1 / 68

General WARNING

General WARNING All PowerPoint presentation slides and similar materials are open to misinterpretation and suspect in technical quality without the presenter ’ s verbal, interaction with an audience.

yuri
Télécharger la présentation

General WARNING

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. General WARNING All PowerPoint presentation slides and similar materials are open to misinterpretation and suspect in technical quality without the presenter’s verbal, interaction with an audience. Such presentation materials are not complete, detailed, technical documents and should not be used as such. Data, ideas and conclusions that are extracted can be in error depending on the context or original intent, so that, the presenter or provider of this material is not liable for any inappropriate or erroneous use of the material, or its consequences. Special Notes This material has been prepared by Dr. Joseph Bonometti and Mr. Kirk Sorensen and should not be reproduced or distributed without authorization (enote@mchsi.com or 256-828-6213). The work has been prepared as private individuals, not for profit, and as an outside activity not associated with any private organization or governmental agency.

  2. LFTRLiquid Fluoride Thorium ReactorWhat fusion wanted to be! November 18, 2008 Dr. Joe Bonometti Thorium Support Group Counselor Co-Chair of the Compact Power Working Group enote@mchsi.com www.energyfromthorium.com

  3. Outline • Illustrate where the largest global problem actually resides • Background on Thorium • Highlight Systems Engineering ideas important to global energy in light of - What fusion wanted to be! • Explain the historical “Path not taken” • Describe LFTR • Make the case for LFTR as the best method to exploit thorium and rapidly meet the energy crisis

  4. Assumptions • There is an energy crisis • It is global in nature • There is no obvious, simple, or quick fix • Thorium is not commonly known, neither is nuclear physics • Increased electrical capacity would help other energy sectors and have a major impact on the world economy Energy consumption directly correlates to standard of living and for good reason…

  5. Leaves desirable sources Address huge losses Conservation has its limits here Phases out poor sources for electricity More electrical energy diverted to electric transportation options Where largest global problem actually resides…

  6. Can Thorium Be That New Line? = And what is the best way to extract its potential? 230 train cars (25,000 MT) of bituminous coal or, 600 train cars (66,000 MT) of brown coal, 6 kg of thorium metal in a liquid-fluoride reactor has the energy equivalent (66,000 MW*hr) of: or, 440 million cubic feet of natural gas (15% of a 125,000 cubic meter LNG tanker), or, 300 kg of enriched (3%) uranium in a pressurized water reactor.

  7. Thorium was discovered in 1828 by the Swedish chemist Jons Jacob Berzelius, who named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. In 1898, Marie Curie & Gerhard Schmidt independently discovered thorium was radioactive. But with a ~15 billion-year half-life (older than the universe), it didn’t decay very often and had very low radioactivity… Eventually thorium decays to lead-208. The Discovery of Thorium

  8. Properties: Slightly radioactive metal (actinide) Color: Silvery-white (pure form) Black as Thorium dioxide (ThO2 or thoria), Highest melting point of any oxide (3573 K). Atomic Number: 90 Atomic Weight: 232.0381 Melting Point: 2023 K (3182°F) Largest liquid range of any element Boiling Point: 5061 K (8650°F) Density: 11.72 g/cc Mohs hardness: 3.0 Decay: alpha emission Natural thorium & uranium give you over half the radiation you receive in your lifetime! The Element Thorium

  9. Thorium and Uranium Abundant in the Earth’s Crust -235 0.018

  10. World Thorium Resources Reserve Base (tons) 340,000 300,000 300,000 180,000 100,000 39,000 18,000 100,000 1,400,000 Country Australia India USA Norway Canada South Africa Brazil Other countries World total Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2008 Thorium: Virtually Limitless Energy • Thorium is abundant around the world: • Found in trace amounts in most rocks and soils • India, Australia, Canada, US have large minable concentrations • US has about 20% of the world reserve base • No need to horde or fight over this resource: • A single mine site in Idaho could produce 4500 MT of thorium per year • Replacing the total US electrical energy consumption would require ~400 MT of thorium The United States has buried 3200 metric tonnes of thorium nitrate in the Nevada desert. There are 160,000 tonnes of economically extractable thorium in the US, even at today’s “worthless” prices!

