FW: Thorium - the idea is growing!

[James Birkin]

 

 

From: James Birkin [mailto:j...@joblaw.org]
Sent: 06 May 2011 4:43 PM
To: 'James Birkin'
Subject: RE: Thorium - the idea is growing!

 

 

 

First the Chinese announce their interest now The  great "Mover and Shaker" of Molten Salt Reactors Kirk Sorensen has now moved from his job and formed his own set up - this  aims to have built a reactor that has gone "critical" by 2015. 

 

Whether or not he makes it  the old quote "yes but it is at least twenty years away"  needs careful thought. I bet the Chinese won't take twenty years !

 

No one here has really given a good answer why the concept  is anything but positive - the Chemistry seems to hold up and it offers vastly improved nuclear power - so once again if people on this group cannot actually find a reason beyond "I don't like nukes" then perhaps they should look harder at what is being done.

 

So far still no one here or elsewhere has produced a good argument why  we should not pursue this wholeheartedly - (at least until it is clear there has been an error)  and if no one can produce such an argument then perhaps

 

......it is a good idea!!!!!

 

So the challenge, once again,  either give it support or say why exactly  it is a bad thing!

 

For those who want to know more

 

1                                           Kirk Sorensen gives a very clear exposition of the technology etc on your tube (long  but very informative )

 

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=kirk+sorensen+you+tube&docid=536242421946&mid=A9277781B50450E001A3A9277781B50450E001A3&FORM=VIRE2#

 

 

2                 good resources on Ralph Moir's website

 

http://www.ralphmoir.com/aMlt_slt.htm

 

 

Regards

 

 

James Birkin

 

 

From: James Birkin [mailto:j...@joblaw.org]
Sent: 27 March 2011 1:58 PM
To: 'energy-disc...@googlegroups.com'
Subject: Thorium

 

Hi

 

sometime back I asked why not Thorium and I have looked into the answers and I still do not see why this is not a viable technology and why it should not be massively accelerated.

 

The strongest case appears to me ( I stress this as I am no nuclear expert)  the LFTR with a U 233 core and a blanket of Thorium dissolved in a fluoride salt.   The Thorium breeds to U233 which is then reacted with gaseous fluorine in the circuit to fee the U 233 core. 

 

Advantages cited are

U233 is hugely fissile and not very breedable so it is not likely to be able to go say to U 235 or Pu

·        The by products are not suitable for nuclear weapons

·        The reactor is not pressurised so scaleable (obviating massive grid reinforcement)

·        A salt plug can be used to ensure that should  the temperature increase the liquid drains safely away (quaere is this still true for the two core Thorium model as the fissile U 233 is separate - is the U233 liquid oh experts?)

·        Most of the fuel is used

·        Xenon gas bubbles out obviating one of the biggest poisons to a reactor

 

So why is this still not regarded as potentially vital?

 

Answers please - I am sure they are there!

 

 

James Birkin

____________________________________________________________________________

[Herbert Eppel]

On 06.05.2011 23:38 UK Time, James Birkin wrote:

 

So far still no one here or elsewhere has produced a good argument why  we should not pursue this wholeheartedly - (at least until it is clear there has been an error)  and if no one can produce such an argument then perhaps

 

......it is a good idea!!!!!

 

So the challenge, once again,  either give it support or say why exactly  it is a bad thing!

 

I have to admit that I haven't yet looked at this in detail, but n view of Mr Griffin's enthusiastic support for the technology (see <http://www.eutimes.net/2011/04/nick-griffin-leaves-climate-change-eurocrats-speechless/>) I would be very surprised if there wasn't something very fishy about it.

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Dave McGrath]

Well Griffin destroys any credibility he may have had any time he opens his mouth on renewable energy.

 

On thorium,

·         Let those who champion it do so

·         Those agin say their piece if they feel the need

·         Those who care not or recognise we have nothing to contribute hold our council

 

My objection to nuclear is its touted as THE solution to the exclusion of others and then the waste burden we impose on later generations so WE today can get cheaper energy which is the still cheapest it has ever ben relative to our average wage, things are of course changing.  Safety remains.

 

Ultimately we must fix the roof.  We move around avoiding getting wet from our leaking roof, we dry our selves when the sun shines, when it rains we move about to reduce the discomfort but ultimately fixing the roof will fix the discomfort.  So too with fossil energy sources. 

 

There is sufficient renewable in the 5 main forms to meet everyone’s needs many times over without recourse to nuclear, solar in space and other crazy stuff.  All working together as an integrated system localised as much as possible.

 

Yours Sincerely,

Dave McGrath

 

 

Managing Director

ReGenTech Ltd

Renewable Energy, Hydrogen & Fuel Cell Power Solutions

 

Office and Registered office. Mill of Craibstone, Craibstone Estate

Bucksburn, Aberdeen, Scotland, AB21 9TB

<http://www.regentech.co.uk/>

Company Number SC211438

 

Tel +44 (0)1224 715568;  Mobile +44 (0)7768 230 451

d...@regentech.co.uk

Skype: Davejmcg

 

The information in this e-mail and any attachment(s) is confidential and may be legally privileged. This e-mail is intended solely for the addressee. If you are not the addressee, dissemination, copying or other use of this e-mail or any of its content is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender immediately and destroy the e-mail and any copies. All liability for viruses is excluded to the fullest extent permitted by law. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender. No contract may be construed by this e-mail

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Claverton _ Energy Discussion (main Claverton group)" group.
To post to this group, send email to energy-disc...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to energy-discussion...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/energy-discussion-group?hl=en.

