Australia has developed something of an allergic reaction to any mention of uranium or nuclear energy. Blessed as we are with abundant reserves of coal, oil and gas, we have never had to ask the hard questions many other nations have had to ask – questions the answer to which has been “nuclear” for many of those nations.

Yet with the looming spectre of climate change and greater calls for a shift away from fossil fuels, nuclear power is once again on the agenda. The South Australian government has even called for a royal commission to investigate the plausibility of nuclear power in this country.

With discussion of uranium seeming to be out-of-bounds in some quarters, a growing community of devotees has sprung up around an alternative nuclear fuel: thorium. But is it right for Australia?

The call for thorium power is not without precedent worldwide. India has pursued thorium technology for decades. And China is revisiting a molten salt reactor design mothballed by the USA in the 70’s. Recently, several companies have sought to commercialise thorium energy, including an Australian-Czech alliance.

Thorium: critically different

Thorium (atomic number 90) shares several similarities with its neighbour two doors down on the periodic table, uranium (atomic number 92). Both elements are silvery metals and are mildly radioactive as ores. They are each moderately abundant in the Earth’s crust, and can release prodigious amounts of energy under the right conditions.

One critical difference is that thorium, in its natural state, is resistant to fission. This is the process whereby the atomic nucleus splits apart, thus releasing energy that can then be harnessed to generate electricity.

Uranium can undergo fission relatively easily, but for thorium to undergo fission – and be useful in a nuclear power plant – it must first be converted into a usable form. This is done via a process known as “breeding”, where the thorium absorbs a neutron, thus transmuting into a heavier element that can later undergo fission.

Thorium was first studied as an energy source during the Manhattan project, but uranium proved much easier to work with. During the post-war commercialisation of nuclear energy this dominance was reinforced. Engineers identified myriad paths to design reactors based on uranium, while the added complexities of thorium meant that alternatives didn’t get much of a look in.

Today, advocates of thorium typically point to a variety of advantages over uranium. These include fail-safe reactor operation, because most thorium reactor designs are incapable of an explosion or meltdown, as was seen at Chernobyl or Fukushima. Another is resistance to weapons proliferation, because thorium reactors create byproducts that make the fuel unsuitable for use in nuclear weapons.

Other advantages include greater abundance of natural reserves of thorium, less radioactive waste and higher utilisation of fuel in thorium reactors. Thorium is often cast as “good nuclear”, while uranium gets to carry the can as “bad nuclear”.

Not so different

While compelling at first glance, the details reveal a somewhat more murky picture. The molten salt architecture which gives certain thorium reactors high intrinsic safety equally applies to proposed fourth-generation designs using uranium. It is also true that nuclear physics technicalities make thorium much less attractive for weapons production, but it is by no means impossible; the USA and USSR each tested a thorium-based atomic bomb in 1955.

Other perceived advantages similarly diminish under scrutiny. There is plenty of uranium ore in the world and hence the fourfold abundance advantage of thorium is a moot point. Producing less long-lived radioactive waste is certainly beneficial, but the vexed question remains of how to deal with it.

Stating that thorium is more efficiently consumed is the most mischievous of the claimed benefits. Fast-breeder uranium reactors have much the same fuel efficiency as thorium reactors. However, they weren’t economic as the price of uranium turned out to rather low

no

Swagman wrote on Sep 12^th, 2015 at 1:00pm:


either way the answers the same.

yes it is. I'll show you

Considered  = NO
Unconsidered = NO

same answer

Here's the real reason Thorium Generators where scraped. Thorium is a fuel you can't monopolize, its' everywhere it will be like trying to monopolize sunshine. The energy cartels (barons) didn't like this at all because it would put them out of business and their globalist aspirations will be destroyed because if you don't control the power supply you don't control the world. Thorium fuel is also much easier to process you don't need complicated nuclear processing plants so all nations on Earth will have the necessary expertise to use Thorium energy to power their civilizations. The only way to stop Thorium energy from becoming a reality is to abort it, to kill it in the womb because once it's developed the genie is out of the bottle and there will be no stopping it from people have thorium energy. Thorium energy is also super cheap it will be a 2nd revolution, imagine all people of Earth having cheap clean power you could turn deserts into gardens it will end starvation and poverty. The globalists can't have this they can't control people who are independent and free. So Thorium was killed.

Bruce and Sheila have not yet mastered fossil fuels. What hope for technological leap?

It would be like Homer Simpson being appointed CEO of USA's space program.

Thorium Yes. Uranium a big No !

But don't expect Australia to be leading the race in any sort of technology because they are too busy with sports and flipping houses