The news comes from technology research in efforts to contain the worst of fission reaction’s byproducts. Tina Nenoff at Sandia National Laboratories’ Surface and Interface Sciences Department and the collaborating team members have used metal-organic frameworks (MOFs) to capture and remove volatile radioactive gas from spent nuclear fuel to reduce radioactive waste.

Metal Oxide Framework from Sandia Labs. Click image for the largest view.

The Sandia team’s discovery could be applied to nuclear fuel reprocessing or to clean up nuclear reactor accidents.  Other countries like France, Russia and India are reprocessing spent fuel, and have in some cases been doing so for decades, exploiting a characteristic of nuclear energy that used fuel can be reprocessed to recover fissile materials and provide fresh fuel for nuclear power plants.

Sandia’s MOF process reduces the volume of high-level wastes, a key concern of the Sandia researchers.

Nenoff starts the explanation, “The goal is to find a methodology for highly selective separations that result in less waste being interred. This is one of the first attempts to use a MOF for iodine capture.”  Removing iodine, whose isotopes have a half-life of 16 million years, from spent fuel would cause a very different storage perspective.

The Sandia team studied known materials, including silver-loaded zeolite, a crystalline, porous mineral with regular pore openings, high surface area and high mechanical, thermal and chemical stability. Various zeolite frameworks can trap and remove iodine from a stream of spent nuclear fuel, but need silver added to work well.

Nenoff continues, “Silver attracts iodine to form silver iodide. The zeolite holds the silver in its pores and then reacts with iodine to trap silver iodide.”  But silver is expensive and poses environmental problems.  In response the team set out to engineer materials without silver that would work like zeolites but have higher capacity for the gas molecules. They explored why and how zeolite absorbs iodine, and then used the critical components discovered to find the best MOF, now named ZIF-8.  “We investigated the structural properties on how they work and translated that into new and improved materials,” Nenoff said.

MOFs are crystalline, porous materials made where a metal center is bound to organic molecules by a mild self-assembly chemical synthesis process. The choices of metal and organic compounds will result in a very specific final framework.

The Sandia team’s research is based on a study searching for the best elements of the zeolite Mordenite because of its pores, high surface area, stability and chemical absorption.  That information allowed the team to identify a MOF that can separate single iodine molecules from a stream of molecules. The MOF with the pore-trapped iodine gas inside can then be incorporated into glass waste for much safer long-term storage.

The Sandia effort is part of the Off-Gas Sigma Team, which began six years ago and is led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory.  The project studies waste-form capture of volatile gasses associated with nuclear fuel reprocessing. Other team members, Pacific Northwest, Argonne and Idaho National Laboratories, are studying other volatile gases such as krypton, tritium and carbon.

The MOF and iodine research has driven two feature articles in the Journal of the American Chemical Society.

Dorina Sava said, “The most important thing we did was introduce a new class of materials to nuclear waste remediation.”

The most relevant information in publishing is another recent paper in Industrial & Engineering Chemistry Research showing a one-step process that incorporates MOFs with iodine in a low-temperature, glass waste form.

Nenoff says, “We have a volatile off-gas capture using a MOF and we have a durable waste form.” Nenoff and her colleagues are continuing their research into new and optimized MOFs for enhanced volatile gas separation and capture.

The Argonne National Lab’s collaborating Karena Chapman sums up with, “We’ve shown that MOFs have the capacity to capture and, more importantly, retain many times more iodine than current materials technologies.”

The national labs efforts are laudable, but the U.S. failure to pursue a program for recycling spent nuclear fuel has put the nation far behind other countries and represents a missed opportunity for investment, jobs, exports, profits and taxed earnings. The failure to enhance the nation’s energy security also fails to influence other nations to operate more safely and increases the risks of proliferating weapons instead of reprocessing fuel.

Perhaps with more views made possible with the Internet, the hysteria of the media elites and the political class pandering to the lowest level of public opinion shrinking, a little progress can be made – someday.

As a beginning point on other news this week, the reports followed up a 2004 University of Chicago study on the economic future of nuclear energy. The 2004 study concluded that the nuclear energy industry would need financial incentives from the federal government in order to build new plants that could compete with coal and gas fired plants.

The other news this week is the realization by many that the Obama appointment of Gregory Jaczko, to Chairman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission should be removed.  A petition drive is underway at Change.org, following an inspector general’s report released last June that said Jaczko intimidated staff members who disagreed with him and withheld information from members of the commission to gain their support. The report also said several high-ranking employees at the independent agency complained that Chairman Jaczko delayed and hindered their work on important projects.

