thorium and the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor concept
DESCRIPTION
Thorium and the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor Concept. World Energy Consumption is Rapidly Escalating Future Energy Consumption Has Been Significantly Underestimated. In 2007, the world consumed*:. 5.3 billion tonnes of coal (128 quads**). 2.92 trillion m 3 of natural gas (105 quads). - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Thorium and the Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor Concept
World Energy Consumption is Rapidly EscalatingFuture Energy Consumption Has Been Significantly Underestimated
In 2007, the world consumed*:
5.3 billion tonnes of coal (128 quads**)
31.1 billion barrels of oil (180 quads)
2.92 trillion m3 of natural gas (105 quads)
65 million kg of uranium ore (25 quads)
Contained 16,000 MT of thorium!
**1 quad = 1 quadrillion BTU = 172 million barrels (Mbbl) of crude oil
*Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2008
29 quads of hydroelectricity
Dominated by Hydrocarbons
Year US World
2010 108 510
2020 121 613
2030 134 722
***Source: Energy Information Administration Outlook 2006
Total Energy Demand Projections (quads)***
In a global warming environment, where will the world turn for safe, abundant, low-cost energy?In a global warming environment, where will the world turn for safe, abundant, low-cost energy?
The Binding Energy of Matter
Electrons have binding energies of eV’s.
Nucleons (protons and neutrons) have binding energies of millions of eV’s.
Supernova—Birth of the Heavy ElementsThorium, uranium, and all the other heavy elements were formed in the final moments of a supernova explosion billions of years ago.
Our solar system: the Sun, planets, Earth, Moon, and Our solar system: the Sun, planets, Earth, Moon, and asteroids formed from the remnants of this material.asteroids formed from the remnants of this material.
Fissile fuel has extraordinary energy density!
23 million kilowatt-hours per kilogram!
Energy Generation Comparison
6 kg of fissile material in a liquid-fluoride reactor has the energy equivalent (66,000
MW*hr electrical*) of:
=
230 train cars (25,000 MT) of bituminous coal or,
600 train cars (66,000 MT) of brown coal,
(Source: World Coal Institute)
or, 440 million cubic feet of natural gas (15% of a 125,000 cubic meter LNG tanker),
or, 300 kg of enriched (3%) uranium in a pressurized water reactor.
*Each ounce of thorium can therefore produce $14,000-24,000 of electricity (at $0.04-0.07/kW*hr)
Uranium-238(99.3% of all U)
Thorium-232(100% of all Th)
Uranium-235(0.7% of all U)
Uranium-233
Plutonium-239
Nature gave us three options for fissile fuel
The fission of U-235 was discovered by Otto Hahn and Lise Meitner in 1938.
Pu-239 as a fissile fuel was discovered by Glenn Seaborg in March 1941.
U-233 as a fissile fuel was discovered by Seaborg’s student John Gofman in February 1942.
Uranium-235(“highly enriched
uranium”)
Could weapons be made from the fissile material?
Isotope separation plant (Y-12)
Natural uranium
Hiroshima, 8/6/1945
Depleted uranium
Isotope Production Reactor (Hanford)
Pu separation from exposed U (PUREX)
Trinity, 7/16/1945 Nagasaki, 8/9/1945
Thorium?Isotope
Production Reactor
uranium separation
from exposed thorium
PROBLEM: U-233 is contaminated with U-232, whose decay chain emits HARD gamma rays that make fabrication, utilization and deployment of weapons VERY difficult and impractical relative to other options. Thorium was not pursued.
U-232 decays into Tl-208, a HARD gamma emitter
Thallium-208 emits “hard” 2.6 MeV gamma-rays as part of its nuclear decay.
These gamma rays destroy the electonics and explosives that control detonation.
They require thick lead shielding and have a distinctive and easily detectable signature.
232U
Uranium-232 follows the same decay chain as thorium-232, but it follows it millions of times faster!
This is because 232Th has a 14 billion-year half-life, but 232U has only an 74 year half-life!
Once it starts down “the hill” it gets to thallium-208 (the gamma emitter) in just a few weeks!
