Editor,
Thank you, John Tyczkowski, for showing your open support of nuclear power in the press in the Sept. 20 issue of the Daily Lobo in your column, “Thorium better for nuclear power.” We need more people outside of just the nuclear power community voicing their support for nuclear power. I myself am part of the said community as I am a graduate student in nuclear engineering here at UNM and attained my bachelor’s degree this past spring in it. However, as a member of that community, I can’t see an article like this and not voice a fact-checking opinion.
Your argument for thorium power features several pitfalls. The first is your statement about how mining and milling is safer for workers mining thorium, when in reality it is also very safe for uranium to be mined. Uranium gives off primarily alpha radiation as well. The gamma radiation that is emitted is very low energy and in very low quantities, and in many cases is shielded as uranium itself is a metal that is denser than lead, a typical gamma shielding option.
You also don’t seem to present a clear understanding of how a thorium reactor would work. The main event that causes heat generation in nuclear power is fission, and Th-232 — which is the only naturally occurring isotope of thorium — does not fission. It instead needs to be “bred” into U-233, an isotope of uranium which will fission with any level of neutron energy. For this reason you need a neutron chain reaction to breed that U-233, so thorium reactors still require a significant amount of U-235-enriched fuel.
In simpler terms, a nuclear power reactor cannot be powered simply by Th-232; it still requires uranium. For this reason, attempts at thorium reactors have failed in the past on both economic and engineering levels. Just look at seed and blanket designs that have been proposed for the past several decades.
In addition, you say that there is a lower proliferation risk, but that is not the case because you are breeding U-233. U-233 is as great a proliferation risk as Pu-239 according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Thus it may actually be less secure to use than low-enriched U-235.
Finally, your claim about nuclear-powered planes fails to point out that for any airborne nuclear unit, the signature of the president is required. With our current and past administrations, I don’t think this is going to happen.
I don’t mean to belittle your argument. I just think that before you submit opinions such as this for printing, you should come see individuals like myself or any other nuclear engineer here at the Farris Engineering Center second floor so that we can read over and edit what you are saying before you publish what might be harmful misinformation about nuclear power.
Philip Lafreniere
UNM student
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
