Article by Jeremiah Josey, founder of The Thorium Network. Dated 13 December 2025
The website whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html presents a series of arguments that attempts to cast doubt on the viability and advantages of Thorium-based Fission technology. We won’t dwell on the psychological tactics used—such as answering a different question to the headline “myth” or relying on technical jargon to create an aura of authority. They’re unnecessary distractions. And we don’t need to. Recent developments, particularly in China, have decisively demonstrated that the supposed technical hurdles previously cited are not only surmountable but are actively being overcome. China’s progress in Thorium Liquid Fission Burner (LFTB) technology reveals a future where energy independence is not just a goal, but a reality that will reshape global energy dynamics.
Addressing the “Myths” with Chinese Achievements
Myth #1: Thorium Burners were cancelled due to economics, not weapons. China’s Thorium Fission programme, launched in 2011 by the Chinese Academy of Sciences, has shown that with sustained investment and state support, economic barriers can be surpassed. The country has not only constructed a complete industrial supply chain for Thorium Fission machines but has also achieved the world’s first conversion of Thorium into uranium-233 within a their LFTB called “TMSR-LF1”. This achievement marks a pivotal step toward self-sustaining Fission cycles, driven by strategic energy security rather than mere economics. Link
Myth #2: Thorium Burners never need enrichment. While initial fissile material is required to start the process, China’s TMSR-LF1 machine has successfully bred uranium-233 from Thorium, proving that self-sustaining cycles are achievable. This milestone is a major leap toward reducing dependence on enriched uranium, making Thorium Liquid Fission Burners a cornerstone of China’s long-term energy strategy. Link
Myth #3: Thorium Burners cannot make bombs. The claim that Thorium Burners could be used to produce weapons-grade material is categorically false. The process of separating protactinium-233 from the fuel solution is technically complex, highly detectable, and practically impossible to achieve covertly. Moreover, the presence of uranium-232 and its intense gamma radiation makes handling and weaponisation not only hazardous but effectively unfeasible. China’s approach to Thorium Fission prioritises civilian energy and employs strict safeguards, ensuring that weaponisation is not a realistic concern. Link
Myth #4: Thorium is more abundant, but that’s not important. China’s discovery of over 1 million tons of Thorium and the mapping of 233 Thorium-rich zones highlight its strategic significance for energy security. For a country with limited uranium, Thorium’s abundance is not just important—it is essential. China’s road map targets commercial deployment by 2029, aiming to secure energy independence for hundreds of thousands of years. This will dramatically reduce China’s reliance on fossil fuels and lead to a significant decline in global demand for coal and oil. Link
Myth #5: Thorium Burners don’t uniquely make safer waste. China’s TMSR produces far fewer long-lived transuranic elements, and its waste decays much faster than that of conventional Fission machines. The technical capability for online fission product removal and passive safety is being proven in real-world operation, making Thorium Liquid Fission Burners a leader in reducing Fission waste hazards. Link
Myth #6: Thorium Burners and molten salt machines are the same thing. China’s programme combines both, but the advances in metallurgy and materials—such as the development of specialised alloys for molten salt environments—are critical. The United States historically restricted sales of Hasteloy N, a key material for liquid fission machines, to control technology spread. China has now overcome this by developing its own high-performance alloys, supported by Australia ensuring supply chain independence and technological leadership. Link
China’s Energy Independence and Global Impact
China’s Thorium Fission programme is not just about technological advancement; it is about energy independence for hundreds of thousands of years. The end of fossil fuels for China is in sight, and considering the country’s massive energy consumption, this will lead to a dramatic decline in global demand for coal and oil. China’s progress in Liquid Fission Thorium Burner technology is setting a new benchmark for advanced energy solutions worldwide, with the potential to transform global energy markets and reduce reliance on fossil fuels. Link
Australia’s Role in Supporting China
Australia has played a crucial role in supporting China’s Thorium Fission ambitions. Under the leadership of Professor Adi Paterson, Australia has become a key partner in the development and supply of Thorium and advanced materials for Liquid Fission Machines. This collaboration not only strengthens bilateral relations but also positions Australia as a vital contributor to the global shift toward sustainable energy solutions. Link
China’s achievements in Thorium Fission Burner technology have decisively refuted the notion that Thorium-based Fission is impractical or hindered by insurmountable technical challenges. The technical hurdles cited by critics globally are being overcome, and China’s progress is setting a new benchmark for advanced energy solutions worldwide. The future of energy is not just about technological innovation but about strategic independence and global sustainability. Link
Article by Jeremiah Josey, founder of The Thorium Network
A big sigh of relief as Japan finally kicks out the western phobia of clean, safe #fission energy. It’s taken 14 years but they’ve made it.
No one died from the minor incident that occurred at #TEPCO‘s #Fukushima#Daiichi#Nuclear Power Plant when the wave of water hit them on 11 March 2011. Yet the world shivered under their collective blankets when the lights went out on that bed time evening those many moons ago.
Japan has now found their torch – powered by #uranium and #plutonium – and again today they bravely find their way to the toilet in the middle of the night. The west seems intent on using bedpans…
There’s a silver lining to this story even brighter than the fission future Japan is turning back on. And that silver is Thorium. Just a few miles away, #China has been steadfast producing reliable secure Thorium energy for almost as long. And Japan is noticing.
Without the fanfare of hype from both sides.
🇯🇵 Japan’s Thorium Awakening: Inside Their Molten‑Salt Ambitions
Japan’s next-gen nuclear vision isn’t just about restarting reactors — it’s about rethinking what fission energy can be. While others fretted, Japan quietly doubled down on research that could transform nuclear safety, waste, and abundance.
At the heart of this is a Liquid Fission Thorium burner (LFTB) ambition.
1. Some MSR & Thorium Roots in Japan
• Japan’s research into MSRs actually has historical depth: IAEA‑sponsored work has looked at Th–233U cycles for molten salt reactors, including their use for transuranic waste reduction.
• At Kyoto University and other Japanese institutions, there have been proposals to build molten salt reactors using Thorium, such as the FUJI Molten Salt Reactor.
• According to Mitsui Strategic Studies, Japan is re-evaluating liquid fission as a technology for sustainable domestic resources.
Bottom line: Japan’s Thorium‑LFTB work is real.
2. Partnerships & Research Focus
Japanese research institutions (universities, national labs) are exploring critical MSR‑related technologies, like:
• Neutronic modeling of Th‑232 → U-233 cycles
• Materials that resist corrosion in hot molten salts
• Reactor vessel designs optimised for safety in earthquake-prone regions
• Online salt circulation and reprocessing concepts.
These partnerships help lay the foundation for a future Thorium-based industry.
3. Conceptual Thorium Burner for Waste Recycling
One of the most attractive ideas in Japanese MSR research is using Thorium‑salt reactors to burn transuranic waste (plutonium and other actinides) produced by conventional light-water reactors. This would:
• Reduce long-lived nuclear waste
• Generate clean energy
• Operate at low pressure, improving safety (no risk of steam‑pressure explosions)
• Use passive safety features.
🇨🇳 China’s Thorium LFTB: The Quiet Competitor
While Japan is preparing, China is already moving.
• Their TMSR‑LF1 liquid fission machine (2 MW thermal) received an operating licence in June 2023.
• This reactor achieved first criticality on October 11, 2023.
• In November 2025, SINAP (Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics) announced the first successful conversion of Thorium to uranium fuel inside this machine, with a conversion ratio of 10%.
• The TMSR‑LF1 design uses a fuel mix including under‑20% enriched uranium-235 and about 50 kg.
Message us if you want to see more detail about the efforts of these countries into Liquid Fission Thorium Burner technology – without doubt the best thing ever for humanity and our precious planet earth.
You can see the original article that promoted our work here on our Telegram channel:
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.
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
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 Liquid Fission THorium Burner Technology 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.
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network on 11 October 2022
By James Kennedy, President of ThREEConsulting.com and John Kutsch, Executive Director of Thorium Energy Alliance, October 3, 2022.
Ordinally appearing in LinkedIn Pulse. Reproduced for educational purposes and with permission.
The Pentagon recently halted the delivery of F-35 fighter jets when it was discovered that they contained Chinese rare earth components. If the Pentagon would look a little more closely, they would find that Chinese rare earth derived components are ubiquitously distributed throughout all U.S. / NATO weapon systems.
It isn’t only U.S. weapon systems, China controls global access to rare earth metals and magnets (and other downstream critical materials) for EVs, wind turbines, and most other green- technology.
However, China’s vision is much more ambitious than controlling the supply-chain for high-tech commodities, they are leveraging their dominance into the clean energy sector. Last month Chinese authorities authorized the startup of what should be considered the world’s only Generation-5 nuclear reactor: a reactor that is inherently safe, non-proliferating, and can consume nuclear waste.
The goal of Net-Zero, and any potential economic benefits, are entirely under China’s control.
China’s leadership position in both of these areas can be traced back to irrational policies and legacy prejudices specific to Thorium, a mildly radioactive element that is commonly found in heavy rare earth minerals.
The words that follow, detail the history of how China surpassed the U.S. with its own nuclear technology and displaced its historic leadership position in rare earths.
A Short History on U.S. Nuclear Development
In 1962 Nobel Prize Winning scientist Glenn Seaborg responded to President John F. Kennedy’s request for a Sustainable U.S. Energy Plan. The report titled “Civilian Nuclear Power” called for the development and deployment of Thorium Molten Salt Breeder Reactors.
Abstract This overarching report on the role of nuclear power in the U.S. economy was requested by U.S. President John F. Kennedy in March, 1962. The U.S. Atomic Energy Commission was charged with producing the report, gaining input from individuals inside and outside government, including the Department of Interior, the Federal Power Commission, and the National Academy of Sciences Committee on Natural Resources. The study was to identify the objectives, scope, and content of a nuclear power development program in light of prospective energy needs and resources. It should recommend appropriate steps to assure the proper timing of development and construction of nuclear power projects, including the construction of necessary prototypes and continued cooperation between government and industry. There should also be an evaluation of the extent to which the U.S. nuclear power program will further international objectives in the peaceful uses of atomic energy.
Civilian Nuclear Power, a Report to the President by Glenn T Seaborg, Atomic Energy Commission, U.S.A. 1962
These ultra-safe reactors are nothing like the legacy reactors that make up today’s Light Water fleet (LWR). When deployed globally, many believe they will be the primary backbone of Green Energy – replacing the existing natural gas dispatchable power that makes up over 70% of the ‘balance-of-power’ in renewable systems.
Unfortunately, Seaborg’s plan died with Kennedy. The cold-war preference for uranium and plutonium over Thorium in the 1960s and 70s, coupled with the 1980s modification to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) regulations that also impacted how Thorium is classified and processed, led to the termination of the U.S. Thorium Molten Salt Reactor program and, effectively, the U.S. (French and Japanese) rare earth industry.
Today, China controls the downstream production of rare earth metals and magnets (used in EVs, Wind Turbines and U.S. / NATO weapon systems) and is boldly pursuing Glenn Seaborg’s plan for clean, safe energy. China’s nuclear regulatory authorities have cleared the 2MWt TMSR-LF1, China’s first Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (Th-MSR), for startup. There is no U.S. equivalent program on the horizon.
Considering that the U.S. initially developed this reactor, it begs the question of why China is leading with its commercial development. That requires a bit of a history lesson.
The goal of harnessing nuclear energy began shortly after World War II. At that time, a number of Manhattan Project scientists were tasked with quickly developing civilian nuclear power. One of the mission goals was to distribute the ongoing cost of producing bomb-making materials across our secretive Manhattan Project campuses onto a ‘civilian’ nuclear energy program. That program eventually morphed into the Atomic Energy Commission and then to the Department of Energy.
From an accounting standpoint, the DOE’s primary purpose was to divert the balance- sheet cost of our nuclear weapons programs off the military’s books.
For its entire history, 70% or more of the Department of Energy’s budget has been directed towards nuclear weapons development, maintenance, and research programs (and cleanup funding of legacy Manhattan Project sites). As the budget priorities demonstrate, solving America’s energy needs was never the first priority of the DoE. Accept that reality, and the long history of DoE mal-investment begins to make sense.
James Kennedy
Results came quickly. The first reactor designs, still in use today, are essentially ‘first concept reactors’: something more than a Ford Model T, but possibly less than a Model A, as economies of standardization were purposely never attempted in the USA, and therefore the USA never achieved the economies of scale that comes from making only 1 type of reactor model like the French and Japanese do.
The rollout of Thorium MSRs will be the equivalent of a modern-day automobile (with standardization of parts and licensing, automated assembly-line production and centralized operation permitting).
Every U.S. Light Water Reactor (LWR) facility is uniquely engineered from the ground up— maximizing its cost. Every permit application is unique. Permit requirements, timelines and outcomes are fluid. The timeline from initial funding for permitting to buildout can take decades. This equates to tying up tens of billions of dollars in financial commitments over a very long time for an uncertain outcome (a number of reactor projects were terminated during the buildout phase, with some near completion). There is an incentive to drag projects out because the EPC builders of the plan are not the operators, so they have to make all their money in the build. For example, the most recent U.S. nuclear buildout is 8 years behind schedule and at twice the estimated cost. This is a recipe for failure.
The original LWR designs, largely developed by Alvin Weinberg, boiled water under immense pressure to turn a shaft, similar to the turbines of a coal fired power plant. The use of water as a coolant is one of the largest contributors to LWR system complexity, risk and costs.
Water’s liquid phase range at normal pressure is 1 to 99°C. Water’s natural boiling temperature does not generate sufficient pressure to economically operate traditional steam turbines so all LWR type reactors use high pressure to force water to remain liquid at higher temperatures. The need to contain coolant failures in such a high-pressure operating environment greatly effects the safety and cost of the entire system. All water-cooled reactors have an inherent design risk, no matter how small, built in.
Weinberg knew there must be a better design, but government and military support rushed in to prop up the development of the Light Water Reactor design. Admiral Hyman Rickover was the leading advocate, quickly developing the first nuclear-powered submarine. The U.S. Army also got in the game, developing a prototype mobile field reactor. The Air Force, feeling left out, looked to Alvin Weinberg to develop a nuclear-powered aircraft.
The Air Force Reactor project required that he develop something entirely new; keeping in mind that this reactor would operate inside an airplane with a crew and live ordinance. These are truly remarkable constraints in terms of weight, size, safety, and power output. Weinberg’s insight led to a reactor that used a liquid fuel instead of solid fuel rods. It was simply known as Alvin’s 3P reactor, all he needed was a Pot, a Pipe and a Pump to build his new reactor design.
