Flaring off natural gas, a big carbon footprint with no benefits.

This is a satellite photo of a mostly clear night over U.S. (There are a few clouds over eastern U.S.) It shows clearly where the big cities are, and how empty the western half of U.S. is compared to the eastern half. From this we can see and guess the size of the major metropolitan areas. Looking over North Dakota there seems to be a city of about half a million people judging from the light. But North Dakota has no big cities! What is going on?

The light area below is here_______V______________________________________________

While North Dakota is the second largest oil producing state in the nation it produces very little natural gas, only what comes as a bi-product of oil recovery, in fact it is so little that the government has let the oil companies flare off the gas rather than recover it and us it for supplying the country with more natural gas. Since the government has put a halt to build the Keystone and other pipelines, the oil out of these wells are shipped by truck and train to refineries mostly in Texas at at least three times the cost (read energy usage) of a pipeline, the government is not concerned about energy usage, only control of the production means. Granted it is only a pittance in the grand scheme of energy use, only 291 million cubic feet of natural gas was officially flared off per day in Oct 2023, but it is growing as oil production is climbing.

How much is 291 million cubic feet of natural per day that is flared off? It corresponds to a little over 300 billion BTU/day, not much, but enough to supply gas for over 5 million gas stoves in normal family use. The Government is trying to prohibit any new gas stoves in new construction. This again proves that their main concern is not energy use, since it is o.k. to flare off large amounts of gas but not using it for superior cooking, it shows that their concern is people control, not energy conservation or even common sense.

Earth Day 2024. This year’s feature: Microplastics are bad (and they are). A Limerick.

We celebrate Lenin’s old birth day

in what is renamed the new Earth Day.

This years theme; it is said

microplastics are bad

in water and food in the worst way.

When I came to the U.S. as a resident alien immigrant  from a beautiful, clean Sweden in the spring of 1968 I was horrified at what I found. In Sweden they were worried about the fact that some lakes were fertilized four times more than agricultural fields, acid rain killed the trouts in the already acid lakes and  seeds laced with Mercury as a preservative killed off most of the eagles and owls. None of this seemed to bother the Americans. Coming in to Rochester in N.Y the stench from the fish washing up on the shore of lake Ontario was strong, I read of a river catching on fire in Ohio and the smell of coal burning power plants without scrubbers was bad, almost as bad as in the coal and steel region of Germany. It was also the height of the Vietnam wars, and people were protesting. Many of the protestors were communists at hart, and they also turned to pollution. The aerosol pollution led to a decrease in global temperatures, so the mantra was: The ice age is coming! The worst prediction I read was that the global temperatures would be ten degrees Fahrenheit lower by the year 2000! Most predictions were not that wild, but they all pointed down, ice age, here we come! The urge to clean up the pollution grew stronger and the Earth Day movement was formed, but they had to find just the right day to have the first. Since this was to become a global movement they decided on the birthday of Lenin, his 100th, very fitting for a globalist movement.  That was 1970 in Philadelphia, featured Ira Einhorn (The Unicorn Killer) as master of Ceremonies.

Now fifty four years later the mantra has changed to climate change, specifically carbon pollution and carbon footprint. As the scientists were wrong then, the ice age is coming soon, so they are wrong now. The rise in CO2 causes climate change all right, and it would be really bad unless something else also changes as the CO2 concentration changes. Water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, much stronger than CO2, and they both add to the greenhouse effect, but only at temperatures below freezing. In the tropics there is 50 times as much water vapor as there is CO2, so the tropics is not affected at all by rising CO2 levels. In the Arctic the situation is quite different. Water vapor is also a condensing gas, and forms clouds in the atmosphere. Clouds cool by day and warm by night, but the effect of cooling by day is much larger than the warming by night, so clouds act as the major temperature regulator on earth. That is why the tropical temperature was about the same in the tropics as now when the CO2 level was over 10000 ppm, 25 times as large as now hundreds of millions of years ago. There is zero risk of overheating, there is no “tipping point” on the warm side, the clouds take care of that. On the other hand we know that because we have too little CO2 in the air we will have a new ice age. When will it come? Not in the next thousand years, in fact, by increasing the CO2 levels we will delay the onset of the next ice age. What will happen at the Poles? They will be less cold in the winters, it will snow more but the summers will be about the same, held largely at the melting point of water.