The inspector general report times well with the four experienced and well-educated nuclear energy professional commissioners, who among them can count close to 100 years of working with nuclear reactors, nuclear safety analysis, nuclear propulsion plants, advanced nuclear energy research and development, and nuclear project management, that have signed a letter addressed to the Chief of Staff of the President of the United States detailing their frustration with the leadership style and decision making processes used by the 41-year-old, politically-appointed Chairman.

Its far past time for Jaczko to return to Congress where his skill set can be hidden more effectively.

Back out in Chicago the newest University of Chicago report is clear, “It would be a huge stimulus for high-valued job growth, restore U.S. leadership in nuclear reactor technology and, most importantly, strengthen U.S. leadership in a post-Fukushima world, on matters of nuclear safety, nuclear security, nonproliferation, and nuclear waste management.”

Robert Rosner, the EPIC director and the William Wrather Distinguished Service Professor in Astronomy & Astrophysics, sums the obvious and now well proven with, “Clearly, a robust commercial SMR industry is highly advantageous to many sectors in the United States.”

The earlier report, “Analysis of GW-scale Overnight Costs,” updates the overnight cost estimates of the 2004 report. Overnight costs are the estimated costs if you were to build a new large reactor ‘overnight,’ that is, using current input prices and excluding the cost of financing. It would now cost $4,210 per kilowatt to build a new gigawatt-scale reactor, according to the new report. This cost is approximately $2,210 per kilowatt higher than the 2004 estimate because of commodity price changes and other factors.  A near doubling in just 7 years.

The problem is explained in part by Center for Strategic and International Studies CEO John Hamre who said that economic issues have hindered the construction of new large-scale reactors in the United States. The key challenge facing the industry is the seven-to-nine-year gap between making a commitment to build a nuclear plant and revenue generation.  “This is a real problem.” Hamre said.  Few companies can afford to wait that long to see a return on the $10 billion investment.  Nor can the ratepayers. But the advent of the small modular reactor “offers the promise of factory construction efficiencies and a much shorter timeline.”

That could be so if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission would be at work executing on its mandate.

This could be a huge economic development opportunity.  Small modular reactors could be especially appealing for markets that could not easily accommodate gigawatt-scale plants, such as those currently served by aging, 200- to 400-megawatt coal plants, which are likely to be phased out during the next decade.

The other hand holds some problems.  The new modular designs in mass production affecting price reductions depends partly on how quickly manufacturers can learn to build them efficiently. “The faster you learn, the better off you are in the long term because you get to the point where you actually start making money faster,” Rosner noted.

It’s the risk that matters.  Nuclear is vastly more capital demanding than natural gas.  Should efficiency continue its trend, or a new technology breakout, or the economy drift lower and slower, having a huge capital investment waiting years to build, more years to recover the investment, with rates indeterminate sets an investor up for a generation’s worth of worry.

Yet the new reactors could be the low capital investment leaders if the stage were to be set for the good of the nation over the fears of the fools.

The UK government is in the midst of an opportunity.  They have choices for the plutonium that doesn’t include building more nuclear weapons.  One choice is to simply stockpile it and run the risks.  Then there are better choices.

What drove the Guardians story is that the U.S. firm General Electric set out proposals yesterday to build a new nuclear reactor at Sellafield that would convert the UK’s stockpile of radioactive plutonium into electricity.

Disused Plutonium Reactor In the UK From the Guardian. Click image for the largest view.

According to GE the multibillion pound project would take plutonium – the residue from the UK’s nuclear power plants – and use it as fuel for a 600MW reactor that could provide power for 750,000 homes.  GE’s “Prism” reactor has been in use for more than 30 years in the US, but if the new plant goes ahead it would be the first such plant in private operation outside the US.

Already on the table are converting the plutonium for use in a thorium reactor or building a new mixed oxide fuel (‘mox’) processing plant.

The Guardian has published a background piece on thorium fueled reactors, but so far what ideas are on the government’s table aren’t being discussed.  The potential choices with thorium are broad from water-cooled reactors to liquid fluoride and on to the Rubbia method running sub critical with an accelerator keeping the reaction underway.

A certainty is the UK can choose, as well as everyone else, but the government is underway on looking at the choices.  With no decision or preference out the competition is underway.  Sifting through the choices with the competitors varied resources is going to be quite a challenge.  GE has a huge capital and personnel advantage.

With an eye towards getting the cost of government under control and a £2 billion problem with storage, finding that plutonium has a value to mitigate cost is a good place to look.  Some people in the government want the plutonium to be classed as an asset rather than a liability.

The game is on though.  The Guardian is reporting that Sir David King, former chief scientific adviser, urged ministers earlier this year to find a use for the stockpile. A government decision is expected “shortly”, but no firm date has yet been set.  That’s all to the good, as many more thorium choices could get on the table as news of the opportunity gets around.