[Herbert Eppel]

On 07.05.2011 09:29 UK Time, Dave McGrath wrote:

> My objection to nuclear is its touted as THE solution to the exclusion
> of others

Fortunately, it seems that only a very small minority of die-hard
nuclear proponents have such a limited view.

Interestingly, even Charles Hendry now acknowledges (on BBC Radio Four)
that "We can meet our objectives without nuclear", and Rowena Mason,
writing on The Telegraph's blog, wonders if ministers are smoothing the
way for a new official line – that we don't need nuclear power after
all. Let's hope so!

See
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rowenamason/100009970/is-chris-huhne-preparing-or-his-second-u-turn-on-nuclear/>

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[James Birkin]

Thanks Dave

 

It is good to have a reply

 

my concern is that you are not reading what is said about thorium

 

your arguments are :-

 

1             "Waste Burden we impose on future generations"  - If this was the case I too would not be looking at this solution as I understand        it it is  massively reduced - both in quantity and in half life   --- at least the short term wastes decay whereas the industrial waste we have lives for ever            Pb, Cd  etc  - can you elaborate on why the Thorium Process leaves a significant waste burden for future generations?

 

2             That we can do it cheaper - maybe - but the burden of renewables is not free - massive  HVDC infrastructure to allow for redundancy - installation costs are huge - wear and tear on turbines so a great deal of energy into those - at the very least accept that maybe we need to explore all avenues instead of fixating on one!

 

3             There is enough non nuclear around not to need nuclear - I think I agree re Uranium - but if the Thorium claims are right it presents a far cleaner option that many "green alternatives" - so if you wish to be scientific  look at the claims and criticise - if you wish just to say "anything nuclear is bad" then it seems to me you have no argument and should not be listened to -

 

My argument here is really that people should  put up counter arguments or accept these are good and support them - at least until they are disproved.  What can be wrong with that.    Blind prejudice is no substitute for reasoned argument which is all I am seeking - so far in claverton I have had little of the latter and a great deal of the former. 

 

Where is the scientific process?  I am a non scientist - it is usually non-scientists who are accused of being illogical and frightened of technology !

 

 

Your arguments so far such as they are seem not to hold water - perhaps I have misunderstood - but to me they really do not.  That said  thank you for having the courtesy to put them.

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

James

[James Birkin]

Hi Herbert

thanks for the reply.

I agree on most of what you say - I do think single solution arguments to
complex problems are nearly always a bit suspect. They smack of absolutism
- and this applies across the board.

What I am saying is investigate Thorium - the claims are really interesting
and address the problems we have with Uranium - and I am with most people on
the site as regards the dangers of Uranium technology.

LFTRs seem to address the waste issue (shorter term and far less of it)
safety - they failsafe - and size - non pressurised so can be much smaller
(massive savings on transmission HVDC etc)

What I am saying is give it a chance to prove itself - I am not yet saying
it is the answer - there are always problems and who knows what lies round
the corner - all I do know is that there is a good theory that no one really
seems to gainsay then we should be grateful and work on it until we see the
flaw. That is why I keep pushing it on this site - I have still not seen a
reply that really answers the claims made for LFTRs - and the claims made
address comprehensively the fears associated with nuclear technology.

Regards

James

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herbert Eppel
Sent: 07 May 2011 10:49 AM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FW: Thorium - the idea is growing!

On 07.05.2011 09:29 UK Time, Dave McGrath wrote:

> My objection to nuclear is its touted as THE solution to the exclusion
> of others

Fortunately, it seems that only a very small minority of die-hard
nuclear proponents have such a limited view.

Interestingly, even Charles Hendry now acknowledges (on BBC Radio Four)
that "We can meet our objectives without nuclear", and Rowena Mason,
writing on The Telegraph's blog, wonders if ministers are smoothing the

way for a new official line - that we don't need nuclear power after

all. Let's hope so!

See
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rowenamason/100009970/is-chris-huhne-p
reparing-or-his-second-u-turn-on-nuclear/>

Herbert Eppel

[James Birkin]

Incidentally for the record I think Hendry is wrong - as the demand for
electricity is set massively to expand as transport heating fuel and perhaps
industrial processes rely more on it.

LFTRs can be made small - so the exponential growth in power lines etc could
be limited conceivably they could also be used to power transport though I
have my doubts on that one.

All I say is give it a chance to show its worth

Regards

James

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herbert Eppel
Sent: 07 May 2011 10:49 AM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: FW: Thorium - the idea is growing!

On 07.05.2011 09:29 UK Time, Dave McGrath wrote:

> My objection to nuclear is its touted as THE solution to the exclusion
> of others

Fortunately, it seems that only a very small minority of die-hard
nuclear proponents have such a limited view.

Interestingly, even Charles Hendry now acknowledges (on BBC Radio Four)
that "We can meet our objectives without nuclear", and Rowena Mason,
writing on The Telegraph's blog, wonders if ministers are smoothing the

way for a new official line - that we don't need nuclear power after

all. Let's hope so!

See
<http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/rowenamason/100009970/is-chris-huhne-p
reparing-or-his-second-u-turn-on-nuclear/>

Herbert Eppel

[James Birkin]

It is because fear is the main argument against nuclear!!

 

The reasons why it is a good thing are manifold - less expenditure per Kw on construction, low overheads, minimal waste problems! Locally produced

 

All great reasons why we should do it!

