Centre for European Reform T: 00 44 20 7233 119914 Great College Street F: 00 44 20 7233 1117London SW1P 3RX UK info@cer.org.uk / www.cer.org.uk

Thorium: How to save Europe’snuclear revival

By Stephen Tindale

The best sources of energy, in both climate andenergy security terms, are renewable. The EU iscommitted to obtaining 20 per cent of its totalenergy from renewables by 2020. This is a crucialobjective, and must be met. But even if the EU meetsthat target, European countries will still need toconstruct an enormous amount of new energyinfrastructure before they can be totally reliant onrenewables. An effective large-scale means of storingelectricity from intermittent wind, wave and solarpower plants must also be developed. The transitionto a fully renewable economy will therefore takeseveral decades. So other low-carbon sources ofenergy are needed as bridge technologies.

Nuclear power stations produce only around a tenthof the carbon dioxide per unit of electricity of coal

power stations.1 (This takesaccount of the full life-cycle ofnuclear generation, includingmining and transport of the fueland decommissioning.) Its abilityto generate large amounts of

low-carbon electricity makes nuclear power anessential part of Europe’s transition to a low-carboneconomy. The risks of uncontrolled climate changeare greater than any of the risks presented by nuclearpower stations.

Before the nuclear incident at Fukushima in March2011, nuclear power’s climate and energy securityadvantages were spurring an increasing politicalcommitment to nuclear power among EUgovernments. The governments of Bulgaria, the CzechRepublic, Italy, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Sloveniaand the UK had said that they favoured theconstruction of new nuclear stations. The Germangovernment did not talk about new nuclear stations,but Chancellor Merkel did say that existing nuclearstations would be allowed to operate for the periodthey were designed for, rather than being closed by2022 as a law passed by a previous Germangovernment requires. Merkel correctly describednuclear power as a necessary low-carbon bridgetechnology, to be used until Germany can be 100 percent renewable.

★ The Fukushima nuclear incident in Japan has reduced public and political support for nuclearpower across Europe. Nevertheless, the EU should continue to support nuclear power as a low-carbon bridge technology until Europe can be 100 per cent reliant on renewable energy – whichwill take several decades.

★ As a general rule, European countries should use tried-and-tested technologies to make thetransition to a low-carbon economy rather than spend money developing new technologies. Butreactors which use thorium as a liquid fuel – which cannot melt down – should be an exception tothis approach. Such reactors would reduce the amount of nuclear waste produced and help dealwith existing waste stockpiles. They would also reduce the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation.

★ China and the USA are now taking thorium liquid reactors seriously. Europe is not, so riskslosing out on the economic benefits of a safer form of nuclear power.

1 UK Energy ResearchCentre, ‘Response toTreasury consultation oncarbon capture andstorage’ , May 2006.

Since Fukushima, Merkel has backtracked. She nowsays that some of Germany’s nuclear plants must closeimmediately, and all by 2022. The Italian governmenthas announced a delay of at least a year beforeallowing construction of a nuclear reactor. The EUhas announced that all EU nuclear facilities will besubject to ‘stress tests’ to check their safety. The testswill take into account local factors such as distance tothe coast, levels of seismic activity and the plant’s age.This is essentially political window dressing –regulators and governments already know how farnuclear power stations are from the coast, howseismic the areas are and when the plants wereconstructed. Europe’s leaders should demonstrategreater leadership and imagination in overcomingpublic hostility to nuclear power.

In order to use nuclear as a bridge technology, theEU need not spend more money on unproventechnological approaches such as nuclear fusion,which remains at least 30 years away. Advocates offusion argue that this technology in theory provideslimitless and sustainable energy. So it does –theoretically. The downside is best summarised inthe quip that “nuclear fusion is 30 years in the future– and always will be”. The budget for theinternational nuclear fusion project, ITER in France,has almost tripled since 2001. It is now S16 billion,although major construction has yet to start. The EUwill have to pay S6.6 billion of this. The

Commission awarded ITERS1.4 billion, from unspent partsof the EU budget and theresearch programme, in 2010.2Even if fusion works eventually

(which is far from certain), it will not provideelectricity soon enough to help Europe with itstransition to a low-carbon economy. ITER itselfaccepts that the plant will not feed electricity intothe grid before 2040.

