Barriers and Drivers to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Technology

Barriers and Drivers to

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Technology Case Study of The Netherlands in a European context A Technological Innovation Systems Approach

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement of the degree Master of Business Administration of the International Business School of Hanze University of Applied Sciences Groningen Towards the award of Master in International Business & Management and the award of Master of Arts in International Business

Jorrit M. Swaneveld Date: December 2014 Supervisor: Dr. E. Dommerholt Co-Marker: Dr. S. Patnaik Word count: 20.190

Contact Details Author: Jorrit Machiel Swaneveld Hanzehogeschool St. Nr.: 245394 Anglia Ruskin University St. Nr.: 1341625 E-mail: [email protected] Private E-mail: [email protected] Lector supervisor: A. Manickam Thesis Supervisor: Dr. E. Dommerholt Co-Marker: Dr. S. Patnaik

II

“The main thing wrong with nuclear energy is that an awful lot of people are afraid of nuclear energy, particularly since the accident at Three Mile Island…. I am not exaggerating when I say that our Western society, for reasons that are unclear to me, suffers from massive hysteria…. Once we have overcome that hysteria, we can look forward to a second nuclear era in which we can fully enjoy the not inconsiderable advantages of nuclear energy.” Alvin Weinberg - 1983, p.1052; p.1055; p.1056.

III

Preface The following thesis on the subject of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) technology is a continuation of the Hanze University of Applied Sciences’ previous research on LFTR, carried out by L. Pool for his BBA Thesis. Technological Innovation Systems theory is applied on an embedded case study of The Netherlands with the intention towards generating a generalisation for the EU context. Please find information on the scope and purpose of this research in the Abstract or the Introduction. This study is commisioned by the International Business School Groningen Lectorate and supervised by Anu Manickam in this regard. Moreover, Dr. E. Dommerholt functions as the thesis supervisor and first marker. The co-marker of this study is Dr. S. Patnaik from Anglia Ruskin University. The thesis is written in a way that allows educated novices to understand the content of the study. A background in nuclear physics is not required.

IV

Acknowledgements I would like to thank my supervisors; Dr. Egbert Dommerholt & Ms. Anu Manickam for granting me the opportunity and freedom to explore this topic. Their support, feedback and suggestions have been a valuable contribution to this research. I also have to thank Lucas Pool for introducing me to thorium molten salt reactors. Our discussions on LFTR have been both enjoyable and interesting. I would also like to thank all interview candidates who have consented to be interviewed during this research. Special gratitude goes to Dr. C.A. De Lange for his knowledge on the political climate, which has proven to be invaluable. Also the expertise of the interviewed MSR experts is much appreciated. Finally I would also like to thank my friends, family and anyone else who has supported me throughout the research. Especially Annisa Andhini has my thanks for her emotional support and time to proof read my report. Moreover, I should thank Ayesha Nabila for being my InDesign guru.

V

Abstract This research is concerned with Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR); a molten salt next generation nuclear technology which utilises thorium as a fuel. LFTR offers many advantages over uranium-fuelled reactors in regards to safety, waste, proliferation resistance, fuel supply and feasibility. According to nuclear experts, the technical challenges of LFTR are not insurmountable. LFTR could play an important role in the energy transition. Despite LFTR’s potential, it is only marginally developed in Europe. There are historical reasons (weapon production and breeding) why uranium was preferred over thorium, but these do not explain why thorium is currently not being developed. So why is a potentially valuable technology not pursued? This thesis explores barriers to LFTR innovation by mapping the technological innovation system (TIS) of this emerging technology. The thesis chooses to focus on the governmental structure in The Netherlands as a case study but with the aim of generalising it to the EU. The study finds that there are barriers within the Technological innovation System (TIS). The first is a lack of awareness and knowledge in both the general public and the government. Moreover, insufficient funding is given to LFTR since Dutch policy is aimed at renewables and not nuclear. The latter is likely related to anti-nuclear sentiments with the people and enforced by NGOs. However, all of these factors are interrelated. There is also an absence of actors for LFTR; no advocacy groups exist and no entrepreneurial activities nor market formation take place. Furthermore, the uranium industry is not concerned with alternative fuels as they risk obsoleting the existing uranium infrastructure. Similar situations likely occur, in varying degrees, within other EU member states. Despite this knowledge creation drives innovation and creates positive expectations for MSR technology. Research groups can counter the widespread lack of knowledge and awareness by forming an international confederation and lobby group aimed at diffusing scientific knowledge to the public, politicians and NGOs. It is possible that this solutions brings about a science and technology push motor to innovation. This thorium super network should strive to be scientific, independent and can ensure funding for future molten salt reactor research projects. However, generalisation of the findings towards all European nations is difficult due to different national energy policies. Consequently future research should be done in assessing the TIS in other European countries. Further research aimed at LFTRs feasibility and overcoming technological and social barriers is recommended.

