Category: Hot Discussion

An issue causing hot discussion either here in the blog or in the wider community

China and India Developing Thorium Power Generation

The Nuke  – Part of the Future Tool Kit

 

Last year I wrote a post on what is known as Generation IV nuclear power generation and the potential benefits it could deliver to an ever energy-hungry world. You can see the post here: Generation IV Nuclear Power

Earlier this month The Economist released its own article on Thorium based nuclear power with it reporting on India and China making the biggest strides as they both try to meet their ever-growing energy demands (without having to revert to coal or gas-fired generation).

From The Economist:

Thorium reactors

Asgard’s fire

Thorium, an element named after the Norse god of thunder, may soon contribute to the world’s electricity supply

Apr 12th 2014 | From the print edition

WELL begun; half done. That proverb—or, rather, its obverse—encapsulates the problems which have dogged civil nuclear power since its inception. Atomic energy is seen by many, and with reason, as the misbegotten stepchild of the world’s atom-bomb programmes: ill begun and badly done. But a clean slate is a wonderful thing. And that might soon be provided by two of the world’s rising industrial powers, India and China, whose demand for energy is leading them to look at the idea of building reactors that run on thorium.

Existing reactors use uranium or plutonium—the stuff of bombs. Uranium reactors need the same fuel-enrichment technology that bomb-makers employ, and can thus give cover for clandestine weapons programmes. Plutonium is made from unenriched uranium in reactors whose purpose can easily be switched to bomb-making. Thorium, though, is hard to turn into a bomb; not impossible, but sufficiently uninviting a prospect that America axed thorium research in the 1970s. It is also three or four times as abundant as uranium. In a world where nuclear energy was a primary goal of research, rather than a military spin-off, it would certainly look worthy of investigation. And it is, indeed, being investigated.

India has abundant thorium reserves, and the country’s nuclear-power programme, which is intended, eventually, to supply a quarter of the country’s electricity (up from 3% at the moment), plans to use these for fuel. This will take time. The Indira Gandhi Centre for Atomic Research already runs a small research reactor in Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu, and the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre in Mumbai plans to follow this up with a thorium-powered heavy-water reactor that will, it hopes, be ready early next decade.

China’s thorium programme looks bigger. The Chinese Academy of Sciences claims the country now has “the world’s largest national effort on thorium”, employing a team of 430 scientists and engineers, a number planned to rise to 750 by 2015. This team, moreover, is headed by Jiang Mianheng, an engineering graduate of Drexel University in the United States who is the son of China’s former leader, Jiang Zemin (himself an engineer). Some may question whether Mr Jiang got his job strictly on merit. His appointment, though, does suggest the project has political clout. The team plan to fire up a prototype thorium reactor in 2015. Like India’s, this will use solid fuel. But by 2017 the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics expects to have one that uses a trickier but better fuel, molten thorium fluoride.

…..

Molten Thorium Fluoride otherwise known as the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor – a form of the Molten Salt Reactor design. More on the LFTR type of reactor can be found HERE with a basic design of such a reactor below:

Source: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Molten_Salt_Reactor.svg/1000px-Molten_Salt_Reactor.svg.png

 

The rest of The Economist article carries on listing the benefits and challenges of Thorium based power. I noted in the Wikipedia article that Thorium based nuclear energy could even be used for what is known as nuclear desalination (using nuclear energy to turn sea-water into fresh water). Nuclear desalination already happens on a limited scale and you can read about it HERE. In a sense of irony the late Gerry Anderson’s ‘Thunderbirds’ had an episode (one of my favourites) called the Mighty Atom where in 2065 the Australians and later north Africans used nuclear energy to turn sea water into fresh water for use of irrigation in the Earth’s deserts (most likely to address the growing food shortage in that era). However, the arch-villain The Hood had accidentally set off a chain of events that destroyed the Australian atomic irrigation station (nearly poisoning Melbourne on the way), while a year later committed a deliberate act of sabotage to the Saharan atomic irrigation station to attract out International Rescue who would go on saving the station.

