THE THORIUM TRANSITION

A PROPOSAL PREPARED BY

The Thorium Transition Team

Garrison Burger Andrew Countryman Jim Coy Jordan Ott Walter Petersen Vibinash Thomas
FOR

TINA LOUCKS-JARET HCDE 333 UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON FEBRUARY 26, 2013

The Thorium Transition Team University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 March 11, 2013

Tina Loucks-Jaret HCDE 333 University of Washington Seattle, WA 98195 Dear Tina Loucks-Jaret:

We are pleased to submit the enclosed grant proposal to the Department of Energy. The Thorium Transition Team is seeking funding for a large scale project which aims to start the transition in nuclear power generation from uranium to thorium, a superior fuel across the board. The uranium fuel cycle, which is currently used for nuclear power generation throughout the world, has several problems. These include the disposal of radioactive waste, nuclear weapon proliferation concerns, and the safety of the reactors themselves. Transitioning to a thorium fuel cycle would signicantly reduce the amount of nuclear waste produced, as well as provide a means of consuming current waste, eliminate the possibility of nuclear weapon proliferation, and increase power plant safety. Our proposed project aims to conduct the R&D and small scale testing which needs to occur before thorium fuel can be implemented commercially. Thank you for taking the time to review our proposal. If you have any questions or need further information, please contact me at burgerga@uw.edu. Sincerely,

Garrison Burger The Thorium Transition Team Representative

-2-

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Illustrations! Executive Summary! Introduction! 3 4 5

The Thorium Transition !

Why Nuclear?! Problems with Current Nuclear Power Technologies ! Thorium is the Solution! Abundance and efciency! Safety! Proliferation! Waste! Drawbacks ! Statement of work! Timeline ! Budget ! Personnel Information! Summary! References!

7
7 7 9 10 11 11 11 12 13 13 14 15 16 17

ILLUSTRATIONS
Figure 1! Figure 2! Figure 3! Figure 4! Figure 5! Figure 6! 5 8 9 10 12 13

-3-

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The demand for energy has been increasing at an alarming rate in recent decades. Nonrenewable energy sources such as coal, natural gas and oil cause a signicant impact on the surrounding environment and communities, and the rapid depletion of these resources makes the problem all the more urgent. Nuclear power has far more potential for providing sustainable energy. However, todays uranium reactors generate substantial and long-lasting toxic wastes, and can be used to produce nuclear weapons. There is a known alternative to uranium-fueled reactors which has a multitude of compelling advantages, including fuel abundance, long-term environmental safety, and intrinsic safeguards against weapons proliferation. This solution is the liquid uoride thorium reactor, the development and implementation of which will diminish all threats present with nuclear power today. Our team seeks funding to perform a three-phase transition to a thorium based energy future by organizing development of these next generation reactors. The rst phase consists of R&D to improve the materials and processes that are utilized in thorium reactors. The second phase is development of a prototype reactor known as miniFUJI, which will serve as a research tool for nuclear engineers, and help to inform the public of thoriums outstanding advantages. The third phase is development of FUJI, a small-scale power-generating reactor which will serve as a prototype for utility companies. While these phases are distinct, there is some overlap in their execution. After the completion of this project, we will be collaborating with utility companies to safely implement liquid uoride thorium reactors around the globe. This proposal outlines the advantages of using thorium-based nuclear reactors, the construction and testing of both miniFUJI and the FUJI prototypes, a timeline, and the budget required for transitioning to thorium based nuclear reactors. As the world matures technologically, we hope to begin a global trend in safe and sustainable nuclear energy by transitioning from uraniumbased reactors to thorium-based reactors.