14 billion years to make this jump
Some 232U starts decaying
immediately
1.91 yr
3.64 d
55 sec
0.16 sec
1.91 yr
3.64 d
55 sec
1.91 yr
3.64 d
U-232 Formation in the Thorium Fuel Cycle
1944: A tale of two isotopes…
Enrico Fermi argued for a program of fast-breeder reactors using uranium-238 as the fertile material and plutonium-239 as the fissile material.
His argument was based on the breeding ratio of Pu-239 at fast neutron energies.
Argonne National Lab followed Fermi’s path and built the EBR-1 and EBR-2.
Eugene Wigner argued for a thermal-breeder program using thorium as the fertile material and U-233 as the fissile material.
Although large breeding gains were not possible, THERMAL breeding was possible, with enhanced safety.
Wigner’s protégé, Alvin Weinberg, followed Wigner’s path at the Oak Ridge National Lab.
Can Nuclear Reactions be Sustained in Natural Uranium?
Not with thermal neutrons—need more than 2 neutrons to sustain reaction (one for conversion, one for fission)—not enough neutrons produced at thermal energies. Must use fast neutron reactors.
Spectrum Moderated Spectrum SpectrumFastThermal
Start
Reality
Pu-240Production
Produces long-lived Actinides
– Yucca Mtn
Greater propensity to absorb neutrons
• Goal of fast breeder reactors
• Most of Pu burned
• Fast reactors keep neutrons here, but at a high price:
– Safety– More fuel (5x)
Fission/Absorption Cross Sections
Neutrons are moderated through collisions
Neutron born at high energy (1-2 MeV).
Neutron moderated to thermal energy (<<1 eV).
Radiation Damage Limits Energy Release
Does a typical nuclear reactor extract that much energy from its nuclear fuel? No, the “burnup” of the fuel is
limited by damage to the fuel itself.
Typically, the reactor will only be able to extract a portion of the energy from the fuel before radiation damage to the fuel itself becomes too extreme.
Radiation damage is caused by: Noble gas (krypton, xenon)
buildup Disturbance to the fuel lattice
caused by fission fragments and neutron flux
As the fuel swells and distorts, it can cause the cladding around the fuel to rupture and release fission products into the coolant.
Lifetime of a Typical Uranium Fuel Element
Conventional fuel elements are fabricated from uranium pellets and formed into fuel assemblies
They are then irradiated in a nuclear reactor, where most of the U-235 content of the fuel “burns” out and releases energy.
Finally, they are placed in a spent fuel cooling pond where decay heat from radioactive fission products is removed by circulating water.
Typical Pressurized-Water Reactor Containment
This structure is steel-lined reinforced concrete, designed to withstand the overpressure expected if all the primary coolant were released in an accident.
Sprays and cooling systems (such as the ice condenser) are available for washing released radioactivity out of the containment atmosphere and for cooling the internal atmosphere, thereby keeping the pressure below the containment design pressure.
The basic purpose of the containment system, including its spray and cooling functions, is to minimize the amount of released radioactivity that escapes to the external environment.
Radiotoxicity of fission products over time
Ingestion toxicity of the fission products from a uranium-fueled LWR.
Inhalation toxicity of the fission products from a uranium-fueled LWR.
Can Nuclear Reactions be Sustained in Natural Thorium?
Yes! Enough neutrons to sustain reaction produced at thermal fission. Does not need fast neutron reactors—needs neutronic efficiency.
Thermal Spectrum Moderated Spectrum SpectrumFast
No Advantage for Thorium
U-234
U-232 contaminates U-233 and cannot be removed
– Prevents U-233 being used as weapon
Start
Thorium-Uranium Breeding Cycle
Uranium-233 is fissile and will fission when struck by a neutron, releasing energy and 2 to 3 neutrons. One neutron is needed to sustain the chain-reaction, one neutron is needed for breeding, and any remainder can be used to breed additional fuel.
Thorium-232 absorbs a neutron from fission and
becomes thorium-233.
Th-232
Th-233
Pa-233
U-233
Thorium-233 decays quickly (half-life of 22.3
min) to protactinium-233 by emitting a beta particle (an electron).
Protactinium-233 decays more slowly (half-life of 27 days) to uranium-233 by emitting a beta particle (an electron).
It is important that Pa-233 NOT absorb a neutron before it decays to U-233—it should be isolated from any neutrons until it decays.
