Energy Content of Thorium

Featured

When a LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is used to extract energy from thorium, we could effectively “burn rocks” for energy.

Imagine a cube, perhaps roughly the size of a small car.  In order to see the tiny amount of thorium that would be contained within the average dirt pile, we need to zoom in.

Thorium is only ~0.001% in an average pile of dirt, but it packs in so much energy, that – using LFTR, it contains the equivalent energy content of 30 times the amount of crude oil, compared to the size of the original dirt cube!

Thorium Energy Content Merged Final

Click here if you want to see the math in detail for a cubic meter of dirt.

 

About LFTR – Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactors

Featured

You wouldn’t use a 20 year old phone, so why are we using 20+ year old nuclear technology?

Here is the short overview on LFTR and Thorium (the fuel of the future):

 

Thorium

- Element 90, found as Thorium 232 in nature, is 4 times more common than Uranium and about 200-300x more common than U-235, the fuel we burn in Light Water Reactors (LWRs) in the US and much of the world.  That’s just the start…

- Thorium is naturally radioactive like uranium, and has a half-life equal to the age of the universe (about 15 billion years) so it will be with us for a long time

- It is found in large quantities in “Rare Earth” mines, which are rare in the US because they dig up Thorium.  Because Thorium is (weakly) radioactive, US law requires it be treated as a radioactive waste and buried.  Too much Thorium in a rare earth mine makes it unprofitable, but its these such rare earth mines that bring up the high technology metals we need in society today, such as Neodymium for magnets (think generators and motors).

- A LWR (Light Water Reactor) in the US burns about 0.5% of the fuel put in it, the remaining 99.5% is disposed as unburned fuel as part of the radioactive waste.  A LFTR on the other hand, running from Thorium could burn all 100% of the fuel

- Because it can all be consumed, if you held a marble a little over an inch across (~3 cm) made of Thorium, it could power your entire (western world) needs for your entire life. (more:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbGZ_Y-xkPM)

- The “waste” products are far less than that of the Light Water Reactor technology used today.  Also, the amount of mining is far less – and a natural result of a rare earth mine (see above).  (more: http://energyfromthorium.com/2007/01/09/uranium-vs-thorium-mining-processing-waste-generation/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Economy_and_efficiency)

- The byproducts of a LFTR are radioactive, but contain few “transuranic” elements – elements that could be used as fuel, and are radioactive for a very long time.  Instead, much of the “waste” could be recycled into useful products after a month or a few years of cooling off, and by about 100 years, much of the radioactivity is gone.

- There is less risk of proliferation with LFTR (Thorium) fuel, since Thorium doesn’t fission in itself, and stolen active LFTR fuel would be full of U232 (a natural byproduct of the LFTR process, not required to be added).  U232 is very radioactive and would damage electronics and irradiate the people stealing it, and make any stolen material easy to find.

 

LFTR - Liquid Fueled Thorium Reactor

- A LFTR is a different kind of reactor.  It was invented in the 1940s in Oak Ridge Labs, but was quickly abandoned since the nuclear reactions were not good for bomb-making

- Since the focus was on bombs and Uranium originally, the infrastructure of LWRs (light water reactors) quickly grew and stabilized, ignoring Thorium technologies such as LFTR (more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI - Jump to 12 min to hear the Nixon tape – very damning evidence, and a real shame).

- This kind of reactor can’t “melt down” as it is already liquid.  It runs in the 700°C range giving far superior thermodynamic efficiency.  High pressure is nowhere near the core, since a hot salt loop transfers the heat to the generators.

- The reactor is designed with a “salt plug” in its base, cooled by a fan.  If power is ever lost, the system fan would shut down (due to lost power), and the plug melts, draining the fuel into a storage container where fission stops.  The fuel would also cool and solidify.  If there were ever a breach in the reactor, material would drain into the same tank.  Even if the tank broke, the fuel would simply solidify on the floor.  Safety can be done completely passively, no worries about hoping systems will be online when needed.

