Thorium Energy Alliance Conference this weekend

The Thorium Energy Alliance Conference in St. Louis

The Thorium Energy Alliance will take place in St. Louis starting this weekend.  I signed up to attend long ago, but people are still joining right now.  Here's the link to the website.   I encourage you to attend if you can!

Much of the conference will be about molten salt reactors, of course.  But there will be much more! More than two hours of how-to-do-advocacy workshops, led by leading advocates such as Eric Meyer of Generation Atomic and Heather Matteson of Mothers for Nuclear. (I will be a co-leader in one of the sessions.) There will be great talks by many authors. One of the featured talks is by Victoria Bruce, and people who register for the meeting will get her latest book, free with their registration.  Sellout: How Washington Gave Away America's Technological Soul, and One Man's Fight to Bring it Home.  Mathijs Becker will be a speaker.  He will be here from the Netherlands. He is the author of one of the few books debunking Jacobson's "100% renewables" claims (The Non-Solutions Project) as well as posting an excellent youtube channel, the Nuclear Humanist.

It will be a great conference.  But why should you come?

A Conference that is truly  for the "Rest of Us"

I have been to many pro-nuclear conferences, and I love them all.  Most of the conferences are sponsored by an industry group.

Sometimes, these conferences don't feel very welcoming to people who are not in the industry.  This conference feels very different.  Some of the speakers are from industry (EPRI advanced reactor group), and some are from industry start-ups (ThorCon, Elysium, Terrestrial and others). However, many speakers and attendees are "just" nuclear advocates. They are people who have never worked in the nuclear industry, but have a presence in the world of advocacy, ideas and books engaged with new versions of nuclear power.

The "just advocates" are the most important people at the conference, in my opinion.  They are the group that can reach out to other groups, and to their neighbors.

This is a very welcoming conference. I encourage you to attend.

Note: if you are defending an existing nuclear plant, you will be right at home.  You don't have to be a molten salt maven to get a lot out of this conference. For example, I could annotate the list of speakers, giving examples of the important and brave things various speakers have done in defense of our current fleet of reactors.  Look at the bottom of the conference page for the list of speakers.

Another note: The conference will include a break for Eclipse Viewing.  How many conferences are planned around something like that?

This will be a great conference.  I hope to see some of you there.   Here's the conference link, again:

Thorium Energy Alliance Conference 8

Martingale Reveals Design for Mass-Produced Nuclear Power Plants

ThorCon Nuclear Island
Entire structure is underground
Thorcon graphic used with permission

Martingale reveals a bold approach to solving the global issues of poverty, pollution, energy security, and climate. The ThorCon liquid-fuel nuclear reactor design is detailed at thorconpower.com.

ThorCon is a complete system of power generation modules, interchange maintenance, and liquid fuel service that produces energy cheaper than coal. Principal engineer Jack Devanney led a four-year skunkworks project that has created a new kind of nuclear power plant, integrating proven technologies with breakthrough approaches to manufacturing and licensing. Production can start by 2020. Today Martingale is publishing its design for cheap, reliable, CO2-free electricity at thorconpower.com.

Former MIT professor Devanney’s background in shipbuilding created respect for low-cost, high-precision, block-unit manufacturing at Korean shipyards. He saw how such prefabricated blocks could enable production of enough nuclear power plants to make a global difference, a hundred a year.

Author Robert Hargraves writes that selling so many power plants requires clear, simple economics, cheaper than coal. Coal is today’s energy choice of developing nations, now planning to build over 1400 gigawatt-size coal power plants to enable their economic development.

Lawrence Livermore Lab veteran nuclear scientist Ralph Moir says that today’s nuclear power industry is wedded to expensive solid-fuel nuclear reactors, even though the simplicity of liquid fuels was demonstrated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Moir and Devanney modernized that design for mass production. ThorCon uses uranium and thorium fuel dissolved in molten salt to create a power plant that makes electricity cheaper than coal.

Stanford engineering alums Chris Uhlik and Lars Jorgensen contributed to the design of passive safety functions that operate without mechanical or electronic controls, even with no power. The reactor is 30 meters underground. Overheating drains the fuel salt from the reactor. There are four barriers between the fuel salt and the atmosphere. ThorCon is walk-away safe.

Taking another lesson from Oak Ridge, Martingale advocates a return to staged testing of physical prototypes for new nuclear reactor designs. This made the US the world standard for nuclear designs in the 1960s. Martingale supports adoption of the same license-by-test model that has enabled US leadership in aviation and drug discovery.

Martingale is designing ThorCon in the US while targeting its first installations in forward-looking countries that support technology-neutral nuclear regulations and see the benefits of the license-by-test process. ThorCon opens up a practically limitless supply of low-cost, reliable, carbon-free power by 2020.

--------

My contact for this announcement is Dr. Robert Hargraves, a member of the ThorCon design team. Hargraves has been a strong supporter of Vermont Yankee (I love his blog post Vernon New Hampshire about why Vernon should secede from Vermont.) He has many other posts at this blog, such as The Politics of Fear.  I also strongly encourage you to look at his website: Radiation, the Facts.

While supporting existing nuclear facilities, Hargraves has continued to work on developing the next generation of nuclear plants.  His book, THORIUM, Energy cheaper than coal, is a review of world-wide energy issues....and a proposed solution.

Discussion note.  There's a great discussion of this technology at Rod Adams Atomic Insights blog post about the ThorCon announcement. Here's the link to the post:  ThorCon --Demonstrated Molten Salt Tech Packaged with Modern Construction Techniques.   Adams himself is the inventor of the Adams Engines (tm) which can use nuclear heat sources for a gas turbine.

There are more than sixty comments on Adams' ThorCon blog post: many of the comments are from engineers and material scientists.   Much as I love to have comments on my blog, I think my readers will enjoy a better discussion by commenting on Adams blog.

UPDATED: Nuclear Energy Blog Carnival 236: Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

Once again, we are proud to host the Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers, right here at Yes Vermont Yankee.  The Carnival is a compendium of nuclear blogs that rotates from blog site to blog site, and it is always a pleasure and an honor to host it.  Here we go!

At Fukushima, Radiation Decreases in Turbine Building Basements
From the Hiroshima Syndrome's Fukushima Commentary - Leslie Corrice

Fukushima Wastewater: Some Good News

The Japanese Press routinely reports on sudden increases in wastewater radioactivity at F. Daiichi. However, they fail to report on what is going right. For at least a year, the activity levels in the turbine basements of units #1-4 have been steadily dropping. This is definitely a success story, but it does not seem newsworthy enough for the Japanese Press.