1944: A tale of two isotopes…
“But Eugene, how will you reprocess the thorium fuel effectively?”
“We’ll build a fluid-fueled reactor, that’s how…”
ORNL Fluid-Fueled Thorium Reactor Progress (1947-1960)
1947 – Eugene Wigner proposes a fluid-
fueled thorium reactor
1950 – Alvin Weinberg becomes
ORNL director
1952 – Homogeneous Reactor Experiment (HRE-1) built and operated
successfully (100 kWe, 550K)
1958 – Homogeneous Reactor Experiment-2 proposed with 5 MW of
power
1959 – AEC convenes “Fluid Fuels Task Force” to choose between aqueous homogeneous reactor, liquid fluoride, and liquid-metal-fueled reactor. Fluoride reactor is chosen and AHR is cancelled.
Weinberg attempts to keep both aqueous and fluoride reactor efforts going in parallel but ultimately decides to pursue fluoride reactor.
Aircraft Nuclear Program
Between 1946 and 1961, the USAF sought to develop a long-range bomber based on nuclear power.
The Aircraft Nuclear Program had unique requirements, some very similar to a space reactor.
High temperature operation (>1500° F) Critical for turbojet efficiency 3X higher than sub reactors
Lightweight design Compact core for minimal shielding Low-pressure operation
Ease of operability Inherent safety and control Easily removeable
Ionically-bonded fluids are impervious to radiation
The basic problem in nuclear fuel is that it is covalently bonded and in a solid form.
If the fuel were a fluid salt, its ionic bonds would be impervious to radiation damage and the fluid form would allow easy extraction of fission product gases, thus permitting unlimited burnup.
The Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE)
In order to test the liquid-fluoride reactor concept, a solid-core, sodium-cooled reactor was hastily converted into a proof-of-concept liquid-fluoride reactor.
The Aircraft Reactor Experiment ran for 100 hours at the highest temperatures ever achieved by a nuclear reactor (1150 K).
Operated from 11/03/54 to 11/12/54 Liquid-fluoride salt circulated through
beryllium reflector in Inconel tubes 235UF4 dissolved in NaF-ZrF4
Produced 2.5 MW of thermal power Gaseous fission products were removed
naturally through pumping action Very stable operation due to high negative
reactivity coefficient Demonstrated load-following operation
without control rods
It wasn’t that I had suddenly become converted to a belief in nuclear airplanes. It was rather that this was the only avenue open to ORNL for continuing in reactor development.
That the purpose was unattainable, if not foolish, was not so important:
A high-temperature reactor could be useful for other purposes even if it never propelled an airplane…
—Alvin Weinberg
Aircraft Nuclear Program allowed ORNL to develop reactors
ORNL Aircraft Nuclear Reactor Progress (1949-1960)
1949 – Nuclear Aircraft Concept formulated
1951 – R.C. Briant proposed Liquid-Fluoride Reactor
1952, 1953 – Early designs for aircraft fluoride reactor
1954 – Aircraft Reactor Experiment (ARE) built and operated successfully
(2500 kWt, 1150K)
1955 – 60 MWt Aircraft Reactor Test (ART, “Fireball”) proposed for
aircraft reactor
1960 – Nuclear Aircraft Program cancelled in
favor of ICBMs
Fluid-Fueled Reactors for Thorium Energy
Uranium tetrafluoride dissolved in lithium fluoride/beryllium fluoride.
Thorium dissolved as a tetrafluoride. Two built and operated.
Aqueous Homogenous Reactor (ORNL)
Liquid-Fluoride Reactor (ORNL)
Liquid-Metal Fuel Reactor (BNL)
Uranyl sulfate dissolved in pressurized heavy water.
Thorium oxide in a slurry. Two built and operated.
Uranium metal dissolved in bismuth metal.
Thorium oxide in a slurry. Conceptual—none built and
operated.
Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (1965-1969)
LFTR is totally passively safe in case of accident
In the event of TOTAL loss of power, the freeze plug melts and the core salt drains into a passively cooled configuration where nuclear fission is impossible.
The reactor is equipped with a “freeze plug”—an open line where a frozen plug of salt is blocking the flow.
The plug is kept frozen by an external cooling fan.