  11. And if that is not enough for the future… MOON We will have a really good reason to go to the Moon and on to Mars! • Thorium is easily detected from a great distance with little effort or expense • It is chemically distinct so can be readily purified MARS

  12. Conceptual Design Stage It is estimated that at ~ 80 percent of a project’s life-cycle cost is locked in by the initial concept that is chosen. In a similar manner, all benefits are locked in… The conceptual design sets the theoretical limits. The conceptual design has the least real-world losses quantified. Therefore, there MUST be significant inherent advantages to avoid erosion of all the benefits. Conceptual Design “One can not figure to add margin and be assured an advantage over the existing concept, if there is no inherent, and thus untouchable, growth factor.”

  13. Pros High power-density source Availability of massive amounts of energy No green house emissions Minimal transportation costs Low $/kW baseload supply Cons Safety fears High capital costs Proliferation & terrorist target Long term waste disposal Uranium sustainability Unsightly, bad reputation Conceptual Design Selection Criteria:Conventional Nuclear Technology Inherently nuclear power produces essentially no CO2 ~1/3 of CO2 comes from electricity production

  14. Power Density & Efficiency Why is it important? Land usage cost of the land (lost opportunity for its use) loss of natural environment Flexibility in relocation minimal infrastructure expense lower transportation cost recoup investment should site be closed Environment independent weather, temperature, under/over/no water, even seismic effects are easily minimize lower cooling requirements (air or water) Manufacturing costs multiple unit production reduced material costs effective human-size operations Maintenance costs less manpower intensive minimal parts and size “Smaller”: It is not just for convenience, but essential to reducing costs

  15. Power Generation Resource Inputs • Cost of: • materials • labor • land • tools • etc… • Nuclear: 1970’s vintage PWR, 90% capacity factor, 60 year life [1] • 40 MT steel / MW(average) • 190 m3 concrete / MW(average) • Wind: 1990’s vintage, 6.4 m/s average wind speed, 25% capacity factor, 15 year life [2] • 460 MT steel / MW (average) • 870 m3 concrete / MW(average) • Coal: 78% capacity factor, 30 year life [2] • 98 MT steel / MW(average) • 160 m3 concrete / MW(average) • Natural Gas Combined Cycle: 75% capacity factor, 30 year life [3] • 3.3 MT steel / MW(average) • 27 m3 concrete / MW(average) Recent increase in natural gas plants Distance from end user, prime real estate, energy intensity, etc…

  16. And what it has become… What Fusion Wanted To Be Fusion promised to be: • Limitless (sustainable) energy • Safe • Minimum radioactive waste • Proliferation resistant • Environmentally friendly • Power dense • Little mining, transportation, or land use • Low cost

  17. “The Path Not Taken…” The forgotten history of nuclear energy.

  18. Weapon design & fabrication Enrichment facility = Bomb + Weapon design & fabrication Neutron source (reactor) Chemical separation Better Bomb + = + Uranium-235 (0.7% of all U) Neutron source (reactor) Hot enrichment facility Weapon design & fabrication Chemical separation + + + = Bomb Thorium-232 (100% of all Th) Uranium-233 Uranium-238 (99.3% of all U) Plutonium-239 Three Basic Nuclear Fuels

  19. Short-term Electrical power Fuel design & fabrication Enrichment facility or heavy water production = + Electrical power + extra 239 Fast spectrum breeder reactor Fuel design & fabrication Sophisticated controls = + + Uranium-235 (0.7% of all U) Internal chemical processing Electrical power Thermal spectrum = + Thorium-232 (100% of all Th) Uranium-233 Uranium-238 (99.3% of all U) Plutonium-239 Sustainable Reactor Fuels for Electricity

  20. Enrico Fermi argued for a program of fast-breeder reactors using uranium-238 as the fertile material and plutonium-239 as the fissile material. His argument was based on the breeding ratio of Pu-239 at fast neutron energies. Argonne National Lab followed Fermi’s path and built the EBR-1 and EBR-2. Eugene Wigner argued for a thermal-breeder program using thorium as the fertile material and U-233 as the fissile material. Although large breeding gains were not possible, THERMAL breeding was possible, with enhanced safety. Wigner’s protégé, Alvin Weinberg, followed Wigner’s path at the Oak Ridge National Lab. U238 to Plutonium “Thorium” to U-233 1944: A tale of two isotopes…

  21. Atomic bomb technology came first and extremely fast paced Only fissionable elements are appropriate for nuclear detonation (i.e., no time for fissile to fission conversions) Bomb material production was single highest priority - “immediately make as many as possible” Weapons are made of solid, highly enriched, fissionable material due to higher density and ease of construction Fuel cycle enrichment program becomes the entrenched costly bureaucracy Atoms-For-Peace dividend becomes the political mandate Immediate action pushes competitive technology out; with direct link of bomb fuel-cycle highlighted as benefit to infrastructure Status quo is maintained even today by enrichment and technical overhead for weapons, naval reactors, and commercial systems all interwoven in solid fuel cycle Historical Perspective

