Transcript Thorium and the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor Concept World Energy Consumption is Rapidly Escalating Future Energy Consumption Has Been Significantly Underestimated  In 2007,

Thorium and the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Concept
World Energy Consumption is Rapidly Escalating
Future Energy Consumption Has Been Significantly Underestimated
 In 2007, the world consumed*:
5.3 billion tonnes of coal
(128 quads**)
Contained 16,000 MT of thorium!
31.1 billion barrels of oil
(180 quads)
2.92 trillion m3 of natural gas
(105 quads)
Dominated by Hydrocarbons
65 million kg of uranium ore
(25 quads)
Total Energy Demand
Projections (quads)***
Year
US
World
2010
108
510
2020
121
613
2030
134
722
29 quads of hydroelectricity
In a global warming environment, where will the world turn for safe, abundant, low-cost energy?
*Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008
***Source: Energy Information Administration Outlook 2006
**1 quad = 1 quadrillion BTU = 172 million barrels (Mbbl) of crude oil
The Binding Energy of Matter
Nucleons (protons and
neutrons) have binding
energies of millions of eV’s.
Electrons have
binding energies
of eV’s.
Thorium,
uranium, and all the
other
heavy
elements were
Supernova—Birth
of the
Heavy
Elements
formed in the final moments of a supernova explosion
billions of years ago.
Our solar system: the Sun, planets, Earth, Moon, and
asteroids formed from the remnants of this material.
Fissile fuel has extraordinary energy density!
23 million kilowatt-hours per kilogram!
Energy Generation Comparison
230 train cars (25,000 MT) of bituminous coal or,
600 train cars (66,000 MT) of brown coal,
(Source: World Coal Institute)
=
or, 440 million cubic feet of natural gas (15% of a
125,000 cubic meter LNG tanker),
6 kg of fissile material in a liquid-fluoride
reactor has the energy equivalent (66,000
MW*hr electrical*) of:
*Each ounce of thorium can therefore produce
$14,000-24,000 of electricity (at $0.04-0.07/kW*hr)
or, 300 kg of enriched (3%) uranium in a
pressurized water reactor.
Nature gave us three options for fissile fuel
The fission of U-235
was discovered by
Otto Hahn and Lise
Meitner in 1938.
Uranium-235
(0.7% of all U)
Pu-239 as a fissile
fuel was discovered
by Glenn Seaborg in
March 1941.
Uranium-238
(99.3% of all U)
Thorium-232
(100% of all Th)
Plutonium-239
Uranium-233
U-233 as a fissile
fuel was discovered
by Seaborg’s student
John Gofman in
February 1942.
Could weapons be made from the fissile material?
Uranium-235
(“highly enriched
uranium”)
Natural
uranium
Isotope separation
plant (Y-12)
Hiroshima, 8/6/1945
Depleted
uranium
Isotope Production
Reactor (Hanford)
Thorium?
Isotope
Production
Reactor
Pu separation from
exposed U (PUREX)
uranium
separation
from exposed
thorium
Trinity, 7/16/1945
Nagasaki, 8/9/1945
PROBLEM: U-233 is contaminated
with U-232, whose decay chain
emits HARD gamma rays that make
fabrication, utilization and
deployment of weapons VERY
difficult and impractical relative to
other options. Thorium was not
pursued.
U-232 decays into Tl-208, a HARD gamma emitter
Thallium-208 emits “hard” 2.6 MeV
gamma-rays as part of its nuclear decay.
These gamma rays destroy the electonics
and explosives that control detonation.
14 billion years
to make this
jump
232U
Some 232U
starts decaying
immediately
They require thick lead shielding and
have a distinctive and easily detectable
signature.
Uranium-232 follows the same decay
chain as thorium-232, but it follows it
millions of times faster!
This is because 232Th has a 14 billionyear half-life, but 232U has only an 74
year half-life!
Once it starts down “the hill” it gets to
thallium-208 (the gamma emitter) in just
a few weeks!
U-232 Formation in the Thorium Fuel Cycle
1944: A tale of two isotopes…
 Enrico Fermi argued for a program of fastbreeder reactors using uranium-238 as
the fertile material and plutonium-239 as
the fissile material.
 His argument was based on the breeding
ratio of Pu-239 at fast neutron energies.
 Argonne National Lab followed Fermi’s
path and built the EBR-1 and EBR-2.
