Commentary: Nuclear Power for the Anti-Nuclear Set

By John McClaughry 

John McClaughry

“While the anti-nuclear set is obsessed with the defects – mostly imagined – of forty year old light water reactors, they ought to open their eyes to the promise of new Generation 4 designs, especially the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.”

For decades, the various New England anti-nuclear groups have waged incessant warfare against the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant and Entergy, which bought the plant from a coalition of Vermont utilities in 2002. The outcome of that struggle now lies in the Federal court system, where Entergy has already won one signal victory.

It’s important to keep in mind that, leaving the particulars of the Vermont Yankee battle aside, the anti-nukies are fundamentally opposed to nuclear energy in any form whatever. Only old timers now remember that the Sierra Club was once pro-nuclear, which it viewed as the saving technology that would make the damming of California mountain streams unnecessary.

Interestingly, the Sierra Club, at least, does not totally slam the door on nuclear even today. In its 2006 energy policy statement it said “while it is possible that a different approach to nuclear power might substantially address these issues, the likelihood is remote given the decades of research and investment already made.”

What different approach to nuclear power might conceivably avoid the environmental issues that caused the Sierra Club’s opposition? To answer that question it’s necessary to review the origins and development of nuclear power, dating back to the 1950s.

That story is ably told in a book published in 2011 by Richard Martin, entitled Super Fuel. Martin details the long battle between the demanding and acerbic Admiral Hyman Rickover, who wanted nuclear engines based on known technology right now to propel his fleet of submarines, and the gentle visionary Alvin Weinberg, longtime director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory, who envisioned a nationwide fleet of thorium-powered electric plants, using molten fluoride salts as moderator and coolant.

Rickover, a savage bureaucratic infighter, got what he wanted, and in 1972 Weinberg was fired. The nuclear industry put its muscle behind the hugely expensive liquid metal fast breeder reactor. It in turn was shelved in 1984 after Congress spent $8 billion on the Clinch River Breeder without turning a shovelful of dirt.

As Martin puts it, “Light water reactors and their younger cousin, the liquid metal breeder, won out because of technological intransigence rooted in the military origins of the U.S. nuclear program.”

From 1965 to 1969, however, Weinberg’s molten salt reactor experiment had operated successfully, in the later months with thorium-derived U-233 fuel. By 1973, with Weinberg gone, molten salt was rejected, and thorium was dead. Rickover’s uranium-based industrial empire was preserved. Any cheaper, safer and environment-friendly alternative was shelved.

Now, forty years later, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is again emerging as one of the six “Generation Four” nuclear power technologies now viewed as most promising alternatives to traditional light water reactors.

Without going too far into technical details, the LFTR would almost certainly produce electricity cheaper than coal, because of lower capital and fuel costs; use a fuel that is in almost inexhaustible supply, both in the U.S. and elsewhere; operate continuously, in baseload or peaking mode, for up to 30 years; be factory-built and deployed in compact 100-megawatt modules close to the end use of the power; contribute nothing to air or water pollution and need no water for operation; safely consume long-lived transuranic waste products from current nuclear fission reactors; produce high-temperature process heat that can make hydrogen fuel for vehicles; and be walkaway safe.

This is not pie in the sky. The physics is sound, and every part of the LFTR has been successfully tested. What has not been accomplished is the efficient integration of all of the technology features into a marketable product.

The reason it has not is the determined opposition of companies that offer competing nuclear technologies: either light water reactors like the current improved version of Vermont Yankee, the AP-1000, or liquid metal fast reactors like the Russian BR-600, or exotic helium cooled pebble bed reactors under development in China.

Most of the present anti-nuclear groups are so mindlessly opposed to anything nuclear that they’ll probably denounce the LFTR if and when it appears. Still, more rational anti-nuclear groups like the Sierra Club, which is terrified at the menace of global warming, could possibly find in the LFTR the “different approach” that would win their support (and put coal out of business.)

- John McClaughry, formerly a nuclear reactor physicist, is vice president of the Ethan Allen Institute.

