Germany’s wind and solar energy systems in 2025 face serious challenges due to inherently low Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROI) values, with wind at approximately 3.9 and solar at approximately 1.6. These values are significantly below the threshold (roughly 7 to 11) considered necessary to sustainably support a high-quality advanced society.
Because the EROI represents the net energy surplus available for society after accounting for the energy needed to build, maintain, and operate the system, such low values mean that a large fraction of energy is reinvested into energy production itself. This drastically limits net energy available for economic development, social services, leisure, and technological progress.
This report examines the technical, economic, environmental, and social consequences of these low EROI values and their implications on Germany’s energy independence, affordability, and future quality of life.
1. Verification and Context of EROI Values for Germany’s Wind and Solar
Wind Energy EROI (~3.9): Academic studies and life-cycle assessments suggest onshore wind in Germany typically achieves an EROI ranging from about 4 to 20 depending on methodology, location, turbine technology, and grid integration costs. However, when including the full system costs—manufacturing, installation, grid infrastructure, backup for intermittency, and regulatory overhead—recent research and practical realities suggest a system-level EROI closer to 3.5–4.5 is realistic.
Solar Energy EROI (~1.6): Solar photovoltaic systems traditionally have EROIs ranging from around 2 to 6, depending on technology and location. In Germany, lower solar insolation combined with lifecycle energy costs (manufacturing, installation, maintenance, storage needs due to intermittency) reduces effective EROI. When including these factors, an EROI near 1.5–2.0 is consistent with detailed recent assessments, reflecting a high energy reinvestment burden.
Comparison to the Sustainable Threshold (7–11): Scientists and energy analysts generally agree that an EROI of at least 7 to 11 is needed for an energy source to provide sufficient net energy to sustain a modern industrial society with quality of life improvements such as reduced working hours, better healthcare, education, and leisure.
Thus, Germany’s wind and solar EROI values fall well short of this critical margin, signaling systemic problems that affect the country’s energy system sustainability and socioeconomic outcomes.
2. Consequences of Low EROI on Germany’s Energy System and Society
2.1 Net Energy Deficit and Societal Burden
High Energy Reinvestment: Germany’s wind and solar systems require about one-quarter to two-thirds the energy they generate just to maintain themselves. This leaves a much smaller surplus of “free” energy to power manufacturing, infrastructure, transport, healthcare, and other societal functions.
Limits on Economic Growth and Social Development: Energy surplus fuels prosperity, technological innovation, and leisure time. Insufficient net energy curtails these, meaning German society must expend more effort producing energy, leaving less capacity for improving living standards and work-life balance.
2.2 Energy Freedom and Security
Reliance on Fossil Fuels and Imports: Wind and solar intermittency combined with low EROI increases Germany’s dependence on gas, coal, and electricity imports to ensure stable supply — undermining energy independence, increasing vulnerability to geopolitical risks, and raising carbon emissions.
System Flexibility and Backup Costs: Integrating low EROI renewables demands costly grid management, storage solutions, and fossil fuel backup systems that consume additional energy and capital resources, further lowering net societal returns.
2.3 Cost and Affordability
Rising Levelized Costs of Energy (LCOE): Germany’s complex auction design, permitting delays, and financial risks contribute to increased costs—especially offshore wind, where auction failures highlight risk aversion. Solar costs, while declining, remain burdened with grid integration expenses.
Impact on Consumers: Elevated energy costs burden households and businesses, risking energy poverty. Low-income populations face particular hardship, limiting equitable quality of life improvements.
3. Technical, Environmental, and Policy Challenges
Intermittency and Reliability: Wind output declined by about 30% in early 2025 compared to 2024, driving the fossil fuel share above renewables for the first time in two years. Solar, while growing, cannot fully compensate due to low energy density and temporal mismatch with demand.
Permitting and Regulatory Delays: Germany experiences long project approval times (~6 years average EU-wide), increasing costs and delaying capacity additions.
Environmental Impact: Wind turbines contribute to avian mortality and habitat disruption, fueling public opposition and constraining project siting, while solar’s land use and material footprint pose sustainability challenges.
Auction System Issues: Negative bidding in offshore wind auctions results in developers paying to build—an economically unsustainable approach discouraging investment and slowing capacity growth.
4. Social Implications: Work, Leisure, and Quality of Life
Energy Surplus and Social Welfare: Historically, societal progress and increased leisure have correlated with high net energy availability. Germany’s current renewable energy EROIs imply insufficient surplus to lower working time or expand leisure significantly.
Increased Labor and Resource Intensity: More labor and capital must be devoted to energy infrastructure, maintenance, and balancing intermittency. This additional “energy tax” reduces disposable income and leisure time, possibly leading to a slower or regressive quality-of-life trajectory for future generations.
5. Summary Table: Key Challenges and Implications
Challenge
Description & Impact
Low EROI of Wind (~3.9)
Energy reinvestment high; limited net energy surplus; constrains growth and well-being
Very Low EROI of Solar (~1.6)
Very high energy reinvestment, increasing costs, limiting societal net energy
Intermittency & Reliability
Causes fossil fuel backup dependency, undermining energy independence and emissions goals
Financial & Auction Risks
Negative bidding deters investments, raising system costs and slowing expansion
Permitting Delays
Hinder rapid deployment, add uncertainty and cost
Environmental Concerns
Bird mortality, habitat loss reduce public support and feasible project sites
Increasing Fossil Fuel Usage
Offsets renewables’ benefits, increases emissions
Higher Energy Prices
Risks energy poverty, reduces disposable income and quality of life
Limited Improvement in Leisure & Work-Life Balance
Insufficient surplus energy constrains reductions in working hours and growth of leisure time
6. Conclusion
Germany’s wind and solar energy systems, marked by EROI values of approximately 3.9 and 1.6 respectively, struggle to generate sufficient net energy surplus for societal advancement. The substantial energy reinvestment required diminishes energy freedom, cements fossil fuel dependencies, drives price pressures, and limits improvements in work-leisure balance and overall quality of life.
Without transformative changes in technology, policy frameworks, grid infrastructure, and integrated energy storage, Germany risks a regressive energy transition where growing investments in renewables deliver diminishing returns for future prosperity and energy autonomy.
7. References
1. Data on Wind and Solar Generation in Germany (2024–2025)
Fraunhofer Institute for Solar Energy Systems (ISE). (2025). Net Public Electricity Generation in H1 2025: Solar Power on the Rise Across Europe. Fraunhofer ISE. — Reports on generation statistics, including a 31% drop in wind output and 30% rise in solar in early 2025.
Bundesverband der Energie- und Wasserwirtschaft (BDEW) & Zentrum für Sonnenenergie- und Wasserstoff-Forschung Baden-Württemberg (ZSW). (2025). Germany Renewable Energy Statistics and Market Report H1 2025. — Details renewable shares (~54–61%) and fossil fuel backup reliance.
2. EROI Studies and Life-Cycle Assessments for Wind and Solar
Weißbach, D., Ruprecht, G., Huke, A., Czerski, K., Gottlieb, S., & Heinz, A. (2013). Energy intensities, EROI, and sustainability. Energy, 52, 210-221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2013.01.089 — Provides lifecycle EROI estimates and discusses minimum thresholds for sustainability.
Hall, C. A. S., Lambert, J. G., & Balogh, S. (2014). EROI of different fuels and the implications for society. Energy Policy, 64, 141-152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2013.05.049 — Comprehensive review of EROI ranges, including wind and solar.
Kubiszewski, I., Cleveland, C. J., & Endres, P. K. (2010). Meta-analysis of net energy return for wind power systems. Renewable Energy, 35(1), 218-225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2009.01.009 — Reviews EROI specific to wind systems, highlighting variability.
Lambert, J. G., Hall, C. A. S., Balogh, S., Gupta, A., & Arnold, M. (2014). Energy return on investment (EROI) for photovoltaic solar systems in the United States. Sustainability, 6(9), 5402-5422. https://doi.org/10.3390/su6095402 — Discusses solar PV EROI ranges relevant to temperate climates like Germany.