The Air Force Reactor program was able to prove out all requirements of the program. It was / is possible to build a nuclear-powered bomber aircraft and keep the crew ‘reasonably safe’. However, the development of nuclear-launch capable submarines and the Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile supplanted the need for a nuclear bomber.
The original Air Force Reactor Experiment evolved into the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) developed at Oak Ridge National Lab. This moderated reactor operated for 19,000 hours over 5 years. The reactor was designed to run on a Thorium-uranium mixed fuel. Prior to termination of the project, all operational, safety, material science, and corrosion issues were resolved.
More importantly, the MSRE project proved that you could build a revolutionary nuclear reactor that eliminated all of the inherent safety concerns of the LWR while minimizing the spent fuel issue (what some people call nuclear waste).
The new reactor, commonly known as a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR), used heated salt with a liquid-to-boil temperature range that can exceed 1000°C (a function of chemistry), to act both as coolant and fuel. The recirculation of the liquid fuel/coolant allowed for the fuller utilization (burn up) of the actinides and fission products. The salt’s higher temperature operation that did not need water for cooling, eliminated the need to operate under extreme pressures.
This salt coolant cannot overheat, and meets the definition of having inherent safety – MSR’s are inherently safe reactors that eliminate scores of redundant systems, significantly increasing the simplicity of the overall system while lowering risks and cost and increasing its safety profile.
Another advantage is that MSR’s higher operating temperatures allow it to utilize liquid CO2 (or other high compression gases), thus eliminating H2O steam from the system. Moving away from the Rankine turbine system to much smaller and more efficient Brayton turbines delivers a much higher energy conversion at lower costs. The real promise of the MSR was that it produced process heat directly, for hydrogen, desalination, fertilizer, steel production – avoiding inefficient electricity production all while utilizing 100% of the heat energy directly.
Another beneficial feature is the reduced quantity and timeframe of storage requirements for spent fuel (aka: nuclear waste). Inherent to their design, MSRs use-up nuclear fuel far more efficiently than LWRs, less than 1% of the original fuel load can end up as spent fuel, and due to acceleration of decay under the recirculation of the fuel/coolant load the residual spent fuel decays to background (radiation levels equal to the natural environment) in as little as 300 years.
LWRs utilize about 3% of the available energy in solid fuels and the spent fuel does not decay to background levels for tens of thousands of years.
The most promising MSR design feature was found to be that fission criticality (a sustained chain reaction) is self-regulating due to the reactor’s geometry and self-purging features that dumped the fuel/coolant into holding tanks and regulated fission rates (again, based on geometry) if the reactor exceeded design operating temperatures. These features made a reactor “meltdown” impossible and “walk-away safe”.
Because the salt coolant has such a high liquid phase the system can be air cooled (in any atmosphere: the artic, the desert , even versions for space). The elimination of water from the system eliminates the primary failure-point of all conventional nuclear reactors, including explosive events that can occur with water cooled reactors.
NOTE: LWR reactor explosions are due to disassociation of water into hydrogen and oxygen when exposed to Zirconium at high temperatures during coolant system failure. The zirconium fuel casings act as a catalyst, causing a massive rapid atmospheric expansion. This atmospheric expansion was the cause of the explosive event associated with the Fukushima disaster.
The elimination of any high-pressure hydrogen event excludes the potential for widespread radiation release and thus, the need for a massive containment vessel.
Alvin Weinberg’s reactor design also solved another challenge of that time. Prior to the mid- 1970s the U.S. government believed that global uranium resources were very scarce. This new reactor, fueled with a small amount of fissile material added to the Thorium salt, could breed new fuel. In fact, it turned out that the reactor could also be used to dispose of weapons grade plutonium or even spent fuel (stockpiled nuclear waste).
ABSTRACT The Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) option for burning fissile fuel from dismantled weapons is examined. It is concluded that MSRs are very suitable for beneficial utilization of the dismantled fuel. The MSRs can utilize any fissile fuel in continuous operation with no special modifications, as demonstrated in the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. Thus MSRs are flexible while maintaining their economy. MSRs further require a minimum of special fuel preparation and can tolerate denaturing and dilution of the fuel. Fuel shipments can be arbitrarily small, all of which supports nonproliferation and averts diversion. MSRs have inherent safety features which make them acceptable and attractive. They can burn a fuel type completely and convert it to other fuels. MSRs also have the potential for burning the actinides and delivering the waste in an optimal form, thus contributing to the solution of one of the major remaining problems for deployment of nuclear power.
ORNL – Thorium MSRs From Using Dismantled Weapons, 1991
Unlike natural mined Uranium, which needed intensive processing to concentrate the fissile U235, Thorium is widely abundant and a byproduct of phosphate, titanium, zircon and rare earth ores. Thorium can be used in a nuclear reactor after minimal processing, all benefits that were unheeded in the 60s and 70s.
Since MSRs run at a much higher temperature than LWRs, the greatest benefit would be the direct utilization of thermal energy for industrial processes requiring thermal loads (allowing for the carbon free production of steel, cement and chemicals that make up nearly 25% of all CO2 emissions). Possibilities seemed endless.
Glenn Seaborg’s 1962 report to President Kennedy devised a national plan for sustainable civilian nuclear power. Evaluating the relative safety, efficiency, and economy of the Th-MSR vs. the LWR, Seaborg recommended that the U.S. phase out LWRs in favor of Alvin Weinberg’s Th- MSR Thorium “breeder reactor”.
So why didn’t this reactor design prevail? Considering its economic advantages, the Th-MSR would cause the phase out of the existing nuclear fleet and would be more cost competitive than coal or natural gas (and could replace petroleum via a nuclear-powered Fischer Tropes process), it is no wonder that the reactor was rejected by the prevailing political-economy of cold-war industrialism and what was primarily a hydro-carbon based economy.
The production cost for these reactors was a key concern. The relative cost of assembly line built MSRs reactor would be a fraction of traditional LWRs (these are small modular reactors). As such, MSRs could bring installed cost per megawatt in line with coal fired power plants.
The construction cost advantages are numerous: inherent safety based on geometry (translates into simplicity of design and construction), small, modular, assembly-line built, roll-off permitting, air cooled (eliminating the primary critical failure risk of LWRs and, thus the possibility for a wide-spread radiation event), no need for a massive containment vessel, and small Bryton turbines.
The Thorium fuel would be a byproduct of rare earths (no enrichment is necessary). Rare earths would be a byproduct of some other mined commodity.
Regardless of the economic opposition, there was also a geopolitical conflict. Fueled with Thorium, the MSR did not produce plutonium (fissile bomb making materials) or anything else that was practically usable for the production of nuclear weapons. The reactor was highly proliferation resistant—and who would not like that?
The Nixon Administration, for one. American politics in 1968 were largely influenced by the U.S.’s relative status in the nuclear weapons arms race with Russia. Nixon, a nuclear hawk, killed the MSR program and committed the country to the development of fast spectrum breeder reactors (the program was a total failure), circa 1972.
As early as 1970 a new, safe, clean, cost-efficient, and self-generating energy economy was technically possible but was sacrificed to the objectives of the cold war and preservation of the existing LWR fleet.
If the U.S. had followed Seaborg’s advice the entire world could be pulling up to the curb of Net-Zero today and U.S. energy hegemony would be preserved long into the future.
Instead, today, China is leading the world in the development of Thorium fueled reactors and Thorium based critical materials. They intend to use it as a geopolitical tool: the Chinese version of “Atoms for Peace”. This would end U.S. energy hegemony.
Sadly, most Americans can’t fathom how that would impact their standard of living and create a domestic energy source that would cement their position in the world.
But the story of how Thorium politics and policy derailed U.S. energy and national security interests does not end there.
The Story of Rare Earths
A decade later, the production and proliferation of nuclear weapons material became an international matter of concern. In 1980 the NRC and IAEA collaborated on regulations to ratchet down on the production and transportation of uranium. The regulatory mechanism 10 CFR 40, 75 applied the rules and definitions specific to the uranium mining industry to all mining activity, using the 1954 Atomic Energy Act terminology of nuclear “source material” to define the materials to be controlled.
Uranium, plutonium and Thorium are all classified as nuclear fuel: source material. However, Thorium cannot be used for nuclear weapons (Thorium is fertile, not fissile).
James Kennedy
This caused a new and unintended problem. At the time, nearly 100 percent of the world’s supply of heavy rare earths contained Thorium in their mineralization and were the byproduct of some other mined commodity. Consequently, when these commodity producers extracted their target ores (titanium, zirconium, iron, phosphates, etc.) they triggered the new regulatory definition of ‘processed or refined ore (under 10 CFR 40)’ for these historical rare earth byproducts, causing the Thorium-bearing rare earth mineralization to be classified as “source material”.
In order to avoid the onerous costs, regulations, and liabilities associated with being a source material producer these commodity producers disposed of these Thorium-bearing resources along with their other mining waste and continue to do so today.
Currently, in the U.S. alone, the annual quantity of rare earths disposed of to avoid the NRC source material regulations exceeds the non-Chinese world’s demand by a factor of two or more. The amount of Thorium that is also disposed of with these rare earths could power the entire western hemisphere if utilized in MSRs.
The scale of this potential energy waste dwarfs the collective efforts of every environmentalist on a global basis (including all of the World Economic Forum programs being forced on farmers and consumers across the globe).
As a result, all downstream rare earth value chain companies in the U.S. and IAEA compliant countries lost access to reliable supplies for these rare earth resources.
Capitalizing on these regulatory changes, China quickly became the world’s RE producer.
World Rare Earth Production
During the 1980s, China increased its leverage by initiating tax incentives and creating economically favorable manufacturing zones for companies that moved rare earth technology inside China.
U.S., French and Japanese companies were happy to off-shore their technology and environmental risks (mostly related to Thorium regulations). The 1980 regulatory change and China’s aggressive investment policies allowed China to quickly acquire a foothold in metallurgical and magnet capabilities.
For example: China signed rare earth supply contracts with Japan that required Japan to transfer rare earth machinery and process technology to mainland China while establishing state-sponsored acquisition strategies for targeted U.S. metallurgical and magnetic manufacturing technologies.
By 1995 the U.S. had sold its only NdFeB magnet producer, and all of its IP, to what turned out to be Deng Xiaoping’s family.
In just two decades China moved from a low value resource producer to having monopoly control over global production and access to rare earth technology metals.
By 2002 the U.S. became 100% dependent on China for all post-oxide rare earth materials. Today, China’s monopoly is concentrated on downstream metallics and magnets. In 2018, Japan, the only country that continued to produce rare earth metals outside of China, informed the U.S. government that they no longer make “new” rare earth metals.
Japan stated the reason for terminating all new rare earth metal production is “China controls price”.
Thorium policy was the leading culprit in America’s failure to lead the world in the evolution of the rare earth dependent technologies. From its powerful vantage point, China was able to force technology companies to move operations inside China. From a practical standpoint all past and future breakthroughs in rare earth based material science and technology migrate to China.
Cumulative Patent Deficit USD vs China
The best example of this is Apple. Because the iPhone is highly rare earth dependent, Apple was forced to manufacture it in China. In January 2007 Apple introduced its revolutionary iPhone. By August of the same year high quality Chinese knockoffs were being produced by a largely unknown company named Huawei. By 2017 Huawei was outselling Apple on a worldwide basis.
This story is not uncommon. It is typical of what happens to Western companies who move manufacturing inside China. Apple knew this but had no choice: developing a domestic rare earth value chain was impossible for any single company, industry, or even country by this point in the game.
Today China’s monopoly power allows them to control the supply chain of the U.S. military and NATO defense contractors.
From its diminished vantage point, the Pentagon is somehow unable to understand that China’s monopoly is a National Program of Industrial and Defense Policy.
Instead, the Pentagon pretends that this is a problem that can be solved by ‘the free market’, naively betting U.S. national security on a hodgepodge of junior rare earth mining ventures with economically questionable deposits, no downstream metal refining capabilities and no access to the critical heavy rare earths.
The Pentagon twice bet our national security on a geochemically incompatible deposit in California. The first time was in 2010. The Pentagon was forewarned that the deposit controlled by Molycorp, was incompatible with U.S. technology and defense needs, due to its lack of heavy rare earths, and that its business plan was “unworkable”. The company was bankrupt in just 5 years.
In 2020, despite the same deposit’s intractable deficiencies, Chinese ownership and a commitment to supply China, the Pentagon backed a venture capital group ‘developing’ the deposit under the name MP Materials. The new company has made the same unfulfillable promises as its predecessor but further domestic downstream capability into metallics is unlikely.
MP may remain profitable as long as it continues to sell concentrate and oxides into China, but profitable downstream refining into metallics / magnets is not possible when accounting for China’s internal cost, scale and subsidy advantages (and control over price).
The Pentagon, like so many other investors, fails to accept the reality of China’s monopoly.
It is both an economic monopoly, and a geopolitical monopoly.
Consequently, there have been over 400 bankruptcies in rare earth projects since 2010. Only two western controlled rare earth mines went into production: Molycorp, mentioned above, and Lynas, the Australian company Lynas. Lynas’s success is mostly due the current environment of higher prices (ultimately under China’s control) and a modestly superior rare earth chemistry when compared with the Molycorp Mt. Pass deposit. Lynas survived the 2015 downturn through direct subsidies form the Japanese government, price supports and debt forgiveness from its customers and investors.
Today the U.S. and all western governments find themselves outmaneuvered in rare earths (and other critical materials), the green economy and Thorium nuclear energy.
China’s first to market strategy can be expected to conform to their tendency to vertically and horizontally monopolize industries, like rare earths. As such, China is poised to control the global roll out of this technology—displacing the U.S. as the global energy hegemon.
Because the U.S. failed to rationalize Thorium policy it has lost control of its destiny in rare earths and the future of safe, clean, affordable, and sustainable nuclear energy.
Unchallenged, China will be the global champion of net-zero energy.
What are the domestic obstacle to achieving Thorium MSR?
Opposition is directly linked to the cold war policies of the past and the intersection of legacy energy producers (LWR nuclear, coal, natural gas and petroleum) and renewable energy producers. These energy sectors individually and collectively are the political constituents of the DoE. So, despite the opposing interests between each of these energy sectors, the threat of Th-MSR expresses itself as DoE opposition (that is beginning to change).
The other problem with Th-MSR development is the regulatory environment. Regulations are more about protecting legacy interests than public safety. In nuclear regulation it is all about protecting the legacy fleet from new entrants.
For example, the company Nuscale spent over $600 million, over a decade, to certify a new nuclear reactor design. This expense was not to build a reactor. It was the regulatory cost of permitting a new reactor design that (highly conforms to existing LWR designs).
