Should the Nuclear Industry Ditch Uranium in Favor of Thorium?

Uranium has powered the nuclear industry this far, but maybe it's time for a change. Source: Zxctypo/ Wikimedia Commons

The Internet loves to talk about the potential of thorium to supplant or complement uranium-based nuclear reactors. Circulating ideas talk about many advantages of thorium fuel compared to uranium fuel, such as lower operating pressures, greater abundance, lower risk of creating weapons, and little to no long-lasting nuclear waste. That all sounds great, but how truthful are such claims? How feasible is it for nuclear producers such as Exelon Corporation (NYSE: EXC  ) to source thorium fuels, or for nuclear technology leaders such as General Electric Company (NYSE: GE  ) to design reactors capable of consuming thorium?

I thought it would be helpful to reevaluate the purported benefits of thorium with an investing twist after stumbling across WhatIsNuclear.com, a website run by a group of nuclear engineers helping the public better understand atomic energy. I've learned a lot about the nuclear industry from the group and want to share my learnings with the investing community.

What are the major differences between thorium and uranium?
Thorium fuel is fertile, which means it undergoes a series of neutron-induced nuclear reactions to produce an isotope of uranium, U-233, that is fissile. Fissile material is capable of sustaining nuclear chain reactions to produce energy. Any thorium-based reactor uses the Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle, while most reactors currently in operation today operate on the Uranium-Plutonium cycle and begin with fissile-ready fuel (U-235 or Pu-239).

The Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle offers the distinct advantage of avoiding the production of high-level waste transuranics, or elements heavier than uranium, that remain environmentally toxic for over 10,000 years (they do still produce nuclear waste, however). That's good news, because the current best solution for disposing transuranics is throwing them into geologic repositories and bolting the door shut for dozens of centuries. General Electric and others are working on commercializing next-generation reactors capable of consuming transuranics -- possibly reducing their volume by 96% -- but not producing waste in the first place would be even more advantageous.

It has been proposed that several current and yet-to-be-constructed reactor designs can be loaded with thorium fuel. But one of the more promising reactors designs, the Generation IV Molten Salt Reactor, has yet to be commercialized. There are multiple global research projects attempting to corral the technology, but it will quite some time before such designs are deployed for commercial use for power generators such as Exelon.

What are the disadvantages of thorium fuel?
Many people talk about the benefits of thorium compared to uranium without addressing the disadvantages. A fair and balanced approach makes WhatIsNuclear.com an incredibly valuable resource. The group reports several downsides to thorium fuels. First, the industry doesn't have decades of experience working with the element as it does with uranium. Like it or not, that's a big factor in the willingness to invest in the technology. Unless the economics are indisputable, Exelon may not want to take on unknown risks when it knows uranium designs work just fine. A lack of interest from producers could also dampen the prospects of General Electric investing in such designs.

Second, the Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle produces more toxic short-term waste than the Uranium-Plutonium fuel cycle. The large amounts of radiation emitted from the decay products is more difficult to shield, which requires more expensive disposal methods to be implemented. Exelon already paid $142 million into the nation's nuclear waste disposal fund in 2013 and has yet to dispose any of its 14,400 metric tons of waste. How much more expensive would waste from a thorium reactor be to dispose?

Is thorium really more abundant than uranium?
Even I have talked about the abundance of thorium as an advantage over uranium, but it turns out that's only partially true. In the Earth's crust, thorium is about 400% more abundant than uranium. But uranium is 8,250,000% more abundant than thorium in the Earth's oceans. It may sound like a useless statistic, but processes for extracting uranium from seawater have already been demonstrated -- it just costs 400% more than current market prices. It may become the standard in the future.

The distribution of thorium across the United States and Canada. Source: USGS/ Wikimedia Commons

It's also worth pointing out that China and India have higher reserves of thorium than uranium, which has a lot to do with their pursuance of the technology. When coupled with their exploding energy consumption it becomes quite clear why both countries are attempting to commercialize thorium-based nuclear designs.

Are thorium reactors proliferation proof?
Not quite. While the risk of building weapons is reduced with the Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle, the owner of a thorium reactor could certainly extract bomb material from the process. The idea of being proliferation proof stems from the absence of plutonium creation. But the Uranium-233 created from the fuel cycle can make a mighty fine bomb, although it's a bit more difficult to extract enough material. Nonetheless, it's actually been done before. This shouldn't have much of an impact on the commercialization efforts or its use by responsible entities such as Exelon and General Electric. Remember, the lower risk of bomb-making feasibility is still an advantage.

Foolish bottom line
There's room for thorium-based reactors in a modern nuclear industry. It's important to remember that the often talked about advantages come with often neglected disadvantages, though. I believe the technology will be commercialized eventually and could provide a substantial amount of energy -- India aims to produce 30% of its energy needs from thorium -- but it's important to keep your expectations in check. For the foreseeable future, Exelon and General Electric will stick to uranium-based reactor designs.

Top dividend stocks for the next decade
Exelon and General Electric may not be pursuing thorium reactors anytime soon, but they will continue to reward their investors with dividends. The smartest investors know that dividend stocks simply crush their non-dividend paying counterparts over the long term. That's beyond dispute. They also know that a well-constructed dividend portfolio creates wealth steadily, while still allowing you to sleep like a baby. Knowing how valuable such a portfolio might be, our top analysts put together a report on a group of high-yielding stocks that should be in any income investor's portfolio. To see our free report on these stocks, just click here now.


Read/Post Comments (10) | Recommend This Article (3)

Comments from our Foolish Readers

Help us keep this a respectfully Foolish area! This is a place for our readers to discuss, debate, and learn more about the Foolish investing topic you read about above. Help us keep it clean and safe. If you believe a comment is abusive or otherwise violates our Fool's Rules, please report it via the Report this Comment Report this Comment icon found on every comment.

  • Report this Comment On May 20, 2014, at 6:33 PM, JamesSnow wrote:

    >But uranium is 8,250,000% more abundant than thorium in the Earth's oceans.

    Source? Also, what kind of uranium? Are you comparing U-238 to thorium TH-232 abundance? And, which is cheaper to process sea water or processing rare earth elements -and- thorium? We could take back the rare earth market from the Chinese.

    > the Thorium-Uranium fuel cycle produces more toxic short-term waste than the Uranium-Plutonium fuel cycle.

    Using which thorium reactor? Source?

    >But the Uranium-233 created from the fuel cycle can make a mighty fine bomb, although it's a bit more difficult to extract enough material.

    U-233 in a reactor is always mixed with U-232 which doesn't make a mighty bomb and no one has ever done it.

  • Report this Comment On May 21, 2014, at 3:12 AM, Snaz wrote:

    Not telling about one of the best parts about Thorium Reactors - can use up all of the nuclear waste that needs to be disposed of. Mixing it slowly and Using up over 90% of it completely. No mention?

    Also, the amount that would need to be disposed of after the 60 years of use is very small (5% as much) with no down time to refuel every 5 or 6 year like the current type of fuel rods used in Uranium Reactors. No Mention ? Is that a positive or What ?

    This needs to Happen much sooner than later !

    How about infrastructure of power lines? With small Thorium reactors there would be no need for the huge upgrades needed with any other system i.e. Wind / Solar or any other.

    No talk of the Power Factor of 1000 times that of Coal or Natural Gas and the issue of those with CO2 - It is the ONLY solution that will make any difference with World CO2 levels - Why ? It is a BIG secret ? I just don't understand the reason Thorium Reactors are not Spoken of with Great Demand ASAP - Like NOW !!!

  • Report this Comment On May 21, 2014, at 11:15 AM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @JamesSnow

    As stated in the article, I was introducing the website WhatIsNuclear.com to the investing community. You can dig around there to find all of the information presented above and more.

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On May 21, 2014, at 7:36 PM, JamesSnow wrote:

    @TMFBlacknGold (Maxxwell)

    That's a cop out. Support your claims.

    From whatisnuclear.com

    >The Th-U fuel cycle does not irradiate Uranium-238 and therefore does not produce transuranic (bigger than uranium) atoms like Plutonium, Americium, Curium, etc. These transuranics are the major health concern of long-term nuclear waste. Thus, Th-U waste will be less toxic on the 10,000+ year time scale.

  • Report this Comment On May 21, 2014, at 11:13 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @JamesSnow

    From the opening of the article you are commenting on:

    "I thought it would be helpful to reevaluate the purported benefits of thorium with an investing twist after stumbling across WhatIsNuclear.com, a website run by a group of nuclear engineers helping the public better understand atomic energy. I've learned a lot about the nuclear industry from the group and want to share my learnings with the investing community."

    I've also explained transuranics in a previous article about General Electric's PRISM reactor (linked above in the sentence immediately following the mention of transuranics):

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/01/12/step-aside-...

    Best wishes,

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On May 22, 2014, at 10:37 AM, Ikemeister wrote:

    Of course Westinghouse and GE aren't in any big hurry to change their technology base. They have a huge investment there plus they get oodles of extra revenue from selling fuel rods. I wouldn't be surprised if current nuclear industry leaders prove to be myopic and leave development of the next generation of reactors based on the MSR concept to new players.

  • Report this Comment On May 22, 2014, at 11:13 AM, JamesSnow wrote:

    @Maxxwell

    I understand that you used whatisnuclear.com as a source. But, it's a lot of information to go through to find out where you are getting your specific information. Especially, if you are misunderstanding some concepts.

    >I've also explained transuranics in a previous article about General Electric's PRISM reactor (linked above in the sentence immediately following the mention of transuranics):

    You understand that PRISM is not a molten salt reactor, right? Sodium is a metal, not a salt. Sodium chloride is a salt. I don't understand how this is related to the discussion.

  • Report this Comment On May 22, 2014, at 4:03 PM, TMFBlacknGold wrote:

    @JamesSnow

    "You understand that PRISM is not a molten salt reactor, right?"

    I'm well aware. You're original discussion point was transuranics, which I said I mentioned in another article and is independent of reactor design or cooling medium. Not sure I understand what you're getting at other than arguing with the author of an article on a topic you're positioning yourself as an expert on.

    Maxxwell

  • Report this Comment On May 22, 2014, at 4:10 PM, JamesSnow wrote:

    @Maxxwell

    Are you an expert? I'm asking you to point out where in the articles you are getting the information that I asked for sources for. This can be problematic if you don't understand the science. Please quote the portions from whatisnuclear.com to justify your claims.

  • Report this Comment On May 28, 2014, at 10:12 AM, JamesSnow wrote:

    Maxxwell refuses to quote his sources and it's probably because he doesn't understand nuclear concepts. It's all about getting the article out the door as fast as possible.

Add your comment.

Sponsored Links

Leaked: Apple's Next Smart Device
(Warning, it may shock you)
The secret is out... experts are predicting 458 million of these types of devices will be sold per year. 1 hyper-growth company stands to rake in maximum profit - and it's NOT Apple. Show me Apple's new smart gizmo!

DocumentId: 2964757, ~/Articles/ArticleHandler.aspx, 8/30/2014 8:31:52 PM

Report This Comment

Use this area to report a comment that you believe is in violation of the community guidelines. Our team will review the entry and take any appropriate action.

Sending report...


Advertisement