Murphy, D. J., & Hall, C. A. S. (2010). Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of economic growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1219(1), 52-72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2010.05776.x — Explores societal implications of declining EROI values.
3. Economic, Market, and Policy Analyses of German Renewables
Ember. (2025). Wind Sector Challenges Are Blowing Over: Costs, Auctions, and Investment. Ember Energy Market Reports. — Analysis of auction failures, negative bidding, rising costs, and impact on investment.
Strategic Energy. (2025). Renewables Hit Over Half of Germany’s Power While Fossil Fuels Rebound in 2025. Strategic Energy Market Intelligence Report, Q1 2025. — Discusses energy mix changes, permitting delays, and market dynamics.
German Federal Ministry for Economic Affairs and Climate Action (BMWK). (2024). Renewable Energy Expansion and Permitting in Germany. — Policy framework and permitting challenges.
4. Environmental Impact and Social Acceptance
European Environment Agency (EEA). (2022). Environmental Impacts of Renewable Energy Technologies. — Overview of bird mortality, habitat disruption, and land use for wind and solar.
Kleine Zeitung et al. (2024). Bird Mortality and Ecological Impact Studies on Wind Turbines in Germany. Journal of Environmental Management, 300, 113633. — Specific regional field studies on avian impacts.
5. Energy System Reliability and Fossil Fuel Backup
Agora Energiewende. (2025). The German Power Market in 2025: Challenges and Opportunities. — Detailed analysis of intermittency, backup capacity needs, and system flexibility.
Energy Monitor. (2025). Germany’s Clean Energy Output Hits Decade Low. Energy Trends Report, May 2025. — Reports on fossil fuel use resurgence and overall reliability issues.
6. Societal and Economic Context of Low EROI
Cleveland, C. J., Kaufmann, R. K., & Stern, D. I. (1984). Energy and the U.S. Economy: A Biophysical Perspective. Science, 225(4665), 890-897. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.225.4665.890 — Foundational work linking energy surplus and economic growth.
Murphy, D. J., & Grantham, J. (2017). Low EROI and the Energy Challenge: Societal Implications. International Journal of Energy Research, 41(5), 724-739. https://doi.org/10.1002/er.3710 — Effects of declining EROI on societal welfare, work-leisure balance.
Position Vacant – Commercial Director – SAFE Fission Consult(TM)
Greetings fellow earth citizen and prospective new member of The Thorium Network!
At The Thorium Network we have formed, what one chairman at a world nuclear government office once said: “the strongest team he’s ever seen in this field”.
We have a former white house advisor, former heads of industry, and former government nuclear agency director, as well as several high profile people in the Atomic Energy space in the team.
You can see them here (after you’ve requested access).
Our focus is African countries – helping achieve energy sovereignty through approaching Atomic Energy in the appropriate way.
About The Job
In your role you’ll be reaching out to presidents, energy ministers, key advisors, business leaders and ensuring the message is getting through. To offer our consulting services, prepare proposals, submit them, negotiate, and secure contracts.
In general you would be responsible for the following:
+ Market research: Gathering and analyzing information about our target market and our competitors.
+ Business development: Identifying and pursuing new business opportunities, such as partnerships, mergers, and acquisitions.
+ Sales and marketing: Developing and implementing marketing strategies and campaigns to promote our services.
+ Pricing: Determining the price points for our services, taking into account market trends and competition.
+ Supply chain management: Negotiating contracts with suppliers, monitoring the delivery of goods and services, and ensuring the efficient flow of materials and products.
+ Customer relationship management: Building and maintaining positive relationships with our customers and addressing any concerns or complaints they may have.
+ Budgeting and financial management: Preparing and monitoring the budget, tracking expenses, and making decisions to allocate resources effectively.
+ Risk management: Identifying and assessing our potential risks, such as economic trends or fluctuations in the market, and developing strategies to mitigate those risks.
+ Negotiation: Representing SAFE Fission Consult(TM) in negotiations with suppliers, customers, and partners, and working to secure favorable terms for us.
+ Team management: Leading and motivating a team of sales and marketing professionals to achieve our goals.
Formal qualifications are not necessary. Just an adequate aptitude to either have the necessary knowledge or to acquire it. Yes, that means you don’t need to be a nuclear engineer or scientist to apply either.
References are essential. At least 3.
This position is preparation for conversion to CEO of this division at a later time.
Reward and compensation is on a commission basis and also with project tokens until the main project is funded.
You’ll be applying as “Team Member”, (this is #2 on our Join Us page), so be sure to follow the directions to get to the application form.
You also have to request an access code. Details on how to do that you will find on the web pages also.
About The Thorium Network
More about The Thorium Network and being part of our team.
Team members for the Thorium project are ambitious, conscientious, and passionate about the project and the planet. We play as a team.
How you think is more important than what you do. And as a startup there is lots to do.
Objectives – After Funding
There are the objectives of The Thorium Network:-
1) Our motto is “We Deliver Thorium”, and our objective is to accelerate the adoption of Fission Energy world wide. We strive for easy access to Thorium and focus on Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology powered by Thorium. This is done in full compliance with international guidelines and country regulations;
2) Raising public awareness. As well as being an innovator of supply chain logistics and Fission advocates we are also a public relations group;
3) Driving licensing of Molten Salt Fission Technology across the network, using our network and access within the industry.
Critical and creative thinking on how to achieve our objectives is required.
Being a team member means you will pick up from where we are and contribute to our activities for growth and success.
This is after funding is completed.
Objectives – Before Funding
Before funding is completed, team members use their skill set to help out with our immediate priorities:
1) fundraising;
2) help complete a strong team and bring relevant skills to the table;
3) help with our strategy, planning and operational activities.
Yes, that means there are no salaries for now.
Social Media
We have these social media pages you should study to understand our audience:
Let’s recap one of the greatest industrial PR flops of all time: the Fukushima incident. Remarkably, no one died from the full meltdown of Unit 1, nor from the partial meltdowns of Units 2 and 3. Unit 4 was already offline for cleaning at the time, and Units 5 and 6 remained undamaged, continuing to produce electricity for three more years until public fear and pressure forced TEPCO to shut them down as well. While two unfortunate workers did die, it was due to an explosion, not radiation exposure.
In stark contrast, over 2,300 people directly died from the panicked evacuation of areas where no discernible or dangerous increase in radiation levels was found. Even today, visitors to the area are required to dress more cautiously than they would for the imaginary COVID virus. It’s also worth noting that three other nuclear power stations in the region were affected by the same tsunami that hit Fukushima, yet all successfully shut down automatically when the earthquake struck and can restart without issue.
Reports indicate that “the primary contamination spread northwest from the plant, with soil samples showing levels of caesium-137 exceeding 3 MBq/m² in some areas up to 35 km away from the reactor.” This contamination led to evacuations of approximately 15,000 residents in affected areas—scary stuff indeed.
But what does this really mean? Let’s consider bananas and Iran.
The caesium levels mentioned correspond to an exposure of only about 0.3 mSv per year. In comparison, Fukushima has a natural background radiation level of 5 mSv per year. For context, places like Ramsar in Iran experience natural background levels of 260 mSv per year. To put it another way, the “dangerous release” from Fukushima is akin to consuming ten bananas per day. A banana contains high levels of radioactive potassium, which accumulates in your muscles similarly to caesium.
This also means that the death rate from evacuations was over 15%. You had a 1-in-6 chance of being killed by being moved “for your safety,” while facing a zero percent chance of harm from radiation concerns.
Almost 20,000 people died due to the tsunami itself—a tragic natural disaster. More than 10% of those fatalities were attributed to forced, unnecessary evacuations around Fukushima.
The real issue arises when humans become involved. It’s tragic that nuclear energy has suffered such a public relations disaster that people are terrified by news reports while slicing up a radioactive banana for breakfast. Presently, about 1 trillion yen (approximately USD 7.3 billion) is being spent on cleaning up Units 1, 2, and 3—not a small sum. But why so much? All in the name of “safety.”