 

Cult classics aside, nuclear energy was once touted as a large-scale replacement to fossil fuel power generation for large industrialised or industrialising accidents. However, convention nuclear power (that uses uranium and plutonium) has suffered a series of critical set backs (three major meltdowns) that will never allow it to be as widespread as once promised in the 1960’s. But we can also not continue to increase our waste gas emissions from increasing fossil fuel use as the world economy (well) splutters forward. Solar and wind are good for micro and localised uses while hydro meets resistance owing to dams changing the ecology of the river being dam-ed (or damned). Thorium-based power could give an answer to our large industrial and industrialising countries that is clean and goes some distance in weaning that country off fossil fuel based power generation. India and China see the potential so it is hoped that other nations including the Americans (who bottled the technology effectively in the 60’s when they realised Thorium reactors could not produce nuclear weapon fuel for their Cold War “efforts”). And as fresh water becomes more scarce, nuclear desalination could provide assistance in turning sea-water into potable water for both drinking and irrigation.

 

And for those Thunderbird fans out there here is Part One of The Mighty Atom (and yes it has that line: “The REACTOR is under the complete control of the project staff – nothing CAN GO WRONG……):

 

So Who Really Wrote This?

The Herald or Watercare themselves?

 

A week ago I critiqued Watercare (who provide our fresh and waster water services in Auckland) on their decision around a recycled storm-water scheme in Stonefields. You can read it here: Patch Protecting or Genuine Concerns?

This morning I noticed (and a few others) the editorial for the Herald this morning commenting again on the recycled storm-water scheme. Lets take a look bit by bit from the editorial this morning shall we?

From the NZ Herald

Editorial: Ditching dual water plan makes sense

4:15 AM Thursday Apr 10, 2014

Stonefields idea would be money down the drain.

Stonefields, a village-style residential development in what was the Mt Wellington quarry, has branded itself with environmental “sustainability”. The basis of that brand was a dual water supply. Every house built so far has both a drinking-water supply and a “third pipe”, bringing surface water from a central reservoir to toilets and outside taps. The system may have saved water from the metropolitan supplier, Watercare Services, but saving water is not the supplier’s prime concern.

Many, in fact, will suspect the monopoly supplier’s refusal to operate Stonefields’ scheme as intended is motivated by the simple desire to maximise its revenue. Not so, says Watercare. The scheme, it says, would have cost Stonefields residents more than they will pay for the normal water supply. And since the groundwater collected for the third pipe would not have been treated to the same standard, it would have been charging those residents more for a supply of lower quality.

 

……

Many, in fact, will suspect the monopoly supplier’s refusal to operate Stonefields’ scheme as intended is motivated by the simple desire to maximise its revenue.” When you read the rest of the editorial I wonder but not help that is “bending the truth” to a wide degree.

What would be nice if the editorial posted some hard figures on the actual cost Watercare is purporting for the third pipe recycled storm-water scheme. Costs that include both the set and operations of such a facility in comparison to the normal set up we already get. Then for good measure some comparative costs from overseas as well as the private sector to see if the scheme is not value for money as Watercare (and the Herald) claim

I also note saving water is not Watercare’s main concern. Well no if it is out to maximise income and profits which is telling as we further get down the editorial.

 

Cost is not the only consideration. Enthusiasts for third-pipe water conservation ought to consider what would be lost. This is a country in which the water is safe to drink. To slake a thirst, we turn on the nearest tap without a qualm. That would change if not all piped water could be trusted. The outside taps at Stonefields were to carry a sign that the water was not safe to drink. Do we really want that?

The former Auckland City Council ought to have thought of all these practicalities before it invoked principles of sustainability and made third-pipe reticulation a feature of Stonefields’ development consent. Its own water retailer, Metrowater, was going to run the system. But for the Super City’s creation, and the bulk supplier’s takeover of the whole system, the true costs of “sustainability” might never have been known.

….

I assume whoever wrote this has never been around much as plenty of outside taps (not drinking fountains) even in urban Auckland carry the Do Not Drink sign above the said tap. And can someone tell me – who races to the garden hose and drinks out of it – regularly? So a really weak excuse here in that section of the editorial.

 

Thanks to the Waikato River, Auckland will never be short of water. There is no point conserving the water for its own sake if it must be replaced by a costly supply of inferior standard, no matter how interesting or exciting the environmental engineering involved.