The Guardian has consulted with nuclear experts who are skeptical of GE’s proposals, pointing out that the company had provided little data on which to assess its credibility as a solution to the UK’s plutonium stockpile, and that government-sponsored research into the available options had suggested that a mixed oxide plant was the best use.

That implied there could be some bias in the local field.  Lets hope that asset idea drives some more time for more thought.

GE’s Prism reactor system’s fuel comes by taking the existing plutonium oxide powder in cans, and converting it to metal. That metal is in turn converted into an alloy and mixed with uranium and zirconium, which is put into a fuel bundle and used in a fission reactor. After the fuel is spent, the waste product that is left would be safer than plutonium in the form in which the UK stores it today, because it would be less liable to be used in weapons and would be more easily stored, the company said.

It isn’t clear how much energy is extracted from the plutonium, the more extracted the less dangerous the plutonium.

Eric Loewen, chief engineer on the Prism project said, “The waste is much the same as that produced by new light water reactors.”  That’s an improvement, but isn’t getting much value out of the asset.

GE has another bait though, not saying how much the plant would be likely to cost, or how much profit it could make, but said the investment would be “multibillion” if it went ahead. There would be a lot of jobs involved as well.

Intuition suggests that thorium solutions will offer the best asset use.  Thorium reactors bring to the table lots of investment, with an expectation that the watt-hours would be cheaper for consumers, plenty of jobs, and a healthier economy with less energy expense drag.  Plus the thorium based spent fuel would be far less problematic than the competition, answering the premise problem directly and effectively.

The news is that a government is finally looking at used fission reactor fuel with some sense.  There is a whole lot of energy wasting away in used nuclear fuel.  Not really very fast, but bleeding off into pools of water nonetheless.

There’s roughly 19 times as much energy left to use from the spent fuel as all the energy already taken, it’s an asset and a big one – indeed.

In a rare interview, Ratan Kumar Sinha, the director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, told the Guardian that his team is finalizing the site for construction of the new large-scale experimental reactor, while at the same time conducting “confirmatory tests” on the design saying, “The basic physics and engineering of the thorium-fuelled Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) are in place, and the design is ready.”

Once the six-month search for a site is completed – probably next to an existing nuclear power plant – it will take another 18 months to obtain regulatory and environmental impact clearances before building work on the site can begin.

Sinha continues, “Construction of the AHWR will begin after that, and it would take another six years for the reactor to become operational,” meaning that if all goes to plan, the reactor could be operational by the end of the decade.

For decades the development of workable and large-scale thorium reactors has been a dream for nuclear engineers, while for environmentalists it has become a major hope as an alternative to fossil fuels.

In the U.S. Kirk Sorenson is at work promoting a firm named Flibe Energy that will initially design, develop and demonstrate a small modular liquid-fluoride thorium reactor for the US military at a designed power level of 20 to 50MWe.  Sorenson’s firm is headed to factory-produced and modular design with lower capital costs by using gas turbine equipment.  Flibe offers extremely low fuel-cycle costs through use of thorium in a liquid fluoride form.

Thorium Reactor Graphic by Popular Science. Click image for the largest view.

Sinha says that if all goes to plan, the Indian thorium fueled reactor could be operational by the end of the decade.

Producing a workable thorium reactor would be a massive breakthrough in electric power generation. Using thorium – a naturally occurring moderately radioactive element named after the Norse god of thunder – as a source of atomic power is not new technology.  The U.S. did promising early research in the 1950s to 1970s only to shelve the effort in favor of the uranium fuel that produced weapons supplies in the spent fuel.

India has the among world’s largest thorium deposits, and with a world hungry for low-carbon energy, it has its eye on a potentially lucrative export market for the technology. For more than three decades, India’s nuclear research program had been subject to international sanctions since its controversial 1974 nuclear tests. But after losing its pariah status three years ago as a result of the Indo-U.S. nuclear deal, India is eager to export indigenous nuclear technology developed in research centers such as the BARC.

Its not all perfect, thorium reactors won’t start without a tiny bit of trigger fuel, like uranium or plutonium.  But the thorium reactors spent fuel wouldn’t have any more trigger fuel than when started and that would be well burned through.

The Indian effort is using low-enriched uranium – which India is permitted to import under the 2008 Indo-US deal.  The new reactor has the design flexibility for using trigger fuel or either plutonium or low-enriched uranium.  This approach sets a very highly marketable standard with many more potential customers.

India’s low-enriched uranium/thorium fuel combination design is currently at pilot stage and is at work setting up for testing the fuel combination.

This should be a wake up call to the rest of the nuclear power industry.  There is a huge market out there and thorium fueled reactors offer nearly no weapons proliferation risk and the spend fuel risk is managed over decades instead of hundred of centuries.