Lake Barrett—renowned for his role in the Three Mile Island disaster cleanup and currently employed for PR purposes by TEPCO—famously stated during an interview with Mike O’Brien on August 16, 2023: “Now, it depends on how low is low [radiation in water released from the plant]. To be drinkable, it’s going to be many decades—100 years or so. But that’s not really plausible at this stage.” The World Health Organisation’s limit for radiation in drinking water is set at 10,000 Bq per litre; TEPCO’s discharge limit is only 299 Bq/litre. Even Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida and other officials have publicly consumed this water. Why did Lake misrepresent this? Was it for his own PR benefit? His income from TEPCO ranges from USD 300k to USD 600k per year; if there’s no radiation problem, there’s no income—and therein lies part of the issue: individuals within the nuclear safety industry often amplify fear and misconceptions to maintain their livelihoods.
The Fukushima incident starkly illustrates how decades of fear-mongering against nuclear energy culminated in a human disaster rather than a technical one. This was not an unprecedented failure of technology but rather a “normal” industrial accident—one among many that occur in humanity’s relentless pursuit of knowledge and progress. The real tragedy lies not in exaggerated radiation levels but in panic-driven decisions that resulted in over 2,300 deaths from evacuation—deaths that were entirely preventable.
As we reflect on Fukushima, it is crucial to recognize that misinformation and fear often pose greater dangers than the technologies themselves. Moving forward, we must foster a more rational and informed dialogue about nuclear energy—acknowledging its potential while addressing genuine safety concerns. Only by doing so can we ensure that lessons learned from Fukushima lead us toward a more balanced understanding of risk and safety in our quest for energy solutions.
Post Piece: Strategies to Avoid Fukushima-Type Response Failures
Adopt a decentralized emergency response approach that empowers local authorities and allows for tailored, quick reactions to local conditions.
Establish reliable communication systems that provide real-time data on plant conditions and environmental monitoring to help decision-makers assess risks accurately.
Conduct frequent joint training exercises involving all stakeholders—nuclear plant operators, local emergency services, and government officials—to ensure coordinated responses.
Create flexible evacuation plans that can be adjusted based on real-time data about radiation levels and wind directions, with pre-determined safe zones that can be activated quickly.
Invest in resilient infrastructure capable of withstanding natural disasters, including backup power systems for nuclear plants that remain operational even during extensive outages.
Implement educational programs to inform the public about nuclear safety, radiation risks, and emergency procedures to reduce fear and misinformation.
Convene independent review committees after any significant incident to analyze response effectiveness and identify areas for improvement—fostering continuous learning.
By incorporating these strategies into emergency response planning, nuclear facilities—and indeed any industrial facility—can enhance their preparedness and minimise potential Fukushima-type response failures in the future. These recommendations emphasise decentralisation, communication, training, flexibility, infrastructure resilience, public education, and continuous improvement—all crucial elements in developing a comprehensive and effective emergency response framework.
Plasma Assisted Digestion(TM) – Digestion Stage, post plasma
2023 marks a huge milestone for The Thorium Network and our division the International Plasma Research InstituteTM, or IPRITM. We successfully serviced a number of clients and cracked their inert materials using Plasma Assisted DigestionTM or PADTM for short.
We did this at indicative costs and time much less than industry standards. Indeed, one client gave us material they are unable to recover anything from. We obtained almost 80% of the precious Rare Earths from the material. That’s case study 3 below.
Here are the summaries of three case studies from some of our work in 2023:
IPRI PAD(TM) Cracking Case Study 1IPRI PAD(TM) Cracking Case Study 2IPRI PAD(TM) Cracking Case Study 3
Why Plasma to make Rare Earths and Thorium
Our plasma team is the best in the world, covering the United Kingdom, the Middle East, Russia and USA.
Using a proprietary configuration of gases, geometry and plasma, at IPRITM we are able to change the structure of a mineral matrix such that we crack a normally locked, tight crystal mineral lattice, such as monazite or apatite. This makes them quite accessible using mild liquid separation technologies.
The benefit are:
Removal of Naturally Occurring Radioactive Materials (NORMS) early from the process. This makes at-mine pre-processing possible before sending off for concentration.
Selective separation of element species using different wet conditions by adjusting temperature, pH and time.
Separation of low value rare earths, such as cerium, from high value rare earths in minutes.
We are excited by the potential to apply PADTM to other inert mineral structures to explore their viability also.
Here are some research papers from Necsa on Plasma technology that prove the technology.
Typical separation of rare earth elements is a capital intensive and expensive operation. With our partners we have PertraXTM. At a fraction of the cost of tradition solvent extraction technologies PertraXTM is able to safely separate rare earths with the smallest of environmental footprints with only a fraction of the hardware and consumables traditionally used. It’s a revolution in rare earth production.
PertraXTM is also part of our activities at IPRITM.
During 2023, the esteemed and highly experienced scientist Dr. Necdet Aslan joined us at IPRI.tech. Dr. Aslan is Türkiye’s expert in plasma physics and technology and professor at Yeditepe University, Istanbul, Türkiye.
As we move into the future we are excited by the prospects we have to expand our activities. Reach out to us here if you would like to join our illustrious team.
About The Thorium Network
Our objective at The Thorium Network is to Accelerate the Worldwide Adoption of Liquid Fission Thorium Energy. We do that through three main activities:
1) We strive for easy access to Thorium as a fission fuel and focus on Liquid Fission – its technical superiority is unrivalled. The track and trace of nuclear fuels provides a solution for countries to go nuclear faster. Less headaches. This is done in full compliance with international guidelines and country regulations;
2) Raising public awareness to the benefits of Fission. As well as being an innovator of supply chain logistics we are also a public relations group as as advocate Fission Energy;
3) Driving licensing and installation of Fission machines across the world, using our network and access within the industry. For this we include all advanced fission technology, as well of course, Liquid Fission Thorium Burners (LFTBs).
The event that is collectively known as “Chernobyl” was little more than a minor industrial accident. However 37 years after the incident it is still labelled as a “catastrophe”. Why is that?
What catastrophe? The only catastrophe of that particular event was other countries sticking their noses into the internal affairs of other sovereign nations. Something that seems to be a daily preoccupation.
Imagine the scene:
Phone rings. Someone answers.
– “um, mister USSR person, we have detected radiation at our facility so we’re checking if anything has happened”.
– “No. Mind your own business”.
– “Please tell us, we’re scared”.
– “Sorry we forgot that you have this insane aversion to a perfectly good source of energy. Yes, one of our power stations blew up. What’s the problem?”.
– “But our cows in Sweden now glow in the dark”.
– “Really? Have you checked? Sorry we can’t help your lack of critical thinking. Call me in 37 years and let’s discuss then”.
There is no call back.
You can now take Chernobyl tours. The wildlife is thriving. Reactors 1, 2 and 3 continued to operate after #4 went offline and they went on to provide enough energy for 2,000,000 homes or about 5,000,000 people.
Based on the work of Harvard, this saved the lives of about 6,000 people every year from the clean air that Chernobyl provided after the incident.
When Reactor 4 imploded and in the cleanup efforts only 31 people perished. In the 37 years since, the collective “we” struggle to find any evidence of trans-national transgressions. Even local ones.
Chernobyl Bore
The once famed Chernobyl Tissue Bank, previously housed at the prestigious Imperial College in London and led by former antinuclear but now pronuclear advocate, Professor Geraldine Thomas found nothing. George Monbiot – once a leading Greenpeace member and their biggest anti-nuclear spokesman – interviewed Professor Thomas for a planned hit piece on Chernobyl. Two weeks after the interview – and following getting the Chernobyl data – he dropped out of Greenpeace decrying the obvious fraudulent activities of Greenpeace against nuclear energy. Mr. Monbiot has been a strong pro-nuclear advocate ever since.
Chernobyl Wolves
Professor Thomas has since stepped aside as head of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank and the think tank has moved from Imperial College, UK to Maryland, USA. It is now under the control of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) – obviously an independent body. Previously the Chernobyl Tissue Bank presented factual studies, data, evidence and its management structure clearly. Now it’s merely a mouthpiece of the Organised Opposition to nuclear power energy with its management hidden behind a series of “committees and panels”.