 

 

 

 

 

From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Herbert Eppel

Sent: 07 May 2011 8:19 AM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

--

[Neil Crumpton]

James,

then why is the nuclear industry and its supporters supporting Gen III (uranium / MOX) designs - that's what on the table. Indeed, anti-wind campaigner Mark Lynas and co is campaigning for the building of 10+ GW of Gen III technologies on the basis that Gen IV technologies are great

If thorium designs are demonstrated to be all those things you mention ie inherently safe and zero proliferation potential (I have not had time to follow the recent debate) then they may be fine. But many specialists would have to very closely scrutinise what commercial designs would be put forward - one has almost to be a nuclear physicist to unravel the half truths and ask the what if's. My experience of the nuclear industry is not to trust them an inch (bit like Lib Dems trusting Tories on poisoned chalice voting systems - strategically irresponsible misjudgement). The technology is complex and befuddles most and they have got away with loads behind that. Nuclear is an option NOT a necessity - in an age of asymmetric warfare and more powerful carbon-negative technology options.

Neil

[Neil Crumpton]

James,

Give peace a chance - perhaps the global nuclear industry should fund the building of a LFTR in Iran....

Neil

[Frank Holland]

On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 12:46 +0100, James Birkin wrote:

Dave McGrath said

> 1 "Waste Burden we impose on future generations" -

> If this was the case I too would not be looking at this solution as I
> understand it it is massively reduced - both in quantity and
> in half life --- at least the short term wastes decay whereas the
> industrial waste we have lives for ever Pb, Cd etc - can
> you elaborate on why the Thorium Process leaves a significant waste
> burden for future generations?
>

James,

Don't confuse chemical toxicity (Pb, Cd etc) with radiotoxicity ( U, Pu
etc). The chemicals can be rendered safe chemically and quickly.
Radioactivity lasts for many thousands of years and cannot be rendered
safe....the nuclear industry has been trying for decades to do so, and
has failed. The only system they have come up with is to bury the waste
and hope it is not disturbed for thousands of years.

Dave McGrath is correct, there is a "waste burden we impose on later
generations so WE today can get cheaper energy". Thorium may produce
less than U/Pu, but it is still there for the same length of time. Have
a look at http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/ , scroll to near the bottom
of that huge list, and download Potential of Thorium Molten-Salt
Reactors: Detailed Calculations and Concept Evolutions in View of a
Large Nuclear Energy Production then go to figure 8, where you will find
that waste from the Th reactor is estimated to be about 10 fold less
reactive than the waste from a U/Pu FBR AFTER 100,000 years.

So do you think it is ethical to leave the waste burden to future
generations?

Frank

[James Birkin]

Hi Neil

 

The uranium lobby have spent billions on what if the Thorium guys are right is the wrong path.  I think we can safely say "they would say that wouldn't they"!  I am sure they will do all they can to prevent this working - not necessarily for bad motives just because it might negate a lot of the work they have done for the last forty years - a very understandable prejudice.

 

I agree the technology is complex but we all have a duty to understand what is offered - I am a lawyer not a scientist so I know the struggle to understand  the science and the maths!

 

I do object to people knocking an idea without knowing about it.  It cannot be right for people to say they don't understand if they are purporting to be leaders in forming opinion.  This just might be a very good and clean answer  - I really hope it is.  What I hate is on one side the nuclear guys who have invested emotionally and financially in U 235+ technology trashing the idea without justification and on the other people hating it just because it is "nukes".  This idea seems to offer short half lives, far far less waste, failsafe systems that do not involve any external power sources - and compact reactors that might well suit a crowded island like ours  - it really looks good..... on paper at least - so why are we not saying bring it on and see if it stands up? 

 

With the climate threats we surely cannot  to ignore what might just be a really good solution.

 

Regards

 

 

James

[James Birkin]

I make the point (not confused) because in our environment there are
chemical toxins there forever because they are already distributed - eg land
fill pollution - these will be there for ever - not good and we are dealing
with future damage (although in my opinion not fast enough. They are also
damaging both teratogenic and to health of this generation.

You are wrong on the "thousands of years" in the context of Thorium - we are
talking a few hundreds and amounts reduced by a factor of 100. The
thousands of years applies to U235+ reactors which only use 3% of their fuel
(as opposed to nearly all for Motlen Salt Thorium) - the former is a horror
story I agree - but not the Thorium horror story so please dont confuse
them. Waste is not a stick that can be used to beat thorium.

Regards

James

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Holland
Sent: 07 May 2011 3:01 PM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FW: Thorium - the idea is growing!

James,

Frank

[Frank Holland]

On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 15:25 +0100, James Birkin wrote:
> I make the point (not confused) because in our environment there are
> chemical toxins there forever because they are already distributed - eg land
> fill pollution - these will be there for ever - not good and we are dealing
> with future damage (although in my opinion not fast enough. They are also
> damaging both teratogenic and to health of this generation.

All of which can be rendered harmless by known means.

>
>
> You are wrong on the "thousands of years" in the context of Thorium - we are
> talking a few hundreds and amounts reduced by a factor of 100. The
> thousands of years applies to U235+ reactors which only use 3% of their fuel
> (as opposed to nearly all for Motlen Salt Thorium) - the former is a horror
> story I agree - but not the Thorium horror story so please dont confuse
> them. Waste is not a stick that can be used to beat thorium.
>

I am not wrong....did you read the paper I referred you to?

Frank

[Frank Holland]

On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 15:20 +0100, James Birkin wrote:
>
> I agree the technology is complex but we all have a duty to understand
> what is offered - I am a lawyer not a scientist so I know the struggle
> to understand the science and the maths!

Well why not pursue this one, much simpler than Th syatems
http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator

Eng. Andrea A. Rossi and Professor Sergio Focardi of the University of
Bologna (one of the oldest universities in the world [1]), have
announced to the world that they have a cold fusion device capable of
producing more than 10 kilowatts of heat power, while only consuming a
fraction of that. On January 14, 2011, they gave the Worlds' first
public demonstration of a nickel-hydrogen fusion reactor capable of
producing a few kilowatts of thermal energy. At its peak, it is capable
of generating 15,000 watts with just 400 watts input required. In a
following test the same output was achieved but with only 80 watts of
continual input.