As a rule, therefore, European countries should usetried-and-tested technologies to make the transition toa low-carbon economy. France, which generatesaround 80 per cent of its electricity from nuclear, hasessentially used only three generations of design for itsnuclear stations. This has kept costs lower than theywould have been if each station had been slightlydifferent (which has been the UK approach).

Thorium molten salt reactors

There should, however, be one exception to thegeneral approach of using established technologiesand designs. The EU should invest in developingthorium-fuelled molten salt reactors. This is a proventechnology: the US operated a molten salt reactor inthe late 1960s.

Thorium is an abundant mineral: it is about threetimes as abundant as uranium. But this alone is nota strong reason to invest in developing thorium

reactors. There are large enough proven reserves ofuranium around the world to fuel nuclear powerthrough the decades needed for the transition torenewables. The fact that they are in countries suchas Australia and Namibia means that energy securityis not a major concern. The case for thorium moltensalt reactors rests on the fact that this technology isEurope’s best bet to overcome public opposition tonuclear, by demonstrating that nuclear power can bemade significantly safer.

Molten salt reactors use liquid fuel. When the liquidgets too hot it automatically flows out of the reactorcore, so making meltdown impossible. Reactorsusing liquid fuel produce less radioactive waste thansolid fuel reactors do. Thorium molten fuel reactorsalso reduce – though do not eliminate – the risk ofnuclear weapons proliferation, as they do notproduce plutonium.

Anti-nuclear campaigners often use the issue ofradioactive pollution as a central plank of theirargument – partly because radioactivity is invisibleand so easy to scare the public about. High levels ofradioactivity do have implications for human health.But the levels of radioactivity which result from theoperation of nuclear power stations are not highenough to cause significantly increased health risk.There has been extensiveresearch and assessment intothis question, by bodiesindependent from the nuclearindustry. For example, a recentreport from a UK publicadvisory body concluded thatrates of childhood leukaemia arenot related to proximity tonuclear plants.3

The danger of meltdown is a much stronger anti-nuclear argument. The world’s worst nuclearpower incident, at Chernobyl in 1986, was causedby the meltdown of a reactor core. The 2011Fukushima incident and the 1979 Three MileIsland accident in the US involved partialmeltdowns. In a molten salt reactor, thorium isdissolved into hot liquid salts. This liquid is thenpoured into tubes which take it into the reactorcore, where nuclear fissionoccurs and electricity isgenerated. If the liquid becomestoo hot, it expands and soflows back out of the tubes, soreducing fission and removingthe risk of meltdown.4

A third anti-nuclear argument is that nuclear powerstations produce radioactive waste. Molten saltreactors use liquid fuel rather than solid fuel rods.Reactors with liquid fuel use all the fuel, whereasreactors with solid fuel use only part of the fuel, andthe rods remain as spent fuel. So molten salt reactorsproduce a much lower volume of radioactive waste

2

2 European Commission,‘Commission proposesplan for financing ITER’,July 20th 2010.

3 Committee on theMedical Aspects ofRadiation in theEnvironment, ‘Furtherconsideration of the incidence of childhoodleukaemia around nuclearpower plants in GreatBritain’, COMARE, May 2011.

4 World NuclearAssociation, ‘Thorium’,WNA information pagehttp://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html,March 2011.

than solid fuel reactors do. JamesHansen, chief scientist at NASA,has written that “thorium can beused in ways that practicallyeliminate build-up of long-livednuclear waste.”5

Whatever form of energy generation countries use infuture, those which have, or ever have had, nuclearpower plants have stockpiles of radioactive waste todeal with. Existing uranium reactors also produceplutonium, which could then be used for nuclearweapons and so needs to be safeguarded andmanaged. France and the UK also have plutoniumfrom dismantled nuclear weapons.

The current approach to managing the stockpile ofspent fuel in both France and the UK is to reprocessthe spent fuel. France also reprocesses spent fuel fromGermany, the Netherlands and Belgium. Reprocessingmeans that the fuel can be re-used. However, it alsoleads to the production of more plutonium. So Franceand the UK mix uranium and plutonium into mixedoxide fuel (MOx). French nuclear reactors use MOxfuel. British nuclear operators have chosen not to,because uranium fuel is cheaper. The UK spent billionsof pounds constructing a reprocessing plant and anMOx plant at Sellafield, in the expectation that itwould be able to sell the MOx fuel to Japan. But thecontracts from Japan have not been forthcoming, andare looking even less probable post-Fukushima. So

Sellafield has cost the UK taxpayeran enormous amount of money.6It has also caused considerableradioactive pollution of the IrishSea – reprocessing causes muchhigher radioactive emissions thanreactors do.