Yucca Post-Closure Safety Report Finally Released

From ANS Nuclear Cafe - Jim Hopf 

NRC Releases Yucca Post-Closure Safety Evaluation Report (finally)

 Jim Hopf details the recent release of the Safety Evaluation Report on Yucca, what it means, and more importantly what's likely to be done and not likely to be done as a result of it.  Nuclear waste is an entity we're prepared to deal with, Hopf argues, and for that reason Yucca should be opened and utilized to satisfy the Federal Government's legal obligation to take spent fuel from nuclear plant sites. 

Time for a Battle and an Update on Radiation Risk
Atomic Insights - Rod Adams

Shaping public perceptions of radiation risk

An epic struggle with important health, safety, cost and energy abundance implications is shaping up with regard to the way that the officially sanctioned science and regulatory bodies treat the risks and benefits associated with using ionizing radiation at low doses and dose rates for medical uses, industrial uses and power production.

We must make sure that this battle for science, hearts and minds is not as asymmetrical as the one fought in the period between 1954-1964. During that battle, a very interested Rockefeller Foundation provided the funding and numerous key influencers during a successful campaign to firmly establish the myth that radiation is dangerous even at the lowest possible doses.

More Battles: The Supposed "Clean Power Plan"

Carbon Dioxide

From ANS Nuclear Cafe - Nicholas Thompson

 The Details of the Clean Power Plan: So You Want to See the Numbers

Nick Thompson gives the details you need to know about the EPA Clean Power proposal, and why it's not the boon for nuclear energy some have lauded it as.  Includes background links for more information.  Includes links for submitting YOUR comments on the plan this weekend. Comments due by December 1!

Vermont Yankee: Consequences of a Battle We Lost

From NEI Nuclear Notes - Meredith Angwin

Pain from Vermont Yankee Closing Spreads Far and Wide

Meredith Angwin documents the spreading pain of Vermont Yankee's closing--starting with the plant employees who will be laid off, and pain propagating through the local towns, on to the grid, and up to the state level. Her post, at NEI Nuclear Notes, is part of an NEI report on closing the plant, a report that includes the effect of the plant closing on New England's energy crisis and on the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative.  The full report: Closing Vermont Yankee: Carbon, Market Impacts of Closing the Vermont Yankee Plant.

Existing power plants
at Hinkley Point
Wikipedia

Finances and Risk in Europe
Neutron Bytes - Dan Yurman

Areva’s financial crisis gets worse. Is Hinkley Point at risk?

The financial future of the French state-owned nuclear giant has become less certain and some worry it may threaten the viability of the UK’s Hinkley Point 3200 MW new nuclear build.

A Nuclear Opponent and His Lack of Credibility
Northwest Clean Energy - Meredith Angwin
Why Do They Listen to Alvarez?
At the Northwest Clean Energy blog, Meredith Angwin notes that Robert Alvarez has now written a report about Columbia Generating Station. This report rehashes the testimony he gave in Vermont about Vermont Yankee in 2013.  She reviews his qualifications and his report and asks: Why Do They Listen to Alvarez?

Safety Culture Everywhere

Graphic from Wikipedia

Nuke Power Talk - Gail Marcus
Trains and Boats and Planes...and Nuclear Power Plants
Gail Marcus writes at Nuke Power Talk about her presentation on safety culture at a meeting in Chicago, and her subsequent experience with a failure of safety culture. Yes, on her way home from the meeting, she had a first-hand experience with a safety culture failure.  (Gail...did you ever find out how the plane's wing hit a barbed wire fence?)  All's well that ends well, but her trip home pointed out how important safety culture is, whether on trains, boats, planes or in nuclear power plants.

Monazite (thorium mineral)

Nuclear Power and Noah's Ark
Energy Reality Project - Rick Maltese
Noah Nuke Advocate
Rick Maltese's parable begs the question: Will we wake up to the reality in time? Obviously the warnings were there for Noah but when will we know? We know what we've been doing wrong but do not know how to change. Time to act. Alone or collectively.

Fundraiser: Crowd Funding for a Pro-Nuclear Presence at AGU
ThoriumMSR - Rick Maltese
Renewed efforts to spread the word about MSRs bigger than ever
Rick Maltese plans to go to the annual AGU (American Geophysical Union) Conference.  Approximately 24,000 scientists and policymakers come to this conference in San Francisco, which runs from Monday December 15 to Friday December 19. Rick will be representing the Thorium Energy Alliance of Silicon Valley (TESV), and his own Energy Reality Project.   Join him at TESV booth 2617: this booth sits directly across of the booth of the Union of Concerned Scientists.  Contribute to crowdfunding Maltese's important effort.

Nuclear Good News on New Builds
Next Big Future - Brian Wang

South Korea approved 4 new nuclear reactors other global nuclear approvals and completions

Brian Wang reports on new builds, commissioning tests and more in South Korea, Vietnam, China and Russia.

China's 2020 Energy Plans

Next Big Future - Brian Wang

China's 2020 energy plans include quite a bit of nuclear energy.

Brian Wang reviews China's plan for its energy mix by 2020.  This includes deepwater oil drilling, reducing coal use to 62% of electricity generation, and considerable new nuclear coming on-line.  According to Chinese planning documents, fast reactors will be an important part of the energy mix in the future.

Video Day: The Molten Salt Thorium Reactor

Cheerful Nuclear Video for Friday

This is a nice little pro-nuclear video, which ends with a push for the development of molten salt thorium reactors. One of the nice things about this video is the comparison between quantities of nuclear waste (tiny amounts) and solar panel waste (huge amounts). Both of these waste streams contain toxic materials.


 

Steel, Land, Concrete and Vermont Yankee: Guest Post by Timothy Maloney

Timothy Maloney

Replacing Vermont Yankee

You’re celebrating the shutdown of Vermont Yankee nuclear plant. Presumably you intend to replace its 620 megawatts with wind and solar, thereby improving the condition of the biosphere.

Here’s the rub: the condition of the biosphere doesn’t respond to good intentions expressed in words; it responds to technical ideas expressed in numbers.

Let’s look at five numbers that accompany wind and solar replacement of Vermont Yankee.

1. Amount of steel required to build that wind and solar; 
2. Concrete requirement; 
3. CO2 emitted in making that steel and concrete; 
4. Money spent; 
5. Amount of land taken out of crop production or wildlife habitat.