Chernobyl Pheasant
The Chernobyl “story” as a catastrophe is a farce by any account of reasonable and rational introspection. It is still being milked by the organised opposition to scare people away from secure, reliable Fission energy, because that opposition has so much to lose. Much like the well managed – though media bashed – release of cooling water in Fukushima happening now on the other side of the planet. There is no issue there either.
Chernobyl Pigs Roaming Free
Here are some real catastrophes still happening every day:
8.5 million people perishing every year due to burning of fossil fuels (PM2.5, NOX and CO) Recent Harvard work explains this.
8 million people each year from smoking cigarettes (a hazard something known for 100 years. Even women where tricked into smoking in a clever psychological spin using feminism as its leverage).
1.35 million people perish each year due to road accidents. Is there a fatal flaw in our society’s makeup – or our minds – to accept that?
500 million deaths and incapacitations in total (including IQ loss) from the fossil fuel industry’s saving compound tetraethyllead (TEL). Little tip. TEL is still being used today. Don’t hang around private airfields if you want your kids to grow up smart.
Chernobyl Buffalo
As for industry catastrophes, here are some real ones. No nuclear anywhere.
Failure of Banqiao Dam and 60 Other Dams, China (1975): An estimated 240,000 deaths.
Amphitheatre Collapse, Italy (AD 27): Over 20,000 deaths.
Machchhu Dam Failure, India (1979): 10,000 deaths.
Benxihu Colliery Explosion, China (1942): 1,549 deaths.
Rana Plaza Collapse, Bangladesh (2013): 1,134 deaths.
Courrières Mine Disaster, France (1906): 1,099 deaths.
Mitsubishi Hōjō Coal Mine Disaster, Japan (1914): 687 deaths.
Chernobyl Mink Safe From Humans
The Russian’s, those operating Chernobyl, didn’t think much of sharing the news of losing one of their power plants. Because it frankly wasn’t anybody’s business. They weren’t hiding anything. Even 37 years later we search and search for the numbers to quantify the qualification of “a catastrophe”.
Chernobyl Power Plant – 6,000 Lives Saved Every Year
But the search continues in vain. Ironically the same can be said for so-called radiation deaths from the purposeful bombing of Japan by the USA in 1945 using nuclear weapons. Massive fire and heat killed thousands of women and children. But radiation incorrectly takes the blame.
Signs for Humans Not Animals
So, fancy a bit of midweek popcorn entertainment. Dial up Chernobyl on HBO and let the fantasy take you away from your real concerns. The ones we seem to want to simply ignore.
A photo taken on January 22, 2016 shows wild Przewalski’s horses on a snow covered field in the Chernobyl exclusions zone.
In 1990, a handful of endangered Przewalski’s (Dzungarian) horses were brought in the exclusions zone to see if they would take root. They did so with relish, and about a hundred of them now graze the empty but sustenant fields. Przewalski’s horses are the last surviving subspecies of wild horse. / AFP / GENYA SAVILOV (Photo credit should read GENYA SAVILOV/AFP via Getty Images)
For a sobering reminder of the perils of human society you can review these lists.
The name of the article is “Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble today.”, authored by M. V. Ramana and appearing 20 June 2022 on the website of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. Keep in mind that the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists are the keepers of the “Doomsday Clock” – a relic of the cold war era designed to keep Joe Public scared and the public funding coffers open so the industrial-military complex of the west could continue building nuclear weapons. The links is the end of this article.
Why I’m giving up on the apocalypse countdown., Shannon Osaka, Reporter
We could spend hours rebutting and refuting every single piece of purported evidence submitted by the article, but that is not smart thing to do. And it’s not actually the point. When you understand the meaning behind the article a direct refute is actually a waste of time.
Not a Technical Data Review nor a Rebuttal of Technical Content
But, on the technical competence of Thorium Molten Salt technology, we have spent many hours interviewing the last surviving members of the research programs of the 1960’s and 1970’s. We can state that all the claims in the article we have reviewed are bogus. Hence our review here.
The article was clearly a hit piece from the start, so it must be assessed as one. We will review the writing style and the techniques used to make it appear a useful and credible piece. But in fact it is not at all. It has nothing to do with science and everything to do with objectives that are not clear from the article itself.
The article creates a dismal portrayal of actual events, and doubt and hesitation in the mind of the uninformed reader. Even a nuclear scientist who hasn’t studied the MSRE could nod their head in agreement – unless they critically review how the data is presented.
If used skillfully, the article would be a damaging success and Thorium Molten Salt would remain on the shelf.
The article is designed to be given to a senator or congress member (India, USA, German etc.) who might be teetering on the edge of supporting the best form of energy generation we have: Thorium Molten Salt.
This article could also be used to commit USD billions of public money to dilute and bury U233. Who owns the contracting companies work in the place where they will bury it? Follow the money.
It’s unfortunate that such people exist who put their name to such work, but hey, it’s not a game without an opponent.
Lessons First: How to Distract with Writing
Firstly here’s some pointers on how to attack something with an article, without making it appear like an attack. There are certain techniques that a writer can use to make their writing appear full of valuable data while dissuading further analysis.
These techniques include:
Overloading the article with technical jargon and complex language that is difficult for laypeople to understand. This can make the reader feel overwhelmed or intimidated, and discourage them from delving deeper into the topic.
Presenting only one side of the argument, and ignoring or downplaying any opposing viewpoints or evidence. This can create the impression that the author has provided a complete and conclusive analysis, when in reality there may be much more to consider.
Using emotionally charged language or rhetoric to appeal to the reader’s emotions, rather than presenting objective facts and evidence. This can make it difficult for the reader to separate the author’s opinion from the facts of the matter.
Limiting the scope of the article to a narrow or specific aspect of the topic, without providing a broader context or perspective. This can make it seem as though the topic is fully explored, when in reality there may be many other important factors to consider.
Other variations of techniques that can be used to appear scientific and fact-based while actually presenting a biased or negative view of the subject matter. can be:
Selectively citing studies or data that support the writer’s viewpoint while ignoring or downplaying studies or data that contradict it.
Using loaded language or emotional appeals to discredit the subject matter or those associated with it.
Employing a one-sided or cherry-picked narrative that presents a biased view of events or situations.
Using innuendo or insinuation to suggest negative associations with the subject matter, without providing clear evidence to support the claims.
The Authors Background
Let’s now consider the author. Who is he and what is his beef with Thorium? It’s important to understand their position and who or what they may be supporting in the background.
On face value, it seems that M. V. Ramana is a well-respected expert in nuclear disarmament. He has published extensively on the subject, and his work has been recognized with several awards and appointments to prestigious organizations. Ramana’s focus on disarmament and nuclear risk assessment suggests that he is concerned about the potential dangers of nuclear power and views it as a threat to global security.
Given his expertise in the field and his focus on disarmament, it is not surprising that Ramana is critical of Molten Salt Burners. His emphasis on the risks associated with this technology, such as accidents and proliferation concerns, have been debunked in numerous papers and reports, however it obvious that Ramana still views them as unacceptable given the article and his general concerns about the nuclear topic. Additionally, his affiliation with groups such as the International Nuclear Risk Assessment Group and the team that produces the World Nuclear Industry Status Report suggest that he is part of a broader movement to promote other energy options, which may lead him to be sceptical of any nuclear technologies.
However, upon reviewing the previous articles Ramana has authored or co-authored, notably absent is anything about UK’s plans to increase their nuclear arsenal. The UK needs to boost their uranium fired power industry to give cover for plutonium production. The material is necessary for the additional 80 Trident warheads the UK intends to build in the next few years.
You can dive down that rabbit hole of more nuclear weapons with these links:
Having no article on this is strange considering Ramana’s position as chair of a non-proliferation organization, and his propensity to produce articles. There are 33 articles on The Bulletin alone with his name attached.
However one must consider what the UK has been doing to rubbish Thorium. We will touch on it here but it does deserve a full article in the near future.
