MSR Thorium Reactor Fort St. Vrain Power Station Experiment Failed



In the video above, Dr. Helen Caldicott MD interviews Dr. Arjun Makhijani (a plasma expert) who explains the downsides of the proposed MSR and LFTR thorium reactors and why renewable solar  or other renewable energy sources such as wind, water, tides, geothermal and hydrogen will save money and save lives long term. http://ifyoulovethisplanet.org/?p=6100

Contrary to the claims made or implied by thorium proponents, however, thorium doesn’t solve the proliferation, waste, safety, or cost problems of nuclear power, and it still faces major technical hurdles for commercialization.


The pro-thorium lobby claim a single ton of thorium burned in a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) – typically a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) – which has liquid rather than solid fuel, will operate safely, efficiently and profitably. However, the investment industry is turning a cold shoulder to the idea that Thorium is anything but a boondoggle. Why? Maybe because these investors are putting their money on the line, and they do their due diligence. Maybe, just maybe, these investors have looked into this fantasy to see what the actual facts are behind the pro thorium lobby claims. 

These investors are refusing to put their money into either nuclear power, or this supposedly ‘new’ thorium idea, which is actually a very old idea being recycled from the 1960’s when it was found not workable. So why should the public put their tax money into thorium reactors?

Nuclear experts have examined and analyzed Thorium claims and found them to be lacking. Read about the  Ten Myths About Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power, By Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd, A Fact Sheet Produced by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Physicians for Social Responsibility.
http://www.beyondnuclear.org/storage/documents/THE%20MYTHS%20ABOUT%20THORIUM%20AS%20A%20NUCLEAR%20ENERGY%20SOLUTION.pdf
As one example of a failed liquid sodium and thorium reactor, we present The Fort St. Vrain Power Station. It was converted from a failed thorium and sodium nuclear reactor experiment to a natural gas power plant many years ago. 

At this site, they tried for many years to make this thorium powered reactor work both financially and technically, but the Thorium experiment just never worked. Here are pictures of this abandoned thorium nuclear power plant today, after it was converted to a gas powered plant.  http://www.fsvfolks.org/Photos_Plant.html
“FORT ST. VRAIN NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION SHUT DOWN
“…A converter reactor, it used U235 and Thorium as fuel. Thorium is non-fissionable and less costly than other nuclear fuels, but when combined with U235 it is converted into fissionable U235….The plant operated during December 1976 and August 1989, in between a series of reactor shutdowns…The plant was last shut down in August 1989 to repair a stuck control rod discovered during routine safety testing. During the repair activities, hairline cracks were discovered in tubes that supplied heated steam to drive the turbine….” http://clonemaster.homestead.com/files/SDdetails.htm


The nuclear fuel from this disaster of a nuclear power plant is being stored until at least 2030. The ‘spent’ fuel is being air cooled and has to be treated the same as the spent fuel from any other ‘normal’ nuclear reactor. 
According to Wikipedia at the Fort S. Vrain Power Statin; “the primary coolant was helium which transferred heat to a water based secondary coolant system to drive steam generators. The reactor fuel was a combination of fissile uranium and fertile thorium microspheres dispersed within a prismatic graphite matrix….The typical steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete containment dome structure was omitted in favor of a steel-frame containment structure while the reactor core was partially contained within a prestressed concrete reactor pressure vessel (PCRV)….

Three major categories of problems were experienced at Fort St. Vrain: 

1. water infiltration and corrosion issues
2. electrical system issues
3. general facility issues

