The document discusses the future of power generation and proposes liquid fluoride thorium reactors as a sustainable solution. It begins by outlining the environmental issues with fossil fuels and nuclear energy's benefits over other renewable energy sources. However, traditional nuclear reactors carry meltdown and waste risks. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors could eliminate these risks by being meltdown-proof and producing minimal long-lived waste. They are also more economical and sustainable long-term. The document concludes that thorium reactors could revolutionize energy by providing clean, safe nuclear power for generations.

1. The Future of
Power Generation
BY JOEY ZHOU

2. Introduction
Throughout mankind’s fifty thousand year history, humans learned to make energy their servants. The discovery of fire
allowed humans to access an immediate source of heat. Harnessing the energy of animals and slaves to harvest fields,
boosting crop yields. Sails on ships used wind power to transport humans from place to place. Then came the industrial
revolution, the new fossil-fuel based technologies advanced mankind like never before. Human population and
standards of living in industrialized states increased exponentially. By the end of the 20th Century, most of the global
population relied solely on fossil fuels. Petroleum powers the transportation industry, while coal and natural gas fuels
power generation. However, as the consumption of fossil fuel increased, so did environmental degradation. Burning fossil
fuels release large amounts of greenhouse gases, causing global warming. In response to the negative environmental
impacts of fossil fuels, researchers began looking for new ways to generate energy for society. The most efficient form of
clean energy involves nuclear power. Unlike other clean energy sources, its large power-generating capacity is able to
meet the demands of large cities and countries, while also running on a plentiful fuel source. Despite these benefits,
nuclear energy come with many risks such as nuclear meltdown and the disposal of radioactive waste products. This
report evaluates the environmental effects of nuclear energy and proposes a solution to a more sustainable, safe and
clean energy source.

3. What are fossil fuels?
 Fossil fuels are fuels formed by the decomposition of buried dead organisms. It can
take the form of petroleum, oil, and natural gas.
 The combustion of fossil fuels can be used to produce a significant amount of energy
per unit weight.
 According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), it is estimated that in
2010, the worldwide energy consumption by fossil fuel based sources was over 80%

4. So What?
 The burning of fossil fuels raises serious
international environmental concerns.
 Combustion of fossil fuels emit greenhouse
gases and other harmful air pollutants that
enhances the effect of global warming,
contributes to acid rain and gives rise to other
environmental issues.
 Ever since the industrial revolution, the amount
of carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of
fossil fuels rose exponentially. Accounting for
more than 90% of greenhouse gas emissions.

5. So What?
 Air pollutions of fossil fuel particles cause negative health effects
when inhaled by humans and wildlife.
 These health concerns may include respiratory illness, asthma,
bronchitis, and cancers.
 The burning of fossil fuels also releases radioactive materials into the
atmosphere.
 According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, “In 2000, about
12000 tonnes of thorium and 5000 tons of uranium were released
worldwide from burning coal” (Cleveland). The amount of
radioactivity released in 2000 is hundreds of times greater than the
Three Mile Island nuclear meltdown accident.

6. So What?
 Furthermore, fossil fuels are considered to be a non-
renewable energy source.
 At the current rate of consumption, fossil fuels will be
completely depleted by the end of this century.
 “If we step up production to fill the gap left through
depleting our oil and gas reserves, the coal deposits
we know about will only give us enough energy to
take us as far as 2088” ("The End Of Fossil Fuels”)

7. Nuclear Energy
 Fossil fuel burning is a global-scale issue due to massive
amounts of emissions of greenhouse gases and other toxic
air pollutants. Mitigation of these effects can be
accomplished by the large-scale utilization of nuclear
power. Unlike power plants that utilizes fossil fuels, nuclear
reactors produce little greenhouse gas emissions.
 In a recent paper published by the National Aeronautics
and Space Association (NASA), their quantitative analysis
on the effects of nuclear power on human and
environmental health concluded that nuclear power
“nuclear power prevented an average of 64 gigatonnes of
[greenhouse gas] emissions globally between 1971-2009”
("National Aeronautics and Space Administration”).

8. Nuclear Energy
 NASA also compared the toxic pollutants
of fossil fuel plants compared to nuclear
reactors, evidence showed that
“although natural gas burning emits less
fatal pollutants […] than coal burning, it
is far deadlier than nuclear power,
causing about 40 times more deaths per
unit electric energy produced”
("National Aeronautics and Space
Administration”).

9. Nuclear Energy
 Contrary to popular belief, the fuel source –
uranium 235 – for modern nuclear reactors is
unlikely to run out within the next five billion years
assuming current rate of consumption.
 With over “four million tonnes” of natural uranium-
235 in the Earth’s crust, and “some 44 million
kilowatt-hours of electricity produced from one
tonne of natural uranium” ("World Nuclear
Association”) Physicist Bernard Cohen suggests
that “[reactors], fueled exclusively by natural
uranium […] could supply [the world] energy at
least as long as the sun's expected remaining
lifespan of five billion years” ("Nuclear Power
Proposed as Renewable Energy”).