Let us suppose a 50/50 split between wind and solar, and for the solar a 50/50 split between photovoltaic – PV, and concentrated thermal solar – CSP.

To make up Vermont Yankee’s 620 MW then, we’ll need:

• 310 MW(average) for wind 
• 155 MW(avg) for PV solar
• 155 MW(avg) for CSP.

Wind

The North America wind capacity factor is about 24%. That is, a wind turbine produces an annual average of 24% of its peak capacity – what it can produce when the wind is blowing nicely. So to obtain 310 MWavg we must build

310 MW ÷ 24% (0.24) = about 1290 MW peak capacity

Selecting the General Electric model 2.5xl wind turbine (Shepherd’s Flat farm in Oregon), with 2.5 MW peak capacity, we will need this many turbines: 1290 MW ÷ 2.5 MW = 515 turbines.

Each model 2.5xl uses 390 tonnes of steel and 1080 tonnes of concrete. Its installed cost is about 4.7 Million dollars for erection of the tower and connection to a neighboring transmission line. That $4.7 M does not include the cost of the land, bought or leased; nor does it include the cost of a branch transmission line, if needed, to make connection to an existing line.

With land costs and branch connecting costs included, let us say about $5 Million per turbine.

Steel production emits about 1.8 tonnes of CO2 per tonne of steel; concrete production emits about 1.1 tonnes CO2.

So each turbine, in manufacture, produces this much CO2: Steel: 390 x 1.8 = 700 t CO2; Concrete: 1080 x 1.1 = 1190 t CO2; Combined: 700 + 1190 = 1890 tonnes CO2 per turbine.

Each such turbine needs land area of about 0.3 square kilometer – about 500 x 500 meters.

So for 515 turbines, here’s the tally:

• Steel: 515 x 390 t = 200 thousand tonnes
• Concrete: 515 x 1080 t = 560 thousand tonnes
• CO2 emitted: 515 x 1890 t = 970 thousand tonnes
• Cost: 515 x $5 M = 2.6 Billion dollars
• Land: 515 x 0.3 km2 = 155 square kilometers (12×12 km, 7×8 miles)

PV Solar 

The North America solar capacity factor is about 17%. It’s worse in the northeast, but let’s say 17% anyway.
To obtain 155 MWavg we must build 155 MW ÷ 0.17 = 910 MW peak capacity.

Working from the Aqua Caliente PV project near Yuma Arizona, here are the numbers:

• Steel: 110 tonnes per megawatt of peak capacity. 110 t x 910 MW = 100 thousand tonnes of steel
• Concrete: negligible
• CO2 emitted: From steel:100 e3 t x 1.8 t CO2 = 180 thousand tonnes;
• From panel manufacture (at 130 tonnes CO2 equivalent per megawatt peak): 910 MW peak x 130 t /MW = 120 thousand tonnes CO2eq; Total: 180 + 120 = 300 thousand tonnes CO2eq
• Cost: Aqua Caliente is costing $4.5 M per MW peak . So $4.5 M x 910 MWpk = about $4 Billion.
• Land: PV solar needs about 0.025 km2 per megawatt peak. 910 MW x 0.025 km2 = 23 km2 (4.8×4.8 km, 3×3 miles)

CSP Solar

Again 155 MWavg at 17% = 910 MW peak
Working from the Andalusia Spain plant that connected to the grid in 2009, called ANDUSOL1, here are the numbers.

• Steel: 170 tonnes per MW peak. 170 t x 910 MW =150 thousand tonnes
• Concrete: 870 tonnes per MW peak. 870 t x 910 MW= 800 thousand tonnes
• CO2 emitted: 150 e3 t steel x 1.8 t CO2 + 800 e3 t concrete x 1.1 t = 1.2 million tonnes CO2
• Cost: Removing from the tally the cost for 7.5 hours of molten-salt energy storage, the generation equipment itself at ANDUSOL1 cost about $7 M per megawatt peak.
• So for our CSP needs, 910 MW x $7 M = about 6 Billion dollars.
• Land: CSP solar needs about 0.012 km2 per megawatt peak. 910 MW x 0.012 km2 = 11 km2 (3.3 x 3.3 km, 2 x 2 miles)

Adding It All Together

• Steel: 450 thousand tonnes; that’s 0.6% of our U.S. total annual production, JUST TO REPLACE ONE SMALLISH PLANT.
• Concrete: 1.4 million tonnes; about 0.2% of our annual production
• CO2: 2.5 million tonnes
• Cost: about 12 Billion dollars
• Land: about 190 square kilometers (14 x 14 km); that’s 73 square miles, larger than the District of Columbia, JUST TO REPLACE ONE SMALLISH PLANT.

But the thing that really gets my goat is that the only reason the wind and solar option can even be proposed is because of the already existing electric grid structure of rock-solid, baseload, fossil-fueled, undeviating 3600 rpm, steam turbine-driven, generators.

Sure it’s easy to piggyback on those baseload generators with your intermittent, poor quality, non sine-shaped, non 60-Hertz, electrical energy. The transmission circuit (voltage between wires) is sine-wave stable only due to the low-resistance thick copper wires in the ac alternators that are attached to those steam turbines. Which work 24/7.

With a stable transmission circuit like that, anybody can assert his little bit of extra energy into the mix without causing much disruption. But don’t try that without a stable baseload – it won’t work.

Other Alternatives: Generation 3+ PWR

Well, if we want to shut down a 40-year-old Generation2 boiling water reactor, we could replace it with a Generation3+ pressurized water reactor, the Westinghouse /Toshiba model AP1000.

It produces 1070 MW baseload, nearly twice the output of Vermont Yankee. Normalizing 1070 MW to Vermont Yankee’s 620 MW, the AP1000 uses:

• Steel: 5800 tonnes – about 1% as much as wind + solar.
• Concrete: 93,000 tonnes – about 7% as much.
• CO2 emitted: 115 thousand tonnes – about 5% as much
• Cost: We won’t know until the Chinese finish their four units now abuilding. But it will sure be less than our “levelized” cost because you can betcherbippy the Chinese State Nuclear Power Technology Corporation isn’t really paying any bank interest or insurance premiums or licensing and inspection fees.

They’re going to find out what it actually costs just to build one. That will be the meaningful number. Why should we let the banks and insurance companies stick their noses into our energy supply? The lifeblood of our society.

