Alternative Fuels and Methods for Nuclear Energy: A Future-based Approach

Ryan Marshall

McGill University

Keywords: energy, fission, fusion, renewables, nuclear power

Abstract:

In mitigating and reversing the effects of global warming and climate change,
clean energy is both an essential and challenging obstacle to overcome. In this
endeavour, nuclear energy inevitably plays a major role: it provides a reliable and cheap
source of power that compliments the other renewables’ volatility well. However, the
best approach to nuclear energy is unclear. Uranium powered reactors currently
dominate nuclear energy, but thorium powered reactors offer many benefits in safety,
sustainability, and eventually, economics. Similarly, fusion reactors appear to be the
pinnacle of clean energy, but their technology is still in development. This paper aims to
uncover the strengths and weaknesses of these three nuclear energy options, revealing
which is most applicable to the future of energy production.
Alternative Fuels and Methods for Nuclear Energy 2

I: Introduction

As a species, one of the biggest current problems for humanity is, unsurprisingly,
global warming. A main facet of our defense against climate change is the transition
towards clean energy. However, this transition isn’t straightforward. This paper
discusses how nuclear energy contributes to this transition, exploring multiple nuclear
energy options.
Currently, most of the clean energy spotlight is held by technologies like solar,
wind, and geothermal energy. While these technologies are certainly promising, they
lack reliability: wind is unpredictable, geothermal is only available in very select regions,
and solar can, at best, be tuned to provide maximum output only at certain times during
the day (assuming it’s not cloudy). On the other hand, the strength of nuclear energy lies
in its ability to constantly output a “base level” of power; ideally, not enough to waste
energy at times of low consumption, but enough to support the other energy sources in
providing enough electricity for the public.
This paper will explore alternative nuclear energy options to address the
challenges associated with uranium-powered fission reactors, the type currently
dominating the nuclear energy sector. These challenges include safety concerns, nuclear
waste management, and both the environmental and financial impacts of uranium
mining. The paper will investigate thorium-fueled fission reactors as a promising
alternative, and the potential of fusion energy within the broader context of nuclear
energy advancements. Nuclear energy, currently mostly in the form of uranium-fuelled
fission reactors, might see promising new advancements with the development and use
of both thorium-fuelled fission reactors and fusion energy.
Criteria for evaluating these alternatives include safety (including reactor safety
and political repercussions), sustainability (including resource availability and waste
disposal), and technological availability. The significance of this research lies in its
potential to contribute to cleaner and more sustainable energy sources, addressing
environmental concerns and advancing our understanding of nuclear energy options for
a greener future.

II: Background

The problem – of providing a reliable electricity supply for base-load power demands
– stems from society’s current drive for clean energy and the technologies used to
achieve that. Contemporary clean energy is dominated by hydroelectric, wind, and solar
energy [1]. Hydroelectric dams, while available to provide consistent power, are only
effective in certain geographies. Further, they are often damaging to the surrounding
ecosystems, making largescale hydroelectric power an unattractive option [2]. Wind
turbines require wind to generate energy, meaning they cannot reliably produce power.
Similarly, solar energy is only effective at the most sunny latitudes, and in the absence of
clouds. Ergo, many locations cannot economically utilize solar or wind power.
Comparatively, nuclear energy is a particularly reliable energy source. It is most efficient
and economical when it produces a constant amount of power. Because of this, nuclear
energy can aid in the above challenges in two ways. First, nuclear power can generate
enough to cover the “base” power draw, leaving only the peaks for the other renewables
to provide for [3]. For instance, from Figure 1 [4], nuclear energy in Ontario could
Alternative Fuels and Methods for Nuclear Energy 3

produce up to 13 GW, leaving a maximum of 5 GW (at around 8PM) for other renewable
sources to produce.

Figure 1
Ontario’s hourly power consumption in 2014, 2015, and 2016.