  22. Then Relatively unknown engineering & science Urgency of war Unsophisticated designs & delivery systems Limited resources Need for high breeding ratios One step enrichment or chemical separation Cost cutting measure and peace dividend Safety, environment, and proliferation were low priorities Other classified rationale Now A mature industry Limited need for more weapons Very efficient & small designs along with excellent delivery systems Need to reduce costs Breeding weapon material is not a priority Environmental, proliferation and safety are prime issues ‘Peak uranium’ is coming Good or Bad Decisions??? Maybe it was right then, but wrong today.

  23. The tale of Engineer Survival…Aircraft Nuclear Program Between 1946 and 1961, the USAF sought to develop a long-range bomber based on nuclear power. The Aircraft Nuclear Program had unique requirements, some very similar to a space reactor. • High temperature operation (>1500° F) • Critical for turbojet efficiency • 3X higher than sub reactors • Lightweight design • Compact core for minimal shielding • Low-pressure for minimal structure • Minimal inventory and fuel additions • Ease of operability • Inherent safety and control • Easily removable • Minimal reprocessing

  24. The Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) In order to test the liquid-fluoride reactor concept, a solid-core, sodium-cooled reactor was hastily converted into a proof-of-concept liquid-fluoride reactor. The Aircraft Reactor Experiment ran for 100 hours at the highest temperatures ever achieved by a nuclear reactor (1150 K). • Operated from 11/03/54 to 11/12/54 • Molten salt circulated through beryllium reflector in Inconel tubes • 235UF4 dissolved in NaF-ZrF4 • Produced 2.5 MW of thermal power • Gaseous fission products were removed naturally through pumping action • Very stable operation due to high negative reactivity coefficient • Demonstrated load-following operation without control rods

  25. Molten Salt Reactor Experiment(1965-1969)

  26. Predominate MSR Concept • Promotes: • Freeze Plug • Closed-Cycle Gas Turbine • Continuous Chemical Reprocessing • Limitations: • Big • Single Fluid • Control Rods

  27. Dr. Alvin Weinberg: Why wasn’t this done? • Politically established plutonium industry “Why didn't the molten-salt system, so elegant and so well thought-out, prevail? I've already given the political reason: that the plutonium fast breeder arrived first and was therefore able to consolidate its political position within the AEC.” • Appearance of daunting technology “But there was another, more technical reason. The molten-salt technology is entirely different from the technology of any other reactor. To the inexperienced, [fluoride] technology is daunting…” • Breaking existing mindset “Perhaps the moral to be drawn is that a technology that differs too much from an existing technology has not one hurdle to overcome—to demonstrate its feasibility—but another even greater one—to convince influential individuals and organizations who are intellectually and emotionally attached to a different technology that they should adopt the new path” • Deferred to the future “It was a successful technology that was dropped because it was too different from the main lines of reactor development… I hope that in a second nuclear era, the [fluoride-reactor] technology will be resurrected.” ORNL Director (1955-1973)

  28. H.G. MacPherson: Why wasn’t this done? • Lack of technical understanding “The political and technical support for the program in the United States was too thin geographically. Within the United States, only in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, was the technology really understood and appreciated.” • Existing bureaucracy “The thorium-fueled fluoride reactor program was in competition with the plutonium fast breeder program, which got an early start and had copious government development funds being spent in many parts of the United States. When the fluoride reactor development program had progressed far enough to justify a greatly expanded program leading to commercial development, the Atomic Energy Commission could not justify the diversion of substantial funds from the plutonium breeder to a competing program.” ORNL Deputy Director

  29. Why is this so different? • Liquid core Despite the design being inherently simple, the testing, verification and existing database does not readily apply. • Thorium The fuel is Uranium 233 which is not naturally found but must be obtained from the “fertile” element thorium. Since this was not the best solution for weapons, the process is not well known. • Chemical Processing Without CONTINUOUS chemical processing, the full advantage of thorium for a power reactor is not realized. One must sequester the intermediate product from the reactor core and that is a unique industrial chemical process - NOT a nuclear technology.

