Outline Section:
Body #1: Abundance of Thorium
Adaptation:
The first major argument
for Thorium based reactors is the abundance and efficiency of Thorium compared
to Uranium as a source of fuel. The major problem with the current situation of
nuclear energy is the amount of Uranium that is available to be used as a
source of nuclear fuel. According to Danny West of the University of San Francisco,
there is only enough Uranium left in the world for nuclear fission for “another
100 years” at the current consumption rate of uranium (West, Danny). This
sounds like enough energy until the world discovers the ultimate source of
renewable energy, right? It’s not that simple. There might be enough Uranium on
earth but obtaining that Uranium, refining it, and selling it is going to become
too much for the world to handle. Thorium on the other hand is much more of an
accessible resource. Thorium is so common that it is found in almost any mine
where rare-earth metals are mined (Boyle, Rebecca). It’s so common that miners don’t
see it as something they need to collect and store. The market for Thorium is
so small and the price is incredibly lower for a gram of Thorium than it is for
a gram of Uranium, which according to the United States Department of Energy’s
page on Prices and Certificates has the price for has Uranium being 2.25 times
as expensive as Thorium (“Prices and Certificates”). The reason for this giant
gap can be attributed to the large amount of Thorium compared to Uranium, roughly
“three to four times more
naturally abundant,” (Ashley, Stephen F.).
Added to this
abundance bonus for Thorium, is the efficiency of the Nuclear fuel that it is
used to create. The current design of Uranium reactors have a large flaw when
it comes to the efficiency of the fuel. The fuel rods in Light Water Reactors
(LWRs) are solid and are coated in Zirconium which doesn’t allow anything in or
out of the rod. This means that during nuclear fission, the gases produced are
not able to escape without risk of damaging the structure of the rod[1].
This means that the rod is not completely used up in the reaction and what is
not used is simply discarded with the used material (West, Danny). This unnecessary
waste of material doesn’t happen with LFTRs. Because the Thorium fuel is
already a liquid the gases can easily escape without damaging the fuel and
allowing the fuel to reacting completely. When looking at the production of
electricity of the two types of reactors “a 1 GW LWR” uses around 225 tons of
Low Enriched Uranium (LEU) per year, whereas a LFTR would only use “one ton of
processed thorium” (West, Danny). This is a massive difference in material
needed to produce the same amount of electricity. With the combined abundance
and efficiency of Thorium based reactors it is clear that Thorium is on the
path to being a viable source of energy.
[1] During
Nuclear fission, gases like Hydrogen and Xenon are produced in the decaying
process which are highly radioactive.
Question Answers:
1. How did you decide to use form to present your content in the raw material you’ve shared here? How did the conventions of your chosen genre influence your choices?
I used the form of a College Standard Essay because I feel like I can convey my argument better and reference my sources easier. The ability to cite information and the rigid structure of the Standard College Essay were the two conventions that influenced my decision.
2. How did the production of this raw material go? What kinds of any hiccups, challenges, successes, creative epiphanies, etc. occurred during the process?
There were not any obstacles in adapting this content section. The production of the raw material went very well, It actually went quicker than expected.
There were not any obstacles in adapting this content section. The production of the raw material went very well, It actually went quicker than expected.
ReplyDeleteThis is crazy behind schedule but it’s been a rough few weeks. So, after reading your “Production Report 11b” I have some thoughts:
I love the credibility you assume. The way you speak about the topic makes the reader want to believe you. Perhaps you touch on this in your introduction, but why do you care about this topic? Is it in your major? Do you want to work on energy sorts of things in your career? What else makes you credible?
You also present a lot of neat ideas in your body paragraph. However, it seems like most of them are communicated through evidence, not analysis of those sources. Maybe including some of your own ideas or thoughts in response to other people’s ideas could help some. What do you think about uranium's high cost relative to thorium? What do you think about thorium being so much more naturally abundant? What do you think about thorium being brushed aside as unimportant?
Adding in some clear statements about your stance could help strengthen your argument. You have a great collection ideas. It looks like your argument is going to be really strong. (: