Can thorium end the energy crisis?

Question

Thorium

It seems that, as of lately thorium is steadily increasing in popularity, as an alternative to traditional nuclear fuels. Here's Mr. Kirk Sorensen in a TED video advocating the use of thorium. Thorium even has a nice, green website, among other resources expounding on how awesome it is.

The general picture projected by thorium advocates is that it is very much like a silver bullet for the energy crisis. This sounds wonderful, but also too good to be true. If it's as good as they say, how come thorium reactors are not common ? Surely it has disadvantages as well ?

I vaguely remember something about how the nuclear power we use today emerged largely as a product of nuclear weapons research, and since it is much more difficult to weaponize thorium, it was sort of "cast aside" (but I could be wrong) — Monkey Tuesday, Jun 21 '11 at 06:17
@Monkey Tuesday - I've encountered this opinion before, for example in the comments of [this](http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/next-generation/the-truth-about-thorium-and-nuclear-power?click=pp) article - and while it does seem to be true, we've been having enough nukes to obliterate most of the planet for quite some time; so one would assume thorium should have arrived on the scene by now. — Mihai Rotaru, Jun 21 '11 at 09:46
@Mihai it'll be interesting to see the impact thorium will have in the future of nuclear power, especially given things like the [backyard reactor, possible for 2013?](http://gizmodo.com/5054950/backyard-nuclear-reactor-should-be-ready-to-ship-by-2013) — Monkey Tuesday, Jun 21 '11 at 22:29
To be clear, the question here is "Does thorium really have no disadvantages?" Am I correct? If not, can you be more specific. I'm not exactly sure what your question is. — Borror0, Jun 22 '11 at 05:30
@Monkey Tuesday most definitely; as described in the article you linked, the backyard reactor is unlikely to succeed - esp. after Fukushima. A lot of people don't want reactors in their country, much less in their backyards. This idea reminds me of the [Russian floating reactors](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station), which according to a group of Russian scientists, cannot be guaranteed to be safe from terrorist attacks. This would probably apply to the backyard reactors as well. However, thorium eliminates these concerns, so it would be very interesting indeed. — Mihai Rotaru, Jun 22 '11 at 09:38
@Borror0 - yes, that is the main question. The question body does contain other secondary questions ( How come thorium reactors are not common ? ), but they would probably be answered by a discussion of thorium's disadvantages, if any. — Mihai Rotaru, Jun 22 '11 at 09:52
The German page of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300 lists a couple of problems experienced with a thorium reactor. Unfortunately the English page provides much less about the problems. — Peter G., Jun 28 '11 at 21:35
*"Can thorium end the energy crisis"* Even a Dyson Sphere won't end the "energy crisis", which is just shorthand for "People want more energy, more cheaply than we now get it. *"how come thorium reactors are not common"* Because they're expensive, untried, and no one wants to invest nearly a billion dollars in such a venture because the risk of failure is greater than with conventional nuclear technology. *"Surely it has disadvantages as well"* Yes, primarily its low energy output, and there's still the problem with waste. "Is it a silver bullet" type questions are not skeptical. — Adam Davis, Jul 05 '11 at 23:17
@Adam: high cost is, of course, to be expected for new or untried technologies - but the potential of a high ROI is usually enough to "get the ball rolling". About the energy output - Mr. Sorensen [claims](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw#at=453) that thorium can be 200 times more efficient than current uranium reactors. Maybe you could elaborate on your points in an answer ? — Mihai Rotaru, Jul 06 '11 at 10:38
@Mihai I don't believe this is a good question for this site. How can anyone possibly answer whether a new technology is or isn't a "silver bullet" for a problem when 1) the problem isn't really a problem and 2) the technology is still being researched. — Adam Davis, Jul 06 '11 at 14:38
This question reminds me of questions around "cold-fusion", namely that the views have more heat than light (so to speak). The general problem is that different viewpoints seldom consider the potential benefit of a positive result, and thus the value of putting high effort into determining if it really could work, or could sadly but definitely not work. — Mike Dunlavey, Dec 17 '11 at 17:45
The `energyfromthorium.com` domain is registered to Kirk Sorensen. — Alan Munn, Jul 18 '15 at 18:43
I feel like as it's aged, it's become more obvious that this question is rather unfocused: what "energy crisis" was in the news a decade ago, and what would "ending the crisis" mean exactly? What other technologies was thorium power being compared to, on what measures? If the question was "is thorium power more efficient and safer than uranium power? (with appropriate quotes claiming it is) it might have more interesting answers. — IMSoP, Jan 24 '23 at 07:41

score 5 · Answer 1 · edited Jul 18 '15 at 15:31

5

Can thorium end the energy crisis?

No, it cannot.

The current "energy crisis" is basically the high price of crude oil, on the demand side driven mainly by the transportation sector. And it's not going to change soon:

The transportation sector accounts for the largest increment in total liquids demand, making up nearly 80 percent of the world increase.

