Thanks to visit codestin.com
Credit goes to www.scribd.com

Scribd
Upload
115 views1 page

Thorium Reactors Statement

Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction on its own and must be used with a fissile material like enriched uranium. Nuclear reactors fueled with thorium and uranium do not provide clear advantages over uranium-fueled reactors, as all reactor types generate large amounts of heat and proliferation risks exist. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors pose safety issues with retaining fission products and reprocessing fuel to extract U-233 presents proliferation concerns, while disposal of molten salt waste has proven challenging.

Uploaded by

Venugopal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
115 views1 page

Thorium Reactors Statement

Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction on its own and must be used with a fissile material like enriched uranium. Nuclear reactors fueled with thorium and uranium do not provide clear advantages over uranium-fueled reactors, as all reactor types generate large amounts of heat and proliferation risks exist. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors pose safety issues with retaining fission products and reprocessing fuel to extract U-233 presents proliferation concerns, while disposal of molten salt waste has proven challenging.

Uploaded by

Venugopal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 1

Union of Concerned Scientists

Statement on Thorium-fueled Reactors

Some people advocate the use of thorium to fuel nuclear power plants. Thorium could be used in
a variety of different types of reactors, including conventional light-water reactors, which are the
type used in the United States. However, thorium cannot be used by itself to sustain a nuclear
chain reaction: it must be used together with a fissile material such as enriched uranium,
uranium-233, or plutonium.

Nuclear reactors fueled with thorium and uranium do not provide any clear overall advantages
over reactors fueled with uranium alone. All types of nuclear fuels, whether uranium- or
thorium-based, generate large amounts of heat during reactor operation, and failing to effectively
remove that heat will lead to serious safety problems, as was seen at Fukushima. The U.S.
Department of Energy has concluded after a review that the choice between uranium-based fuel
and thorium-based fuel is seen basically as one of preference, with no fundamental difference in
addressing the nuclear power issues [of waste management, proliferation risk, safety, security,
economics, and sustainability].1 However, the report also notes that Since no infrastructure
currently exists in the U.S. for thorium-based fuels, and the processing of thorium-based fuels is
at a lower level of technical maturity when compared to processing of uranium-based fuels, costs
and RD&D [research, development and deployment] requirements for using thorium are
anticipated to be higher.

Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature
liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors.
However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the
retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively
resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they
involve the continuous separation, or reprocessing, of the fuel to remove fission products and
to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of
the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of
the very small "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment" that operated at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that
Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up.

1
Roald Wigeland et al, "AFCI Options Study," Idaho National Laboratory, INL/EXT-10-17639, September 2009.
Available at http://www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4480296.pdf

You might also like