- The reaction has a natural “negative feedback”, which means that if demand for power grows, the reactor will run faster, but if it falls, it will reduce its output.  It also will run slower as it gets too hot, so more heat does not make the reaction go out of control, it actually slows the reaction (due to expansion making fissions less likely).

- The fuel is cheap (see Thorium above), and since there is no high pressure, huge thick walls and buildings are not necessary.  This lowers the space and cost requirements of a building.

- Any nuclear fuel generates Xenon gas while in a reactor.  This gas slows reactions and in the case of LWRs and other solid fueled reactors that we use today, it cracks and damages the fuel pellets.  Since LFTRs are liquid, it simply bubbles out of solution.  It can also be collected, and in a few months is no longer radioactive and can be sold.  This is also one reason the fuel in LWRs is only 0.5% burned, because if it were to be left in longer, the expansion from this would damage the tube inside of the reactor.

- LFTRs can make isotopes of materials we desperately need.  Mo-99 is needed by hospitals for radiation treatments, Pu238 is needed by NASA for space missions to the outer reaches of the solar system, and Bi213 for new targeted (Leukemia and Pancreas) cancer treatments. (more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2at8C8YrX80)

- LFTRs can also burn radioactive “waste” we are currently storing, made from the LWR units of today.  We could actually reduce our radioactive waste using LFTRs.

- China is already working on LFTR technology and stockpiling Thorium.  India is working on Thorium for solid fueled reactors, but will probably move to LFTR as a natural part of that research. (more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Recent_developments)

 

Did you know?

- A typical coal burning plant emits far more radioactivity into the air than any nuclear plant.  Nuclear plants keep their fuels inside the building, but the smoke from coal contains all manner of poisonous materials (mercury, cadmium, etc) and several naturally radioactive ones such as Uranium and Thorium.  These materials are fairly safe as rocks, but as a breathable dust, not so much.

- Nuclear power is over 1,000,000 times more energy dense than burning fossil fuels.  The comparison is nuclear energy to that of a carbon-hydrogen bond.

- US current needs for energy burn a rail car of coal about every 1-3 seconds.  Thats about 100 tons per rail car.

- There have been far more deaths from coal mining than all nuclear power accidents combined.

 

 

 

Palo Verde Arizona Nuclear Energy Education Center

If you happen to be in Arizona near Phoenix, you might want to stop by the Palo Verde Energy Education Center and have a look.

Getting to the EEC

Getting to the EEC – Click to view map.

 

 

Its focus is on nuclear power and offers some very well done and modern, interactive exhibits with touch screens and large monitors.

The Palo Verde Plant is an amazing feat of engineering:
- largest nuclear plant in the US (energy output of nearly 30,000 GWh per year)
- only nuclear plant in the world using effluent (waste) water for cooling
- the energy produced is cheaper than from coal
- emits less radiation to the environment than a coal plant
- Green Energy – the equivalent of 84 million cars off the road

The actual Palo Verde Plant is about 25 miles west of the Education Center and doesn’t generally offer tours, so they put together the Energy Education Center to show the public what the Palo Verde plant and nuclear energy is all about.  The center was completed at the end of 2013.

Learn more about the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

Whether you can make it for a visit or not, take a peek at my video channel “LFTRnow” on YouTube to check out my tour of the EEC, each video is about 5 minutes long.  One has more of a documentary style and only looks at the outside.  The video featuring the inside blasts though all of the exhibits in a whirlwind tour with music, giving you an idea of the quality of exhibits and information.   I hope you enjoy!

Outside at the EEC

Outside at the EEC

Inside the EEC

Inside the EEC

 

 

Replacing Nuclear with Solar (part 2)

I did the math (and maps) recently to compare Arizona Public Service’s (APS’s) brand new “Solana” solar power plant to the current Palo Verde Nuclear power plant.

The Solana plant is one of the most efficient solar thermal plants in the US today and it has thermal energy storage to be able to continue to produce power when the sun goes down.   It is so new, I was unable to locate a Google map to display it, so I’ve just represented it as an orange box to compare the area.  Here is how it roughly compares with the Palo Verde Nuclear power plant (outlined in blue) in area.