VI

Table of Contents Definitions and Abbreviations 5 1. Introduction 7 2. Literature Review 10 2.1 Thorium energy and LFTR 11 2.1.1 What is thorium fuelled nuclear power? 11 2.1.2 What is LFTR? 11 2.1.3 The benefits of LFTR 12 2.1.3.1 LFTR efficiency and nuclear waste 12 2.1.3.2 Safety of LFTR 14 2.1.3.3 Availability of Thorium 14 2.1.3.4 Cheaper 15 2.1.3.5 Proliferation 16 2.1.3.6 Medical: The cure for cancer? 17 2.1.4. The Challenges of LFTR 19 2.1.4.1. The molten salt mixture 19 2.1.4.2. Beryllium and lithium 19 2.1.4.3. Start-up fuel 19 2.1.4.4 Cost effectiveness concerns 20 2.1.4.5. MSRE clean-up process 20 2.1.5. Current Developments of LFTR 21 2.2 What is an Innovation System? 23 2.3 What are Technological Innovation Systems? 25 2.3.1 What is included in a TIS 26 2.4 Structures of a Technological Innovation System 28 2.4.1 Actors 28 2.4.2 Institutions 29 2.4.3 Technologies 30 2.4.4 Relationships and Networks 30 2.4.5 System configuration 31 2.5 System Failure 33 2.5.1 Infrastructural failures 33 2.5.2 Institutional failures 33 2.5.3 Hard systems failure 34 2.5.4 Soft systems failure 34 2.5.5 Interaction failures 34 2.5.6 Strong interaction failure 34 2.5.7 Weak network failure 35 2.5.8 Capabilities failures 35 2.5.9 Absence of actors 35 2.6 TIS dynamics 37 2.6.1 Seven system functions 37 2.7 Framework 41

1 | Jorrit Swaneveld 2014

3. Methodology 43 3.1 Methods and research philosophy 43 3.1.1 Case Study Protocol 44 3.2 Interviews 46 3.3 Answering the research questions 48

4. Findings and Discussion 50 4.1 Research centres system slice 53 4.1.1. How are the research centres being funded? 53 4.2 Government system slice 56 4.2.1 Prioritising investment 56 4.2.2 Awareness and knowledge base of the government 57 4.2.3 Who should invest? 57 4.2.4 Self-fulfilling prophecies 58 4.2.5 Scepticism and insufficient knowledge: 59 4.3 The energy market system slice 62 4.4 People & the public opinion system slice 65 4.5 Lobby groups and NGOs system slice 68 4.6 System failures: a summary of the finding 70 4.6.1 Weak network failure 72 4.6.2 Absence of Actors 72 4.6.3 Soft Systems failure (Institutional failure) 72 4.6.4 Infrastructural failure 72 4.6.5 Strong network failure in the uranium industry 72 4.6.6 External barriers & drivers 72 4.6.7 Knowledge as a motor to innovation 73

4.7 Re-exploring TIS theory: prerequisites to innovation

75

5. Conclusions and Recommendations 77 5.1 Recommendations 79 References 81 Appendix I: Moir’s cost analysis of a MSR 87 Appendix II: History - Why MSR’s were forgotten 88 Appendix III: Current MSR experiments 89 Appendix IV: Societal effects of radiophobia 91 Appendix V: Thorium fuel cycle and waste 93 Appendix VI: Five system components explained 95 Appendix VII: Entrepreneurship in TIS Dynamics 96 Appendix VIII: LFTR misconceptions at the NIV 97 Appendix IX: Case study protocol 99 Appendix X: Research planning 105 Appendix XI: Interview protocol 106


Appendix XII: Interviews 108 A: Expert interviews 110 B: NGO interviews 118 C: Political interviews 130 D: Research Groups interviews 148 Appendix XIII: E-mail information and statements

159

List of Figures: Figure 1: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and LWR 11 Figure 2: Conversion rate 13 Figure 3: Cost estimate of 7 salt reactor proposals 15 Figure 4: MSRE clean-up 20 Figure 5: Innovation System definitions 23 Figure 6: Boundaries of a TIS 26 Figure 7: Five system configuration of a TIS 31 Figure 8: Seven system functions of a TIS 37 Figure 9: Events as indicators of system functions 38 Figure 10: TIS performance based on system functions 39 Figure 11: Research Framework 41 Figure 12: Research Questions 48 Figure 13: LFTR TIS sans relations, networks and dynamics 50 Figure 14: Universities and Research centres system slice 53 Figure 15: Government system slice 59 Figure 16: Recap I: the government slice 60 Figure 17: Energy market system slice 62 Figure 18: NGOs and the people system slices 65 & 68 Figure 19: Recap II 66 Figure 20: Recap III 68 Figure 21: TIS structure 70 Figure 22: Table of barriers, drivers and failures in the system 71 Figure 23: Potential science & technology push motor for LFTR 73 Figure 24: Cost analysis of a MSR 87 Figure 25: Arguments disputing the LNT 91 Figure 26: Reasons for radiophobia 92 Figure 27: LFTR’s U-Th (closed) fuel cycle 94 Figure 28: Five system configuration components 95 Figure 29: Change record 99 Figure 30: Data collection by research question 101 Figure 31: Gantt chart 105 Figure 32: Table of interviews 109