A more cost-effective way to deal with spent fuel andplutonium stockpiles would be to develop molten saltreactors. Spent uranium fuel and plutonium can becombined with thorium fuel and dissolved into thesalt liquid, which can then be used to fuel the reactor.So molten salt reactors could be used as a means ofrecycling spent fuel and reducing the existing spentfuel and plutonium stockpiles

Reducing the risk of nuclear weaponsproliferation

A fourth anti-nuclear argument is that nuclear powerstations are closely linked to nuclear weapons. The USbuilt nuclear weapons before it constructed nuclearpower stations, but since then every country that hasacquired nuclear weapons (except Israel) did so bybuilding nuclear power stations. So concerns aboutproliferation are a valid and forceful argumentagainst nuclear power.

One way to combine global expansion of nuclearpower with stronger control on weapons proliferation

would be to establish an international nuclear fuelbank. Nuclear fuel would be enriched at aninternationally-controlled facility and supplied todifferent countries, with the spent fuel and plutoniumthen returned to that facility after the generation ofelectricity. This approach has been promoted by,among others, the Nuclear Threat Initiative, whichincludes among its leading participants former USsecretaries of state Henry Kissinger and GeorgeSchultz, former US secretary of defense William Perryand former US senator Sam Nunn. However, there isnot yet any agreement on setting up such aninternational nuclear fuel bank.

An alternative, and more achievable, approach tocombining nuclear power expansion with weaponsproliferation control would be to promote thoriummolten salt reactors instead of uranium solid fuelreactors. Some uranium solid fuel reactors require thatthe uranium is enriched. (Uranium in which theisotope U-235 is more than 20 per cent of the total isreferred to as highly enriched unranium (HEU). HEUcan be use for weapons, although the term ‘weapons-grade material’ refers to uranium in which U-235 is 90per cent. 30 countries use HEU in reactors. Modernuranium reactors can use low enriched uranium, inwhich U-235 is 3-4 per cent.) All uranium solid fuelreactors then produce plutonium. Thorium fuel doesnot require enrichment, and thorium molten saltreactors do not produce plutonium, so the threat ofweapons proliferation would be substantially reduced.It would not, however, be removed completely. Thethorium is transformed during the process into a formof uranium – U-233 – which could in theory be usedin nuclear weapons. This has not yet been done, sothorium molten salt reactors represent a smallerproliferation risk than uranium hard fuel reactors do.However, the safest approach to proliferationprevention would be to combine development ofmolten salt reactors with the establishment of aninternationally-controlled nuclear fuel bank.

‘Too cheap to meter’?

A fifth anti-nuclear argument is that nuclear power isexpensive, so that investment in new nuclear stationswill divert money away from renewables and energyefficiency programmes.

Nuclear power is not cheap, as the cost overruns atplants currently under construction in Finland andFrance demonstrate. The nuclear industry remainsscarred by its infamous claim in the 1950s that itwould produce electricity ‘too cheap to meter’.Companies involved in the uranium nuclear fuelcycle are now wisely refraining from claims aboutcheapness (although non-industry commentatorsare arguing that new nuclearstations will be cheaper thanother low-carbon options suchas carbon capture and storage oroffshore wind).7

35 James Hansen, ‘Tell Barack Obama thetruth – The whole truth’,Columbia University, 2008.http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2008/20081121_Obama.pdf.

6 Steve Connor, ‘The nuclear industrymust learn its lesson andstop building these whiteelephants’, The Independent, May 9th 2011.

7 Committee on ClimateChange, ‘The renewableenergy review’, May 2011.

Some commentators and companies are claiming thatthorium molten salt reactors will generate electricity

more cheaply than existing fossilfuel power stations do.8 This ispossible at some stage in thefuture, but not likely. The rationalapproach for policy-makerswould be to assume that moltensalt reactors will be expensive,

and to assess whether the improved safety featuresand reduced waste management and proliferationrisks justify the increased costs.