The last 44 years we have good satellite data of the temperature rise, CO2 rise, all pollutants , cloud cover and the like, so we can examine the earth how it has responded to the rising CO2 levels, and the results are very surprising: CO2 rise contributes less than 5% of the increase is due to the CO2 rise, nearly all the changes are due to water effects, either as increased water vapor and decreasing clouds. Here are the results:

Effect from rising CO2: 0.04C or 0.19 W/m2; 4,66% of total

Effect from increasing water vapor: 0.37 C or 1.75 W/m2; 42.9% of total

Effect from rising Methane: 0.036 C or 0.17 W/m2, 4.17% of total

Effect from rising N2O: 0.0065 C or 0.031 W/m2 0.8% of total

Effect from rising Ozone: 0.0034C or 0.016 W/m2 0.4% of total

Effect from rising HFCs : 0.0015 C or 0.007 W/m2 0.2% of total

Effect from decreasing cloud cover: 0.39 C or 1.89 W/m2. 46.4 % of total

Warming of the Northern Arctic: 0.1 C. or 0.475 W/m2;11.6% of total

Cooling from pollution aerosols: 0.1 C or 0.475W/m2; – 11.6% of total

Temperature increase from greening of the earth 0.0063C or 0.030 W/m2; 0.7% of total

Temperature decrease from areas of desertification 0.0015C 0.007 W/m2; 0.2% of total

TOTAL TEMPERATURE CHANGE 1980 to 2022: 0.8522 C or 4.077 W/m2

If this is hard to believe, check it from my blog entry:It’s water and clouds causing climate change, CO2 is only a minor contributor, and so is Methane. Reality check from 42 years of satellite data.

While I realize that increasing CO2 levels contribute to climate change, it is on balance positive, since the earth is increasingly fertilized by increasing CO2 In fact the earth has been more than 15% greener since industrial age by increasing CO2 alone, enabling us to feed 2 billion more people without increasing fossil fuel generated fertilizer. The extra greening means more clouds generating aerosols, which is good except where it already rains too much.

Where we have a problem is with the arid areas, where much water is drawn from the aquifers, the best clean water there is. When the aquifers are deleted desertification sets in. This has already happened in Kazakhstan, where lake Aral disappeared as soon as the Amu- and Syr-darja rivers were siphoned off to produce cotton. This worked fine for about ten years, then the lake dried up, the rains stopped and the rivers dried up. China has built 12 dams in the Mekong river, so now the once reliable yearly floodings stopped and the harvest in the lowlands are disrupted. The once reliable Nile river is a shadow of its former self, all the silt stays above the Aswan Dam rather than fertilizing the lower Nile. The U.S. southwest aquifers are being drawn down and will no longer produce anywhere near as much water as they used to. The whole American Southwest is slowly undergoing desertification. We need to rethink our use of water rather than waste trillions of dollars on CO2 control, which will solve only 5% of the problem.

The other problem with water is waste quality. A most pressing problem is micro plastics. Some of it comes from tire wear. Electric cars are heavier than gasoline cars, leading to more tire wear. Another problem is with water sanitation, Microplastics does not accumulate well in silt,neither does it break down easily. Another problem is antibiotics excreting in the urine of both people and animals, birth control and other medications excreted through urine will act as harmful pollutants,

We have our work cut out for us. There are solutions to all of these problems, but they all require energy, either as heat or electricity. The only possible solution is nuclear power, specifically molten salt nuclear power. Nuclear power can be generated from U233, U 235 and Plutonium 239. These are the available options. We have already used up most of the U 235, which is less than 0.7 percent of the available Uranium. Small modular Reactors can use Thorium, spent Nuclear fuel and depleted Uranium for fuel, all with using special mixtures to sustain a generation. One specially exciting option is to use a molten salt generator as a heat source and incinerate plastics and other trash without supplying Oxygen. That will produce hot gas that will be used for electricity generation, and the resulting Carbon can be made in the form of Graphene.