-4-

INTRODUCTION
The availability of a clean and reliable source of electric energy is critical to the progress and survival of the modern world. The human race faces an energy crisis in the 21st century. While promising work has been done to address this crisis, many proposed solutions have no hope of adequately resolving it anytime soon. Nuclear power represents the worlds best hope for a sustainable energy future, but has signicant drawbacks in its present implementation, and is unlikely to be accepted by the general public. Power generated to meet the demands of industrial, commercial, and residential sectors falls into two categories, the base-load and the transient load. The base-load is the constant component of generated power and meets the vast majority of power demands, while the transient load varies over time (Figure 1). Currently, the base-load is primarily generated using a combination of fossil fuel and nuclear power systems due to their high energy yield and reliably continuous output. Transient power systems using solar, wind, and hydroelectric generators are typically used to cover the uctuations in demand. Until a reliable large scale energy storage solution is found, these technologies cannot effectively cover the majority of energy demand.
In practical terms non-hydro renewables are therefore able to supply up to some 15-20% of the capacity of an electricity grid, though they cannot directly be applied as economic substitutes for most coal or nuclear power, however signicant they become in particular areas with favorable conditions. Nevertheless, they will make an important contribution to the world's energy future, even if they cannot carry the main burden of supply. [1] 250
Industrial Residential Commercial

200

Power (MW)

150 100 50 0

Base-Load

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

Time of Day (Hour)

Figure 1. Energy consumption over a typical day, showing base-load power. The substantial drawbacks of using fossil fuels have received signicant attention in recent years, and the need for a suitable replacement has generated enormous interest in the scientic and engineering communities. Coupled with the short-sightedness of using rapidly depleting non-renewable resources, the terrible environmental impact of mining and burning fossil fuels needs to be addressed.

-5-

A growing number of engineers propose phasing out coal, oil, and natural gas power systems in favor of purely nuclear base generation. However, the vast majority of existing nuclear reactors use solid uranium as fuel, and are far from ideal in terms of safety, efciency, as well as longterm environmental impact. A new generation of molten salt reactors (MSRs) using a liquid uoride thorium fuel cycle would reduce or eliminate many of the present issues with nuclear power. In order to transition to thorium based nuclear power generation the following needs to be done:

PHASE 1
More research and development for commercial implementation of MSRs

PHASE 2
Construction and testing of a pilot thorium commercial reactor.

PHASE 3
Construction of thorium power stations of gradually increasing size.

-6-

THE THORIUM TRANSITION

WHY NUCLEAR?
The replacement of the present fossil fuel industry by sustainable energy options needs to be achieved in the next 3050 years. Fossil fuels are attractive because they are relatively inexpensive and have high energy density compared to alternative energy sources, but they are not sustainable for a number of reasons. They pollute the air and produce greenhouse gasses which damage the ozone layer. In addition, it is predicted that at their current consumption rates, oil, coal, and natural gas will be entirely depleted within the next one-hundred years [2, 3]. However, nuclear materials have a much higher energy density than fossil fuels. One uranium fuel pellet creates as much energy as one ton of coal or 17,000 cubic feet of natural gas. [4] Furthermore, there is enough ssile material to provide power for 5 x 109 years at current consumption. This allows nuclear power to technically be classied as a renewable energy source [5]. On top of that, the operation of a nuclear power plant produces negligible pollution or greenhouse gasses [6]. Surprisingly, the amount of radiation emitted by a nuclear power plant is actually less than that of coal plants.
The y ash emitted by a power planta by-product from burning coal for electricity carries into the surrounding environment 100 times more radiation than a nuclear power plant producing the same amount of energy. [7]

This is due to the trace amounts of uranium and thorium contained in the coal ore. These elements become concentrated in the ash produced by the plant that can then leach into the ground and surrounding environment. In contrast, the vast majority of nuclear power plants have proven their ability to achieve clean, efcient, and safe energy for the past half century.