• Land: The AP1000 needs about 0.04 km2 for the entire plant site. (200 x 200 meters). Smaller than CSP by a factor of 2000. Smaller than PV by a factor of 4000. Smaller than wind by a factor of 13,000.

Other Alternatives: Thorium Molten Salt

Or, we could all get on board the thorium molten salt energy bandwagon. We at the Thorium Energy Alliance are morally certain that our idea will beat even the Generation3+ model AP1000 by wide margins in all 5 aspects – steel, concrete, CO2, dollar cost, and land.

See http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com or http://www.dirkpublishing.com or http://www.timothymaloney.net.
-------
About Timothy Maloney

Timothy Maloney is a retired community college professor, in the fields of electronics and machine control. He is inventor of "A Digital Method for DC Motor Speed Control"  (1974).  IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics and Control Instrumentation, February 1976,  Volume IECI-23.  He is the author of Modern Industrial Electronics (now in its fifth edition) and other books.

He is an advocate for advanced thorium reactors, especially the Liquid-Fuel Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology.  Maloney is available for speaking or slideshows to any interested group.

Maloney wrote a rebuttal to someone who was celebrating the demise of Vermont Yankee and expecting to replace it with wind and solar energy.  He sent his rebuttal to a few people (including me) by email.  I asked him if I could use that email as a blog post, and he graciously gave me permission.

Thanksgiving Cheerfulness: Hargraves on LFTRs plus DOE Awards Cofunding for SMR

For Thanksgiving, I want to share two cheerful looks into the future of nuclear energy.

First, Robert Hargraves presentation: Thorium, Energy Cheaper Than Coal,  on November 9 at the Jones Seminar on Science and Technology at Dartmouth College  Here's a link to his book, too.




Second, a link to the Business Wire announcement that Babcock and Wilcox has been awarded Department of Energy cofunding for the mPower SMR (Small Modular Reactors).  Small, affordable, and with lots of passive safety features.  This may be the reactor of the future.

Have a good Thanksgiving!

Robert Hargraves Presentations on Thorium Power

Radio Tomorrow

Save the date and time.

Tomorrow, Thursday October 25 at at 11 a.m, Dr. Robert Hargraves will discuss his book Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal, on WDEV radio in Vermont.  It will be streaming on the Internet.

Hargraves will be on Rob Roper's show, which is co-sponsored by the Ethan Allen Institute.  The Ethan Allen Institute is the home of the Energy Education Project: I'm the director of that project.

Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal is a very important book.  I reviewed it very favorably on this site. I also recommend Hargraves own site about the book, which includes endorsements from winners of the Nobel Prize in physics.

Hargraves will be on the radio for the entire hour, from 11 to 12, and you can listen from your computer by clicking either flash or no-flash at the bottom left on the WDEV website.  You can also call in to ask questions: the number is 802.244.1777.

Learn about the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). Ask questions of Hargraves.  Try to catch this show!

Dr. Robert Hargraves

Engineering Seminar November 9

On November 9, 3:30 p.m.,  Hargraves will give an engineering seminar at Dartmouth on Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal.  Obviously, you can't come to the seminar unless you live near Dartmouth. However, Dartmouth will post a video of the talk later in the month.  When they do, I will link to it.  If you live within striking distance, try to attend this seminar.  I'll be there.

In Between: China

From October 29 through November 1, Hargraves will be at the Thorium Energy Conference in Shanghai, giving a talk on Thorium, Energy Cheaper than Coal. Both China and India are ahead of the United States on advanced fuel cycle reactors like the LFTR.  But that's another blog post for another day!  Meanwhile, if you don't want to travel to China, consider listening to the Rob Roper show tomorrow or stopping by Dartmouth's School of Engineering about two weeks from now.

A Book I Loved: THORIUM: Energy Cheaper Than Coal by Bob Hargraves

Disclosure

First of all, let me acknowledge that I know Dr. Robert Hargraves and have worked with him on various energy projects, such as co-teaching the Energy Safari course last fall, and founding the Coalition for Energy Solutions.  In the acknowledgements at the end of THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal, Hargraves thanks me and my husband, George Angwin (among others) for editorial reviews of an earlier draft of the book.

I wanted to say this upfront, because I think this is a terrific book, and I would think the same if I didn't know Bob Hargraves at all.  This is not just a book about thorium reactors. It's a book about energy policy and energy choices.  Even if you don't care a bit about thorium, you will benefit by reading this book.

You can buy the book at Amazon: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.

Hargraves also has a useful website about this book: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  In this website, he includes the chapter headings, giving you an idea of the sweep of this book.  A partial list of chapters:

• why we need energy (energy and prosperity)
• analysis of energy sources 
• the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor LFTR
• safety 
• sustainability 
• energy policy

Cheaper than Coal and why it matters

The idea behind this book is not fear.  It is not about doom from existing nuclear plants, or even from global warming. The title tells much of the thesis: nuclear energy can be cheaper than coal.  Why is this important?

Prosperity and birth rate,  from Hargraves

Coal was the fuel that brought the industrial revolution and made Western nations prosperous. Now that Western nations are prosperous, we are beginning to turn away from coal, at least to some extent.  However, many developing nations are following the Western path to prosperity: "We'll start with coal."  If the wealthy countries wag their fingers at the developing world about coal, they quite rightly get fingers wagged back at them: "When our people are even half as prosperous as your people, we will enjoy a conversation with you about optimum energy sources.  Until then, you rich guys, don't be such a bunch of hypocrites."

Throughout the book, Hargraves emphasizes that nuclear power (specifically LFTRs) can undercut the price of coal, or the price of cheap natural gas. Hargraves stresses that carbon taxes are not going to be a global solution to the problems of fossil fuel use. LFTRs can be inexpensive and they produce almost no greenhouse gases or air pollution. They can be a large part of the solution.  People all over the world will attempt to lift themselves out of poverty.  Hopefully, people will use nuclear energy instead of coal, and thereby make a better world for all of us.

Technologies Reviewed

Fossil or nuclear?  Are those really the choices?

For those who may say: "We don't need fossil or nuclear, we can do everything with renewables" Hargraves has a well-researched answer.  The book includes almost 100 pages of "doing the numbers" on renewables, and showing they are not a solution for a modern society's energy needs.

One feature of the Hargraves book is that he estimates costs for the different renewable technologies, and explains his estimates.  David MacKay's excellent book, Sustainable Energy--without the hot air, also analyzes renewable technologies. However, MacKay's book mainly asks whether the renewable technologies will provide enough energy for society (without using all the land for energy production). Hargraves estimates the costs, because, after all, the book is titled: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  Hargraves knows that people will choose inexpensive energy to lift themselves from poverty to prosperity.  Cost matters.