These are exciting times. We have the solutions ready to clean up the earth by going nuclear with SMRs of many types. They will lessen the mining demands on the earth significantly as they operate under atmospheric pressure. In addition they will make us less dependent on expanding the national grid, the power can be generated where it is used. I could go on, but here are The many cases why Thorium Nuclear Power is the only realistic solution to the world’s energy problems.

Thorium is the long time solution. In the short time we should deplete the nuclear Plutonium waste as fast as possible.

Why Thorium? 38. Sweden has a great opportunity to help solve the sustainable energy problem and reduce mining through Small Modular molten salt Thorium and Plutonium reactors.

Sweden is perhaps the “greenest” country on earth. Their electric supply is a healthy mix of hydropower, wind, solar and biomass to make things go when the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow. Many cities are well planned where nearly all residential heat comes from spillheat from power plants. In Linköping the year 1967 the whole town was heated with surplus electricity during the spring flood. No house was allowed to have a fireplace in the regulated zone (except the city Architect’s and 3 other townhouses that somehow escaped the ordinance.) The energy use looks like this for Sweden:

Sweden once supplied nearly 40% of its energy needs via nuclear (electricity and heat) About half of the nuclear installations are retired and the last 6 are to be decommissioned before the end of the decade. To end nuclear energy was decided by a previous government in 1980 and the phase-out was to be completed in the mid 2020s. The goal was to generate 100% electric energy from renewable sources by 2040. (later changed to 2045).

Then Sweden had an election in 2022 and the Social Democrat, Green and Socialist coalition got replaced with a moderate, Christian Democrat and Liberal coalition with support of the nationalistic Sweden Democrat party. On June 20 they changed the slogan to 100% fossil-free electric energy by 2045.

This goal is impossible to meet without expanding nuclear power, especially since Sweden has specified that all new cars must be electric by 2035.

Then in January 2023 Sweden announced the largest Rare earth metals find in Europe. Europe is right now importing 98% of its rare earth metals from China. The find is called the Per Geijer deposit right next to the World’s largest underground Iron ore mine, the LKAB Kiruna mine located 120 miles north of the polar circle.

The new find is still basically a magnetite and hematite ore of excellent quality that also contains a significant amount of P2O5, which is premium fertilizer feed-stock. In addition It contains the largest find of rare earth metals in Europe. So far it is proven to contain the following Rare earth Metals:

Heavy Rare Earth Oxides (HREO) include: Eu2O3, Gd2O3, Tb2O3, Dy2O3, Ho2O3, Er2O3, Tm2O3, Yb2O3, Lu2O3, Y2O3.

Light Rare Earth Oxides (LREO) include: La2O3, Ce2O3, Pr2O3, Nd2O3, Sm2O3.

HREO constitutes 17% within the tested apatite concentrate samples and 19% in the overall exploration samples.

LREO constitutes 83% within the tested apatite concentrate samples and 81% in the overall exploration samples.

Just take a look at all the uses for rare earth metals. The most sought after pays all the cost of mining and refining, and the rest are readily available at nominal cost.

What is not mentioned is the content of Thorium and Uranium, but Thorium is always found in small amounts where ever Rare earths are found and very often some Uranium is also found in the ore.

In order to meet the need for both extraction of raw materials and at the same time increase Europe’s processing capacity LKAB has recently become the main owner of and entered into a cooperation with Norwegian REEtec.   They have developed an innovative and sustainable technology for the separation of rare earth elements that can compete with the dominant Chinese production. The planned extraction site is proposed to be in the Luleå area.

Rare earth ore nearly always contains measurable amounts of Thorium and/or Uranium.The Thorium is nearly always returned to the slag heap, and sometimes the Uranium too if the concentration is low. No information has been given yet how much of anything the ore contains, but it is safe to assume that it is the largest ore find in Europe.