And the power could be very, very cheap for consumers.

Along with the congratulations, we’re sending along encouragement.  Failing dirt-cheap fusion in the future, thorium offers centuries of low risk low cost power for billions of people.  It’s time for billions of them to wake up and take notice.

It would seem obvious to most anyone that better new designs and applying experience would offer a safer, cheaper and more efficient production of nuclear power.  It just isn’t so in the U.S. and that fact is a huge embarrassment for an economy, a lost opportunity for ratepayers, stockholders, and job seekers, and a major intrusion into the effort for abundant energy.

Simply said, experience worldwide and intellectual progress can’t get into the U.S. nuclear power sector because of political intrusion.  The U.S. has squandered nearly 40 years, two generations, on law and the subsequent bureaucracy for honesty – nothing.

The Department of Energy (DOE) contends that new and refurbished reactors have “high potential for materiality,” materiality meaning a worthwhile contributor to the supply of electrical power.  Frustration shows up with DOE scientists launching a virtual reactor that models ways they could operate existing reactors longer and more intensely to extend the life of the existing fleet.

Extending the life of the existing fleet is a crucial move.  About 20% of the U.S. electrical power is produced at nuclear facilities.  While many assert that competition keeps the nuclear industry down, and a bit of that is true, most everyone with a bit of sense quickly realizes that closing nuclear power facilities would create a massive cut in supply, drive a huge marginal cost into electric bills for consumers and remove a fundamental support of the economy.

A telephone survey of 1000 US citizens done in September by Bisconti Research with GfK Roper for the Nuclear Energy Institute found that 62% of the respondents favored the use of nuclear energy as one of the ways to generate electricity in the USA. That represents a small decrease in those supporting nuclear since a similar survey in February 2011 – a month before the Fukushima tsunami – that showed that 71% in favor.  26% of those questioned in February said they opposed nuclear energy, while the new figure is 35%. In effect, the accident seems to have moved 9% of the people to changing their minds.

Despite the Fukushima accident, 67% of Americans rate US nuclear power plant safety as ‘high’. That’s exactly the same level recorded in the poll conducted one month before the accident.

Here’s where the sense of the masses separate from the bureaucracy – 82% of respondents said that the USA should “learn the lessons from the Japanese accident and continue to develop advanced nuclear energy plants to meet America’s growing electricity demand.” Virtually the same amount also thought that the U.S. should learn everything possible from the Japanese accident and implement new safety measures in the short and long term.

The poll also indicates that majorities continue to support renewing the operating licenses of existing nuclear power plants and the construction of new reactors. The licenses of plants that continue to meet federal safety standards should be renewed, said 85% of respondents, while 75% believe utilities should prepare now so that new reactors could be built if needed in the next decade. New nuclear power plants should definitely be constructed in the USA in the future according to 59% of those questioned.

It seems the hysteria that grips some societies from the Fukushima tsunami has for the most part not affected the U.S. citizenry, a sign that major media might want to keep in mind and an important indicator of the common sense of the U.S. people.

It’s helpful for one part of the government to note the failings of another. While there are surely, one hopes, good and well-intentioned people at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the whole of the agency is a national disaster, a disgrace, embarrassment and economic problem.

For now and while hopes run high for alternatives, small and large nuclear power generation is still the cheapest, most reliable and safest way to electrically energize the nation.

Your humble writer isn’t suggesting that the U.S. engage in a massive build out of fission nuclear, but everyone will be best served when fission of all fuels, the research proves up the worthwhile reactors, and the industry can compete with the alternatives.  Electrical energy has to get cheaper better and safer because one day the storage matter will break through and impact transport.

Press and politicians tend to think in seconds as seen in those seconds long sound bite comments.  But it’s a great relief to see the U.S. citizenry hasn’t run like lemmings over the cliff from an earthquake to tsunami to nuclear plant inundated even behind a wall to stop a wave, to a bit to radioactive material getting out.  After all that the active fuel and the spent fuel is, was and will remain safe.

Perhaps folks will start hammering on some Congressmen and Senators and things will get better.  After all, the main problem in the U.S. for cheap electrical energy isn’t business, competition, prices or consumption – it’s purely political.

A hat tip and link to more at Al Fin.

Mr. Carlson explained to Mr. Adams that Hyperion was focusing its efforts in a different direction from the vision of its founders. Instead of building systems aimed at remote areas all over the world, the company is developing a financially strong first customer in North America and planning to license their system in either the US or Canada.

That’s sounds incredible – the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has yet to approve any reactor not previously approved by the Atomic Energy Commission nearing 40 years ago.

