And I apologise too, cos I suspect I have probably been too literal about what was really intended more as a rhetorical flourish. If we were speaking face to face, I could have used a smile and a light in my eye to reflect an invitation towards shared understanding.
Now, outside my window the rainbow lorikeets are feeding in the gum blossoms and it’s time for my breakfast too.
March 21st, 2007 17:07
Hello all,
Rick, I THINK I get the point you’re trying to make here. I also understand that things have been more than a bit heated around the site the last day or so. I honestly don’t know yet what I think about the conflict in the God’s Country discussion. I will respond as a member of the group in the next day or so. I do know that I want to keep talking and working through these issues. As with other folks, I find it hard as well, but still worth doing.
With that as context, can we make the following deal?
If you will agree to never compare democrats and liberals to the individuals and despicable acts in your links, I will also agree never to compare conservatives Christians to the individuals and despicable acts such as those
here
http://www.godhatesfags.com/featured/epics/2007/20070316_independence-mo-epic.pdf
and here
http://www.godhatesfags.com/fliers/mar2007/20070320_robert-carr-funeral.pdf
None of us on ANY side on the site are these people. None of us.
March 21st, 2007 18:00
Hi Grant-
I agree; let’s cool things down and focus on understanding each other’s issues….that’s one of our BH purposes, right?
Asking questions, answering fully, having patience, not making assumptions, communicating clearly in a typed context…I’m sure there are more things to add to the list. The BH site is quite unique…let’s keep it going.
Encouraging smiles to all-
Susan
April 7th, 2007 14:49
A clean nuclear approach: abundant energy without greenhouse gasses or proliferation concerns.
4/3/07
Nuclear’s greatest secret – we can have clean inexpensive electricity without the significant downsides that have slowed the growth of nuclear power in the past. All that is required is to return to the road not taken fifty years ago.
Worldwide the demand for energy is growing at an increasing rate. China, India and other developing countries will bring hundreds of millions of their citizens into the industrialized world over the next two decades. As they do this, they will compete with the established economies of the West and Japan for resources. Absent a breakthrough, this means the construction of hundreds of new power plants that run on fossil fuels – plants that will spew tons and tons of greenhouse gasses and worsen our already overburdened atmosphere.
Although a considerable amount of progress has been made on renewable forms of energy such as solar and wind, these long term options won’t be enough for some time to come. In years past, the nuclear option was held in poor regard by many environmentalists, but the reality – nuclear power keeps 700 million metric tons of carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere in the US alone – over 2 billion tons worldwide - has lead many in the movement to accept that nuclear power must have a place in the energy mix. This despite lingering concern over the threat of proliferation and the issue of what to do with radioactive waste.
These downsides of nuclear power, however, all flow from a fundamental decision made long ago – to use uranium fuel in almost all of the nuclear reactors in the world.1 And uranium fuels by their very nature produce massive amounts of weapons usable material, including plutonium, and generate even larger amounts of highly toxic nuclear waste.
There is a better way. The first commercial nuclear power plant in the world, in Shippingport, Pennsylvania, ran on a thorium-based fuel. Thorium, a naturally occurring element two down from uranium on the periodic chart, can be used in reactors but doesn’t have the serious downsides uranium fuels do. The Shippingport plant, designed by the then chief scientist of the US Naval Reactor Program, Dr Alvin Radkowsky,(Co-founder of the publicly traded company Thorium Power) operated successfully for a number of years before it was shut down. The industry moved to uranium-based fuels, however, partly to mask military demands for weapons usable plutonium, thus creating a global shift towards uranium fuel & research.
In 1992 Thorium Power was incorporated to develop nuclear fuel designs based on thorium to stop the production of weapons suitable plutonium and eliminate existing plutonium stockpiles. This resolve in research has lead to new technological advantages in the nuclear industry:
Thorium has a much higher melting point than uranium and operating temperatures of Thorium Power’s fuels are significantly lower than those of conventional uranium fuel, thus significantly reducing the risk of a melt down;
Thorium Power’s fuels significantly reduce the amount and long-term radio-toxicity of spent fuel (approx. 50% reduction in volume of spent fuel);
Thorium Power’s fuels provide enhanced proliferation resistance. They are not suitable for production of weapons-usable material;
Thorium Power’s fuels offer improved economies; and
Thorium Power’s fuels can incinerate reactor-grade plutonium recovered from spent uranium fuel while producing electricity
Thorium Power’s research has been conducted at premier Russian nuclear institutes, including Kurchatov Institute, OKBM, Bochvar Institute, MSZ Electrostal, Siberian Chemical Combine, VNIPIET, and others, where they have access to over 500 Russian nuclear engineers and scientists. The funding for this project has come from private investors and US government DOE grants. Most recently, in May of 2006, the company successfully completed a $15,000,000 private placement in anticipation of a October 6, 2006 reverse merger as a publicly traded company.
In 1985 global investment in the nuclear industry came to a virtual halt. In the United States alone the Federal spending on R&D for nuclear projects dropped 89% during this time. So it should come as no surprise that with an aging global nuclear work force, Thorium Power’s extensive research, expertise, and vast intellectual properly portfolio, has lead to interest from governments, businesses and non-governmental organizations like environmental groups.
Thorium Power’s “Seed & Blanket approach”
Alvin Radkowsky’s Thorium based design incorporates both mechanical and nuclear physical features that past engineers failed to grasp. He worked around the drawbacks of thorium and uranium and came up with a solution specifically for today’s reactor. This is why the Company sometimes refers to their fuel as “the fuel for reality”.