Sweden has a long history of mining. Before 1288 A.D. the local farmers of Falun found copper in what was called Kopparberget and the first documentary evidence of the mine appears in a letter from 1288 giving the Bishop of Västerås a one-eighth share in the mine in exchange for landholdings. The document shows that a cooperative organization by this time was managing the mine, with shares being bought and sold. The mine grew, and was once the largest copper mine in the world. This is also the reason the traditional color of Swedish farms is red, thanks to subsidies from the government if they painted their gray wooden farms and barns with Falu red paint.

Later Sweden became the producer of the best ball bearings in the world, and produced specialty steel for a variety of uses, such as the Sandviken Stradivarius musical saw.

For a while the mines in Sweden were many, but through environmental regulation and cost consideration Sweden now has only 12 mines left in operation. Many of the discontinued mines were started before there was any real environmental regulations, so the cleanup of abandoned mines is still ongoing. Sweden has no coal mines and no natural gas fields.

Sweden is the world leader in recycling everything that is economically defensible to recycle, and the rest of the waste products are, if possible incinerated, producing heat and some electricity. Very little, about one percent is returned to landfills. However, incineration is not recycling, Sweden is burning their only source of coal.

What I am proposing is somewhat akin to the old charcoal kiln; but instead of using wood, the source is trash sonverting trash to coal and gasses.

This is an opportunity for Sweden to be the world leader in recycling nearly everything, including CO2. It just takes energy.

This is my proposal:

Build small modular molten salt thorium reactors, U233 or U 233 and and Plutonium two fuel reactors, an inner shell of U233 or Plutonium as fissile source, and an outer blanket of Thorium, which is the fertile source to generate more U 233 than is consumed. It can be gas cooled, using Helium or molten lead, both work well. Power output will be 100 to 200 MW, and the output temperature will be around 600C.

Municipal, industrial and construction waste will in the first stage be dried, removing nearly all water from the trash. The trash will then be fed into an outgasser, which is fed by 600 C Nitrogen generated from the nuclear heat source, preventing combustion. This will act as a charcoal kiln leaving high quality charcoal to be separately treated and refined, separating out metals and other contaminants. The gasses will run through a turbine generating electricity and scrubbed, separating the hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, chlorine and whatever was in the gasses.

By reducing waste to coal, graphite, graphene and separate hydrogen, oxygen, other gasses and metals it will be true recycling rather than a common waste to power and heat incinerator that produces CO2 and water from H2 and O2, truly wasting energy.

What will Sweden do instead?

SMRs. In Sweden, Kärnfull Next, a subsidiary of Kärnfull Future AB, became the first company in Scandinavia in March 2022 to develop SMR (Small Modular Reactors) projects. Kärnfull Next will work together with GE Hitachi (GEH) towards the deployment of the GEH’s BWRX-300 SMR. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the two companies for this purpose. A letter of intent was also signed with the Finnish utility Fortum at the end of 2022 to explore opportunities for SMR development in Sweden.

In February 2021, the Swedish subsidiary of the energy company Uniper signed an agreement with the developer of the LeadCold SMR and the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) with the aim of building a demonstration plant at the Oskarshamn site by 2030. It is envisaged that the LeadCold SEALER SMR will generate between 3 to 10 MW over a period of 10 to 30 years without the need for refueling.

In June 2020, Vattenfall announced that it was conducting a pilot study to examine the construction of at least two SMRs adjacent to the Ringhals nuclear power plant. If the outcome is positive, the first SMR in Sweden could be commissioned in the early 2030s to replace the Ringhals 1 and 2 units, which have been shut down.
In December 2022, the French utility EdF and the Finnish company Fortum signed a framework cooperation agreement to jointly explore opportunities for collaboration on the use of SMRs and large nuclear reactors.

Is it weather? Is it climate change?

