Thorium: How to save Europe's nuclear revival
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Thorium: How to save Europe’s
nuclear revival
By Stephen Tindale
★ The Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan has reduced public and political support for nuclear
power across Europe. Nevertheless, the EU should continue to support nuclear power as a low-
carbon bridge technology until Europe can be 100 per cent reliant on renewable energy – which
will take several decades.
★ As a general rule, European countries should use tried-and-tested technologies to make the
transition to a low-carbon economy rather than spend money developing new technologies. But
reactors which use thorium as a liquid fuel – which cannot melt down – should be an exception to
this approach. Such reactors would reduce the amount of nuclear waste produced and help deal
with existing waste stockpiles. They would also reduce the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.
★ China and the USA are now taking thorium liquid reactors seriously. Europe is not, so risks
losing out on the economic benefits of a safer form of nuclear power.
The best sources of energy, in both climate and low-carbon electricity makes nuclear power an
energy security terms, are renewable. The EU is essential part of Europe’s transition to a low-carbon
committed to obtaining 20 per cent of its total economy. The risks of uncontrolled climate change
energy from renewables by 2020. This is a crucial are greater than any of the risks presented by nuclear
objective, and must be met. But even if the EU meets power stations.
that target, European countries will still need to
construct an enormous amount of new energy Before the nuclear incident at Fukushima in March
infrastructure before they can be totally reliant on 2011, nuclear power’s climate and energy security
renewables. An effective large-scale means of storing advantages were spurring an increasing political
electricity from intermittent wind, wave and solar commitment to nuclear power among EU
power plants must also be developed. The transition governments. The governments of Bulgaria, the Czech
to a fully renewable economy will therefore take Republic, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovenia
several decades. So other low-carbon sources of and the UK had said that they favoured the
energy are needed as bridge technologies. construction of new nuclear stations. The German
government did not talk about new nuclear stations,
Nuclear power stations produce only around a tenth but Chancellor Merkel did say that existing nuclear
of the carbon dioxide per unit of electricity of coal stations would be allowed to operate for the period
1 UK Energy Research power stations.1 (This takes they were designed for, rather than being closed by
Centre, ‘Response to account of the full life-cycle of 2022 as a law passed by a previous German
Treasury consultation on nuclear generation, including government requires. Merkel correctly described
carbon capture and mining and transport of the fuel nuclear power as a necessary low-carbon bridge
storage’, May 2006. and decommissioning.) Its ability technology, to be used until Germany can be 100 per
to generate large amounts of cent renewable.
Centre for European Reform T: 00 44 20 7233 1199
14 Great College Street F: 00 44 20 7233 1117
London SW1P 3RX UK info@cer.org.uk / www.cer.org.uk2
Since Fukushima, Merkel has backtracked. She now reactors. There are large enough proven reserves of
says that some of Germany’s nuclear plants must close uranium around the world to fuel nuclear power
immediately, and all by 2022. The Italian government through the decades needed for the transition to
has announced a delay of at least a year before renewables. The fact that they are in countries such
allowing construction of a nuclear reactor. The EU as Australia and Namibia means that energy security
has announced that all EU nuclear facilities will be is not a major concern. The case for thorium molten
subject to ‘stress tests’ to check their safety. The tests salt reactors rests on the fact that this technology is
will take into account local factors such as distance to Europe’s best bet to overcome public opposition to
the coast, levels of seismic activity and the plant’s age. nuclear, by demonstrating that nuclear power can be
This is essentially political window dressing – made significantly safer.
regulators and governments already know how far
nuclear power stations are from the coast, how Molten salt reactors use liquid fuel. When the liquid
seismic the areas are and when the plants were gets too hot it automatically flows out of the reactor
constructed. Europe’s leaders should demonstrate core, so making meltdown impossible. Reactors
greater leadership and imagination in overcoming using liquid fuel produce less radioactive waste than
public hostility to nuclear power. solid fuel reactors do. Thorium molten fuel reactors
also reduce – though do not eliminate – the risk of
In order to use nuclear as a bridge technology, the nuclear weapons proliferation, as they do not
EU need not spend more money on unproven produce plutonium.
technological approaches such as nuclear fusion,
which remains at least 30 years away. Advocates of Anti-nuclear campaigners often use the issue of
fusion argue that this technology in theory provides radioactive pollution as a central plank of their
limitless and sustainable energy. So it does – argument – partly because radioactivity is invisible
theoretically. The downside is best summarised in and so easy to scare the public about. High levels of
the quip that “nuclear fusion is 30 years in the future radioactivity do have implications for human health.