What people overlook is that the real cost and risk in new reactor design is a function of time, money and investor expectations.
In the case of Nuscale, the regulatory and construction cost of a new reactor will be in the multi-billion-dollar range, with over a decade of investor money tied up in the highly speculative investment (speculative in regulatory outcomes and customer orders against existing and alternative technologies) makes this the highest investment risk imaginable.
Accounting for the magnitude of these risks and return expectations, this type of investment is at the outer bounds of what is achievable — in the absence of a monopoly. That is why public investment was always necessary in the nuclear industry. China understands this and has acted accordingly.
What are the domestic obstacles to a domestic rare earth value chain?
The current rare earth issue has not been a mining issue but rather a regulatory issue. The U.S. continues to mine enough rare earths, as the byproduct of some other commodity, to exceed the entire non-Chinese world demand. These resources would quickly become available if the U.S. rationalized its Thorium policy.
The larger downstream problems resulting from China’s massive overinvestment and negligible return requirements in its rare earth industry have yet to express themselves, as the U.S. government blindly funds non-compatible, non-viable, non-economic downstream projects.
Without a production tax credit to off-set Chinese subsides, all of these projects will fail.
Balancing the comparative cost of capital and investor return expectation also must be answered.
Solutions
There are potential solutions. For rare earths there is a production tax credit bill that could off- set China’s generous subsidies, zero-cost capital and production cost advantages (comparative labor & environmental costs). There may also soon be proposed legislation to solve the Thorium problem. This same proposal would also provide a funding and development platform for a U.S. based Thorium MSR reactor industry.
There are solutions, but time is running out.
To learn more about advancing U.S. interests in the development of MSRs and ending China’s rare earth monopoly please visit the ThoriumEnergyAlliance.com or ThREEConsulting.com.
Authors
James Kennedy is an internationally recognised expert, consultant, author, and policy adviser on rare earths and Thorium energy.
John Kutsch is the executive director of Thorium Energy Alliance, an organisation dedicated to the advancement of Thorium for power and critical materials applications.
Today we spotlight the most recent production from Oak Ridge National Laboratories in Tennessee, USA, (ORNL). The report is all about Molten Salt Fission Technology Powered by Thorium. This concise 54 page report is akin to the ORNL report produced 44 years ago in August 1978, entitled Molten-Salt Reactors Efficient Nuclear Fuel Utilization without Plutonium Separation and further extends the ORNL work reported in The Development Status of Molten Salt Breeder Reactors from August 1972. (It appears that August is the month of important reports by ORNL). This later behemoth 434 page report is the mother lode of information for all work done at ONRL regarding Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology powered by Thorium. Anyone looking at investing into this technology must make it a priority read – all of the work has been done before. The report can be found further below in this post.
Before we discuss the report, first we’ll discuss why it’s important to define new terminology for nuclear energy sector.
For generations massive amounts of negative press and target funding has branded the word nuclear as simply bad. And let’s face it. Nuclear Physics is complicated, and so conversations get complicated pretty quickly too. Let’s just look at the elements we can play with.
Out of 118 elements in the Periodic Table, 80 are stable having 339 isotopes, leaving 38 elements – those heavier than lead – as unstable. These 38 elements have over 3,000 possible isotope existent states. Hence thousands of unstable isotopes, lead to 10’s of thousands of combinations of decay, neutron absorption, and possible fission events, from neutrons both fast – high energy particles, and thermal – low energy particles, and then hundreds of other non responsive isotopes of non responsive elements that exhibit different behaviours over time and distance. For example water is better for absorbing fast neutrons and lead is better for thermal neutrons. Boron-10 absorbs neutrons, whilst boron-11 does not. Neutrons bounce off, are reflected by graphite, beryllium, steel, tungsten carbide, and gold (There are more too). OK, so the picture is clear – fission energy gets complicated very quickly.
Remember too, that this all started in a race to build nuclear weapons – not to make energy. Weapons should all be dismantled and destroyed. USA and UK should follow in the footsteps of South Africa who dismantled their last bomb in 1989. Today the USA and UK combined have enough firepower to destroy humanity entirely 150 times over. We are thankful that Molten Salt technology was pursued with such vigor precisely because it cannot make weapons. It only makes energy.
The Thorium fuel cycle is “intrinsically proliferation-resistant”
The International Atomic Energy Agency, 2005
Thorium fuel cycle — Potential benefits and challenges IAEA, May 2005
We call them Machines, not reactors. (By the way, there’s no reactions going on, and indeed in the core region fuel is “burned” according to the physics text books. In Fission, atoms are split, so “splitter” is the correct term!)
We say Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology – MSFT. Not anything else. Calling it LFTR ties the technology to a specific fluid-fuel type. Even the company FLIBE are considering changing the Beryllium metal to Sodium metal (the BE means Beryllium in their company’s name).
And Fission – Nuclear Energy – is effectively Carbon Free. Even Bill Gates knows this.
The latest ORNL report is excellent at defining the challenges already identified 50 years ago. The net result is that ORNL have made recommendations to modify the Flibe design thus eliminating any chance of weapons production from Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology powered by Thorium.
Some of these recommendations are:
Use multiple, smaller decay vessels for salt distribution for emergency shutdown events.
Install stringent material monitoring systems with tamper evident features for fuel processing.
Use batch fuel processing and not continuous for better inventory controls.
Recombine fuel elements to increase gamma activity of the fuel processing cycle.
Allow U232 production to increase hence increasing the self protection mechanism.
Eliminate the decay fluorinator entirely by allowing protactinium to decay in the fuel salt.
Remove physical access to the UF6 stream by have vessels immediately adjacent to each other.
These, and other recommendations, effectively define Molten Salt Fission Technology powered by Thorium as proliferation proof.
The latest ORNL report must be read in conjunction with a 1978 report, also by ORNL staff – and also released in the month of August – where proliferation concerns of the earlier designs where addressed. In that report the authors J. R. Engel, W. R. Grimes, W. A. Rhoades and J. F. Dearing allowed the build up of U232 to create self protection whilst still maintaining machine performance – “denatured”, as they called it.
Here is that report, Technical Memorandum TM 6413, from August 1978:
ORNL TM 6413 August 1978 Molten-Salt Reactors for Efficient Nuclear Fuel Utilization Without Plutonium Separation
The following documents should also be read together with ORNL report 2022/2394 to ensure full understanding:
ORNL TM 3708 1964 Molten Salt Reactor Program Semiannual Progress Report for Period Ending July 31, 1964
This report summarized the work leading up to the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, that ran from 1965 to 1969 – the “most boring experiment ever. It did everything we expected it to do.”, said by Dr. Sydney Ball.
ORNL TM 4812 August 1972 Development Status of Molten-Salt Breeder Reactors
This is the report that ended in the program being shut down. The USD 1 billion funding request was too obvious to ignore and many people realised what impact this would have on existing business interests in energy.
Here is the 2015 assessment report referenced in ORNL report 2022/2394.
Electric Power Research Institute – Program on Technology Innovation: Technology Assessment of a Molten Salt Reactor Design – The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)
EPRI collaborated with Southern Company on an independent technology assessment of an innovative molten salt reactor (MSR) design—the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)—as a potentially transformational technology for meeting future energy needs in the face of uncertain market, policy, and regulatory constraints. The LFTR is a liquid-fueled, graphite-moderated thermal spectrum breeder reactor optimized for operation on a Th-233U fuel cycle. The LFTR design considered in this work draws heavily from the 1960s-era Molten Salt Reactor Experiment and subsequent design work on a similar two-fluid molten salt breeder reactor design. Enhanced safety characteristics, increased natural resource utilization, and high operating temperatures, among other features, offer utilities and other potential owners/operators access to new products, markets, applications, and modes of operation. The LFTR represents a dramatic departure from today’s dominant and proven commercial light water reactor technology. Accordingly, the innovative and commercially unproven nature of MSRs, as with many other advanced reactor concepts, presents significant challenges and risks in terms of financing, licensing, construction, operation, and maintenance.
This technology assessment comprises three principal activities based on adaptation of standardized methods and guidelines: 1) rendering of preliminary LFTR design information into a standardized system design description format; 2) performance of a preliminary process hazards analysis; and 3) determination of technology readiness levels for key systems and components. The results of the assessment provide value for a number of stakeholders. For utility or other technology customers, the study presents structured information on the LFTR design status that can directly inform a broader technology feasibility assessment in terms of safety and technology maturity. For the developer, the assessment can focus and drive further design development and documentation and establish a baseline for the technological maturity of key MSR systems and components. For EPRI, the study offers an opportunity to exercise and further develop advanced nuclear technology assessment tools and expertise through application to a specific reactor design.
The early design stage of the LFTR concept indicates the need for significant investment in further development and demonstration of novel systems and components. The application of technology assessment tools early in reactor system design can provide real value and facilitate advancement by identifying important knowledge and design performance gaps at a stage when changes can be incorporated with the least impact to cost, schedule, and licensing.
Finally, a reminder. Why all the fuss about Thorium Molten Salt anyway? What did those giants of nuclear energy see starting way back in 1947 that we don’t see today? It’s because of this chart by ANSTO of Australia. It’s a little known – public – secret, that Australia, part of the Generation IV Forum, but ironically staunchly anti nuclear, is also one of the strongest countries in technology development for Molten Salt Fission Energy powered by Thorium.
We hoped you enjoyed this article, produced free for all advocates and students of Molten Salt Fission Energy powered by Thorium. If you like this work and want to see more, please support this work by going to our contributions page, where you can then find our Patreon account.
Are you a journalist – or a student – looking for the inside on Liquid Fission Thorium? Unlimited energy. Secure. Reliable. Well this page is for you.
We’ve been asked many times for a summary of resources or key people to speak with.
Are we biased? Of course we are. Read on and you’ll know why. You’ll probably want to Join Us too.
A Future Powered by Thorium is our objective. We are leveraging the billions of USD in today’s value and millions of hours invested over 50 years ago in a technology that is demonstrably superior to anything else we have today. China knows this very well and is now leading the world in it’s re-deployment.
See this chart of energy density from an Australian government website. Everything else pales into insignificance when compared to Liquid Fission Thorium Burners. Some people like to call them MSR Molten Salt Reactors. We just call them LFTBs.
Here’s a recent article from Germany we translated into Japanese. It contains a lot of information on China’s progress also. China is replicating the 1960’s USA program, publicly announcing in 2011 investing USD 3,3 billion and 700 engineers for the work. This is not about reinventing the wheel, it’s just remembering what we’ve done before to bring LFTBs back to life. Remember also China and Australia worked together to create a replacement for the super alloy metal “Hastelloy”. The original super metal was created in the 1950’s in the USA for their advanced nuclear programs and is only made today by two companies in the world – one in the USA and Mitsubishi. Now China, supported by Australia, has an alternative.
The article also includes information on Japan’s LFTB project – FUJI.
Here’s a list of must-do-interviews for background on Liquid Fission Thorium Energy, LFTBs or subjects related, such as radiation safety, the effects of Chernobyl and Linear No Threshold theory.
Professor Geraldine Thomas Director of the Chernobyl Tissue Bank, the world’s preeminent knowledge base for all things related to the real effects of that industrial accident. Prof. Thomas is became staunchly pro-nuclear due to her directorship. George Monbiot – a former Greenpeace anti-nuc activist, and now no longer in Greenpeace and strongly pro nuclear – after an interview he also had with Prof Thomas he had as a writer for the UK’s Guardian.
Mr. Daniel Roderick Former President and CEO of Westinghouse and then Toshiba Energy Systems. Danny steered the sale of Westinghouse for Toshiba, securing a positive, multi billion USD outcome for Japan. Danny was also the leader of negotiations to secure USD 50 billion in funding for a new nuclear build in Türkiye (derailed by the 2016 attempted coup in Türkiye). Mitsubishi subsequently submitted (and withdrew) a nuclear build in Sinop, Northern Türkiye. Rosatom (Russia) is now building a nuclear power station in Akkuyu, southern Türkiye.
Dr. Adi Paterson Dr. Paterson is the former head of ANSTO and an advocate of Liquid Fission Thorium Energy Technology. During his 9 year tenure at ANSTO, Dr. Paterson steered Australia to membership of the Generation IV forum, kind of the United Nationals for advanced fission designs and includes LFTBs. This is no mean feat given Australia’s lack of much to do with nuclear energy.
Dr. Resat Uzman Director of nuclear energy systems at Figes AS, of Türkiye. Dr. Uzman has more than 40 years experience in all things nuclear, Türkiye and rare earths – the materials where Thorium is often found bound with.
Professor Berrin Erbay Senior lecturer and former dean of mechanical engineering at Osmangazi University, Türkiye Prof. Erbay has been liaising with the professors in Japan for several decades. You can see one of her presentations on the status of Liquid Fission Technology and LFTBs in Japan here on Youtube:
Mr. Phumzile Tshelane Mr. Tshelane is a former CEO of NECSA South Africa, now holds various directorships across a wide range of industrial sectors. His position as head of a state owned nuclear technology development company gives him a particular view point on commercialisation of nuclear energy technologies, especially LFTBs.
Ms. Rana Önem Former president of the Thorium Student Guild. You should hear from someone discovered the benefits of Liquid Fission Thorium and LFTBs when studying their nuclear engineering degree. You can see Rana interviewing Dr. Uzman here. Follow the links at the end of the article to see her role as president of the Guild:
An important subject to cover is linear no threshold theory – a fraudulent model of radiation management that, unfortunately, has spawned an industry of radiation protection and radiation safety keen on maintaining its own survival. This results in massive, unnecessary overspending on nuclear builds. Professor Edward Calabrese is a leading expert on this subject and you can watch a series of interviews with Ed here:
Together with Professor Jerry Cuttler, Ed presents clearly, laying out how LNT has demonstrably been proven false. (And consequently those that died at Fukushima died unnecessarily, as a direct result of inappropriately applying that theory).
Here’s the background on the Türkiye Japan University (TJU). Our founder, Jeremiah Josey, met with the Japanese Ambassador to Türkiye in 2021 and confirmed Japanese support for technology development of Liquid Fission and LFTBs is easier should such work be included in the curriculum of the TJU. Early planning stages of the TJU can be seen here below. The vice president of TJU is a senior professor at the Tokyo University responsible for nuclear engineering.
The “only” obstacle to adoption of Liquid Fission Thorium and LFTB technology is the incumbent energy industries, coal, oil and gas. It’s a significant obstacle, and it would be naive to think otherwise. Operating much like the tobacco industry has done in the past, lobbyists and funding at all levels occurs to stymie any potential competitors.