Hyperion Power Module. Click image for the largest view or visit the Hyperion Power Generation site linked above.

Mr. Adams report that Carlson related Hyperion is seeking to build a partnership with an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contractor that can help them build a complete power plant. The basic reactor design is unchanged and the economic model remains a system that can compete in markets where the best available power source is a diesel engine running on fuel that costs at least $4.00 per gallon. That is roughly $30 per million BTU, more than 7 times the current price of natural gas in the continental United States. When fuel prices are that high, electricity costs at least 30 cents per kilowatt hour to generate.

That would be an unusual situation for grid power.  Carlson explains the markets where Hyperion Power Modules will be successful are entirely different markets from those that Adam’s employer, B&W, is aiming to serve with the B&W mPowerTM Reactor.

Adams notes that the Tennessee Valley Authority wouldn’t be interested in building Hyperion Power Modules at the Clinch River site; its service territory has too many other low cost options.

Carlson was obviously not able to share any details about the specific customers his company is targeting or the EPC contractors that are being considered.

Adams notes in his post several issues.  First is the regulatory matters. Fixed costs associated with the current regulatory model are simply impossible to carry with a smaller revenue base.  The security costs alone – if a small, remotely-sited, mostly underground reactor is stubbornly treated like existing sites – would be on the order of $30 million per year.  A 25 MWe power plant running with a 90% capacity factor and selling power at $0.30 per kilowatt hour would generate a little less than $60 million per year in sales.

Carlson notes that Hyperion has new people.  It’s reported that the new folks are ready to go after regulatory approval.  This will be a huge task.  Yet the American dream is due for a resurgence, and small nuclear will on the leading edge.  It might be possible for fresh energetic and persistent people to accomplish what legions of private company executives facing entrenched bureaucrats have failed to do for the nation.

Adam’s last paragraph is an example of the American “can do” spirit and shows the concrete of the American character saying, “The potential benefit for the world’s human population motivates some of us to patiently press forward, despite the carefully designed barriers to entry that have been erected by the established energy providers during the past 50 years. There is some chance for success with the right attitude, the right technical choices and a patient application of pressure backed by facts and resources.”

If we can help – lets hope those guys let us know.  At least the firm is staying the U.S. and not leaving taking the intellectual property, capital, jobs, profits and tax revenues overseas.  If they get an approval, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission can get salvage its reputation the U.S could again be the gold standard in nuclear power production.  We’re not making any bets here, though . . .  Sometimes it looks and feels like its Americans v. the U.S. Government.

The earthquake ravaged Fukushima reactors and the hysteria fed and prodded by the press has Germany retreating from nuclear fission.  But somehow the numbers don’t seem to matter.  Germany is facing a massive shortage of power and one wonders just how an interconnected EU is going to respond to a demand drawing power from the other EU countries.  Some folks are sure to get gouged as prices rise across Europe to accommodate the German paranoia.   With wildly expensive natural gas from Russia and a danger of very expensive electrical supplies, can the German economic juggernaut go on?

New Nuclear Plants at Flamanville

One thing looks certain, the French will have the capacity from new reactors and burning coal is still viable choice.  This isn’t going to be cheap.  Some power companies have let the rumors slip that they will expect to be remunerated for licensed sales that are seen to be denied by the new policy.  That could also raise the stakes by tens of billions of Euros.

Opinion in Germany seems to hold that renewables can make up the shortfall.  Its quite a different take from the Brits where getting everything going is the general idea. Now in fairness, renewables could fill the German gap and more, but the technology is quite young and the scale is enormous. It’s a theory in reality even though lots of pilot size things look good.  Just how much land is involved and the trade off from human food production isn’t spelled out.  The German metaphor looks like asking the toddlers to be the main family breadwinners.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s newest plan would shutter all nuclear plants by 2022, just 11 years out.  This is a reversal from her previous support for nuclear power and a change from last year’s parliamentary decision to keep the plants open until 2036.  That pulls 14 years of research and development time, and opportunities not yet thought of off the table.

Brian Wang reported the depth of the problem last week telling us that Germany plans to not restart seven reactors that had been closed from the last period of paranoia.   Instead, 19 new fossil fuel power plants are under construction most burning coal, due to startup over the coming years.  Where is the Famed Green Party when the obvious danger shows?

Even Switzerland caught the disease.  For American’s the spectacle of Europeans, especially the Swiss, diving off a power production cliff seems, well, shocking.  The Germans are one thing, but the Swiss?

Switzerland had planned two new reactors with $10 billion committed.  At least the reports have it that the warnings of expensive energy imports and the damage to industrial competitiveness made the Swiss news.

A major foundation stone of world stability resides in Europe.  As the U.S. flirts with economic meltdown through government borrowing Europe has held the western anchor of character in the world’s economy. Now that is at risk.

