The Energy From Thorium Foundation Flibe Energy presentation at LCES-2011 in China

Oct 21, 2011

by Kirk Sorensen

The Low-Carbon Earth Summit 2011 is being held in Dalian, China this week. I was originally going to attend but in the end was not able, so I am indebted to Dr. Harold Dodds of the University of Tennessee for giving my presentation at LCES-2011 yesterday.

Liquid-Fueled Reactors and a Thorium-Powered Future (2.5 MB PPT)

The presentation is pretty simple and has an attached narration in the notes. I hope you enjoy it and I am very appreciative to Dr. Dodds for presenting it in Dalian.

Comments

comments

18 Comments

Jack October 21, 2011 at 4:30 pm Reply

China adopting LFTR could save so many lives that are lost to dirty coal, from mining to the pollution from its use as an energy source. Our dependence on China for so many products and a good chunk of US debt let alone the basic practicalities and realities of energy production technologies prevent any sort of effective market pressure greens advocate. Its simple and straightforward economics that those coming at the issue from emotion cannot grasp. Those fixated on wind, solar and other inadequate options standing in the way of LFTR out of their dogmatic single-mindedness are dooming the planet with their good intentions. The only way to clean up energy on a global scale is a technology that is cheaper than coal that can be realistically adopted by heavily polluting, developing nations like China and India that refuse to be held to any restrictions. I think the science makes a compelling argument that LFTR is that technology. Also, since so much of China's industry is powered by coal, all those CFLs being pushed as a "green" choice are nothing of the kind. Whats the point of an energy efficient lightbulb if it is made with a filthy and deadly energy source.
TerjeP October 21, 2011 at 5:45 pm Reply

Jack - I think you are right but LFTR needs to be commercially proven. We need some demonstration units and a production line somewhere in the world before the idea will become widely embraced. Seeing is believing.
Jack October 21, 2011 at 6:42 pm Reply

Hi TerjeP. I completely agree. Commercial viability is key and until we come up with something substantially cheaper than coal, we are going to have a heck of a time kicking it. Perhaps China's growing economy and needs will provide the will required to break through non technical and economic sources of resistance and spark international interest so the technology can truly be put to the test to uncover its viability in real world and wide spread application.
Steven Brown October 21, 2011 at 6:57 pm Reply

It will be sad if China, not the USA, leads the way in the development of LFTR technology, but if that is the only way, so be it.
Lars T. Hansen October 21, 2011 at 7:34 pm Reply

@Steven Brown sad and sad ... In my opinion it is OK, China will show it works, and if it really is much cheaper US will very quickly make LTFRs also - i mean I don't no anyone who want to buy expensive energy. US can use the excuse that the current nuclear power plants is old and should be replaced with new efficient and inxpensive technology, wich happens also to be a lot safer. AFAIK, US has 12,000,000 Kg of Thorium - ready to be used - that is energy for at lot of years.
David I. Lehn October 22, 2011 at 12:05 am Reply

Use Google Docs to view the presentation: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flibe-energy.com%2Fppt%2FFlibeEnergy_20111020_LCES2011.ppt
TerjeP October 22, 2011 at 4:23 am Reply

This slide set and some of the videos imply that the LFTR will operate at 1000C. I thought there were limitations with available construction materials that put a limit at something more like 700C. There doesn't seem to be much discussion of the material science for the construction of the reactor vessel and associated plumbing. Although perhaps I'm simply not looking in the right place. Or perhaps this information is guarded due to commercial significance.
Kirk Sorensen October 22, 2011 at 4:28 pm Reply

Hi TerjeP, I think if you look at the x-axis of the "temperature/efficiency" slide you'll note that the temperatures are in Kelvin not Celsius. 1000K is feasible for a LFTR. 1000C would be pretty sporty and we don't anticipate that anytime soon.
Nick October 22, 2011 at 6:16 pm Reply

I agree with TerjeP re: seeing is believing, and a real-world commercial reactor will change the common wisdom about what's possible. Based on earlier posts, seems like Flibe Energy has a strategy to fast track development of small/medium-scale generators for US military bases. Wishing you good luck!
Jack October 22, 2011 at 8:51 pm Reply

@ Steven Brown The US developed it and if we can realize its potential, the world will have your country to thank for that. But, yes, as Kirk has been pointed out before, it would be far better to be building rather than buying them. @ Kirk Sorensen - I want sincerely to thank you for advocating this technology and its potential and raising awareness about it. Thanks for coming to Canada to talk about it too. Cheers.
Andy Scrase October 22, 2011 at 9:07 pm Reply

Have any of the arab gulf states shown any interest in LFTR? It would appear to fit in with their desalination requirements. UAE is going ahead with a nuclear program in conjunction with South Korea http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/UAE_nuclear_power_inf123.html
TerjeP October 22, 2011 at 9:15 pm Reply

Kirk - I'm not sure why I presumed it was celcius but you are right. The chart says 1000K not 1000C. Thanks for setting me straight.
Kirk Sorensen October 22, 2011 at 9:17 pm Reply

No problem--I always think in Kelvin when I'm doing thermodynamics but usually find myself thinking in Celsius when I'm doing chemistry. Only wish I could easily add or subtract 273 from any given number in my head...
TerjeP October 23, 2011 at 8:07 am Reply

I usually think in celcius because I live in a metric country and it is ubiquitous.
Ed October 23, 2011 at 1:37 pm Reply

Curious, so few presentations from China at the Chinese conference.
R. Keyes October 24, 2011 at 11:58 am Reply

The presentation is very attractive, however it needs proof-reading as there are at least two grammatical errors. If you wish, I can point these out. Others should proof-read for technical accuracy.
Jagdish October 30, 2011 at 8:20 pm Reply

The basic cost of ammonia consists mainly of energy. Most of it comes from petroleum at present. If we could use nuclear energy directly as heat instead of only a fraction as electricity, the conversion efficiency will improve. It is equally true for synthetic methanol or DME. It could be economically produced from Lignite, shale, municipal, farm or forest wastes.
Thomas November 1, 2011 at 10:21 pm Reply

A few comments on the slides: 1. Many slides have tiny hard to read font size selections. 2. On many slides the choices representing LTFR had graphics with black or dark colorings, while competitor choices were labelled with colorful attractive graphics. 3. Don't you want to have a slide to talk of the billion dollars potential of LTFR patents, since Weinberg had never build a full reactor? 4. I doubt if you can dismiss wind and solar with only half of page worth of slide material. 5. Not wise to hit wind and solar too much because you would be hitting some of your own supporters. A potential good messaging would be to recognize the contribution of wind and solar, but point out the needs of the base load, which LTFR can meet, and in all the places with poor wind and solar coverage which is considerable.