It is predicted that the 7 Trillion USD per year fossil fuel energy market would shrink to a few hundred billion USD per year with a society powered by Liquid Fission Thorium and LFTBs. This is an obvious disincentive for incumbents to do anything but to obfuscate and delay. For the true scale of these numbers, that means that a world powered by Liquid Fission Thorium energy would require only one ship like the one below to carry ALL WORLD’s Energy for ONE year.
100,00 DWT Bulk Carrier Cape Ace
You can see that obfuscation at work here with both Wired and the Bulletin in 2019 on USA presidential candidate Andrew Yang:
The half truths and lies are difficult, if not impossible, for the layperson to identify. We contacted one of Andrew’s advisory team members and confirmed Andrew supports Liquid Fission Thorium, and was committing several billion USD to have USA’s energy footprint 100% on the technology by 2030. Technically very doable. Politically, not.
It is important to recognise the ecological and economic footprint of energy from Thorium (a substance as common as lead) as being much smaller than even uranium. In the article link above (the Japanese translation one) there are three slides that demonstrate the significant benefits Thorium has over uranium. These slides are repeated below.
Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 1 of 3Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 2 of 3Thorium and Uranium Compared Slide 3 of 3
The IAEA report TE1450 from 2005 is an excellent read. It says Thorium is not an issue and is a good prospect for energy – back in 2005. Once the physics is proven it doesn’t need to be “upgraded” every 6 months like an iPhone.
And yes, Thorium doesn’t explode. “Walk away safe” is a suitable term for Liquid Fission Technology and LFTBs.
Attached below is a brief summary of “Why Thorium didn’t take off” by Bruce Hoglund, 5 November 2010. It’s an excellent starting point for data gathering and research – and not “Wikipedia”. Wikipedia was used as partial evidence why the United Kingdom should’t use Thorium for energy. Around 2012 in a UK government 1.5m GBP funded “study”, rubbished Thorium and directly contradicted the advice of the IAEA’s TE 1450 report.
The information here is but the tip of the iceberg, however it gives an excellent starting point. There are of course, many, many others who can contribute considerably for a balanced and objective article or articles on Thorium for our energy future with LFTBs. And with today’s communications technology, such conversations are only but a few key strokes away.
Burning stuff is old tech.
Star Trek technology is where we have to be now. Fission does that, especially Liquid Fission Thorium Energy Technology and Liquid Fission Thorium Burners – LFTBs.
Uncle Martin would be proud. Nanu, nanu!
Post created following a 2 hour interview between Associated Press representative for Japan, Ms. Yuri Kageyama and chairman and founder of The Thorium Network, Jeremiah Josey
The liquid fuel, besides being at 700-1000 degrees C, contains isotopes fatal to saboteurs.
Do not require water cooling, so hydrogen and steam explosions are eliminated.
Don’t need periodic refuelling shutdowns because the fuel is supplied as needed and the by-products are constantly removed. (LWRs are shut down every 2-3 years to replace about ¼ of the fuel rods, but, LFTRs can run much longer.)
Thorium 232 is far more abundant than U-235. Well suited to areas where water is scarce.
Do not need huge containment domes because they operate at atmospheric pressure. Breed their own fuel.
Can’t “melt down” because the fuel/coolant is already liquid, and the reactor can handle high temperatures.
Fluoride salts are less dangerous than the super-heated water used by conventional reactors, and they could replace the world’s coal-powered plants by 2050.
Are suitable for modular factory production, truck transport and on-site assembly.
Create the Plutonium-238 that powers NASA’s deep space exploration vehicles.
Are intrinsically safe: Overheating expands the fuel/salt, decreasing its density, which lowers the fission rate.
If there is a loss of electric power, the molten salt fuel quickly melts a freeze plug, automatically draining the fuel into a tank, where it cools and solidifies.
Highly efficient. At least 99% of a LFTR’s Thorium is consumed, compared to about 4% of the uranium in LWRs.
Are highly scalable – 10 megaWatt to 2,000 MW plants. A 200 MW LFTR could be transported on a few semi-trailer trucks.
Although our current LWRs are very safe and highly efficient, LFTRS are even more productive, and they cannot melt down.
Data from the Australian Nuclear Society and Technological Organization of the Australian government: + Thorium fuelled molten salt reactors have an energy return ratio of 2,000 to 1. [Also called Energy Density] + Our current LWRs that are fuelled with uranium have an energy return ratio of 75 to 1. + Coal and gas have an energy return ratio of about 30 to 1. Wind has an energy return ratio of 4 to 1. + Solar has an energy return ratio of 1.6 to 1.
“The increase in coal-fired power generation is thus mainly driven by low renewable generation, increased electricity demand and partly also by the high gas prices this year.”
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
Taking the Easiest Course of Action
It would be very difficult to make a weapon from LFTR fuels because the gamma rays emitted by the U-232 in the fuel would harm technicians and damage the bomb’s electronics.
Uranium could be stolen during enriching, production of pellets, delivery to the reactor, and for long-term storage, but LFTRs only use external uranium to start the reaction, after which time uranium is produced within the reactor from thorium.
The United Kingdom tried unsuccessfully over a period of 10 years, from the 1950’s to the 1960’s, to produce a weapon from Thorium. They gave up and switched to the uranium path. Still today, 1.5 tonnes of Thorium remain stored from that program. This is enough to power the entire UK for 10 years – Carbon Free. The USA fired one Thorium driven test in 1955 (MET/Operation Teapot), but the results so poor and complications so high they did no further.
A 1 GW LWR [Light Water Reactor] requires about 1.2 tons of uranium per year, but a 1 GW LFTR only needs a one-time “kick-start” of 500 pounds [225 kg] of U-235 plus 1 ton of Thorium per year during its 60 year lifespan.
The half-life of Thorium 232 is 14 billion years, so it is not hazardous due to its extremely slow decay.
The primary physical advantage of Thorium fuel is that it uniquely makes possible a breeder reactor that runs with slow neutrons, otherwise known as a thermal breeder reactor. These reactors are often considered simpler than the more traditional fast-neutron breeders.
[When Thorium 232 takes up a neutron, the subsequent decay takes two paths: mostly U233 and some U232. The U233 provides most of the useful energy production by Fission. U232 provides protection against proliferation as several decay daughters are high energy gamma emitters – meaning they burn out silicon chips. For example the gamma spike coming from Thallium 208 is 2.6 MeV. ]
[Shielding using advanced materials and methods, such as distance (air), lead, and water can reduce radiation energy to levels where dosages are at recommended levels around 10 microSiverts per hour or 100 milliSiverts per year.
Note that there have been many examples of doses much higher than this causing no concern, such as 350 microSiverts per hour received by Albert Stevens for over 20 years.
Radiation shielding is a mass of absorbing material placed between yourself and the source of radiation in order to reduce the radiation to a level that is safer for humans.
This is measured by using a concept called the halving thickness – the thickness of a material required to halve the energy of the radiation passing through it.
Remember also, that Radiation decreases with distance in accordance with the inverse square law.]
Radiation Halving Thickness Chart
Material
100 keV
200 keV
500 keV
Air
3555 cm
4359 cm
6189 cm
Water
4.15 cm
5.1 cm
7.15 cm
Carbon
2.07 cm
2.53 cm
3.54 cm
Aluminium
1.59 cm
2.14 cm
3.05 cm
Iron
0.26 cm
0.64 cm
1.06 cm
Copper
0.18 cm
0.53 cm
0.95 cm
Lead
0.012 cm
0.068 cm
0.42 cm
Radiation Halving Thickness Chart
Quotes by Albert Einstein “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.” “Had I known that the Germans would not succeed in producing an atomic bomb, I never would have lifted a finger,” “I made one great mistake in my life-when I signed the letter to President Roosevelt recommending that atom bombs be made but there was some justification-the danger that the Germans would make them.” “The release of atomic power has changed everything except our way of thinking … the solution to this problem lies in the heart of mankind. If only I had known, I should have become a watchmaker.” – Albert said this in 1945, after the US bombed Japan with nuclear weapons and killed over 200,000 innocent civilians. Approximately 50,000 of them where children, 100,000 where women, and the balance the elderly. There were minor military casualties. “Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius — and a lot of courage — to move in the opposite direction.” “Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding.” “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” “He who joyfully marches to music rank and file, has already earned my contempt. He has been given a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal cord would surely suffice. This disgrace to civilisation should be done away with at once. Heroism at command, how violently I hate all this, how despicable and ignoble war is; I would rather be torn to shreds than be a part of so base an action. It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder.”
Albert Einstein, the Grandfather of Fission Energy
Albert Einstein (1879-1955) being interviewed by anthropologist and writer Ashley Montagu (1905-1999) in 1946. Einstein was born at Ulm, Germany on March 14, 1879. Encouraged by his father, who was an electrical engineer, Einstein studied at the Zurich PoAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinAlbert EinsteinGerman born mathematical atomic physicist Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955). (Photo by Topical Press Agency/Getty Images)Albert EinsteinAlbert Einstein
Energy production is the only viable way away from militarisation of Fission Energy. In the same way fire is harnessed in a fireplace to warm our homes or make our steels, Invisible Fire, Fission Energy, Energy from the Atom, does the same. We are blessed by people like Alvin Weinberg who dedicated their lives to the cause after witnessing how their scientific endeavours were employed with such militaristic zeal for death and destruction.
“Weinberg realised that you could use Thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. … his team built a working reactor … and he spent the rest of his 18-year tenure trying to make Thorium the heart of the nation’s atomic power effort. He failed. Uranium reactors had already been established, and Hyman Rickover, defacto head of the US nuclear program, wanted the plutonium from uranium-powered nuclear plants to make bombs. Increasingly shunted aside, Weinberg was finally forced out in 1973.”
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
How a LFTR works
In one type of LFTR, a liquid Thorium salt mixture circulates through the reactor core, releasing neutrons that convert Thorium 232 in an outer, shell-like “jacket” to Thorium 233. Thorium 232 cannot sustain a chain reaction, but it is fertile, meaning that it can be converted to fissile U-233 through neutron capture, also known as “breeding.”
Space LFTR by fmilluminatiNewcastle Molten Salt Burner
When a Uranium 233 atom absorbs a neutron, it fissions (splits), releasing huge amounts of energy and more neutrons that activate more Thorium 232. In summary, a LFTR turns Thorium-232 into U-233, which thoroughly fissions while producing only 10% as much “waste” as LWRs produce.
How Thorium “Burns”
“Thorium energy can help check CO2 and global warming, cut deadly air pollution, provide inexhaustible energy, and increase human prosperity. Our world is beset by global warming, pollution, resource conflicts, and energy poverty. Millions die from coal plant emissions. We war over mideast oil. Food supplies from sea and land are threatened. Developing nations’ growth exacerbates the crises. Few nations will adopt carbon taxes or energy policies against their economic self-interests to reduce global CO2 emissions. Energy cheaper than coal will dissuade all nations from burning coal. Innovative Thorium energy uses economic persuasion to end the pollution, to provide energy and prosperity to developing nations, and to create energy security for all people for all time.”
Amazon 5 Star comments on “Thorium – energy cheaper than coal” by Dr. Robert Hargraves
Why Thorium must be the Future of Energy, Robert Orr Jr.
Fascinating read with lots of calcs you can perform yourself, DGD
Thorium, what we should have done, B. Kirkpatrick
Fantastic book about this little known alternative nuclear energy source, ChicagoRichie
Should be in the hands of every science class and on top of every policy maker’s desk, R. Kame
A MUST HAVE resource on energy generation alternatives, George Whitehead
Get Free Energy, Abolish CO2, End Energy Dependency, Clean – Up the Planet and Make a Fortune. Kindle Customer
Essential education, Ames Gilbert
A solution for global climate change, Lawrence Baldwin
Wonderful book, written in text book style, Dot Dock
The place to go for Thorium info. Gerald M. Sutliff
Global warming killer, Red Avenger
Thorium reactors can be civilizations future for energy, Hill Country Bob
Thorium fuel in a breeder reactor implies limitless future energy, Fred W. Hallberg
On the ESSENTIAL BOOK LIST, James38
The half-life of Thorium 232, which constitutes most of the earth’s Thorium, is 14 billion years, so it is not hazardous due to its extremely slow decay. – Dr. George Erickson
“Given the diminished scale of LFTRs, it seems reasonable to project that reactors of 100 megawatts can be factory produced for a cost of around $200 million.”
Post created by Jeremiah Josey with the team at The Thorium Network
What’s a LFTR?
A thorium–fuelled MSR[Molten Salt Reactor] is a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor – a LFTR
Pronounced ‘LIFTER‘
A Lifetime of power in the palm of your hand [with Thorium]
With a half-life of 14 billion years, Thorium-232 is one of the safest, least radioactive elements in the world. Thorium-232 emits harmless alpha particles that cannot even penetrate skin, but when it becomes Th-233 in a Molten Salt Reactor, it becomes a potent source of power. Sunlight, living at high altitude and the emissions from your granite counter-top or a coal-burning plant are more hazardous than thorium-232.
LFTRs are even more fuel-efficient than uranium- fuelled MSRs, and they create little waste because a LFTR consumes close to 99% of the thorium-232. LWRs reactors consume just 3% of their uranium before the rods need to be changed. That’s like burning just a tiny part of a log while polluting the rest with chemicals you must store for years.
Just one pound of thorium can generate as much electricity as 1700 tons coal, so replacing coal-burning plants with LFTRs would eliminate one of the largest causes of climate change. That same pound (just a golf ball-size lump), can yield all the energy an individual will ever need, and just one cubic yard of thorium can power a small city for at least a year. In fact, if we were to replace ALL of our carbon-fuelled, electrical power production with LFTRs, we would eliminate 30 to 35% of all man-made greenhouse gas production.
From 1977 to 1982, the Light Water Reactor at Shippingport, Pennsylvania was powered with thorium, and when it was eventually shuttered, the reactor core was found to contain about 1% more fissile material (U233/235) than when it was loaded. (Thorium has also fuelled the Indian Point 1 facility and a German reactor.)
India, which has an abundance of thorium, is planning to build Thorium-powered reactors, as is China while we struggle to overcome our unwarranted fear of nuclear power. And in April, 2015, a European commission announced a project with 11 partners from science and industry to prove the innovative safety concepts of the Thorium-fuelled MSR and deliver a breakthrough in waste management.