They don't always use the term "cold fusion" do describe the process,
but often refer to it as an amplifier or catalyzer process.

Now that would be something!!!

Frank

[James Birkin]

Hi Dave

can you e mail me the specific link? - it is a huge list I can't find the
one you cite.

My comments still stand anyway even on what you cite - massively reduced
volumes of waste and hugely reduced radioactivity.

Regards

James

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Holland
Sent: 07 May 2011 3:01 PM

To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FW: Thorium - the idea is growing!

James,

Frank

[Frank Holland]

Not Dave, Frank

http://energyfromthorium.com/pdf/

Go right to the end, 5th from bottom

Potential of Thorium Molten-Salt Reactors: Detailed Calculations and
Concept Evolutions in View of a Large Nuclear Energy Production

then figure 8

Frank

[Frank Holland]

On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 15:42 +0100, Frank Holland wrote:
>
> On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 15:20 +0100, James Birkin wrote:
> >
> > I agree the technology is complex but we all have a duty to
> understand
> > what is offered - I am a lawyer not a scientist so I know the
> struggle
> > to understand the science and the maths!
>
> Well why not pursue this one, much simpler than Th syatems
> http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory:Andrea_A._Rossi_Cold_Fusion_Generator

And how about this from NuClear News No.29 May 2011

Nuclear Costs – too expensive to matter
Tom Noyes, who describes himself as an (American) environmental advocate
and finance geek, writing in The Guardian asked:
―If the costs and benefits of nuclear power are so attractive, where are
the investors? At least with wind and solar power, it is possible to see
the cost curve dropping to the break-even point in the near future.
Nuclear power, by contrast, may never be able to convince investors to
put their money down without government guarantees.‖ (1)
The prospect of cost overruns, waste disposal and extended shutdowns are
daunting enough. But mostly, it is the potential cost of catastrophic
failure that scares away investors. Large-scale disasters, however rare,
are colossally expensive, as well as dangerous. The first estimate of
entombing the
NuClear News No.29 May 2011
8
Fukushima plant is $12bn. And this doesn't include the other liabilities
that could force the Japanese government to nationalise the Tokyo
Electric Power Company (Tepco).
The total costs of nuclear power are, in any meaningful sense,
incalculable. Investors face cost overruns that could burn through even
the deepest pockets. The true cost of waste disposal is still not known.
The cost of decommissioning, even decades away, is also a big unknown.
And the cost of catastrophic failure is more than most companies are
willing to face. How can any investor calculate the return on investment
with such large uncertainties?
The price of nuclear power has been escalating steadily for decades,
says former Royal Dutch Shell Executive Roland Kupers. (2) Since 1970,
the cost in constant dollars of new nuclear generating capacity has
increased nine-fold, as additional safety features make plant designs
more expensive. Globally, the median age of nuclear plants is now 27
years so much of the cost saving through learning has gone.
The exact opposite is occurring with renewables. We are learning
quickly, and costs are plummeting through the sheer volume of
construction: 40,000 wind turbines over the past decade in Europe alone.
And solar power will reach grid parity in sunny regions like South
Africa, Greece, and Florida by 2015. Before we finish building the next
nuclear plant, it will be an expensive and increasingly irrelevant relic
of the 1950‘s dream of ―atoms for peace.‖
Kupers says we are witnessing a watershed in the debate on
greenhouse-gas emissions. A low-carbon growth path requires neither coal
nor new nuclear power. The way forward is to pursue more ambitious and
consistent climate and energy policies that drive the massive deployment
of renewables; install new load-balancing electricity grids; and ensure
large-scale adoption of energy-efficiency measures. This agenda promises
to boost investments, stimulate economic growth, and create jobs while
increasing competitiveness and energy security. In both economic and
ethical terms, nuclear power merits no role.

(1) Guardian 3rd April 2011
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/apr/03/nuclearpower-japan
(2) Project Syndicate 25th April 2011
http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rkupers2/English

And

Nuclear Liability

The Nuclear Free Local Authorities (NFLA) responded to the UK
Government‘s consultation on nuclear third party liability insurance,
with a request that the consultation is withdrawn until the learning
points from the Fukushima incident are known and acted upon (1).
The consultation on proposed changes by the UK Government to the
Paris-Brussels Convention on nuclear third party includes a significant
and positive increase of the ‗cap‘ on nuclear companies to £1 billion in
the event of an accident at a nuclear reactor. With the estimate of the
total amount of compensation required in Japan after the Fukushima
disaster now at least 4 trillion yen (£29.2 billion) (2) and up to £80bn
(3) that leaves the taxpayer here shouldering a heavy potential risk.
>From the U.S. to Japan, it‘s illegal to drive a car without sufficient
insurance, yet governments around the world choose to run over 440
nuclear power plants with hardly any coverage whatsoever, says the
Washington Post. The Fukushima disaster brings to the fore one of the
industry‘s key weaknesses that nuclear power is a viable source for
cheap energy only if it goes uninsured. Governments that use nuclear
energy are torn between the benefit of low-cost electricity and the risk
of a nuclear catastrophe, which could total trillions of dollars and
even bankrupt a country. The bottom line is that it‘s a gamble:
Governments are hoping to dodge a one-off disaster while they accumulate
small gains over the long-term. The cost of a worst-case nuclear
accident at a plant in Germany, for example, has been estimated to total
as much as €7.6 trillion ($11 trillion), while the mandatory reactor
insurance is only €2.5 billion. ―The €2.5 billion will be just enough to
buy the stamps for the letters of condolence,‖ said Olav Hohmeyer, an
economist at the University of Flensburg who is also a member of the
German government‘s environmental advisory body. (3)
(1) NFLA Press Release 20th April 2011
http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/news/NFLA_PR_Nuclear_Liabilities.pdf
NFLA Submission
http://www.nuclearpolicy.info/docs/consultations/NFLA_P_B_Liability_Response.pdf
(2) Asahi 4th May 2011 http://www.asahi.com/english/TKY201105030093.html
(3) Guardian, quoting from the Yomuiri Shimbun newspaper:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/13/japan-nuclear-plant-evacuees-compensation
(4) Washinton Post 21st April 2011. Same article here:
http://www.globalnews.ca/Nuclear+plants+viable+only+when
+uninsured/4653983/story.html