PROBLEMS WITH CURRENT NUCLEAR POWER TECHNOLOGIES

Current nuclear technology has several signicant issues including waste disposal, weapon proliferation, safety, and capital costs. A once through fuel cycle is currently used in nuclear power generation. In a once through cycle the fuel is not reprocessed, and thus not all of the ssile material is consumed. This results in the production of large amounts of nuclear waste, a signicant portion of which is composed of actinides, elements 89 - 103, in addition to the ssion products. These actinide byproducts have half-lives ranging from a decade to over one billion years, while the much lighter ssion products have half-lives that can be greater than 200,000 years [8]. Without reprocessing, waste remains hazardous and needs to be safely stored for 10,000 - 1,000,000 years depending on the safety parameters used [9]. The Yucca Mountain Repository was meant to be the United States long term nuclear waste storage facility, but this project was shut down leaving the U.S. with no current long term storage plans [10]. Nuclear weapons proliferation is a major concern with nuclear energy since the technology used for power generation can also be used to produce material for weapons. With the currently used uranium fuel cycle, weapons material can produced at various stages in the cycle. At the front end of the process, natural uranium is enriched to increase the 235U content for fuel. Enrichment
-7-

is a cascading process, therefore varying degrees of enrichment can be achieved: from low enriched uranium for fuel in reactors up to weapons grade enrichment [11]. The plutonium present in the waste from the uranium fuel cycle may also be used in nuclear weapons. The plutonium must be separated from the rest of the waste using a process such as plutonium uranium extraction (PUREX), but this may be done under the guise of fuel reprocessing for civilian use [12]. In addition to the threat of nuclear weapons production, it is also possible that waste could be stolen to make a radiological dispersion device, more commonly known as a dirty bomb. These are made using only a radioactive substance and conventional explosives, and require far less technological expertise than the production of a nuclear bomb [13]. While nuclear power has had a generally safe operating record for over half a century [14], the Chernobyl and Fukushima Daiichi accidents show accidents involving nuclear power can be disastrous. In order for nuclear energy to be truly accepted, by both the public and political sector, it must be made safer, both against long term radiation effects, and catastrophic disasters. Accidents aside, the volatile nature of the current nuclear power cycle presents them as a target. Nuclear reactors become preferred targets during military conict and, over the past three decades, have been repeatedly attacked during military air strikes, occupations, invasions and campaigns [15].
The human, environmental, and economic costs from a successful attack on a nuclear power plant that results in the release of substantial quantities of radioactive material to the environment could be great." [26] 1980 !Iran bombed the Al Tuwaitha nuclear complex in Iraq 1981 !An Israeli air strike completely destroyed Iraqs Osirak nuclear research facility. 1991 The U.S. bombed three nuclear reactors and an enrichment pilot facility in Iraq 2003 Israel bombed a Syrian reactor under construction.

1984 - 1987 !Iraq bombed Irans Bushehr nuclear plant six times.

1991 Iraq launched Scud missiles at Israels Dimona nuclear power plant.

Figure 2. Timeline of attacks on nuclear facilities [16] The large capital costs in nuclear power plant construction make it difcult for nuclear power to compete with fossil fuels. While future developments in nuclear power generation technology are expected to reduce the initial costs of plant development, it is expected the price will still exceed those for coal and natural gas plants due to complexity and safety concerns. This consideration combined with the cost of public opposition make it unlikely that utilities will turn to currently existing nuclear technologies to meet their energy needs [17].
-8-

THORIUM IS THE SOLUTION

All of the aforementioned problems are present in the vast majority of existing nuclear power systems, which use uranium as their primary fuel source. All of these problems can be solved by replacing the prevalent uranium-fueled light-water reactor with molten salt reactors fueled by thorium, a silvery-white slightly radioactive metal [18]. Previous research had been done by Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. The Molten Salt Reactor Experiment went critical in 1965 and produced 7.4MWe of power and ran for over 17,000 hours. The project was shut down in 1969 after proving the concept of a liquid uoride thorium reactor. The thorium fuel cycle differs signicantly from that of uranium. The input fuel, 232Th, is not ssile, but fertile. It does not directly produce energy but instead is bred into an element that will. It rst absorbs a neutron, becoming 233Th. This then undergoes a beta decay resulting in 233Pa which undergoes further beta decay to become 233U. This isotope of uranium is ssile, meaning when it absorbs a neutron it becomes unstable and splits, releasing tremendous energy and additional neutrons. The energy heats the uoride salt and the neutrons go on to interact with more 232Th and 233U to continue the cycle. This process is shown in Figure 3. The heated uoride salt leaves the reaction chamber and passes through a heat exchanger, passing its heat on to a secondary loop of coolant salt. This second loop again exchanges its heat with a third loop of water, turning it to steam. The steam/water loop works as in any other power plant, turning a turbine and generator, producing electricity. A basic plant diagram is shown in Figure 4.

