Posted by Mark Halper

Theodore Roosevelt National Park in North Dakota. Molten salt reactor enthusiasts will need some of Teddy’s fighting spirit to establish the state as the cradle of the MSR movement.

There is something afoot in North Dakota.

A reliable source tells me that lobbyists and some legislators there will soon push to cut the state loose from the oversight of the federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission. North Dakota would instead establish its own body that would regulate nuclear operations within state boundaries.

The impetus? A nuclear technology called a molten salt reactor (MSR) that would provide a welcome, affordable industrial heat source to the state’s booming fossil fuel business.

For example, a small MSR could help blast solid coal into a liquid form that suits many uses. Coal liquefaction is energy intense. An MSR represents an efficient, CO2-free way of hitting the necessary temperatures. (Yes, the end product, liquefied coal, would serve up flagons of CO2 when burned by end users, but the MSR would at least take the greenhouse gas out of the production process).

Likewise, I could imagine an MSR providing the heat to bake the oil out of North Dakota’s shale, assisting tremendously in the “shale oil” bonanza that has given the state a neo-1849 Gold Rush feel. Small MSRs are well suited to safely power these high temperature industrial operations, with no threat of a meltdown.

COME OUT COME OUT WHEREVER YOU ARE

And that’s where the NRC comes in. Or more to the point, where it does not come in.

MSRs are one of several alternative reactor designs that the NRC never gets around to approving. The NRC devotes almost all of its attention to conventional reactors – the ones powered by solid fuel and cooled by water. In many ways, those reactors are inferior to options such as MSRs, pebble beds, and others, which use some combination of liquids, gases and solids for fuel and coolants.

Yet reactors running on these novel designs could be particularly well suited as CO2-free furnaces replacing fossil fuels bellows not just on oil fields but in steel mills, cement factories, you name it. They would also, of course, make splendid electricity generators.

To help expedite the approval and development of these sensible alternatives, President Obama’s Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future at one point seemed interested in establishing a federal regulatory body separate from the NRC.

NUCLEAR’S MASON DIXON LINE

That idea seems to have stalled. A North Dakota secession, if I may phrase it that way, would accomplish the same goal, albeit for just one state out of 50. Nebraska is making some noise as well.

At any rate, the stirrings are at least evidence that the MSR is now regaining mindshare following its dubious cancellation at Tennessee’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory by President Nixon some 40 years ago.

Whether or not the people behind the idea truly stand a chance of shaking free from the NRC is hard to gauge. I have my ear to the ground, and I’m at least picking up the rumblings that they’re trying to make it happen. It seems they’re planning a January offensive (who can resist January in North Dakota?). In the spirit of blogging, I’m letting you know now about the radical stirrings along the Missouri River, well west of the Mississippi’s headwaters and just south of Saskatchewan.

I hope to bring you some names and faces in a subsequent post. Speak up below if you care to wave the flag – or even if you’re on the other side. We settle heated issues via level headed discourse here at Weinberg.

The MSR movement will take root somewhere. The barren lands of North Dakota could make fertile soil.

Photo: Michael Oswald via Wikimedia.

Comments

  1. Martin Kral says:

    Someone in North Dakota has Gov. Romney’s ear about liquefied coal as a clean coal. Hopefully, someone will get his ear about MSRs. Using MSRs to liquefy coal makes no sense to me. Burning coal; liquefied or not, is CO2 dirty and even cleaning it still leaves us with carbon as a waste to dispose of. The first use of MSRs should be to replace coal for electricity production. From there, other uses are almost endless.

  2. Martin Kral says:

    Now that I have learned President Nixon’s administration was the primary source of thorium energy being tabled back in the 70’s, I can only say: Thoriumgate! What a travesty! I am a new found advocate for thorium energy and I am now on board to spreading the word though multiple mediums. If the US Federal government doesn’t make a serious investment in thorium energy, then I completely support that individual states like North Dakota invest themselves. They have a ton of tax revenue coming in from their gas and oil industry and they could be the first on the block to starting the transition from hydrocarbons to nuclear. In fact, if the oil industry were smart, they would invest their money in the next era of energy in America and the world and continue their world positions. For example, Vanderbilt dominated the shipping industry pre-civil war and sold everything to invest in the next great mode of transportation – railroads. And, it is important for me to say that Vanderbilt ‘did build it’ and not the federal government.

  3. Frank Eggers says:

    If North Dakota succeeds in making the Federal Government aware of MSRs, including the LFTR, surely we should all be grateful. The fact that ND wants to use MSRs to produce liquid fuels from coal, which seems inappropriate, is less important.

Leave a Reply

Sign up for our Weinberg Next Nuclear Newsletter
* = required field

I warmly welcome the Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s evidence-based approach to the energy debate, and enthusiastically support its mission to raise awareness of next-generation nuclear energy amongst NGOs and the general public.

— Mark Lynas

@thorium_wf

Our latest blog on the nuclear report from the Science and Technology Committee of the House of Lords. We need... https://t.co/CPqKOPpyOg
- Wednesday May 3 - 2:36pm

Recent Posts

Three Mile Island – the real disaster

by Suzanna Hinson (June 2nd, 2017)

Nuclear in Africa

by Suzanna Hinson (May 16th, 2017)

Engineers echo politicians: SMRs could help the UK post-Brexit

by Suzanna Hinson (May 11th, 2017)

Breaking the cycle of indecision: nuclear report by the House of Lords

by Suzanna Hinson (May 3rd, 2017)

Posts Archive

Categories

  • Economics (89)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (17)
  • Proliferation (32)
  • Regulation (8)
  • Safety (63)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (23)
  • Uncategorized (53)
  • Waste (52)
  • © The Alvin Weinberg Foundation 2014
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation is a registered UK charity. Charity number: 1155255
    The Alvin Weinberg Foundation web site uses cookies to record visitor patterns.
    Read our data protection policy

    Design by Tauri-tec Ltd and the Alvin Weinberg Foundation