Please read Thorium: the last great opportunity of the industrial age – by David Archibald
Thorium is four times as plentiful as uranium ore, which contains only 1% U-235. Besides being almost entirely usable, it is 400 times more abundant than uranium’s fissile U-235. Even at current use rates, uranium fuels can last for centuries, but thorium could power our world for thousands of years.
Just 1 ton of thorium is equivalent to 460 billion cubic meters of natural gas. We already have about 400,000 tons of thorium ore in “storage”, and we don’t need to mine thorium because our Rare-Earth Elements plant receives enough thorium to power the U. S. every year. Australia and India tie for the largest at about 500,000 tons, and China is well supplied.
A 1 GW LWR requires about 1.2 tons of uranium each year, but a 1 GW LFTR only needs a one-time “kick start” of 500 pounds of U-235 plus 1 ton of thorium each year.
Waste and Storage
Due to their high efficiency, LFTRs create only 1% of the waste that conventional reactors produce, and because only a small part of that waste needs storing for 400 years – not the thousands of years that LWR waste requires – repositories much smaller than Yucca mountain would easily suffice.
Furthermore, LFTRs can run almost forever because they produce enough neutrons to make their own fuel, and the toxicity from LFTR waste is 1/1000 that of LWR waste. So, the best way to eliminate most nuclear waste is to stop creating it with LWRs and replace them with reactors like MSRs or LFTRs that can utilize stored “waste” as fuel.
With no need for huge containment buildings, MSRs can be smaller in size and power than current reactors, so ships, factories, and cities could have their own power source, thus creating a more reliable, efficient power grid by cutting long transmission line losses that can run from 8 to 15%. Unfortunately, few elected officials will challenge the carbon industries that provide millions of jobs and wield great political power. As a consequence, thorium projects have received little to no help from our government, even though China and Canada are moving toward thorium, and India already has a reactor that runs on 20% thorium oxide.
After our DOE signed an agreement with China, we gave them our MSR data. To supply its needs while MSRs are being built, China is relying on 27 conventional nuclear reactors plus 29 Generation III+ (solid fuel) nuclear plants that are under construction. China also intends to build an additional fifty-seven nuclear power plants, which is estimated to add at least 150 GigaWatts (GW) by 2030.
“Global increase in nuclear power capacity in 2015 hit 10.2 gigawatts, the highest growth in 25 years driven by construction of new nuclear plants mainly in China…. We have never seen such an increase in nuclear capacity addition, mainly driven by China, South Korea and Russia,.. It shows that with the right policies, nuclear capacity can increase.”
Russia Building the Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant in Turkey
“When the China National Nuclear Power Manufacturing Corporation sought investors in 2015, they expected to raise a modest number of millions but they raised more than $280 billion.”
In 2016, the Chinese Academy of Sciences allocated $1 billion to begin buildingLFTRs by 2020. As for Japan, which began to restart its reactors in 2015, a FUJI design for a 100 to 200 MW LFTR is being developed by a consortium from Japan, the U. S. and Russia at an estimated energy cost of just three cents/kWh. Furthermore, it appears that five years for construction and about $3 billion per reactor will be routine in China.
Since the 1960’s Turkey were trying to get involved with nuclear energy. Turkey was one of the countries that participated in the International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in Geneva in 1955 September. There is no doubt that Turkey wants to use nuclear energy for energy production. In Turkey, there are many experts that have knowledge about nuclear fission technology. Dr. Reşat Uzmen is one of the most important people who is experienced in the nuclear fuel area. During the interview, his ideas and visions enlighten us about the future of Molten Salt Fission Technology. Here is another instructive interview for building a MSR!
The Atoms for Peace symbol was placed over the door to the American swimming pool reactor building during the 1955 International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy in Geneva, often called the Atoms for Peace conference.
Rana President of the Student Guild The Thorium Network
Mr. Reşat, can you tell us a little about yourself?
I graduated from İstanbul Technical University (İTU) in the chemical engineering department. I did my master’s degree in İTU also. As soon as I finished the department I became a researcher in The Çekmece Nuclear Research and Training Center, known as ÇNAEM. My research was about how uranium could be treated to obtain an uranium concentrate. I did my doctor’s degree in that topic. Back then, it was so hard to get information because it is a delicate technology. That’s why we did the research by ourselves. Think about that: there was no internet! There was a library in ÇNAEM, it still remains there. All the reports that were collected from all over the world were kept here. We benefit from those reports that were about uranium and thorium. In addition, getting chemicals was difficult. The ores that we were working on were coming from Manisa so mine was tough to process. Despite all these obstacles Turkey needed uranium so we have done what has to be done. I am the founder of “the nuclear fuel technology department in ÇNAEM”. This department was focused on producing uranium fuel that could be ready for fuelling and we did it. We produced uranium pellets by ourselves in our laboratories. We did research about ore sorting of thorium and how it can be used in nuclear reactors. Now I am working as a nuclear technology director at FİGES.
Dr. Reşat Uzmen, Thorium NTE Field in Burdur Turkey
“Turkey is capable of designing its own reactor now!”
Dr. Reşat Uzmen
What are your thoughts on Turkey’s nuclear energy adventure? Although nuclear engineering education has been given at Hacettepe University since 1982, Turkey has never been able to gain an advantage in nuclear energy. What could be the main reasons for this?
Nuclear energy needs government support and government incentive. Government policy must include nuclear energy. In Turkey, nuclear energy was too personal. A government is formed then a team becomes the charge of the Turkey Atomic Energy Agency and this team is working hard, trying to encourage people about nuclear energy but then the new government is formed and the team is changed. Unfortunately, this is how it is done in Turkey. Also, you need money to build reactors. There were some countries that try to build a nuclear reactor in Turkey. Once CANDUs was very popular in Turkey. Canadians supported us a lot. Argentineans came with CAREM design and wanted to develop the design with Turkey also they wanted to build CAREM in Turkey, it was a great offer but the politicians at that time were not open up to this idea. Nuclear energy must be government policy and it should not be changed by different governments.
As you know, there is a PWR-type reactor under construction in cooperation with Rosatom and Akkuyu in our country. Do you think Turkey’s first reactor selection was the right choice?
This cooperation is not providing us any nuclear technology. When The Akkuyu Nuclear Power Plant is finished we will have a nuclear reactor that is operating in Turkey but we can not get any nuclear technology transformation. Right now Turkey can not construct the sensitive components of a nuclear reactor. Akkuyu is like a system that produces energy for Turkey. It would be the same thing if Russia build that plant in a place that is near Turkey. In addition, there is the fate of spent fuels. Russia takes away all the spent fuels, these spent fuels can be removed from Turkey in two ways: by water, starting from the Akkuyu harbor, the ship will pass through the Turkish straits, then pass to the Black Sea and pass through the Novorossiysk harbor to reach Siberia and by land, from Akkuyu it will arrive in Samsun or Trabzon then by water the ship will arrive in Siberia. I suppose spent fuels are going to be transported by water.
What are your thoughts on molten salt reactors?
Molten Salt Reactor is a Gen. 4 reactor and has a lot of advantages. First of all, the fuel of the MSR is molten salt so it is a liquid fuel. Since I am interested in the fuel production part of nuclear energy I am aware of the challenges of solid fuel production. Having liquid fuel is a big virtue. Liquid fuel can be ThF4-UF4. The fuel production step can proceed as: UF4 may be imported as enriched uranium. If you have the technology then UF₆ may be imported as enriched uranium then UF₆ can be converted to UF4. After that step fabrication of the liquid fuel is easier than solid fuel. Second, MSR has a lot of developments in the safety systems of a nuclear reactor. There is no fuel melting danger because it is already melted. The liquid fuel is approximately 700 °C. The important point is molten salt may freeze. If fuel temperature is below approximately 550°C the fuel becomes solid we don’t want that to happen. Also, the fuel has a negative temperature coefficient which means that as the temperature of the fuel rises reactivity of the fuel is going to decrease. There is a freeze plug at the bottom of the core. If the core overheats the freeze plug will melt and the contents of the core will be dropped into a containment tank fed by gravity. This is a precaution against the loss of coolant accident. One of the other advantages is reprocessing opportunity. It is possible with helium to remove volatile fission products from the reactor core. Tritium can be a problem but if the amount of tritium is below the critical level then it wouldn’t be a problem.
” Molten Salt Reactors are advantageous in many ways. The fuel is already melted, freeze plug is going to melt in case of an overheating issue, reproccessing is easier than the solid fuel. ”
FİGES took on the task of designing MSR’s heat exchangers in the SAMOFAR project and your designs were approved. Can you talk a bit about heat exchangers? What are the differences with a PWR exchanger? Why did it need to be redesigned?
There are a lot of differences between a PWR heat exchanger and an MSR heat exchanger. The basic difference is, that in a PWR heat exchanger steam is produced from water. MSR heat exchanger is working with molten salt to produce steam. FİGES finished calculations like the flow rate of the molten salt, the temperature of the molten salt, etc. for a heat exchanger of SAMOFAR. The heat exchanger is made of a material that is the same as the reactor core. In SAMOFAR, Hastelloy is used but boron carbide sheeting may be used for the heat exchanger.
Can you talk a little bit about your collaboration with Thorium Network?
The Founder of the Thorium Network Jeremiah has contacted FİGES about 5 months ago. We met him in one of the FİGES offices which are located in İstanbul. We have discussed what we have done in Turkey thus far. We signed an agreement about sharing networks. We share the thorium and molten salt reactor-based projects with them and they do the same.
If the idea of building an MSR in Turkey is accepted, where will FİGES take part in this project?
As FİGES, building an MSR in Turkey has two steps. The first step is about design. To design a reactor you need software. The existing codes are for solid fuel. First of all the codes that are going to be used for liquid fuel must be developed. There are companies that work to develop required software all around the world. We want to take part in the design step as FİGES. After the design is finished the second step comes. The second step is building the reactor. FİGES doesn’t have the base to build a reactor but an agreement can be made with companies that can build a nuclear power plant.
Do you have any advice you can give to nuclear power engineer candidates who want to work on MSR? What can students do about it?
There are tons of documents about Molten Salt Reactor Technology. These documents are about the material of the reactor core, software codes, design, etc. A student can find everything about MSR on the internet. In addition to this, students should follow the Denmark-based company that is called “Seaborg“. They have a compact molten salt reactor design. Also, there is another MSR design called “ThorCon“. Students can follow the articles, presentations, and events about these two MSR designs. As I said, students must research and follow the literature about Molten Salt Fission Technology.
. . .
It was a great opportunity for me to meet Mr. Reşat who has been working to develop nuclear energy in Turkey. I would like to thank him for his time and great answers.
As students, we are going to change the world step by step with Molten Salt Fission Technology by our side. We are going to continue doing interviews with key people in nuclear energy and MSR!
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
What’s an MSR? A Molten Salt Reactor of Course!
Molten Salt Reactors are superior in many ways to conventional reactors.
In a Molten Salt Reactor, the uranium (probably Thorium in the future), is dissolved in a liquid fluoride salt. (Although fluorine gas is corrosive, fluoride salts are not.) Fluoride salts also don’t break down under high temperatures or high radiation, and they lock up radioactive material, which prevents it from being released to the environment.
As noted earlier, Dr. Alvin Weinberg’s Oak Ridge MSR ran successfully for 22,000 hours during the sixties. However, the program was shelved, partly for political reasons and partly because we [USA] favoured Admiral Rickover’s water-cooled reactors.
Schematic of a Molten Salt Reactor
When uranium or thorium is combined with a liquid fluoride salt, there are no pellets, no zirconium tubes and no water, the source of the hydrogen that exploded at Chernobyl and Fukushima. The fluid that contains the uranium is also the heat-transfer agent, so no water is required for cooling. MSRs are also more efficient than LWR plants because the temperature of the molten salt is about 1300 F [700 C], whereas the temperature of the water in a conventional reactor is about 600 F [315 C], and higher heat creates more high-pressure steam to spin the turbines.
This extra heat can also be used to generate more electricity, desalinate seawater, split water for hydrogen fuel cells, make ammonia for fertilizer and even extract CO2 from the air and our oceans to make gasoline and diesel fuel. In addition, MSRs can be fueled with 96% of our stored uranium “waste” – spent fuel – and the fissile material in our thousands of nuclear bombs.
Because some MSR designs do not need to be water-cooled, those versions don’t risk a steam explosion that could propel radioactive isotopes into the environment. And because MSRs operate at atmospheric pressure, no huge, concrete containment dome is needed.
When the temperature of the liquid salt fuel rises as the chain reaction increases, the fuel expands, which decreases its density and slows the rate of fission, which prevents a “runaway” reaction. As a consequence, an MSR is inherently self-governing, and because the fuel is liquid, it can easily drain by gravity into a large containment reservoir. As a consequence, the results of a fuel “spill” from an MSR would be measured in square yards, not miles.
In the event of a power outage, a refrigerated salt plug at the bottom of the reactor automatically melts, allowing the fuel to drain into a tank, where it spreads out solidifies, stopping the reaction. In effect, MSRs are walk-away- safe.
Even if you abandon an MSR, the fuel will automatically drain and solidify without any assistance.
If the Fukushima reactor had been an MSR, there would have been no meltdown, and because radioactive by-products like caesium, iodine and strontium bind tightly to stable salts, they would not have been released into the environment. (In 2018 Jordan agreed to purchase two, 110 MW, South Korean molten salt reactors,)
May 2021 – Danish firm plans floating SMR for export South Korea firm to build floating nuclear plants. NuScale and Canadian firm to build floating MSRs. Saskatchewan Indigenous company to explore small MSRs. August 2021 – Wall Street Journal – Small Reactors, Big Future for Nuclear Power
Besides producing CO2-free electricity, fissioning U-233 in an MSR creates essential industrial elements that include xenon, which is used in lasers, neodymium for super-strength magnets, rhodium, strontium, medical molybdenum-99, zirconium, ruthenium, palladium, iodine-131 for the treatment of thyroid cancers and bismuth-213, which is used for targeted cancer treatments.
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
この記事は、2022年3月14日にプロイセンの一般新聞Preußische Allgemeine Zeitungによって公開されました。著作権表示:教育目的でフェアユースを適用する。 / This article published 14 March 2022 by Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung, the Prussian General Newspaper. Copyright notice: applying fair use for educational purposes.
THORIUM MOLTEN SALT REACTORS Nuclear reactors in which the nuclear fuel is in the form of molten salt offer a wealth of advantages. A test plant will go into operation in China in the near future.