The money to support research and development ofmolten salt reactors need not be taken fromrenewables or other low-carbon energy supplyoptions. There is more than enough money availablein the existing subsidies for nuclear fusion. And theargument that governments which support any formof nuclear power overlook or downplay renewables isdisproved by the example of France. France gets overthree-quarters of its electricity from nuclear powerstations. Yet the French government has supportedonshore wind farms and is now giving subsides tooffshore wind. It is also subsidising an expansion ofthe district heating system in Paris, to distribute heatfrom power stations burning energy crops and wastewood which would otherwise be wasted.

The history of thorium as a fuel

Thorium molten salt reactors could produce nuclearelectricity without the risk of meltdown and with lesswaste and lower risk of proliferation. They have beentechnologically proven since the 1960s. So why havethey not been developed? Part of the answer is thelink between the uranium nuclear fuel cycle andnuclear weapons outlined above. The US built athorium molten salt reactor in 1965, but subsequentlyopted to develop only uranium reactors. Critics argue

that this was because of the linkbetween uranium reactors andnuclear weapons, though this hasnever been the publicly-acknowledged reason behind thechoice of uranium.9 The firstthree countries to constructnuclear power stations – theSoviet Union, the UK and the US– were all extensively involved innuclear weapons programmes.

However, the link with nuclear weapons is not thereason why all countries that have developed nuclearpower stations have opted for uranium. Some of them– notably Germany, Japan and South Korea – havenever been involved in nuclear weapons programmes.The reason these countries adopted the uranium fuelcycle was economic: thorium molten salt reactorswere substantially more expensive per unit ofelectricity produced than uranium reactors were.There has also been opposition from nuclear power

companies involved in the uranium fuel cycle to anypublic investment in an alternative. By the time athorium molten salt reactor had been demonstrated inthe 1960s and was ready for widespread deployment,there had been major investment in the uranium fuelcycle. So the companies involved in uranium reactorswere politically influential.

Since the 1970s, India has been the country mostactive in thorium research. This was partly for energysecurity reasons – India has extensive proven reservesof thorium but little uranium – and partly because itsaccess to imported uranium was restricted byinternational sanctions following its explosion of anuclear weapon in 1974. These sanctions werestrengthened following further nuclear tests in 1998.They were removed in 2008 after an agreement withthe US on civil nuclear co-operation, but Indiaremains committed to thorium research in order touse its thorium reserves. However, India has focusedon using thorium in solid fuel reactors which wouldotherwise have used uranium. As outlined above,solid fuel reactors could melt down.

Past European research into thorium has also mainlybeen on its use in solid fuel reactors. For example,Germany ran a 300 megawatt solid fuel reactorfuelled by thorium from 1983 to 1989. This was shutdown on economic grounds, having already costaround S2.5 billion (so making the electricitygenerated around eight times as expensive aselectricity from uranium reactors). Norway, whichlike India has large proven reserves of thorium, hasalso carried out extensive research into using thoriumin solid fuel reactors. The French company Areva iscurrently working with the US company Lightbridge(formerly called ThoriumPower) to use thorium fuelin its European Pressurised Reactor (EPR). The EPRis an established nuclear design: the plants underconstruction in Finland and France are EPRs, thoughin these two cases they will use uranium fuel.Lightbridge is also working with Moscow’sKurchatov Institute to use thorium rather thanuranium in some of Russia’s existing nuclear reactors.

The European nuclear research organisation CERNapplied to the EuropeanCommission for funds forthorium research in 1999, butwas turned down. CERN staffclaimed that the Commission hadconsulted its nuclear technicaladvisers, who were French, andopposed thorium because Francehad invested so heavily inuranium technology.10

Current interest in thorium molten saltreactors

Although thorium molten salt reactors have largelybeen off the energy policy agenda since the end of the

4

8 For example, RobertHargraves, ‘Aim high,thorium energy cheaperthan from coal’,Booksurge Llc, February 8th 2009.

9 For example, RichardMartin, ‘Uranium is solast century – enterthorium, the new greennuke’, Wired magazine,December 21st 2009.http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/.

10 Professor EgilLillestol of CERN,quoted in James Quinn,‘Obama could kill fossilfuels overnight with anuclear dash forthorium’, Daily Telegraph, August 29th 2010.