Exceedingly close tolerances were needed to ensure that helium did not exfiltrate through the circulator while in use. Moving surfaces, in particular, were hard-pressed to provide the kind of seal required to keep the helium coolant in. Thus a water-lubricated bearing design was used to provide an adequate solution to the potential issue of helium exfiltration….Unfortunately, in satisfactorily preventing helium exfiltration, the designers caused another issue: water infiltration…By these mechanisms, water entered the sealed volume of the PCRV and caused havoc with numerous operations-critical systems. Though safety was assured to a substantial level by the design, numerous severe operability problems emerged quickly….”
According to nuclear expert Anne on Enenews; the Thorium “232Th–233U fuel cycle, much lesser quantity of plutonium and long-lived Minor Actinides (MA: Np, Am and Cm) are formed as compared to the 238U–239Pu fuel cycle, thereby minimizing the radiotoxicity associated in spent fuel. However, in the back end of 232Th–233U fuel cycle, there are other dionuclides such as 231Pa, 229Th and 230U, which may have long term radiological impact…The melting point of ThO2 (3 3500C) is much higher compared to that of UO2(2 8000C). Hence, a much higher sintering temperature (>2 0000C) is required to produce high density ThO2 and ThO2–based mixed oxide fuels. Admixing of ‘sintering aid’ (CaO, MgO, Nb2O5, etc) is required for achieving the desired pellet density at lower temperature.
“ThO2 and ThO2–based mixed oxide fuels are relatively inert and, unlike UO2 and (U, Pu)O2 fuels, do not dissolve easily in concentrated nitric acid. Addition of small quantities of HF in concentrated HNO3 is essential which cause corrosion of stainless steel equipment and pipings in reprocessing plants. The corrosion problem is mitigated with addition of aluminium nitrate. Boiling THOREX solution [13 M HNO3+0.05 MHF+0.1 M Al(NO3)3] at ~393 K and long dissolution period are required for ThO2–based fuels. In the conversion chain of 232Th to 233U, 233Pa is formed as an intermediate, which has a relatively longer alf-life (~27 days) as compared to 239Np (2.35 days) in the uranium fuel cycle thereby requiring longer cooling time of at least one year for completing the decay of 233Pa to 233U. Normally, Pa is passed into the fission product waste in the THOREX process, which could have long term adiological impact. It is essential to separate Pa from the spent fuel solution prior to solvent extraction process for separation of 233U and thorium.
“The three stream process of separation of uranium, plutonium and thorium from spent (Th, Pu)O2 fuel, though viable, is yet to be developed. The database and experience of thorium fuels and thorium fuel cycles are very limited, as compared to UO2 and (U, Pu)O2 fuels, and need to be augmented before large investments are made for commercial utilization of thorium fuels and fuel cycles.
THORIUM IS A NEW IDEA MYTH BUSTED

Thorium based nuclear power production is nothing new or fantastic, as some pro nuclear apologists are representing it. It does not solve the cost over run problems. It does not solve the nuclear radiation toxicity problems. It does not solve the fact that this form of nuclear power DOES NOT WORK. This supposedly ‘new’ technology has been around since the 1960’s. It has been tried all over the world, and has consistently FAILED every time, from then to now. 

“At Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s, the Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment used 233U as the fissile fuel as an experiment to demonstrate a part of the Molten Salt Breeder Reactor that was designed to operate on the thorium fuel cycle. Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) experiments assessed thorium’s feasibility, using thorium(IV) fluoride dissolved in a molten salt fluid which eliminated the need to fabricate fuel elements.
The Molten Salt Reactor MSR program was defunded in 1976 after its patron Alvin Weinberg was fired.[9]……. studies assume some actinide losses and find that actinide wastes dominate thorium cycle waste radioactivity at some future periods.[18]…” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle 

What does that say about the strength of the thorium for power idea, when just ONE patron disappears, and the entire thorium program is then cancelled? This reactor at Oak Ridge, was not really a true thorium reactor, but rather a plutonium, uranium, thorium mixture, which as it turns out, is what all Thorium reactors HAVE TO BE.  http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium

How many times does the public need to dump BILLIONS of  taxpayer dollars into something that is expensive, toxic, and does not work? According to the pro nuclear apologists, this process of transferring wealth from the taxpayer to those who ‘believe’ in the fifty year old nuclear ‘dream’, must continue on and on and on and on, FOREVER, despite increasing costs, increasing numbers of deadly accidents, decreasing interest by investors, and escalating numbers of EXPENSIVE problems. 
To follow this line of logic that thorium powered nuclear plants are  too expensive and dangerous to be around humans, click on the following link….