It looks like Germany has fallen for the twin idols of environmentalism and the welfare state sacrificing their long-range best interests.  Even now rich Asian firms are buying up European companies as well as American ones.  And Asia seems to understand that “more, better and cheaper” energy supplies are crucial for their economic success.  They’re signing on for lots of nuclear power.  That’s an old lesson lost on the West.

It seems odd that an earthquake driven tsunami wave sweeping over the levees, wiping the Fukushima reactors safety equipment out of commission with no meltdown or even noteworthy harm can reverse German and Swiss policy half a world away. Which begs the question when the consequences of the greatly reduce electrical generation and much higher prices become understood, just how long will the new policy hold?

The U.S. could drive into thorium in a major way, get with mini reactors with speed and aplomb and drive with leadership to “better, faster and cheaper” in less than a year and accomplish more economic revival than a trillion dollars of handouts.

Or maybe the Rossi E-Cat will break into the market in a big way nullifying the debates worldwide.

Still, Germany is trying another run at a silly experiment, throwing away a major resource over reports laced with hyperbole and hysteria.

We do live in interesting times. It’s just a shame the West has chosen decisions to become poorer as the East works to build up its wealth.

Sorensen’s company is called “Flibe” from lithium fluoride (LiF) and beryllium fluoride (BeF2) that together form a solution often called “F-Li-Be”.  Liquid-fluoride thorium reactors operate at high temperatures but not at high pressures because they use a chemically stable medium as the fuel and the coolant, making them much safer to operate than conventional reactors.

F Li BE Fuel shown as a salt crystal and as fluid. Click image for the largest view.

That temperature and pressure matter is important.  In a liquid fluoride thorium reactor as hot as it is can only get so hot before the fuel melts out a plug that drains the fuel out into a diluted and non-reactive state to cool.  With out the high pressures the potential for an explosion is missing.  What could explode would be the steam on the other side of the heat exchanger – but that risk is in any power station from natural gas fired, to coal and on to a uranium reactor.

The other main point is the primary fuel in the solution is thorium.  Thorium is abundant compared to uranium and doesn’t ratchet up in the reactor to weapons materials like plutonium.  These points should, if people would pay a bit of attention, form a firm base for thorium fueled reactor progress.

The root of Sorensen’s technology comes from Nobel-Prize-winning physicist Eugene Wigner and his protégé, Alvin Weinberg, who attempted to convince the US government to research the surpassing potential of thorium after World War II.  In 1955, Weinberg took charge of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee and began a personal campaign to try to realize the benefits of thorium. Under his leadership, two prototype nuclear reactors were built that demonstrated key technologies needed to bring thorium energy generation to reality.

Many believe, with good reason, that the lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride salt fission reactor is the ideal medium for nuclear chemical processing and reactor operation. It is chemically stable, nearly invisible to neutrons, and impervious to radiation damage, unlike almost every other nuclear fuel. A flibe-designed reactor carries large amounts of heat at low pressures, leading to small, compact, and safe designs for nuclear reactors.

The Flibe proposal is to build small reactors to supply affordable and sustainable electrical energy, desalinated water, synthetic hydrocarbons, ammonia, and lifesaving radioisotopes.

Thorenco LLC is proposing small transportable 50-megawatt-thermal thorium converter reactors for multiple uses: producing electricity and low-cost, high-temperature steam for process industrial heat. The high-temperature steam can be used for extraction of oil from tar sands, or desalinating, purifying, and cracking water. The reactor’s fuel matrix can be “tuned” to provide the right output for each particular work process.

Thorenco Early Deep Salt Pool Design Reactor. Click image for the largest view.

The Thorenco designed core in the newest design is a short wide cylinder at about 140 centimeters (56 inches) in diameter and 50 centimeters (20 inches) tall. That size makes for portability, such that it can be brought to remote locations to a work site and supply heat and electricity there without dependence on long-distance transmission lines and moved, as conditions require. The small size would be factory-built and transported to its destination, “plugged in” to a deep underground containment structure, and put to work quickly. The core can be shipped back to the factory when the fuel needs to be changed.

The Thorenco fuel is quite different from the typical liquid fluoride thorium fuel.  Thorenco would use fissile uranium-235 as a source of ignition neutrons and a mix of thorium tetrafluoride in a beryllium fluoride molten salt, which dispersed in an inert metal matrix covered by Holden’s Patent Cooperation Treaty application, and is pumped in circulation.  The metal matrix is a solid-state metal alloy composed of four materials. The thorium and uranium fuel particles are embedded in the alloy, which both slows and moderates the fissioning process. There are moderating materials dispersed in the alloy along with the actinide particles. Using the metallic alloys as moderators (instead of the water used in other thorium reactor designs) allows Thorenco’s reactor to operate in a more energetic neutron spectrum so that its core can have a long life.