Though Richard Martin's book Superfuel was all about LFTRs, the technology of LFTRs was not particularly well-expounded in that book. In THORIUM, there are over 100 pages about LFTRs. The information includes charts and illustrations, description of the different varieties of LFTR, information about the technical challenges that LFTRs have overcome, and about many of the technical challenges remaining.  I don't know anywhere else you could obtain this information so clearly and concisely. The information is out there, no doubt, in thorium forums and papers (and Hargraves references these).  But if you want a quick-course on LFTRs, not a personal-research-project on LFTRs, this is the book for you.

Hargraves also reviews other types of advanced reactors: Integral Fast Reactors, pebble beds, etc.  All sections of the book contain very helpful illustrations (and lots of them) and references. The list of references and bibliography is truly impressive.

Technology Overstated?

I can hear it.  Somebody is going to say that I have been taken in by a paper reactor.  Do I know that the LFTR will work? Do I know that the LFTR development task section of Hargraves' book (pages 227-247) lists all the necessary tasks? Do I know that all the development tasks, listed or not, will be completed?  Of course not. I don't know these things, and neither does Hargraves, and neither does anybody else. I also know that materials development work is often much harder than it looks at the beginning.  LFTR development is not certain.

Molten Salt FLIBe

However, several advanced reactor concepts are in development at this time. New types of reactors will be developed in the near future.  In my opinion, the Hargraves book makes an excellent case for expanded work on the LFTR.

My One Gripe

Early in this post, I said:

This is not just a book about thorium reactors. It's a book about energy policy and energy choices.  Even if you don't care a bit about thorium, you will benefit by reading this book.

As a matter of fact, that statement also expresses my one major problem with the book.  The sections on energy policy, renewables and costs are top-notch (as are the sections on advanced reactors).  The energy policy sections should interest every citizen and every policy maker.  But will  the average citizen or policy maker pick up a book about advanced reactors?

I think that this book consists of two fine books packed in one cover:

• a book on energy choices and energy policy 
• a book on advanced reactors, especially the LFTR  

Of course these two topics are related, but putting them in one book makes a rather thick book (470 pages). Though it is well-written and well-illustrated, I think its size alone is a bit intimidating.

I urge you to buy it.  You can read the whole thing and enjoy it. Or you can just read the sections of interest to you and use the rest as reference.

In either case, this book is a major achievement, and should be on the bookshelf of people interested in energy in general, renewable energy, nuclear energy, and advanced reactors.  In other words, it will be helpful to pretty much everybody.

Reminder: You can buy the book at Amazon: THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.

Note: The book cover is by Suzy Hobbs Baker of Popatomic Studios.  I am on the board of directors of Baker's not-for-profit, and I love her work.

119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers Here at Yes Vermont Yankee

The 119th Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers is here today at Yes Vermont Yankee!  I am so pleased with the great blog posts in this Carnival.

I just recently added a set of Share This buttons at the right of the blog.  Please use them to spread the word of the Carnival. Facebook, email and Twitter are right up-top. The Plus button gives you many more choices, such as Stumble-Upon, Reddit and Pinterest. It's easy to spread the word. Just click the button!

Now, on to the Carnival.  To me, a major theme of this Carnival is the difficulty of communicating about nuclear energy.

Fukushima Communication
Let's start with an important Fukushima report and video at ANS Nuclear Cafe

Video interview with ANS Special Committee on Fukushima Co-Chair: Michael Corradini

Dr. Michael Corradini

The leadership of the American Nuclear Society (ANS) commissioned the American Nuclear Society Special Committee on Fukushima to provide a clear and concise explanation of what happened during the Fukushima Daiichi accident, and offer recommendations based on lessons learned from their study of the event.

Dr. Michael Corradini is president of the ANS, and he is also co-chair of the ANS Special Committee on Fukushima. In this video,  Dr. Corradini provides an update on the Special Committee’s work, including the release of the committee’s final report. He also announces as an embedded topical meeting on Fukushima that will take place at the upcoming 2012 ANS Winter Meeting in San Diego, Nov 11-15.

Health Communication

At Atomic Insights, Rod Adams asks why radiation health professionals are so reluctant to talk about radiation hormesis.

Radiation Protection Profession – Hiding Health Benefits of Low Level Radiation (aka Hormesis)

Rod shares some comments from an experienced group of professionals about the reluctance of radiation protection professionals to discuss hormesis. Ted Rockwell, who was troubleshooter at Oak Ridge during the Manhattan Project and later served as Admiral Rickover’s technical director when Naval Reactors developed the first nuclear powered submarine (USS Nautilus) and the first commercial light water reactor (Shippingport) provided the first comment.

Aside: Ted's background information is provided to show that he is not only deeply experienced in nuclear energy and its associated radiation, but he is also a rather mature 90 years old and still going strong.

Energy Communication

At Neutron Economy, Steve Skutnik discusses the role of cultural signaling in the energy discussion.

Cultural Signaling and Energy

At the Neutron Economy, Steve Skutnik asks the question of how much cultural signaling factors play a role in energy politics. Specifically, how much of support for energy sources like coal (and likewise, renewables) come more from that they say about the values and identities over more rational study of environmental and economic trade-offs?

(Skutnik starts his discussion with a look at why the Friends of Coal plate is the most popular custom license plate in Kentucky.)

Economics Communication

Quite a few  interesting posts  in this category.  

Nuclear Costs

Let's start with Brian Wang at Next Big Future, examining anti-nuclear bias in a Guardian assessment of nuclear power costs

Guardian Analysis of Nuclear Power has the Typical Bias

Brazilian Oil Platform Wikipedia
Expensive equipment

A Guardian UK analysis of nuclear power has the usual bias. Oliver Tickell's analysis has - At a construction cost of about US$10 billion per reactor, we would need to dedicate US$110 trillion, or about two years' gross world product, while also providing for long-term liabilities to replace the new fossil fuel generation for expected energy demand growth. However, about 90% of the reactors will be built in or by China, South Korea, Russia and India. The costs will be two to four times less.  In total the costs for nuclear energy to replace all additional fossil fuel for the next 35 years would be more in range of $30 trillion. The analysis is not complete because the comparison of costs needs to look at the costs for the alternatives of wind, solar and other power generation. Wind has the problem that if wind was the sole basis for new power generation it would a warming effect as well.

