George Monbiot bites Thorium bait

Let’s get logical and rational about Thorium reactors, and look at a few timescales. To me, all of the following are necessary steps.

1: design a new commercial-scale Thorium reactor

2: jump through regulatory approval hoops

3: build prototype

4: run prototype for one full lifecycle

5: decommission

6: inspect carefully in order to detect any design problems which need fixing before the next iteration

7: Incorporate experience into new design

8: jump through regulatory hoops

9: build first production reactor

If you assign reasonable timescales to each of those steps, you’ll quickly conclude that Thorium will have negligible impact this century.

Of course, the pressure to cut corners will be huge, hence the full-lifescycle test period of 40-60 years will be foolishly condensed down to a few years.

Even so, the Chinese are talking about 20 years to get first prototype up and running and another 20 years before production reactors are ready. We could do so much in the next 40 years if we weren’t diverting our energies down this path.

Well, well, well, what a great story. Hope you enjoyed it really as discribed. When I have been travelling, there were something always going against my plans. Right now visiting Portugal and lately will make a great post on my blog, well my friends sent me to Lisbon and even paid to see the my report, lol=)

Thorium is well-funded propaganda? Where is this funding? I’m a big thorium enthusiast and I haven’t seen a cent!

On the other hand, thorium is a threat to the nuclear establishment, who does have some funding… and the coal industry, which is subsidized, funded and widely deployed.

Jo, be careful what you wish for. You might just get the energy poor worlds you desire. Covered in weak, intermittent generators like solar and wind, backed up by inefficient gas turbines and buffered by lead-acid batteries, driving a weaker and weaker economy as the price of gas skyrockets and the cost of electricity increases along with the expense of producing it.

Phil: If we needed a 40-60 year timeframe to implement a new nuclear reactor design, we would just now be rolling out the very first production reactors, we’d be emitting an extra 2 gigatons CO2 per year, and an extra million people would have died from coal emissions in the U.S. alone.

20 years for a molten salt reactor? Maybe but not necessarily so. Keep in mind they designed and built the first nuclear submarine in 4 years. In the 1940’s. To build a prototype would not need to be a 1000 megawatt size. That is the beauty of the LFTR concept. It does not have to be capital intensive. You can use the salt coolant in other types of power such as solar or even coal.

Sign this Downing Street e-petition for the UK manufacture of LFTRs and save £50 billion of our hard earned taxes.

No mention of liquid fueled reactors by NNL, so its intellectually dishonest to bring it up when everyone is speaking about LFTRs (such intellectual dishonesty is typical of anti-nuke fanatics crowd).

Prof. Howarth did not “pour cold water” on LFTR, seems like we are not reading the same letter. He said it will require significant work to develop it (as with any ractor, but compared to potential benefits – essentially what fusion wanted to be – its still negligible), and that they dont deal with LFTRs currently because the government does not demand it.

And just to head off the obvious reply…

why is it that governments are not demanding LFTR’s? Why is it, as Prof. Howarth spelt out that the MSR receive only one observer and no signatories in the 2009 Gen IV report? All the other major Gen IV reactors recieved signatories (and ultimately substantial funding from both industry and governments). Is it perhaps because these nuclear experts know something that the LFTR fans (who by and large are not nuclear energy experts) don’t know.

Also, a colleague of mine who is pro-nuclear (I’m trying to persuade him otherwise!) pointed out to me that the NNL does (briefly! and not by name) mention MSR’s when they discuss the benefits of a Thorium reactor with a complete breeding cycle…then point out its decades away at least!

The position of LFTR fans is that Nuclear Engineers don’t understand the LFTR or Thorium cycle and if they could just be introduced to it, they’d all decide it was a great idea. From what I’m told by the old timers in the industry it’s the other way around – they know exactly what A LFTR entails, or a Thorium cycle and that’s precisely why they recommend sticking with Uranium for the time being!

They see the long term value of doing research in these areas, but would prefer, as far as Thorium is concerned, to focus on existing HTGR technology as this is proven technology, which is much closer to commerical deployment. While I’d question whether any Thorium reactor is ever going to be “commerically” operated, I’d certainly agree that the HTGR (or VHTR) is the best shot they have at it.

Gordon,

I’ve heard of this Kevin Meyerson guy but I think you’re developing a serious case of paranoia…then again standard symptoms of any religion/cult include:

– Paranoia (tick)
– Distrust of official sources of information (tick)
– Extreme hostility to critics…or heretics to give them their proper term (tick)
– Lengthy and time consuming indoctrinating proceedure (making people buy and read a load of books on Dianetics, watch 2hr you-tube video’s on LFTR’s…tick!)
– Promise of a massive pay-off at some easily defered future date (tick)
– Hero worship of key figures within the movement (Kirk or Wienberg), elevation of those who are dead to the level of martyr’s for “the cause” (tick)

As for George Monbiot, he has gone off the reservation a bit. Personally, I think he’s just misguided, and misinformed rather than anything else. Then again, he is a journalist, not an engineer. If he knew a little bit about engineering (or nuclear physics!) perhaps he won’t be so keen on LFTR’s, as those whom I know who are nuclear engineers are if anything more hostile to the idea that me!

@Gordon McDowell

> “…so George Monbiot is astoturfing?”

The post does not say that. It says thorium is “quite probably the most well-funded piece of astroturfing propaganda in existence” and George Monbiot fell for it, although he has since gone quiet on his thorium dream.

I tend to believe Monbiot is well-intentioned, but he has become completely irrational on the nuclear and energy issue, and is clearly listening to the wrong people. People like techno-fantasist, Mark Lynas who believes the solution to all the world’s problems is more ‘futuristic’ technology that allows more consumption for (he imagines) less money – nukes and GMO agricutlure in particular.

I think Monbiot has committed himself so strongly to his nuclear cheerleading that he cannot now admit he got it badly wrong, despite the mountain of evidence – especially cost – that proves him wrong.