I am quite sure the people of the Waikato – especially those who use or treasure the river will be quite comforted that Auckland will never be short of water thanks to Watercare drawing water from there and then pumping it to Auckland after it treated –  NOT. I am aware Watercare are seeking consent to double the amount of water intake from the Waikato River to pump into a growing Auckland. This consent process has riled the people of the Waikato as the extra intake will no doubt put strain on New Zealand’s longest river. It is of note the lower Waikato is reliant on rainfall, Lake Taupo and the Waipa River for its water flow – and it is certainly not unlimited either. Just look what happens when our South Island hydro stations get dry years and the knock on effects downstream…

Now if you want a contradiction then check this last bit from the editorial

More water falls on Auckland than the city can use. Only a fraction of Stonefields’ storm water was to be channelled into the third pipe. Most would have drained to the Tamaki inlet. Reducing stormwater pollution of the sea around Auckland is the real challenge. Collecting tanks and treatment may be the answer, and if the water can be put to a cost-effective use, all the better. But recycling for a needless purpose at greater cost is not sustainable.

—-

Okay so more water falls on Auckland than we can use yet we get 10% of our total supply from the Waikato with Watercare wanting to increase that to 18% of total supply. Auckland also in 1994 suffered a drought which eventually led to the Waikato pipeline being built in the first place so that Auckland would not be faced with a similar situation again. So which way is it? We get enough rain that we do not need the Waikato, or is Auckland that large that we need the Waikato to supplement our dams.

 

In any case the real question that begs to be asked is ‘who actually wrote the editorial?’ Watercare or the NZ Herald themselves…

 

Holiday Highway in the Spotlight

Hearings Begin on Warkworth Section of Holiday Highway

 

The Herald has noted that the Board of Enquiry gets under way today for the Puhoi-Warkworth section of the Puhoi-Welsford Roads of National Significance Program otherwise known as the Holiday Highway.

From the NZ Herald:

Holiday highway plan in spotlight

By Mathew Dearnaley 4:15 AM Monday Apr 7, 2014

Fast-tracking of $760m extension to be considered over 14 days. 

Plans for one of the country’s most expensive transport projects – a $760 million extension of Auckland’s motorway network to Warkworth – go under the microscope today.

A board of inquiry appointed for fast-tracking planning consideration of the 18.5km extension as the first half of a Road of National Significance will preside over 14 days of hearings.

The Government is promoting the extension over 12 viaducts and bridges from the Johnstones Hill traffic tunnels south of Puhoi to a new roundabout north of Warkworth, as a vital freight and tourism link with Northland.

Even so, many of the 14,000 vehicles a day expected to use the new road by 2026 will double back to Warkworth’s often bottlenecked Hill St turnoff to eastern beaches.

That keeps critics such as Auckland Council infrastructure chairman Mike Lee calling it “the holiday highway” to the intense annoyance of Northland leaders and former Rodney mayor Penny Webster.

There will only be one traffic interchange between Orewa and Warkworth, to be confined to just south-facing ramps at Puhoi, after residents protested against an earlier plan which would have denied them access.

 

So you will need to double back and still get held up at the notorious Hill Road intersection at Warkworth in order to get to the eastern beaches. That in itself is rather self-defeating.

 

In any case the Holiday Highway even if fully completed as the gold-plated 4-lane motorway would still fall well short of where it would need to be if it were to serve the population and industrial centres of Northland. You would need to take the motorway all the way to Whangarei itself to get the “benefits” you would be sort after – much like the 4-lane expressway Auckland to Hamilton and Cambridge.

Ironically there has been two more cheaper but more beneficial transport schemes to connect Auckland up to Northland than the Holiday Highway. One is Operation Lifesaver devised by Transport Blog, the other is to fully upgrade the North Auckland (rail) Line from Swanson to Whangarei with a branch line to Marsden Point (home of a deep water port and our oil refinery) to allow our more powerful DL’s to haul longer trains from the area south (like logs).

You can read about Operation Lifesaver as an alternative to the Holiday Highway HERE.

 

Operation Lifesaver I believe follows the same premise as the upgrades to State Highway 2 that have happened and are going to continue to happen again soon. You can read what NZTA has done and what it will be up to with State Highway 2 here: Safety Improvements for State Highway 2. Once the upgrades are complete that section of State Highway 2 (which carries more regular, holiday and freight traffic than the Holiday Highway ever would) will allow that traffic to travel efficiently and safely to their destinations. So if these kind of simple upgrades to a much busier State Highway 2 are effective why does State Highway 1 going north need to be a 4-lane Motorway that does not really go the distance it would need to? And these upgrades to State Highway 2 are very similar to what Operation Lifesaver proposes.

 

Lets hope this Board of Inquiry puts the Holiday Highway under the same intense microscope as it did to a Wellington Highway project last month. And cross fingers the Board of Inquiry might start shifting us away from this motorway to something more viable that will not break the bank…

Here’s hoping