Schaub 4:00
L18
Viability of Alternative Nuclear Reactors and Their Potential Impacts
on Society
Ben Tushar (blt26@pitt.edu)
INTRODUCTION
My Name is Benjamin Tushar, I am the President of
Nucleenergy. Nucleenergy is a small, government-funded
engineering research firm that works exclusively on
developing new, cutting-edge nuclear reactors, specifically
those using thorium as their fuel. As of now, Nucleenergy is
the only firm to have its own fully-functioning Liquid
Fluoride Thorium Reactor. I am in charge of development of
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor’s and am very close to
creating a reactor that can be used worldwide in both large
cities and remote villages with the potential to provide
sustainable power to the entire world and end the energy
crisis.
Figure 1 Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Schematic
[10]
THE TECHNOLOGY AND WHY IT
MATTERS
The United States currently runs their nuclear power
supply off the isotope Uranium 238. However Thorium 232
is a much better nuclear fuel for several reasons. First of all,
Th232 is 4 times more abundant than U238. In fact, Thorium
is currently treated as a waste byproduct of Uranium mining.
Due to its abundance, the world’s Thorium supply is projected
to last 15,000 years as compared to the 100 years that the
current Uranium supply will last. Thorium also has 300 times
the energy potential of Uranium and 3.5 million times the
energy potential of coal. [4] Another perk of Thorium is that
it is also much safer than Uranium. Uranium in current
reactors is very unstable and can melt down and cause
catastrophic damage to any are surrounding a nuclear accident
such as Chernobyl or Fukushima. However Thorium specific
reactors are virtually meltdown proof. [1] Lastly, in today’s
world of terrorists and nuclear disarmament, Thorium and the
products of its nuclear reactions cannot be turned into
weapons of mass destruction: “‘It can't be used as a bomb,’
Kutsch says. ‘You could have 1,000 pounds in your basement,
and nothing would happen.’” [3]
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTRs), also called
Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs), run on Thorium Fluoride salts
which create a fission reaction when melted at approximately
400 degrees Celsius, which also happens to be the perfect
temperature for producing electricity. Also, unlike
conventional reactors, they do not need to be pressurized and
therefore do not need large, heavy containment units,
meaning that they are much more versatile than current rector
systems, and can be applied to a wide range of places and
scenarios. [1]
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are also incredibly
safe: “The MSR design has two primary safety advantages.
Its liquid fuel remains at much lower pressures than the solid
fuel in light-water plants. This greatly decreases the
likelihood of an accident, such as the hydrogen explosions
that occurred at Fukushima. Further, in the event of a power
outage, a frozen salt plug within the reactor melts and the
liquid fuel passively drains into tanks where it solidifies,
stopping the fission reaction. ‘The molten-salt reactor is walkaway safe," Kutsch says. "If you just abandoned it, it had no
power, and the end of the world came--a comet hit Earth--it
would cool down and solidify by itself.’” Due to the stability
of the fuel and passive safety measures of the reactor, Molten
Salt Reactors could change the public opinion of nuclear
energy to one of a positive future rather than have its public
image be made up of memories of Hiroshima, Three Mile
Island, Chernobyl, and Fukushima. [3] [10]
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are extremely
adaptable. Due to their self-contained design and passive
safety measures, they can be put in a variety of places. For
instance, small Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors could be
used in remote villages to provide electricity for schools,
hospitals, and water purification. They could also be used on
military bases as a safer, more efficient alternative to gas
guzzling generators. The current gas-powered generators are
more volatile than a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, being
that they run on gasoline which I explosive and dangerous.
Also gasoline supply convoys crossing though enemy
territory to bring gas for the generators are prime, targets for
ambush because they are vulnerable and carry valuable cargo.
Alternatively, if bases were to use Liquid Fluoride Thorium
Reactors, only small amounts of Fluorine Thorium salts
would need to be delivered at a time, and could therefore be
transported by air as opposed to the gasoline convoys. [2]
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2014-10-28
Ben Tushar
According to Dr. Kirk Sorenson, a researcher for NASA,
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are the most viable means
of power for a colony on the moon. A Liquid Fluoride
Thorium Reactor would power everything in a moon colony
including lights to grow plants which provide both food and
clean air, water filtration systems, and computers that control
the different aspects of the colony to make sure it runs
smoothly. There is also an abundance of thorium on the moon,
meaning that the moon colony can be self-sustaining and will
not require expensive supply missions sent from earth. [1]
There are, however, a few drawbacks to Liquid Fluoride
Thorium Reactors. First, despite their efficiency, they still
produce radioactive nuclear waste that is difficult to dispose
of. Thorium also needs to be mined, which can cause
environmental harm. Luckily, a lot of thorium has already
been stockpiled because it is a byproduct of uranium mining.