 Eugene Wigner argued for a thermalbreeder program using thorium as the
fertile material and U-233 as the fissile
material.
 Although large breeding gains were not
possible, THERMAL breeding was
possible, with enhanced safety.
 Wigner’s protégé, Alvin Weinberg,
followed Wigner’s path at the Oak Ridge
National Lab.
Can Nuclear Reactions be Sustained in Natural
Uranium?
Reality
Thermal
Spectrum
Moderated Spectrum
Fast
Spectrum
Pu-240
Production
• Goal of fast
breeder reactors
• Most of Pu
burned
• Fast reactors
keep neutrons
here, but at a high
price:
– Safety
– More fuel (5x)
Produces longlived Actinides
– Yucca Mtn
Greater
propensity
to absorb
neutrons
Start
Not with thermal neutrons—need more than 2 neutrons to sustain reaction
(one for conversion, one for fission)—not enough neutrons produced at
thermal energies. Must use fast neutron reactors.
Fission/Absorption Cross Sections
Neutrons are moderated through collisions
Neutron born at high
energy (1-2 MeV).
Neutron moderated to
thermal energy (<<1 eV).
Radiation Damage Limits Energy Release
 Does a typical nuclear reactor
extract that much energy from its
nuclear fuel?
 No, the “burnup” of the fuel is
limited by damage to the fuel itself.
 Typically, the reactor will only be
able to extract a portion of the
energy from the fuel before
radiation damage to the fuel itself
becomes too extreme.
 Radiation damage is caused by:
 Noble gas (krypton, xenon) buildup
 Disturbance to the fuel lattice
caused by fission fragments and
neutron flux
 As the fuel swells and distorts, it
can cause the cladding around
the fuel to rupture and release
fission products into the coolant.
Lifetime of a Typical Uranium Fuel Element
 Conventional fuel elements are fabricated from uranium pellets and formed into
fuel assemblies
 They are then irradiated in a nuclear reactor, where most of the U-235 content of
the fuel “burns” out and releases energy.
 Finally, they are placed in a spent fuel cooling pond where decay heat from
radioactive fission products is removed by circulating water.
Typical Pressurized-Water Reactor Containment
 This structure is steel-lined
reinforced concrete, designed to
withstand the overpressure expected
if all the primary coolant were
released in an accident.
 Sprays and cooling systems (such
as the ice condenser) are available
for washing released radioactivity
out of the containment atmosphere
and for cooling the internal
atmosphere, thereby keeping the
pressure below the containment
design pressure.
 The basic purpose of the
containment system, including its
spray and cooling functions, is to
minimize the amount of released
radioactivity that escapes to the
external environment.
Radiotoxicity of fission products over time
Ingestion toxicity of the fission
products from a uranium-fueled LWR.
Inhalation toxicity of the fission
products from a uranium-fueled LWR.
Can Nuclear Reactions be Sustained in Natural
Thorium?
Thermal Spectrum
Moderated Spectrum
Fast
Spectrum
U-234
No Advantage
for Thorium
U-232 contaminates
U-233 and cannot be
removed
– Prevents U-233
being used as
weapon
Start
Yes! Enough neutrons to sustain reaction produced at thermal fission.
Does not need fast neutron reactors—needs neutronic efficiency.
Thorium-Uranium Breeding Cycle
Thorium-233 decays
quickly (half-life of 22.3
min) to protactinium233 by emitting a beta
particle (an electron).
Pa-233
Th-233
Protactinium-233 decays more slowly
(half-life of 27 days) to uranium-233 by
emitting a beta particle (an electron).
It is important that Pa-233 NOT
absorb a neutron before it
decays to U-233—it should be
isolated from any neutrons until it
decays.
U-233
Thorium-232 absorbs a
neutron from fission and
becomes thorium-233.
Th-232
Uranium-233 is fissile and will
fission when struck by a
neutron, releasing energy and
2 to 3 neutrons. One neutron
is needed to sustain the chainreaction, one neutron is
needed for breeding, and any
remainder can be used to
breed additional fuel.
1944: A tale of two isotopes…
“But Eugene, how will you reprocess the thorium
fuel effectively?”