Definitions and abbreviations The following list consists of important abbreviations but also basic definitions of recurring terminology used in this paper. Many of the basics of nuclear physics are unfamiliar to the audience of this paper. Hence some of the basics, as were explained in the previous Hanze University of Applied Sciences thesis on LFTR by Lucas Pool, are once again explained or quoted from this paper. Atoms: “Atoms are made up of positively charged protons and neutrally charged neutrons, together they are the nucleus. Negatively charged electrons surround the nucleus. What kind of material an atom is, is decided by the amount of protons in the atom’s core, or nucleus, which gives the atom its atomic number. Pool, 2013, p.21.” Dollar: United States Dollar. EU/Europe: European Union. Europe is defined in this research as EU member states. Elements: pure substance made up of only one type of atom (e.g. lead, iron, uranium or thorium). Fission: core process in nuclear energy production. The nucleus of an atom is hit with free neutrons, causing them to split and start a chain reaction. FLiBe: Molten salt mixture which consists of Lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride (LiFBeF2). In situ: in situ refers to the chemical reprocessing of the salt mixture that happens on site within the process (reactor vessel) without having to stop or transport the molten salt. Moreover new elements are also formed and fissioned in situ (e.g. u-233 through breeding) IBS: International Business School, Hanze University of Applied Sciences, Groningen (NL). IS: Innovation system. Isotope: different forms of the same element, with different amounts of neutrons (e.g. Uranium-232 and Uranium 233) but same amount of protons in the core (Pool, 2013). kWh: Kilowatt-hour, a measure of electricity (generation). Lector/Lectoraat: Professorship/university research centre . LFTR: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor; the nuclear energy technology utilizing thorium as explained in this paper. In papers, LFTR is commonly written without the adjective “the”, grammatically it should say; the LFTR. Since this is not the norm, this paper occasionaly uses LFTR in sentences without “the”. Lock-in: “lock-in refers to an undesirable static situation in which an incumbent technology has become so entrenched in structures that there is actually little room for innovation. Suurs, 2009, p18 from Unruh 2000”. LWR: Light Water Reactor; dominant technology used to generate energy from Uranium, consisting of PWR’s and BWR’s (boiling water reactors).These are the vast majority of the “normal” nuclear reactors. Meltdown: When the temperature of fuel rods in a LWR increase too much, for example be-


cause they are insufficiently cooled, the solid rods will melt becoming a liquid. MSR: Molten salt reactors, a family of thorium based reactors with a molten salt mixture. NIS: National Innovation System. Neutron Moderator: “A neutron moderator’s function is to slow down fast neutrons, because neutrons that are too fast are not useful for sustaining the nuclear chain reaction.”- Pool 2013, p. 25. Nucleus: atomic core, containing protons and neutrons. PWR: pressurised water reactor, a type of LWR (Hargraves, 2012). Radioactivity: “Some atoms have an unstable nucleus, which means the nucleus is prone to decomposition and forming nuclei with a higher stability. As it decomposes, energy and particles are released which we call radiation, and this process of decomposition is what we call radioactivity. There are 3 types of radiation: Alpha radiation, which consists of a stream of positively charged particles, Beta radiation, which consists of a stream of negatively charged electrons, and Gamma radiation which consists of high energy photons. Pool, 2013, p. 21”. Renewables: in the EU renewables include wind, solar, hydro-electric, tidal power, biomass as well as geothermal energy. Renewable usually means there is an infinite source. In a way, nuclear reactors can also create an infinite supply of fuel, by closing the loop or (closed fuel cycle) breeding. SIS: Sectoral innovation system. Sustainability/sustainable development: Brundtland definition: “Stands for meeting the needs of present generations without jeopardizing the ability of futures generations to meet their own needs – in other words, a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come. It offers a vision of progress that integrates immediate and longer-term objectives, local and global action, and regards social, economic and environmental issues as inseparable and interdependent components of human progress. EU commission, 2014”. Sparging: Running a gas through fluid to separate dissolved gasses or fission products from the fluid, e.g. Helium bubbling. Steam explosion: “The water (in a LWR) is kept at very high pressure to raise its boiling temperature, so it can reach a higher temperature (and carry more thermal energy), without turning into steam. If the pressurised coolant water escapes, a steam explosion occurs. The high pressure artificially increased the water’s boiling temperature, so when this pressure is lost its boiling temperature suddenly drops. Water that remained liquid at a temperature far above 100 °C before, now turns to steam instantly at its present temperature, causing it to expand greatly and creating an explosive reaction. Pool, 2013, p. 33”. TIS: Technological innovation system. Transmutation: “When the nuclei of radioactive atoms emit radiation, they are emitting protons, neutrons, and electrons. Because they are left with fewer protons, neutrons, or electrons in their nucleus they change into a different isotope of the same element (different amount of neutrons), or even a different type of element (different amount of protons).” Pool, 2013, p. 21. Vitrified waste: Storage method in which the waste is stabilised and turned glass within a stainless steel container.


1. Introduction

C

limate change and the continuous depletion of fossil fuels is a tremendous contemporary problem in our society. A sustainable energy transition is required to supply the world with clean and sustainable energy. Uranium nuclear power is CO2 neutral but faces much criticism. However, nuclear power can also be generated using thorium as a fuel. Thorium (TH90) is a largely unknown alternative to uranium based nuclear fission. Thorium is readily available and can be found almost anywhere in the earth’s crust with large concentrated deposits throughout the world. However, there are currently no commercial thorium reactors operational. This thesis is concerned with a specific reactor design, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR). LFTR based energy offers a safer and potentially cheaper alternative to uranium based energy. Additionally, thorium produces cleaner energy (up to 99.9% less long term nuclear waste) and is more efficient. While uranium may run out in the next 100-230 years, thorium could supply the earth’s future energy demands for thousands of years. It is therefore a more sustainable (non-renewable, albeit closed fuel cycle) alternative energy source that can help solve problems such as the current reliance on fossil fuels and its associated risks such as climate change, energy crisis, safety concerns and pollution. LFTR technology may revolutionise the world economy at its best by offering cheap and abundant semi-sustainable energy while limiting risks. Insufficient research has been made into the cost of thorium energy. However, the current theory and speculations indicate a price below uranium based nuclear power and even below coal energy. Industry power and world power can thus shift depending who holds this competitive advantage. The characteristics of LFTR and Thorium are further discussed in chapter 2.1. This IBS thesis continues to build on last year’s research by Pool (2013) on thorium energy and more specifically the LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) technology. The previous study investigated if the claims of LFTR were valid, and confirmed the many positive aspects of LFTR technology. However, the question then occurs; given the advantages