10. Nuclear Energy
 Compared to other clean renewable energy sources, nuclear energy is perhaps
the most economically efficient and environmentally friendly method of energy
generation.
 For hydroelectric power, building large dams by flooding fields can displace
large populations of people and local organisms. Not to mention the massive
ecological costs of dam construction and maintenance demands.
 Solar energy is the least efficient out of all renewable energy sources. The power
density, or watt per square meter of solar cells is miniscule, resulting huge area
usages with minimal energy production. On top of that, it is only able to
generate electricity during daylight hours. Also, it solar cells uses exotic materials
such as cadmium telluride and copper indium gallium selenide that limits its
mass production.
 Wind energy is unreliable for the fact that it depends on intermittent wind
currents to turn its turbines. It also poses as a hazard to local wildlife (birds, bats,
etc.) and can take up huge amount of area to implement.

11. Nuclear Meltdowns
 Despite many benefits of nuclear energy over fossil fuel based
energy, the biggest concern with nuclear power generation is the
devastating risks of reactor meltdowns. Meltdowns of nuclear power
plants results in severe environmental contamination that may last
for decades to centuries. Furthermore, disaster clean-ups can cost
up to tens of billions of dollars.

12. Nuclear Meltdowns
 In March 2011, an earthquake and tsunami caused damage
to the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant in Japan that lead to
explosions and partial meltdowns. Radioactive isotopes were
released from the reactor containment vessels, which resulted
in the displacement of 50,000 households in the area.
Radioactive material also leaked into the air, soil and sea that
led to bans on shipments of vegetation and fish. Furthermore,
the contaminated area was reported as being over 25 times
above the safe limit of ionizing radiation dosage. To this day,
water is still being poured into the damaged reactors to cool
the melting fuel rods.
 As The Economist reports, “…years of clean-up will drag into
decades. A permanent exclusion zone could end up
stretching beyond the plant’s perimeter. Seriously exposed
workers may be at increased risk of cancers for the rest of
their lives...” ("When the Steam Clears”)
 “…the devilishly difficult cleanup there is expected to take 40-
plus years and cost tens of billions of dollars. Some 160,000
evacuees still live in temporary housing, having lost their
livelihoods and land to the contamination, which may render
some of it unfarmable for centuries to come” (Schiffman,
2011)

13. High-level Radioactive Waste
 Another downfall of nuclear energy is the storage of nuclear waste.
Spent fuel from uranium-235 and plutonium-239 contain countless
numbers of carcinogenic isotopes. These radioactive waste
products is hazardous to most forms of life and the environment.
 Naturally, radioactivity decays over time, though it can range from
a few weeks to millions of years for radioactive waste to decay to a
safe level.

14. High-level Radioactive Waste
 The current approach to managing these waste
products is to isolate and confine these products
to a disposal facility for a sufficient period of time
until it no longer poses a threat to the
environment.
 Not only does this take up a relatively large area,
but it can be lethal to nearby wildlife should the
waste be improperly stored.
 The waste also has to be carefully guarded and
monitored to prevent terrorists from obtaining
these materials to nuclear weapons.

15. Final Solution – Liquid Fluoride
Thorium Reactors

16. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
 There are many types of nuclear reactors,
but they all suffer from the risk of
meltdown and the production of large
amounts of radioactive waste products.
 The liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR for
short) amplifies the benefits of a standard
Uranium-fueled reactor, while abolishing
the risks involved in the energy generating
process.
 LFTR meltdown is impossible with the
“emergency freeze plug” which allows
the liquid core to flow into an energy
dump tank in case the reactor overheats

17. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
 Furthermore, LFTRs produces considerably
less radioactive waste products because
energy is almost completely extracted
from thorium.
 Theoretically, a LFTR plant would generate
thousands of times less nuclear waste than
tradition uranium-fueled reactors
 Of the waste products produced by LFTRs,
83% of the waste are safe within ten years
and the remaining 17% will become safe
after 300 years.
 On top of that, LFTRs can also be used to
burn current waste from most of today’s
nuclear power plants.

18. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
 LFTR also provides many economic
benefits over tradition Uranium-
Fueled Reactors.
 Because LFTRs have a greater
energy production capability and
the fuel source being four times
more common than uranium, the
total cost would be 25-50% less than
a traditional nuclear reactor.
 One ton of thorium can produce as
much energy as 200 tons of uranium

19. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

20. Conclusion
 In conclusion, nuclear energy serves as a
vital energy source for the future. It is
clean energy source that produces little
carbon emission. It is safe when operated
under the right conditions. It is
sustainable, as the Earth’s crusts will
provide more than enough fuel for future
generations. The safety risks associated
with nuclear energy can be mitigated by
advancements in nuclear reactor
technology. The liquid fluoride thorium
reactor design is one of many ways to
make nuclear energy as the most viable
energy source for the future. Nuclear
power will revolutionize society.

21. Works Cited
Cleveland, Cutler J. "Fossil Fuel." Fossil Fuel. The Encyclopedia of Earth, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"The End Of Fossil Fuels." Our Green Energy. Ecotricity, n.d. Web. 11 Feb. 2015.
"The Energy From Thorium Foundation." The Energy From Thorium Foundation. The Energy From Thorium Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"National Aeronautics and Space Administration." NASA GISS: Science Brief: Coal and Gas Are Far More Harmful than Nuclear Power.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"Nuclear Power Proposed as Renewable Energy." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
Schiffman, Richard. "Two Years On, America Hasn't Learned Lessons of Fukushima Nuclear Disaster." The Guardian. The Guardian, n.d. Web.
3 Mar. 2015.
"Thorium-based Nuclear Power." Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"When the Steam Clears." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 26 Mar. 2011. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.
"World Nuclear Association." Nuclear Fuel Cycle Overview. World Nuclear Association, n.d. Web. 03 Mar. 2015.