Is your next vehicle going to be a thorium powered car? | Ford Explorer Forums

  • Register Today It's free!

Is your next vehicle going to be a thorium powered car?

BrooklynBay

Moderator & long time member.
Staff member
Moderator
Elite Explorer
Joined
November 11, 2005
Messages
57,113
Reaction score
1,416
City, State
Brooklyn, NY
Year, Model & Trim Level
88 89 93 95 96 Aerostars
http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811/index.html

U.S. Researcher Preparing Prototype Cars Powered by Heavy-Metal Thorium.

By Keith Nuthall
WardsAuto.com, Aug 11, 2011 9:21 AM

A U.S. company says it is getting closer to putting prototype electric cars on the road that will be powered by the heavy-metal thorium.

Thorium is a naturally occurring, slightly radioactive rare-earth element discovered in 1828 by the Swedish chemist Jons Jakob Berzelius, who named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. It is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils, where it is about three times more abundant than uranium.

However, the use of thorium is controversial because, as with uranium, it is used as a nuclear power source. Indeed, the internal heat of the Earth largely is attributed to the presence of thorium and uranium.

The key to the system developed by inventor Charles Stevens, CEO and chairman of Connecticut-based Laser Power Systems, is that when silvery metal thorium is heated by an external source, it becomes so dense its molecules give off considerable heat.

Small blocks of thorium generate heat surges that are configured as a thorium-based laser, Stevens tells Ward’s. These create steam from water within mini-turbines, generating electricity to drive a car.

A 250 MW unit weighing about 500 lbs. (227 kg) would be small and light enough to drop under the hood of a car, he says.

Jim Hedrick, a specialist on industrial minerals – and until last year the U.S. Geological Survey’s senior advisor on rare earths – tells Ward’s the idea is “both plausible and sensible.”

Because thorium is so dense, similar to uranium, it stores considerable potential energy: 1 gm of thorium equals the energy of 7,500 gallons (28,391 L) of gasoline Stevens says. So, using just 8 gm of thorium in a car should mean it would never need refueling.

Stevens’ prototype systems generate electricity within 30 seconds of firing a laser. This can feed power into a car, without the need for storage.

If his technology were to become successful on a commercial scale, one advantage would be that thorium is fairly common throughout the world. However, the distribution of thorium resources is poor because of relatively low-key exploration efforts arising out of insignificant demand.

The U.S. Geological Survey’s estimated thorium reserves in 2010 shows the U.S. leading with 440,900 tons (440,000 t), followed by Australia with 333,690 tons (300,000 t). However, several world organizations conclude India may possess the lion's share of the world's thorium deposits, with estimates ranging from 319,667 to 716,490 tons (290,000-1650,000 t).

Natural thorium has little radioactivity, Stevens says. What isotopes there are could be blocked by aluminum foil, so the power unit’s 3-in. (7.6-cm) thick stainless-steel box should do the trick.

“The issue is having a customized application that is purpose-made,” he says, admitting that developing a portable and usable turbine and generator is proving to be a tougher task than the laser-thorium unit.

“How do you take the laser and put these things together efficiently?” he asks rhetorically. But once that is achieved, “This car will run for a million miles. The car will wear out before the engine. There is no oil, no emissions – nothing.”

Stevens says his company should be able to place a prototype on the road within two years. The firm has 40 employees and operates out of an in-house research workshop.

Hedrick, the industrial minerals expert, says 7,500 gallons is “way more gasoline than an average person uses in a year. Switching to thorium-driven cars would make the U.S. energy self-sufficient, and carbon emissions would plummet.

“It would eliminate the major need for oil,” he says. “The main (remaining) demand would be for asphalt for roadways, natural gas, plastics and lubricants.”

Stevens’ research is part of growing efforts to develop thorium as an energy source. Scientists in India, for example, long have tried to heat thorium sufficiently to cause a self-sustaining fission reaction that can run major power plants, without the nuclear waste problems of uranium-based generators. Some North American companies are doing the same thing.

Canon Bryan, CEO of Vancouver, BC, Canada-based Thorium One, knows Stevens’ work and agrees thorium-based fuel sources are “scalable and energy efficient. There’s no reason why it should not be able to power cars.”

Thorium has unique properties that make it useful as such a source, he says. For instance, it has the highest melting point of all oxides.

So if thorium would be a safe and abundant fuel source for vehicles, other devices and even power stations, why is it not being utilized widely?

Stevens, Hedrick and Bryan all have the same answer: After World War II, a strategic decision was undertaken by industrialized nations to pursue uranium-driven energy instead, because its by-product – plutonium – could be weaponized. By contrast, it is almost impossible to make a bomb out of thorium.