of LFTR, why is LFTR not utilised or developed? Historically, thorium was neglected because it was not suitable for nuclear weapon production and it was uncertain if it could function in fast breeder reactors, more on this in Appendix II. Yet this does not explain why the technology is still locked-in and not developed in a time where nuclear disarmament is prevalent and breeding abandoned. It is possible that LFTR is currently not further developed due to obstacles in its innovation and development process, besides the identified historical reasons. The main research question aims to identify these drivers and barriers to innovation from a Dutch perspective, generalising towards a European theory. The research questions may be unclear or too technical to some readers as they are based on the innovation systems approach, which is further discussed in chapter 2.2. Main research question: What are the drivers and barriers to the development of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor technology within its European Technological Innovation System? Sub question 1: What is the current (national) governmental structure of the LFTR technological innovation system? Sub question 2: Within the (governmental) TIS where do barriers and drivers to innovation occur and from which actors, institutions, networks and technological factors are they derived? Sub question 3: Which system failures can be identified in the LFTR TIS based on the identified barriers and drivers to innovation?


The objective of this study was to identify the factors that are limiting the development of LFTR. In essence, “why is LFTR is not being developed?” To reach this objective and answer the research questions, the research uses technological innovation systems (TIS) theory developed by Suurs (2009) in accordance with the requests of the IBS Lectoraat, which is the commissioner of this study. TIS theory looks at the factors surrounding a technology and can identify drivers and barriers to the innovation process of a technology and identifies actors, institutions, technology and networks as a system around the development and innovation of a technology. Within this approach a tight scope is established, focussing on the most important actors, institutions and their networks related to the technology (LFTR) within the governmental structure of the TIS for the Netherlands. Given the research limitations not all relevant factors can be taken into account (chapter 3.3.). A framework based on the literature review and previous research has been created and is visualised in chapter 2.3. This thesis uses the Case study method as a research approach. It is designed as a single case study (EU) with an embedded case study of The Netherlands. The embedded case study

helps to generalise the findings for the EU. More on Case study research and the protocol is found in chapter 3 and Appendix IX. The answer to the research question supports organisations (e.g. entrepreneurs, businesses, the government and NGOs) in making informed decisions, policies and strategies. The thesis does this by examining what goes wrong in the innovation system and where it occurs, effectively filling a knowledge gap. This thesis puts the topic of thorium into to the attention of people. Awareness and (correct) knowledge on LFTR was found to be lacking in many important policy makers (including politicians, ministries and NGOs) in The Netherlands. More on the findings and conclusions can be found in Chapter 4 and 5. The findings are written as a narrative and uses the personal pronoun “we”. In this event “we” means the reader and the researcher, as the researcher takes the reader by their hand on a journey where the researcher guides them through the story. Lastly, the thesis serves decision makers by providing correct information about LFTR. Moreover, it serves as a platform for future LFTR research and for applying TIS theory on different technologies and topics.



2. Literature Review

T

he following sections discuss the literature used in this research in order to establish a framework. The literature review explains what the liquid fluoride thorium reactors and thorium entails. This is relevant because it involves the context of the problem and also covers technological barriers and drivers. Furthermore, it will discuss the characteristics of LFTR and the advantages and disadvantages of LFTR over Light Water Reactor technology. The second part of the literature review discusses the creation of a framework by explaining what innovation systems and technological innovation systems are, why they are valuable for this research and how they can be applied to the research to answer the research question.


2.1 Thorium energy and LFTR

T

he LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor) is one of several reactor designs that allow for the generation of nuclear power from thorium. This chapter aims to give a brief explanation of what thorium is, what the LFTR is and what its benefits and limitations are.

2.1.1. What is Thorium fuelled nuclear power? Thorium is a chemical element discovered by Swedish chemist Jons Jacob Berzelius in 1828, who named it after the Norse god of thunder, Thor (Bentor, 2013). However it was not until 70 years later that scientists discovered that thorium was a radioactive element (Bentor, 2013). Thorium as an element has 90 protons at its core and looks like a silver-white soft metal with properties similar to lead (Pool, 2013). Thorium, being radioactive (it has an unstable nucleus) is suitable for power generation through a process called nuclear fission. During this process a nucleus of an atom is hit with free neutrons, which split in smaller nuclei and more free neutrons that proceed to hit nuclei of other atoms, causing a chain reaction. During this fission process energy (heat) is released, which is used to drive a turbine connected to a power generator (World Nuclear Association, 2013a).

2.1.2. What is LFTR? Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are a type of molten salt reactor (MSR). MSR’s use a molten salt mixture as a fuel or coolant, or both. The LFTR design consists of a core and a blanket, both of which contain the previously mentioned salt mixture with thorium added to the blanket and uranium to the core. The core generates heat (which can be converted in electricity through the Rankine or Brayton cycle) and causes the thorium-232 in the blanket to turn into uranium-233. This process, in which the element of thorium turns into other elements, is called transmutation (Pool, 2013). Through this process thorium can change into other elements along its decay chain, for example: protactinium, neptunium, plutonium and the aforementioned uranium (Hargraves and Moir, 2010).