Frank

[James Birkin]

Sorry..... Frank and my apologies Dave and Frank!!

I have found it now - will read it at length tonight but the conclusion

"...The very low actinide inventory (2.3 t) allows to reduce waste
radiotoxicity, by more than two orders of magnitude at 1000 y after
discharge as compared to the fast uranium cycle...."

seems to support what my understanding is

- especially when one considers the amount of waste is also massively
reduced - a really good result I would say if the waste is conservatively
reduced by 1000 pc ie to 1/10 of previous (and that is massively
conservative as they claim near to 100% of the thorium will be consumed as
opposed to 3% with 97% contaminated waste with Uranium 235)

I had not seen this resource on the site - That is a great cache of
documents - lots more to get stuck into -

[Frank Holland]

On Sat, 2011-05-07 at 18:56 +0100, James Birkin wrote:
> The very low actinide inventory (2.3 t) allows to reduce waste
> radiotoxicity, by more than two orders of magnitude at 1000 y after
> discharge as compared to the fast uranium cycle...."
>
> seems to support what my understanding is

Maybe, but the plutonium remains active for about 2.5 million years (10
half lives). And does it matter how much waste there is, radiation
causes cancer, so maybe only 10 million deaths through cancer rather
than a billion......is that OK then?

Frank

[James Birkin]

Ok but How do you come to the 10 million deaths?

Yes I think it does matter - all sorts of things cause cancer and most
obviously even sunlight radiation causes cancer- what I want to understand
is the degree of risk -

I think very small amounts of Pu - if indeed they are very small may well be
acceptable - and there does in any case seem to be some evidence that it can
itself be used in part of the cycle.

10 million deaths is a big number - over a hundred million years - perhaps
not so big - these figures are just plucked from the air

I agree absolutely that waste is a very big issue but the amounts here are
likely to be small and manageable

............in contrast and just one example look at Solar Pv and the heavy
metals in them - carcinogenic forever!

I really don't think plucking a number from nowhere helps

But thank you for the document(s) I am reading them now

Regards

James

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Holland
Sent: 07 May 2011 7:08 PM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FW: Thorium - the idea is growing!

Frank

--

[James Birkin]

Investment

China is investing

Private investors appear to be funding a US Thorium reactor

The Thorium revival is young - but Thorium threatens big Nuclear with so much invested in Uranium so of course no Thorium from the big guys!

All your examples are Uranium and yes massive problems - esp with waste but we have addressed that one on the Thorium front!

As for flip comments about cold fusion are you serious?

Why do you rely on commentators instead of your scientific knowledge? Are you worried that it might turn out to be a good idea?

So serious reasons still not forthcoming from Claverton!

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Holland
Sent: 07 May 2011 5:06 PM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

And

Nuclear Liability

Frank

--

[Dave McGrath]

If the waste is disposed of 100% during the lifetime of the generation plant then fine.  But if there is any residual waste management beyond a few years after decommissioning then we must question it.

 

On safety.  The scale of the fossil replacement is vast and if met by this technology then the failure risks rise in absolute terms.  If adopted by developing countries the risk rises relatively as their safety records are less stringent than ours.

[Peter Rowberry]

I agree that we must talk about the degree of risk, but the risk models must
be open and subject to review. The questions raised on the safe dose levels
produced by the International Committee on Radiological Protection must be
addressed, especially the effects of low level radiation ingested into the
body. I am fed up with hearing statements which say "it is OK, well below
safe dose levels" when the models producing those safe doses rely heavily on
data from the 2nd World war bombs and air burst nuclear tests. They do not
take sufficient account, in my opinion, of the effects of alpha emitters
which are ingested.

[James Birkin]

Hi Peter

I do agree - but the fact that no one knows the low safe dose does not mean
there is no such dose - just that no one wants to put their necks on the
block!

I think of the same phrase for asbestos (blue) yet I am sure most of us have
been exposed to at least a single fibre over our lives - I suspect far more
- yet most will survive and die from other things.

My understanding is that alpha emitters are treated with great caution -
indeed I seem to recall it is the main danger from Pu? The gamma radiation
is less of a problem.

Also I think conversely there is a greater knowledge since Chernobyl -
although how long term damage is assessed is still hard to see - I am
suspicious of the current view that Chernobyl was not so bad after all!

Still interested to know more about the ten million deaths - also over what
period might this mortality occur.

Regards

James

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Rowberry
Sent: 08 May 2011 7:38 AM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

[Peter Rowberry]

Fear and anxiety are part of the normal human psyche. Those who are not afraid die climbing mountains. They are designed to ensure that we do not take unnecessary risks. Irrational fears need to be opposed, but all of the evidence that I have is that my fear of the damage that will be done as a result of nuclear accidents, at least several hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths as a result of Chernobyl and Fukushima alone, show my fear is TOTALLY rational. How many people have died during the building and operation of hydro and wind power? Remember that my family and I live with 10km of a nuclear power station and we have saved all our lives for this house. I do not want it to end up in an exclusion zone!