The raw material is cheap and available worldwide, not even cooling water is needed and the waste is less and decays much faster than conventional nuclear waste: Thorium technology stands for a new quality of the use of nuclear energy
In the Hongshagang Industrial Park near Wuwei in the central Chinese province of Gansu, a pilot plant will go into operation in the near future, which has the potential to revolutionize energy production not only in the Middle Kingdom, but throughout the world. No more carbon dioxide emissions as a result of the use of fossil fuels, no more landscape degradation by wind turbines, no mass use of batteries from environmentally harmful production, no power outages in calm winds and clouds, but also no radiation risk due to reactor accidents, all this promises the innovative Thorium-based Molten Salt Reactor-Liquid Fuel No. 1 (TMSR-LF1) of the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, which advocates a new quality of use of the Nuclear energy is in place and this should give it a kind of “green coat of paint”.
The operation of the Thorium Molten Salt reactor TMSR-LF1 is relatively simple. The weakly radioactive element Thorium is dissolved in molten salt and bombarded with neutrons. This produces the isotope uranium 233, the fission of which releases large amounts of heat. So the reactor produces its own fuel. This process ultimately brings much more safety than the operation of classic nuclear reactors (see below) and also a variety of other advantages.
First, only extremely small amounts of Thorium 232 are needed. The energy content of one ton of Thorium corresponds to that of 200 tons of uranium metal or 28 million tons of coal, as the Italian Nobel Laureate in Physics Carlo Rubbia calculated.
Secondly, there are larger Thorium deposits all over the world. In principle, the element occurs in the rock crust as often as lead and is also produced as a waste product in the extraction of rare earths. That’s why it’s not expensive. On the other hand, there is a risk of shortages and price explosions for uranium in the future, because the number of conventional nuclear power plants has recently increased significantly again.
Thirdly, a Thorium Molten Salt reactor can be built virtually anywhere, including desert regions, for example. Because it does not require any cooling water.
Fourthly, its operation also generates significantly less radioactive waste. In addition, more than 99 percent of the nuclear waste from the TMSR-LF1 is said to have decayed into harmless isotopes after 300 years at the latest. Furthermore, it is possible to process the small residual amounts of longer radiating material later in more advanced molten salt reactors and thus completely neutralise. By way of comparison, conventional nuclear reactors powered by uranium produce long-lived radioactive fission products with half-lives of many thousands of years, even though only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel used is used.
Fifthly, the costs for the construction and operation of Thorium Molten Salt reactors are lower than those of the light-water reactors that are usually used. This is mainly due to the low operating pressure of the systems, which makes numerous safety precautions superfluous, as well as the fact that no fuel rods have to be procured.
Sixthly, reactors such as the TMSR-LF1 can also be operated extremely economically because not only uranium 233 is incubated in them, but also many other radioactive fission products are produced, which are required, for example, in nuclear medicine. And some of the radionuclides even turn into highly sought-after elements such as rubidium, zirconium, molybdenum, ruthenium, palladium, neodymium and samarium. Likewise, the noble gas xenon is released, which is used, among other things, as an insulation medium as well as in laser and aerospace technology.
The technology underlying the TMSR-LF1 was not invented in China, but in the USA. As early as 1954, the Air Force experimented with a small molten salt reactor to power long-range bombers. However, the project came to a rapid end when the United States had intercontinental ballistic missiles. Likewise, at the beginning of the 1970s, West German scientists from the Jülich nuclear research facility presented some studies on molten salt reactors, which ultimately received no attention because of the negative attitude of the then head of reactor development, Rudolf Schulten [main developer of the pebble bed reactor design, a non fluid fuel system].
Another reason for the lack of acceptance of the alternative reactor type was the absolute lack of interest of the nuclear industry around the world. With the classic nuclear reactors, excellent money could be earned, and no one wanted to do without the income from the production of fuel rods. Therefore, all sorts of pretended arguments against the use of molten salt reactors were brought into play, such as the allegedly higher risk of corrosion and the hypothetical danger that someone will misuse the reactors to produce weapons-grade fissile material.
This has not prevented the People’s Republic of China from investing the equivalent of 400 million euros in the development of the TMSR-LF1 since 2011. After all, Beijing’s leaders are pursuing the ambitious goal of making the Middle Kingdom “climate neutral” by 2050, and the “perfect technology” of molten salt reactors could prove absolutely indispensable.
250MW溶融塩核分裂エネルギー発電設備 / 250 MW Molten Salt Fission Energy Power Facility
The reactor, which is now to be tested on the edge of the Gobi Desert, initially has a nominal output of only two megawatts. This means that it can only supply around 1000 households with electricity. If the design principle of the TMSR-LF1 proves successful, however, the first prototype of a Thorium Molten Salt reactor with an output of 373 megawatts would go into operation by around 2030, which will then be followed by identical plants throughout China in rapid succession. It remains to be seen whether Germany will still remain in its abstinence from nuclear power at this time or whether it will now also rely on “green nuclear energy”.
The Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung (PAZ) is a unique voice in the German media landscape. Week after week, it reports on current events in politics, culture and business and takes a stand on the fundamental developments in our society. In their work, the editors feel committed to the traditional Prussian canon of values: The old Prussia stood and stands for religious and ideological tolerance, for love of homeland and open-mindedness, for the rule of law and intellectual honesty, and not least for reason-guided action in all areas of society . With this in mind, the PAZ maintains an open culture of debate, which passionately represents its own point of view and respects the opinions of those who think differently – and also lets them have their say. Beyond day-to-day events, the PAZ feels committed to remembering historical Prussia and caring for its cultural heritage. With these principles, the Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung is a unique journalistic bridge between yesterday, today and tomorrow, between the countries and regions in West and East – as well as between the different social currents in our country.
Translation courtesy of Duck Duck Go – Your personal data is nobody’s business.
This article published 14 March 2022 by Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung, the Prussian General Newspaper. Copyright notice: applying fair use for educational purposes.
THORIUM-FLÜSSIGSALZREAKTOREN Kernreaktoren, in denen der Kernbrennstoff in Form geschmolzenen Salzes vorliegt, bieten eine Fülle von Vorteilen. In China wird in nächster Zukunft eine Versuchsanlage in Betrieb gehen
THORIUM MOLTEN SALT REACTORS Nuclear reactors in which the nuclear fuel is in the form of molten salt offer a wealth of advantages. A test plant will go into operation in China in the near future.
„Perfekte Technologie“
Der Ausgangsstoff ist billig und weltweit vorhanden, nicht einmal Kühlwasser wird benötigt und der Müll wird weniger und verfällt viel schneller als herkömmlicher Atommüll: Die Thorium-Technologie steht für eine neue Qualität der Nutzung der Kernenergie
Wolfgang Kaufmann, 23.01.2022
“Perfect technology”
The raw material is cheap and available worldwide, not even cooling water is needed and the waste is less and decays much faster than conventional nuclear waste: Thorium technology stands for a new quality of the use of nuclear energy
Wolfgang Kaufmann 23.01.2022
Im Hongshagang-Industriepark bei Wuwei in der zentralchinesischen Provinz Gansu wird in nächster Zukunft eine Versuchsanlage in Betrieb gehen, die das Potential besitzt, nicht nur die Energieerzeugung im Reich der Mitte, sondern in der ganzen Welt zu revolutionieren. Keine Kohlendioxidemissionen mehr infolge der Nutzung fossiler Brennstoffe, keine Landschaftsverschandelung durch Windräder, kein massenhafter Einsatz von Akkus aus umweltschädlicher Produktion, keine Stromausfälle bei Windstille und Bewölkung, aber auch kein Strahlungsrisiko aufgrund von Reaktorhavarien, alles das verspricht der innovative Thorium-based Molten Salt Reactor-Liquid Fuel No. 1 (TMSR-LF1) des Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, der für eine neue Qualität der Nutzung der Kernenergie steht und dieser quasi einen „grünen Anstrich“ geben soll.
In the Hongshagang Industrial Park near Wuwei in the central Chinese province of Gansu, a pilot plant will go into operation in the near future, which has the potential to revolutionize energy production not only in the Middle Kingdom, but throughout the world. No more carbon dioxide emissions as a result of the use of fossil fuels, no more landscape degradation by wind turbines, no mass use of batteries from environmentally harmful production, no power outages in calm winds and clouds, but also no radiation risk due to reactor accidents, all this promises the innovative Thorium-based Molten Salt Reactor-Liquid Fuel No. 1 (TMSR-LF1) of the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics, which advocates a new quality of use of the Nuclear energy is in place and this should give it a kind of “green coat of paint”.
Die Funktionsweise des Thorium-Flüssigsalzreaktors TMSR-LF1 ist relativ einfach. Das schwach radioaktive Element Thorium wird in Flüssigsalz aufgelöst und mit Neutronen beschossen. Dadurch entsteht das Isotop Uran 233, dessen Spaltung große Wärmemengen freisetzt. Der Reaktor produziert also seinen Brennstoff selbst. Dieses Verfahren bringt letztlich sehr viel mehr Sicherheit als der Betrieb klassischer Kernreaktoren (siehe unten) und darüber hinaus auch noch eine Vielzahl weiterer Vorteile.
The operation of the Thorium Molten Salt reactor TMSR-LF1 is relatively simple. The weakly radioactive element Thorium is dissolved in molten salt and bombarded with neutrons. This produces the isotope uranium 233, the fission of which releases large amounts of heat. So the reactor produces its own fuel. This process ultimately brings much more safety than the operation of classic nuclear reactors (see below) and also a variety of other advantages.
Sechs Vorteile
Six Benefits
Zum Ersten werden nur äußerst geringe Mengen an Thorium 232 benötigt. Denn der Energiegehalt einer Tonne Thorium entspricht der von 200 Tonnen Uran-Metall oder 28 Millionen Tonnen Kohle, wie der italienische Physik-Nobelpreisträger Carlo Rubbia errechnete.
First, only extremely small amounts of Thorium 232 are needed. The energy content of one ton of Thorium corresponds to that of 200 tons of uranium metal or 28 million tons of coal, as the Italian Nobel Laureate in Physics Carlo Rubbia calculated.
Zum Zweiten gibt es überall auf der Welt größere Thorium-Vorkommen. Im Prinzip kommt das Element in der Gesteinskruste ähnlich häufig vor wie Blei und fällt zudem als Abfallprodukt bei der Förderung von Seltenen Erden an. Deshalb ist es auch nicht teuer. Dahingegen drohen perspektivisch Verknappungen und Preisexplosionen beim Uran, weil die Zahl der konventionellen Kernkraftwerke neuerdings wieder deutlich zunimmt.
Secondly, there are larger Thorium deposits all over the world. In principle, the element occurs in the rock crust as often as lead and is also produced as a waste product in the extraction of rare earths. That’s why it’s not expensive. On the other hand, there is a risk of shortages and price explosions for uranium in the future, because the number of conventional nuclear power plants has recently increased significantly again.
Zum Dritten kann ein Thorium-Flüssigsalzreaktor praktisch überall errichtet werden, also beispielsweise auch in Wüstenregionen. Denn er benötigt keinerlei Kühlwasser.
Thirdly, a Thorium Molten Salt reactor can be built virtually anywhere, including desert regions, for example. Because it does not require any cooling water.
Zum Vierten entstehen bei seinem Betrieb auch deutlich weniger radioaktive Abfälle. Außerdem sollen über 99 Prozent des Atommülls aus dem TMSR-LF1 nach spätestens 300 Jahren in harmlose Isotope zerfallen sein. Des Weiteren besteht die Möglichkeit, die geringen Restmengen an länger strahlendem Material später in fortgeschritteneren Flüssigsalzreaktoren zu verarbeiten und damit gänzlich zu neutralisieren. Zum Vergleich: In mit Uran betriebenen konventionellen Atommeilern fallen langlebige radioaktive Spaltprodukte mit Halbwertszeiten von vielen tausend Jahren an, obwohl nur ein kleiner Bruchteil des verwendeten Kernbrennstoffs genutzt wird.
Fourthly, its operation also generates significantly less radioactive waste. In addition, more than 99 percent of the nuclear waste from the TMSR-LF1 is said to have decayed into harmless isotopes after 300 years at the latest. Furthermore, it is possible to process the small residual amounts of longer radiating material later in more advanced molten salt reactors and thus completely neutralise. By way of comparison, conventional nuclear reactors powered by uranium produce long-lived radioactive fission products with half-lives of many thousands of years, even though only a small fraction of the nuclear fuel used is used.
Zum Fünften liegen die Kosten für den Bau und Betrieb von Thorium-Flüssigsalzreaktoren niedriger als bei den sonst zumeist verwendeten Leichtwasser-Reaktoren. Das resultiert vor allen aus dem geringen Betriebsdruck der Anlagen, der zahlreiche Sicherheitsvorkehrungen überflüssig macht, sowie der Tatsache, dass keine Brennstäbe beschafft werden müssen.
Fifthly, the costs for the construction and operation of Thorium Molten Salt reactors are lower than those of the light-water reactors that are usually used. This is mainly due to the low operating pressure of the systems, which makes numerous safety precautions superfluous, as well as the fact that no fuel rods have to be procured.
Zum Sechsten lassen sich Reaktoren wie der TMSR-LF1 auch deshalb ausgesprochen wirtschaftlich betreiben, weil in ihnen nicht nur Uran 233 erbrütet wird, sondern zusätzlich noch viele andere radioaktive Spaltprodukte entstehen, die zum Beispiel in der Nuklearmedizin benötigt werden. Und manche der Radionuklide verwandeln sich sogar in ausgesprochen begehrte Elemente wie Rubidium, Zirconium, Molybdän, Ruthenium, Palladium, Neodym und Samarium. Desgleichen wird das Edelgas Xenon frei, das unter anderem als Isolationsmedium sowie in der Laser- und Raumfahrttechnik zum Einsatz kommt.
Sixthly, reactors such as the TMSR-LF1 can also be operated extremely economically because not only uranium 233 is incubated in them, but also many other radioactive fission products are produced, which are required, for example, in nuclear medicine. And some of the radionuclides even turn into highly sought-after elements such as rubidium, zirconium, molybdenum, ruthenium, palladium, neodymium and samarium. Likewise, the noble gas xenon is released, which is used, among other things, as an insulation medium as well as in laser and aerospace technology.
Der Krieg ist aller Dinge Vater
War is the father of all things
Erfunden wurde die dem TMSR-LF1 zugrunde liegende Technologie nicht in China, sondern in den USA. Dort experimentierten die Luftstreitkräfte bereits ab 1954 mit einem kleinen Flüssigsalzreaktor, der zum Antrieb von Langstreckenbombern dienen sollte. Das Projekt fand jedoch ein rapides Ende, als die Vereinigten Staaten über Interkontinentalraketen verfügten. Ebenso legten bundesdeutsche Wissenschaftler aus der Kernforschungsanlage Jülich zu Beginn der 1970er Jahre einige Studien über Flüssigsalzreaktoren vor, die letztlich wegen der ablehnenden Haltung des damaligen Leiters der Reaktorentwicklung, Rudolf Schulten, keine Beachtung fanden.