Put frankly, after the IAEA published their technical memo 1450 in May 2005 supporting Thorium as a fuel and identifying it’s non-proliferation features, the UK set about the systematic vilification of Thorium. An anti-Thorium article by three learned (but non-nuclear) Cambridge professors; a publicly funded 1.5 million GBP “no-to-Thorium” research report by a single person consultancy that referenced Wikipedia as a source; the gagging of a Lord; the possible early demise of the former head of Greenpeace UK, who had switched to Thorium. Then, the announcements of new nuclear energy for UK and shortly thereafter new nuclear weapons. It’s the makings of a sinister plot of a Bond movie. Or perhaps more akin to a “Get Smart” episode, or indeed, for the UK, “Yes, Minister”.
Be sure to consider this IAEA report on Thorium focuses on solid fuel uses. This is not ideal. This is addressed very well by Kirk Sorensen in 2009 and you can read that here:
So the question is, does Ramana receive funding or any kind not to discuss new weapons for the UK? Has he been prompted (paid) to weigh into the argument against Thorium because of these plans?
We will never know these answers.
Review of the Writing Style of the Article
Launching into the article itself, here are some of the techniques that have been used manipulate readers.
Emotional Language
Use of emotional language. The author uses words like “trouble” and “hype” to describe molten salt machines, which could instill a negative emotional response in readers and make them less likely to consider the technology objectively. The author refers to the “failed promises of nuclear power,” which may be intended to evoke a sense of disappointment or disillusionment with nuclear energy in general.
Cherry Picking Data
Cherry-picking data. The author points out that “no commercial-scale molten salt reactors have ever been built,” which could be interpreted as evidence that the technology is unproven or unreliable. However, this overlooks the fact that of the numerous activities worldwide to commercializes the technology. There are several countries and many private companies actively pursuing new molten salt reactor designs.
The author notes that molten salt reactors require “materials that can withstand intense radiation and high temperatures,” which could be interpreted as a major technical challenge. However, this overlooks the fact that many materials capable of withstanding extreme conditions already exist, and that ongoing research is aimed at developing even more robust materials.
Logical Fallacies
There’s multiple use of logical fallacies. Here are two examples:
Example 1: The author suggests that because molten salt reactors were initially developed as part of a military program, they are inherently problematic or dangerous. This is a classic example of an ad hominem fallacy, which attacks the character or motives of an argument rather than addressing the argument itself.
Example 2: The author implies that because molten salt reactors were not ultimately adopted for commercial use in the 1960s, they must be fundamentally flawed. This is an example of a false dilemma fallacy, which presents only two options (in this case, success or failure) and overlooks more nuanced or complex possibilities.
Appeal to Authority
Used extensively is appeal to authority. The author repeatedly references well-respected scientists and institutions to bolster his argument against molten salt reactors. While it’s important to consider expert opinions, the constant invocation of authority figures can also be a way to shut down debate and discourage readers from doing their own research. For example, he cites a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that characterizes molten salt burners as “inherently dangerous,” but doesn’t provide any details about the methodology or findings of the report.
Fear-Mongering
Basic Fear-mongering is used. In addition to playing up the potential risks of molten salt burners, the author also seems to imply that proponents of the technology are somehow sinister or untrustworthy. For example, he writes that “The companies and individuals involved in promoting this technology today have made claims that range from the dubious to the outright false.” This kind of rhetoric can be effective at turning readers against a particular idea or group, but it doesn’t necessarily contribute to a reasoned discussion of the topic at hand.
Oversimplification and Generalization
There are examples of oversimplification. While the author does acknowledge that there are some potential benefits to molten salt burners, he ultimately argues that they are too risky and impractical to be a viable solution to our energy needs. However, his arguments often rely on oversimplifications or generalizations that don’t fully capture the nuances of the technology. For example, he writes that “One of the main reasons molten salt reactors were abandoned in the 1960s was their inherent safety problems,” without providing any additional context or elaboration on what those safety problems were. This kind of oversimplification can be misleading and obscure important details that might challenge the article’s argument.
Overall, it’s clear that the author is deeply skeptical of molten salt burners and believes that they are not a viable solution to our energy needs. While it’s important to consider potential risks and drawbacks associated with new technologies, it’s also important to have an open and nuanced discussion about their potential benefits and drawbacks. The techniques used in the author’s article are also manipulative and intellectually dishonest, and readers should be aware of these techniques as they consider his argument.
Further Reviews
Now here are three credible reviews by three very different professionals:
A pro-nuclear scientific author with a PhD in nuclear physics.
Another science author but with a PhD in psychology and no nuclear training whatsoever.
An environmental scientist and environmental advocate looking for a solution (a degree in environmental science).
Pro-Nuclear Scientific Author
I am a pro-nuclear supporter, and must be since I am also a Doctor of Nuclear Physics, I reviewed the article “Molten salt reactors were trouble in the 1960s—and they remain trouble today” by M. V. Ramana. I will focus on the blatant non-scientific methods used to discredit a perfectly viable technology.
The article discusses the popularity of molten salt nuclear reactors among nuclear power enthusiasts, and their potential to lower emissions, be cheaper to run and consume nuclear waste, and be transportable in shipping containers. The article mentions how various governments and organizations have provided funding for the development of these reactors. However, the author asserts that this technology was unsuccessful in the past and is the solution to our current energy problems.
The author uses a several subterfuge techniques to support his argument. Firstly, he uses loaded language to portray molten salt reactors as a risky and problematic technology. For example, he uses the phrase “all the rage among some nuclear power enthusiasts” to imply that people are overly enthusiastic about this technology. The phrase “trouble” in the article’s title also suggests that molten salt reactors are problematic. Additionally, the author uses the phrase “legendary status” to describe the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, which is a hyperbole that can exaggerate the reactor’s success and, therefore, make it seem like a risky venture.
The author uses a strawman argument to discredit molten salt reactors’ developers and proponents. By implying that these people believe that the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment was so successful that it only needs to be scaled up and deployed worldwide, the author sets up a weak and exaggerated version of the opposition’s argument, which is easy to refute.
The author uses an appeal to emotion by asking readers to adopt a 1950s mindset to understand the interest in molten salt machines. The author makes an emotional appeal by stating that breeder machines would allow humanity to live a “passably abundant life.” By doing so, the author tries to persuade readers that using molten salt machines would not lead to a more abundant life, which is an emotional argument rather than a logical one.
The author provides detailed information on the fuel used in the MSRE, including depleted uranium, highly enriched uranium (HEU), and uranium-233 derived from thorium. However, the author uses subterfuge by presenting the information on the fuel without providing any context on why these fuels were used. HEU was used during that time because it was the only fuel that could sustain the reactor at high temperatures. Uranium-233 was derived from thorium, which is more abundant than uranium, and the intention was to use this as a breeder fuel to produce more fissile material.
The author then goes on to criticize the MSRE by stating that the reactor failed to reach its intended power output of 10 MW. However, this information is presented without any context on the significance of this failure. The MSRE was an experimental reactor, and its primary goal was to test the feasibility of the technology. The fact that the reactor was operational for four years and achieved a maximum power output of 8 MW is significant in demonstrating that the technology was viable.
The author also highlights the interruptions that occurred during the operation of the MSRE, including technical problems such as chronic plugging of pipes, blower failures, and electrical failures. However, these issues are common in any experimental reactor, and the author fails to provide any context on the significance of these issues. It is essential to note that the MSRE was the first and only molten salt reactor to be built, and it was an experimental reactor. Therefore, the primary goal was to test the feasibility of the technology, and it was expected to encounter problems.
The author argues that materials must maintain their integrity in highly radioactive and corrosive environments at elevated temperatures. The corrosion is a result of the reactor’s nature, which involves the use of uranium mixed with the hot salts for which the reactor is named.
The article uses the technique of “cherry-picking” when discussing the material challenges in the manufacturing of molten-salt-reactor components. While the author acknowledges that Oak Ridge developed a new alloy known as IN0R-8 or Hastelloy-N in the late 1950s, which did not get significantly corroded during the four years of intermittent operations, the author also highlights that the material had two significant problems. First, the material had trouble managing stresses, and second, the material developed cracks on surfaces exposed to the fuel salt, which could lead to the component failing.