– and always will be”. The budget for the But the levels of radioactivity which result from the
international nuclear fusion project, ITER in France, operation of nuclear power stations are not high
has almost tripled since 2001. It is now S16 billion, enough to cause significantly increased health risk.
although major construction has yet to start. The EU There has been extensive 3 Committee on the
will have to pay S6.6 billion of this. The research and assessment into Medical Aspects of
2 European Commission,
Commission awarded ITER this question, by bodies Radiation in the
S1.4 billion, from unspent parts independent from the nuclear Environment, ‘Further
‘Commission proposes
of the EU budget and the industry. For example, a recent consideration of the
plan for financing ITER’,
research programme, in 2010.2 report from a UK public incidence of childhood
July 20th 2010.
Even if fusion works eventually advisory body concluded that leukaemia around nuclear
(which is far from certain), it will not provide rates of childhood leukaemia are power plants in Great
electricity soon enough to help Europe with its not related to proximity to Britain’, COMARE,
transition to a low-carbon economy. ITER itself nuclear plants.3 May 2011.
accepts that the plant will not feed electricity into
the grid before 2040. The danger of meltdown is a much stronger anti-
nuclear argument. The world’s worst nuclear
As a rule, therefore, European countries should use power incident, at Chernobyl in 1986, was caused
tried-and-tested technologies to make the transition to by the meltdown of a reactor core. The 2011
a low-carbon economy. France, which generates Fukushima incident and the 1979 Three Mile
around 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear, has Island accident in the US involved partial
essentially used only three generations of design for its meltdowns. In a molten salt reactor, thorium is
nuclear stations. This has kept costs lower than they dissolved into hot liquid salts. This liquid is then
would have been if each station had been slightly poured into tubes which take it into the reactor
different (which has been the UK approach). core, where nuclear fission 4 World Nuclear
occurs and electricity is Association, ‘Thorium’,
generated. If the liquid becomes WNA information page
Thorium molten salt reactors too hot, it expands and so http://www.world-
flows back out of the tubes, so nuclear.org/info/inf62.html,
There should, however, be one exception to the reducing fission and removing March 2011.
general approach of using established technologies the risk of meltdown.4
and designs. The EU should invest in developing
thorium-fuelled molten salt reactors. This is a proven A third anti-nuclear argument is that nuclear power
technology: the US operated a molten salt reactor in stations produce radioactive waste. Molten salt
the late 1960s. reactors use liquid fuel rather than solid fuel rods.
Reactors with liquid fuel use all the fuel, whereas
Thorium is an abundant mineral: it is about three reactors with solid fuel use only part of the fuel, and
times as abundant as uranium. But this alone is not the rods remain as spent fuel. So molten salt reactors
a strong reason to invest in developing thorium produce a much lower volume of radioactive waste3
5 James Hansen, than solid fuel reactors do. James would be to establish an international nuclear fuel
‘Tell Barack Obama the Hansen, chief scientist at NASA, bank. Nuclear fuel would be enriched at an
truth – The whole truth’, has written that “thorium can be internationally-controlled facility and supplied to
Columbia University, 2008. used in ways that practically different countries, with the spent fuel and plutonium
http://www.columbia.edu/ eliminate build-up of long-lived then returned to that facility after the generation of
~jeh1/mailings/2008/
nuclear waste.”5 electricity. This approach has been promoted by,
20081121_Obama.pdf.
among others, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, which
Whatever form of energy generation countries use in includes among its leading participants former US
future, those which have, or ever have had, nuclear secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George
power plants have stockpiles of radioactive waste to Schultz, former US secretary of defense William Perry
deal with. Existing uranium reactors also produce and former US senator Sam Nunn. However, there is
plutonium, which could then be used for nuclear not yet any agreement on setting up such an
weapons and so needs to be safeguarded and international nuclear fuel bank.
managed. France and the UK also have plutonium
from dismantled nuclear weapons. An alternative, and more achievable, approach to
combining nuclear power expansion with weapons
The current approach to managing the stockpile of proliferation control would be to promote thorium
spent fuel in both France and the UK is to reprocess molten salt reactors instead of uranium solid fuel
the spent fuel. France also reprocesses spent fuel from reactors. Some uranium solid fuel reactors require that
Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Reprocessing the uranium is enriched. (Uranium in which the
means that the fuel can be re-used. However, it also isotope U-235 is more than 20 per cent of the total is
leads to the production of more plutonium. So France referred to as highly enriched unranium (HEU). HEU
and the UK mix uranium and plutonium into mixed can be use for weapons, although the term ‘weapons-
oxide fuel (MOx). French nuclear reactors use MOx grade material’ refers to uranium in which U-235 is 90
fuel. British nuclear operators have chosen not to, per cent. 30 countries use HEU in reactors. Modern
because uranium fuel is cheaper. The UK spent billions uranium reactors can use low enriched uranium, in
of pounds constructing a reprocessing plant and an which U-235 is 3-4 per cent.) All uranium solid fuel
MOx plant at Sellafield, in the expectation that it reactors then produce plutonium. Thorium fuel does
would be able to sell the MOx fuel to Japan. But the not require enrichment, and thorium molten salt
contracts from Japan have not been forthcoming, and reactors do not produce plutonium, so the threat of
are looking even less probable post-Fukushima. So weapons proliferation would be substantially reduced.
6 Steve Connor, Sellafield has cost the UK taxpayer It would not, however, be removed completely. The
‘The nuclear industry
an enormous amount of money.6 thorium is transformed during the process into a form
must learn its lesson and It has also caused considerable of uranium – U-233 – which could in theory be used
stop building these white radioactive pollution of the Irish in nuclear weapons. This has not yet been done, so
elephants’, Sea – reprocessing causes much thorium molten salt reactors represent a smaller
The Independent, higher radioactive emissions than proliferation risk than uranium hard fuel reactors do.
May 9th 2011. reactors do. However, the safest approach to proliferation
prevention would be to combine development of
A more cost-effective way to deal with spent fuel and molten salt reactors with the establishment of an
plutonium stockpiles would be to develop molten salt internationally-controlled nuclear fuel bank.
reactors. Spent uranium fuel and plutonium can be
combined with thorium fuel and dissolved into the
salt liquid, which can then be used to fuel the reactor. ‘Too cheap to meter’?
So molten salt reactors could be used as a means of
recycling spent fuel and reducing the existing spent A fifth anti-nuclear argument is that nuclear power is
fuel and plutonium stockpiles expensive, so that investment in new nuclear stations
will divert money away from renewables and energy
efficiency programmes.
Reducing the risk of nuclear weapons
proliferation Nuclear power is not cheap, as the cost overruns at
plants currently under construction in Finland and
A fourth anti-nuclear argument is that nuclear power France demonstrate. The nuclear industry remains
stations are closely linked to nuclear weapons. The US scarred by its infamous claim in the 1950s that it
built nuclear weapons before it constructed nuclear would produce electricity ‘too cheap to meter’.
power stations, but since then every country that has Companies involved in the uranium nuclear fuel
acquired nuclear weapons (except Israel) did so by cycle are now wisely refraining from claims about
building nuclear power stations. So concerns about cheapness (although non-industry commentators
proliferation are a valid and forceful argument are arguing that new nuclear 7
Committee on Climate
against nuclear power. stations will be cheaper than
Change, ‘The renewable
other low-carbon options such energy review’,
One way to combine global expansion of nuclear as carbon capture and storage or May 2011.
power with stronger control on weapons proliferation offshore wind).74
Some commentators and companies are claiming that companies involved in the uranium fuel cycle to any
thorium molten salt reactors will generate electricity public investment in an alternative. By the time a
8 For example, Robert more cheaply than existing fossil thorium molten salt reactor had been demonstrated in
Hargraves, ‘Aim high,
fuel power stations do.8 This is the 1960s and was ready for widespread deployment,
thorium energy cheaper possible at some stage in the there had been major investment in the uranium fuel
than from coal’, future, but not likely. The rational cycle. So the companies involved in uranium reactors
Booksurge Llc, approach for policy-makers were politically influential.
February 8th 2009. would be to assume that molten
salt reactors will be expensive, Since the 1970s, India has been the country most
and to assess whether the improved safety features active in thorium research. This was partly for energy
and reduced waste management and proliferation security reasons – India has extensive proven reserves
risks justify the increased costs. of thorium but little uranium – and partly because its
access to imported uranium was restricted by
The money to support research and development of international sanctions following its explosion of a
molten salt reactors need not be taken from nuclear weapon in 1974. These sanctions were
renewables or other low-carbon energy supply strengthened following further nuclear tests in 1998.
options. There is more than enough money available They were removed in 2008 after an agreement with
in the existing subsidies for nuclear fusion. And the the US on civil nuclear co-operation, but India
argument that governments which support any form remains committed to thorium research in order to
of nuclear power overlook or downplay renewables is use its thorium reserves. However, India has focused
disproved by the example of France. France gets over on using thorium in solid fuel reactors which would
three-quarters of its electricity from nuclear power otherwise have used uranium. As outlined above,
stations. Yet the French government has supported solid fuel reactors could melt down.
onshore wind farms and is now giving subsides to
offshore wind. It is also subsidising an expansion of Past European research into thorium has also mainly
the district heating system in Paris, to distribute heat been on its use in solid fuel reactors. For example,
from power stations burning energy crops and waste Germany ran a 300 megawatt solid fuel reactor
wood which would otherwise be wasted. fuelled by thorium from 1983 to 1989. This was shut
down on economic grounds, having already cost
around S2.5 billion (so making the electricity
The history of thorium as a fuel generated around eight times as expensive as
electricity from uranium reactors). Norway, which
Thorium molten salt reactors could produce nuclear like India has large proven reserves of thorium, has
electricity without the risk of meltdown and with less also carried out extensive research into using thorium
waste and lower risk of proliferation. They have been in solid fuel reactors. The French company Areva is
technologically proven since the 1960s. So why have currently working with the US company Lightbridge
they not been developed? Part of the answer is the (formerly called ThoriumPower) to use thorium fuel
link between the uranium nuclear fuel cycle and in its European Pressurised Reactor (EPR). The EPR
nuclear weapons outlined above. The US built a is an established nuclear design: the plants under
thorium molten salt reactor in 1965, but subsequently construction in Finland and France are EPRs, though
opted to develop only uranium reactors. Critics argue in these two cases they will use uranium fuel.
that this was because of the link Lightbridge is also working with Moscow’s
9 For example, Richard
between uranium reactors and Kurchatov Institute to use thorium rather than
Martin, ‘Uranium is so nuclear weapons, though this has uranium in some of Russia’s existing nuclear reactors.
last century – enter never been the publicly-
thorium, the new green
acknowledged reason behind the The European nuclear research organisation CERN
nuke’, Wired magazine,
December 21st 2009.
choice of uranium.9 The first applied to the European 10
Professor Egil
http://www.wired.com/
three countries to construct Commission for funds for Lillestol of CERN,
magazine/2009/12/ff_new nuclear power stations – the thorium research in 1999, but quoted in James Quinn,
_nukes/. Soviet Union, the UK and the US was turned down. CERN staff ‘Obama could kill fossil
– were all extensively involved in claimed that the Commission had fuels overnight with a
nuclear weapons programmes. consulted its nuclear technical nuclear dash for
advisers, who were French, and thorium’,
However, the link with nuclear weapons is not the opposed thorium because France Daily Telegraph,
reason why all countries that have developed nuclear had invested so heavily in August 29th 2010.
power stations have opted for uranium. Some of them uranium technology.10
– notably Germany, Japan and South Korea – have
never been involved in nuclear weapons programmes.