  30. “Under the leadership of Hyman Rickover, the Navy contracted the Westinghouse Electric Corporation to construct, test and operate a prototype submarine reactor plant. This first reactor plant was called the Submarine Thermal Reactor, or STR. On March 30, 1953, the STR was brought to power for the first time and the age of naval nuclear propulsion was born. One of the greatest revolutions in the history of naval warfare had begun. To test and operate his reactor plant, Rickover put together an organization which has thrived to this day. Westinghouse's Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory was assigned responsibility for operating the reactor it had designed and built. The crew was increasingly augmented by naval personnel as the cadre of trained operators grew. Admiral Rickover ensured safe operation of the reactor plant through the enforcement of the strictest standards of technical and procedural compliance.” Ref: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ship/eng/reactor.html Big organizations with lots of “self-interest” and bureaucracy Not ‘inherent’ safety, but very strict rules and blind obedience ‘Institutional’ History

  31. The Path We Have Taken… • Is the Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) the only reactor approach? • Is the PWR the best (safest, least expensive, most efficient, synergetic, etc.) reactor choice? • Are there others systems that have hardware testing, years of system operation, scientific data achieves, impressive advocates, etc.? • Did we make the best decision then? • Are we making the wrong decision now?

  32. What is LFTR? Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor or LFTR (pronounced “Lifter”) is a specific fission energy technology based on thorium rather than uranium as the energy source. The nuclear reactor core is in a liquid form and has a completely passive safety system (i.e., no control rods). Major advantages include: significant reduction of nuclear waste (producing no transuranics and ~100% fuel burnup), inherent safety, weapon proliferation resistant, and high power cycle efficiency. The best way to use thorium. A compact electrical power source. Safe and environmentally compatible energy. A new era in nuclear power. What fusion promises someday…

  33. Technical Details • Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor … • A type of nuclear reactor where the nuclear fuel is in a liquid state, suspended in a molten fluoride-based salt, and uses a separate fluid stream for the conversion of thorium to fissionable fuel to maintain the nuclear reaction. • It is normally characterized by: • Operation at atmospheric pressure • High operating temperatures (>>600K) • Chemical extraction of protactinium-233 and reintroduction of its decay chain product, uranium-233 • Thermal spectrum run marginally above breakeven • Closed-Cycle Brayton power conversion “It is the melding of the nuclear power and nuclear processing industries; surprisingly, something that does not occur naturally.”

  34. Chart of the Nuclides for LFTR Fissile Fuel! Ref: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/reCenter.jsp?z=90&n=142 Uranium (92) Protactinium (91) Thorium (90) B- ~27 days half-life B- ~22 min half-life + N Raw Material!

  35. Without Protactinium Extraction Not Fissile ! Ref: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/nudat2/reCenter.jsp?z=90&n=142 Uranium (92) Protactinium (91) Thorium (90) ~7 hour half-life B- + N #2 B- ~22 min half-life + N Raw Material!

  36. 233Pa Blanket Fundamental Process & Objectives Safety & Compact/ Mobile Cost Effective & Grid Interfacing Intermediate Storage Thorium In Minimum U233 Core Products Replacement U233 Proliferation & Waste Reduction Timeliness & Covers Energy Gap Cold In Hot Out Drives Turbines

  37. LFTR Inherent Advantages Desired Goals Safety Cost Power Security Environment Scalability Flexibility

  38. LFTR Disadvantages • Relativity unknown • Difficult process to follow • Different from existing nuclear infrastructure and mindset • Not weapons-grade materials • Has a chemical processing system • Needs a start charge of U233 “There are always disadvantages to every technology, process or methodology one selects and there are always plenty of people to point out the ones that belong to yours, but very few that explain how to mitigate them.”

  39. Relative Comparison:Uranium vs Thorium Based Nuclear Power Source: http://www.energyfromthorium.com/ppt/thoriumEnergyGeneration.ppt

  40. Unique Applications • Mobility: • Site relocations(lower financial risk) • Military or disaster relief • Near consumer, lower grid losses • Ships (including littoral naval vessels for an all nuclear US Navy) • Submerged units: • Hidden (aesthetic view) • Threat resistant • Good heat rejection • Unaffected by storm or earthquake • High Temperatures: • Direct use in shale oil extraction (local site/mobile) • Hydrogen production • Desalination • Coal to liquid fuel (Fischer-Tropsch)