In a related link Wang points out the oil and gas capital expenditures are currently at more that $1 trillion ( US $) per year.

Fuel Choices

Customs officers 
 Inport controls in action

At Idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman and Andrea Jennetta report on fuel choices and small modular reactors.

LWR SMRs Have Fuel Advantages

Yurman and Jennetta assess fuel choices for SMRs in terms of assess time to market and export control issues. Thorium reactors face a challenge of proving their competitive advantage in terms of total cost of doing business.

Advertising Campaigns
In Yes Vermont Yankee, I describe a possible advertising communications campaign for Indian Point.

The Subways of New York and Indian Point

Indian Point could advertise on the New York subways, since they provide part of the power for the subways. I thought of some neat ads for them. This post had many hits, and attracted some of the "usual suspects" from the New York area in the comment stream.  Should I be glad I have a new set of readers? (just a joke)


Education and Communication
The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology
The Center for Nuclear Science and Technology: Who should the audience be?
American Nuclear Society's CNST

At 4Factor Consulting Blog, Margaret Harding talks about the Center for Nuclear Science and Technology that ANS is creating to help with education. Two speeches given at the ANS-UWC put the idea in her head that the CNST should be doing more to education journalists and local governments. In the end, what are YOU doing to educate your community?

ANS Young Members
New chair for the Young Members Group at ANS

Introducing ANS Young Members Group Chair Gale Hauck

Gale Hauck

At ANS Nuclear Cafe, American Nuclear Society Young Members Group (YMG) Secretary Elia 

Merzari caught up with new YMG Chair Gale Hauck and asked her to 

introduce herself and upcoming plans for the ANS YMG.

Politics and Communication
Gail Marcus discusses Harry Reid and Bill Magwood
Harry Reid insulted NRC Commissioner Bill Magwood.  Allison Macfarlane would be re-appointed Commission Chair by Obama if he is re-elected.  How is this all going to play out?

More on Reid and Magwood

At Nuke Power Talk, Gail Marcus has a follow-up to her previous discussion on Harry Reid's comments on NRC Commissioner Bill Magwood a few weeks ago.  She reflects on a comment the earlier blog received, which speculated that, if President Obama is reelected, he will want to reappoint Chairman Allison Macfarlane, but it will prove impossible because there will be no Republican with which to pair her nomination.  Gail follows that train of thought and considers the various possibilities.

Nuclear History: SYLCOR Continued




Moving away from communications issues, we look at nuclear history with Will Davis of Atomic Power review.

SYLCOR Western Office:  Part 3

In the latest SYLCOR historical retrospective installment, we learn about SYLCOR's specialty in fuel elements in text and photos, and see a particularly unusual type of fuel element made by this company for a special situation.  Many interesting illustrations are included.


Technology of Uranium Extraction
For our final Carnival entry, we get away from communications into straight technology.  Brian Wang reports that the technology for extracting uranium from seawater has improved.  Costs for seawater extraction are getting closer to land-based costs.

Uranium from seawater idea boosted with shrimp shells

At Next Big Future, Brian Wang reports  that uranium from seawater technology has been improved. 'Although these trials proved the principle of uranium extraction from  seawater, the cost was prohibitively high - perhaps around $260 per  pound. This compares badly to today's most economic mines on land, which produce uranium at around $20 per pound, while resources at higher  costs up to about $115 per pound have already been identified that would last more than a century.' And: The ACS summarised the session saying that the new techniques might reduce the cost of uranium from seawater to around $135 per pound.

Enjoy the Carnival!

Read it! Follow the links!  Tweet it! Facebook it!  (Buttons at top right for your linking pleasure.)

Have fun and spread the fun!

Thorium Update: The SuperFuel Reviews

SuperFuel, the book, and THORIUM, the book

In June, I reviewed Richard Martin's book SuperFuel in this blog.  It wasn't exactly a positive review, as you can tell by the title of my post; SuperFuel, a Book I Wanted to Love.

On Monday, I received my copy of Dr. Robert Hargraves book THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  I plan to review it within a few days.

However, before I did that, I thought I would pull together other reviews of the SuperFuel book in one place, if only for reference when I review Hargraves book.

Here's my annotated list of reviews of the book, SuperFuel.

Meredith Angwin at Yes Vermont Yankee
Superfuel, a Book I Wanted to Love
Review summary: This book is full of factual errors. It also spends much time bashing the existing nuclear energy industry. People in favor of light water reactors are "the nuclearati." Rickover is compared to Stalin.  I didn't like the book.

Rick Maltese at ThoriumMSR
Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source, by Richard Martin reviewed
Review summary: A positive review of the book. The review concentrates on  the promise of thorium and how that promise was de-railed.

Rod Adams at Atomic Insights
Rod Adams has four separate posts concerned with this book.  Two are podcast interviews.

There are Three Superfuels: Uranium, Thorium and Plutonium

Review summary: Fighting amongst nuclear fuels? Why do this, when the world is still dominated by fossil fuels?

Identifying Antinuclear Slants in Richard Martin's Superfuel
Review summary: This book considers thorium the only safe reactor, and talks about the "nuclearati" as "tone-deaf" for pointing out that their technology is safe. Richard Martin may be a fossil fuel wolf in sheep's clothing.
Podcast: Kirk Sorensen Co-Founder FLIBE energy
Podcast summary: Mostly positive discussion of alternative ways of using fission energy and being a nuclear entrepreneur.
Podcast: Richard Martin and Kirk Sorensen: Is Thorium Superior to Uranium?
Podcast summary:   Somewhere about fifteen minutes into the podcast, I stopped listening. Martin was saying that facts don't convince people, so the good safety record of current reactors doesn't matter very much (I am paraphrasing).

I am not good at listening to podcasts: I am very visual-oriented.  When I begin to get irritated, I'm outta there.

As usual, the comments on all Adams' posts are a treat to read, especially the comments on his blog posts (as opposed to his podcasts). His thorium posts have forty and more comments apiece!

Will Davis at Atomic Power Review
Review: "Super-Fuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Resource for the Future."
Review summary: This is a thoughtful book about alternate technologies and deserves a place on the bookshelf. Davis expected more of a rah-rah, airhead book and was pleasantly surprised with this book.