PVvsSolarThermal-Sml

It doesn’t look too bad right?  The nuclear plant takes up roughly 1.5+ square miles including the nearby cooling ponds to the east, and the solar plant is 3 square miles.

However, where it gets interesting is when you compare Wikipedia for the total annual output in GWh (gigawatt-hours).  On your electric bill, power is paid for and measured in kWh.  1 million kWh = 1 GWh, so that should give you a sense of scale.

The Solana plant is expected to produce 944 GWh per year!  Amazing.

The Palo Verde plant will produce 29,250 GWh in the same year.  Oh.  Its about 31x more than the solar plant even though the nuclear plant is about half the size of the solar plant.  That’s about 60x less space for the same power.

If you wanted to build 31 Solana’s (at about $2 billion x 31 total cost), you could then equal the output of the Palo Verde plant (which cost $6 billion in 1988).  It would take up roughly 100 square miles.  Here is what that looks like comparing the current nuclear plant (blue), the solar plant size (orange) with the required equivalent solar (yellow).    Note the size of Phoenix to the east.  The blue box is hard to see at this scale. PVvsSolarThermal

 

It depends on where you say Phoenix ends and the suburbs begin, but I’d say it would need to be quite a bit larger than the city of Phoenix in size.

Speaking earlier of costs, APS is to lease the power from Solana for about 14c/kWh, or put simply higher in cost than the current price of electricity consumers pay in Phoenix.  That means the costs for electricity will be going up, and/or it will be coming out of tax subsidies.  The nuclear plant generates energy for less than 2c/kWh.

The nuclear plant is cheaper than coal and about 7x cheaper than solar thermal, and takes up less than 60x the space for the same yearly energy output.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palo_Verde_Nuclear_Generating_Station

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solana_Generating_Station

 Coming soon – I visited the Palo Verde Energy Education Center in Buckeye (located between Phoenix and the plant).  I took some video…

 

Replacing Nuclear with Solar

You sometimes hear:  “We should use the nuclear station in the sky for all of our power needs”

I did some interesting math to look at the environmentalist idea of replacing all of our current power plants with solar plants.

In Pickering, Ontario, Canada, is the “Pickering Generating Station” consisting of 8 CANDU reactors, each producing about 0.5 GW.  Put together they are over 4.1 GW.  I wondered how much space this would take up as solar panels…

The picture shows clearly the efficiency between a 4.1GW nuclear plant and its equivalent in solar.  To actually replace solar in Pickering would actually take up twice the space shown, since the solar radiation is about half of what was used in the calculation.  In short, you would have to cover the entire town in solar panels, to do what one plant can do (see the light blue box in the lower right corner).

Proof (warning, MATH!)

To give this a fighting chance, I imagined that the solar is put in Phoenix AZ (well known for its 300+ days of sun/year), and looked up the solar “insolation” – a measurement of the average power of the sun in an area over a year.  Phoenix is about 6.5 kWh per square meter.

With 15% efficient panels (normal) and ignoring all other losses, it results in about 1 kWh.  Multiplying by 365, gives about 365 kWh of output every year, per square meter.

The nuclear plant on the other hand is 4.1 GW of output, all day, every day, or 4.1 GW x 365 x 24 hrs x 1 million kWh per GWh = 36 thousand million kWh = 36,000,000,000 kWh per year from the plant.
Divide this by 365 kWh per year: 36,000,000,000 / 365 = 100,000,000 square meters, or 100 square km (roughly).

End of THE MATH

 

The purple line drawn is 10×10 km to make 100 square km.  In reality, if you replaced the actual Pickering plant, and put the panels in Pickering, you would need about 200 square km of them, since the solar insolation is about half that of phoenix, and don’t even get me started on the snow removal on 200 square km of solar panels.