The Thorenco design with its moderator built in makes the self-regulating reactor’s fuel term to operate for 10 years without needing refueling.

These two plans put a new energy into the U.S. thorium fueled fission business.  With India and of late China, racing to bring reactors to market, it’s not a moment too soon.  The problem still lies in getting some motion out of the U.S. government’s regulatory apparatus.

Getting public acceptance going isn’t going to be so hard.  The big issues, exploding and throwing out huge plumes of radioactivity, meltdowns burning holes in the planet, and weapons proliferation just aren’t applicable in any worthwhile way.  That’s not to say those kinds of fear mongering aren’t going to happen, its just that the audience could be limited to the fewest intellectually lacking or emotionally vulnerable with a little honesty from industry, government and the media.

While starting companies isn’t technology news, and the ideas from these two firms isn’t new, the backing of the two firm is worth noting and that they are active now is cause for some celebration.  Congratulation to all involved and thanks to Brian Wang and EnergyFromThorium.com for getting the word out.

Meanwhile the nuclear reactors are under control.  The control rods seem to have been inserted – no runaway reaction has been reported.  The worst fears never saw any chance to come into being.  No meltdown in the unmoderated form took place and it seems not possible now.  There is no Chernobyl event underway. Vast amounts of deadly radiation aren’t likely, almost impossible, but never say never.  A deep blue glowing fire burning into the ground doesn’t seem to be a worthy forecast.

Fukushima Dai Ichi Nuclear Plant Damage. Click image for the largest view.

What has happened is the tsunami waves took out the ability to run cooling water over the working reactors and the spent fuel assemblies.  When a reactor is suddenly shut down there is a tremendous amount of heat remaining in the reactor.  There are tons of fuel, rod casing, control rods, apparatus, shielding, concrete and water at dry steam temperatures.

It takes a while for the heat to be bled off.  Perhaps by the first of next week they’ll all be cool enough that simply residing in a pool would do.

There’s the next problem – even when under control some heat is made.  Without a transfer out, the heat builds up until equilibrium with the surroundings is made.  The question then becomes, will the equilibrium be cooler than the temperature required for fuel breaking out of the rod casings?  Your humble writer doesn’t know, but is watching for someone credible to answer.

The things to watch for are the crews to get a fully rated cooling water flow underway and reliably running.  The idea is to have no heavy elements escape.  Water and light gases aren’t going to pose much if any risk.  But heavier elements when driven to radioactively can give off the nasty rays.  Actual fuel particalized or gasified and sent out would be tragic. It all depends on the answer of how hot the fuel rod assemblies get before equilibrium is reached.

That isn’t simple either.  The roads and other access routes are shut down.  Getting heavy equipment to the sites is a whole other challenge.  These are big facilities; your pickup truck sized answer isn’t of much use.  Railway support is still unanswered.  Whole trains are reported as ‘missing’. Track damage is sure to be widespread.  Road and rail are going to be needed for better than short-term quick fixes.  And the quick fixes are going to be undersized in the best analysis.

A big helicopter should move some diesels and pumps. Water can be made to flow.  The sources need set up and flow exits need made.  While the reports don’t say, much is done and underway or the steam plumes, and emissions would be much higher.

It’s hard to get past the hysteria in the press.  It makes for a bone chilling story for the un and ill informed.  For the rest of us, a wish of god’s speed, good luck, decent weather and dedicated support are all we can do.  The world can learn much, well engineered nuclear is safe, even in the face of a major earthquake when the engineering is done right.

There is also the lesson that earthquake preparedness isn’t enough after all.  Tsunamis are also a factor deserving much more thought and attention.  Redundancy in cooling while previously thought undefeatable was defeated by only a rise in water coming at great speed.

Mankind has harnessed one of physics great powers, the fission of atoms.  The process, the exploitation and the use have decades of experience built up and better ideas on the drawing board.  What is being learned isn’t that duly respected atomic nuclear power is dangerous in and of itself, rather it’s that the density of power, the mass involved, and the complexity haven’t been fully measured against the potential adverse impacts.  The world just added or increased one more.

Energy in dense form isn’t going to go away.  Whether it’s the explosive nature of gasoline or hydrogen, a lithium battery that could catch fire, an ultracapacitor delivering a huge shock, a wind turbine flying apart, or thermal solar panel fast cooking an interloper – eventually something will come along to make it dangerous and depending on how big the energy package is – might get hurt.

The main concern is to support the people working to secure the reactor and spent fuel sites.  The first job though, is to find and care those without food, clothing and shelter.