The weather has been warm lately. the earth has set a string of new maximum temperatures in July and will set a new absolute record for the month of July since the beginning of satellite record in 1079. The once reputable Forbes Magazine expressed it this way: July 4 was the warmest day in over 100,000 years! Now wait a minute! Aren’t we still recovering from the little ice age? See chart:

It was warmer for 9,000 of the last 10,000 years than it is now!

Let us take a look at what is happening to the Arctic ice sheet. Its demise has been predicted to be total well before 2020. How is that going? The Danish Meteorological institute takes daily measurements of the Arctic and Greenland’s ice sheet, volume and temperature.

It seems pretty normal to me, no runaway ice melt the last few years. I fact this year the Arctic temperature above the 80th latitude has been at or below normal since late April. How about the ice on Greenland?

The ice gain, and the summer ice loss over Greenland seem pretty normal to me.Yes the snow melt was delayed by a month,followed bya stronger than normal snow melt. This is all within the boundaries of normal weather.

The heat wave in the south and Southwest of U.S.A. was caused by a blocking high pressure, causing less clouds, less winds and in part less rain than normal. This happens some years, but can still be explained as weather.

The CO2 level during 8,000 B.C. to 1,000 A.D. was always below 300 ppm (it is now 415 ppm), so we can not blame CO2 alone for the increased heat. There are other factors involved that are much more important to explain climate change. If you are interested, check: Of the recorded temperature increase between 1980 and 2022, how much is attributable to CO2, and how much to other greenhouse gases?

Hot enough? Hillary Clinton is full of hot air. A Limerick.

This tweet from the twice defeated presidential candidate and 2016 election denier Hillary Clinton caught my attention for its many factual errors. This is the forwarded tweet:

It begins with factual recording from the Washington Post. It is a record string of very hot days in Phoenix. In fact, today is the 25th day of over 110F, and continuing.

The next headline is from CNN tells of the heat wave all over the south, where nearly every community in the area shows one heat record after another. The count is more than twice as high now. The heat wave continues. About the only record not broken is the maximum temperature in Death Valley, still standing at 134°F (57°C) on July 10, 1913.

Not to be outdone, MSNBC chimes in with “We are in uncharted territory”, which is true since worldwide satellite measurements didn’t start until 1979. So it isn’t very surprising that new records will be set. The time frame is only 44 years.

But Forbes magazine takes the cake: The once serious business publication states that July 4 was the hottest day in over 100,000 years! The real temperature after the little ice age isn’t even back to the medieval warm period, much less the Roman warm period, even less than the Minoan warming

Even more interesting is the temperature in the Holocene Climate optimum:

From this chart we can see, even as there were no global measurements taken it was warmer during 8000 of the last 10,000 years, at least according to the Greenland Ice Cores.

But back to the Hillary tweet: CBS claimed that Earth just had the hottest June on record. What they forgot to mention was “since worldwide satellite records began in 1979”

This calls for a Limerick

The Climate change pace in this plot

shows voting next fall means a lot.

No original sin

if Republicans win

since temperatures will be less hot.

From Wattsupwiththat.com comes this interesting plot: (Thanks, David Middleton)

From this we can see that the global temperature changes according to hadcrut4gl are:

During the presidency of George H W Bush temperatures fell by 0.20 C/decade

During the presidency of Bill Clinton temperatures rose by 0.26 C/decade

During the presidency of George W Bush temperatures fell by 0.04 C/decade

During the presidency of Barack H Obama temperatures rose by 0.42 C/decade

So far , during the Presidency of Donald J Trump global temperatures have receded 0.24 C.

President Donald J Trump ended his presidency with a temperature decline of 0.37C/decade.

So far, during Joe Biden ‘s presidency temperatures are up 0.18C, and that was before the latest heatwave.

It seems the hot air is coming from Democrats, and with Republicans cooler minds prevail

And a bonus question. During the 1930s the number, length and severity of U.S heatwaves was much worse. Who was president for most of that time?

Oh and by the way, in the 1930s the CO2 level was around 300 ppm. It is now 418.4 ppm or 40% higher.

Why Thorium? 33. With electric cars and trucks replacing combustion engine cars, only Thorium Nuclear power is the rational solution to provide the extra electric power needed.

