Posted by Mark Halper

Geoff Parks Horse

Riding the thorium trail. Cambridge senior lecturer Geoff Parks believes actinides could recycle for a long, long time when mixed with thorium in a modified light water reactor.

Thorium mixed with plutonium and other actinide “waste” could continuously power modified conventional reactors almost forever in a reusable fuel cycle, according to a discovery at the University of Cambridge in England.

The discovery, by PhD candidate Ben Lindley working under senior lecturer Geoff Parks, suggests that mixed thorium fuel would outperform mixed uranium fuel, which lasts only for one or two fuel cycles rather than for the “indefinite” duration of the thorium mix.

Ideally, the reactors would be “reduced-moderation water” reactors that work on the same solid-fuel, water-cooled principles of conventional reactors but that do not slow down neutrons as much and thus also offer some of the advantages of fast reactors.

Lindley’s finding, made while he was a master’s candidate in 2011, bodes well for the use of thorium not only as a safe, efficient and clean power source, but also as one that addresses the vexing problem of what to do with nuclear waste from the 430-some conventional light water reactors that make up almost all of the commercial power reactors operating in the world today and that run on uranium.

By mixing thorium with “waste” in a solid fuel, the nuclear industry could eliminate the need to bury long-lived plutonium and other actinides.

Lindley’s work surfaced recently in an article about it in the hard copy edition of Cambridge’s quarterly Engineering Department magazine. An earlier version also appears online.


I interviewed Lindley and Parks recently after the magazine story appeared. They explained the crux of Lindley’s discovery: Uranium/plutonium lasts for only a limited period because after one or two cycles, when the actinide portion increases, the mix displays a “positive feedback coefficient.” In the sometimes counter intuitive world of nuclear engineering, a positive feedback is an undesirable occurrence. To use an unscientific term, the reaction goes haywire.

Parks notes that with uranium, “As the amount of actinides in the mixture increases, you get this tipping point where with the uranium mixed with actinide based fuel  – a key feedback coefficient goes from being negative to being positive, at which point the fuel is not safe to use in the reactor.”

Lindley completes the thought. “The idea is that mixing things with thorium rather than with uranium keeps the feedback coefficient negative,” he says.

In a mixed fuel system, reactor operators would allow a batch of fuel rods to stay in a reactor for about five years, roughly the same as with today’s solid uranium fuel. The fuel would then cool for a few years while the shorter-lived fission products decay, and would then be reprocessed over another year, mixing actinide wastes with more thorium before being put back in a reactor.

And just how long could this cycle continue? “You could just keep doing that forever – until the world runs out of thorium,” notes Parks.

Ben Lindley

Wasting his future. Cambridge PhD candidate Ben Lindley made the discovery that actinide waste will     burn with thorium for an indefinite period, auguring a way to simultaneously generate power and dispose   of nuclear waste.

Lindley’s proposal is the latest possibility to emerge for using thorium reactors to dispose of waste as well as generate power.

As we wrote here recently, Japan’s Thorium Technology Solution (TTS) is proposing to mix thorium and plutonium in a liquid molten salt reactor.  Likewise, Transatomic Power in the U.S. has similar plans, although it is starting first with a liquid mixed uranium fuel rather than with thorium.

Lindley and Parks’ idea differs from TTS and Transatomic in one obvious way: It would allow the nuclear industry to carry on building conventional solid fuel, water-cooled designs. That would be strictly true only in the initial implementation of the technology, which Lindley and Parks say would entail thorium mixed only with plutonium rather than also with other actinides like neptunium, americium and curium. That’s because plutonium is now available from sources such as the Sellafield nuclear waste site in Britain. The other actinides are not as readily available, but would become so as it became clear they could be used as part of a mixed thorium fuel, Lindley and Parks believe.


Once the other actinides enter the mix, the optimal reactor would be a light water reactor modified to have less water and thus less moderation of neutrons in the reaction process. That, in turn, would allow more burn up of actinides.

Lindley envisions a reactor with about a quarter to half the amount of water as in a conventional LWR – enough to serve as a necessary coolant, but little enough so that the water could not slow down neutrons to the extent they do in a conventional reactor.

“It’s not really a fast reactor, and it’s not really a thermal (conventional) reactor,” notes Lindley. “It’s between the two.”