The second way nuclear energy helps to solve clean energy’s current downfalls is
through energy-sharing. The global electricity grid is constantly growing, making it ever
easier to “export” power. Countries or areas producing more power than they need can
utilize the grid to sell that power to areas in need of more electricity, reducing the
amount of power wasted and ensuring there is always electricity available. Nuclear
energy fits perfectly with this paradigm. If the area’s consumption is at a low point, the
energy produced from the nuclear plants can be sold to a different area, where the wind
and solar may not be performing optimally during a consumption high. The ability to
export the energy produced by nuclear power greatly reduces the detriment of
renewables’ lack of reliability. There will almost always be some areas with well-
performing renewables and some without; by guaranteeing that excess nuclear power
will be sent to areas in need, the potential for renewables to underperform becomes
significantly less daunting.
Three nuclear energy options are being explored in this paper: uranium-powered
fission reactors, thorium-powered fission reactors, and fusion reactors.
S. Leray provides some insight into the mechanisms behind fusion reactions, and
figure 2 depicts a thorium reactor (which has a similar structure to a uranium reactor).
A fissile material is one that naturally decays neutrons at a high rate, and that releases
neutrons when its nucleus is split. A fission reaction occurs when a high concentration
of fissile material is created. The decaying neutrons have the potential to strike the
nucleus of a neighboring atom, causing that atom to split and release some number of
neutrons. These neutrons, in turn, may strike other nuclei, splitting them and releasing
several more neutrons. For example, a Uranium-235 (U235) atom hit with a neutron
might produce one Krypton atom, one Barium atom, and 3 neutrons. If, on average,
every neutron has a high enough probability of hitting another nucleus to cause the
release of more than 1 neutron, then this is a bomb. The reaction will grow
Alternative Fuels and Methods for Nuclear Energy 4

exponentially, and quickly get out of control. On the other hand, if neutrons hit other
nuclei enough to produce an average of less than one neutron created per neutron
released, the reaction will die out. In a reactor, the goal is for, on average, every neutron
that is released from a splitting nuclei to cause one new neutron to be released from a
neighbouring nuclei. Each split atom releases energy, causing the system to produce
great amounts of heat.
In a uranium reactor, the fissile material is U235. Uranium is mined, naturally
occurring at about 99% U238 and 1% U235. This ore is then enriched to be a much
higher percentage U235, and solidified into fuel rods to be used in the reactor [5]. In the
reaction, the released energy heats pressurized water. The water boils (at temperatures
much higher than 100oC due to the pressure), turning into steam, and powers a turbine.
Once the steam goes through the turbine, it cools to become liquid again, and repeats
the same process. [6]
A thorium reactor is very similar: a reaction happens in its core, which heats up
fluid in the heat exchange system, eventually powering a turbine. However, there are a
few key differences. First, thorium itself isn’t fissile. Instead, in a thorium reactor, the
thorium undergoes a “decomposition” process in which it releases subatomic particles to
become fissile elements, usually U233 [7]. Second, the thorium fuel is liquid, instead of
the fuel rods in uranium reactors. Finally, the heat exchange fluid in these reactors can
be molten salt or metal, instead of pressurized water.

Figure 2
Diagram of a thorium fusion reactor

Fusion reactors are based on a different process. Instead of releasing energy by

the least developed technology, so the specifics of their mechanisms are not as clear as
uranium or thorium reactors.

III: Analysis

These three reactor types – uranium, thorium, and fusion reactors -- are being
evaluated by safety (including reactor safety and political repercussions), sustainability
(including waste disposal and resource availability), and technological availability.

III.1: Uranium

Most safety issues are related to malfunctions in the heat exchange system, causing
the reactor core to overheat and explode. Historical examples include the active
pressurization being released on the cooling water, allowing it to boil inside the reactor.
Because of this, the water can no longer remove heat from the fuel, causing the reactor
to explode [10]. Further, most uranium reactors produce weapons-grade plutonium as a
by-product, allowing for easy manufacturing of bombs. Therefore, a country could hide
a warhead development program behind nuclear reactors: a feature the future’s energy
production technologies should not include [6].
Nuclear waste is a prominent sustainability disadvantage of nuclear reactors. In
terms of nuclear waste, there are two types of uranium reactors. The first type requires
less enrichment of the fuel (therefore being cheaper) and produces waste that
contaminates its surroundings for many millennia. The second and most popular type
requires more enriched fuel and produces waste that is only unstable for a few hundred
years; while a long time, this could be considered sustainable. However, this is the type
of reactor that produces weapons-grade plutonium as an intermediate product [11].
Uranium mining is the other source of unsustainability for nuclear reactors.
Uranium is relatively rare, composing only 0.0002% of the earth’s crust. Further, as the
fuel must be enriched before use, more uranium must be mined than what is actually
used as fuel, contributing to an even larger ecological footprint [5].
Technological availability is the largest benefit of uranium reactors and the reason
they are so common today. When nuclear technologies were being developed, during the
cold war, bomb production was the foremost goal; countries primarily investigated
uranium reactor types, as they can produce fuel for nuclear bombs. As these
technologies were more developed after the war, they continued to be the best options
for power production [12].