Freeze Plug
Drain Tank
A “Modern” Fluoride Reactor
LFTR produces far less mining waste than LWR ( ~4000:1 ratio)
Mining 800,000 MT of ore containing 0.2% uranium (260 MT U)
Uranium fuel cycle calculations done using WISE nuclear fuel material calculator: http://www.wise-uranium.org/nfcm.html
Generates ~600,000 MT of waste rock
Conversion to natural UF6 (247 MT U)
Generates 170 MT of solid waste and 1600 m3 of liquid waste
Milling and processing to yellowcake—natural U3O8
(248 MT U)
Generates 130,000 MT of mill tailings
Mining 200 MT of ore containing 0.5%
thorium (1 MT Th)
Generates ~199 MT of waste rock
Milling and processing to thorium nitrate ThNO3 (1 MT Th)
Generates 0.1 MT of mill tailings and 50 kg of aqueous wastes
1 GW*yr of electricity from a uranium-fueled light-water reactor
1 GW*yr of electricity from a thorium-fueled liquid-fluoride reactor
LFTR produces less operational waste than LWR,(mission: make 1000 MW of electricity for one year)
250 t of natural uranium
containing 1.75 t U-235
35 t of enriched uranium (1.15 t U-235)
215 t of depleted uranium containing 0.6 t U-235—disposal plans uncertain.
Uranium-235 content is “burned” out of the fuel; some
plutonium is formed and burned
35 t of spent fuel stored on-site until disposal at Yucca Mountain. It contains:
• 33.4 t uranium-238
• 0.3 t uranium-235
• 0.3 t plutonium
• 1.0 t fission products.
One tonne of natural thorium
Thorium introduced into blanket of fluoride reactor; completely converted to
uranium-233 and “burned”.
One tonne of fission products; no uranium, plutonium, or other actinides.
Within 10 years, 83% of fission products are stable and can be
partitioned and sold.
The remaining 17% fission products go to geologic isolation for
~300 years.
Thorium Fuel Supply
Thorium is abundant around the world and rich in energy
Estimated world reserve base of 1.4 million MT US has about 20% of the world reserve base
A single mine site in Idaho could produce 4500 MT of thorium/year
US currently would use about 400 MT/year for electricity production
The United States has buried 3200 metric tons of thorium
nitrate in the Nevada desert.
World Thorium Resources
Country
Australia
India
USA
Norway
Canada
South Africa
Brazil
Other countries
World total
Reserve Base (tons)340,000
300,000
300,000
180,000
100,000
39,000
18,000
100,000
1,400,000
Source: U.S. Geological Survey, Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2008
A single mine site in Idaho could recover 4500 MT of thorium per year
ANWR times 6 in the Nevada desert
Between 1957 and 1964, the Defense National Stockpile Center procured 3215 metric tonnes of thorium from suppliers in France and India.
Recently, due to “lack of demand”, they decided to bury this entire inventory at the Nevada Test Site.
This thorium is equivalent to 240 quads of energy*, if completely consumed in a liquid-fluoride reactor.
*This is based on an energy release of ~200 Mev/232 amu and complete consumption. This energy can be converted to electricity at ~50% efficiency using a multiple-reheat helium gas turbine; or to hydrogen at ~50% efficiency using a thermo-chemical process such as the sulfur-iodine process.