The author uses the technique of “fear-mongering” when discussing the material challenges. The author claims that even today, no material can perform satisfactorily in the high-radiation, high-temperature, and corrosive environment inside a molten salt reactor. However, the author fails to acknowledge the significant advancements in materials science and engineering in the last few decades that have enabled the development of new materials that can withstand extreme environments, including those in the nuclear industry. For example, the use of ceramic matrix composites, which can withstand high temperatures and radiation exposure, has been proposed as a potential solution for the material challenges in molten salt reactors.
The article uses the technique of “appeal to authority” when discussing the Atomic Energy Commission’s decision to terminate the entire molten salt reactor program. The author claims that the Atomic Energy Commission justified its decision in a devastating report that listed a number of problems with the large molten salt reactor that Oak Ridge scientists had conceptualized. The author then lists the problems with materials, the challenge of controlling the radioactive tritium gas produced in molten salt reactors, the difficulties associated with maintenance because radioactive fission products would be dispersed throughout the reactor, some safety disadvantages, and problems with graphite, which is used in molten-salt-reactor designs to slow down neutrons. However, the author fails to acknowledge that the decision to terminate the program was not based on technical problems at all, but was driven solely by anti-competitive measures of the fossil fuel industry.
The MSRE was an experimental reactor that aimed to test the feasibility of the technology, and it achieved significant milestones during its four years of operation. It is essential to acknowledge the significance of this experimental reactor in advancing nuclear technology and developing the concept of molten salt reactors.
Overall, the article uses subterfuge techniques, including cherry-picking, fear-mongering, and appeal to authority, to create a negative view of molten salt reactors. Information is presented information without providing any context or significance. While the article acknowledges some technical challenges, it fails to acknowledge the significant advancements in materials science and engineering in the last few decades that have enabled the development of new materials that can withstand extreme environments. The article also fails to acknowledge that the decision to terminate the program was not solely based on technical problems but was also influenced by political and economic factors.
Review by Science Author (PhD in Psychology)
I am a distinguished science author with a PhD in Psychology. I must stress I have no experience in nuclear physics however I am an expert in writing technical papers. I am also neither for no against nuclear energy. I support the most viable solutions and will listen to all sides of a debate before making my decision.
I must say that I found Ramana’s article on molten salt reactors to be both perplexing and concerning. Although the author claims to provide an unbiased analysis of the technology, the overall tone and language used suggests a hidden agenda.
From the beginning of the article, Ramana makes it clear that molten salt reactors were “trouble in the 1960s.” This statement is not only misleading, but also irrelevant to the current state of the technology. By focusing on the past, the author attempts to discredit the potential of modern molten salt reactors without presenting any valid reasons for doing so.
Throughout the article, Ramana employs various writing techniques to drive readers away from pursuing the subject further. For instance, the author uses complex technical jargon and vague language to create a sense of confusion and uncertainty. This tactic is particularly evident in the section where Ramana discusses the safety concerns associated with molten salt reactors. By using phrases like “could potentially lead to” and “poses a risk,” the author avoids making any definitive statements about the technology, rather relaying on speculating into realms of fear, which ultimately undermines its credibility.
Furthermore, Ramana’s use of anecdotal evidence and personal opinions also raises red flags. For instance, the author cites an incident in which a molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory suffered a leak, but fails to provide any context or details about the incident. By presenting this incident without any explanation, the author creates an impression that molten salt reactors are inherently dangerous without any factual basis to support this assertion.
I believe that Ramana’s article is an attempt to manipulate readers’ perceptions of molten salt reactors. By using various writing techniques to hide the truth and drive readers away from pursuing the subject further, the author presents a biased and incomplete analysis of the technology.
As a science author with a PhD in Psychology, I believe that it is essential to provide readers with accurate and unbiased information, and Ramana’s article falls short of this standard.
Review by an Environmental Scientist
As a devoted environmental scientist searching for solutions to global warming, I was disappointed to read M. V. Ramana’s article on molten salt reactors. Ramana’s writing style and techniques are designed to hide the truth and dissuade readers from pursuing the subject further.
Ramana starts by discussing the history of molten salt reactors and their associated problems, including the fact that they were abandoned by the U.S. government in the 1970s. While this information is relevant, the author’s use of emotionally charged language such as “trouble” and “disaster” creates a negative connotation that is not necessarily supported by the evidence.
Furthermore, Ramana dismisses the potential benefits of molten salt reactors, such as their potential to reduce carbon emissions and provide reliable, baseload power. Instead, he focuses solely on the negative aspects of the technology, such as the potential for accidents and proliferation risks.
Ramana employs fear-mongering tactics to dissuade readers from exploring the subject further. He claims that molten salt reactors are inherently unstable and that they pose a significant risk of nuclear accidents. However, he fails to mention that molten salt reactors are designed with multiple safety features, including passive cooling systems and automatic shutdown mechanisms, to prevent any such accidents. In fact, the physics of running fission in a liquid state mean that the system can never over-heat. The same way an apple can never “fall up”. Apples only ever fall down.
Ramana claims that they were trouble in the 1960s and remain trouble today. This statement is highly misleading and lacks any scientific evidence to support it. Ramana ignores the fact that molten salt reactors have been the subject of extensive research and development over the past several decades, with numerous studies demonstrating them as a safe, clean, and cost-effective source of energy.
Ramana also uses selective and misleading information to paint a negative picture of molten salt reactors. For example, he cites a report from the Union of Concerned Scientists that raises concerns about the technology, but fails to mention that the same report acknowledges the potential benefits of molten salt reactors and recommends further research.
Overall, I found Ramana’s article to be biased against molten salt reactors and lacking in objectivity. As an environmental scientist, I believe it is important to consider all potential solutions to global warming, including those that may have drawbacks. Instead of dismissing molten salt reactors based on their past history, we should focus on the potential benefits and work to address any remaining concerns through further research and development.
The Final, Public Word
Reviewing the comments of the article are the final piece of this puzzle and close the review. There are no supporters of the arguments presented the author.
Or perhaps this is not a puzzle at all, as alluded to. Follow the money, if you can.
Here’s a list of some text extracted from the public comments to the article.
“This seem more like a hack job than any evaluation of how successful molten salt reactor experiment was.”
“The criticism leveled at Molten Salt Reactor technology is unjustified.”
“Tell us what you really think — not what the folks you work for depend on for funding.”
“The quality of the material and discussion presented, feels like something that would be written by a first year undergraduate political science STEM challenged student and not a modern Physicist or Nuclear Engineer.”
“What a load of rubbish, trying to pass itself off as researched fact.”
“I’m sorry but articles that look at 60’s technology and say ‘if man were meant to fly..” don’t excite me”
“Your diatribe over the Air Force’s expenditures on the nuclear-powered bomber program and the MSR is disingenuously conflated.”
“It is clear that the article is a conclusion in search of an argument.”
I have written this article exclusively for The Thorium Network(1) on the basis that I remain anonymous – my livelihood depends on it. I completed my nuclear engineering degree in the late 2000’s and shortly thereafter found a position in a semi-government owned nuclear power station – with several PWRs to look after. One year after graduating and commencing my professional career, I discovered the work of Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2) and began conducting my own research.
My anonymity is predicated on my experience during this time of intense study and learning. As a young female graduate when I shared my enthusiasm for this technology I faced harassment and derision from my male colleagues, from high level government officials and also, unfortunately, from my university professors, whom I initially turned to for help. It wasn’t long before I started to keep my research and my thoughts to myself.
I have found Women In Nuclear(3) to be most supportive and conducive to fostering and maintaining my interest in this technology, though even there it remains a “secret subject”.
So when I discovered The Thorium Network(1), I decided it was a good platform to tell my story. I look forward to the time when there is an industry strong enough to support engineers like me full time, so we can leave our positions in the old technology and embrace the new.
My Studies – No Thorium?
As a nuclear engineer, I was trained to understand the intricacies of nuclear reactions and the ways in which nuclear power could be harnessed for the betterment of humanity.
During my time in university, I learned about various types of reactors, including pressurized water reactors, boiling water reactors, and fast breeder reactors.
Phew!