III.2: Thorium

While thorium and uranium powered fission reactors operate similarly, their few
differences contribute a lot to the increased safety of the thorium reactor. First, fuel in a
thorium reactor is liquid, allowing for an extra layer of redundancy. Below where the
liquid fuel is in the thorium reactor, there is a “plug” with a melting point just above the
expected temperature of the reactor. If the reactor overheats, this plug melts, draining
the fuel into holding tanks [10, 11]. As no personnel or active systems are necessary for
this process to occur, it provides invaluable “walk away safety”. The second difference
between the two fusion reactors is the heat exchange system: thorium reactors allow for
Alternative Fuels and Methods for Nuclear Energy 6

molten salt or metal to be used in the heat exchange system instead of pressurized
water. Once again, this provides a major safety benefit: to maintain the removal of heat
from the reactor core, only a simple pump for the fluid is necessary, removing the
potential for the water pressure to be released, causing a meltdown [13]. Finally, there is
no potential to create warheads from the byproducts of a thorium fission reaction,
increasing its political safety dramatically [14].
Nuclear waste from thorium reactors is more sustainable, lasting about 300 years.
Per kilowatt-hour generated, thorium reactors will produce 0.1% of the waste that a
uranium reactor would. When mining, thorium is three times more common than
uranium. Further, when mining uranium, only about 1% of the ore constitutes U235,
meaning a significantly larger quantity of uranium must be mined as compared to
thorium, which consists almost completely of its useful isotope. All of this results in
thorium being a many times more sustainable fuel than uranium.
The technological availability of thorium is less than uranium: these reactors are less
common. However, tests are currently being performed to create operational thorium
reactors. As much of the technology is similar to that used in conventional uranium
fission reactors, the development of this technology is likely easier than other
technologies. The first thorium reactors will cost more than a uranium reactor to build.

III.3: Fusion

The safety of fusion reactors is still unknown, as the technology is only in its earliest
stages of development. However, unlike fission, a fusion system must input energy into
the fuel to achieve a reaction. Because of this, it would be unlikely for a fusion reaction
to enter a positive feedback loop and overheat or explode; a fusion reaction must be
actively maintained by an energy source, which would ideally be trivial to shut off in an
emergency. Politically, fusion reactors are relatively harmless. While fusion bombs are
based on similar principles as fusion reactors, the development of a reactor would have
little impact on the ability of a country or entity to create more or better warheads [3,
15].
Fusion energy is perhaps the most sustainable energy source conceivable. It is
fuelled by hydrogen, the most common element in the universe. The product of a fusion
reaction is helium, an inert gas, meaning that no nuclear waste is created from a fusion
reactor [16].
Fusion technology is not currently available. Despite being highly coveted and
currently researched by many institutions worldwide, it will still be at least a decade
before humanity is able to achieve fusion at a large scale.

IV: Conclusion Section

The three types of reactors – uranium fuelled fission, thorium fuelled fission, and
fusion – have been analyzed in terms of safety, sustainability, and technological
availability.
Uranium reactors are less safe than thorium reactors, as their cooling system
requires active pressurization of water, adding another failure point. Thorium reactors
also have liquid fuel, allowing the fuel to drain if the core gets too hot. Further, uranium
fission produces plutonium as a byproduct, which can be used in nuclear warheads.
Alternative Fuels and Methods for Nuclear Energy 7

Fusion reactors have a design that lends itself to safety, as they need active energy input
to maintain the reaction. However, as full-scale fusion reactors have not yet been
realized, this assumption is merely a hypothesis.
Thorium reactors are also more sustainable than uranium reactors, as they produce
lesser amounts of more docile waste. Thorium is also more abundant than uranium,
making the mining process cleaner. However, neither fission reactor is as sustainable as
a fusion reactor. Its fuel is hydrogen (more abundant and energy-dense than uranium or
thorium), and its waste is helium (a harmless inert gas).
Uranium fission technology is by far the most developed. There are currently
hundreds of uranium reactors operating around the world, but none of either thorium
or fusion reactors. Thorium fission technology exists, but it is not developed enough to
be economically advantageous over uranium. Fusion technology is currently being
developed, but is not ready for wide-scale adoption.
Based on these results, the following course of action may be advised. The world
should maintain current uranium reactors, but halt their development. Instead,
development of thorium fission technology should be prioritized, with enough thorium
reactors being built to make an environmental impact within two decades. Research into
fusion technology will continue during this time, but large investments into thorium
fission power will be made under the assumption that fission energy will not be
commercially available for several decades [11, 12, 14-21].
Alternative Fuels and Methods for Nuclear Energy 8