Bob Apthorpe at Overscope
Review: SuperFuel by Richard Martin
Review Summary: A balanced review, pointing out errors and also pointing out where the description of reactor types is excellent.  Overall, however, Apthorpe can only recommend a few chapters of this book as error-and-bias-free enough to be worth the reader's time. He recommends other books instead.
Note: For those of you on Twitter, you know Apthorpe as Arclight.

Guest Post by David Archibald at Watts Up With That
Book Review of SuperFuel
The reviewer points out that the book is full of "howler" errors, but is also useful and interesting.  He is particularly pleased with  the discussion of reactor development history, particularly about Rickover and Weinberg.  The reviewer also says that Martin is a "warmer" ( a person who believes that climate change is taking place) and that hurts the book.

Conclusion

I have been meaning to put this post up for weeks.  Really.  Having received the Hargraves book, I wanted to get this post out of the way.  I have now cleared the decks for the Hargraves review.

I have given my opinion of the gist of each of these reviews.  I hope this was helpful.  I welcome comments (and corrections) from the reviewers themselves or others.

Coming Attractions Plus the 118th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers: The Butterfly Edition

Coming Attractions

Thorium: I just received the final version of Dr. Robert Hargraves book, THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.  I reviewed a draft version earlier, and I will be reviewing the book on my blog soon!  In the meantime, you can buy the book on Amazon.  I can tell you ahead of my official review: this is a terrific book.

Carnival: At the end of this week, Yes Vermont Yankee will be hosting the next Carnival of Nuclear Bloggers.


The 118th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers

The 118th Carnival of Nuclear Energy Bloggers is up at ANS Nuclear Cafe.   Some Japanese scientists found butterflies that may have been affected by Fukushima radiation.  Since the article about was from a peer-reviewed journal, it had to be taken seriously, and a group of nuclear bloggers took it seriously.  Susan Voss of Nuclear Diner started the review process, and Rod Adams and NEI continued it.  (By the way, the journal wasn't peer-reviewed in the sense we are used to hearing: each article was sent to only one reviewer. )  If you want to see  what I consider a really careful review, read the posts, and read the very thoughtful comment streams on the blog posts!

Of course, there's more in the nuclear world than butterfly reports. For example, the ANS sponsors a Utility Working Group Conference: Rod Adams and Margaret Harding report on it. Brian Wang at Next Big Future reports on new developments and on the extravagant materials costs of offshore wind turbines.  Rick Maltese at Thorium MSR suggests that Canada look at thorium reactors. Les Corrice at Hiroshima Syndrome continues his investigation into decision-making in the first five days of the Fukushima nuclear accident.  Will Davis has a retrospective look at Sylvania-Corning nuclear reactors at his blog, Atomic Power Review.  Meanwhile, ANS Nuclear Cafe, Davis writes a blog post that knocks the ball out of the park, describing and assessing the possible pressure vessel issues in Belgium.  Also at ANS Nuclear Cafe, Dan Yurman carves the turkey...no, Dan reports on the competition to carve up the market for reactors in Turkey.  Turkey will buy new reactors, but from whom?  At Yes Vermont Yankee, I write about black out (grid), black out (station) and black start (grid).  It's a pretty upbeat post, actually.  Not noir.

Visit the Carnival!  Have fun!  Remember, you can always find the latest Carnival through the masked lady at the right of this blog post.

ANS Conference, Carnival and Thorium Update

Wrigley Building, Chicago
Short walk from the ANS convention hotel 

American Nuclear Society Conference

Right now, I am at the American Nuclear Society convention in Chicago.  It feels so good to be here.  I am currently just doing a bit of coffee-drinking and email-catching-up, but I met up with Margaret Harding and Gail Marcus and Howard Shaffer and...well, LOTS of other people last night!  It's great to be here, and it's great to be in Chicago, the town where I grew up.

For fuller description of the Meeting So Far (the main meeting hasn't officially begun yet) I recommend the following posts:

Will Davis on the first few house in in Chicago for the meeting, at Atomic Power Review.

Short Video of the American Nuclear Society president Eric Loewen welcoming people to the meeting, at American Nuclear Society Nuclear Cafe.

At idaho Samizdat, Dan Yurman tells how to follow the conference on twitter and Facebook.

At this conference, Margaret Harding will receive a major and well-deserved award.  She was a voice of clarity for many during the Fukushima crisis: not pulling her punches about what was happening OR what was being exaggerated.  Read an interview with Harding at American Nuclear Society Nuclear Cafe.

110th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at Atomic Power Review

Okay.  I don't know how Will Davis does it.  He's at this conference, and he also put together a terrific blog carnival.  Maybe he doesn't need to sleep? It's a possibility...

Meanwhile, take advantage of his hard work by visiting the 110th Carnival of Nuclear Energy at Atomic Power Review.  Topics include new builds, Yucca Mountain, India, the new Commissioner.  A huge and important Carnival!

Superfuel Book Review

Comments on my Superfuel book review post have been coming thick and fast.  Some comments are about the kind of people who support thorium ("thorium heads") and those who support light water reactors ("nuclearati").  Insults on both sides.  Cavan Stone put the matter best in his comment.

No question, given everything we have available today, LWRs should be every utility's top choice for their base load power, until we develop and commercialize something EVEN BETTER. Yet I should note, nobody in the main body of the LFTR community is talking at all about shutting down LWRs. Rather everyone is talking about opening up new markets that the LWRs have not even touched. Yet, there are members of the established nuclear community trashing LFTR without scientific justification.

Meanwhile, Rod Adams is doing a series of posts based on the book: There are three suprefuels: uranium, plutonium and thorium.  Adams attempted commercialize a new type of reactor, the Adams Atomic Engine. He holds patents on that concept.  His opinions of new reactors are well worth reading. As usual, he gets terrific comments on his posts.  Comments include the fact that if a LFTR is built, the same anti-nuclear people will fight it.  Also, the LFTR might be a way to begin learning about nuclear by people who are currently anti-nuclear.

Superfuel: A Book I Wanted to Love

As you can tell from the title of this blog post, I didn't love the book Superfuel, Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future, by Richard Martin. I didn't even like it.

I expected to like the book. I like both the subject and the author. I recognize that I am not the target audience for this book, and I tried to take that into account in my review.  I still found the book disappointing.

Superfuel is about  the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR)  an advanced reactor technology that uses thorium fuel in circulating molten salts.  I think LFTR technology has great promise for the future.   The author, Richard Martin, is a technology journalist and contributing editor for Wired Magazine.   I admired his  January 2009 article "Uranium Is So Last Century--Enter Thorium, the New Green Nuke." I thought the article was an important step in winning mainstream acceptance for new types of reactors.

