Can Thorium Replace Coal and Uranium in Africa? - 2022

Nuclear Power Industry / Thorium Power Industry

Yende reported in late January, 2022 that rather than opting for green energy sources such as solar and wind to reduce carbon emissions, an environmental activist believes that African countries should consider thorium-fueled nuclear plants for energy generation. Thorium, unlike uranium, which is commonly used in the generation of nuclear power, is abundant in nature. It is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils, and is about three times more plentiful than uranium. Uranium, on the other hand, is only found in small amounts in most rocks and also in sea water. [Note: Misinformation Alert: Uranium widely occurs in deposits in the U.S. and in many parts of the world and would supply the needs for at least 100 years (more) and (more)]

South Africa is currently relying heavily on coal-powered electricity plants, which are responsible for the country’s significant greenhouse emissions footprint and have seen environmentalists protesting against the persistent use of fossil fuels. Clean energy sources such as solar and wind are variable, but others such as biomass, geothermal, hydroelectric power and ocean energy are not, making them more reliable energy generators.

Environmental activist Philip Owen of environmental pressure group GeaSphere told City Press this week that the use of thorium as a nuclear reactor fuel has many benefits. Owen said:

"It produces much less waste. The waste produced is much less radioactive. Thorium waste breaks down in 500 years, compared with 10,000 plus years for uranium."

He said that the same amount of energy could be produced from one ton of thorium as from 200 tons of uranium or 3.5 million tons of coal.

“Thorium is incredibly energy-dense, with the implication that much less mining will have to occur. I have become convinced that new-generation nuclear reactors with thorium as a fuel source are the most effective way of decarbonizing in the energy sector, and that African civil society should unite and demand the best available technology from our leaders,” he said.

The benefits of thorium have been known since the 1950s, Owen said, but uranium had an advantage and an edge because its by-product, plutonium, was used in nuclear weapons, however, thorium cannot be weaponized. He said that, with thorium use, Africa would mine less and still produce enough energy and stabilize the grid: 

"Solar panels come at a cost because they need other things such as batteries and, when it rains, you will need some form of back-up such as a generator. So diversity is key to sustainability on our planet. We can have wind, solar, geothermal and thorium-based energy. Solar and wind are tied to the fossil fuel industry and big money, and cannot provide the stable caseload we require."

He said that small modular reactors could be used in a decentralized way. Owen also said he thought that decentralized renewable energy derived from micro hydroelectric and geothermal sources had lots of potential, but there was a need for a stable baseload to power transport systems and cities, which thorium-based nuclear power could provide. He said that since it would take many years to wean countries off of coal-generated power, thorium could be the solution.

“We can talk about biomass energy, but it creates carbon debt because you quickly burn timber that takes a long time to grow. Biomass on a large scale cannot be good. It takes 35 tons of biomass per hour to produce only 25 megawatts of electricity,” he said.

Ulrich Steenkamp, program officer at environmental and anti-nuclear organization Earthlife Africa, agreed that waste from thorium nuclear power plants was not as radioactive as that of uranium fuel. However, Steenkamp said, the entire fuel chain of thorium reactors is still carbon-intensive, “therefore, we should not be fooled into thinking that it is a solution to climate change mitigation because many of the existing problems of using uranium-based fuel rods for nuclear reactors are still present in thorium processing”.

Steenkamp said: 

"First, the carbon-intensive processes required to mine [and] process the fuel will contribute to climate change instead of mitigating it. Second, because said processes are energy-intensive and given South Africa’s heavily coal-based energy generation sector, the mere utilization of said energy will also lead to more greenhouse gas emissions, which is contrary to the aim of climate change mitigation."

He said that replacing uranium with thorium would still exacerbate the ongoing runaway human-induced climate crisis.

“It is also not a good replacement for coal as our primary energy resource because the technology required is either outdated or unproven, and it is still actively emitting greenhouse gasses,” Steenkamp said.

He said that a more feasible alternative to uranium and thorium nuclear energy, as well as coal-fired power stations, would be a mass rolling out of renewable energy technologies, including storage systems.

“These are less harmful to the environment, are cheaper to build and will employ more people. Renewable energy would therefore be the best option to ensure a just transition to a low-carbon economy and to ensure a better life for all,” he said.

[Note: For a broad look at the potential of thorium, see (here)]