“We’ll build a fluid-fueled reactor, that’s how…”
ORNL Fluid-Fueled Thorium Reactor Progress (1947-1960)
1947 – Eugene Wigner
proposes a fluid-fueled
thorium reactor
1950 – Alvin
Weinberg becomes
ORNL director
1952 – Homogeneous Reactor
Experiment (HRE-1) built and operated
successfully (100 kWe, 550K)
1959 – AEC convenes “Fluid
Fuels Task Force” to choose
between aqueous homogeneous
reactor, liquid fluoride, and liquidmetal-fueled reactor. Fluoride
reactor is chosen and AHR is
cancelled.
1958 – Homogeneous Reactor
Experiment-2 proposed with 5 MW of
power
Weinberg attempts to keep both
aqueous and fluoride reactor
efforts going in parallel but
ultimately decides to pursue
fluoride reactor.
Aircraft Nuclear Program
Between 1946 and 1961, the USAF
sought to develop a long-range
bomber based on nuclear power.
The Aircraft Nuclear Program had
unique requirements, some very
similar to a space reactor.
 High temperature operation (>1500° F)
 Critical for turbojet efficiency
 3X higher than sub reactors
 Lightweight design
 Compact core for minimal shielding
 Low-pressure operation
 Ease of operability
 Inherent safety and control
 Easily removeable
Ionically-bonded fluids are impervious to radiation
 The basic problem in nuclear fuel
is that it is covalently bonded and
in a solid form.
 If the fuel were a fluid salt, its ionic
bonds would be impervious to
radiation damage and the fluid
form would allow easy extraction
of fission product gases, thus
permitting unlimited burnup.
The Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE)
In order to test the liquid-fluoride
reactor concept, a solid-core, sodiumcooled reactor was hastily converted into
a proof-of-concept liquid-fluoride reactor.
The Aircraft Reactor Experiment ran for
100 hours at the highest temperatures
ever achieved by a nuclear reactor
(1150 K).
 Operated from 11/03/54 to 11/12/54
 Liquid-fluoride salt circulated through
beryllium reflector in Inconel tubes
 235UF4 dissolved in NaF-ZrF4
 Produced 2.5 MW of thermal power
 Gaseous fission products were removed
naturally through pumping action
 Very stable operation due to high negative
reactivity coefficient
 Demonstrated load-following operation
without control rods
Aircraft Nuclear Program allowed ORNL to develop reactors
It wasn’t that I had suddenly become
converted to a belief in nuclear airplanes.
It was rather that this was the only avenue
open to ORNL for continuing in reactor
development.
That the purpose was unattainable, if not
foolish, was not so important:
A high-temperature reactor could be
useful for other purposes even if it never
propelled an airplane…
—Alvin Weinberg
ORNL Aircraft Nuclear Reactor Progress (1949-1960)
1949 – Nuclear Aircraft
Concept formulated
1954 – Aircraft Reactor
Experiment (ARE) built and
operated successfully
(2500 kWt, 1150K)
1951 – R.C. Briant
proposed LiquidFluoride Reactor
1952, 1953 – Early designs for
aircraft fluoride reactor
1955 – 60 MWt Aircraft Reactor Test
(ART, “Fireball”) proposed for aircraft
reactor
1960 – Nuclear Aircraft
Program cancelled in
favor of ICBMs
Fluid-Fueled Reactors for Thorium Energy
Aqueous Homogenous
Reactor (ORNL)
 Uranyl sulfate dissolved in
pressurized heavy water.
 Thorium oxide in a slurry.
 Two built and operated.
Liquid-Fluoride Reactor
(ORNL)
Liquid-Metal Fuel
Reactor (BNL)
 Uranium tetrafluoride dissolved in lithium
fluoride/beryllium fluoride.
 Thorium dissolved as a tetrafluoride.
 Two built and operated.
 Uranium metal dissolved in
bismuth metal.
 Thorium oxide in a slurry.
 Conceptual—none built and
operated.
Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (1965-1969)
LFTR is totally passively safe in case of accident
 The reactor is equipped
with a “freeze plug”—an
open line where a frozen
plug of salt is blocking the
flow.
 The plug is kept frozen by
an external cooling fan.
Freeze Plug
 In the event of TOTAL loss of
power, the freeze plug melts
and the core salt drains into a
passively cooled configuration
where nuclear fission is
impossible.