Figure 1: Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) and LWR (Hargraves & Moir, 2010)


Unlike the Light Water Reactor, LFTR uses a liquid salt mixture as fuel and has no control rods. FLiBe is commonly regarded as the optimal salt mixture, which consists of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride (LiF-BeF2) hence the name FLiBe (Pool, 2013). The boiling point of this mixture lies at 1430 °C (Ingersoll et al, sd), thus the liquid can remain at very high temperatures without turning to steam (Sohal et al, 2010). Moreover the mixture also slows down fast neutrons, which are not useful for sustaining the nuclear chain reactor, and thus serves as a neutron moderator (Carpenter, 2003; Pool, 2013; Sorensen, 2009). Another important contribution of the mixture is that it’s not solid but liquid, making it easier to separate useful and unwanted by-product of the fission process (Hargraves, 2012). Comparatively, solid fuel is hard to manipulate when it is in the core and traps unwanted fission by-products (Hargraves & Moir, 2010; Hart, 2011; LeBlanc, 2009). 2.1.3. The benefits of LFTR The following sub-chapters summarise the benefits of LFTR technology as compared to conventional LWR technology. The next chapter also discusses the technological challenges LFTR still faces in its development. It must be noted that nuclear energy in all forms is CO2 neutral by the same measure other sustainable and renewable energy sources are considered CO2 neutral (not taking the supply chain into account). 2.1.3.1. LFTR efficiency and nuclear waste One of the most problematic characteristics of nuclear power is the generation of radiotoxic waste products and the associated environmental costs of operating the LWR. Tons of nuclear waste is produced (NEI, 2013) that has to be stored in safe locations for thousands of years. Due to the environmental cost of this seemingly inherit characteristic of nuclear power, it forms a key argument against the use of this method of energy generation. However the LWR and LFTR technologies differ significantly in regards to the generation of waste. To highlight the differences we will first look at the LWR waste characteristics and compare them to LFTR.

The Light water reactor (LWR): Conventional uranium fuelled light water reactors use solid uranium fuel rods. Through the generation of heat and radiation in the reactor core these fuel rods are damaged and have to be taken out after several years of operation. As such the fuel rods are discarded after having only been used for 3-5% (or less) of its energy potential. However, to make things worse one of the by-products of fission is the noble gas xenon-135. This gas slows down energy production by absorbing free neutrons, which disrupts the chain reaction during the fission process, as these neutrons can no longer hit nuclei of other atoms (Pool, 2013). The combination of these components makes for a relatively inefficient energy conversion. Moreover, the removed fuel rods and long-lived transuranic by-products of the fission process need to be stored for tens of thousands of years as nuclear waste (Hargraves and Moir, 2010). Examples of these by-products include plutonium, americium, neptunium and curium (Ibid.). The LFTR: Unlike the LWR, the LFTR does not suffer radiation damage, due to its ionic bonds (Pool, 2013). As such the fuel does not have to be removed until it has been fully used. Furthermore, the by-products of the fission process can remain in the fuel mixture until they too undergo the fission process and are effectively burned up (Hargraves and Moir, 2010; Hart, 2011). LeBlanc states that MSR reactors such as LFTR can even be used to burn up existing nuclear waste from LWR’s (2009). Several authors, including Dr. Kloosterman confirm this (Hargraves, 2012; Pool; 2013; Sorensen, 2009). The LFTR design uses a liquid fuel mixture, as opposed to solid fuel rods, which allows for easy extraction of fission by-products such as xenon-135 (Hargraves, 2012; Pool, 2013). Xenon literally bubbles out of the liquid fuel mixture (through sparging) and is then unable to disrupt the chain reaction (Hargraves and Moir, 2010; Hargraves, 2012; LeBlanc, 2009; Pool, 2013). Naturally, this gas has to be captured, tritium is also expected to be captured this way (Hargraves, 2012).


The LFTR is regarded to be more efficient at converting fuel into electrical energy, partially because all the fuel is burned up but also because the thermal to electrical energy conversion rate is 45-50% as opposed to 3035% for LWR (Hargraves & Moir, 2010; Juhasz et al, 2009). The aforementioned combinations amount to a much higher conversion rate. As such Hargraves graphically illustrates the conversion rate from raw resources to waste products in figure 2. The figure clearly shows that the thorium fuel cycle uses 1 ton of thorium entirely and converts this into a ton of waste products, most of these are fission products (Hargraves and Moir, 2010; Hargraves, 2012). Out of this waste, 83% is considered stable1 within 10 years while another 17% is considered stable within 300 – 5002 years and finally 0.0001 tons of transuranic waste (e.g. plutonium) remains, which has to be stored for a very long time (Hargraves and Moir, 2010; Hargraves, 2012; Juhasz et al, 2009).

0.1% of these transuranics is likely not fully burned in the reactor as the chemical waste processing is not perfect (Hargraves, 2012). LFTR waste radiotoxicity would be 1/1000th compared to pressurized water reactors (Ibid.). On the other hand, the LWR requires much higher quantities of fuel resulting in much more waste. Pool exemplifies this by stating that a 1000MW plant would produce 100 grams of plutonium waste per year compared to 290 kilogram of plutonium per year in a comparable LWR as confirmed by Dr. Kloosterman (Pool, 2013; World Nuclear Association, 2014a). The LFTR can also be used to recycle actinide waste such as plutonium or depleted fuels (2014). Vitrified nuclear waste cannot be used says Dr. Kloosterman (2014). As such the remaining 100 grams will eventually be fissioned if it is recycled leaving no long lived nuclear waste (Kloosterman, 2014). However the short lived fission products are similar. More information on waste and the thorium versus the uranium cycle can be found in Appendix V.

Figure 2: Conversion rate (Hargraves & Moir, 2010). 1: stable means the radiation level has reached background radiation levels or natural levels, making it safe to put back in the ground (Pool. 2013). 2: Dr. Kloosterman estimates 500 years (Pool, 2013).


