Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Science
Related: About this forumProliferation Warnings On Nuclear 'Wonder-Fuel', Thorium
There's been a lot of anti-science hype about Thorium as a nuclear fuel.
Nature recently ran an article debunking some of the hype regarding it's proliferation risks.
Here are two news stories about it, the second one has some good comments by Thierry Dujardin, deputy director for science and development of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments Nuclear Energy Agency.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121205132246.htm
Proliferation Warnings On Nuclear 'Wonder-Fuel', Thorium
Dec. 5, 2012 Thorium is being touted as an ideal fuel for a new generation of nuclear power plants, but in a piece in this week's Nature, researchers suggest it may not be as benign as portrayed.
The element thorium, which many regard as a potential nuclear "wonder-fuel," could be a greater proliferation threat than previously thought, scientists have warned.
Writing in a Comment piece in the new issue of the journal, Nature, nuclear energy specialists from four British universities suggest that, although thorium has been promoted as a superior fuel for future nuclear energy generation, it should not be regarded as inherently proliferation resistant. The piece highlights ways in which small quantities of uranium-233, a material useable in nuclear weapons, could be produced covertly from thorium, by chemically separating another isotope, protactinium-233, during its formation.
The chemical processes that are needed for protactinium separation could possibly be undertaken using standard lab equipment, potentially allowing it to happen in secret, and beyond the oversight of organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the paper says.
<snip>
Proliferation Warnings On Nuclear 'Wonder-Fuel', Thorium
Dec. 5, 2012 Thorium is being touted as an ideal fuel for a new generation of nuclear power plants, but in a piece in this week's Nature, researchers suggest it may not be as benign as portrayed.
The element thorium, which many regard as a potential nuclear "wonder-fuel," could be a greater proliferation threat than previously thought, scientists have warned.
Writing in a Comment piece in the new issue of the journal, Nature, nuclear energy specialists from four British universities suggest that, although thorium has been promoted as a superior fuel for future nuclear energy generation, it should not be regarded as inherently proliferation resistant. The piece highlights ways in which small quantities of uranium-233, a material useable in nuclear weapons, could be produced covertly from thorium, by chemically separating another isotope, protactinium-233, during its formation.
The chemical processes that are needed for protactinium separation could possibly be undertaken using standard lab equipment, potentially allowing it to happen in secret, and beyond the oversight of organisations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), the paper says.
<snip>
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/is-the-superfuel-thorium-risker-than-we-thought-14821644
Is the "Superfuel" Thorium Risker Than We Thought?
A new study in Nature says that using thorium as a nuclear fuel has a higher risk for proliferation into weapons than scientists had believed.
By Phil McKenna
December 5, 2012 2:05 PM
Imagine a cheap, plentiful source of energy that could provide safe, emissions-free power for hundreds of years without refueling and without any risk of nuclear proliferation. The fuel is thorium, and it has been trumpeted by proponents as a "superfuel" that eludes many of the pitfalls of todays nuclear energy. But now, as a number of countries including China, India, and the United States explore the potential use of thorium for nuclear power, researchers say one of the biggest claims made about the fuelits proliferation resistancedoesnt add up.
<snip>
Thierry Dujardin, deputy director for science and development of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments Nuclear Energy Agency takes a middle of the road approach to concerns over proliferation with thorium. "Its probably as wrong to claim there is no proliferation concern as to say its worse than other fuels," Dujardin says.
<snip>
However, Dujardin says, a number of advanced reactor designs, including molten salt reactors, provide similar benefits and can use existing uranium-based fuel. And for cost reasons alone, Dujardin says it may be better to continue developing next-generation reactor designs using existing uranium fuel technology.
"When a technology is in some difficulty, and nuclear technology has been shocked by the Fukushima accident in Japan, people search for a magic solution, but there is no silver bullet," he says. "The difference in the state of development of thorium versus other sources of fuel is so vast and the cost of developing the technology is so high, its really questionable today whether its worthwhile to spend a lot of money on the development of thorium."
<snip>
Is the "Superfuel" Thorium Risker Than We Thought?
A new study in Nature says that using thorium as a nuclear fuel has a higher risk for proliferation into weapons than scientists had believed.
By Phil McKenna
December 5, 2012 2:05 PM
Imagine a cheap, plentiful source of energy that could provide safe, emissions-free power for hundreds of years without refueling and without any risk of nuclear proliferation. The fuel is thorium, and it has been trumpeted by proponents as a "superfuel" that eludes many of the pitfalls of todays nuclear energy. But now, as a number of countries including China, India, and the United States explore the potential use of thorium for nuclear power, researchers say one of the biggest claims made about the fuelits proliferation resistancedoesnt add up.
<snip>
Thierry Dujardin, deputy director for science and development of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Developments Nuclear Energy Agency takes a middle of the road approach to concerns over proliferation with thorium. "Its probably as wrong to claim there is no proliferation concern as to say its worse than other fuels," Dujardin says.
<snip>
However, Dujardin says, a number of advanced reactor designs, including molten salt reactors, provide similar benefits and can use existing uranium-based fuel. And for cost reasons alone, Dujardin says it may be better to continue developing next-generation reactor designs using existing uranium fuel technology.
"When a technology is in some difficulty, and nuclear technology has been shocked by the Fukushima accident in Japan, people search for a magic solution, but there is no silver bullet," he says. "The difference in the state of development of thorium versus other sources of fuel is so vast and the cost of developing the technology is so high, its really questionable today whether its worthwhile to spend a lot of money on the development of thorium."
<snip>
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
3 replies, 1437 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
3 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Proliferation Warnings On Nuclear 'Wonder-Fuel', Thorium (Original Post)
bananas
Dec 2012
OP
How many Billions does it cost to go nuclear? How many Billions in TAX benefit
Vincardog
Dec 2012
#3
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)1. Imagine a cheap, plentiful source of energy that could provide safe,
emissions-free power for hundreds of years without refueling and without any risk of nuclear proliferation.
You just imagined Wind, Solar, Geo-thermal and or Tidal.
There is not future for Nukes.
Yo_Mama
(8,303 posts)2. "Cheap" is missing from the list right now n/t
Vincardog
(20,234 posts)3. How many Billions does it cost to go nuclear? How many Billions in TAX benefit
do Oil Gas and Coal get every year in addition to the use of Roads, bridges, pipelines, and waterways provided by US? Cheap is relative.