Great stuff Julian.

Why indeed are we not doing everything possible to explore this technology?

Knowing you as I do as a most balanced writer, who would have presented the reasons if there were any. You haven’t given us any reasons, just hypotheses. So the mind truly boggles as to why thorium has apparently slipped under the radar.

Sounds too good to be true. So what is the catch?

I am most interested to see what other respondents come up with by way of countenancing this very promising-sounding technology.

It is a pity we do not review energy objectively with some clear statisticall comparisons of the differenet energy forms

I am concerned at the cost and environmental polution caused be many of the so called alternative forms of energy eg wind farms. These subsidised tokens are unable to produce the amount of energy the world requires.

We need to be realistic and start revewing those forms of energy source that are able to produce the quantitiy of energy required.

This is a serious issue and deserves some more serious figures to consider.

Well done Rob

Quite an interesting read- an abundant inexpensive and less volatile nuclear power source would indeed be a promising source if what you say is true- next would be a read on the properties of thorium to double check this.

Having said that, it would still not be as safe as PV- to which the radioactive source of energy is millions of miles away and is an exposure risk regardless of whether we use it or not.

Thorium is not actually a “fuel” because it is not fissile and therefore cannot be used to start or sustain a nuclear chain reaction. A fissile material, such as uranium 235 (U235) or plutonium 239 (which is made in reactors from uranium 238), is required to kick start the reaction. The enriched uranium fuel or plutonium fuel also maintains the chain reaction until enough of the thorium target material has been converted into fissile uranium 233 (U233) to take over much or most of the job. An advantage of thorium is that it absorbs slow neutrons relatively efficiently (compared to uranium 238) to produce fissile uranium 233.

Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight and long term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uraniumonly fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long lived fission products like technetium 99 (half life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository. Thorium may be abundant and possess certain technical advantages, but it does not mean that it is economical. Compared to uranium, thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once‐through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly.

Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings.

Given that the complexity and relative expense of the thorium reactors, and the hysterical nature of the anti nuclear movement, the fact that the reactors were intrinsically safe would be unlikely to attract any less protest or obstruction.

However, given that there is tremendous research being done by China and India (who has the largest deposits) and whom is building a huge nuclear fleet of power stations intends to have about 30% of these powered by thorium by 2050.

Australia, however, will thanks to the greens, still be burning coal.

more research has been done into nuclear energy than into any other form of energy. more money has been expended on the development of the nuclear industry than on any other energy-producing industry. more havoc has been wrought by the nuclear industry than any other energy-source industry. if as much research and funding for research, and for development, had been put into (say) solar energy, solar energy would be the most efficient, cleanest and well-used form of energy world-over. the nuclear industry attracted all the research and monies for r&d because of its pre-eminent war-giving capacity, its 'tech-fix' profile, and its being at the top of the agenda of the defence industry (viz warmongers). when did you last read about a solar-energy installation meltdown? a windfarm meltdown? nuclear power is even more harmful in its 'domestic' uses and has been the cause of more deaths, lingering illnesses and ravages than any other form of energy, including the coal-industry - which in its time has been bad enough. nobody talks about 'safe' nuclear power because it isn't.

jocelynne, we do experience from time to time, really ill informed and outrageously false statements on various topics. Yours gets this weeks “biscuit award”

I will just draw you into a little reality first, to save you much embarrassment later on should you chose to pop your head over the top of the bunker again.

In the period 2007 to 2008 recorded (magistrate inquests) into fatalities in the wind farm industry? 954.

Before you come up with something this crass again, perhaps your Royal Laziness might care to do a Google or two to avoid looking so darn silly?

That should read the period 1997 to 2008. Apoligies for the typo.

jocelynne,

Considering the low level of investment from the 1970s and 80s, in nuclear and the billions spent on renewables, co gen etc, I find this difficult to swallow. Do you have any source for this or did you make it up?

Please don't confuse this with the nuclear weapons industry, as other than the refining of uranium, and the extraction of plutonium (1960s tech) they are very different.

Per unit of energy generated the nuclear industry has the lowest level of fatalities of any generation including solar and wind.

jocelynne

Dont worry about them..LOL..Its similar to watching a cave-man with a fire-cracker:)

Japan etc, will only be the first of many future disasters, that will come due to an unstable world that's going through change, by partly man-made effects and natural unrest of a planet which we KNOW! is on the move, and playing with unclear power-plants that this point, just shows how NOT smart they really are.