Supercritical CO2 Engineering Test Rig. Click image for more info.

The most interesting point of the research is it’s not a binary system – one that takes the heat off the heat source to heat something else for driving the turbine – instead it’s a direct to turbine blade energy delivery.

The Sandia guys are really confident – Steve Wright of Sandia’s Advanced Nuclear Concepts group says, “Sandia is not alone in this field, but we are in the lead. We’re past the point of wondering if these power systems are going to be developed; the question remains of who will be first to market. Sandia and DOE have a wonderful opportunity in the commercialization effort.”

This will sell if priced right – for example as the Sandia group is focusing on nuclear heat sources – a full retrofit in the U.S. nuclear fleet would increase U.S. electrical output to nearly 30% from the fleet, a 10% total increase. That would be like building 51 more nuclear powers stations.

Moreover, Sandia’s supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle is expected to produce electrical power at a considerably lower temperature (250-300º C or 480-572º F).  That alone opens up a lot of alternative sources including all potential heat sources including solar, geothermal, fossil fuel, biofuel, as well as nuclear and including next-generation power reactors – perhaps even the Rossi / Focardi reactor.

Wright explains, “This machine is basically a jet engine running on a hot liquid. There is a tremendous amount of industrial and scientific interest in supercritical CO2 systems for power generation. . .”  This is a link to an analysis pdf that describes the testing taken place to prove up the hardware.

The technology is based on the Brayton cycle, named after George Brayton that in the original design functions simply by heating air in a confined space and then releasing it in a particular direction. The same principle is at work powering jet engines today.

The Sandia group has focused on supercritical carbon dioxide Brayton-cycle turbines converting heat energy from bulk thermal and nuclear power sources to the generation of electricity. The goal is eventually to replace steam-driven Rankine cycle turbines because they have lower efficiency, are corrosive at the high operating temperatures and occupy 30 times as much space due to the need for physically very large turbines and condenser sets to dispose of excess steam. The Sandia supercritical CO2 Brayton cycle is said it could yield 20 megawatts of electricity from a package with a volume as small as four cubic meters.  That’s a bit more than a large desk.

A competing system, also in research at Sandia and using the Brayton cycle with helium as the working fluid, is designed to operate at about 925º C and is expected to produce electrical power at same 43 to 46% efficiency range.  The supercritical CO2 equipment is more compact than that of the helium cycle, which is far more compact than the conventional water to steam cycle.

Understanding the technology is the realization or knowledge that under normal conditions materials behave in the classical or ideal way that’s predictable as conditions cause them to change phase, such as when heated water turns to steam. However the classical model tends not to work at lower temperatures or higher pressures than those that exist at the “critical” points.

In the case of carbon dioxide, it becomes an unusually dense or a “supercritical” liquid at the point where it is held between the gas phase and liquid phase. The supercritical properties of carbon dioxide at temperatures above 500 C and pressures above 7.6 megapascals (1102 psi) enable the system to operate with very high thermal efficiency.

Those efficiencies exceed those of large coal fueled power plants and compare as nearly twice as efficient as that of a good gasoline engine running at about 25% efficiency.

The Sandia team currently has two supercritical CO2 test loops.  A power production loop is located in Arvada, Colorado at contractor Barber Nichols Inc., where it has been running and producing approximately 240 kilowatts (equivalent to twenty 100 amp U.S. homes) of electricity during the developmental phase that began a year ago in March 2010. It is now being upgraded and its expected to ship to Sandia this summer.  When this unit runs the first electrical production will take place.

A second loop that’s driven rather than powering, located at Sandia in Albuquerque, is used to research the mechanics of the unusual issues of compression, bearings, seals, and friction that exist near the critical point, where the carbon dioxide has the density of liquid but otherwise has many of the properties of a gas.  That’s where the engineering issues for these matters are being worked out.

The close range publicly released plans call for Sandia to continue to develop and operate the small test loops to identify key features and technologies. Test results will illustrate the capability of the concept, particularly its compactness, efficiency and scalability to larger systems. Longer-range plans call for an industrial demonstration plant at 10 MW of electricity that would lead to commercialization of the technology into the power generation market.

One gets the feeling from the press release information that the progress at Sandia might have resolutions at hand for the engineering issues sized to 250 kW and very good expectations as the design scales up.

The other matter of great interest is going to be in the delay from firing a heat source to getting to a fully heated working fluid.  In a water to steam system the starting delay is expensive in fuel costs, thus keeping the steam plants in a base load configuration and requiring considerable costs as running water to steam is less stable than supercritical CO2 because the water’s oxygen reacts more with the system’s components.

Sandia might just have a major contribution for power generation at hand.