Nuclear Power; EXPENSIVE, Dirty, Dangerous And Toxic; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/nuclear-power-expensive-dirty-dangerous.html
One of the ‘dreams’ of thorium proponents, is to convert fast breeder reactors into thorium powered sodium cooled reactors. Here is an example of how well THAT thorium powered and liquid sodium cooled idea works. 

The Monju Nuclear Power Plant in Japan is a liquid metal sodium cooled fast breeder reactor. It is designed to use radioactive plutonium for fuel, one of the most deadly substances on the planet. How dangerous is plutonium? Click on the following links to get some idea of how toxic and deadly this substance is….

Alpha Radiation Dangers; Polonium, Radon, Radium, Plutonium, Uranium; via A Green Road
http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/04/alpha-radiation-dangers-polonium-radon.html

How Dangerous Is 400-600 Pounds Of Plutonium Nano Particle Dust Liberated By Fukushima? Via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/03/how-dangerous-is-400-600-pounds-of.html

Pu-239, The Half Life of Timofey Berezin; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/10/pu-239-half-life-of-timofey-berezin.html

But forgetting or ignoring the problem and toxicity around plutonium in fast breeder reactors, just how well did this reactor work, and how profitable was it? 

It turns out, that in the twenty years since the Monju liquid sodium fast breeder nuclear power plant has been built, it has been in profit making operation for ONE HOUR TOTAL. From then until now, over 1.08 Trillion Yen has been spent and LOST on this toxic, deadly, and dangerous nuclear power generating experiment, with NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT, other than coverups, denials, lies, propoganda and lots of money spent on PR, or public relations, plus tons of nuclear waste products. 

To read more about the details of the failure of sodium cooled fast breeder reactors, such as Monju, click on the following link…..

Sodium Cooled Monju Nuclear Fast Breeder Power Plant Accidents; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/sodium-cooled-monju-nuclear-fast.html


CLEAN THORIUM MYTH BUSTED

Pro thorium apologists say that thorium is somehow very ‘clean’ and does not produce waste, compared to a standard nuclear power plant, but nothing could be further from the truth. 

“Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – ‘so these are really U-233 reactors,’ says Karamoskos.
This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years). Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium’s superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium 

NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS MYTH BUSTED


“Thorium reactors use Thorium as a fertile fuel that transmutes into fissile U233. While the spent fuel does not contain the same ratios of elements as a uranium fuel cycle, it does indeed contain bomb worthy isotopes as well as some longer lived fission and daughter products. In fact, the thorium cycle was used to produce some of the fuel for Operation Teapot in 1955.” This means that the last claim from pro thorium apologists is also busted. 
http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/20034/what-practical-issues-remain-for-the-adoption-of-thorium-reactors

What have we learned so far? Thorium powered nuke plants are failures in all ways. The liquid sodium that is most often proposed as a coolant does not work because it burns on exposure to either water or air, and that combined with a radioactive thorium fuel that is ALWAYS mixed with either deadly uranium or even more deadly plutonium, thorium power claims are punctured like a pin into a balloon. Thorium does not magically create a ‘safe’ way of doing anything nuclear.
As we have seen, the waste produced from a thorium powered reactor is NO BETTER than any of the toxic, deadly, and hazardous stuff coming out of the average nuclear power plant, because it remains deadly for hundreds of thousands of years.
As far as cost, the thorium reactors are no different and quite possibly WORSE  and MORE EXPENSIVE than any nuclear power plant. In case after case, the Thorium ‘experiments’ have had cost overruns, accidents and failed to produce a profit. In every case, they needed taxpayer money to even get going. No investor yet has decided to put money into this boondoggle and come out making money. 
Thorium reactors DO PRODUCE WEAPONS GRADE byproducts, that can be used to make nuclear bombs, if that is the intent. Thorium reactors are no safer than other reactors when it comes to making nuclear weapons. 
Thorium Reactor Fort St. Vrain Power Station Experiment Failed; via A Green Road http://agreenroad.blogspot.com/2012/12/thorium-reactor-fort-st-vrain-power.html

One thought on “MSR Thorium Reactor Fort St. Vrain Power Station Experiment Failed

Comments are closed.