The technology underlying the TMSR-LF1 was not invented in China, but in the USA. As early as 1954, the Air Force experimented with a small molten salt reactor to power long-range bombers. However, the project came to a rapid end when the United States had intercontinental ballistic missiles. Likewise, at the beginning of the 1970s, West German scientists from the Jülich nuclear research facility presented some studies on molten salt reactors, which ultimately received no attention because of the negative attitude of the then head of reactor development, Rudolf Schulten [main developer of the pebble bed reactor design, a non fluid fuel system].
Ein weiterer Grund für die fehlende Akzeptanz des alternativen Reaktortyps war das absolute Desinteresse der Nu-klearindustrie rund um die Welt. Mit den klassischen Atommeilern ließ sich hervorragend Geld verdienen, und auf die Einnahmen aus der Herstellung von Brennstäben wollte auch niemand verzichten. Deshalb wurden allerlei vorgeschobene Argumente gegen den Einsatz von Flüssigsalzreaktoren ins Spiel gebracht, wie beispielsweise das angeblich höhere Korrosionsrisiko und die hypothetische Gefahr, dass jemand die Meiler missbraucht, um waffenfähiges Spaltmaterial zu produzieren.
Another reason for the lack of acceptance of the alternative reactor type was the absolute lack of interest of the nuclear industry around the world. With the classic nuclear reactors, excellent money could be earned, and no one wanted to do without the income from the production of fuel rods. Therefore, all sorts of pretended arguments against the use of molten salt reactors were brought into play, such as the allegedly higher risk of corrosion and the hypothetical danger that someone will misuse the reactors to produce weapons-grade fissile material.
Dies hat die Volksrepublik China nicht davon abgehalten, seit 2011 umgerechnet 400 Millionen Euro in die Entwicklung des TMSR-LF1 zu investieren. Schließlich verfolgt die Pekinger Führung das ehrgeizige Ziel, das Reich der Mitte bis 2050 „klimaneutral“ zu machen, und dabei könnte sich die „perfekte Technologie“ der Flüssigsalzreaktoren als absolut unverzichtbar erweisen.
This has not prevented the People’s Republic of China from investing the equivalent of 400 million euros in the development of the TMSR-LF1 since 2011. After all, Beijing’s leaders are pursuing the ambitious goal of making the Middle Kingdom “climate neutral” by 2050, and the “perfect technology” of molten salt reactors could prove absolutely indispensable.
250 MW Molten Salt Fission Energy Power Facility
Der Reaktor, der nun am Rande der Wüste Gobi erprobt werden soll, hat erst einmal nur eine Nennleistung von zwei Megawatt. Damit kann er lediglich um die 1000 Haushalte mit Strom versorgen. Sollte sich das Konstruktionsprinzip des TMSR-LF1 bewähren, dann würde allerdings bis etwa 2030 der erste Prototyp eines Thorium-Flüssigsalzreaktors mit 373 Megawatt Leistung in Betrieb gehen, dem dann in schneller Folge identische Anlagen in ganz China folgen. Ob Deutschland zu diesem Zeitpunkt immer noch in seiner Atomkraft-Abstinenz verharrt oder inzwischen auch auf die „Grüne Kernenergie“ setzt, bleibt abzuwarten.
The reactor, which is now to be tested on the edge of the Gobi Desert, initially has a nominal output of only two megawatts. This means that it can only supply around 1000 households with electricity. If the design principle of the TMSR-LF1 proves successful, however, the first prototype of a Thorium Molten Salt reactor with an output of 373 megawatts would go into operation by around 2030, which will then be followed by identical plants throughout China in rapid succession. It remains to be seen whether Germany will still remain in its abstinence from nuclear power at this time or whether it will now also rely on “green nuclear energy”.
Die Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung (PAZ) ist eine einzigartige Stimme in der deutschen Medienlandschaft. Woche für Woche berichtet sie über das aktuelle Zeitgeschehen in Politik, Kultur und Wirtschaft und bezieht zu den grundlegenden Entwicklungen unserer Gesellschaft Stellung. In ihrer Arbeit fühlt sich die Redaktion dem traditionellen preußischen Wertekanon verpflichtet: Das alte Preußen stand und steht für religiöse und weltanschauliche Toleranz, für Heimatliebe und Weltoffenheit, für Rechtstaatlichkeit und intellektuelle Redlichkeit sowie nicht zuletzt für ein von der Vernunft geleitetes Handeln in allen Bereichen der Gesellschaft. In diesem Sinne pflegt die PAZ eine offene Debattenkultur, die gleichermaßen den eigenen Standpunkt mit Leidenschaft vertritt wie sie die Meinung von Andersdenkenden achtet – und diese auch zu Wort kommen lässt. Jenseits des Tagesgeschehens fühlt sich die PAZ der Erinnerung an das historische Preußen und der Pflege seines kulturellen Erbes verpflichtet. Mit diesen Grundsätzen ist die Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung eine einzigartige publizistische Brücke zwischen dem Gestern, Heute und Morgen, zwischen den Ländern und Regionen in West und Ost – sowie zwischen den verschiedenen gesellschaftlichen Strömungen in unserem Lande.
The Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung (PAZ) is a unique voice in the German media landscape. Week after week, it reports on current events in politics, culture and business and takes a stand on the fundamental developments in our society. In their work, the editors feel committed to the traditional Prussian canon of values: The old Prussia stood and stands for religious and ideological tolerance, for love of homeland and open-mindedness, for the rule of law and intellectual honesty, and not least for reason-guided action in all areas of society . With this in mind, the PAZ maintains an open culture of debate, which passionately represents its own point of view and respects the opinions of those who think differently – and also lets them have their say. Beyond day-to-day events, the PAZ feels committed to remembering historical Prussia and caring for its cultural heritage. With these principles, the Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung is a unique journalistic bridge between yesterday, today and tomorrow, between the countries and regions in West and East – as well as between the different social currents in our country.
Translation courtesy of Duck Duck Go – Your personal data is nobody’s business.
Under favour of The Thorium Network, I met a successful and farsighted person. The person who caught my attention with his works and ideas in various fields is Emre Kıraç, CEO of Kıraç Group. If we talk about him briefly, Mr. Emre received his bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Istanbul Technical University. After completing his master’s degree in Entrepreneurial Management at London EBS (European Business School), he still works as the general manager of Kıraç Group companies operating in the fields of energy, transportation and health. If I were to talk about Mr. Emre for myself, I can say that he is open to new ideas and a model to young entrepreneurs with his success in many sectors he has entered. As a nuclear engineer, the thing that draws my attention the most is his innovative views, support and work in the field of energy. The reason why I say so is that, as we know, the need for energy is increasing day by day due to the increasing population and other factors. There are many different methods to supply with the energy need. One of them is nuclear energy. We see that Mr. Emre closely follows and supports the developments in the nuclear field.
Without further ado, you can see what we asked in our interview. Good reading!
Rana, President of the Student Guild The Thorium Network
Can you tell us about the development of Kıraç Group? Since 1982, your company has continued to grow. What is your biggest source of motivation?
Our company’s history and the fact that we have earned people’s confidence in the workplace. Moreover, one of our major sources of motivation is to ensure and improve the continuation of our businesses.
In which areas and specifically on which subjects does Kıraç Group focus on R&D studies?
In particular, we have four companies engaged in R&D work. These companies develop their own products. Kıraç Metal is working on solar energy systems, Kıraç Galvaniz is working on highway protection systems, Kıraç Bilişim is working on hospital automation, and Kıraç HTS is working on aviation.
You’ve worked in the energy business for a long time and have a lot of experience in it. I’d want to hear your own thoughts on nuclear energy and reactors.
Nuclear energy, in my opinion as an electrical engineer, is a healthy and safe source of energy. Of course, if it’s done correctly. There have unfortunately been awful examples of this in the past. Unfortunately, many associate nuclear energy with nuclear weapons, and as a result, they are biased towards this sort of energy. But, with smart design and hard effort, I’m confident that many people will see nuclear power as clean and safe.
As Kıraç Group, you give importance to green energy. You have studies and activities on solar energy and wind energy. The world also needs nuclear energy and we cannot stop climate change with wind and solar energy alone. What do you think about Turkey’s adventure in the field of nuclear energy? What changes will happen after that?
As we know, Akkuyu nuclear power plant installation has started. Of course, our country does not have any nuclear technology. In fact, nuclear technology is a technology that has been on the world agenda since the 1940s. Although Turkey has technology in many fields, unfortunately it has not had any technology in the nuclear field. Therefore, our country should develop itself in the global conjuncture.
Do you find Turkey’s studies on renewable energy sufficient? What do you think should be done more?
The main country that creates the economy of renewable energy is Germany. In this sector, we continue our work in Germany. Although this country is less efficient in terms of solar energy compared to other countries, it has many more solar power plants. In Turkey, on the other hand, solar power plants will definitely become more widespread. We are also in this business. Turkey is a complete renewable energy country in terms of both wind and solar energy. We also closely follow the hydrogen-based energy technology. Renewable energy should become more widespread in our country. Our country is very clear in this regard. The important thing is to increase the incentives of the state to this sector.
What are your thoughts on molten salt reactors? Can a molten salt reactor be established in Turkey after the VVER 1200 (PWR) to be established in Akkuyu and can it be produced entirely with national resources?
I got detailed information on this subject. The implementation of this technology would be incredibly good for Turkey. Since Turkey is rich in thorium reserves, this technology carries our country much further in the nuclear field. But for this technology to be applicable, R&D studies are needed. I think this will be possible with the efforts of our state and universities.
Can you tell us about your cooperation with Thorium Network? What prompted you to make this collaboration? What was the most influential factor for you?
First of all, since we are in the energy sector, Thorium Network attracted our attention. We have an old friendship with Mr. Jeremiah. I am interested in Jeremiah’s blogs and I follow them. After he came to Turkey, I had the opportunity to get to know him better. In addition to these, I feel responsible for this issue as Eskişehir has thorium deposits. I want to promote and develop Thorium Network in this environment. This is my biggest goal right now.
What kind of work can be done to spread the idea of nuclear energy in Turkey?
We need to lobby on this issue. People like you and us need to understand this technology very well and explain it to other people. We are just at the beginning of the road. Firstly, the Molten Salt Reactor technology needs to be developed. The more R&D studies we do on this subject, the more positive returns will be.
Turkey wants to design and install a molten salt reactor with completely domestic and national resources. Especially the Turkish Energy, Nuclear and Mining Research Institute (TENMAK) is very enthusiastic about this issue. Do you think TENMAK and universities alone will be enough for R&D studies or do we need other organizations?
We need an international communication on this issue. There may also be a need for the private sector, but we do not have many companies that have worked in the nuclear field. Together we can research and develop. Apart from these, it is important for the state to support, technical and commercial reports should be prepared and funds should be allocated. Then an international partner can be found and brought to better places.
When I examined your company, the years you entered new sectors caught my attention. You identify the needs very clearly and produce solutions in the most effective way. What do you pay attention to when entering a new industry? In your opinion, if the first molten salt reactor were to be successfully established in our country, where would Kıraç Group be in this process? (Part production, liquid fuel production, construction, electricity etc.)
The nuclear industry is a very large and complex field. We have thousands of products, of course, we can meet some of them in the future. But it’s too early to talk about that. We will cooperate with Thorium Network on this issue. There is also a large thorium reserve and precious metals in Eskişehir. These mines are currently being sold. It would be much better if we were in a position to add value to these mines. We continue our research on this subject.
We had a great time during the interview. We’d like to show our thanks to Mr. Emre for the information he gave and for his participation.
You may also stay updated on developments by visiting our website and joining our student guild.
Thorium Network Student Guild continues to inspire people all around the world. Come and join our team! You can find the Student Guild application on this page:
World’s first reactor was built in 1942 in Chicago by Enrico Fermi and his team. Since then several hundred nuclear reactors were built, shut downed and rebuilt. For the future, six types of Generation 4 fission machines wait to be born. The world needs the energy to develop and maintain life but above all these reasons there is an essential one: going to Mars and supplying all energy that is needed for life. That’s my priority motivation and purpose for choosing the nuclear area to work. History tells us that “never forget to take lessons from past” and future tells us that “enlighten your ways from your mistakes”. The nuclear accidents that happened in the past led us to Gen 4 designs. As students, we are the ones who determine the nuclear reactor’s destiny. One of the Gen 4 designs is Molten Salt Reactor. We are trying to understand what can we do to design and build a molten salt reactor. We do this by interviewing nuclear experts, engineers all over the world. Come and join our story!
Stagg Field, Chicago Pile 1Enrico Fermi
Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology
The Student Guild’s first interview was with Professor Akira Tokuhiro. He recently stepped down as the Dean of the Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science at Ontario Tech University in Canada. Also, he was in the American Nuclear Society’s President’s Committee on the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan. He is an international nuclear energy expert.
Rana President of the Student Guild The Thorium Network
We do many things. We design Generation 4 (IV) systems. We look at the safety issues of current reactors and reactors that will be constructed. We are always looking for continuous safety improvements. We have 4 questions to be answered about safety and accidents, “what can happen, how often can it happen, how does it happen and what are the consequences?”. We ask these questions and we do the engineering design, safety analysis for that. Now nuclear engineering requires computer programming and engineering analysis. Applications of virtual reality, augmented reality, new applications of artificial intelligence, and machine learning will be used by new nuclear engineers to design and operate reactors.
In one of your interviews, you said “Nuclear reactors are challenging, that’s why I choose the nuclear energy area to work”. What is the most complex and challenging thing in the nuclear area or reactor physics?
For me, the most interesting and challenging thing is you have to know many things. You may find the solution for a small area but nuclear power plant is many different things. If you find a solution for a small area, it may impact other things. That’s why you have to look at many different things and you have to integrate them. That’s challenging for me. That integration that I teach to my students. How do you design a reactor? You design from the reactor core and then outward from the core.
What are the most common safety design features for Gen 4 that at the same time can be used for Gen 3 or Gen 2 reactor safety designs?
We have learned from Generation 2, 3 and 3+ about human factors engineering. There are two things about human beings, one is human beings are unreliable, other is unpredictable. When you apply these to safety systems, you want to design the reactor that minimizes probability for human error. Gen 4 and small modular reactors are designed so that cooling is assured, and do not rely on human operators because they can make mistakes under pressure. You have to design the reactor so that after shutdown decay heat can be removed without human intervention.
