Giving the Fuller Picture on Nuclear Energy

(Correcting some Misconceptions)

In the Sunday Island of Apr. 21 a letter from Dr. U. Pethiyagoda said it is worth emphasizing that uranium was first developed as a nuclear fuel to use in reactors not because of its safety features or that it was ecologically harmless, but that it could be used to make large bombs befitting the world’s great superpower.

And now we find that uranium also can be used to make “depleted uranium” a very hard, heavy metal useful in munitions for war. They deliberately side-lined thorium, a less dangerous, more ecologically friendly metal, and chose to develop and use uranium due to those benefits of war. The use of thorium to generate power is an astonishing omission on Dr. Pethiyagoda’s part. Thorium has very valuable qualities.

Crucially, energy from thorium is a safer, cleaner, simpler process if you use the liquid fluoride thorium (LIFTR) process. And because this process is scaleable, the reactors can be made large or smaller and these are cheaper to build than uranium power generation. This lower cost brings them within the reach of smaller countries. In fact many of the points Dr. P raises of the harmfulness of uranium, do not apply to thorium reactors, because the heat generation process is different and safety features are built in to the reactor vessel as part of the fuel cycle.

Please note that several countries are researching the uses of thorium for power generation, notably Russia, India and China. These countries have designed, built and are operating thorium research reactors. These are mostly in the experimental stage as the possible permutations and combinations of inputs are many and various. These may not be optimized to easy solutions. However, these countries are employing thousands of scientists doing research to find best solutions.

The aim is to generate heat from thorium safely and economically. The pundits expressing their views in the Sunday Times condemn nuclear power but have omitted this important information. It can be confidently asserted that the advantages arising from the use of thorium are so great that the difficulties will be overcome, eventually.

This will benefit mankind immensely – machines based on thorium energy will give continuous power for many years with only minimal environmental damage. While the great list of problems listed apply to uranium power generation, they may not apply to energy from thorium.

However, there are two problems with thorium – these are: 1) The lack of qualified, trained staff to operate these machines and 2) The lack of regulatory approval. The point (2) given above may contribute more to the cost than the whole installation itself which gives the familiar and well established uranium plant an advantage. Potential owners of such plants may prefer uranium power over thorium as a means of reducing uncertainties – that is uranium’s chief asset.

By reminding us of the horrible mistakes and accidents of the past, this throws up a wall of horror and revulsion at all things nuclear, which makes the greens and coal lobbies happy! In fact, the thorium reactor using the Liquid Fluoride Thermal Reactor (LIFTR) process is a remarkably safe method of generating heat and energy. This is because there are safety measure actually built in to the machine which ensure a run-away can never occur. Thorium is the opposite to uranium: in the case of thorium, the process has to be coaxed along to keep it going.

Because of their relatively small size and cost, efforts of containment are manageable. There are huge pluses, or selling points for thorium that the writers of these letters fail to discuss. Power installations can be quite small, even house-sized buildings, say locating one either side of a town or city. Importing thorium pellets is not necessary as Sri Lanka has its own deposits of Thorium. Also note that by placing units where the power is needed obviates the necessity for transmission lines connecting a countrywide grid. This is a huge savings in capital costs and power transmission line efficiency losses.

The costs of building smaller power installations is well-within the Sri Lankan budget and also would create many interesting, scientific jobs. Therefore, I write to point out that these letters do not give the entire picture of generating energy from nuclear sources. But they do help to build resistance to the truth, new facts and new technologies.

It can be noted that if Russia is contracted to build such installations, they would guarantee their work and give conditions and caveats. (They have vast amounts of experience from many such installations around the world). On that basis it would be most unwise to refuse their high quality offer.

Priyantha Hettige