Drain Tank
A “Modern” Fluoride Reactor
LFTR produces far less mining waste than LWR
( ~4000:1 ratio)
1 GW*yr of electricity from a uranium-fueled light-water reactor
Mining 800,000 MT of
ore containing 0.2%
uranium (260 MT U)
Generates ~600,000 MT of waste rock
Milling and processing to
yellowcake—natural U3O8
(248 MT U)
Generates 130,000 MT of mill tailings
Conversion to natural
UF6 (247 MT U)
Generates 170 MT of solid
waste and 1600 m3 of liquid
waste
1 GW*yr of electricity from a thorium-fueled liquid-fluoride reactor
Mining 200 MT of ore
containing 0.5%
thorium (1 MT Th)
Milling and processing to thorium nitrate ThNO3 (1 MT Th)
Generates 0.1 MT of mill tailings and 50 kg of aqueous wastes
Generates ~199 MT of waste rock
Uranium fuel cycle calculations done using WISE nuclear fuel material calculator: http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcm.html
LFTR produces less operational waste than LWR,
(mission: make 1000 MW of electricity for one year)
35 t of enriched uranium
(1.15 t U-235)
250 t of natural
uranium
containing 1.75 t
U-235
Uranium-235 content is
“burned” out of the fuel; some
plutonium is formed and
burned
35 t of spent fuel stored
on-site until disposal at
Yucca Mountain. It
contains:
• 33.4 t uranium-238
215 t of depleted uranium
containing 0.6 t U-235—
disposal plans uncertain.
• 0.3 t uranium-235
• 0.3 t plutonium
• 1.0 t fission products.
Within 10 years, 83% of
fission products are
stable and can be
partitioned and sold.
One tonne
of natural
thorium
Thorium introduced into
blanket of fluoride reactor;
completely converted to
uranium-233 and “burned”.
One tonne of
fission products; no
uranium, plutonium,
or other actinides.
The remaining 17%
fission products go to
geologic isolation for
~300 years.
Thorium Fuel Supply
 Thorium is abundant around the world and
rich in energy
 Estimated world reserve base of 1.4 million MT

US has about 20% of the world reserve base
 A single mine site in Idaho could produce
4500 MT of thorium/year
 US currently would use about 400 MT/year for
World Thorium Resources
Country
Australia
India
USA
Norway
Canada
South Africa
Brazil
Other countries
World total
Reserve Base (tons)
340,000
300,000
300,000
180,000
100,000
39,000
18,000
100,000
1,400,000
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity
Summaries, January 2008
electricity production
The United States has buried
3200 metric tons of thorium
nitrate in the Nevada desert.
A single mine site in Idaho could recover
4500 MT of thorium per year
ANWR times 6 in the Nevada desert
 Between 1957 and 1964, the Defense
National Stockpile Center procured 3215
metric tonnes of thorium from suppliers
in France and India.
 Recently, due to “lack of demand”, they
decided to bury this entire inventory at
the Nevada Test Site.
 This thorium is equivalent to 240 quads
of energy*, if completely consumed in a
liquid-fluoride reactor.
*This is based on an energy release of ~200 Mev/232 amu and
complete consumption. This energy can be converted to
electricity at ~50% efficiency using a multiple-reheat helium gas
turbine; or to hydrogen at ~50% efficiency using a thermochemical process such as the sulfur-iodine process.
Thorium Resources in the United States
3200 metric tonnes of thorium
nitrate buried at Nevada Test Site
Lemhi Pass, Idaho (best mining site in US)
Conway Shale, NH
3
16
14
1
15
13
17
18
11
4
5
6
10
9
8
7
Monazite beach
sands in Georgia
and Florida
LFTR could produce many valuable by-products
Thorium
Low-temp Waste Heat
LiquidFluoride
Thorium
Reactor
Separated
Fission
Products
Power
Conversion
Process Heat
Electrical Generation
(50% efficiency)
Desalination to
Potable Water
Facilities Heating
Electrical load
Electrolytic H2
Coal-Syn-Fuel Conversion
Thermo-chemical H2
Oil shale/tar sands extraction
Strontium-90 for radioisotope power
Cesium-137 for medical sterilization
Rhodium, Ruthenium as stable rare-earths
Technetium-99 as catalyst
Molybdenum-99 for medical diagnostics
Iodine-131 for cancer treatment
Xenon for ion engines
Crude oil “cracking”
Hydrogen fuel cell
Ammonia (NH3) Generation
Fertilizer for
Agriculture
Automotive Fuel Cell (very
simple)
These products may be as important as electricity production
The byproducts of conventional reactors are more limited
Uranium
Low-temp Waste Heat
Light-Water
Reactor
Power
Conversion
Electrical Generation
(35% efficiency)
Electrical load
Electrolytic H2
Crude oil “cracking”
Hydrogen fuel cell
Ammonia (NH3) Generation
Fertilizer for
Agriculture
Automotive Fuel Cell (very
simple)
LFTR can be environmentally friendly
 Does not produce “green house” gases
 Can be air-cooled
 Consequently does not vent heat into rivers and lakes
 Smaller cooling towers
 Little operations waste
Large Cooling Towers
 Option of retaining waste storage on site
 Operational waste products decay very rapidly
 Little mining waste
Nuclear Waste
 No large open pits, large waste “mountains”
Concern about waste disposal has hampered nuclear
industry growth – and energy supply
Open Pit Mine
Why wasn’t this done? No Plutonium Production!