  41. Summary Think about the entirety of the global energy crisis: Required Resource Intensity Diminishing Returns (producing the next 10 Quads….) Power Density relation to cost, applicability, flexibility, etc. The speed to produce on the order of 100 Quads worldwide Vulnerabilities (storms, attacks, environment) Questions to ask yourself: Can thorium meet this challenge? Is it worth serious analysis now? What is the best way to exploit all the advantages of thorium? Is LFTR what fusion promises to be someday? The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is an architecture that seeks to exploit thorium in these four broad categories: Compact & mobile for costs saving, ease of implementation & end of life disposal Proliferation resistance and nuclear substantial waste reduction Cost effective & grid interfacing through highly efficient, mass produced, power plants Timeliness and covers energy gap better than competing alternatives due to its energy density, flexibility of use and high availability www.energyfromthorium.com

  42. Back Up Slides The details for the technical geek…

  43. Neutrons are moderated through collisions Neutron born at high energy (1-2 MeV). Neutron moderated to thermal energy (<<1 eV).

  44. Weapons Grade Nuclear Materials “The Russian naval nuclear fuel cycle significantly overlaps the fuel cycles of the military's fissile material production…” Ref: http://www.nti.org/db/nisprofs/russia/naval/technol/reactors.htm • Bombs need “solid” nuclear fuel • That requires large, expensive, fuel enrichment plants and plutonium breeder systems • Therefore, paying these assets off, or utilizing the “sunk costs” was the driver for solid fueled reactor designs a + b = c It follows that once started, the infrastructure and database available creates a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’… Weapons use highly enriched uranium 235 or plutonium 239; not uranium 233 or thorium 232! Weapons use processed solid fuel, not liquids that are “constantly being reprocessed”.

  45. “Incomplete Combustion”

  46. Light Water Reactors in operation: 355 Under construction: 22 Number of countries with LWRs: 27 Generating capacity: 317.103 GW(e) Operating experience: 8178 reactor-years Ref: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/cnpp2003/CNPP_Webpage/PDF/2003/Documents/Documents/Annex%20I%202003.pdf “Nuclear power plants provided some 16 percent of the world's electricity production in 2004. Countries generating the largest percentage of their electricity in 2005 from nuclear energy were:” Ref: http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=352 Civil Nuclear Power PlantsCan we accelerate construction? • Historical average ~8/yr • Even 10/yr takes 20 years to increase by ~50% • Profitable over the long haul, but slow build • Questions: • Expertise availability • Peak uranium • Waste storage

  47. Heavy Water Moderated/Gas Cooled/Liquid Metal Fast reactors Reactors in operation: 38/26/3 Under construction: 8/0(?)/0 Number of countries: 7/3/4 Generating capacity: 19.19/10.86/1.04 GW(e) Operating experience: 822/1547/156 reactor years Ref: http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/cnpp2003/CNPP_Webpage/PDF/2003/Documents/Documents/Annex%20I%202003.pdf Other Nuclear Power Plants

  48. Dispose of Fuel in Yucca Mountain Cost is proportional to length of time for storage and total volume. 10,000 years stability

  49. Perspectives on the US Energy Future 2008 2050 24 Quads* (4.11 Bbbl crude oil) (assumes ave. 2% growth in demand year to year) 14 Quads* (2.41 Bbbl crude oil) • ~ 2000 LFTRs • < 10% Coal • < 10% Petroleum (electric cars) • Yucca Mountain not needed for long term waste storage • Electricity and other products • Current US Electric Power Production Units • Biomass – 270 • Coal Fired Boiler – 1,4600 • Petroleum Coke – 31 • Combine Cycle NG – 1,686 • Comb. Turbine – 2,882 • Diesel – 4,514 • Fuel Oil – 13 • Geothermal – 215 • Hydro – 4,138 • Incinerators – 96 • NG Boiler – 776 • Nuclear – 104 • Oil Fired Boiler – 327 • Solar – 31 • Wind - 341 Thorium Based Nuclear • ~ 150 LWRs • > 70% Coal • > 95% Petroleum (transportation) • 2+ Yucca Mtns. for long term waste storage (~$180B) Current Trend Ambitious Conventional Nuclear • ~ 2000 LWRs • Not enough uranium supply for this • < 10% Coal • < 10% Petroleum (transportation) • 10+ Yucca Mtns. for long term waste storage (~$900B) (US Chemical Plants ~15,000 ) N.B.: High risk due to the safety, proliferation and waste issues and associated political and public opinion issues *Source: DOE Historical Net Electricity Generation by State by Type of Producer by Energy Source, 1990-2006

More Related