 

When I moved here government policy was to decommission existing nuclear power stations and not to build any more. Is it OK for those who live 100km from a nuclear power station to accept the risk on my behalf? Why are new nuclear power stations not being built in the Thames Corridor, where brown field land exists aplenty and where the building will not damage even more of our Suffolk Heritage Coast?

----- Original Message -----

From: James Birkin

To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com

[Peter Rowberry]

Germany, a rather similar economy than ours, and with access to less
renewable resources than the UK, is planning to reduce electricity
consumption between now and 2050, not increase it. They, along with Italy,
have introduced a moratorium on building new nuclear power until the lessons
of Fukushima are clear. They appreciate that if we cannot produce energy
sustainably, then we are damaging the future of our planet and the life
chances of the next generation. We are addicted to excessive and
unsustainable use of energy. Addicts are well known for being in denial.
Bury your head in the sand and you get bitten from behind.

----- Original Message -----
From: "James Birkin" <j...@joblaw.org>
To: <energy-disc...@googlegroups.com>

[James Birkin]

I agree - we do need to question very rigorously all the assumptions etc - I doubt it all can be disposed of over the life of the plant - but it seems to me that small amounts for a shorter period might at some point on the scale be acceptable. But I would liek to see more of the figures (as no doubt would you)

[Frank Holland]

On Sun, 2011-05-08 at 10:28 +0100, Peter Rowberry wrote:
> Why are new nuclear power stations not being built in the Thames
> Corridor

Because the nuclear industry cannot guarantee the safety of their
reactors, and they won't, cannot, insure them. That speaks louder than
all the nonsense of low risk....couldn't have the Home Counties
contaminated could we? After all there are millions of people there and
they might all die from radiation induced cancers.....I say old chap
that isn't on you know!

Frank

[Herbert Eppel]

On 08.05.2011 10:34 UK Time, Peter Rowberry wrote:
> Germany, a rather similar economy than ours, and with access to less
> renewable resources than the UK, is planning to reduce electricity
> consumption between now and 2050, not increase it. They, along with
> Italy, have introduced a moratorium on building new nuclear power until
> the lessons of Fukushima are clear.

Just to be clear: New nuclear has been off the agenda for many years in
Germany, and all existing nuclear plants will definitely be shut down
sooner or later. The sole focus of the current discussion in Germany is
how quickly to shut down the existing plants.

Anyone suggesting building new nuclear in Germany definitely wouldn't be
taken seriously, to put it mildly.

See also
<http://herbeppel.blogspot.com/2011/03/i-have-non-nuclear-dream.html>

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Herbert Eppel]

On 07.05.2011 13:00 UK Time, James Birkin wrote:
> It is because fear is the main argument against nuclear!!

I beg to differ - see
<http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/news/nuclear/article-933826-detail/article.html>

Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

[Peter Rowberry]

I did not say that we do not pretend to know the safe dose rates. The International Committee on Radiological Protection (IPRC) does calculate and publish these so called safe doses and these have been regularly quoted in the past weeks post Fukushima. Many of our government's policies and actions are based on these safe doses. As an aside, the Japanese government has seen fit to unilaterally increase these safe doses without examining the evidence.

 

What I am saying is that the safe does rates as calculated are wrong, because they are using the wrong model, a model which I (and many more expert than I) say underestimate the effects of low energy beta and all alpha emitters, partly because they are difficult to measure and partly because the model relies heavily on data from ground burst weapons, such as the WW2 bombs and bomb tests. Other measures, such as "above or below background" is irrelevant when background is being routinely increased by the acts of man. The real issue is damage to the organism, both human and those we share the planet with. The latest papers on nuclear safety from COMARE conveniently did not bother to address these concerns about doses.

 

Alpha particles are effectively a helium nucleus, quite large and stopped by a sheet of tissue paper but not by a cell wall, so if in close proximity of cells, i.e. ingested, can cause significant damage. Pu239 is indeed a high energy alpha source, but other sources, such as Tritium and Caesium 137, both low level beta emitters, are also blamed for damage to cells. They are biologically active and much longer lived than Iodine 131 (Half lives:-  Iodine131 = 7 days, Tritium = 12 years, Caesium137 = 30 years and Plutonioum239 = >24,000 years). Tritium, is routinely released when refuelling the PWR reactor at Sizewell (albeit in controlled amounts governed by licence). Farms in Wales and NE England are still under restriction because of Caesium 137 pollution from Cheronbyl. I contend that damage from these istopes are probably responsible for the damage done to those who live near to nuclear power stations.

 

If we are advocates for sound science these issues must be addressed, not ignored just because they are inconvenient politically.

[James Birkin]

You say it is rational - but you are not examining what it is you are afraid of - I agree with a lot of what you might fear as regards old technology - but the irrational part is the refusal to look at this use of  thorium which is wholly different - by all means argue the facts A wholesale fear of anything nuclear would mean no X rays, no CTs no medical benefits so clearly there is a line to be drawn - I think the line is a rational appreciation of what is dangerous - how can you do that without examining the product?

[James Birkin]

Yes much is true - but how does this relate to Thorium?