Alvin Weinberg:
“Why didn't the molten-salt system, so elegant and so well
thought-out, prevail? I've already given the political
reason: that the plutonium fast breeder arrived first and
was therefore able to consolidate its political position
within the AEC. But there was another, more technical
reason. [Fluoride reactor] technology is entirely
different from the technology of any other reactor. To
the inexperienced, [fluoride] technology is daunting…
“Mac” MacPherson:
The political and technical support for the program in the
United States was too thin geographically…only at
ORNL was the technology really understood and
appreciated. The thorium-fueled fluoride reactor
program was in competition with the plutonium fast
breeder program, which got an early start and had
copious government development funds being spent in
many parts of the United States.
Alvin Weinberg:
“It was a successful technology that was dropped because
it was too different from the main lines of reactor
development… I hope that in a second nuclear era, the
[fluoride-reactor] technology will be resurrected.”
LFTR could cost much less than LWR
 No pressure vessel required
 Liquid fuel requires no expensive fuel fabrication and
qualification
 Smaller power conversion system
 No steam generators required
 Factory built-modular construction
 Scalable: 100 KW to multi GW
 Smaller containment building needed
 Steam vs. fluids
 Simpler operation




No operational control rods
No re-fueling shut down
Significantly lower maintenance
Significantly smaller staff
 Significantly lower capital costs
 Lower regulatory burden
The Current Plan is to Dispose Fuel in Yucca Mountain
Tunnels in Yucca Mountain
Projected Spent Fuel Accumulation
without Reprocessing
300x103
Spent Fuel, metric tons
EIA 1.5% Growth
MIT Study
200x103
6-Lab Strategy
Capacity based on
limited exploration
100x103
Legislated
capacity
Constant 100 GWe
Secretarial
recommendation
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
Year
2040
2050
DOE Plan (“GNEP”) for Spent Nuclear Fuel
Uranium-Plutonium Fuel Cycle
Uranium
Mining
Recycled
UF6
Uranium
Ore
Uranium Refining
Uranium
Milling
Uranium
Concentrates
Uranium
Purification
Uranyl
Nitrate
Natural
UO2 or
U-metal
Electricity
Converter
Fuel
Reprocessing
Converter
High-Level
Waste
Aged
Converter
Fuel
Irradiated
Fuel
Storage
Irradiated
Fuel
Converter
Reactor
Fuel
Assemblies
High-Level
Waste
Interim
Waste
Storage
PuO2-UO3
Stockpile
PuO2-UO3
Recycled Mixed PuO2-UO3
Breeder
High-Level
Waste
Breeder
Fuel
Reprocessing
Irradiated
Fuel
Storage
Recycled Depleted UO3
Irradiated
Fuel
Enriched
UF6
~3% U-235
Conversion
to UO2
Fast
Breeder
Reactor
Conversion
To (Pu,U)O2
Mixed
Oxides
(Pu,U)O2
~20% Pu
Electricity
Aged
Breeder
Fuel
Fuel
Fabrication
Enriched
UO2
Depleted UF6
~0.2%
Depleted
Uranium
U-235
UF6
Enrichment
Stockpile
Mixed
Oxides
(Pu,U)O2
~5% Pu
Recycled Mixed PuO2-UO3
Permanent
Waste
Storage
Natural
Uranium
Purification
Natural
UF6
Breeder
Fuel
Assemblies
Breeder
Fuel
Fabrication
Depleted
UO2
Conversion
to UO2
Depleted
UF6
How does a fluoride reactor use thorium?