Source: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/liquid_fuels.html

There is no "energy crisis" in case of electric energy. In fact, in case of electricity supply grows faster, than demand.

There are no plans for nuclear powered cars. For electric ones there is already a surplus of electricity, thus having more efficient nuclear power doesn't change much in that equation. It has many other advantages, but that's beyond scope of this question.

edited Jul 18 '15 at 15:31

Peter Mortensen

190
7

answered Jul 04 '11 at 14:52

vartec

26,581
5
97
155

6

Actually, I suspect the real crisis lies in the fact that while you can just cavalierly erect new coal-powered reactors to deal with electricity demand, it's not such a great idea from a pollution standpoint (in many different aspects, including the wholesale production of particulate **uranium** into the air). – Ernie Jul 26 '11 at 21:31
2

do reference why you think there's a surplus of electricity. Whatever data I see suggests otherwise, that we're headed for major blackouts due to the closing of coal fired plants without replacements (due to "environmental" regulations and that even with the current output a major increase of electric car use would lead to the grid becoming overstressed (of course this will be different per country or even region) – jwenting Aug 04 '11 at 08:43
@jw: http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/ieo/images/figure_67-lg.jpg – vartec Aug 04 '11 at 08:45
2

Thorium (presumably) creates energy. Cars consume energy. Different forms of energy can be converted into each other... leading to far more opportunities (and problems) than this answer covers. – NPSF3000 Jul 19 '15 at 02:53
@NPSF3000: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ in Fallout there are nuclear powered cars, but in real life they don't exist and won't exist. Having more (cheaper) electricity in the grid does not solve transportation problem. – vartec Jul 20 '15 at 21:25
4

@vartec "Having more (cheaper) electricity in the grid does not solve transportation problem." How do you know? What impact would it have on competitiveness of Rail? Would Hydrogen become more common? Would 3D printing (and other local manufacturing) reduce need for transport? Would biofuels be produced more cheaply? Arguing that cheap electricity can't change transportation... well is kinda like arguing oil can't change your horse's fuel needs. – NPSF3000 Jul 20 '15 at 21:37
@NPSF3000: grid is _NOT_ the issue with electric transport. Batteries are the issue. And what does 3D printing or biofuels have to do with thorium. As for horse/oil analogy — it's failed, as we _do_ have cars running on oil, but we _will not_ have cars running on thorium (or any other nuclear fuel). – vartec Jul 20 '15 at 21:51
3

@vartec where did I say the grid is an issue? "Batteries are the issue" - so, how would a massive supply of cheap/free clean energy change batteries? " it's failed, as we do have cars running on oil" We also have cars running on batteries, biofuel, hydrogen, solar panels etc. You keep thinking about direct impact, but seem to be ignoring indirect impacts. "but we will not have cars running on thorium" Citation needed. – NPSF3000 Jul 20 '15 at 22:53
1

@vartec I really recommend you to Google up "Tesla Motors". – T. Sar Nov 25 '15 at 20:00
@ThalesPereira: last time I checked in our timeline Tesla Motors was making electric cars. Maybe in Fallout 4 world they make nuclear cars, but it's hardly relevant here :-P – vartec Nov 26 '15 at 09:34
@vartec You said that batteries are the issue. That's what I'm referring too! – T. Sar Nov 26 '15 at 10:47
@ThalesPereira: batteries are _not_ made from thorium. Batteries are _not_ replaced with thorium reactors. Thorium is completely irrelevant to the batteries. – vartec Nov 27 '15 at 03:43
@vartec we are probably missing each other's point here! I'm not referring to thorium in any way. I'm just saying that batteries are not, anymore, an issue to electric transport since the awesome advancements that Elon Musk and Tesla brought to the sector. That's all! – T. Sar Nov 27 '15 at 09:57
@ThalesPereira: they are still very much an issue. They are still expensive and not very durable. That's why Tesla mid range car still costs +$100K. That's why cell phones don't last more than one day on battery. Anyway, my point is that cheaper electric energy changes very little in case of electric cars, because the energy is not bulk of the cost. Batteries are. – vartec Nov 29 '15 at 01:32
I work for a power company in the northwest US and we have a nuke plant that is completely outclassed by all the dams in the region. Our biggest problem is "Balancing". Wind, water solar are not consistent but produce a lot of power. We either need very impressive batteries that don't exist yet or we need a power source that can be spun up quickly. Nuclear puts out a constant power (and not even much). Our nuke plant puts out around 1/10 the power of grand coulee alone. also--fun note--we can't stop producing energy so at times the wholesale price goes negative! – Bill K Nov 23 '18 at 05:35
@vartec Would it be possible that electricity gets used to extract hydrogen from water (electrolysis) for hydrogen fuel cells as an alternative fuel source, which would then help with the energy crisis as you've defined it? – plu Nov 22 '21 at 06:20
@plu Hydrogen fuel cells are essentially a form of battery: you use electrical energy to "charge them" by extracting hydrogen from water, then get electrical energy back when you need it. If someone comes up with a design that is both efficient and safe, they might be a very useful way to *store* energy, allowing us to use a *wider mix* of generation sources - unreliable sources like solar and wind; and hard to pause sources like nuclear. But that has little to do with thorium - it's a completely different part of the picture. – IMSoP Jan 16 '23 at 13:03