1960s, they are now making a comeback. There isconsiderable interest in them from energy companiesand politicians in China and the US. The interest inthe US is primarily driven by concerns about energysecurity (the US also has extensive quantities ofthorium); in China, the main concern is to develop allforms of electricity generation to meet the needs of arapidly expanding economy. There is much lessinterest in Europe.

The Chinese government is financing a recentlyestablished private company, International ThoriumEnergy & Moltem-Salt Technology Inc., which aimsto produce a small molten salt reactor within fiveyears. The funding will come via the ChineseAcademy of Science, as part of a programme headedby Jiang Mianheng, son of former Chinese presidentJiang Zemin.

In the US, political interest in thorium molten saltreactors is cross-party, having been led by DemocraticSenator Harry Reid and Republican Senator OrrinHatch. Reid and Hatch have introduced three bills toCongress, all of which identified thorium fuel cycletechnology as a means to expand nuclear powerwithout increasing waste or nuclear proliferation.

When he entered office, President Barack Obama setup a Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s nuclearfuture, which is considering nuclear fuel cycles andnuclear waste against criteria of “cost, safety, resourceutilisation and sustainability, and the promotion ofnuclear non-proliferation and counter-terrorismgoals”.11 The Commission will publish a draft report

in July 2011 and a final report inJanuary 2012. US EnergySecretary Steven Chu has alreadyindicated that he thinks thoriumand molten salt reactors are theway forward for nuclear energy:

“We cannot continue to improve the condition ofpeople throughout the world without use of nuclearpower. None of the renewable energy solutions can bescaled quickly enough to meet current and futureenergy needs. Safer, proliferation resistant, nuclearpower without the long term high level waste storageproblems is needed to power a growing world economy

and to allow all nations to providefor and feed their growingpopulations in peace. These goalsare available by changing thenuclear fuel cycle to a U-233/Thorium fuel cycle.”12

Large US energy companies have not yet shownserious interest in molten salt reactors. However,Microsoft’s Bill Gates has set up a company calledTerraPower with the aim of developing a nuclearenergy system which reduces the weaponsproliferation risk and allows the re-use of spentnuclear fuel. TerraPower has identified thoriummolten salt reactors as a promising means of achieving

these objectives. Other US companies are part of aconsortium, with Japanese and Russian companies, todevelop a molten salt reactor. Japanese companiesinvolved include Toyota, Toshiba and Hitachi.

Within the EU, there is no substantial or co-ordinatedeffort into developing thorium molten salt reactors.The most substantial current European research intothorium is in France (despite France having invested sogreatly in uranium as the nuclear fuel of choice). AFrench nuclear research laboratory is building updatedmodels of 1950s designs of molten salt reactors.

Environmentalist opinion

Opposition from green parties and environmental non-governmental organisations has played an importantrole in stopping the expansion of nuclear power inEurope and the US since 1979, when the partialmeltdown of the US Three Mile Island reactor sparkedoff massive opposition to nuclear power. Taking astrong anti-nuclear line became a central tenet of being‘green’. In some countries, notably Germany andAustria, it still is. In other countries, including the UKand Sweden, concern about climate change has ledsome environmentalists to accept that nuclear power isa necessary low-carbon bridge technology.

Most of the green non-governmental organisationsremain opposed to all forms of nuclear power,including thorium molten salt reactors. For example,Greenpeace International published an article byAmory Lovins, Chairman of theRocky Mountains Institute, whichdismissed thorium’s advantages:“Thorium’s waste, safety, andcost problems differ only in detailfrom uranium’s.”13

However, other non-governmental organisations areprepared to consider a role for thorium reactors.Friends of the Earth recognises the need for low-carbon bridge technologies, and supports carboncapture and storage for this purpose. Friends of theEarth England, Wales and Northern Ireland has alsoaccepted that thorium reactors should also besupported. Mike Childs, head of that organisation’sclimate campaign, has written that “it’s alwayshandy to have something in the back pocket in caseit is needed in the future. This iswhy it is useful to have researchinto new technologies such ascreating transport fuels fromsolar energy, super cheap thin-film solar power and eventhorium nuclear reactors.”14