It seems that electric powered vehicles are finally taking off, and sales are ready to take off. The new edition of the IEA’s annual Global Electric Vehicle Outlook shows that more than 10 million electric cars were sold worldwide in 2022 and that sales are expected to grow by another 35% this year to reach 14 million. This explosive growth means electric cars’ share of the overall car market has risen from around 4% in 2020 to 14% in 2022 and is set to increase further to 18% this year, based on the latest IEA projections.

If CO2 is the great driver of environmental destruction, never mind that the increased CO2 is feeding 2 billion more people than before thanks to the greening effect of increased CO2, then we should work at warp speed to develop the additional electricity needs that will arise with all electric vehicles coming to market needing to be recharged.

It makes no sense to build more coal and gas fired electric plants, replacing one CO2 generator with another, the best wind power sites are already taken, waste, geothermal and solar power is still a pipe dream, (see the orange sliver in the chart below), so what to do?

Conventional nuclear power is limited and requires a very long and extensive approval process, partly due to the not in my backyard regulation attitude.  We are already the world’s largest importer of Uranium, and the world’s supply is to a large extent controlled by non allies. .

How do you eliminate all Coal and natural gas electric plants? Look at the U.S usage: (Last  year 2016)

We can see that renewable energy will not suffice. The only real answer is to expand nuclear electricity, but we are already the world’s biggest importer of Uranium. (The Uranium One deal, when we sold 20% of our Uranium mining rights to Russia did not help, but we were in trouble even before ). No, the only real answer is to rapidly develop molten salt Thorium nuclear electricity production. They do not require water for cooling, so they can be placed anywhere where additional capacity is needed, eliminating some of the need for rapid expansion of the electric grid.

Let us go to it now! No time to waste!

Why Thorium? 31. Molten salt Thorium Reactors will produce electrical energy at about 5 cents per kWh.

Produces electrical energy at about 5 cents per kWh.

The United States sources of Electricity generation is one third from Natural Gas, one third from Coal and one third from non fossil fuel sources.

The cost to produce electricity with Thorium nuclear power should be about 40% less than Advanced Nuclear and about 30 % less than from Coal (with scrubbers)  Solar generation is about 4 times more expensive (without subsidies) in the North-east, where people live. New Mexico, Arizona and California are suitable for cheap Solar power, but they lack Hydropower storage. Wind power is cheaper when the wind blows, but base generation capacity has to be there even when the wind doesn’t blow, so the only gain from wind power is to lessen the mining or extraction of carbon. In addition, wind power kills birds, the free yearly quota of allowable Bald Eagle kills was upped from 1200 to 4200 during the Obama administration. (https://lenbilen.com/2019/04/12/what-is-more-precious-babies-eagles-or-fighting-climate-change/). Golden Eagles and a few other rare birds has a quarter of a million dollar fine associated with their kills. If wind power is increased without finding a solution to the bird kills, whole species may go extinct. Solar power is, and will be used in special applications such as on roofs for backup and peak power assist. Today’s solar panels are easily destroyed by a single hailstorm. Hydroelectric power is for all practical purpose maxed out, so nearly all future increase must come from Coal, Natural Gas, Petroleum or Nuclear. The world experience on installing wind and solar energy is that it is expensive. See fig:

The residential cost of electricity increases as the proportion of total electricity demand is supplied by wind and solar. Part of the cost is in power distribution. Molten Salt Thorium Nuclear Generators is the way to go. It doesn’t depend on sun, wind and water to produce electricity where the need is.

Why Thorium? 30. The source material problem with Thorium.

Thr problem with Thorium is that it is classified as source material the same as Uranium. Natural Uranium is fissile in a heavy water moderated reactor, Thorium is only slightly radioactive, and should be regulated like all other radioactive products, like household smoke detectors and medical isotopes.

Congress should immediately declassify Thorium as a source material. This would again enable U.S. to mine rare earth materials like China and the rest of the world.

The video speaks for itself and is well worth watching. Especially listen at 15:30 min why molten salt reactors were abandoned.