2.1.3.2. Safety of LFTR The LFTR is considered to be safer as it does not run the risk of either steam explosions or meltdowns due to its design and inherit characteristics. A steam explosion cannot occur because water is not used as a coolant nor is the reactor under pressure, which allows water to have a higher boiling temperature, as it is in a LWR. As such when pressure drops, so does the boiling temperature, causing the water to instantly turn to steam. In LWR’s there exist safeguards to contain and regulate the explosion, which are unfortunately costly to construct, such as the concrete dome (LeBlanc, 2009).

It is clear from the differences in design that a LWR requires power to safely shut down the reactor (otherwise meltdown and steam explosions may occur) while a LFTR requires power to prevent a safe shutdown (Pool, 2013). Therefore in case control is lost, the LFTR will automatically and safely shut down (Ibid.).

Moreover a meltdown cannot occur. Meltdowns occur when the reactor core is not sufficiently cooled, causing the fuel to melt. A meltdown can occur because power is lost to the pumps that cool and circulate the coolant to prevent a meltdown, meanwhile the backup generators also fail, for whatever reason, to take over this function, causing a shortage of coolant (Pool, 2013). The molten fuel is naturally highly radioactive and can be released into the outside environment by burning through the protective layers present in the reactor (Matson, 2011). The fuel in the LFTR is already molten and is designed to operate as such. Furthermore, the LFTR has several safety features that protects against unwanted temperature increases. First of all like some modern LWR’s, LFTR is self-regulating (the so called negative temperature coefficient of reactivity). When the temperature rises above a certain level, the fuel will expand, reducing the area of neutron absorption that in turn decreases fission rate without human intervention (Hargraves and Moir, 2010; Juhasz, 2009; LeBlanc, 2009).

2.1.3.3. Availability of Thorium

The second feature of the LFTR is the frozen salt plug. The plug is situated at the lowest point in the LFTR piping system and is kept frozen by a fan. If power to the reactor were to be lost, the fan would stop cooling, causing the plug to melt. The liquid fluoride fuel will then flow out of the reactor core and into a safe containment basin (Hargraves and Moir, 2010; Juhasz, 2009; LeBlanc, 2009).

Sorensen even states that the first MSR prototype at Oak ridge would be shut down over the weekend by the scientists by figuratively pulling out the plug (Sorensen, 2009), demonstrating its inherit safety feature.

Thorium is estimated to be three to four times more abundant than uranium and can be found in most rocks and soils (LeBlanc, 2009). The World Nuclear Association estimates world thorium reserves at 5.4mln tonnes with large (concentrated) deposits in India, Turkey, Brazil, Australia and the USA (2013b; Sorensen, 2009). The reserves are enough to power the world for thousands of years (Juhasz et al, 2009) says Dr. Kloosterman, Delft University of Technology (Pool, 2013). While thorium based energy is finite, it is much more sustainable than other fossil fuels, even compared to uranium which has reserves for the next 100 (Foro Nuclear, 2011; NNL, 2012) to 230 years (Fetter, 2009). It is for this reason that thorium can be referred to as a sustainable energy source, while in reality it should be labelled as a finite sustainable energy source. In addition to reserves on earth, there are also thorium reserves discovered on Mars (NASA, 2001) and the Moon (Nature, 2011; Sorensen, 2009). As such Sorensen, an ex-NASA employee and nuclear scientist, judges thorium to be a suitable fuel for powering lunar stations (2009).


2.1.3.4. Cheaper LFTR is expected to have a lower cost profile than traditional nuclear power which is estimated at $4.00 per watt and may even compete with coal plants which cost 2.30 dollar per watt (Deutch, et al, 2009). However while no fully operational LFTR has been build, the exact price per watt is yet unknown, estimates are given in figure 3. Hargraves explains the cost per watt as; “The $/watt is the cost of research, development, construction, and testing of the proposed experimental reactor divided by the power produced. The last column is inflation-adjusted to 2012 dollars. This suggests that $2/watt is a reasonable goal for commercially produced power reactors that do no bear the R&D costs. New, up-to-date designs can furnish more accurate cost estimates R. Hargraves, 2012, p. 205”.

Other important cost affecting factors as determined by Hargraves & Moir are that LFTR features lower fuel costs (thorium is cheaper and easier to mine), does not require enriching (which adds considerable costs), simpler fuel handling (liquid fuel, no shutdowns to replace fuel rods), smaller components and has much higher energy efficiency (2010; Hargraves, 2012; Pool, 2013). Furthermore coolant injection systems are not needed in LFTR (Hargraves & Moir, 2010). In addition LFTR can be integrated with existing electrical distribution infrastructure by replacing fossil fuel powered plants, further reducing the costs (Ibid.). Hargraves explains the (other) reasons LFTR is cheaper in more detail in his book: Thorium cheaper than coal, from page 205-211 (2012).

The aim for LFTR should be a capital cost for capacity at 2$/watt and a cost of $0.03/kWh for electric energy (Hargraves, 2012). Appendix I shows a detailed estimation of LFTR’s costs based on the MSRE reactor at Oak Ridge by Moir (2002). Moir, concludes from this estimate that a molten salt reactor costs $3.84 cents/kWh (in 2000’s dollars). How is it possible that LFTR can supply cheaper electricity? First of all LWR’s need huge concrete domes for protection against steam explosions, while LFTR does not, which limits the construction costs of LFTR’s facility (LeBlanc, 2009).

Hargraves and Moir also recognize that the LFTR produces a lot of excess heat that may be used for other purposes such as hydrogen fuel production or even the heating of homes (2010). Likewise, Sorensen suggests using waste heat for other purposes such as the creation of products such as hydrogen, ammonia and dimethyl ether or the desalination of sea water (Sorensen, 2009; 2011). Hydrogen, ammonia and dimethyl ether can be used as liquid fuel for vehicles (Hargraves, 2012).