Consider also the cost of building and installing and maintaining 100-200 square km of solar panels, or the environmental damage of that much shade (if you built it somewhere remote).  Or, consider that they will need to be replaced about every 30 years, or that there is only power generated when the sun shines.

The original technology for the CANDU reactor used in this example (sitting operating in Pickering), is over 40 years old.  It isn’t even a thorium LFTR reactor, which would be about 100x more efficient than the CANDU or about 300x more efficient than the standard US based light-water reactors.

The math took care to use an average number for the year, but unless you don’t mind either huge costly energy storage solutions, or not having power at night – other solutions must also be added in.  It is just too bad we don’t have:  something that is on 24/7, doesn’t use vast amounts of resources, and doesn’t emit greenhouse gases – like nuclear power.  Hmm!  How about that – We do!  And with thorium and LFTR, it could be better.

 

 

Awesome News – Bill Gates is looking at Thorium

Some people reading this might be aware of Gate’s Terrapower company which is in the process of building a uranium based traveling wave reactor, but this is news!

“TerraPower, the Gates-chaired nuclear power company, has garnered attention for pursuing traveling wave reactor tech, which runs entirely on spent uranium and would rarely need to be refueled. But the concern just quietly announced that it’s going to start seriously exploring thorium power, too.”

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/bill-gates-is-beginning-to-dream-the-thorium-dream

 

Full article (original source) at the Weinberg Foundation:

http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2013/07/23/bill-gates-nuclear-company-explores-molten-salt-reactors-thorium/

 

TEAC4

 

. Kirk Sorensen – A Global Alternative (thorium energy via LFTR) @ TEAC4Kirk Sorensen - A Global Alternative (thorium energy via LFTR) @ TEAC4

LFTR offers greater efficiency and safety over today’s operating reactors, and even proposed light water / boiling water reactors. LFTR also provides spare processes heat and valuable isotopes as a byproduct of normal operation, something today’s reactors can not, due to their low operating temperature.

 

. Baroness Bryony Worthington – Political Challenges of Thorium Molten Salt Reactors @ TEAC4Baroness Bryony Worthington - Political Challenges of Thorium Molten Salt Reactors @ TEAC4

Bryony Worthington encourages thorium proponents to work with existing environmental organizations, emphasizing the need for renewable energy until LFTR is ready for deployment.

 

 John Kutsch – Why of Thorium & the Way Forward @ TEAC4John Kutsch - Why of Thorium & the Way Forward @ TEAC4

John Kutsch, the director of Thorium Energy Alliance, summarizes outcome of his (and Jim Kennedy’s) political endeavors since TEAC3.

 

Magdi Ragheb – Thorium Fuel Cycle Using Electrostatic & Electrodynamic Neutron Generators @ TEAC4Magdi Ragheb - Thorium Fuel Cycle Using Electrostatic & Electrodynamic Neutron Generators @ TEAC4

 

Joe Bonometti – Thorium Education & Outreach @ TEAC4Joe Bonometti - Thorium Education & Outreach @ TEAC4

Joe Bonometti on the opportunity to expand an Albuquerque nuclear power museum to include coverage of Molten Salt Reactors.

 

Canon Bryan – Structural Concerns with Nuclear Fuel Supply @ TEAC4Canon Bryan - Structural Concerns with Nuclear Fuel Supply @ TEAC4

Canon argues that thorium based fuel cycle can alleviate USA’s vulnerability to imminent uranium supply crisis, as western nations start competing with China, Russia, Korea & Middle East for nuclear fuel.

 

Alex Cannara – Ionizing Radiation & Health @ TEAC4Alex Cannara - Ionizing Radiatoin & Health @ TEAC4

Alex gives overview of our current inadvertent terraform, focusing on ocean acidification as highest potential for near-term disaster. The urgency of addressing this problem is contrasted with mus-information and poor policy surrounding the effects of radiation. Linear no-threshold is examined.

 

Alex Cannara – Linear No-Threshold Radiation Lies @ TEAC4Alex Cannara - Linear No-Threshold Radiation Lies @ TEAC4

This is a portion of Alex Cannara’s TEAC4 presentation, focusing elusively on the effects of radiation, and that misinformation have been used to guide government policy, and also mislead the public as to the effects of exposure to small amounts of radiation.