 

All this is the result of old technology --the great advantage of the LFTR  is the reduction by a really huge factor of the amount and toxicity of waste  -

 

If you are saying that one atom produced of Pu makes it unacceptable I disagree - there are acceptable levels of everything - and at least with radioactive isotopes they decay (although I accept Pu takes a hell of  a time)

 

We live with Atmospheric Radon for example because for us the level is low enough yet it too is an alpha emitter (wikipedia seems to say  that on "a global scale, it is estimated that 2,400 million curies (90 TBq) of radon are released from soil annually")

 

 

 

I am with you on addressing the issues - and as I keep on saying the old technolgy and wate is one of the reasons I dont like it  -  but that is still not  a reason to ditch Thorium without seriously looking at it

 

 

 

Regards

 

 

James

[Peter Rowberry]

James,

 

If I were worried about radiation per se I would never go out in the sun either! As for Thorium, I will examine the technology more carefully once it is more proven and the issues of fuel contamination (among others), which make it difficult to sustain a high quality nuclear reaction, are addressed. We have many years of knowledge of the Uranium fuel cycle and much less for Thorium. It appears the products of Thorium fission will slow or absorb neutrons, much more than Uranium products, effectively damping the reaction and meaning a greater numbers of refuelling cycles. These factors have a critical impact on the quantity of waste products and the cost effectiveness of the solution. I cannot assess the risks of Thorium recator waste unless we have a clearer idea of what and how much waste is produced.

 

I have stated before that I would be quite happy to wait for Thorium technology if that meant that Uranium recators would not be built in the meantime, mostly because I believe that the technology is not as developed as the industry would have us believe. No-one anywhere in the world is building a commercial Thorioum reactor, in spite of its advantages. I have also stated that the UK government is unlikely to support a Thorium reactor as it does not produce the Plutonium it needs for Trident. Non-proliferation is only an advantage if governments accept it as an objective and are prepared to comply themselves. A case of who is going to blink first? With Thorium, we are not living in the real world.

[James Birkin]

By the way Frank

are you sure of the 2.5 million years?

If Pu 239 has a half life of 24,000 years then 10 half lives (a reduction of
1000 in the amount of Pu left ) is surely 240,000?

I agree that it is still a very very long time although I do think requiring
a reduction of 1,000 seems a bit over the top!

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Frank Holland
Sent: 07 May 2011 7:08 PM
To: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: FW: Thorium - the idea is growing!

Frank

--

[James Birkin]

Hi Peter

 

the technology is sufficiently advanced that one was built forty years ago.  People are embarking on building one (or have announced a target of 2015) in the last few days.

 

I don't really think it is enough simply to wait and see what develops - every year that goes by gets us worse into the mire.  It seems to me that if we are serious about addressing these huge issues we need to have an opinion on things as they are today. 

 

Do Clavertonians  support research and development to see if Thorium develops as promised?  I feel "... I don't know enough to comment" is OK for a non -professional but for Energy consultants it sounds  pretty lame  .

 

The refuelling is continuous and the Thorium breeds pretty slowly I gather (the paper I was directed to by Frank predicted that the 1t of starter U233 wd become 2 t in  25 years - although there is a lot of fission in between!) .  The Thorium itself is not fissile - it is bred to U233 (via Protactinium for  a few days)  which is very fissile and not very fertile (hence the paucity of heavier transuranics).  I am not quite sure what you mean regarding the products - do you have a reference?

 

Cynical as I am about the industry I am not convinced about your government arguments The Plutonium inventory is pretty high now  and others having the weapons is a far greater fear than not having Pu.

 

The proposal on the table is that Claverton supports urgent efforts to examine whether LFTRs come up to scratch and so long as it appears they might members support the research.

 

I find it hard to see why anyone could disagree with it!

 

 

Rgards

 

 

James

[James Birkin]

Plans and reality are two different things - I can't see quite how if we are
to move to a low carbon economy - I seem to recall transport will add
perhaps a third extra (i will be corrected no doubt if this is wrong) and
the general per capita demand seems to be increasing despite all efforts.

I agree with the addiction point - and we have to both reduce demand and
address the best way to cater for what people do use.

-----Original Message-----
From: energy-disc...@googlegroups.com
[mailto:energy-disc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Peter
Rowberry

[Neil Crumpton]

James, 

I think that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Claveton - it does not do consensus - this is a diverse discussion group - attempts to date to present a collective / unified view on anything have floundered. You should not take the views of one voluntary response as representative of a lame professional response of the group.. I presume most of us are all overloaded trying to read papers on all kinds of topics - and composing email on Sunday's.

I could suggest in response to one of your previous emails that it is 'your duty' to study carbon-negative generation or latest solar developments in depth before suggesting that we need Thorium reactors. I don't think many on Claverton would be specifically saying no to (additional) R&D into Thorium reactors - we are probably all technically inquisitive. As it happens, I would generally support R&D into Gen IV reactors, indeed FOE has stated it supports R&D into Thorium reactors ! How much that translates to in funding globally I really don't know (and don't wish to express a view without reading lots about specific and wider R&D funding issues which I don't have time for).

I was not joking about suggesting a demo reactor in Iran - if they are deemed not to have proliferation issues (which is my main concern - not particularly safety or necessarily waste or cost). The US and EU have been / are trying to get Iran to develop civil nuclear power but not reprocessing etc. From my understanding a Thorium industry could still pose a clandestine proliferation risk - but if US / EU is happy about thorium reactor demo in Iran then I would certainly take notice ! Unfortunately only Gen III technologies are on the table in UK and around the world.

Personally I am more interested in the more imminent question of what to do with the Pu / U /spent fuel stockpiled at Sellafield - bury or burn in Gen IV reactors - and even more interested in technologies or techniques that could remove CO2 from atmosphere at large scale - no nuclear technology can do that.

That said your thoughtful pursuit and thorium reactors has probably been noted by some / most and may well have gained a sympathetic hearing - though obviously I could in no way be speaking for the group...

Neil

[James Birkin]

Yes

 

perhaps consensus is aiming a bit high and whilst it is unlikely maybe not impossible....and then again.......

