Monday, November 25, 2013

Unit 4 Post Thorium


Global Issues   Andrew du Bois
Unit 4 Thorium: The Best Alternative Energy Source

The element thorium, in the organic form of Thorium-232, can be developed to create energy at a rate that is faster and a price that is cheaper than coal. Another major benefit of thorium is that it produces slightly more than 3% of the hazardous waste than a light water nuclear reactor creates. And, unlike its nuclear counterpart, the waste created by a thorium reactor, that is the waste that isn’t able to be extracted and formed back into distributable energy, is only environmentally toxic for 300 years. That is 1000 times less than the duration currently produced nuclear waste should be stored. This makes developing a long term storage solution for thorium waste much simpler than one for nuclear waste, which has been sucking up precious government funds through failed projects, exemplified by the Yucca Mountain fiasco that took $10 billion in government money and is still not functioning. If those reasons are not enough to convince one that thorium is the best form of alternative energy available, there is always the fact that so little of it is required to produce a reaction that the supply could never run out, supplying the planet with cheap and efficiently produced energy for as long as humans inhabit it. There are many innovations to explore when dealing with thorium, but in my opinion the most effective and the one that would bring the most benefit is a reactor that uses a substance known as molten salt. This molten salt reactor, or MSR, combines thorium and Uranium-233 into a salt mixture. The fluid then goes through the reaction, which removes the toxic waste, along with excess uranium, which can then be used again in a separate reaction. The unique aspect of a molten salt reactor is that the mixture acts as both the reaction to transfer heat into energy and as the matrix to combine the two isotopes, which initiates and sustains the reaction. To make all of this possible, it will require sufficient start up funds from the government to set up a series of reactors across the country. There will not need to be many reactors established, as the energy from a thorium reaction can be used to provide power to an immensely large radius of population. The cost to set this up, however, will not be a major issue. Despite the fact that developing a molten salt reactor does take sufficient funding, once it is created, all that is needed is a steady influx of thorium, which is naturally occurring and easy to obtain, and a supply of graphite which is used to regulate the reaction. A waste disposal site will also need to be established, but as previously mentioned waste products from the reactions are scarce and need to be kept out of the environment only for 300 years, so disposing of waste products should not be an issue. Another great aspect to thorium is, as previously discussed, the supply is endless and the waste is minimal, so there will be no need to curb the consumption to preserve the resource. People can be as wasteful as they please with the energy provided to them from a thorium development plant, because the environmental hazard is minute and there is no way the population could exhaust the supply. Once developed, the facts surrounding thorium can be displayed to the public, and, aside from the heads of oil and traditional nuclear power companies, it would be difficult to convince anyone to support another type of energy, as it is nearly impossible to find a way to produce fuel at a more efficient and environmentally friendly way.

This is a diagram of how a molten salt reactor would function


 The benefits of thorium energy and of the molten salt reactor are explained in this video



Thursday, November 7, 2013

Open Yucca Mountain

The Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository, more commonly known simply as Yucca Mountain, is located in Nevada near the border with California. Nuclear power has long been a priority for the United States, as it provides us with a high powered form of energy which is relatively easy and cost efficient to maintain. A major problem with nuclear energy is how to deal with the fuel rods, which conduct the reactions creating the energy in the main reactors, once they become used up, or spent. Spent fuel rod disposal poses such a difficulty because they remain radioactive for vast durations of time, in many cases for over 1 million years. In the event that somebody from a later generation would stumble upon the repository and not be aware of it’s contents, it could not only cause a great deal of pain and suffering for the person who discovered it, but it could release radioactive toxins into the air, harming anyone near the point of release. This reason is exactly why I believe Yucca Mountain is the most logical choice as to where and how the nuclear waste should be stored. Yucca Mountain is a highly secure facility which is deeply embedded in the rock structure underneath a massive valley with no civilization in sight. The possibility of somebody stumbling across the facility in essentially the middle of nowhere are very slim, and in the event some explorer would discover it, there are warnings and depictive symbols placed all around the entrance to designate it as a site with major consequences should it be entered without taking the proper precautions. Another main point the opposition to the Yucca Mountain facility brings up when arguing for the continued closure of the facility is that the air around the facility will be polluted with radioactive material, which, if potent enough, could have major health effects on anybody in the near vicinity. However, this topic has been studied in great detail, and the findings show that the dose of radiation which inhabitants of nearby areas would be exposed to after 10,000 years of operation would still be over 100 times less than what somebody is exposed to while getting a simple medical procedure such as a hip X ray. As if these facts aren’t reason enough to put public unrest over the issue of Yucca Mountain to bed, the United States Senate conducted a major study in 2006, which was detailed in a report titled “Yucca Mountain: The Most Studied Real Estate on the Planet”. The paper was extensive, but reached several conclusions reinforcing the safety, security, and efficiency of Yucca Mountain. The conclusions stated, among other things, that the cost of not continuing on with the project would be immensely higher than simply operating the facility, nuclear waste disposal is a strong boost to national security, and that studies by geologists and environmentalists have proven that the facility is a safe environment to store radioactive material in, with little risk to the public who reside in surrounding areas for generations to come. A final reason which convinces me that Yucca Mountain repository needs to be reopened immediately is that the reason that it was closed down seems to be a very trivial and almost invalid. The federal government ceased funding the project in 2011, which is when it closed. The leader of the shutdown movement, and also the leader of the United States: President Obama, stated his reason for closing the facility was a politically motivated one, and not a choice based on security or safety concerns. Simply attempting to appease his environmentally conscious support group by closing the facility is an unacceptable reason to shut down a repository which could easily solve the ever pressing problem which is dealing with the waste produced from nuclear energy, which is only increasing and needs a permanent storage site immediately.
Yucca Mountain, Nevada
Entrance to the facility

A look inside the laboratory of Yucca Mountain

http://tessasglobalissues.blogspot.com/p/unit-3.html: This link is to Tessa's blog post about the Svalbard seed vault
http://globalissuesblake.blogspot.com/p/unit-3.html Blake's post about American food waste was eye opening about the amount of glut our country truly has
http://globalissuescatherinholmes.blogspot.com/p/unit-three.html This is Catherin's post about the poor lunches being given to the students of our schools, and the nutritional hazards these meals create



Garrick, John B. "Yucca Mountain: Pro & Con." IEEE Spectrum. IEEE, Oct. 2002. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.
Rojstaczer, Stuart. "PRO / Yucca Mountain / Yucca Mountain: A Pragmatic Solution to Storing Nuclear Waste." SFGate. San Francisco Chronicle, Aug. 2002. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.
Farnham, Alan. "Nuclear Waste: Yucca Mountain Gets Reprieve As Storage Site." ABC News. ABC News Network, Aug. 2013. Web. 07 Nov. 2013.