(Re) Introducing the LFTR.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are one possible technology that might combat climate change. They are not perfect, but they have promise.
Hello, friends,
First up, a tiny update: We have new publication art thanks to my cover artist, Cecelia Ivy Price! If you ever need a painter, or any other artwork, really, check her out.
Last week we talked about the extremely disturbing East Palestine, Ohio train crash and toxic contamination caused by Norfolk Southern’s profiteering. I promised to discuss something less painful this week, because it’s been a while since we’ve done something uplifting on this Substack. I’d like to demonstrate that the crux of Progressivism doesn’t lay with constant assaults of negative situations and problems.
Today, I want to introduce you to the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.
LFTR’s provide one of the safest, most-promising prospects for all-condition baseload power generation. They are not perfect, and all good things can be ruined by malice, but overall they are a relatively inexpensive, safe, and - best of all - proven step that history almost, but not entirely forgot.
Obligatory disclaimer: I am not a nuclear engineer, just a sci-fi writer.
A Very Poor LIquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Description
For the in-depth version, check out the Wikipedia article on it. For the summary? I mean, how do you summarize a cutting-edge technology? Here’s how I like to imagine it:
Picture a bathtub.
This bathtub is filled with all sorts of radioactive goodies that generate heat, which is used to generate electricity. There are all sorts of pipes I can’t begin to explain carrying this radioactive liquid around to harness that power, remove spent fuel, and add new fuel.
There’s a drain in this bathtub that leads to an ultra-secure storage vessel.
Now, this drain has a unique feature: A section of the drainage pipe is kept ultra-cold, so that the radioactive goodies freeze up and plug the drain so that nothing can escape. If, however, an emergency happened - say, if there was a loss of power - the substance plugging the drain quickly heats up and melts, allowing the entire bathtub to drain safely into the storage vessel underneath it.
Then, when the power is restored, the substance is pumped back up into the bathtub to generate energy again!
Simple, right?
Reality Is More Complex Than Sci-Fi.
Nothing is as simple as the above description. For one thing, those metaphorical pipes I mentioned? They’re being bombarded with radiation, meaning they’ll wear out more quickly than they would if they were carrying water. That’s a major challenge for Thorium technology, and has been since its inception.
For a second thing, despite Humanity’s best wishes, nuclear technology can be weaponized. Granted, when the first molten salt reactor was operated at Oak Ridge in the 1960’s, it was eventually abandoned as a technological pathway in part because it was harder to weaponize than the more traditional Uranium reactors.
Thirdly, as the World Nuclear Association points out, just because it’s harder to weaponize doesn’t mean it cannot be weaponized. Even if a traditional nuclear bomb was prohibitively hard to build from leftover fuel, the radioactive waste could be used in a “dirty bomb” with relative ease, provided it could be acquired. Just the same, there are surely accidents that could happen with the stored waste.
All this to say that, in spite of everything I wish I could say about it, the LFTR is an imperfect solution to a stupendously complicated problem.
"Imperfect” Cannot Outweigh “Good” When We Assess Our Options
So it’s not a perfect solution with no downsides, but it is better than what we’ve got. Starting with other nuclear technology, pressurized water reactors operate under, well, pressure. That means that if something goes wrong, the thing explodes. That’s exceptionally bad. See also: Chernobyl. Other reactor types require constant cooling to avert a meltdown. If the cooling systems fail, you get a catastrophic melt-down of the fuel.
LFTR’s are operated at atmospheric pressure, meaning they are really hard to make explode. If the cooling system fails, the freeze plug melts and the entire radioactive slurry is shunted off to a safe containment system. This makes them exceptionally safe insofar as nuclear facilities go.
What about other types of power? Well, obviously, let’s insert a word here for solar and wind power. These are mostly safe forms of power generation that are constantly getting better. I would imagine that in the near future these technologies can and will carry a significant portion of global power use. Hell, according to Forbes it’s already at or around 10%. The more renewable energy we can use, the better.
I’d include Hydro and Geothermal in that list, but with water-shortages the world over, Hydro looks less and less likely to be a net-gain in terms of trading the power generated for the ecological damage it would contribute to. Geothermal will certainly help, but it doesn’t work as efficiently in some areas due to geological nuances.
Burning coal is a death-trap. Not only is mining it extremely dangerous, but coal ash can actually be more radioactive than nuclear waste. It makes the climate change situation worse by emitting greenhouse gasses, and it’s known to cause lung disease in anyone who lives near a coal plant. It needs to be phased out as soon as possible, if not outright banned immediately. “Clean Coal” is a myth.
Burning oil isn’t much better. According to The Wilderness Foundation, it also causes lung problems in those who live nearby. Oil spills are a common refrain from pipelines like Keystone. The Deepwater Horizon incident was a massive oil spill from the oil harvesting process. It, too, releases greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, making the climate situation worse.
There are other forms of power generation to consider, such as burning trash, but any form of electricity generation that involves burning things is probably more harmful than it is good.
So What’s Stopping Us From Using LFTR’s?
Well, first of all, the main proof-of-concept was the aforementioned Oak Ridge reactor. This was a project done in the late 60’s that did not, by any stretch of the imagination, solve all of the relevant problems. Technology might have taken a different path, had it been followed up on! But as it stands, the problem with maintaining the physical integrity of the reactor in the face of radiation is a big concern.
That lack of a proof-of-concept means that we have little by way of the political infrastructure in place to approve of these projects. While China, India, and even the U.S. are all experimenting with various molten salt reactors, there’s simply been no approved, functioning LFTR. As with all things bureaucratic, half the battle is just getting the first done.
I’m not married to the Fluoride salt, if another salt like Lithium would work just as well, or better. Any would work!. What’s important that we find a nice, mostly-green form of power to combat climate change. The sooner we can do it, the better.
I’ve left this for last, since he’s the founder of a company working on the tech and I wanted to keep this article as unbiased as I can, but Kirk Sorensen did a fantastic five-minute rundown of LFTR’s. Check it!
Thank you for reading The Progressive Cafe. If this article has helped you, please consider signing up for our mailing list. This article is by Jesse Pohlman, a sci-fi/fantasy author from Long Island, New York, whose website you can check out here.