However, a recent International Energy Agency report accepts there is widespread interest in thorium-power sources, with research being conducted in India, Russia, Germany, France, the Netherlands and elsewhere.

The IEA notes research from Switzerland-based physics institute CERN that proposes “the use of thorium as the feed material in accelerator-driven systems, which could serve as an energy source with minimum long-term waste production,” although this is for power generation.

But there still is skepticism in the nuclear-energy research world about using thorium as a power source, especially in mobile applications.

Reza Hashemi-Nezhad, director of the Institute of Nuclear Science at the University of Sydney, Australia, says nuclear power plants already run submarines and could operate oil tankers, “but they are not small enough to fit in the boot (trunk) of a car.”

And amid widespread concerns about terrorism, would governments allow scores of nuclear sources to roam the freeways? Processed thorium can produce uranium 233 as a byproduct. Would governments allow charging an electric vehicle using radioactive material in private garages?

“Nobody will allow that to happen,” Hashemi-Nezhad says.

Hedrick thinks such concerns are overblown, stressing thorium’s by-products are very hard to turn into weapons-grade material, requiring an immense amount of work and energy.

Stevens agrees, emphasizing his system is “subcritical.” This means no nuclear reaction occurs within the thorium. It remains in the same state and is not turned into uranium 233, which happens only if thorium is sufficiently super-heated to generate a fission reaction.

“It’s very safe,” he says.

thorium.jpg

Thorium has the highest melting point of all oxides at 3,182° F.

thorium-gallery.jpg
 



Join the Elite Explorers for $20 each year or try it out for $5 a month.

Elite Explorer members see no advertisements, no banner ads, no double underlined links,.
Add an avatar, upload photo attachments, and more!
.





Very good article:thumbsup:.... I doubt thorium powered cars will be available for widespread use though withing the next 20 (possibly up to 50) years..... and not because the technology is out of reach or too exotic.

Edit: One thing I should point out, the article is claiming the reactor could produce 250 MW, which would be the equivalent of like locomotives..... The website for the developer says 250 HP.
 






steam recovery?

One problem with the concept is using the thorium heat source to boil water into steam that rotates a turbine. Lear spent millions of dollars decades ago trying to find a way to recover the water vapor from a vehicle steam power plant. He finally gave up. There is also the issue of water freezing in cold climates. Adding antifreeze lowers the freeze temperature but also raises the boiling temperature. Using antifreeze also demands more complete water vapor recovery.
 






The original steam cars burned kerosene with a pilot light running to keep the water warm so that it would start up faster (less time to boil the water since it's warm). There might be a similar way to use thorium to keep the water warm. Maybe a solar powered laser diode focusing a beam to strike the thorium with a temperature sensor to control the reaction?
 






or a eutectic salt tank to recover waste heat from drive cycles.... Plus, one could reasonably plug the car into your home to keep it warm, or use the energy the car can produce to help support the grid.
 












Well, heating water is the most common way to convert any type of energy source into kinetic energy, and is used in all nuclear reactors, coal power plants, water-based solar power plants... Basically anything you can think of.

Yes, using *heat* as a power source will ALWAYS be a bad idea. It's the lowest "quality" of energy, and due to that, it's hard to control. Go entropy.
(Your current gasoline beast basically does the same thing, and both's efficiency is limited by the Carnot cycle)

However, seeing our energy source creates massive amounts of internal energy (Heat), that's what we have to deal with. Water is a great medium for this.

Anti-freeze wouldn't really be something to worry about. It'll melt eventually. (We ARE dealing with massive amounts of heat. Plus, if heavy water is used, it will also have the side-effect of requiring more energy to freeze, due to the increased mass. In other words, it will take a lot longer to freeze.)

For the entire legal issue - You only need 10gm to power your car longer than most will use it. You don't need to recharge in your garage, you can have it done at a lab. After all, it's a one-time thing.

Btw, the 250MW is the heat output - There's a lot of loss here, but 250hp is only 186kW. Hopefully, there's a higher efficiency than 0.0744%... At an efficiency of 1%, you'd be able to power a 2500kW electric motor continuously, which converts to 3351hp. I'm sure that's enough for most of you out there. In other words, 250MW is an overkill. Not just a small overkill, a massive overkill.

(A simple steam turbine has an efficiency of 1-10%, and the more advanced ones go up to around 40-50%. You'll never reach anything near 90%, but hey, it's better than 0.0744%...)
 






Featured Content

Back
Top