For a green organisation to speak approvingly ofanything including the word nuclear represents aconsiderable step forward. European governmentsshould take advantage of this opening. They shouldemphasise that thorium molten salt reactors are a

5

11 Blue RibbonCommission reactor andfuel cycle technologysubcommittee, ‘Draftrecommendations’, May 13th 2011.

12 Planet Forward interview, ‘EnergySecretary Steven Chuanswers our energy question’, March 1st 2011.

13 Amory Lovins, ‘‘New’ nuclear reactors,same old story’,Greenpeace International,May 2009.

14 Mike Childs, ‘Thoriumreactors and nuclearfusion’, Friends of theEarth, March 24th 2011.http://www.foe.co.uk/news/thorium_30112.html.

form of nuclear technology which have much lowerrisk of accident because they cannot melt down,produce much less nuclear waste and can be used toreduce the existing stockpile of nuclear waste. Havingstressed the environmental advantages, Europeangovernments and institutions should then invest in thedevelopment of thorium molten salt reactors.

Conclusion and recommendations

The EU has played a progressive role in climatechange policy, though EU institutions have placed toomuch emphasis on targets and timetables and toolittle on specific policy and investment. The EU isright to focus on expanding renewable energy, whichhas substantial economic and energy security benefitsas well as helping control climate change. Europereceives enough energy from the wind, sun, waves,tides and rivers to deliver all its energy requirements.But it will take at least four decades before Europecan be 100 per cent reliant on renewables. So otherlow-carbon bridge technologies are required.

Despite two of the EU’s founding organisations – theEuropean Coal and Steel Community and Euratom –having been about energy, the question of whichenergy sources countries rely upon remains a nationalcompetence. However, the European institutions playan important role in setting the framework forEurope’s energy market. The Commission also spendsconsiderable sums of money on energy research,development and demonstration.

The EU should continue its support for carboncapture and storage (CCS) large-scale demonstrationprojects. However, CCS has not yet beendemonstrated at a large scale, so its cost is essentiallyunknown – though no one expects it to be cheap.16 Inaddition, CCS is increasingly unpopular with the

public in several member-states,notably Germany, where projectsinvolve proposals to store carbondioxide under land rather thanunder the sea.

Given the uncertainties surrounding CCS, it would notbe sensible to rely on it as the only low-carbon bridgetechnology. Nuclear power should also be used.

Tried-and-tested solid fuel reactors such as the EPRcould be used as part of the low-carbon bridge. Butsolid fuel reactors, however well constructed, operatedand regulated, always carry the potential risk ofmeltdown. This risk is a strong cause of publicopposition to nuclear power. In the aftermath of theFukushima incident in Japan, public opposition is oneof the major obstacles to using nuclear power.Developing thorium molten salt reactors could make asubstantial contribution to increasing public support.

Molten salt reactors are a proven technology. Theywould not provide cheap electricity. But they wouldprovide low-carbon electricity, with lower amounts ofradioactive waste than produced by uranium reactors.They would also make possible support for nuclearenergy around the world with a lower risk of weaponsproliferation. And they would provide nuclear powerstations with a much lower risk of accident, becausethe reactor core could not melt down.

The EU should stop spending money on nuclear fusion.If the other partners in ITER – China, India, Japan,South Korea, USA – wish to continue giving money tofusion research, either in their own countries or at theITER project in France, they are free to do so. TheFrench government is also free to continue givingmoney to the ITER project. But there is no good reasonfor EU money to go to ITER. Due to the economicrecession and slow growth in many Europeancountries, the EU budget is under considerablepressure. EU institutions should not waste money on anunproven technology which, if it ever works, will notproduce significant quantities of electricity soonenough to help with controlling climate change.

The EU should transfer funding from ITER to researchand development into thorium molten salt reactors.

The EU should also invest in thorium molten saltreactors to avoid the risk of missing out on a majorbusiness opportunity. The US and China are takingthis option seriously. Although the commercialopportunities related to thorium remain uncertain,Europe should stand ready to reap the benefits if andwhen they materialise.

Stephen Tindale is an associate fellow at the CER.June 2011

6

16 Stephen Tindale andSimon Tilford, ‘Carboncapture and storage: whatthe EU needs to do’, CERreport, February 2010.

For further information, visit our website

www.cer.org.uk