!233Th 233Pa

!233U

232Th

233U

n
Fission

233U

Energy

Figure 3. Diagram of thorium fuel cycle

-9-

http://energy.gov/node/28891/genIV/documents/gen_iv_roadmap.pdf

Figure 4. Diagram of basic liquid uoride thorium reactor Thorium-based fuels exhibit many attractive properties compared to uranium-based fuels. The thermal neutron absorption cross section for 232Th is about three times the value of 238U, meaning that the thorium atoms are bred into ssile 233U much more efciently. Additionally, the capture cross section of 233U is smaller than the ssile isotopes in standard reactors, meaning fewer non-ssile, waste producing reactions take place. Both of these properties lead to greater efciencies in thorium based reactors [19].

ABUNDANCE AND EFFICIENCY

Thorium is estimated to be about three to four times more abundant than uranium in the Earths crust and thus virtually inexhaustible [20]. Thorium is very easy to process; apart from basic preprocessing, it effectively comes ready for use straight out of the ground and does not need to be enriched like uranium [18]. In terms of energy density, uranium is dwarfed by thorium; one ton of thorium can produce as much energy as two-hundred tons of uranium [21]. This means a nuclear power station fueled by thorium will last two hundred times as long for the same mass of fuel. By themselves thoriums abundance and longevity as a fuel source make it a compelling candidate for a sustainable energy future. Thorium-based fuel also provides physical and chemical properties which improve reactor and repository performance compared to the presently-dominant reactor fuel, uranium dioxide [19]. More importantly, thorium dioxide shows greater chemical stability, unlike the former, and does not further oxidize."A single neutron capture in 238U is more than enough to produce transuranic
-10-

elements, whereas six captures are generally necessary to do the same with 232Th, making thorium more stable and thus a very attractive alternative to uranium in mixed oxide fuels [18].

SAFETY
Compared to uranium, thorium is signicantly less radioactive. This makes it much safer and cleaner to use in a nuclear reactor. One proponent remarked, "A chunk of thorium is no more harmful than a bar of soap." [22] Thorium fuels can be used in several different reactor types, including sodium-cooled fast reactors and molten salt reactors. It would be possible to replace uranium with thorium in all current reactor types, however, thorium would be best used in a molten salt reactor. A thorium molten salt reactor would be much more efcient than any uranium reactor in terms of both nuclear and thermodynamic efciency [23]. These reactors are signicantly safer than any of todays nuclear reactors in several ways. Since the boiling temperature of uoride salts are much higher than the operating temperatures of the reactors, they can operate at atmospheric pressure. This allows thinner materials to be used at a higher factor of safety, reducing cost and eliminating the possibility of a hydrogen explosion such as in Fukushima in 2011 [24]. Additionally, thorium reactors have a negative thermal coefcient of reactivity, meaning that as the temperature of the fuel increases above the safety limit, the reaction slows. Its positive thermal expansion coefcient means that an overheating reactor has less fuel in the reaction chamber, further regulating the reaction. Passive safety features can also be used, such as a freeze plug (shown in gure x) that drains the fuel into a safe container instantly in the event of plant power loss. These inherent safety features are vast improvements over todays nuclear power plant eet [25].