 

David LeBlanc – Molten Salt Reactor Designs, Options & Outlook @ TEAC4David LeBlanc - Molten Salt Reactor Designs, Options & Outlook @ TEAC4

Canadian David LeBlanc describes the benefits of liquid fuel Molten Salt Reactors over solid fuel reactors, emphasizing reactor design over any relative advantages of thorium or uranium.  Come for the thorium, stay for the reactor!

 

David Earnshaw – How the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor LFTR could boost Wyoming’s Economy @ TEAC4David Earnshaw - How the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor LFTR could boost Wyoming's Economy @ TEAC4

David Earnshaw – How the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor could boost Wyoming’s Economy @ TEAC4

 

Kim Johnson – Thorium Molten Salt Science for Industrial Allies @ TEAC4Kim Johnson - Thorium Molten Salt Science for Industrial Allies @ TEAC4

Kim Johnson reviews what industries can benefit from Molten Salt Reactor process heat, such as Oil Sands, Natural Gas and Airlines. Interesting anecdotal evidence of particular contacts expressing interest.

 

Jim Kennedy – Link Between Thorium and Self Reliance in Rare Earths & Energy @ TEAC4Jim Kennedy - Link Between Thorium and Self Reliance in Rare Earths & Energy @ TEAC4

The western world has within its capacity far more than enough rare earths (including heavy rare earths) to meet its own industrial demand. It is an unwillingness to process material containing thorium which is ultimately impeding our high tech manufacturing sector.

 

John Kutsch – Welcome to Thorium Energy Alliance Conference #4 – TEAC4John Kutsch - Welcome to Thorium Energy Alliance Conference #4 - TEAC4

John Kutsch welcomes you to TEAC4 – Thorium Energy Alliance’s Conference #4, which was held in Chicago on May 31st and June 1st of 2012.

 

Joe Bonometti – Liquid, Modular & Thorium as the End Goal – Systems Analyst on MSR/LFTR @ TEAC4Joe Bonometti - Liquid, Modular & Thorium as the End Goal - Systems Analyst on MSR/LFTR @ TEAC4

Joe Bonometti summarized issues to discus at Thorium Energy Alliance’s 4th conference in Chicago.

 

Dr. David LeBlanc – Molten Salt Reactors, Canada, and the Athabasca Oil Sands @ TEAC4Dr. David LeBlanc - Molten Salt Reactors, Canada, and the Athabasca Oil Sands @ TEAC4

Dr. David LeBlanc speaks about using a nuclear reactor to generate steam for SAGD projects in the oil sands. Excerpted from the full presentation David LeBlanc – Molten Salt Reactor Designs, Options & Outlook @ TEAC4

 

Eric Meyer chroma interview for THORIUM REMIX shot at TEAC4Eric Meyer chroma interview for THORIUM REMIX shot at TEAC4

Right before TEAC4 wrapped up, Eric has a moment to step in front of the chroma-key and talk about what drew him to thorium as an energy resource.  Eric also shares his thoughts on effective communication, and how emotion affects learning.

 

Takashi Kamei – Thorium MSR [Molten Salt Reactor] Research Activities in Japan @ TEAC4Takashi Kamei - Thorium MSR [Molten Salt Reactor] Research Activities in Japan @ TEAC4

Takashi Kamei traveled from Japan to share insight into improved safety precautions being applied to Japanese nuclear reactors, and the heightened interest in thorium molten salt reactors.  This video discusses Fukushima in detail and the extra safety measures now being taken.

 

Robert Steinhaus chroma interview shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4Robert Steinhaus chroma interview shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4

Rick Maltese shot Robert Steinhaus in front of the TEAC4 chroma-key.

 

Eric Robinson – Metal Face Seal, Multi Mate / Demate Torque Elimination Fittings @ TEAC4Eric Robinson - Metal Face Seal, Multi Mate / Demate Torque Elimination Fittings @ TEAC4

Eric Robinson spoke about fittings used in nuclear applications, including Curiosity Rover (powered by RTG’s 4.8 kg of Pu-238).

 

John Kutsch of Thorium Energy Alliance – Chroma-key interview 1 shot for Thorium Remix @ TEAC4John Kutsch of Thorium Energy Alliance - Chroma-key interview 1 shot for Thorium Remix @ TEAC4

John Kutsch steps in front of the chroma-key at TEAC4. Is thorium valuable? What do you do for a living? Sneeze. What are you trying to accomplish?

 

Richard Martin, author of Superfuel, discusses Thorium & LFTR – shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4Richard Martin, author of Superfuel, discusses Thorium & LFTR - shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4

Richard Martin explains what drew him to thorium as a solution to our energy crisis, and why “big challenges” are not being tackled today as they were during WW2 and the cold war.

 

John Kutsch of Thorium Energy Alliance – Chroma-key interview 2 shot for Thorium Remix @ TEAC4John Kutsch of Thorium Energy Alliance - Chroma-key interview 2 shot for Thorium Remix @ TEAC4

John Kutsch on why thorium is important to him: As North Americans we consume a lot of energy. We don’t get to continue this lifestyle without a new source of energy.

 

Jim Kennedy – China, Espionage & [lack of] US Industrial Policy @ TEAC4Jim Kennedy - China, Espionage & [lack of] US Industrial Policy @ TEAC4

Jim Kennedy shared his thoughts (while standing in front of a chroma-key) on United States unwillingness to address China’s industrial espionage against Oak Ridge National Lab (ORNL) in [likely] pursuit of Molten Salt Reactor technology.  Jim asks: Is the Department of Energy intentionally facilitating Th-MSR technology transfer to China?

 

Takashi Kamei offers a pro-thorium perspective from Japan shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4Takashi Kamei offers a pro-thorium perspective from Japan shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4

Takashi Kamei is working on molten salt reactor design in Japan, and an accelerator to bypass need for fissile. First neutron will be available in 2014.

 

Simon Irish – Developed World Debt Levels Demand Power & Energy Revolution @ TEAC4Simon Irish - Developed World Debt Levels Demand Power & Energy Revolution @ TEAC4

We need a profound revolution in the way power is generated and delivered to our economies – cheap power, modular power, clean power. We need a revolution in power innovation, we need a new stream engine. – Simon Irish

 

Mark Halper – Emerging Nuclear Innovations / Race to Reinvent Nuclear Energy @ TEAC4 Mark Halper - Emerging Nuclear Innovations / Race to Reinvent Nuclear Energy @ TEAC4

Mark (writer for Smartplanet) contrasts thorium molten salt reactors with Bill Gates’ TerraPower, General Atomics, QPower (pebble bed) and other companies pursuing modular reactors. China itself could build as many as 100 reactors by 2030, and is actively pursuing a wide range of nuclear technologies (100 companies).

 

Richard Martin – Risk, Decline & the Future of Energy @ TEAC4 Richard Martin - Risk, Decline & the Future of Energy @ TEAC4

Richard was one of the first energy experts to promote the development of thorium (in Wired Magazine). SuperFuel explains how we can wean ourselves off our fossil-fuel addiction, deliver a safe energy source for a millennia, and avert the risk of catastrophic climate change.

 

Stuart Henderson – Thorium Energy from Accelerator Driven Reactors @ TEAC4 Stuart Henderson - Thorium Energy from Accelerator Driven Reactors @ TEAC4

Of the 3 options for creating energy from thorium (solid fuel in conventional reactors, liquid fuel in molten-salt reactors, or fuel in accelerator driven subcritical reactors), Stuart Henderson of Fermilab explores the accelerator driven approach.

