Thorium Nuclear Reactors solve the Nuclear Waste Problem

Thorium reactors could put plutonium sitting around in pools to work, but the basic reaction, while eating up the plutonium, in the fuel turns some of the thorium into uranium. A test reactor in Norway should be completing its work in 2018, and we'll have a much better idea of what is leftover. Long term test of Thorium-Plutonium fuel started | PriusChat

Nuclear waste in the US won't be effected because laws prevent the recycling of old fuel rods out of fear.

 

Good to see agreement between our mojo and climate-arch-rival James Hansen that nuclear E should contribute more in future. We have been talking about Thorium reactors for at least 10 years; maybe 20. I have no idea why not one of these has yet been built because they do sound good.

First one demonstrates concept. Next 100 will match the current (globally small) role of nuclear-E. A thousand would take global-E generation closer to where we really need to be. Why this has not already begun? Has (other) renewable E prevented it? Or has the much larger fossil-E industry?

 

All thermal-E conversions, whether burning carbon or nuclear, use water in an open loop. Please correct me if wrong about that. Because it matters.

There are places where water is available in excess. Everywhere else, thermal-E conversions and agriculture compete. We require the products of both, and will more so in the near future.

Whoever disentangles this problem will get filthy rich. Way more than the maligned environmentalists and possibly more than the fossil burners. It simply remains to be done.

 

Small modular reactor - Wikipedia
There are gas(CO2, helium) and molten salt cooled designs. Some of which don't even need water for running the turbine.
I expect you want a large water source on hand as a precaution though.

 

I find it sad that Thorium is being treated as brand new when 40 years of operational history was already available.

Thorium concentrates nuclear waste because it uses up otherwise "contaminated " fuel.
If you use 99% of nuclear fuel instead of 1% you have much less waste but much more potent waste with lots of exotics.

This is not a bad thing since deadly is deadly and less volume is less;
and your half life's are faster on more potent waste.

There are potential medical uses for the isotopes and greater potential for reuse of Thorium waste because of its potency.
Highly radioactive nuclear waste can more easily drive passive power systems (for example)

So much potential, it's sad that weapons killed the superior technology.

 

What was new in the news of the other thread was that the thorium fuel rods could be used in already existing uranium reactors with 'small' modifications.

 

That is good since it removes the "we can't" excuse;
But I bet it's efficiency improvements would be left on the table.

 

Won't happen in the US until we change the laws on reprocessing old fuel rods.

 

Is that actually by law, or just by President Carter's Executive Order?

 

What kind of track record do these have?

I remember the Scientific American article about the Fort St. Vrain gas reactor in Colorado before commissioning, extolling its benefits. Its was shut down very early.

Hanford's FFTF research reactor was a molten sodium plant. I don't believe it was operated very much before being mothballed, then decommissioned.

I have understood the water in core loops, and through turbines, to be closed loop. The open loop portions needing large water quantities were at the cooling towers and ponds.

 

No idea.

"Many issues occurred early in the operational experience of the Fort St. Vrain HTGR. Although these issues were never a threat to the facility or to public safety, considerable stress was placed upon the personnel, equipment, and facilities and made continued operation appear uneconomical to the plant's owner. Most of the past issues had been resolved at considerable expense and the plant was beginning to perform at a commercially viable level when an economic downturn and the history of the plant caused the owner to shut it down even though it had not reached the end of its design lifetime." - Fort St. Vrain Generating Station - Wikipedia

Built in 1979, it sounds like the plant was cutting edge for the time. Like a first year car model, there were issues. These were fixed, but the owner got cold feet when the economy weakened. So the plant might have operated for its full design life without further issues for all we know.

Further reading,
NRC: Fort Saint Vrain Gas Cooled Reactor Operational Experience (NUREG/CR-6839, ORNL/TM-2003/223)

It's decommissioning is still in limbo has carbon emissions has renewed nuclear power interest. Either way, it was/is a test reactor, not a production one, and what was being tested didn't involve electric production. It was originally shut down because they ran out of things to test at the time. The Wiki article didn't mention any issues with it.
Fast Flux Test Facility - Wikipedia

Both these facilities were older installations, and development hasn't stood still.

The open loops is were the water consumption concerns for electricity arise. Water is just so much better at cooling than air. Liquid cooling can even boost solar panel performance.

Those micro nuclear reactors might be able to get by with just air cooling for the final heat dump. The required radiators for the more typical power plant, nuclear or otherwise, might not make air cooling feasible. Combined cycle and cogen for heat will put of the heat made to work in closed loop systems. Less waste heat means less capacity on the final open loop, water or air.

 

PBS just showed an interesting and relevant NOVA documentary on "The Nuclear Option", available to watch for free at their website:

NOVA - Official Website | The Nuclear Option