I'm not the target audience

LFTR Image from Energy From Thorium blog
http://energyfromthorium.com/lftradsrisks.html

Superfuel begins well. The book starts with an effective story about how Kirk Sorenson learned about LFTRs and how they could be deployed. It describes Robert Hargraves and his Aim High work, and Charles Barton's important blog Nuclear Green. I know and admire both Hargraves and Barton, and I admire Sorenson, though I don't know him.

However, I soon noticed that the tone of the book was taking direct aim at the present nuclear industry.  There was a little too much differentiation between the brave pro-thorium engineers and the "hide-bound and risk-averse nuclear power industry." Superfuel refers to the people in today's nuclear power industry as the "nuclearati." Apparently, we are the ones impeding the development of LFTRS.  Well, it shows that I am not the book's target audience.

I began to feel very distant from the thesis of his book, despite the fact that I support the development of LFTRs. I even made a poster presentation ("poster session") about LFTRs at a scientific research conference in 2010.  From the book's point of view, I am just one of the "nuclearati."

The Good and the Bad in Superfuel


The good. Martin is at his best in describing the history of the nuclear industry. Superfuel contains an excellent and understandable section on the various failed reactor concepts in the U. S.  It  describes the contributions of Alvin Weinburg, a  pioneer of the light water reactor and the molten salt reactor.  The chapter on the Asian nuclear race was top-notch, including a clear description of the impractical "three-stage program" in India.

The bad.  The book makes huge factual errors.  When I notice so many mistakes in areas with which I am familiar, then I can't trust the book on areas on which I am unfamiliar.  That destroys the book for me.

A secondary issue is that the book raises straw men and uses inflammatory rhetoric about the present nuclear industry in ways that I can't accept.  Yes, I realize that the point of the book is to show how LFTRs are superior to the current fleet.  Even considering "the superiority of LFTRS" as a legitimate purpose of the book,  I think it goes over the top in its rhetoric and loses credibility.

Fresh fuel pellets
NRC photo

Factual Errors: Fuel Rod Aging


Superfuel contains a major (incorrect) thesis about fuel rod aging as a weak point for today's reactors. This idea is mentioned throughout the book, but the most succinct statement is on page 74. where the book claims that "fuel rods age quickly" due to the buildup of fission products. ..."they have to be replaced every few years, even though only three to five percent of their energy has been consumed."  There are two major problems with this statement.

LWR fuel rods use fissionable material efficiently. In a LWR, fuel rods are replaced when they have consumed over 80% of the energy source (U-235) that they CAN consume. They also burn up some plutonium that they have created.  It would take a different type of reactor to consume the U-238 (95%) of the fuel effectively.

LWR Fuel rods are not life-limited by radiation damage. Martin writes about damage to the fuel as a problem the molten salt reactor solves, but such damage is not the life-limiting step for light water reactor fuel. Highly enriched uranium fuel runs Naval reactors for many years, without fuel rod replacement. Navy fuel is a different type of uranium fuel, but it is a uranium-based solid fuel. For the nuclear power industry, LWR reactor fuel is available at various degrees of enrichment, depending on the design of the plant and how long the plant chooses to run between maintenance outages.

Reactor fuel enrichment decisions are engineering decisions. Fuel damage is only one consideration in fuel design, and is not life-limiting for LWR reactor fuel.

Careless Errors


The book contains many errors.  I chose two.  You might say these are trivial problems.  However, if you are comparing two technologies (LWR and LFTR) it is important to get the facts right.

Positive and negative. On page 44, Martin says that 19th century scientists "knew that the positively charged protons (red) would necessarily repel the negatively charged electrons (black)." Actually, opposite charges attract.

Actinides and fission products. On page 186, "the buildup of actinides (including xenon, cesium, technetium and so on) eventually ruins conventional solid uranium fuel rods." The author means "fission products," not "actinides."

Attacking the Current Fleet and People


Superfuel sees uranium as dangerous.  For example, the third chapter starts a description of a ship carrying yellowcake.  The ship encounters heavy weather,  and two of the yellowcake casks were smashed open. In my opinion, this is a non-incident.  Martin writes that "the Altona averted disaster" by cleaning up the ship and not releasing any yellowcake into environment. What disaster would this have been? Until it is enriched, yellowcake isn't very radioactive.

Superfuel describes uranium as follows: "Uranium is like a finicky child at a buffet: only the right combination of moderator, fuel, core design and materials will produce a sustained fission reaction." (page 65)  This is a problem?  I thought it was engineering!  However, in the book, this statement is a mark against uranium.

The book also attacks the people involved in this generation of nuclear power plants. On page 65:  "By the limited standards of the nuclearati, nuclear power is a success."

Well, yes.  As a proud "nucearati." I do think nuclear power has been a success.  That doesn't mean we can't build better reactors in the future.

When he describes the nuclear founders, Martin can be especially vitriolic.  For example, he blames Milton Shaw for the end of the Molten Salt Reactor program at Oak Ridge.  Shaw may well have been responsible for the end of that program. Shaw was also the project leader for the first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus.  I don't know much about Shaw except that he was a project leader in the early days.

How does Martin describe Shaw? Shaw was "known as the admiral's chief henchman, Beria to Rickover's Stalin."

Stalin? Beria? With opinions like that, it's hard to take  the book's comparisons between LFTRs and LWRs completely seriously.

A word from a nuclearati


Superfuel often doesn't get the facts right.   Demonizing the current industry and its founders is also unnecessary. One can admire Weinberg without simultaneously comparing Rickover to Stalin.

If you want to learn more about the promise of the LFTR  I recommend Dr. Robert Hargraves short book Aim High!  Hargraves is a physicist and he gets his facts right. Aim High! is a small self-published book, and Superfuel comes from a major publisher, but Hargraves doesn't make so many mistakes. There are good parts of Superfuel, as mentioned above.  If you want a general history of nuclear power, Superfuel is one of many books you can read with interest.

I appreciate that a major author and a major publisher have released a book on the LFTR.  I wish they had spared some of the "nuclearati-Stalin" type rhetoric, and done more fact-checking.  It could have been a book I loved.

Other reviews:
Will Davis at Atomic Power Review has a more positive review of this book, Another positive review at the blog ThoriumMSR, by Rick Maltese.

Update: Rod Adams wrote a related post this morning: There are three Superfuels--uranium, thorium and  plutonium.  Fascinating post and good comments!