 

Ondrej Chvala – Importance of Higher Education in MSR R&D and Development @ TEAC4 Ondrej Chvala - Importance of Higher Education in MSR R&D and Development @ TEAC4

Credible experts are mandatory for all steps of Molten Salt Reactor research, development and deployment. Very few people are available with both credentials and working knowledge of MSRs.

 

Charles Holden – Thorenco’s Process Heat Reactor / Liquefy Through Thorium @ TEAC4 Charles Holden - Thorenco's Process Heat Reactor / Liquify Through Thorium @ TEAC4

Charles “Rusty” Holden presents a Thorium Molten Salt Reactor design which emphasizes safety and regulatory compliance. Estimated output is 200 Megawatts.

 

Michael – Student Designers of Molten Salt Reactor Components @ TEAC4 Michael - Student Designers of Molten Salt Reactor Components @ TEAC4

Student Chapters of Thorium Energy Alliance helping with design.

 

Cavan Stone shares his interest in thorium as an energy source – shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4Cavan Stone shares his interest in thorium as an energy source - shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4

Cavan compares coal-tar to thorium, as a waste product nobody wanted which turned out to be extremely valuable. There’s going to be a major geopolitical shift towards the countries which develop thorium energy. Liquid fuel provides passive safety options.

 

Ondrej Chvala a Nuclear Engineering post-doc at University of Tennessee Knoxville for THORIUM REMIX Ondrej Chvala a Nuclear Engineering post-doc at University of Tennessee Knoxville for THORIUM REMIX

Ondřej observes lack of expertise in molten salt reactors (from people who are not retired or dead) is holding back development of this technology. Molten Salt Reactors are not taught as part of today’s nuclear curriculum.

 

Jim Kennedy – Link Between Thorium and Self Reliance in Rare Earths & Energy @ TEAC4 remix Jim Kennedy - Link Between Thorium and Self Reliance in Rare Earths & Energy @ TEAC4 remix

The western world has within its capacity far more than enough rare earths (including heavy rare earths) to meet its own industrial demand. It is an unwillingness to process material containing thorium which is ultimately impeding our high tech manufacturing sector.

 

Stephen Boyd – Rare Earth Elements, History, Chemistry, Physics & Applications Stephen Boyd - Rare Earth Elements, History, Chemistry, Physics & Applications

Fluorine chemist Stephen Boyd discusses rare earth fluoride doped salts, and why they are represented separately from the rest of the elements on the periodic table.

 

Darryl Siemer – Vitrification of Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle Radwastes Darryl Siemer - Vitrification of Sustainable Nuclear Fuel Cycle Radwastes

Darryl runs inexpensive vitrification experiments in his basement on how to best prepare nuclear waste for storage.  Glassification is simpler & cheaper to fabricate than hot-pressed ceramics.

 

Alex Cannara’s environmentalist critique of low density energy sources and appeal of thorium @ TEAC4 Alex Cannara's environmentalist critique of low density energy sources and appeal of thorium @ TEAC4

Alex Cannara on the importance of nuclear power’s high energy density, and the advantage of thorium as a source of nuclear power.  Low energy density energy sources such as solar and wind have a significant environmental impact unless deployed on land already being used for other purposes, though rooftop solar gives an efficient use of space.

 

Rick Maltese – Support a Nuke Song @ TEAC4 Rick Maltese - Support a Nuke Song @ TEAC4

Rick Maltese wrapped up Thorium Energy Alliance Conference #4 with a song about nuclear power. He’s posted lyrics and a better sounding copy as a digital download here http://rickmaltese.bandcamp.com/

 

Richard Martin (author of SuperFuel) and John Kutsch say “bye” shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4 Richard Martin (author of SuperFuel) and John Kutsch say "bye" shot for THORIUM REMIX @ TEAC4

Richard Martin briefly mentions success to John Kutsch before departing TEAC4.  Superfuel sold over 1000 copies.

 

John Kutsch – Wrap-Up @ TEAC4 John Kutsch - Wrap-Up @ TEAC4

John Kutsch bids farewell to Thorium Energy Alliance Conference #4 attendees.

 

 Hope you enjoyed TEAC4!