[3]
detrimental to the future of the world as Liquid Fluoride
Thorium Reactor technology is by far the best option for
worldwide sustainable energy to date.
On the other hand, if I choose not to report the leak, it
could have devastating effects on the surrounding
environment and those inhabiting it. However, the
Nucleenergy facility is not in a metropolitan area and will
therefore the leak only affect a small number of people. Also,
the leak is very slow and will take many years to have any
adverse effects on the surrounding area. Over this time I could
finish the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor and help bring the
world back from the fossil fuel energy crisis.
CONSULTATIONS
In order to help clarify what decision I should make, I
turn to several sources. First of all, I look to the National
Society of Professional Engineers code of ethics which states
that an engineer should “hold paramount the health, safety,
and welfare of the public.” [5] However even though not
reporting the leak endangers the public in the immediate area,
it also increases the health and safety of the public worldwide
by allowing the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor project to
continue. Looking for a more specific answer to my dilemma,
I consult the American Nuclear Society’s code of ethics which
states “We hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of
the public and fellow workers, work to protect the
environment, and strive to comply with the principles of
sustainable development in the performance of our
professional duties. We will formally advise our employers,
clients, or any appropriate authority and, if warranted,
consider further disclosure, if and when we perceive that
pursuit of our professional duties might have adverse
consequences for the present or future public and fellow
worker health and safety or the environment.” [6] This is a
more concrete answer leaning towards reporting the leak,
however, there are still areas that are in favor of continuing
the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor research. Protecting the
environment and complying with principles of sustainable
development are both grey areas in that even though the leak
is hurting the immediate environment, the successful
development of mass produced Liquid Fluoride Thorium
Reactors will drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and
worldwide pollution.
Having decided that the codes of ethics were not
decisive enough, I look to several case studies to search for
answers. I come across several studies involving whether or
not engineers should report an ethical violation including
National Society of Professional Engineers’ Case 13-11, and
Texas Technological University’s Cases 1008 and 1039. [7]
[8] [9] In each study, an engineer is confronted with the
decision whether or not to report a violation, specifically one
involving environmental harm. The answer each time is that
the engineer should report the violation, however in each case
there is no significant downfall to reporting the violation
except a lawsuit for breach of contract and no public is hurt in
THE DILEMMA
One day while running experiments on Nucleenergy’s
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, I am checking the
underground nuclear waste containment unit in order to
measure the amount of thorium left over in the reactor waste.
The percentage of unburned thorium in the waste tells me the
efficiency at which the reactor is running as well as helps me
determine how to treat the nuclear waste so that as much
Thorium as possible can be extracted and re-used in the
reactor. The waste is stored as an aqueous solution of Fluorine
salts and water because the water is able to neutralize some of
the radiation. While running my tests, I hear a drip. I go to
investigate the sound and locate a small leak in the
containment unit that has gone undetected by the computer
systems and is dripping the waste onto the ground at about a
drop every few hours.
My first reaction is to immediately pull the alarm,
however I realize that if I were to do so, all of Nucleenergy’s
funding would have to be spent on a new waste containment
unit and the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor project and
most likely all of Nucleenergy would be doomed.
ANALYZING THE OPTIONS
I run back to my office and immediately lock the door
and begin to think about how to confront the situation before
me. As far as I can tell, there are two choices: report the leak
or ignore it.
If I report the leak, it will cost millions of dollars to
replace the nuclear waste containment unit, which is money
that Nucleenergy doesn’t have, especially after the
government recently cut our research funding again in order
to add more to the military budget. Therefore, reporting the
leak would result in the closing of Nucleenergy, and
consequently, the end of our Liquid Fluoride Thorium
Reactor research. If this research is discontinued, it could be
2
Ben Tushar
the long run from the engineer reporting the violation.
However, in my case, if I report the leak and the Liquid
Fluoride Thorium Reactor project is cut short, military bases
will continue to be vulnerable to attack, impoverished people
in remote villages will not be able to get the healthcare or
purified water they need and people will continue to die.
Distraught by my conundrum, I turn to my life’s
mentors who have always helped me to make the right
decision in the past. First, I turn to my parents who have
always helped support me in my times of need. However they
are only able to support me and tell me to follow my gut and
that no matter what choice I make, they’re proud of me. Next
I call my high school religion teacher Mr. Ryan whose years
of experience from fighting in the Vietnam War to being a
chaplain at a prison have made him one of the wisest men I’ve
ever known. During my conversation with him, he reminds
me of a story he told me in class in which a village on a river
in which the villagers come across babies being sent down the
river in baskets and the villagers rescue them. As the number
of babies increases, the villagers are overwhelmed. One
villager suggests that they go upriver to find the source of the
babies, but to do so, they must allow some babies to continue
down the river. The villagers reject this idea and spend the
rest of their lives in misery gathering babies from the river and
taking care of them.
CONCLUSION
Although some may be appalled by my decision to let
people get hurt in this scenario, by not reporting the leak, I
was able to help many more in the long run and did my best
to make amends with those who were affected by the
radiation. My job as an engineer is not simply to not allow
people to get hurt, but to do the most good for the greatest
number of people. In this case, the ends justify the means.
REFERENCES
[1] K. Sorenson “Can Thorium End Our Energy Crisis?”
TED
Talk
(Online
Video)
http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alterna
tive_nuclear_fuel
[2] K. Thomson “Concepts & Prototypes: Two Next-Gen
Nukes”
Popular
Science
(Online
Article)
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-06/nextgen-nuke-designs-promise-safe-efficient-emissions-freeenergy
[3] “Asgard's Fire; Thorium Reactors.” The Economist
(Online
Article)
http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?action=interpret&id=GALE
%7CA364432781&v=2.1&u=upitt_main&it=r&p=AONE&
sw=w&authCount=1>.
DECISION
In Mr. Ryan’s story is been the answer I was looking for.
I make the decision to not report the leak but rather continue
my research on the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor because
I must do the most good for the greatest number of people,
even if I must allow others to get hurt in the process. The first
case of radiation poisoning near the Nucleenergy plant
emerges ten years after my discovery of the leak. By thus time
Nucleenergy has become the world’s leader in energy
production and provides billions of people with safe,
sustainable thorium energy. Through the Thorium for Good
fund, Nucleenergy has provided millions of impoverished
people with Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors to provide the
energy they need to purify their water, power their schools
and hospitals, and give them communication with others
through computers and phones that they did not have access
to before. Through all of this, Nucleenergy has saved
hundreds of thousands of lives and has significantly reduced
environmental pollution. Upon hearing of the radiation
poisoning case, I immediately call the EPA and surrender
myself. I am sentenced to 3 years in federal prison with a fine
of 7.5 million dollars. The EPA declares all land within a 20
mile radius of the plant uninhabitable and the plant itself is
shut down. Per my request, Nucleenergy pays the families
affected double their requested settlements as well as covers
all medical expenses of those affected by the radiation and
funds a project to build new homes outside the radiation zone
for all those forced to relocate.
[4] D. Serfotein and E. Mulder “Thorium-based Fuel
Cycles: Reassessment of Fuel Economics and Proliferation
Risk”
(Online
Article)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S00295493
1300602X
[5] “Code of Ethics.” National Society of Professional
Engineers
(Online
Article)
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[6] “Code of Ethics” American Nuclear Society (Online
Article) http://www.ans.org/about/coe/
[7] “Case 1008: To Flush or Not to Flush: That is the
Question” National Institute for Engineering Ethics (Case
Study)
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
[8] “Case 1039: I’d Rather Be Fishing” National Institute
for
Engineering
Ethics
(Case
Study)
http://www.depts.ttu.edu/murdoughcenter/products/cases.ph
p
[9] NSPE Board of Ethical Review “Case 13-11: Public
Health and Safety-Delay in Addressing Fire Code Violations”
3
Ben Tushar
National Society of Professional Engineers (Case Study)
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%20No
%2013-11-FINAL.pdf
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
C. Hays “Atomic Accidents: A History of Nuclear
Meltdowns and Disasters: From the Ozark Mountains to
Fukushima” (Book)
D. Ryan “The Babies in the River Story” (Story)
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to my mom for getting me a subscription to
Popular Science.
Thanks to Dr. Sharvan Kumar for getting me interested
in nuclear energy.
Thanks to Mr. Ryan for being the most awesome and
inspirational teacher ever.
4