However, one type of technology that was never mentioned in my coursework was the Thorium Molten Salt Burner (TMSB). Or “Thorium Burner” as my friends like to say. “TBs” for short. I like it too. Throughout my article I also refrain from using traditional words and descriptions. The nuclear industry must change and we can start by using new words.
Shortly after graduating I stumbled upon information about TBs from the work of the famous chemist and nuclear physicist, Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2). TBs have enormous potential and are the future of nuclear energy. I can say that without a doubt. I was immediately struck by the impressive advantages that TBs offer compared to the technologies that I had learned about in school. I found myself wondering why this technology had not been discussed in any of my classes and why it seemed to be so overlooked in the mainstream discourse surrounding nuclear energy and in particular in today’s heated debates on climate change.
What are TBs – Thorium Burners
To understand the reasons behind the lack of knowledge and recognition of TBs, it is first important to understand what exactly TBs are and how they differ from other types of fission technologies. TBs are a type of fission device that use Thorium as a fuel source, instead of the more commonly used uranium or plutonium. The fuel is dissolved in a liquid salt mixture*, which acts as the fuel, the coolant and the heat transfer medium for taking away the heat energy to do useful work, like spin a turbine to make electricity, or keep an aluminum smelter bath hot**. This design allows for a number of benefits that old nuclear technology does not offer.
*A little tip: the salt is not corrosive. Remember, our blood is salty but we don’t rust away do we.
** I mention aluminum smelting because it too uses a high fluorine based salt – similar to what TBs use. And aluminum is the most commonly used metal on our planet. You can see more on this process here: Aluminum Smelting(4)
Advantages of TBs
One of the most significant advantages of TBs is their inherent safety. They are “walk away safe”. Because the liquid fuel is continuously circulating, and already in a molten state, there is no possibility of a meltdown. If the core region tries to overheat the liquid fuel will simply expand and this automatically shuts down the heating process. This is known as Doppler Broadening(5).
Additionally, the liquid fuel is not pressurized, removing any explosion risk. It just goes “plop”.
These physical features make TBs much safer than traditional machines, which require complex safety systems to prevent accidents. Don’t misunderstand me, these safety systems are very good (there has never been a major incident in the nuclear industry from the failure of a safety system), but the more links you have in a chain the more chances you have of a failure. TBs go the other way, reducing links and making them safer by the laws of physics, not by the laws of man.
Another advantage of TBs is their fuel utilization. Traditional machines typically only use about 3% of their fuel before it must be replaced. In contrast, TBs are able to use 99.9% of their fuel, resulting in effectively no waste and a much longer fuel cycle (30 years in some designs). This not only makes TBs more environmentally friendly – how much less digging is needed to make fuel – but it also makes them more cost-effective.
TBs are also more efficient than traditional machines. They are capable of operating at higher temperatures (above 650 degrees C), which results in increased thermal efficiency and a higher output of electricity per unit of fuel. This increased efficiency means that TBs require even less fuel to produce the same amount of energy, making them even more a sustainable option for meeting our energy needs.
The Conspiracy
Ever wonder why all the recent “conspiracy theories” have proven to be true? It looks like Thorium is another one. It’s just been going on for a long, long time.
So why, then, was I never taught about TBs in university? The answer to this question is complex and multi-faceted, but can all be traced back to one motive: Profit. The main factor that has contributed to the lack of recognition and support for TBs is the influence of the oil and fossil fuel industries. These industries have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo to preserve their profits. They have used their massive wealth and power to lobby against the development of competitive energy sources like TBs. Fossil fuel companies have poured billions of money into political campaigns and swayed public opinion through their control of the media. This has made it difficult for TBs to receive the funding and recognition they need to advance, as the fossil fuel industries work to maintain their dominance in the energy sector.
First Hand Knowledge – Visiting Oak Ridge
During my research I took a trip to Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, where the first experimental Thorium Burner, the MSRE – the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment – was built and operated in the 1960s. During my visit, I had the chance to speak with some of the researchers and engineers who had worked on the MSRE – yes some are still around. It was amazing to speak with them. I learnt first hand about the history of TBs and their huge potential that they have. I also learnt how simple and safe they are. They called the experiment “the most predictable and the most boring”. It did everything they calculated it would do. That’s a good thing!
The stories I heard from the researchers and engineers who worked on the MSRE were inspiring but also concerning. They spoke of the tremendous potential they saw in TBs and the promise that this technology holds for the future of meeting world energy demands. They also spoke of the political and funding challenges that they experienced first hand. The obstacles that prevented TBs from receiving the recognition and support they needed to advance. They were told directly to destroy all evidence of their work on the technology when Dr. Alvin Weinberg was fired as their director in 1972 and the molten salt program shut down. This was done under Nixon’s watch. You can even hear Nixon do this here on this YouTube(6) clip. Keep it “close to the chest” he says. I am surprised that this video is still up on YouTube considering the censorship we’ve been experiencing in this country in the past few years.
The experiences at Oak Ridge confirmed to me that TBs are a promising and innovative technology that have been marginalized and overlooked clearly on purpose. On purpose to protect profits of other industries. It was inspiring to hear about the dedication and passion of the researchers and engineers who worked on the MSRE, and it reinforced my belief in the potential of TBs to play a major role in meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and safe manner. I am hopeful that, with increased investment and support, TBs will one day receive the recognition and support they deserve, and that they will play a significant role in shaping the future of energy.
Moving On – What is Needed
Despite the challenges, I believe that TBs have a promising future in the world of energy from the Atom. They offer a number of unique benefits that can clearly address the any minor concerns surrounding traditional nuclear energy machines, such as safety and waste management. They are also the answer for world energy.
Countering the Vested Interests – Education and Awareness
In order for TBs to become a more widely recognized and accepted technology, more funding – both public and private – is needed to revamp the research and development conducted in the 1950’s and 1960’s. Additionally, education and awareness about the potential of TBs must be raised, in order to dispel any misconceptions and address the stigma that still surrounds nuclear energy, and to counter the efforts that are still going on even today, to stymie TBs from becoming commercial.
In order to ensure that TBs receive the support they need to succeed, it is necessary to counter the influence of the oil and fossil fuel industries and to create a level playing field for competitive energy sources. This will require a concerted effort from the public, policymakers, and the private sector to invest in and promote the development of TBs.
Retiring Aging Assets and Funding New Ones
There’s also another factor that also needs to be addressed the same way as the oil and fossil fuel industries and that is the existing industry itself. The nuclear industry has long been dominated by a few large companies, and these companies have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo and investing in traditional reactor technology. This includes funding universities to train people such as myself. This has made it difficult for TBs to gain traction and receive the funding they need to advance.
An Industry Spawned: Non Linear Threshold (LNT) and As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA)
A third reason is the prodigious amount of money to be made in maintaining the apparent safety of the existing nuclear industry. This was something else I was not taught in school – about how fraudulent science using fruit flies was railroaded by the oil industry (specifically the Rockefellers) to create a cost increasing environment for the nuclear industry to prevent smaller and smaller amounts of radiation exposure. Professor Edward Calabrese(7) taught me the most about this. You must watch his interviews.
What has grown from this is a radiation safety industry – and hence a profit base – with a life of it’s own. I see it every single working day. It holds tightly to the vein that radiation must at all costs (and all profits) be kept out of the public domain. Again a proven flawed premise but thoroughly supported by the need, and greed, of the incumbent industry to maintain the status quo.
Summing Up – Our Future
In conclusion, as someone who studied nuclear engineering but never learned about Thorium Molten Salt Technology, I am disappointed that I was not given the opportunity to learn about this promising and innovative technology during my time in university. However, I am also grateful to have discovered it now, particularly with my professional experience in the sector. I am eager to see how TBs will continue to evolve and change the face of energy worldwide. With the right support and investment, I believe that TBs have the potential to play the main role in meeting our energy needs in a sustainable and safe manner, and I hope that they will receive the recognition they deserve in the years to come.
The history and development of Liquid Fission Energy powered by Thorium is a fascinating one, with many twists and turns that have shaped the direction of the technology. In the 1950s, President Dwight Eisenhower initiated the “Atoms for Peace”(1) program, which was designed to break the military-industrial complex and promote the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This enthused a number of scientists, including Dr. Alvin Weinberg(2) and Dr. Eugene Wigner, who already saw the potential for using nuclear energy as a clean and abundant source of power and where dismayed at the use of their work on the Manhattan Project to kill massive numbers of women and children(3).
The development of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium can be traced back to the 1950s and 1960s, when a group of scientists and engineers at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee started working on the concept. They were looking for a way to improve the safety and efficiency of nuclear energy without creating a path to weapons, and they saw the potential in using thorium as a fuel. Thorium is a naturally occurring element that is abundant in many parts of the world, and it can be used to produce nuclear energy without the risk of weapons proliferation(4).
However, despite this initial enthusiasm, in the 1970’s the development of Molten Salt Fission Energy was soon stymied by a number of obstacles. One of the main challenges had been the introduction of the Linear Non Threshold (LNT) and As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) principles by the Rockefellers, who intended to limit the growth of nuclear energy in order to protect their oil businesses. This was done by feeding on the fear of the unknown among the uneducated public and by using the fraudulent work of Professor Hermann Muller from his 1928 fruit fly research(5). As John Kutsch points out in his presentation(6), this was a critical turning point in the development of fission technology.
One of the key figures against the development was Hyman Rickover(7). Rickover was a bulldog of a man, determined to have pressure water fission machines running on uranium installed in his submarines. He was equally determined to redirect public funds away from the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology. This was because he couldn’t use that technology for his submarines and wanted the money for his own research programs. Despite these efforts, however, the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium still continued.
A major step in this development was the creation of the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. The MSRE was designed to test the feasibility of using molten salt as both a coolant and fuel for a fission machine. The experiment was a huge success, proving that the technology was both safe and efficient. The MSRE operated from 1965 to 1969 and provided valuable data on the behavior of molten salt as a coolant and fuel. This data helped to lay the foundation for the continued development of Molten Salt Fission Technology, however 1972 saw the dismissal of Dr. Weinberg and the defunding of all Molten Salt work. Led by President Nixon, the hegemony was intent on snuffing out any competition, which Molten Salt Fission Technology clearly was.
We remain in debt to Dr. Weinberg who continued to document, speak and promote their documented achievements until his passing in 2006 – just long enough for his material to be picked up and spread via the Internet(2).
The next step in the development of Molten Salt Fission Technology was the creation of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) program(8). This program was initiated in the 1980s by the U.S. Department of Energy. The goal of the IFR program was to create a fission machine that was capable of recycling its own fuel, reducing the need for new fuel to be mined and demonstrating the efficient and safe use of high temperature molten systems – those ideally suited for Thorium Fission. The IFR program was a huge success, demonstrating the feasibility of closed fuel cycles for fission machines. The IFR program also provided valuable data on the behavior of fast-neutron-spectrum fission burners, which are critical components of modern fission technology. And, true to form. this program also suffered at the hands of it’s competition with the program being cancelled 3 years before it was completed in 1994 by Clinton and his oil cronies. Ironically, at the same time that excuses where being pushed through Congress to defund the program by Clinton and Energy Secretary Hazel R. O’Leary, O’Leary herself awarded the lead IFR scientist, Dr. Yoon Chang of Argonne Labs, Chicago(9) with $10,000 and a gold medal, with the citation stating his work to develop IFR technology provided “improved safety, more efficient use of fuel and less radioactive waste.”
“My children were wondering, Why are they are trying to kill the project on the one hand and then giving you this award?” Chang said with a chuckle. “How ironic. I just cannot understand how a nation that created atomic energy in the first place and leads the world in technology in this field would want to take a back seat on waste conversion,” Chang said. “I also have confidence in the democratic process that the true facts and technological rationale will prevail in the end.” Dr. Chang during an interview published 8 February 1994 by Elaine S. Povich(10), then a Chicago Tribune Staff Writer(11).
Despite these setbacks, there has been a resurgence of interest in Molten Salt Fission Energy in recent years, with a number of programs and initiatives being developed around the world. In France, the National Centre for Scientific and Technical Research in Nuclear Energy( CRNC ) is working on a number of projects related to this technology, including the development of a prototype fission burner. In Switzerland, ETH Zurich (home of Einstein’s work on E=mc^2) is also exploring the potential of Molten Salt Fission Energy, with a number of projects underway.
There are also a number of other countries that are actively pursuing Molten Salt Fission Energy, including the Czech Republic, Russia, Japan, China, the United States, Canada, and Australia. Each of these countries has its own unique approach to the technology, and is working to advance the state of the art in different ways.
In conclusion, the history and development of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium is a fascinating subject that highlights the innovations and advancements in the field of nuclear energy. From the “Atoms for Peace” program initiated by President Dwight Eisenhower, which attracted prominent scientists like Dr. Alvin Weinberg and Dr. Eugenie Wigner, to the efforts of Hyman Rickover to redirect public funds away from the technology, this technology has faced numerous challenges along the way. The introduction of Linear Non Threshold (LNT) and As Low as Reasonably Achievable (ALARA) by the Rockefellers in an effort to stop the growth of nuclear energy and the fraudulent work of Professor Hermann Muller have also played a significant role in the history of this technology.
Despite these challenges, the potential benefits of using Thorium as a fuel source for fission burners are significant. The technology is considered safer and more efficient than traditional nuclear reactors, and it has the potential to produce much less nuclear waste. Additionally, the abundance of Thorium on Earth makes it a more sustainable source of energy than other options, such as uranium.
While much work remains to be done to fully realize the potential of Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium, the future looks bright. In the next 15 years, we can expect to see significant advancements in the technology in many parts of the world, including new designs and prototypes that will demonstrate the full potential of this technology. And, in our children’s’ children’s future, 50, years and more, we can imagine a world where Molten Salt Fission Technology is the main component of our energy infrastructure, providing clean, safe, and sustainable energy for everyone.
As an anti-nuclear advocate who has come to support nuclear energy, I understand that many others in the anti-nuclear community may be hesitant to reexamine their beliefs. However, I believe that it is important for all of us to be open to new information and to consider all of the available evidence before making decisions.
Success?
To help other anti-nuclear advocates take the time to learn about nuclear energy and potentially switch to supporting it, I recommend designing an awareness campaign that focuses on the following:
Highlighting the potential benefits of nuclear energy: There are several compelling reasons why nuclear energy is an excellent choice for our energy mix. For example, it is a low-carbon source of electricity that does not emit greenhouse gases or other pollutants. It is also reliable, with plants capable of operating at high capacity for extended periods of time.
Addressing common misconceptions about nuclear energy: I have found that many people who are opposed to nuclear energy simply lack the appropriate knowledge about issues such as safety, waste management, and cost. It is important to address these concerns head-on and provide accurate information about the measures that are in place to address them. Misinformation and misconceptions kill many ideas.
Encouraging open-mindedness and critical thinking: It is important to encourage anti-nuclear advocates to approach the topic of nuclear energy with an open mind and to be willing to consider all of the available evidence. This may involve encouraging them to read reports from reputable organizations, watch documentaries or talks by experts in the field, or participate in discussions with people who have different viewpoints.
Providing a platform for dialogue: One way to encourage open-mindedness and critical thinking is to provide a platform for respectful dialogue and debate. This could involve hosting events or online forums where people with different viewpoints can discuss the pros and cons of nuclear energy in a respectful manner.
By focusing on these key areas, I believe that it is possible to help other anti-nuclear advocates take the time to learn about nuclear energy and potentially switch to supporting it.
Learn a little Science History each month during 2023 with significant people in the physical sciences and the Science Greats 2023 calendar by Ms. Ridhi V. Raaj.
For instance did you know that 1 January 1894 was the birth date of Dr. Satyendra Nath Bose, famous for his work in quantum mechanics and the Bose-Einstein condensate.
Satyendra Nath Bose was a Bengali mathematician and physicist specializing in theoretical physics. He is best known for his work on quantum mechanics in the early 1920s, in developing the foundation for Bose statistics and the theory of the Bose condensate.