mopani · Answer 2 · 2023-01-17T20:29:28.243

-1

A short summary of what I understand are the key points in Kirk Sorenson's presentations. He is very good at providing sources for all his claims, so I won't repeat most of them here.

Nuclear power is essential for reducing pollution, including atmospheric CO2. This is based on its energy density (up to 6 orders of magnitude).[1]
Thorium is far more plentiful than uranium[2], and does not need to be enriched to be used as a nuclear fuel. Thorium is not fissile like Uranium-235, but it is fertile: if it is exposed to neutrons it becomes fissile in the form of U-233.
A Molten Salt Reactor, like the one demonstrated at Oak Ridge in the late 1960s, is inherently safe, and more efficient than Pressurized Water Reactors.
With a source of cheap and plentiful electricity, we could synthesize fuel usable in conventional vehicles at reasonable cost (comparable to or cheaper than present prices). These fuels would be nearly carbon-neutral because they would be synthesized using atmospheric CO2. Dimethyl ether is one suggestion as a direct substitute for diesel fuel.

Based on those points, Thorium is a very good candidate to end the "artificial energy crisis". [3]

Suggested resources:

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20220523032927/https://cdn.nanalyze.com/uploads/2021/03/energy-density-of-fuel-sources.jpg

[2] http://www.daretothink.org/numbers-not-adjectives/how-long-will-our-supplies-of-uranium-and-thorium-last/

[3] http://www.daretothink.org/shortest-intro-to-molten-salt-the-thorium-reactor/

edited Jan 17 '23 at 20:29

answered Jan 12 '23 at 22:08

mopani

11
2

1

You've made some good points here, but you do not seem to consider the reasons that thorium might not (or has not yet) ended energy problems. – inund8 Jan 13 '23 at 21:06
1

The question asked if it is possible, not why it hasn't. The reasons that thorium (or any nuclear energy solution) might not or have not yet ended energy problems is almost entirely political will, not technical or scientific. – mopani Jan 15 '23 at 22:55
Being good at *naming* sources doesn't necessarily mean someone can be trusted to name *high-quality* sources. Since the point of this site is to skeptically examine claims, just stating that someone "is very good at providing sources for all his claims" doesn't get us far - we need to look into what those sources are, and whether they actually back up his assertions. – IMSoP Jan 16 '23 at 12:39
1

I would also advise against going into the fourth point - synthesising combustible fuels using atmospheric CO2 and electricity would be an entirely independent breakthrough. It would essentially be a way to replace *batteries*, not *power stations*, since we can already use electricity directly *instead of* such fuels. Its only relevance is that it might actually be *more* important to look for such energy storage solutions than to investigate the generation possibilities of thorium. – IMSoP Jan 16 '23 at 12:50
1

@IMSoP You make a very good point about distinguishing between providing sources and sources that are high quality. My comment was not on the quality of sources that Sorensen cites, but simply to point anyone with an interest in pursuing it further in the appropriate direction so that they can determine for themselves the quality of Sorenen's sources. – mopani Jan 17 '23 at 20:24
1

@IMSoP Re: the fourth point -- this is one of Sorensen's arguments. He cites processes already developed (at least in the laboratory) that would make this feasible; scaling up the process to the volume required is assumed to yet be determined. – mopani Jan 17 '23 at 20:26
1

Determining (or discussing) the quality of the sources is pretty much the whole point of this site; if you haven't already, take a look at the [Welcome to New Users](https://skeptics.meta.stackexchange.com/q/1505/26673). Regarding alternative fuels, thorium doesn't seem to be necessary or sufficient to take advantage of them; if they worked, they could revolutionise how we use renewable sources like solar and wind, for instance. You could just as well have a presentation based on "if we had thorium energy and world peace..." - a nice vision, but there's no direct link between the parts. – IMSoP Jan 17 '23 at 20:56
Thanks for the constructive comments. – mopani Jan 18 '23 at 19:09
Yes the question specifically asks if it is possible; however, one of the ways you can determine this is by considering why it has or has not been used. I only provided this note because it would be enough for me to give you an upvote. I did not vote either way on this and I don't think its such low to quality to sit at -1. I would love to see an expanded answer here. – inund8 Feb 23 '23 at 20:51

Can thorium end the energy crisis?

2 Answers2

Suggested resources: