The U.S.'s Molten Salt Reactor Non-Program: putting together the pieces

[wtmusic]

Last edited Sun May 19, 2013, 04:30 PM - Edit history (1)

How does an energy technology with incredible potential get sidetracked? For the molten-salt reactor (MSR), there's less evidence it was the casualty of a conspiracy than politics and bad timing.

The successful Molten Salt Reactor Experiment of the 1960s demonstrated that the MSR concept was feasible and would be safer than solid fuel reactors. At the time a nascent uranium mining industry and expertise gained from the U.S. weapons program favored going down a different path, that of pressurized water reactors (PWRs), and MSRs were abandoned. They experienced a rebirth in 2005 after an influential paper by Ralph Moir and Edward Teller which revisited the idea, even suggesting it as a powerful weapon against global warming.

In 2007 the Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository was looking like a done deal, but the state of Nevada didn't want it. At about this time Harry Reid learned that MSR technology would not require significant storage and could actually burn up existing waste. Utah was another state that was a potential target for a repository, and so in October 2008 Reid and Utah Senator Orrin Hatch co-sponsored the Thorium Energy Independence and Security Act of 2008, allocating $250 million for MSR research. The bill was referred to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, where it died.

Why? There are several possibilities, but the most credible ones involve the committee's chairman, Jeff Bingaman (D-NM). MSR technology would only require minimal amounts of uranium to start the reactor, and New Mexico has the second largest known uranium reserves in the country. The state is home to several institutions which profit from traditional uranium fuel cycle research, including Sandia and Los Alamos National Laboratories. Also, New Mexico is more friendly to waste storage than either Nevada or Utah - the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant near Carlsbad is the source of almost $630 million in annual federal funding.

Reid's bill was re-introduced in 2009 and 2010 and died both times, with Bingaman at committee helm. Meanwhile, Reid promised to support Obama's nomination if Obama named Gregory Jazcko as chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, who openly opposed Yucca. Obama won, Yucca lost, and MSRs were still dead in the water.

The landscape has since changed. Jazcko resigned, there is talk of re-opening Yucca, and Ron Wyden (D-OR) has taken Bingaman's place as chairman of the Energy and Resources committee. Wyden is a nuclear safety proponent but not anti-nuclear per se; China, India, Russia, and Norway all have MSR programs underway. If Reid and Hatch choose to re-introduce their bill, it might get some well-deserved traction in today's political climate.

[hunter]

1. Nuclear reactors that "burned up" the spent fuel of existing reactors might be useful.

The idea that these reactors could be fueled with plutonium from nuclear weapons or materials that have already been mined is also intriguing.

But the first order of business is to stop using fossil fuels. Unfortunately new "zero" carbon energy sources don't replace fossil fuels, they only increase the total amount of energy humans use.

It's like giving a drug addict money to buy beer. You're not going to turn him into a responsible social drinker that way.

The only way to quit burning fossil fuels is to quit burning fossil fuels -- to start tearing down fossil fueled power plants, to stop producing fossil fueled vehicles irregardless of whether any "replacement" technology exists.

I'd like to see some modern MSRs built with the goal of making something that can be produced like a jet liner in a factory. It may not be the path we ultimately choose, but it's better to keep our options open rather than do little or nothing to break our fossil fuel habit.

[wtmusic]

2. MSRs could replace 75% of the world's entire fossil fuel combustion

The world could use 50% more energy, and still create less carbon.

[kristopher]

3. Last week you said it WAS a conspiracy by The Uranium Industry

Before that you said it was a conspiracy by the Nuclear Weapons Industry.

Now you say it isn't a Conspiracy, but it is just politics being influence by The Uranium Industry.

MIT says MSR/Thorium simply doesn't offer as good a cost/benefit profile as those hoping to make a buck on it claim that it does and there is no net advantage in spending the money to transition. Gullible nucleophiles, of course, will believe anything that gives them hope.

PS: it is always a hoot to watch how your post view count jumps by leaps and bounds but there is no proportional increase in recs. It is almost as if someone was using the refresh keys to bump up their post count; although heaven only knows what kind of emotional state would prompt such an act.