Why would the golden conquest of nuclear power be so rational?
By Marco Visscher | Published: 2025-01-03 14:00:00 | Source: The Present – Big Think
Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week for free.
It’s a summer day in August 2017. Behind the quiet sand dunes near Petten, a village in the Netherlands where the North Sea remains far away, the only noise comes from a group of seagulls. They’re fighting over the remains of a lunch someone left behind. Other than that, the place is deserted. You will be surprised to find that some consider this a historic place and a historic day.
Here in Peten, at the NRG (Nuclear Research and Consulting Group) facility, a project that could be a milestone in the development of nuclear energy has just begun. As of this morning, the research reactor contains six blocks of salt, each the size of a block and holding a few grains of salt. Thorium. It may not seem amazing. However, thorium has been hailed as an improvement in nuclear technology, and could be the next step in the transition to clean energy supplies. Thorium is a weak radioactive element, which is more abundant in the Earth’s crust than uranium. A so-called molten salt reactor using thorium produces relatively short-lived waste, “only” 300 years or so. The reactor is supposed to be quite safe thanks to features such as the hardened salt plug, which automatically melts when the reactor becomes too hot, for example if the cooling pumps lose power. Once the seal melts, the salt flows into the storage vessels at the bottom of the reactor and the nuclear fission process stops.
Simply put: since the fuel is already molten, there’s no need to worry about meltdown. If the reactor temperature rises, things will be fine, not thanks to human intervention but thanks to the laws of nature.
Over a cup of coffee in the cafeteria, Sander de Groot, a product developer at NRG, can’t stop talking about thorium. He says the first time he read about it was around 2006. A molten salt reactor containing thorium was operating at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s. You succeeded. Everything that happened in the reactor was meticulously recorded at that time. For decades, these reports have been gathering dust in a filing cabinet. At the beginning of this century, a young NASA employee rediscovered the reports, scanned them and made them available on the Internet. De Groot found them a few years later.
Whenever de Groot talked about thorium with colleagues, they found it “too wild” and “speculative,” he says. A smile appears on his face. “Well, today, it finally happened.” A lot has changed since then – and not just for Sander de Groot, who moved on in 2022 to co-found Thorizon, a startup designed to accelerate developments in the use of thorium. First, there were number crunchers, who were checking to see if such a reactor could operate without any problems. Then came businessmen looking for investors to support their business projects. Now is the time to take the next step: basic research, funded by public funds, and carried out in an EU-owned reactor. The Netherlands is leading the way. Delft University of Technology is coordinating an international collaboration to develop a thorium molten salt reactor design.
“The potential is huge,” says de Groot. “In a molten salt reactor, thorium can be used so efficiently that it can be a safe and almost unlimited source of energy.”
After decades of stagnation, a wave of innovation is sweeping the nuclear industry. Thorium is one of many options for the future. Work is now underway on fuels that can withstand every conceivable accident, and on reactors that can more easily handle erratic, weather-dependent power production through wind turbines and solar panels. Much of the focus is on small modular reactors (SMRs), whose components are produced in factories and assembled on site. Industry representatives say new nuclear plants are more efficient, require less uranium and produce less waste. Or they have become safer, thanks to another layer of measures. Some designs are intended for locations near coastal cities, others for more remote areas. Some use both the energy and heat released to produce hydrogen, which can be used in industry or as fuel for aircraft and container ships.
Then there is nuclear fusion. In a fusion reactor, the temperature and pressure are very high, so the atoms are squeezed together like they do in stars, releasing an enormous amount of energy. Until now, nuclear fusion has always been something that existed only on the horizon. In 2021, a milestone was reached at the Oxfordshire-based Culham Fusion Energy Centre, where researchers were able to sustain fusion for five seconds, releasing 59 megajoules of energy, enough to boil a few dozen kettles of water. It is also enough to publish dozens of headlines around the world.
Nuclear plants have a very good track record. The problems with nuclear energy have nothing to do with technology. Problems between the ears.
All of these stories feel like a breath of fresh air. Can the nuclear industry finally change? Is there room for bold new ideas that give nuclear energy a future? Is she, after her dark journey through Hiroshima and Chernobyl, on her way to awakening?
In the emerging pro-nuclear movement, there is much debate about the benefits and drawbacks of each new reactor design. There is a catch for everything. In one design, the material may be susceptible to corrosion, while in another, disposal of fission products may become a concern. Breeder reactors can dispose of nuclear waste, but can also be used to produce weapons materials.
Amid technical disputes over the pros and cons of each reactor, nuclear proponents are inadvertently reinforcing the main point made by their opponents: that today’s nuclear plants are flawed. “Advanced nuclear power,” the general term for all innovations, suggests that current nuclear plants are not advanced. It’s as if they are outdated and in need of serious modifications.
And why is there so much emphasis on innovation, actually? Nuclear plants have a very good track record. The problems with nuclear energy have nothing to do with technology. Problems between the ears.
Nuclear plants are not trusted, so with every new innovation, it must be made socially acceptable. Safer, because nuclear energy is risky. Flexible, because priority should be given to solar and wind energy. Smaller, because small is beautiful. But will all this innovation really make nuclear power better? Does anyone think a different type of reactor or fuel will make the resistance disappear?
Sign up for Big Think on Substack
The most surprising and impactful new stories delivered to your inbox every week for free.
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