 

The difference I think is that I am not doing down other fields whereas there really seems a determination not to look at Thorium because the Nuclear option has been so tarnished by what has happened to date - understandable but yes I am keen to make the case.

 

I see what you mean about Iran - the NNL seems dubious about the non - proliferation claim  but don't really explain why in their paper so I am not sure about that.

 

I absolutely agree re Sellafield - there did seem some suggestion that some of the Pu could be used as a neutron source in the Thorium  but that one went over my head - will need to do some more reading.

 

I am really only pushing this one because it does seem to make some pretty big claims and I wd like to see what is good and what is not !

 

Kind regards

 

 

James

[Dave Elliott]

Ive been following this debate  and still find it odd that , while it's said that we really need to hear from the experts, the evidence provided by the leading experts in the UK, the National  Nuclear Labs, was treated as somehow suspect - pressumably because they didn't back Thorium.   www.nnl.co.uk/positionpapers.  

It is sadly easy to become convinced that something is the answer and then to see all counter views as evidence that the answer is not being treated seriousy.   I hope that's not this  is not  the case in this instance.

Personally I found their analysis quite convincing ,  but then I'm not a nuclear enthusiast,  a position  reinforced  by my belief that there are so many renewable energy alternatives, all of which seem to be easier and less risky to explore, with many of them being marginalised by the continued, and it seems to me, increasingly desperate, focus on nuclear.  If China want to try it, fine.  But I suspect they will find that it's a dodgy long shot. As with fusion, I think we shoud focus our limited UK resources on more immedediately productive ideas.

Dave E

--
The Open University is incorporated by Royal Charter (RC 000391), an exempt charity in England & Wales and a charity registered in Scotland (SC 038302).

[Peter Rowberry]

I totally agree with Niel. I have never been against research into any technology that will help us live in a more sustainable way and Thorium may well do that. We shall see.

[Peter Rowberry]

James,

I agree that plans are not reality, but the figures in the government White
Paper on Energy are also just plans. I have stated before that the need for
increasing electricity to support low carbon transport could equally be
supported by hydrogen and methane rather than electricity, especially if
produced by a larger number of local resources, yet the White paper has
discounted this. You may not be aware that electricity consumption in the UK
between 2005 and 2008 has actually decreased by around 3% from 6252 to 6061
Kwhr per capita. Some of this may be explained by lower economic activity,
but I suggest that greater use of locally produced energy, such as solar
panels is also a factor. This reduction is before any "FIT effect". I
contend that we cannot in the longer term support a rapidly growing use of
energy, from whatever source, without damaging our planet's ecosystems. I am
just arguing for a move towards greater, not less, sustainability.

[Peter Rowberry]

I fear another red herring, but see that this dialogue is reaching the point where it is counter productive. I suggest that James and I take this off line.

[James Birkin]

I don't think i disagree with that - demand management seems vital.

Certainly for the present I am going to keep the pressure on re Thorium -
perhaps each discipline needs its advocates - I don't think anyone on this
site disagrees on the objectives - just the path to get there!

[Neil Crumpton]

James, 

The UK's National Nuclear Laboratory NNL (August 2010) paper Dave Elliot posted yesterday is pretty decisive for me :   www.nnl.co.uk/positionpapers.  (thanks Dave)

I have extracted some of the highly pertinent statements - copied below - pretty damning. I see NO obvious strategic benefits and at least two decades away anyway, and little if any reduction in proliferation risk.

Sorry - Thorium is now another dangerous distraction in my view.

Let India put in most of the R&D as it has most to gain IF commercial reactors do get developed in future decades (there is already a debate about UK aid to India - while they develop a space programme ! - part based on mining Helium 3 fusion fuel from the Moon ! ). Globally the nuclear industry is not particularly interested in Thorium as there is sufficient U and Pu to be getting on with. I would rather see Britain keep focus NOW on developing (marine) RES and CCS technologies - there would be even less rationale for buying in Indian Thorium technology in a few decades time assuming reactors / fuel cycles were proven commercially - and NOT for demonstrating in Iran, Israel etc !

Neil

NNL extracts :

* The argument that the high U-232 content would be self- protecting are considered to be over-stated. NNL’s view is that thorium systems are no more proliferation resistant than U-Pu systems though they may offer limited benefits in some circumstances.

* NNL’s view is .. that thorium fuel cycles are likely to offer modest reductions in radiotoxicity. 

 * NNL believes that while economic benefits are theoretically achievable by using thorium fuels, in current market conditions the position is marginal and insufficient to justify major investment

* Based on NNL’s knowledge and experience of introducing new fuels into modern reactors, it is estimated that this is likely to take 10 to 15 years even with a concerted R&D effort and investment before the thorium fuel cycle could be established in current reactors and much longer for any future reactor systems..

Summary

NNL believes that the thorium fuel cycle does not currently have a role to play in the UK context, other than its potential application for plutonium management in the medium to long term and depending on the indigenous thorium reserves, is likely to have only a limited role internationally for some years ahead. The technology is innovative, although technically immature and currently not of interest to the utilities, representing significant financial investment and risk without notable benefits. In many cases, the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle have been over-stated.

---------

[Brendan Mcnamara]

Consistent from the Nothing New Laboratory. Did not consider leading designs - v different from Inian activity. Brendan

Sent from my iPhone 07768748217. @brenergy239 

Brendan McNamara

77 Bath  Hill Court

Bournemouth BH1 2HT. UK

Leabrook Computing

Pres. EfN-UK www.ecolo.org

Mbr Tokamak Solutions

[Frank Holland]

It was a test, James...now I know where you are coming from!

Nothing else from me on this.

Frank