More Research on Using Thorium for Nuclear Power Should be Undertaken
03.7.10 by Sarah Deren
The environmental movement has been gaining steam around the world for the past few decades, recently much more so due to the prevalence of arguments concerning global warming and its solutions. No matter whether you believe that global warming is an imminent danger that needs to be dealt with now or just a silly hoax that is being perpetrated by some political or environmental group, understanding and planning our energy futures should be important to everyone since we reap the benefits of having on-demand energy practically every minute of our lives.
We currently get our energy from many sources – we use petroleum-based gasoline in our cars and natural gas, oil, coal and nuclear power to heat and light our homes, offices and everything else. Unfortunately, fossil fuel supplies are dwindling and are estimated to run out within a few generations. Renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and even geothermal, have been gaining popularity in recent years but are still not in widespread use due to skepticism and cost prohibitions, among other things.
Nuclear power has been used to create electricity in the United States since the late 1950’s. While nuclear energy does not produce the air pollution and environmental devastation that fossil fuels do, it still has its drawbacks. Nuclear waste storage is always an issue – nobody wants to live next to a waste disposal site, and trying to find places to safely put all of that nuclear waste is becoming a problem as the world becomes ever more populated. Furthermore, the fission process used to create nuclear energy creates weapons-grade plutonium as a byproduct, which, when put in the wrong hands, creates the potential for nuclear war.
Enter Thorium. Thorium, like other radioactive elements, is an actinide, yet is so lightly radioactive that you can hold it in your hand without harm. Yet when used as fuel in a specially designed nuclear reactor, it produces more energy with smaller amounts of fuel and produces negligible amounts of waste when compared to typical nuclear fuels such as Uranium.
You may be asking why you have not heard about this wonder element until now. You may be wondering why we aren’t building Thorium nuclear reactors all around to world to produce this efficient, fairly clean energy. The reasons for this are varied, but there is one researcher who is on a crusade to change all of this, and his name is Kirk Sorenson.
Sorenson and his research into the future use of Thorium as a nuclear energy source was recently featured in the January 2010 issue of Wired Magazine. While Thorium energy is not exactly a popular water cooler topic – yet – Sorenson’s research has been gaining ground in scientific and engineering, and even political, circles.
…Sorensen spearheads a cadre of outsiders dedicated to sparking a thorium revival. When he’s not at his day job as an aerospace engineer at Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama — or wrapping up the master’s in nuclear engineering he is soon to earn from the University of Tennessee — he runs a popular blog called Energy From Thorium. A community of engineers, amateur nuclear power geeks, and researchers has gathered around the site’s forum, ardently discussing the future of thorium. The site even links to PDFs of the Oak Ridge archives, which Sorensen helped get scanned. Energy From Thorium has become a sort of open source project aimed at resurrecting long-lost energy technology using modern techniques.
And the online upstarts aren’t alone. Industry players are looking into thorium, and governments from Dubai to Beijing are funding research. India is betting heavily on the element.
The concept of nuclear power without waste or proliferation has obvious political appeal in the US, as well. The threat of climate change has created an urgent demand for carbon-free electricity, and the 52,000 tons of spent, toxic material that has piled up around the country makes traditional nuclear power less attractive. President Obama and his energy secretary, Steven Chu, have expressed general support for a nuclear renaissance. Utilities are investigating several next-gen alternatives, including scaled-down conventional plants and “pebble bed” reactors, in which the nuclear fuel is inserted into small graphite balls in a way that reduces the risk of meltdown.
Those technologies are still based on uranium, however, and will be beset by the same problems that have dogged the nuclear industry since the 1960s. It is only thorium, Sorensen and his band of revolutionaries argue, that can move the country toward a new era of safe, clean, affordable energy.
(Wired Magazine, January 2010 http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/)
Could Thorium be the answer to our energy problems? At first look, it would seem so. But there are problems that must first be overcome. There are currently no existing nuclear reactors that are constantly running on Thorium in the United States, in spite of the US having one of the largest natural sources of Thorium in the world. There are only a few that are up and running in various countries. This is unfortunately due to Thorium having been largely overlooked for over four decades. Due to the concentration on using Uranium as the only fuel for nuclear reactions, funding for research into Thorium and its possibilities has been rare. India is currently leading the way with its research into using Thorium to power its burgeoning country and population.
Thorium is actually an extremely common element, as it is found in most soil and rocks. And it is three times more abundant than the fuel that we currently use in nuclear reactors, Uranium. (http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html) Using Thorium has the possibility of powering our earth for thousands of years, again, with little waste and risk of meltdowns.
While building nuclear reactors is by no means an inexpensive proposition, it has been proven possible to convert current Uranium nuclear reactors to Thorium reactors. This will never be accomplished though until the nuclear industry realizes that the Cold War is over and we need to move forward with our nuclear energy research. The technology is buildable, the raw fuel is present in the ground beneath our feet and the nuclear physicists who understand the science behind Thorium reactors are all out there. We just need to get the research funding and science monies to them.
Earth Day
04.22.09 by Daniel Gaddy
Today, April 22nd, is Earth Day, the one day every year that we stop to think about how our irresponsible actions are affecting the planet. We spend this day pondering the ways we can change our behavior and save our planet, so that tomorrow we can go back to life as usual. But as the planet grows warmer, the ice continues to melt, the oceans continue to rise and the levels of toxic gases in the air continue to rise, it is time we start spending more than just a day thinking about these issues. Denying the existence of global warming is akin to denying the existence of evolution – or clouds. It is undeniable. Moreover, mounting scientific evidence indicates that global warming is the result of human action. Over the past century, the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit. That may not seem like a lot, but if you consider what it takes to raise the temperature of the entire planet by even 1 degree, it is frightening. So, we can spend the rest of our lives sitting around talking about it, but what can we actually do about it? Well, until the government actually enforces stricter emissions regulations, we as individuals can make small changes in our daily lives that can make a difference. These small changes may include changing all of your incandescent light bulbs to more energy-efficient compact fluorescent light bulbs. Try actually turning your lights and electronic devices off when you are not using them. Buy energy- and fuel-efficient appliances and cars. Drive your car less – walk more, use public transportation when you can, and car pool. Reduce your waste and recycle everything you can. Most of these changes can actually save you money, as well as make you healthier. As important, spread the word – educate your family, friends and neighbors on the dangers of climate change and the benefits of going green. Find more ways to go green in the Related Articles section below. Share ways that you have gone green in the comments.
Related Articles
- Earth Day Facts: When It Is, How It Began, What to Do
- Earth Week Tips-Ten Ways To Save World Without Losing Your Mind
- Global warming is ‘irreversible’
- Climate Change Could Choke Oceans for 100,000 Years
- New study finds emissions cuts can still tame most serious of global warming effects
- TreeHugging Gets Harder As Tree Deaths Double in Western U.S. Old-Growth Forests
- Six Easy Ways to Go Green
- How to Compost
Presidential Candidates Answer Science Questions
09.17.08 by Daniel Gaddy
In the debates that took place during the Republican primaries earlier this year, some of the candidates for President proudly proclaimed that they did not believe in evolution. Many of us in the science world were aghast. Luckily, none of those candidates made it very far in the race, but it still raised an important issue: politicians of all stripes will pander to almost any group of people on almost any topic, but science is not one of them. With this in mind, Lawrence Krauss, a Case Western University professor of astrophysics, decided to try to do something about it. He joined with screenwriter/directer Matthew Chapman, journalist and author of The Republican War on Science Chris Mooney, and screenwriter Shawn Lawrence Otto to form a non-profit organization called Science Debate 2008. The primary purpose of this organization is to “elevate the visibility of science in the Presidential race,” with the hope of organizing science-oriented debates between candidates of both parties. More than 38,000 scientists, engineers, and other concerned Americans signed on and supported Science Debate 2008, including nearly every major American science organization, dozens of Nobel laureates, elected officials and business leaders, and the presidents of over 100 major American universities. More than 3400 questions were submitted for candidates to answer about science and the future of America.
Well, those debates never materialized, but Science Debate 2008 would not be defeated. Instead, they narrowed the list of 3400 questions down to the top 14 questions, addressing a broad range of topics including climate change, energy, health care, research, science education and American innovation. The questions were submitted to the candidates and, finally, the candidates decided these topics were important enough to address specifically.
The responses of both Barack Obama and John McCain are found here, allowing side-by-side comparison. Luckily, at least Obama and McCain both say they believe in evolution, although McCain’s running mate, Sarah Palin, may not.
Regardless of your political leanings, the stance of each candidate on these issues cannot be discounted. These issues affect our everyday lives. More importantly, many of these issues affect the overall health of not only our species, but our planet as a whole. America currently leads the world in science and technology, but all too often the politicians who lead the country and shape our interactions with the world prove themselves to be not only uneducated and unconcerned with science, but are openly hostile toward science and technology. The views of politicians, especially the President, are of particular importance because they shape science policy, and their decisions affect the entire world.
Because of this, we should all strive to elect a President who is scientifically literate, or at least scientifically aware. The worst possible move would be to elect someone who continues the tradition set forth by the current administration, which has been openly hostile toward science by severely restricting funding and scientific endeavor, and has also manipulated and suppressed science in order to achieve their political agenda. We at FundScience are not here to try to change your political views, but we strongly urge you to carefully read both Obama’s and McCain’s responses to these very important science questions. It is unlikely that science topics will swing many votes, but that does not discount their importance. Science Debate 2008 and other organizations, including FundScience, seek to raise awareness of science and science-related issues, and hope to gradually change the current culture that ignores or rejects the very innovation that drives this country, and the research that impacts our lives more than most people realize.