References

[1] "35 Latest Solar Power Statistics, Charts & Data." https://theroundup.org/solar-power-
statistics/#top (accessed Oct 12, 2023).
[2] K. Kaygusuz, "Sustainable Development of Hydroelectric Power," Energy Sources, vol. 24,
no. 9, pp. 803-815, 2002/09/01 2002, doi: 10.1080/00908310290086725.
[3] T. E. G. Nicholas, T. P. Davis, F. Federici, J. E. Leland, B. S. Patel, C. Vincent, and S. H. Ward,
"Re-examining the Role of Nuclear Fusion in a Renewables-Based Energy Mix [arXiv],"
arXiv, 2021.
[4] "Market Snapshot: Why is Ontario’s electricity demand declining?" Government of
Canada. https://www.cer-rec.gc.ca/en/data-analysis/energy-markets/market-
snapshots/2018/market-snapshot-why-is-ontarios-electricity-demand-declining.html
(accessed October 12, 2023).
[5] U. S. N. R. Commission. "Uranium Enrichment." https://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-
cycle-fac/ur-enrichment.html (accessed.
[6] S. Leray, "Nuclear energy basics," in Lecture Notes - Joint EPS-SIF International School on
Energy 2021 - Course 6: Energy Innovation and Integration for a Clean Environment, 19-
23 July 2021, France, 2022: EDP Sciences, in EPJ Web Conf. (France), p. 00008 (18 pp.),
doi: 10.1051/epjconf/202226800008. [Online]. Available:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/epjconf/202226800008
[7] V. K. Manchanda, "Thorium as an abundant source of nuclear energy and challenges in
separation science," Radiochimica Acta, pp. 243-63, 04/01 2023, doi: 10.1515/ract-2022-
0006.
[8] N. Smith, "Nuclear fusion: making energy with star quality," Engineering and Technology,
vol. 17, no. 4, 2022.
[9] M. Kikuchi and K. Lackner, Fusion Physics. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA):
IAEA, 2012.
[10] T. E. Rehm, "Advanced nuclear energy: the safest and most renewable clean energy,"
Current Opinion in Chemical Engineering, p. 100878, / 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.coche.2022.100878.
[11] L. Zhan, Y. Bo, T. Lin, and Z. Fan, "Development and outlook of advanced nuclear energy
technology," Energy Strategy Reviews, vol. 34, 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2021.100630.
[12] M. Simionescu, "The renewable and nuclear energy-economic growth nexus in the
context of quality of governance," Progress in Nuclear Energy, p. 104590, / 2023, doi:
10.1016/j.pnucene.2023.104590.
[13] A. Chroneos, I. Goulatis, A. Daskalopulu, and L. H. Tsoukalas, "Thorium fuel revisited,"
Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 164, p. 104839, 2023/10/01/ 2023, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnucene.2023.104839.
[14] T. Ünak, "What is the potential use of thorium in the future energy production
technology?," Progress in Nuclear Energy, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 137-144, 2000/01/01/ 2000,
doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-1970(00)00038-X.
[15] D. Lerede, M. Nicoli, L. Savoldi, and A. Trotta, "Analysis of the possible contribution of
different nuclear fusion technologies to the global energy transition," Energy Strategy
Reviews, vol. 49, 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.esr.2023.101144.
Alternative Fuels and Methods for Nuclear Energy 9

[16] D. Lerede, M. Saccone, C. Bustreo, F. Gracceva, and L. Savoldi, "Could clean industrial
progresses and the rise of electricity demand foster the penetration of nuclear fusion in
the European energy mix?," Fusion Engineering and Design, vol. 172, 2021, doi:
10.1016/j.fusengdes.2021.112880.
[17] M. D. Mathew, "Nuclear energy: a pathway towards mitigation of global warming,"
Progress in Nuclear Energy, p. 104080, / 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.pnucene.2021.104080.
[18] V. Knapp and D. Pevec, "Promises and limitations of nuclear fission energy in combating
climate change," Energy Policy, vol. 120, pp. 94-9, 2018, doi:
10.1016/j.enpol.2018.05.027.
[19] S. Keilson and D. Shafiq, "Fueling the Future: A Study of Nuclear Fusion Reactors and
Their Modern Capabilities," in 2022 IEEE Integrated STEM Education Conference (ISEC),
2022, Piscataway, NJ, USA, 2022: IEEE, in 2022 IEEE Integrated STEM Education
Conference (ISEC), pp. 123-3, doi: 10.1109/ISEC54952.2022.10025277. [Online].
Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/ISEC54952.2022.10025277
[20] N. D. Cakar, S. Erdogan, A. Gedikli, and M. A. Oncu, "Nuclear energy consumption,
nuclear fusion reactors and environmental quality: The case of G7 countries," Nuclear
Engineering and Technology, pp. 1301-11, / 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.net.2021.10.015.
[21] G. H. Marcus, "Considering the next generation of nuclear power plants," Progress in
Nuclear Energy, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 5-10, 2000/01/01/ 2000, doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0149-1970(00)00016-0.