Thorium Resources in the United States
1
3
4 5
6
78
910
11
13
1415
16
17
18
Lemhi Pass, Idaho (best mining site in US)3200 metric tonnes of thorium nitrate buried at Nevada Test Site
Conway Shale, NH
Monazite beach sands in Georgia and Florida
LFTR could produce many valuable by-products
Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor
Desalination to Potable WaterFacilities Heating
These products may be as important as electricity production
Thorium
Separated Fission Products
Strontium-90 for radioisotope powerCesium-137 for medical sterilizationRhodium, Ruthenium as stable rare-earthsTechnetium-99 as catalystMolybdenum-99 for medical diagnosticsIodine-131 for cancer treatmentXenon for ion engines
Electrical Generation (50% efficiency)
Low-temp Waste Heat
Power Conversion
Power Conversion Electrical
loadElectrolytic H2Process HeatProcess Heat Coal-Syn-Fuel Conversion
Thermo-chemical H2Oil shale/tar sands extraction
Crude oil “cracking”Hydrogen fuel cellAmmonia (NH3) Generation
Fertilizer for AgricultureAutomotive Fuel Cell (very simple)
The byproducts of conventional reactors are more limited
Light-Water Reactor
Light-Water Reactor
Uranium
Electrical Generation (35% efficiency)
Low-temp Waste Heat
Power Conversion
Power Conversion Electrical
loadElectrolytic H2
Crude oil “cracking”Hydrogen fuel cellAmmonia (NH3) Generation
Fertilizer for AgricultureAutomotive Fuel Cell (very simple)
LFTR can be environmentally friendly
Open Pit Mine
Nuclear Waste
Large Cooling Towers
Concern about waste disposal has hampered nuclear industry growth – and energy supply
Concern about waste disposal has hampered nuclear industry growth – and energy supply
Does not produce “green house” gases
Can be air-cooled Consequently does not vent heat into rivers and lakes Smaller cooling towers
Little operations waste Option of retaining waste storage on site
Operational waste products decay very rapidly
Little mining waste No large open pits, large waste “mountains”
Why wasn’t this done? No Plutonium Production!
Alvin Weinberg:“Why didn't the molten-salt system, so elegant and so well
thought-out, prevail? I've already given the political reason: that the plutonium fast breeder arrived first and was therefore able to consolidate its political position within the AEC. But there was another, more technical reason. [Fluoride reactor] technology is entirely different from the technology of any other reactor. To the inexperienced, [fluoride] technology is daunting…
“Mac” MacPherson:The political and technical support for the program in the
United States was too thin geographically…only at ORNL was the technology really understood and appreciated. The thorium-fueled fluoride reactor program was in competition with the plutonium fast breeder program, which got an early start and had copious government development funds being spent in many parts of the United States.
Alvin Weinberg:“It was a successful technology that was dropped because
it was too different from the main lines of reactor development… I hope that in a second nuclear era, the [fluoride-reactor] technology will be resurrected.”
No pressure vessel required Liquid fuel requires no expensive fuel fabrication and
qualification Smaller power conversion system No steam generators required Factory built-modular construction
Scalable: 100 KW to multi GW Smaller containment building needed
Steam vs. fluids Simpler operation
No operational control rods No re-fueling shut down Significantly lower maintenance Significantly smaller staff
Significantly lower capital costs Lower regulatory burden
LFTR could cost much less than LWR
The Current Plan is to Dispose Fuel in Yucca Mountain
Tunnels in Yucca Mountain
Year
2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050
Spe
nt F
uel,
met
ric to
ns
0
100x103
200x103
300x103
Capacity based on limited exploration
Legislated capacity
6-Lab Strategy
MIT Study
EIA 1.5% Growth
Constant 100 GWeSecretarialrecommendation
Projected Spent Fuel Accumulation without Reprocessing
DOE Plan (“GNEP”) for Spent Nuclear Fuel
Uranium-Plutonium Fuel Cycle
UraniumMining
UraniumMilling
UraniumPurification
Natural Uranium
Purification
UraniumEnrichment
IrradiatedFuel
Storage
ConverterReactor
ConverterFuel
Reprocessing
Fuel Fabrication
Conversionto UO2
PermanentWaste
Storage
InterimWaste
Storage
Uranium Ore
Uranium Concentrates
Uranyl Nitrate
PuO2-UO3Stockpile
ConversionTo (Pu,U)O2
BreederFuel
Reprocessing
IrradiatedFuel
Storage
FastBreederReactor
BreederFuel
Fabrication
Conversionto UO2
DepletedUF6
Stockpile
Recycled Mixed PuO2-UO3
Converter High-Level
Waste
High-Level Waste
Breeder High-Level
Waste
Recycled Mixed PuO2-UO3
Irradiated Fuel
Aged Breeder
Fuel
Breeder Fuel
AssembliesDepleted
UO2Depleted
UF6
Enriched UO2
Fuel Assemblies
Irradiated Fuel
Aged Converter
Fuel
Natural UF6
Depleted UF6 ~0.2%
U-235
Enriched UF6
~3% U-235
Natural UO2 or U-metal
Electricity
Electricity
Recycled UF6
Uranium Refining
Recycled Depleted UO3
Mixed Oxides
(Pu,U)O2 ~5% Pu
Mixed Oxides
(Pu,U)O2 ~20% Pu
PuO2-UO3
How does a fluoride reactor use thorium?
