Back
to newsletter contents
Desperate to be seen to be doing something (or is it because they
are afraid of upsetting the powers that be) Governments worldwide
are plumping for uranium-fuelled nuclear power rather than renewable
energy to counter global warming. As we reported in the last two
issues of Green Health Watch, this makes things look pretty bleak,
what with (i) the huge potential for radioactive contamination
and (ii) the fast vanishing supplies of high-quality uranium ore.
Another alternative, albeit still nuclear, was rejected by the
European Commission in 1999 and 2000: a much safer way to produce
nuclear energy called ‘accelerator-driven system (ADS)’
using a much less radioactive substance, thorium.
Accelerator-driven systems
In an ‘accelerator-driven system’ (ADS), a very strong
external beam of protons is needed to trigger and maintain the
heat-generating reactions. If a reaction appears to be getting
out of control, you simply switch the proton beam off. In an ADS,
the chain reaction which can become an atomic bomb or melt down
a conventional reactor, could only occur through utter negligence
or sabotage by an insider. A fault or, for instance, a bomb, would
halt the reaction instantly. On the other hand, a terrorist bomb
on a conventional reactor could contaminate land and people for
hundreds, may be thousands of miles. Professor Egil Lillestol
at Bergen University’s Institute of Physics and Technology
(Norway) estimates that the technology would require only 550
million euros and 15 years to develop. One major remaining problem
is how to safely contain the molten lead (highly corrosive) used
in the ADS process.
Thorium
There is three times as much thorium as uranium in the Earth’s
crust. It produces 250 times more energy than uranium. Thorium
waste loses its radioactivity in hundreds of years rather than
tens of thousands. So what’s the problem? Australia has
the world’s largest reserves of thorium, but India, which
is sitting on about a quarter of the world's reserves, has already
planned its transition to ADS-thorium reactors.
Politics
Egil believes that the prime objection to both EU and global investment
in ADS-thorium technology is more political than scientific. The
countries which currently supply or process uranium ore are, understandably,
not supportive. Nor are the countries which are still jealously
guarding nuclear-uranium know-how. Those which have ADS-thorium
know-how are also, to some degree, keeping it to themselves and
working on different prototypes rather than pooling their expertise.
Developing ADS-thorium technology within a relevant global warming
timescale will demand (i) an acceptance that global power balance
will shift from oil and uranium-owning nations to thorium-owning
nations, and (ii) an unprecedented level of international cooperation
and sharing.
(12899)
Helen Brown. Independent