{ 3 comments… read them below or add one }

Jaro July 23, 2013 at 3:57 pm

RE: John McClaughry’s comment that “What has not been accomplished is the efficient integration of all of the technology features into a marketable product. The reason it has not is the determined opposition of companies that offer competing nuclear technologies: either light water reactors like the current improved version of Vermont Yankee, the AP-1000, or liquid metal fast reactors like the Russian BR-600, or exotic helium cooled pebble bed reactors under development in China.”

Besides those “companies that offer competing nuclear technologies,” US government agencies (NRC, DoE) likewise discourage development of alternatives to LWRs & SFRs:

First off, the LFTR illustrated in the schematic included in the article by John McClaughry is of the two-fluid type – where highly-enriched uranium (HEU) is used as the fuel in the core of the reactor. The use of HEU for civilian nuclear plants is strictly verboten, which clearly makes the LFTR a non-starter (The Obama administration actually wants HEU banned even for medical applications: it is currently used to produce diagnostic radioisotopes like Technetium-99m, for SPECT scans – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECT#Typical_SPECT_acquisition_protocols ).

A slightly more realistic option to the LFTR is the DMSR, which uses LEU instead of HEU, and is illustrated in Robert Hargraves’ schematic here: http://tinyurl.com/kh8oqf2

However, even the DMSR is going nowhere in the US, as we can see from the DoE’s recent announcement, “Energy Department Announces New Investments in Advanced Nuclear Power Reactors”:
http://energy.gov/articles/energy-department-announces-new-investments-advanced-nuclear-power-reactors

The four projects selected by DoE all relate to solid fuel, liquid-metal cooled reactor concepts.

Likewise, DoE’s “SMR licensing technical support programme” is targeting small LWRs, including the mPower design by Babcock & Wilcox, the NuScale LWR, Westinghouse’s W-SMR, and the SMR-160 by Holtec.

Moreover, in their “Advanced Reactor Concepts Technical Review Panel Report” the DoE said that “The technology specific R&D would be for gas-cooled fast reactors, LBE-cooled fast reactors and sodium-cooled fast reactors. Technology specific R&D for other concepts is not being supported at this time due to the long term fuel cycle development requirements that would be necessary for thorium fueled concepts..”
(see http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/TRP%20Report%2020121210%20Final%20Public%20Version.pdf )

Here’s one way to look at it….
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/11686324/King_Moniz_DoE_awards..jpg

Reply

Robert August 1, 2013 at 3:36 pm

Great article Mr. McClaughry. Very informative.

Reply

diane ballou September 16, 2013 at 1:06 am

Thank you, again! I had totally forgotten whatever I used to know about thorium and am particularly delighted that maybe out of this my dentist and city hall and toothpaste manufacturers might use less fluoride if we adopt the weinberg technology.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post:

About Us

The Ethan Allen Institute is Vermont’s free-market public policy research and education organization. Founded in 1993, we are one of fifty-plus similar but independent state-level, public policy organizations around the country which exchange ideas and information through the State Policy Network.
Read more...

Latest News

Don’t Make the Internet Safe for Monopolies

by Tom Evslin Last month I went to Washington to argue against regulating Internet access as if it were phone service. Twenty years ago I was there for the...

NASA asteroid busting

by John McClaughry A month or so ago I discussed four problems that mankind badly needs to solve. One was U.S. insolvency, one was electromagnetic pulse protection, one...

Vermont Ranks “Below Average” for Fiscal Condition

by Rob Roper The Mercatus Center released its annual study, “Ranking the States by Fiscal Condition.” Vermont landed in the “Below Average” category with an overall raking of...

The Ill-Conceived Housing bond

by John McClaughry Reporter Lou Varricchio of True North Reports has just finished a four part series on affordable housing, in particular, the $35 million housing bond included...

Missouri To CUT Minimum Wage

by Rob Roper Looks like the Show Me State was shown! Missouri is, according to news reports, lowering its state minimum wage from $10/hr. to $7.70. This follows...

Video