Thorium Nuclear Power: An Unspoken Alternative?

The United States of America is currently undergoing a period of significant change, both politically, economically and technologically. However, one of the most persistent questions America has faced is, in effect, “how do we keep the lights on?” The answer is found underground.

The concept of power is of extreme importance in the realm of policymaking. American power has been the subject of heightened scrutiny recently, and it is an indisputable fact that power isn’t just desirable, but utterly necessary. However, Americans remain divided on how this power should be generated.

In the present discourse, three factions have emerged in the power debate. Some Americans support continuing old methods of utilizing fossil fuels and their derivatives, like coal and petroleum, and fossil fuels currently dominate in terms of sheer scalability. Oil as a medium is particularly difficult to quit.

Furthermore, natural gas facilities, the poster child for modern fossil fuels, are highly efficient in terms of power density. This is especially apparent when compared with renewables, which can need up to 1,000x the space required by fossil fuels.

These benefits, however, come at significant costs. Irrefutable evidence exists which supports the existence of unnatural climate change in the present, especially increased amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, is largely to blame. Furthermore, studies have also revealed increased levels of terrestrial, maritime and aerial pollution and medium and long-term deprecation of fossil fuel supplies as a direct consequence of over reliance.

On the opposite end of the spectrum, there is renewable energy – hydro power, solar power, geothermal power and wind power – which is argued to be better for the environment and more sustainable in the long run. Proponents of renewables argue that while finite resources such as coal and uranium will eventually deplete, resources like solar and hydro energy are perpetual.

In addition, supporters of renewable energy point to its vastly superior cleanliness as opposed to other forms of energy. Compared to the oil industry, which emitted 11.2 gigatons of carbon dioxide in 2022, renewable energy would produce virtually no emissions by themselves.

In addition, adopting renewables would positively impact national security. This sentiment was proven in the European Union, which, throughout 2023, increased domestic renewable production by 44 percent, allowing Europe to import less material overall. Furthermore, renewables are lower maintenance and offer lesser power generation costs. Solar fields can go up to 25 years without maintenance, while 96 percent of all new utility-level solar and wind farms had lower power generation costs than fossil installations.

Despite this, significant downsides exist with renewables that are not present in other methods. For example, renewables require plenty of space. It is estimated that renewable installations will, on average, require up to ten times more space than fossil fuel plants. Renewables are also often highly dependent on external factors. For example, solar farms require unrestricted access to sunlight, and even then, they are ineffectual at night.

Furthermore, renewable power is also subject to economic and infrastructural pressures as well. To start, renewable power is highly cost-intensive in the short run. Solar panel setups, for example, can range anywhere from $100,000 to $1,000,000. This leads to disincentives in the marketplace, especially among small businesses.

Finally, advocates of Uranium fission-based nuclear power argue that it represents an alternative that is both clean and safe. These claims are not unfounded. In the USA, for example, nuclear reactors are regulated by the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, where plants are built with the intention of surviving natural disasters.

In addition, nuclear power is more cost-effective than even fossil fuels. A single Uranium pellet, the size of a cube of sugar, produces the equivalent of 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. Furthermore, fission plants produce no carbon dioxide pollution, all while taking up less land than renewables.

However, fission power has plenty of downsides by itself. The first is a security concern; even though Uranium deposits and reserves exist within the USA, the vast majority of American Uranium, well over 90 percent of it, is imported from other countries, including antagonistic ones like Russia.

Furthermore, Uranium fission demands an immense amount of water to function. A typical nuclear plant requires 1,101 gallons of water per megawatt-hour, compared with a 225 for natural gas and a 15 for geothermal. Finally, there is the question of nuclear waste. Fission byproducts are often hazardous to human health and necessitate storage in expensive retention facilities.

There is, however, an unspoken alternative to all three of these methods, and that alternative is thorium. Thorium is a radioactive element which has potential to serve as a new paradigm in power. Additionally, thorium is abundant everywhere, with it being approximately three times as common as Uranium.

Thorium is also a fertile element as opposed to a fissile one, meaning that it can be converted into fissile material (Uranium-233 in Thorium’s case) via chemical reactions. However, these reactions require either Uranium-233, Uranium-235 or Plutonium-239 to trigger the process, so it is not a panacea in that regard. When used as a power source, however, the processes that derive from Thorium fertility produce less waste products in smaller numbers.

Thorium is also usable in a variety of reactors. However, the most tantalizing prospects are found within Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), which use molten Thorium salts as not only fuel, but also as reactor coolant. To start, thorium and some fissile materials are mixed into a molten salt complex. As this happens, the neutrons released strike the Thorium, creating more instances of fissile Uranium-233. In effect, this creates a cycle where new fuel is created from the reactions of older fuel storage. This makes reactions last longer and yield more power.

When taken as a cumulative, it’s clear to see that Thorium power may very well be the golden compromise. Thorium reactors combine the scalability and short-term benefits of fossil fuels, the power of nuclear reactors and the cleanliness and long-term effectiveness of renewable energy. So why wait?

Written by Albert Bernhardt, IV, Public Policy Intern