What is the biggest problem about safety that must be redesigned immediately now? For example, for PWR Generation 2 designs, what is the biggest safety problem about that reactor, and how can it be redesigned?
My opinion is reactor is designed so that it can shut down when a postulated event occurs. Even if an earthquake happens, the reactor can shut down like the reactors are located at Fukushima. The reactor was shut down after the earthquake. To remove the decay heat that’s remaining, pumps may be required to facilitate cooling for the first 72 hours. After two weeks the decay heat has to be much less. That has to change in all plants. Cooling after shut down is possible, we can do that but we have to make sure that even if we have a terrible earthquake, sufficient cooling has to remove thermal energy from the core. In SMR’s we don’t need pumps, like large reactors; when you have a pump, you also need a source of water in order to maintain cooling to take the heat. The safety problem of Gen 2 and Gen 3 designs is to prevent the meltdown of the core.
“By 2030 or 2035 Gen 4 large reactors or small modular reactors will be built by Russia or China.”
When do you think the first Gen 4 reactor will be built and where will it be built and which design will be built?
I think by 2030 or 2035 some Gen 4 reactors will be built. It may be Gen 4 large reactors but it is also possible that small modular reactor may be built too. It depends on the country. Russia and China have their designs and they are being constructed. It is difficult to call them Gen 4 but recent VVER is an improved design. China is building different kinds of reactors and operating them. So by 2030 or 2035 Gen 4 large reactors or small modular reactors will be built by Russia or China. In the west, new reactors very much depends on investment. For example, in North America before 2035 there will be a small modular reactor constructed and ready to operate as well.
What are your thoughts about thorium molten salt reactors?
Thorium Molten Salt reactors combine interesting reactor design with a fresh look at a new type of fuel. In the least next 3-5 years, we need much more engineering to finish the design and to get the regulatory approval of the completed design. Since my background is from the US, I am familiar with US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and they will importantly ask safety questions about design basis accidents. If you don’t have a pump, as part of the design natural convection cools the reactor so it may be a preferred design. Molten salt reactors are an interesting design and thorium is a different type of fuel. Perhaps by analogy, the nuclear industry is very similar to a restaurant or the automotive sector. You have to have customers and people come to eat at a restaurant. You have to make a popular automobile and people have to trust the safety and they are buying the safety in design that comes with it. Thorium Molten Salt design has to be finished and the design has to convince the regulator that it is a sufficiently safe design and that is constructed.
You are an expert on nuclear safety. Do you think passive safety systems designed for molten salt reactors are sufficient? Are there any other passive systems projects running? Can you please give us the details?
The molten salt reactor concept came from the 1950s and 1960s. Modernized design of the MSR started with Oak Ridge Molten Salt Reactor. (MSRE) They operated a research and demonstration reactor for a few years so fifty years later we are updating this design. I think the concept is solid but needs details; safety cases are convincing. If you have the money and engineers the first step to building a reactor is making a research and demonstration reactor to show that the reactor is very safe. For example, in molten salt reactors, fuel flows in a tank by gravity when an unanticipated event occurs. That is when a PS may be needed. So this means no operator, no human error.
“We need more nuclear power plants because we need a quick transition to a lower CO2 economy or scale.”
About thorium molten salt reactors, what can students do?
Now in the last five years, I think it is very important for students to find friends all over the world and to be interested in solving the challenges posed by climate change. We need to reach net-zero as quickly as possible: even before 2050. I think we have to make progress every five years or it will become very difficult to meet our net-zero carbon economy. We have to make as much progress by 2030. By 2050 we have to make substantial progress or net-zero carbon economy. If we don’t have any progress by 2030 reaching a net-zero carbon economy becomes increasingly difficult. Now we have the power of social media. Students have to ask many questions to old people like me about safety, design. We have to change and seek from the regulator, approval of the new reactors designs. We have a lot of experts from many countries. We already have about 440 nuclear power plants in the world but we need as many as ten times as many reactors to tackle climate change. We need more nuclear power plants because we need a quick transition to a lower CO2 economy or scale. It is not the ultimate solution for climate change but it is a solution that we have now. Young people can become involved through social media and by asking good questions. We need to convince people that by combining nuclear energy, wind, and solar we can reach a net-zero carbon economy. We need nuclear power, it may be risky, but risk and fear are a spectrum. If you think the benefit is greater than the risk then you would do it. People are usually afraid when they don’t understand the risk so they think the risk is very big and the benefit is not so big.
How did you decide to join the Thorium Network? What was the most attractive thing that impressed you about Thorium Network?
I contacted one of the founders Jeremiah Josey. I thought the thorium molten salt reactor is interesting and thorium is an alternative to uranium. It is a network. This network includes many people all around the world. That’s why I joined. The network is a new way to design a reactor.
I had a great time while talking with Professor Tokuhiro. I would like to thank him for his time and perfect answers.
Thorium Network Student Guild continues to inspire people all around the world. Come and join our team! You can find the Student Guild application on this page:
Created by Jeremiah Josey and Rana, president of the Student Guild
We live in a finite world. Our world has a limited time until its end. There are 7.753 billion people who are trying to survive every day out there. Climate change is real and our world continues to warm. If we don’t do something about climate change, we will never live in the same world that we used to live in. Our lives might change completely. We are responsible for all the actions that we have done to the world and nature. So it is time to correct our mistakes and take the action!
“Nuclear energy, in terms of an overall safety record, is better than other energy.”
Bill Gates
We all know that wind and solar are not enough to stop climate change. We need a combination of nuclear, solar, and wind because nuclear energy has zero carbon emissions. That’s what we need! Do your research, ask what you want to ask at the end of the day you will see that nuclear is the only answer. Now we have an even better option which is Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology. It is safe, reachable but needs committed research and development programs worldwide. We need to convince the world that now nuclear power is safer than ever.
Students have the power of changing minds, creating new ideas, and supporting each other. At this point we are going to do all the things that we can do since still we have time. We are going to interview nuclear engineers, nuclear energy experts, and people who are interested in nuclear power to learn how we can reach a net-zero carbon economy with nuclear power. Also, we are going to learn how Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology can be accepted by regulators and what can we do about Thorium-based fuel. We are going to publish blogs about every interview. We interview people as much as we can. This way we will create a new era about Molten Salt Fission Energy Technology and Thorium fuel. It is a long journey but hopefully, at the end of it, we will have smiles on our faces with champagnes in our hands.
Our first interview is with Professor Akira Tokuhiro of Canada. He recently stepped down as the Dean of the Faculty of Energy Systems and Nuclear Science at Ontario Tech University in Canada. Also, he was in the American Nuclear Society’s President’s Committee on the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant accident in Japan. As international nuclear energy expert readers of this interview will gain a rare insight few will experience in their lifetime.
Prof. Akira Tokuhiro
Our interview with Professor Tokuhiro will be one of many coming over the next several months as we bring you key insights on an industry rarely discussed outside.
Thorium Network Student Guild continues to inspire people all around the world. Come and join our team! You can find the Student Guild member application on this page:
Post created by Jeremiah Josey and the team at The Thorium Network
A Little Nuclear History
In the sixties, the United States built a new, super-safe, highly efficient Molten Salt Reactor (MSR). Fuelled by uranium dissolved in a very hot, liquid salt, the MSR had performance and safety advantages over water-cooled, uranium-powered, solid-fuel Light Water Reactors (LWRs) – also called “conventional” reactors.
LWRs are cooled with normal (light) water, a term used to distinguish them from reactors cooled with “heavy” water – deuterium. LWR pellets contain 3.5 – 5% U-235, with the remainder being “inactive” U-238 for dilution, but deuterium cooled reactors can utilize un-enriched U-238. (Most nuclear reactors in use today are LWRs).
Alvin Weinberg, the Director of Oak Ridge National Laboratories, proved the superiority of MSRs in hundreds of tests during 22,000 hours of operation, but due to the success of conventional reactors in Admiral Hyman Rickover’s submarines, water-cooled reactors became the choice for commercial power production. Weinberg, who protested that MSRs were safer and more efficient, was fired, and the MSR program was terminated, partly for political reasons [See more about Dr Weinberg’s firing here].
“I hope that after I’m gone, people will look at all the dusty books ever written on Molten Salt and say hey, these guys had a pretty good idea, lets go back to it.”
There was a second reason: The Cold War was heating up, and the uranium-plutonium fuel cycle of LWRs could be adapted for making bombs. However, making a weapon with MSR technology is more difficult and dangerous.
The Atomic Energy Commission also knew that MSRs could generate abundant, low cost, 24/7 electricity while breeding their own fuel from U-238 or Thorium – and that Thorium would create less waste than conventional reactors.
If we had switched to MSRs in the 1960’s instead of burning carbon, we would have eliminated much of the CO2 that created Climate Change and reduced the toxic emissions that have caused medical expenses in the billions of dollars.
From the April, 2013 Scientific American: “Dr. James Hansen, former head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has said that just our partial reliance on carbon-free nuclear power since 1971 has saved 1.8 million lives that would have been lost due to fossil fuel pollution. By contrast, we assess that large-scale expansion of natural gas use would not mitigate the climate change problem and would cause more deaths than expansion of nuclear power.”
Dr. James Hansen
US Health Burden
Carbon-fuelled power plants cause at least 30,000 premature U. S. deaths/year.
Because we rejected MSRs, almost all of the electricity we have generated with nuclear power has been produced by high pressure, water-cooled LWRs, which require a containment dome. MSRs do not.
Unfortunately, according to Michael Mayfield, head of the Office of Advanced Reactors at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the NRC is “unfamiliar with most, new small reactor technology, [including MSRs] and has no proven process to certify one.” (2010)
In 2013, the U. S. Energy Information Administration predicted that world energy use will increase 56% by 2040. Most of that increase will come from burning carbon-based fuels, which will add even more CO2 to our already damaged biosphere.
We must replace CO2-creating power plants with GREEN nuclear power plants!
When Radiation Is Safe and When It Isn’t
The largest obstacle to expanding nuclear power is the fear caused by misinformation about radiation safety, so let’s begin with a question intended for seniors like me: “Do you still have your toes?”
This foolish sounding question refers to a machine that, during the [19]thirties and [19]forties, stood near the entrance of every up-to-date shoe store in America. Called the ADRIAN shoe fitting machine, it was ballyhooed as the perfect way to see if one’s shoes fit properly.
Attractive ads with photos of the marvellous machine proclaimed, “Now, at last, you can be certain that your children’s foot health is not being jeopardised by improperly fitting shoes. If your children need new shoes, don’t buy their shoes blindly. Come in and try our new ADRIAN Fluoroscopic Shoe Fitting machine. Use the new, scientific method of shoe fitting that careful parents prefer.”
The customers, usually children, inserted their feet into an opening while their parents watched the image in two viewing ports. Unattended children would often repeatedly switch sides to watch their siblings’ toes wiggle. It was fun, and no-one gave a thought to X-ray exposure.
Despite these fairly high exposures to children who frequently hopped onto the machine just for fun, no malignancies or other damage to the feet of foot-radiating junkies like me were ever reported.
Now, as I travel the country with my presentations on nuclear power, “renewables” and radiation safety, I always ask the seniors in my audiences, all of whom instantly recognize the machine, if they still have their toes.
During 2016, I queried some 1,000 seniors, but I never found any evidence of damage. However, my tale of the shoe-fitting machine always brought laughter and an opportunity to talk about the Merchants of Fear whose hype created a new 20th century word: radiophobia.
All natural substances contain radioactive material. In fact, beer contains thirteen times as much radioactivity as the cooling water discharged from a nuclear plant – Modern Marvels
“We’ve accepted for decades that millions of people are allowed to be killed by combustion pollution and mass produced weapons. We’ve accepted for at least 100 years that the planet’s climate and oceans can be allowed to be changed for the worse because of our love of combustion. We even accept poverty and all its ill effects, simply due to our general inaction. But the safest form of energy production, nuclear power, is foolishly married to fear of nuclear weapons.” – Dr. Alex Cannara
Radiation from nuclear power is just a tiny part of the “industrial” sliver.
We are bathed in radiation for our entire lives – 2/3 from cosmic radiation and elements like radon, and the rest from elements within us plus from consumer products like smoke detectors and medical use. We all have some 4,400 beta/gamma decays per second throughout our bodies for life, largely from Potassium-40 in foods like bananas and potato chips. (Living beside a nuclear power plant for a year is less “dangerous” than eating bananas and potato chips.)
Living beside a nuclear power plant for a year is less “dangerous” than eating bananas and potato chips.
Because radioactive elements are constantly decaying, our ancestral life forms evolved during times when radiation levels were far higher than they are today. As a consequence, they evolved some very effective ways to repair the damage to the DNA in our cells caused by radiation and oxidation, which is why we are told to favor anti-oxidants like grapes and greens. (DNA is “short” for deoxyribonucleic acid, a complex, spiral, chain-like molecule that contains our genetic codes.) If you irradiate E. coli bacteria for many generations, the bacteria evolve amazing radiation resistance, surviving huge doses of radiation, and some fungi even thrive on radiation.
“Fear and paranoia are the two most common forms of radiation sickness.” Mike Conley, Road Map to Nowhere
However, even the highest natural background radiation rate is insignificant compared to the damage caused by our internal chemistry. DNA bond breaks caused by oxidation and toxins occur more frequently than breaks caused by background radiation. Our bodies are actively repairing DNA damage every second of our lives.
DNA Structure
If people understood that “…we have billions of cells that die every day and must be replaced, they will be better able to accept the fact that our bodies have efficient repair mechanisms that can handle low level radiation”. Science Magazine, March, 2015. (Adults have about 37 trillion cells.)
“Each cell contains a coiled mass of DNA that carries the thousands of genetic instructions that we need to run our bodies. These strands of DNA undergo thousands of spontaneous changes every day, and DNA copying for cell division and multiplication, which happens in the body millions of times daily, also introduces defects.
DNA can be damaged by ultraviolet light from the sun, industrial pollutants and natural toxins like cigarette smoke. What fights pandemonium are our DNA repair mechanisms.
“In the 70s, Dr. Lindahl defied orthodoxy about DNA stability by discovering a molecular system that counteracts DNA collapse, and Dr. Sancar mapped out how cells repair DNA damage from UV light.
“People born with defects in this system, when exposed to sunlight, develop skin cancer, and Dr. Modrich showed how our cellular machinery repairs errors that arise during DNA replication, thereby reducing the frequency of error by about 1,000.”