PROLIFERATION
Thorium protects against nuclear proliferation as well. It is practically impossible to create a nuclear weapon using thorium, as the extracted ssile 233U is contaminated by 232U. The 232U isotope is a strong gamma ray emitter which complicates weapons production. These gamma rays interfere with electronics and to protect workers in a manufacturing facility a 1m thick concrete wall or 25cm thick lead wall would be needed to shield the radiation. Also the waste produced from a thorium reactor would simply not be suitable for nuclear detonation [26]. In the 1960s and 1970s, the lack of relevance to the nuclear weapon industry was the main perceived disadvantage in the development of thorium usage in power generation. However in the 21st century, advanced countries are currently attempting to reduce their nuclear arsenals, rendering the defensive advantages of uranium power plants negligible compared to the plethora of advantages offered by thorium.

WASTE
After having been used as fuel for power plants, the element leaves behind tiny amounts of waste which contain far lower concentrations of actinides. These waste products decay much faster than uranium waste products and thus only need to be stored for a few hundred years compared to the hundreds of thousands of years that todays nuclear waste needs to be stored [18].

-11-

0 Thorium Waste Uranium Waste 300

50,000

100,000 150,000 200,000

200,000 Years

Figure 5. Comparison to waste lifetimes of thorium and uranium cycles Implementing molten salt reactors across the globe could actually solve some of the current nuclear waste disposal problems. Old reactor fuels can be transformed into uorides and supplement thorium fuel, and waste produced from thorium reactions could be used in the same way. Thoriums potential for improving proliferation resistance coupled with its safer waste properties has led many countries to look into thorium as the next big thing in the nuclear world. Building even one molten salt reactor can cost billions, however this high cost can be offset by both the substantially reduced cost of safety and maintenance, as well as the lower cost of processing materials as opposed to a uranium reactor [18].

DRAWBACKS
However, there are some drawbacks to thorium. Critics point out that thoriums greatest advantage - high efciency - actually poses challenges [18]. The reaction is sustained for quite a long time, so the fuel needs special containers that are durable and avoid degradation from corrosive salts. This will be a necessary R&D topic. Another issue is with uranium already being the standard in the nuclear industry. Much of the similar research and development that has been done with uranium fuel cycles will have to be redone for thorium, which creates high startup costs and time taken to do so. Also, the phase out of current nuclear power plants is a controversial decision. Many regions that are currently supplied by established plants would need an intermediary source. This could hurt the long term protability of the immense investments already made in the current plants, not to mention decommissioning costs. The power requirement issue could cause technical problems that will need to be solved by the individual situations, but it is true that most current nuclear power plants have already exceeded their operating lifetime. More than half of the 104 commercial nuclear reactors in the United States, including four in Virginia, last decade were given 20 additional years to operate. [27] Finally, todays nuclear engineers would nd molten salt reactors foreign compared with the well-established light-water breeder reactors. They would need to be trained in these new technologies. These issues present challenges but they are by no means insurmountable with proper funding.

-12-

STATEMENT OF WORK
The transition to a thorium fuel cycle will occur in several stages. During the initial stage, additional research and development is conducted for the technologies and processes which are required for commercial systems. This initial research and development would include ongoing materials and components research. This research would solve the issues of long term corrosion and provide valuable information for the design of reactors. It would also build multiple test loops. These loops would test the materials and components necessary for a uoride salt reactor in an actual reactor type setup. This research and development culminates with the construction and testing of a pilot-plant called the miniFUJI, which will occur over a several year period. The miniFUJI will mainly be built to verify that the reaction within the reaction chamber is valid and the expected result can be observed. This will be an opportunity to learn from any design faults and improve the materials and components used. " The second stage of the transition will take the results of the pilot-plant and use them to design a small scale power station called the FUJI. With this prototype, we will be able to generate power at a small scale. It will be able to generate about 150 to 200 MWe. Once we conrm that all the tests have been run successfully, we will gather all the data about the plant at the current state and try to further improve or x any aws that were found. At this point everything would be prepared to pass off information to utility companies for implementation of full scale thorium power plants.

TIMELINE
General R&D
Fuel-Salt Loop Coolant-Salt Loop Electric Generating Test Loop Integral Test Loop Materials Components & Instruments

miniFUJI

Reactor Design Reactor Mockup Reactor Remote Maintenace Reactor Construction and Opration Reactor Design Reactor Mockup Reactor Remote Maintenace Reactor Construction and Opration

FUJI Prototype

Large Scale

Medium and Large Scale Power Stations

0
Planning

7.5
Construction

15.0

22.5
Operation

30.0

Figure 6. Program timeline

-13-

BUDGET
Research and Development
Fuel-Salt Loo Coolant-Salt Loop Electric Generating Test Loop Integral Test Loop Materials Components and Instruments Subtotal $25 $20 $10 $55 $60 $30 $200 $100 $50 $75 $175 $400 $380 $180 $280 $660 $1.5 million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million million billion

miniFUJI Prototype
Reactor Design Reactor Mockup Reactor Remote Maintenance Reactor Construction and Operation Subtotal

FUJI Prototype
Reactor Design Reactor Mockup Reactor Remote Maintenance Reactor Construction and Operation Subtotal

Total

$2.1 billion

-14-

PERSONNEL INFORMATION
Garrison Burger is a senior in Mechanical Engineering at the University of Washington. He has always had a passion for research into nuclear energy solutions. Andrew Countryman is a senior in Mechanical Engineering specializing in Mechatronics. His main areas of interest are robotics and controls. Jim Coy is a senior in Physics and Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington with a focus in analog circuit design and nanotechnology. He is currently employed at the UWs nanodevice physics lab. Jordan Ott is a senior in Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington with a focus in signal processing. He is currently one of the lead researchers for the Sensors, Energy, and Automation laboratory. Walter Petersen is a senior in the mechanical engineering department at the University of Washington. His area of interest is in design for manufacturing and rapid prototyping. Vibinash Thomas is a senior in Electrical Engineering at the University of Washington, specializing in Embedded Computing systems. His main areas of interest are embedded controls and robotics.

Should this project be funded we would hire additional nuclear engineers and scientists to conduct the research and design the reactors.

-15-

SUMMARY
Energy consumption in our modern world is massive, and will only continue to increase with the worlds growing population and infrastructure. Nuclear energy is one of the best solutions to meet this ever increasing demand. It generates a signicantly greater amount of energy per volume than fossil fuel sources, and produces negligible greenhouse gases. Unlike renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and wave energies, nuclear power is a constant source of energy capable of meeting the base-load demands of todays societies, and those of the future. This is a sustainable solution because of the abundance of nuclear fuel sources; there should be enough material to last billions of years. There are problems with the current methods of producing nuclear energy. These include"the longevity of harmful waste products, the risk of catastrophic meltdowns, and the possibility of creating weapons from waste materials. We propose investing in the use of thorium as a nuclear fuel source instead of uranium. The waste from a thorium reactor is safer than uranium and its waste products have lower half lives of orders of magnitude, not to mention that thorium reactors can be used to reduce our current nuclear waste. Thorium reactors are much safer to operate than uranium; they are intrinsically incapable of suffering a plant meltdown. It is practically impossible and completely infeasible to create weapons using thorium. In addition thorium is both more abundant and more efcient in energy production than uranium. Thorium would also be cheaper than uranium. For these reasons thorium would be a superior nuclear fuel source. In order to transition over to thorium reactors, we propose to rst conduct more research into the use and properties of thorium, then develop technologies and processes for thorium use in commercial applications. Next we would build a test reactor (miniFUJI) in order to test designs and develop maintenance tools and processes. After this a power producing prototype reactor would be built (FUJI). Using the information we gain from these prototypes, full scale reactors could be designed for use by utility companies. This would begin the transition to a new age of nuclear energy.

-16-

REFERENCES
[1]! [2]! [3]! [4]! World Nuclear Association. (2012). Renewable Energy and Electricity. Available: http:// www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf10.html Petro Strategies Inc. (2009). Are we running out of oil and gas? Available: http:// www.petrostrategies.org/Learning_Center/are_we_running_out_of_oil_and_gas.htm World Coal Association. (2011). Where is Coal Found? Available: http:// www.worldcoal.org/coal/where-is-coal-found/ Nuclear Energy Institute. (2011). Quick Facts: Nuclear Energy in America Available: http://www.nei.org/resourcesandstats/Documentlibrary/Reliable-and-Affordable-Energy/ factsheet/nuclear-energy-quick-facts B. L. Cohen, "Breeder reactors a renewable energy source," American Journal of Physics, 1983. nuclearinfo.net. (2008). Greenhouse Emissions of Nuclear Power. Available: http:// nuclearinfo.net/Nuclearpower/WebHomeGreenhouseEmissionsOfNuclearPower M. Hvistendahl. Scientic American. (2007). Coal Ash Is More Radioactive than Nuclear Waste. Available: http://www.scienticamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-moreradioactive-than-nuclear-waste D. Bodansky, "Nuclear Fuel Cycle," in Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd edition. New York: Springer, 2008, p. 209. D. Bodansky, "Nuclear Waste Disposal: Amount of Waste," in Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd edition. New York: Springer, 2008, p. 248. K. Bullis. (2009). Q&A: Steven Chu Available: http://www.technologyreview.com/news/ 413475/q-a-steven-chu/ D. Bodansky, "Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Energy, and Terrorism," in Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd edition. New York: Springer, 2008, pp. 490-491. D. Bodansky, "Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Energy, and Terrorism," in Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd edition. New York: Springer, 2008, pp. 492-501. D. Bodansky, "Nuclear Bombs, Nuclear Energy, and Terrorism," in Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd edition. New York: Springer, 2008, pp. 510-512. D. Bodansky, "Nuclear Reactor Safety," in Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd edition. New York: Springer, 2008, p. 371. B. K. Sovacool, "Contesting the Future of Nuclear Power: A Critical Global Assessment of Atomic Energy," World Scientic, p. 192, 2011.
-17-

[5]! [6]! [7]!

[8]! [9]! [10]! [11]!

[12]!

[13]!

[14]! [15]!

[16]!

Congressional Budget Ofce. (2004). Congressional Budget Ofce Vulnerabilities from Attacks on Power Reactors and Spent Material. Available: http://www.cbo.gov/ ftpdoc.cfm?index=6042&type=0&sequence=3 D. Bodansky, "Costs of Electricity," in Nuclear Energy: Principles, Practices, and Prospects, 2nd edition. New York: Springer, 2008, pp. 564-571. R. Martin. Wired. (2009). Uranium is so last century -- Enter thorium, the new green nuke. Available: http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/ F. Sokolov, K. Fukuda, and H. P. Nawada. International Atomic Energy Agency. (May 2005). Thorium fuel cycle - Potential benets and challenges. Available: http://wwwpub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/TE_1450_web.pdf American Nuclear Society. (November 2006). The Use of Thorium as Nuclear Fuel. Available: http://www.ans.org/pi/ps/docs/ps78.pdf E. A. Pritchard. (2010). Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium. Available: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/nance/comment/7970619/Obama-couldkill-fossil-fuels-overnight-with-a-nuclear-dash-for-thorium.html R. Martin, Superfuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012. R. Hargraves and R. Moir, "Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors," American Scientist, vol. 98, pp. 304313, July 2010. A. Evans-Pritchard, "Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium," in Telegraph, U.K., ed, March 20, 2011. L. Mathieu, D. Heuer, R. Brissot, C. L. Brun, E. Liatard, J.-M. Loiseaux, et al., "The Thorium Molten Salt Reactor: Moving On from the MSBR," 2005. K. Chang, "Alvin Radkowsky, 86, Developer Of a Safer Nuclear Reactor Fuel," in New York Times, ed, March 5, 2002. C. Nealon. Daily Press. (April 26th 2011). US Extends Life Span of Nuclear Power Plants. Available: http://articles.dailypress.com/2011-04-26/news/dp-nws-nuclear-powerplants-20110426_1_nuclear-power-plants-scott-burnell-building-new-reactors

[17]! [18]! [19]!

[20]! [21]!

[22]! [23]! [24]! [25]! [26]! [27]!

-18-