FluorideVolatility
VacuumDistillation
Uranium Absorption-Reduction
233,234UF6
7LiF-BeF2-UF4
233UF6
FissionProductWaste
HexafluorideDistillation
FluorideVolatility
7LiF-BeF2
“Bare” Salt
Pa-233Decay Tank
Metallic thorium
MoF6, TcF6, SeF6,RuF5, TeF6, IF7,
Other F6
Fuel Salt
xF6
238U
Core
Blanket
Two-Fluid Reactor
Bism
uth-metal
Reductive E
xtraction C
olumn
Molybdenum and Iodine for Medical Uses
Fertile Salt
Recycle Fertile Salt
Recycle Fuel Salt
Pa
Alternative LFTR/LCFR plan for spent nuclear fuel
Spent Nuclear Fuel from Light-Water Reactors
Step 1: Fluorinate it!
Remove uranium as UF6, which is then either re-
enriched or buried.
UO2 + F2 -> UF4
Zr + F2 -> ZrF4
(TRU)O2 + F2 -> PuF3,NpF4,AmF3, etc.
(FP)O2 + F2 -> (FP)F
Step 2: Use aluminum to remove the TRU-fluorides from the mix, leaving the
fission products
Step 3: Chlorinate (with 37Cl) the metallic TRUs, forming fuel for the chloride reactor.
Step 4: BURN TRU-chlorides in the fast-spectrum chloride reactor, destroying them (through fission) and forming new U-233 for fluoride reactors (LFTR).
Step 5: Dispose of FP-fluorides in 300-yr disposal sites (not Yucca Mtn) and use U-233 from TRU destruction to start LFTRs that produce no further TRUs.
Cost Low capital cost thru small facility and compact power conversion
Reactor operates at ambient pressure No expanding gases (steam) to drive large containment High-pressure helium gas turbine system
Primary fuel (thorium) is inexpensive Simple fuel cycle processing, all done on site
Cost advantages come from size and complexity reductions
GE Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (light-water reactor)
Fluoride-cooled reactor with helium gas turbine power conversion system
Reduction in core size, complexity,
fuel cost, and turbomachinery
Examples of Mobile Nuclear Reactors
Coastal Populations in US
Coastal Populations in Asia
“Gentlemen, our mission…”
Underwater Nuclear Powerplants?
Underwater Nuclear Powerplants?
Underwater Nuclear Powerplants?
Conclusions
Thorium is abundant, has incredible energy density, and can be utilized in thermal-spectrum reactors World thorium energy supplies will last for tens of thousands of years
Solid-fueled reactors have been disadvantaged in using thorium due to their inability to continuously reprocess
Fluid-fueled reactors, such as the liquid-fluoride reactor, offer the promise of complete consumption of thorium in energy generation
The world would be safer with thorium-fueled reactors Not an avenue for weapons production
The US should adopt a new “business model” for nuclear power for the country’s long term strategic needs
Learn more at:
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/
http://www.energyfromthorium.com/
http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/
Executive SummaryLiquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR)
A nuclear technology that was demonstrated successfully 40 years ago Highly energy efficient and able to completely utilize nuclear fuel Intrinsically safe due to the physics
Meltdown-proof and self-controlling Runs at 1 atmosphere pressure Use of fluid allows the burning of all fuel, thus no need for control rods, periodic solid fuel
element replacement, etc. Produces orders of magnitude less waste than traditional light water reactors
(LWR) Thorium reactor produces 30-40 times less nuclear waste that a light water reactor Waste from LFTR need be stored for much less time than those from a LWR
Current supply of nuclear waste can be burned down in the LFTR to waste products that need to be stored for much less time No transuranic element production Yucca Mountain not a requirement for long term waste storage
Can use air or water for cooling Critical for arid areas such as the Western United States
Unsuitable for nuclear weapons Thorium fuel supply is abundant and produces less mining waste than uranium
Thorium four times as common in the Earth’s crust as uranium Could provide the US electrical energy needs for hundreds to thousands of years
and provide base power needed for non-electrical energy and resource production Coal gasification, water desalinization, oil sands and oil shale processing, etc.