Thorium Power fuel designs are for existing and future “light-water (and pressure-water) reactors.” These reactors make up 70% of today’s market. In the future if nuclear technology migrates to the “fast-breader reactors,” Thorium Power’s technology will prove suitable and compatible. With a focus on today’s problem we will analyze how Thorium Power’s technology works and what makes it not only essential, but feasible.
The first step is to understand how uranium works in a reactor. There are two isotopes of uranium in the core… fissile and fertile. This is the typical set up for nuclear fuel. Fissile Uranium-235 comprises 4% of the nuclear fuel and produces the power in the reactor. Fertile Uranium-238 comprises 96% of the nuclear fuel (as a moderator) and does not provide the power.
Since Uranium-235 is fissile, meaning it is radioactive, neutrons are continually flying off it. Some of those neutrons hit other Uranium-235 atoms, splitting them (fission), and in the process release heat. This heats up the water in the reactor, making steam that spins a turbine and produces electricity. However, the neutrons do not know that they are supposed to hit the Uranium-235 atoms, so some of them hit Uranium-238 atoms. Uranium-238 absorbs the neutron, becoming Uranium-239, which decays into Plutonium-239. This is the nuclear weapons-usable isotope of plutonium.
The fissile Uranium-235 is burned down as the process moves along.
In essence, fissile Uranium-U-235 producing energy does not contribute to proliferation or significantly to waste. It’s the 96% fertile Uranium-238 in the fuel that creates the problem…and it doesn’t contribute to anything, except as a helper in the process.
Thorium can be used as a fertile material to replace Uranium-238 thus eliminating the resultant weapons-usable plutonium and other highly toxic nuclear wastes. This process leaves Uranium-235 in the reactor. You can also replace U-235 with plutonium from existing stockpiles, where the plutonium acts as the fissile material powering the reactor while burning down the plutonium to dispose of it. This leads to a fuel that eliminates plutonium, stops the reactor from making more weapons-usable plutonium, and makes much less waste and significantly less toxic waste.
That’s where Thorium-232 comes in. Thorium is fertile. The key to the reaction is that when a neutron hits thorium, it does not create weapons grade plutonium. Instead, the Thorium-232 absorbs a neutron and becomes Protactinium-233, which decays into Uranium-233. Since Uranium-233 is fissile, when it gets hit by a neutron it splits, creating more energy in the reactor. In fact, Uranium-233 is more fissile than the original Uranium-235 (which is exactly what commercial grade fuel is) in the fuel. It is because of this characteristic that thorium actually makes more fuel for the reactor. Therefore, the fuel lasts longer in the reactor, resulting in less spent fuel and waste for the same electricity produced, with little to no plutonium. Very simply, this is a much more efficient process than conventional nuclear fuels.
The problem past nuclear engineers (and physicists) came across was that thorium and uranium burn at different rates, making it inefficient in a commercial reactor if they are configured similar to conventional fuel assemblies. In the core of the reactor some components of the fuel rods largely burn out (Uranium-235), while other parts would just keep going (Thorium-232). Fuel rods containing fissile Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 can be optimized to burn in 3 years, while thorium- 232 with some added uranium can be optimized to burn up to 9 years in the core.
Alvin Radkowsky provided the solution. He simply placed the fissile Uranium and the thorium into separate fuel rods. Hence, the ” Seed and Blanket” configuration. The seed (or center) contain the fissile Uranium-235 (or Plutonium-239) and the blanket (the outer setup) contains the thorium. He then devised a system that would allow the seed to be exchanged about once every three years while the blanket would stay in the reactor for up to nine years. The seed will do its thing and burn itself out while the blanket, with the thorium, will get bombarded by neutrons flying off the seed and the small amount of uranium in the blanket fuel rods. In the process it produces Uranium-233 and more energy with very little waste left. Certainly no weapons-suitable Plutonium
Thorium Power is positioned as a ” PURE PLAY ” in a nuclear renaissance. Over the next few decades we will likely see hundreds of new nuclear power plants come on-line. Thorium Power will strongly benefit from this development. The company is uniquely positioned as a key source, in global consulting on many existing and future nuclear industry solutions. Thorium Power is developing three primary nuclear fuel designs for existing and future light water reactors: (1) Thorium/uranium fuel that is being designed to be a substitute for conventional uranium fuel, (2) Thorium/reactor-grade plutonium disposing fuel that offers an economically viable alternative to MOX fuel, and (3) Thorium/weapons-grade plutonium disposing fuel that provides the more effective and less expensive way to incinerate excess weapons-grade plutonium in light water reactors than other existing reactor-based alternatives.
Mr. Seth Grae, CEO has assembled a world class team, to leverage the insight of this group of investment professionals to generate returns across a wide range of nuclear issues in a complex industry. The International Advisory Board comprised of key national and international leaders in the fields of Nuclear Energy, Finance, Government Affairs, Non-Proliferation and Diplomacy including Sir Ronald Grierson, (Co-Chairman of the Blackstone Group’s Int. Advisory Board ) Dr. Charles W. Pryor, Jr. (USEC CEO ) Susan Eisenhower (President of the Eisenhower Group) and Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr. (Chairman of the Board of Directors of Thorium Power)
Thorium Power Ltd. also has put together a Technical Advisory Board made up of top nuclear scientists and engineers from the world’s major nuclear companies. Thorium Power Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary is a leading developer of proliferation resistant nuclear fuel technologies. The company designs nuclear fuels, obtains patent protection on these fuels and coordinates fuel development with governments and commercial entities and consortium’s.
THORIUM POWER’S VALUE TO SOCIETY
Improved nuclear safety, reliability and affordability.
Maintains a viable nuclear option to addressing environmental problems with fossil fuels.
Maintains a global leadership position in safety, advanced designs and non- proliferation.
http://www.thoriumpower.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=121550&p=irol-irhome