Why Thorium? 29. Why Thorium has been rejected by so many for so long, but is now finally seen as the future energy supply, (except in the U.S.A.)

This video catalogs the problems with Thorium, beginning with the regulatory nightmare of seemingly endless regulations that makes no sense from a research perspective, to political bias, and to protect the status quo. It is very informative.

Why Thorium? 23. Denmark has an interesting proposition in Thorium Molten Salt Reactors.

From Denmark comes this interesting sales pitch for a nuclear waste, thorium based nuclear technology. Like most sales pitches it glosses over the remaining problems to implement it, and emphasizes advantages, which are many. Let us take a look at it:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TypePrivate
IndustryNuclear power
FoundedAugust 25, 2014; 8 years ago
HeadquartersCopenhagen, Denmark
ProductsMolten Salt LoopsMolten Salt PumpsMolten Salt Measurement EquipmentPurified Salt
Websitewww.copenhagenatomics.com

Copenhagen Atomics is a Danish molten salt technology company developing mass manufacturable molten salt reactors. The company is pursuing small modular, molten fuel salt, thorium fuel cycle, thermal spectrum, breeder reactors using separated plutonium from spent nuclear fuel as the initial fissile load for the first generation of reactors.[1]

Copenhagen Atomics’ headquarters are co-located with Alfa Laval in Copenhagen.[2]

History

Copenhagen Atomics was founded in 2014 by a group of scientists and engineers meeting at Technical University of Denmark and around the greater Copenhagen area for discussions on thorium and molten salt reactors, who later incorporated in 2015.[3] In 2016, Copenhagen Atomics was part of MIMOSA, a European nuclear molten salt research consortium.[4]

Copenhagen Atomics became the first private company in 2017, to offer a commercial molten salt loop.[5][6]

By the end of 2022, Copenhagen Atomics finished a full-size prototype reactor. The prototype is a full-scale test platform, to test the system in its entirety, with water as its medium. In 2023 a full-scale prototype molten salt reactor will be built to test the entire system with non-radioactive molten salts.[7]

In May 2023, Copenhagen Atomics signed a memorandum of understanding with the Scandinavian companies Topsoe, Alfa Laval and Aalborg CSP, and Indonesian companies Pupuk Kalimantan Timur and Pertamina New and Renewable Energy, with the prospect of establishing a green ammonia plant in Bontang, Indonesia. The plant will be capable of producing 1 million tonnes of ultra-low emission ammonia annually, which will save the emission of 1.7 million tonnes of carbon dioxide per year.[8]

Research and development

Copenhagen Atomics is pursuing a hardware-driven iterative component-by-component approach to reactor development, instead of a full design license and approval approach. Copenhagen Atomics is actively developing and testing valves, pumps, heat exchangers, measurement systems, salt chemistry and purification systems, and control systems and software for molten salt applications.[9] The company has also developed the world’s only canned molten salt pump and are developing an active electromagnetic bearing canned molten salt pump.[9]

Copenhagen Atomics offers many of their technologies commercially available to the market. This includes pumped molten salt loops for use in molten salt reactor research, as well as highly purified salts for high temperature concentrated solar power, molten salt energy storage, and molten salt chemistry research.[10]

Environmental Impact

According to the website Thorium Energy World: “The CAWB [ed. Copenhagen Atomics Waste Burner] will use thorium to burn out actinides from spent nuclear fuel in order to convert long-lived radioactive waste into short-lived radioactive waste, while producing large amounts of energy and jobs in present time. End of Wikipedia quote.

The limiting factor in this molten salt reactors buildup is the availability of Uranium 233, the result of neutron bombardment of Thorium resulting in Protactinium, which converts to U-233, the real clean nuclear fuel in 29 days. The breeding gain is only 1.05, so it takes quite some time to build up the capacity. The separation stage is the critical stage, and they will not provide it, but the technology is there, but is not yet ready to be commercialized, and they were silent about who was going to do it. It is, which he also acknowledged, expensive with current methods.