The reason these countries adopted the uranium fuel Current interest in thorium molten salt
cycle was economic: thorium molten salt reactors reactors
were substantially more expensive per unit of
electricity produced than uranium reactors were. Although thorium molten salt reactors have largely
There has also been opposition from nuclear power been off the energy policy agenda since the end of the5
1960s, they are now making a comeback. There is these objectives. Other US companies are part of a
considerable interest in them from energy companies consortium, with Japanese and Russian companies, to
and politicians in China and the US. The interest in develop a molten salt reactor. Japanese companies
the US is primarily driven by concerns about energy involved include Toyota, Toshiba and Hitachi.
security (the US also has extensive quantities of
thorium); in China, the main concern is to develop all Within the EU, there is no substantial or co-ordinated
forms of electricity generation to meet the needs of a effort into developing thorium molten salt reactors.
rapidly expanding economy. There is much less The most substantial current European research into
interest in Europe. thorium is in France (despite France having invested so
greatly in uranium as the nuclear fuel of choice). A
The Chinese government is financing a recently French nuclear research laboratory is building updated
established private company, International Thorium models of 1950s designs of molten salt reactors.
Energy & Moltem-Salt Technology Inc., which aims
to produce a small molten salt reactor within five
years. The funding will come via the Chinese Environmentalist opinion
Academy of Science, as part of a programme headed
by Jiang Mianheng, son of former Chinese president Opposition from green parties and environmental non-
Jiang Zemin. governmental organisations has played an important
role in stopping the expansion of nuclear power in
In the US, political interest in thorium molten salt Europe and the US since 1979, when the partial
reactors is cross-party, having been led by Democratic meltdown of the US Three Mile Island reactor sparked
Senator Harry Reid and Republican Senator Orrin off massive opposition to nuclear power. Taking a
Hatch. Reid and Hatch have introduced three bills to strong anti-nuclear line became a central tenet of being
Congress, all of which identified thorium fuel cycle ‘green’. In some countries, notably Germany and
technology as a means to expand nuclear power Austria, it still is. In other countries, including the UK
without increasing waste or nuclear proliferation. and Sweden, concern about climate change has led
some environmentalists to accept that nuclear power is
When he entered office, President Barack Obama set a necessary low-carbon bridge technology.
up a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s nuclear
future, which is considering nuclear fuel cycles and Most of the green non-governmental organisations
nuclear waste against criteria of “cost, safety, resource remain opposed to all forms of nuclear power,
utilisation and sustainability, and the promotion of including thorium molten salt reactors. For example,
nuclear non-proliferation and counter-terrorism Greenpeace International published an article by
goals”.11 The Commission will publish a draft report Amory Lovins, Chairman of the 13
Amory Lovins,
11 Blue Ribbon in July 2011 and a final report in Rocky Mountains Institute, which ‘‘New’ nuclear reactors,
Commission reactor and January 2012. US Energy dismissed thorium’s advantages: same old story’,
fuel cycle technology Secretary Steven Chu has already “Thorium’s waste, safety, and Greenpeace International,
subcommittee, ‘Draft indicated that he thinks thorium cost problems differ only in detail May 2009.
recommendations’, and molten salt reactors are the from uranium’s.”13
May 13th 2011. way forward for nuclear energy:
However, other non-governmental organisations are
“We cannot continue to improve the condition of prepared to consider a role for thorium reactors.
people throughout the world without use of nuclear Friends of the Earth recognises the need for low-
power. None of the renewable energy solutions can be carbon bridge technologies, and supports carbon
scaled quickly enough to meet current and future capture and storage for this purpose. Friends of the
energy needs. Safer, proliferation resistant, nuclear Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland has also
power without the long term high level waste storage accepted that thorium reactors should also be
problems is needed to power a growing world economy supported. Mike Childs, head of that organisation’s
12 Planet Forward and to allow all nations to provide climate campaign, has written that “it’s always
interview, ‘Energy for and feed their growing handy to have something in the back pocket in case
Secretary Steven Chu populations in peace. These goals it is needed in the future. This is 14 Mike Childs, ‘Thorium
answers our energy are available by changing the why it is useful to have research reactors and nuclear
question’, March 1st 2011. nuclear fuel cycle to a U- into new technologies such as fusion’, Friends of the
233/Thorium fuel cycle.”12 creating transport fuels from Earth, March 24th 2011.