Hitachi, Toshiba, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and the Japan Atomic Energy Agency all have reduced-moderation water reactor designs (RMWR), according to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Lindley described them as similar to LWRs but with different fuel assemblies.

The development – and regulatory approval – of RMWRs is one of several challenges facing the deployment of mixed thorium fuel in a water-cooled reactor.

Another is the development and cost of reprocessing techniques for thorium and for actinides other than plutonium (for which reprocessing already exists).

“Splitting thorium from waste or splitting some of the minor actinides from waste has not been done on an industrial scale,” notes Lindley. “There are processes that are envisaged that can do that, that have been tested on a laboratory scale, but never on an industrial scale.”

Another hurdle: Fabricating fuel that as Lindley notes would be “highly radioactive” given the amount of waste that would go into it. “That would have to be done behind a shield,” Lindley says.

Reduced Moderation Water Reactor JAEA

“Light water Lite.” Lindley’s proposal to mix thorium with plutonium and other actinides would work best in   a reduced-moderation water reactor. The diagram above shows a uranium version of an RMWR, from the Japan Atomic Energy Agency.

All of that will require significant research and development funding –more than what Lindley currently has at his disposal, which consists of university research funds and academic scholarships.  One possible source for additional funding could be Cambridge Enterprise, a commercial arm of the university.

U.S. nuclear company Westinghouse has also been collaborating with Lindley on his thorium research. Lindley hopes to test his fuel at the Halden test reactor in Norway, where Westinghouse is a partner in Thor Energy’s project to irradiate thorium/plutonium fuel.

It will be interesting to see if any of the £15 million that the UK government recently earmarked for nuclear R&D finds it way to Lindley’s project. It’s possible that Sellafield could at least provide plutonium.


Given the potential usefulness of thorium as a way of ridding the UK of actinides, it’s not out of the question that funding could also come from the UK’s Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, which has a 2013-14 budget of £3.2 billion and which is responsible for managing nuclear waste, including actinides and shorter lived fission products.

As Parks notes, an ultimate goal for applying Lindley’s discovery “is to come up with a nuclear fuel cycle where the only waste you have to dispose of  is the fission product waste.”

Parks encourages the government to “grasp the nettle” and financially back the thorium research. He and Lindley note that a multiple-cycle thorium reactor would save money in the long run for among other reasons: uranium prices, although low now, will rise; and a mixed thorium/actinide fuel would eliminate costs associated with nuclear waste storage.

“There are economic benefits in the future to investing in the reprocessing and fuel fabrication aspects now,” says Parks. “And you would completely change what nuclear waste means as far as the public is concerned, in terms of the volume of it and how long it’s radioactive for.”

Lindley and Parks say that their technology could take hold in a commercial RMWR within 10-to-20 years.

For that to happen, they’ll have to find the right mix of collaborators and financial backers.

Photos from Geoff Parks and Ben Lindley. RMWR diagram from Japan Atomic Energy Agency



  1. praos says:

    One of the grossly underestimated developments crucial for the future of fission power are advances in robotics. They could make handling of nuclear waste, fabrication of radioactive fuel assemblies, maintenance, and damage control a trifling matter. So they could tip the scale in favor of this solution based on otherwise tested, proved and fully developed technology, giving to development of LFTR more breathing space.

    • Wendy Clarke says:

      Agreed. Thorium, although less radioactive than others is better off not being in close proximity to humans at different phases.
      Much of Robotics that is currently being used for repetitive duties which will be relevant to fission power is already therefore available.

      We need to stop talking and get action happening. India is already building a thorium reactor.

    • David Rubin says:

      Robots are chock full of solid state electronics. These devices do not work as designed in the presence of ionizing radiation. Building radiation hardened robots with a fair degree of sophistication is not a trifling matter.

  2. Petr Kallan says:

    Imaginary technology won’t solve the nuke waste problem or the fact that nukes are not economically viable.

    • Mike Miller says:

      Actually, this whole article was about controlling the nuclear waste problem. As for economic viability, nuclear power gets viable when rolled out on a large scale of standardized reactors (as in the case of France) and remains more viable, stable, and dependable than wind and solar.

      • Wendy Clarke says:

        Yep Think big about a big issue.