Figure 3: Cost estimate of 7 salt reactor proposals (Hargraves, 2012)


2.1.3.5. Proliferation Thorium like uranium and plutonium can be used as nuclear material in the production of bombs. However, it is it is considered highly unlikely (Sorensen, 2009) to be actually used. The main reason for this is that the uranium produced from thorium comes in two distinct flavours; uranium 233 and 232, which is chemically identical and virtually inseparable from each other (Pool, 2013). Uranium-232, emits gamma-radiation (Hart, 2011) which is easily detectible and highly destructive to circuitry, human beings and ordnance components (Hargraves and Moir, 2010; Pool, 2013). As such it would be very difficult to create a weapon from it and successfully use, as confirmed by Dr. Kloosterman (Pool, 2013). It would have to be separated, which is (highly) complex but (theoretically) possible, after which the first ever pure u-233 bomb would have to be made. Chapter 2.1.4.3. also illustrates that LFTR needs a fissile start-up fuel. This start-up fuel can be used in itself to make a bomb, so why take the trouble of trying to produce a poorly suitable fissile fuel with LFTR when one already possesses the required material?

Another case against the risk of proliferation is that the fission process in the LFTR produces only just enough neutrons to sustain itself (Pool, 2013). If uranium-233 would be stolen from the reactor, this would decrease the power generation and be thus very noticeable (Hargraves and Moir, 2010). To create a nuclear weapon or smuggle material for the use in weapons, the LFTR would have to be controlled by a willing party. However such a party, likely a (rogue) state, would have a much easier time generating plutonium or enriching natural uranium for the use of weapons by using other methods such as a LWR (Pool, 2013; Hargraves and Moir, 2010). As mentioned earlier, LFTR can recycle nuclear waste, and thus be used to burn up the plutonium (and other transuranic waste) from decommissioned nuclear weaponry (Pool, 2013). The waste would become a fuel in the salt mixture and subsequently used until only by-products are left, which are unsuited for the use in nuclear weaponry (Hart, 2011).


2.1.3.6. Medical: the cure for cancer? Thorium along its decay-chain results in the element uranium-233 whose own decay-chain produces isotopes that have been extinct in nature (Pool, 2013; Sorensen, 2009). These isotopes can be artificially produced through technologies like LFTR. It is expected that these isotopes (e.g. bismuth-213 and actinium-225) are more efficient at fighting cancer than existing methods (Pool, 2013; Sorensen, 2009). The primary reason for this is that they emit Alpha rather than Beta radiation, which can be used to target cancer cells much more precisely. Moreover, bismuth-213 is almost at the end of its decay-chain, meaning that it will not stay in the body for a long time while decaying and emitting radiation (Energy from Thorium Foundation, 2012; Thoriumremix, 2011). However, more research has to be done in particular to prove the effectiveness of bismuth-213 in regards to cancer treatment. As such it is too early to say that thorium reactors benefit medical sciences and public health, instead it must be said they have the potential to do so. However, Sorensen also explains that it can also be used to create Molybdenum 99 as a fission product which is used in the fabrication of Technetium-99m which is in turn is used in medical diagnostic procedures. (Energy from thorium foundation, 2014).



2.1.4. The Challenges of LFTR The previous chapter has identified the advantages of liquid fluoride thorium reactors over light water reactors. Given these advantages, the question arises why thorium energy is not currently utilised. Part of the explanation has to do with the course of history. Uranium was simply much better suited for the creation of weaponry and plutonium was deemed more suitable in breeder reactors (see Appendix II). Thorium was largely forgotten despite promising research results such as the Oak ridge experiment in the 1960’s. Most of us would agree that the development of nuclear weaponry is no longer as important as it was, but rather has been shifting to de-proliferation (Hargraves & Moir, 2010). Nonetheless there are still challenges to the development of LFTR technology. 2.1.4.1. The molten salt mixture One of the first challenges is the continuous cleansing and manipulation of the FLiBe fuel mixture. As this mixture is crucial in the design of the LFTR it must be further developed as it is today. Cleaning and manipulation need to be made possible. However, this requires chemical reprocessing installations that run in parallel to the reactor (Hargraves, 2012; Pool, 2013). The cleaning process itself was already demonstrated in the Oak Ridge reactor of the 1960’s but was done by batch in a separate installation (Pool, 2013). Therefore more research has to be done into developing a safe, parallel installation as well as other technical and safety processes that come with operating a modern LFTR (Pool, 2013). On the bright side, most of the technology required is already developed and is being used in other industries. It is therefore likely that time and funding will overcome most technological obstacles (Pool, 2013). Pool also states that a technique called helium bubbling is being researched for removing unwanted fission products from the salt mixture, as confirmed by Dr. Kloosterman and The Anonymous expert (2013; 2014). The development and material cost of these technologies are likely to influence the cost of the reactor significantly. Another challenge that has come forth is solving the (possible) corrosion and radiation damage (over a 60 year lifetime) within the