Metallic thorium
Bismuth-metal
Reductive Extraction
Column
Pa-233
Decay Tank
238U
Fluoride
Volatility
233UF
6
7LiF-BeF2
Uranium
AbsorptionReduction
Pa
Recycle
Fertile Salt
Recycle Fuel Salt
7LiF-BeF
2-UF4
Hexafluoride
Distillation
“Bare”
Salt
Fission
Product
Waste
Core
Blanket
233,234UF
6
Vacuum
Distillation
Fertile
Salt
Two-Fluid
Reactor
xF6
Fluoride
Volatility
Fuel Salt
MoF6, TcF6, SeF6,
RuF5, TeF6, IF7,
Other F6
Molybdenum
and Iodine for
Medical Uses
Alternative LFTR/LCFR plan for spent nuclear fuel
UO2 + F2 -> UF4
Zr + F2 -> ZrF4
(TRU)O2 + F2 ->
PuF3,NpF4,AmF3, etc.
(FP)O2 + F2 -> (FP)F
Spent Nuclear Fuel from
Light-Water Reactors
Step 1: Fluorinate it!
Step 2: Use aluminum to
remove the TRU-fluorides
from the mix, leaving the
fission products
Remove uranium as UF6,
which is then either reenriched or buried.
Step 3: Chlorinate (with
37Cl) the metallic TRUs,
forming fuel for the chloride
reactor.
Step 4: BURN TRU-chlorides
in the fast-spectrum chloride
reactor, destroying them
(through fission) and forming
new U-233 for fluoride
reactors (LFTR).
Step 5: Dispose of FPfluorides in 300-yr disposal
sites (not Yucca Mtn) and use
U-233 from TRU destruction
to start LFTRs that produce
no further TRUs.
Cost advantages come from size and complexity reductions
 Cost
 Low capital cost thru small facility and compact power conversion
 Reactor operates at ambient pressure
 No expanding gases (steam) to drive large containment
 High-pressure helium gas turbine system
 Primary fuel (thorium) is inexpensive
 Simple fuel cycle processing, all done on site
Reduction in core
size, complexity,
fuel cost, and
turbomachinery
GE Advanced Boiling Water
Reactor (light-water reactor)
Fluoride-cooled
reactor with helium
gas turbine power
conversion system
Examples of Mobile Nuclear Reactors
Coastal Populations in US
Coastal Populations in Asia
“Gentlemen, our mission…”
Underwater Nuclear Powerplants?
Underwater Nuclear Powerplants?
Underwater Nuclear Powerplants?
Conclusions
 Thorium is abundant, has incredible energy density, and can be
utilized in thermal-spectrum reactors
 World thorium energy supplies will last for tens of thousands of years
 Solid-fueled reactors have been disadvantaged in using thorium
due to their inability to continuously reprocess
 Fluid-fueled reactors, such as the liquid-fluoride reactor, offer the
promise of complete consumption of thorium in energy
generation
 The world would be safer with thorium-fueled reactors
 Not an avenue for weapons production
 The US should adopt a new “business model” for nuclear power
for the country’s long term strategic needs
Learn more at:
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/
Executive Summary
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)
 A nuclear technology that was demonstrated successfully 40 years ago
 Highly energy efficient and able to completely utilize nuclear fuel
 Intrinsically safe due to the physics
 Meltdown-proof and self-controlling
 Runs at 1 atmosphere pressure
 Use of fluid allows the burning of all fuel, thus no need for control rods, periodic solid fuel
element replacement, etc.
 Produces orders of magnitude less waste than traditional light water reactors
(LWR)
 Thorium reactor produces 30-40 times less nuclear waste that a light water reactor
 Waste from LFTR need be stored for much less time than those from a LWR
 Current supply of nuclear waste can be burned down in the LFTR to waste products
that need to be stored for much less time
 No transuranic element production
 Yucca Mountain not a requirement for long term waste storage
 Can use air or water for cooling
 Critical for arid areas such as the Western United States
 Unsuitable for nuclear weapons
 Thorium fuel supply is abundant and produces less mining waste than uranium
 Thorium four times as common in the Earth’s crust as uranium
 Could provide the US electrical energy needs for hundreds to thousands of years
and provide base power needed for non-electrical energy and resource production
 Coal gasification, water desalinization, oil sands and oil shale processing, etc.