        I believe that there is a way of utilising the already problematic [storage {nobody wants it]material.
        We know of a way to address the problem. We need to make it happen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  3. Mounir Sibay says:

    Dear Gnteleman
    How do I get the address of a company can build a reactor on the basis of material thorium ???
    Can You Help Me Plaes to Make contact with the best company can offer this reactor ???
    can you help me pleas…….

  4. David-Paul Newton-Scott says:

    We need to end our depedence on imported Arab oil repatriate jobs to the UK and US fix the boisphere and therefore lower CO2 emissions and global warming. Thorium is the answer , thorium is the answer, thorium is the answer, ASAP, capish?


    • Luciene says:

      Hi:I’m doing research for a paper. Could smonoee tell me whether these plants are the earliest new plants to come on line in the U.S.? How about worldwide?Is there an official report on this somewhere.thanks,

  5. John W says:

    A somewhat reductionist attempt to supply a long term solution to human energy squandering. No amount of energy available will compensate or bypass the shrinking Non Renewable Resources mankind has squandered at an increasing rate parallel and linked to harvested energy.

    While humans are bound to research various options to satiate energy demands, it is those manufactured demands we would be better to address. They are the driving force to nowhere.

    The human population expansion and NNR harvesting leaves us in a fragile position limiting our future options and also limiting long term human population numbers. A substantial analysis of this has opened reliable multi disciplined correlation of our energy use, NNR depletion, population, food supply, industrialisation and pollution.

    It is foolish to analyse future energy generation without an in depth understanding of a raft of consequences and interaction across the spectrum of civilisations destructive footprint.

  6. Wendy Clarke says:

    We need to act now to dispose of radioactive waste. Storing it on the warth surface in oxidizing ? barrels while extracting more uranium from the earths core which MUST have an effect seems a ludicrous notion so why not investigate Thorium as a way to get rid of radioactive waste and also generate a clean energy source.

  7. carlo frate says:

    Norway has investigated Thorium-based reclamation of spent waste and claim that this technology can eliminate all current nuclear waste within 100 years. Not a bad HALF-LIFE !

  8. carlo frate says:

    NOW where are the leaders who will utilize this technology for the world’s future ? AOL , Buffet, the .01% who own the world. ” We have met the enemy, and they is us” – POGO

  9. JOHNFP says:

    ISBN 978-0-230-11647-4 SUPERFUEL author Richard Martin, Macmillan, 2012 would be a good introductory text.
    The Liquid Thorium reactor does not require high pressure containment… but it involves continuous on-site chemical processing to maintain the quality of the reaction.
    The Thorium decay products are highly radioactive hence short lived , making theft difficult and greatly reducing the storage time in waste repository.
    The LIFTR core self regulates, e.g. if it overheats it expands and the flux reduces. Additional protection is a dead man`s choke at the bottom of the reactor, allowing the contents to flow out.
    All these facets are presented in the book.
    The author wisely takes them all with an occasional pinch of salt ( Lithium Beryllium Fluoride).

Leave a Reply

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

I am pleased to support the Alvin Weinberg Foundation’s mission to communicate honestly with the public and to raise awareness of the potential of this maligned energy source amongst campaigners and the media.

— George Monbiot


"There is a danger we will miss out on nuclear opportunities by being too slow" Great discussions at @NIAUK
- Monday Feb 27 - 2:59pm

This tribalism is the problem -there is no one solution, we need both nuclear and renewables to replace fossil fuels
- Monday Feb 20 - 11:03am

Recent Posts

Open letter to Greg Clark on Moorside

by Suzanna Hinson (February 17th, 2017)

Our response to Scottish Government consultation on draft Climate Plan

by Suzanna Hinson (February 10th, 2017)

Leaving Euratom: the government should reconsider

by Suzanna Hinson (January 27th, 2017)

Weinberg Next Nuclear welcomes new Patron

by Suzanna Hinson (January 26th, 2017)

Posts Archive


  • Economics (90)
  • Efficiency (54)
  • Policy (9)
  • Proliferation (34)
  • Regulation (10)
  • Safety (65)
  • Security (18)
  • Technology advances (22)
  • Uncategorized (52)
  • Waste (54)
  • © 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