solar energy, super cheap thin- http://www.foe.co.uk/news
Large US energy companies have not yet shown film solar power and even /thorium_30112.html.
serious interest in molten salt reactors. However, thorium nuclear reactors.”14
Microsoft’s Bill Gates has set up a company called
TerraPower with the aim of developing a nuclear For a green organisation to speak approvingly of
energy system which reduces the weapons anything including the word nuclear represents a
proliferation risk and allows the re-use of spent considerable step forward. European governments
nuclear fuel. TerraPower has identified thorium should take advantage of this opening. They should
molten salt reactors as a promising means of achieving emphasise that thorium molten salt reactors are a6
form of nuclear technology which have much lower Tried-and-tested solid fuel reactors such as the EPR
risk of accident because they cannot melt down, could be used as part of the low-carbon bridge. But
produce much less nuclear waste and can be used to solid fuel reactors, however well constructed, operated
reduce the existing stockpile of nuclear waste. Having and regulated, always carry the potential risk of
stressed the environmental advantages, European meltdown. This risk is a strong cause of public
governments and institutions should then invest in the opposition to nuclear power. In the aftermath of the
development of thorium molten salt reactors. Fukushima incident in Japan, public opposition is one
of the major obstacles to using nuclear power.
Developing thorium molten salt reactors could make a
Conclusion and recommendations substantial contribution to increasing public support.
The EU has played a progressive role in climate Molten salt reactors are a proven technology. They
change policy, though EU institutions have placed too would not provide cheap electricity. But they would
much emphasis on targets and timetables and too provide low-carbon electricity, with lower amounts of
little on specific policy and investment. The EU is radioactive waste than produced by uranium reactors.
right to focus on expanding renewable energy, which They would also make possible support for nuclear
has substantial economic and energy security benefits energy around the world with a lower risk of weapons
as well as helping control climate change. Europe proliferation. And they would provide nuclear power
receives enough energy from the wind, sun, waves, stations with a much lower risk of accident, because
tides and rivers to deliver all its energy requirements. the reactor core could not melt down.
But it will take at least four decades before Europe
can be 100 per cent reliant on renewables. So other The EU should stop spending money on nuclear fusion.
low-carbon bridge technologies are required. If the other partners in ITER – China, India, Japan,
South Korea, USA – wish to continue giving money to
Despite two of the EU’s founding organisations – the fusion research, either in their own countries or at the
European Coal and Steel Community and Euratom – ITER project in France, they are free to do so. The
having been about energy, the question of which French government is also free to continue giving
energy sources countries rely upon remains a national money to the ITER project. But there is no good reason
competence. However, the European institutions play for EU money to go to ITER. Due to the economic
an important role in setting the framework for recession and slow growth in many European
Europe’s energy market. The Commission also spends countries, the EU budget is under considerable
considerable sums of money on energy research, pressure. EU institutions should not waste money on an
development and demonstration. unproven technology which, if it ever works, will not
produce significant quantities of electricity soon
The EU should continue its support for carbon enough to help with controlling climate change.
capture and storage (CCS) large-scale demonstration
projects. However, CCS has not yet been The EU should transfer funding from ITER to research
demonstrated at a large scale, so its cost is essentially and development into thorium molten salt reactors.
unknown – though no one expects it to be cheap.16 In
addition, CCS is increasingly unpopular with the The EU should also invest in thorium molten salt
16 Stephen Tindale and public in several member-states, reactors to avoid the risk of missing out on a major
Simon Tilford, ‘Carbon notably Germany, where projects business opportunity. The US and China are taking
capture and storage: what involve proposals to store carbon this option seriously. Although the commercial
the EU needs to do’, CER dioxide under land rather than opportunities related to thorium remain uncertain,
report, February 2010. under the sea. Europe should stand ready to reap the benefits if and
when they materialise.
Given the uncertainties surrounding CCS, it would not
be sensible to rely on it as the only low-carbon bridge Stephen Tindale is an associate fellow at the CER.
technology. Nuclear power should also be used. June 2011
For further information, visit our website
www.cer.org.ukYou can also read