LEAP

Julian Cribb is recommending R&D funding for research into the commercialisation of safe thorium nuclear reactors. This I have also recommended to the Senate Carbon Tax Inquiry because of safety concerns that Australia joins the US, Russia and Japan in the 200MW thorium reactor trial. And to work with China to build one. and put to productive use the 485,000 tonnes of Australian thorium. The current policy of opposing the building of uranium nuclear reactors in Australia should continue.

Without these thorium reactors to bolster the development of renewable energy, the preservation of a democratic and frugal but healthy way of life will be impossible. I follow the advice of the Potsdam Institute provided to the German government, which describes the maximum CO2 emissions allowable if we are to have a 67% chance of avoiding a 2 degree temperature rise. If those with the highest emissions (Australia, the US, EU,) are required to reduce their emissions very low within 20 years and then low emissions by China, India, Indonesia etc or nobody survives.

Ludwig, the proportion of non--partisan information compared to fluff is miniscule.

With no axe to grind, Geoscience Australia presents some reality in regard to the reactor issue via the prospects for Thorium production; and its source-mineral Monazite in Australia and the world. It gives some detail in relation to the chain of procedure for Thorium in nuclear reactor use - a bit more detailed than given by Geoff of Perth, who is on the money with his post: Thorium devolves to uranium in the process - though safer (or less bad) than uranium alone.

Interesting again is the European Halden Reactor Project in Norway, continuing its fundamental purpose since 1958. The latest item in its agenda is the Human-Machine Project, investigating ways to improve the interaction between those tending it, and very complex machinery in order to minimize inevitable mishaps.

Interesting again, is the forward-thinking Norwegian Government’s attitude to nuclear power for when their oil reserves are depleted and hydro-power alone cannot provide energy needs. Norway has large reserves of Thorium, but they have no intention to rush into Thorium reactors; are very cautious about them.

Nuclear power has had subsidies since 1945, for both good and bad reasons; mostly bad. Further subsidies, when no commercial organization is prepared to go it alone for the profit motive, and when the insurance industry will not touch it, would seem to me to be a nonsense.

Hi Ludwig. Comments made by the IEA (Tanaka) that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is the responsible body for assessing the long term availability of future uranium supplies is perhaps an unreal expectation. The IAEA is currently starved of funds and is in no position to take on that responsibility. Ernesto Zedillo chaired the international commission that was asked to look into the future of the IAEA which has been responsible for maintaining the global nuclear order for fifty years, but is now is struggling to do its job because of a chronic lack of resources. He said that :-

“My colleagues and I were impressed by the agency’s technical competence, whether in
assessing Iran’s nuclear program or helping to fight hunger by using nuclear techniques to
breed more resilient varieties of rice. But we were frankly shocked to learn that the IAEA,
one of the most respected international organisations, has been operating virtually on a
shoestring for nearly two decades. The cost to the world of a single act of nuclear terror is more than serious accident in a nuclear power plant would be incalculable. In contrast, the cost of strengthening the IAEA to help prevent such catastrophes is modest. The resource situation of the IAEA is now critical. Years of zero growth policies have left the organisation with a failing infrastructure. Vital elements of its work - for example nuclear safety and security - are funded largely on an unpredictable and unstable voluntary basis.” (Zedillo 2008)

Ensuring safety in the use of nuclear energy and the security of nuclear and other radioactive materials is important. Unless the IAEA is given adequate human and financial resources it will be unable to properly fulfil this crucial role. The Australian government, before investing in nuclear infrastructure, needs to satisfy itself that the US, the EU and China ensure that the IAEA gets the A$135 million it needs to do what it can do well. (Zedillo 2008).
The IAEA needs to be a partner in the multinational R&D program for the design and testing of thorium nuclear reactors.

colinset: I think you have it about right.
Thorium is technically interesting...but the devil is in the details. As Geoff says, it may not be as simple, safe and cheap in a real-world setting.
The decision to invest in nuclear power has so far been based on more strategic and military usage than for "cheap, safe energy". There has certainly not been any shortage of subsidisation of the nuclear industry!
I'm hoping that either Pebble Bed reactors or Thorium, or even Fusion do result in cheap, safe nuclear power...but in the meantime renewables do have a part to play. Yes they are subsidised...just like all national infrastructure, including fossil fuels. (tax concessions) The real battle is centralised vs distributed power. Industry just *hates* the idea of not being subsidised by household consumers!

This sounds very interesting. What I have against nuclear is that
it requires 200,000,000 liters a day to keep the reactor cool. In Australia the only way we can supply this is via the sea? Not use underground aquifers as we would run out very quickly, and they can't be replenished by rain water.

How much water would these reactors need to keep them call, if any at all?