LFTR piping system says Kloosterman (Pool, 2013). Other technological challenges include the material that should be used to contain the liquid salt mixture. As the mixture is very toxic, corrosive, hot and naturally radioactive, a material should be used that can withstand these characteristics. The alloy Hastelloy-N was used in the Oak Ridge experiment and proved to be satisfactory (Kloosterman, 2014; LeBlanc, 2009; Pool, 2013). While Pool recognizes that modern safety measures have increased, experts do state that a suitable metal will probably be found (2013). The metal will add significant costs to the reactor when an expensive alloy is utilised, which could drive up the cost of electricity generated. However, on the other side, because the LFTR is not pressurized, it requires less metal in the piping and containment walls of the reactor. 2.1.4.2. Beryllium and lithium FLiBe contains the element of beryllium, which is also used in aluminium processing industries. However, this element requires very careful handling due to its toxicity. Finding an alternative to beryllium may be beneficial to reduce security requirements and decrease complexity (Pool, 2013; LeBlanc, 2009). Lithium-6 isotopes need to be removed from the salt mixture as it absorbs to many neutrons, ruining the neutron economy (Hargraves, 2012). Laser isotope separation, mercury distilling or vacuum distillation could solve this problem (Ibid.). 2.1.4.3. Start-up fuel LFTR uses Uranium-233 as a start-up fuel. However currently there is not enough uranium-233 to satisfy the demand from LFTR reactor’s if it were to be used on a large scale (LeBlanc, 2009). Nuclear expert Dr. Kloosterman states that Uranium-235 or plutionium-239 can be used as an alternative and as such start up fuel is not a problem (Kloosterman, 2014; Pool, 2013). It may also be possible to have dedicated (LFTR) breeder reactors operating to produce start-up fuel for other reactors, as such this challenge can be overcome when uranium runs out.


2.1.4.4. Cost effectiveness concerns One of the major concerns to LFTR is whether or not it will be cost effective. As mentioned before, scientists have estimated LFTR to be much cheaper than traditional LWR’s. However, Pool states that more research needs to be done before claims like these can be made (2013). For example the development time of LFTR is estimated to be 15-20 years for a commercial reactor with many uncertainties in material cost. Reactor designs such as underground facilities could impact the cost and increase safety against attacks (Hargraves, 2012). Currently no cost analysis is made for a contemporary LFTR reactor, however Moir (Appendix I) estimates MSR electricity to be cheaper than coal (2002). 2.1.4.5. MSRE clean-up process The Oak Ridge Molten salt reactor experiment demonstrated that clean-up and decommissioning of the reactor should be considered. After the MSR experiment at Oak ridge scientists drained the molten salt mixture to the drain tanks, which they considered safe (Anonymous expert, 2014; US department of energy, 1997).

These tanks lay dormant for several decades (besides the annual re-heating of the fuel) until it was discovered that fluoride and uranium hexafluoride had indeed migrated away from the drain tanks (Anonymous expert, 2014; US department of energy, 1997). The Oak Ridge Annual Clean-up Report states that the first 4 steps (figure 4) have been completed between 2004 and 2008 (2013). The clean-up is described as technologically difficult. Moreover mistakes have been made in storing the molten salts. Whether reactor clean-up will proof difficult or costly for new generation MSR remains to be seen. It must be stressed that this was an experimental reactor where mistakes were made. Future designs can take the clean-up into account (Anonymous expert, 2014). Lastly, the reactor remained dormant for several decades before the clean-up began (Anonymous expert, 2014), meaning the people at Oak Ridge have not been “cleaning” for the last 40 years. Moreover, if the clean-up process had begun immediately the situation could be significantly different.

Figure 4: MSRE clean-up


2.1.5. Current developments of LFTR It is clear from the previous chapters on challenges and benefits of LFTR that there is a tremendous potential in the use of LFTR for generating power and other related functions (e.g. medicines production, ammonia production, nuclear waste recycling etc.). This, again, leads to the question why LFTR is not higher on the agenda of politicians, researchers and R&D. Why is Europe not investing in a seemingly cleaner, safer and virtually sustainable energy source while it does encourage the use of other sustainable energy sources such as solar and wind energy. Please find information on a global research experiments towards MSR’s (generation IV reactors like LFTR) in Appendix III. For a brief overview of competing reactors, such as the HTR, WAMSR, fast neutron reactor and travelling wave reactor designs as compared to LFTR, please refer to Pool (2013, p 51). This leads us to the use of the innovation system approach to analyse what barriers and drivers exist in the development of LFTR.



2.2 What is an Innovation System?

T

he following sections will explain and establish a framework based on innovation systems theory. The technological innovation system (TIS) approach is a single approach within a wider school of theories called the innovation systems approach (IS). While not one particular definition exists for what an IS is, commonalities can be observed when looking at some of the most common definitions in figure 5.

Figure 5: Innovation System definitions.

All IS studies emphasize that innovation is a learning process that hinges on the involvement of multiple actors that exchange knowledge (Lundvall, 1992). These actors consist of a variety of organizations with different roles, such as governments, universities and businesses.

By definition the relation between institutions and actors is stressed in IS literature. However, the TIS system expands on this by adding a third dimension; technology.

Another common ground that is reached is the importance of institutions, which shape the space of movement of actors through imposing rules, regulations and routines (Suurs, 2009). As such, institutions are important drivers and barriers to innovation.



2.3 What are Technological

Innovation Systems?

W system (SIS).

ithin the IS approach there is a multitude of systems. The most prominent being the system of national innovation (NIS) developed by Lundvall (1992). Other systems include regional innovation system (RIS), the technological innovation system (TIS) and the sectoral innovation

The first two approaches focus on geographical boundaries while the latter takes the industrial sector as a boundary. Furthermore the SIS method is often used in well-developed sectors and industries, limiting the applicability in emerging systems. It is precisely this shortcoming that makes it unsuitable to analyse the innovation process of LFTR, instead a technological innovation systems (TIS) approach is preferable. A TIS is defined as;

The second distinguishing characteristic is the focus on system dynamics. A TIS is considered to be build up over time and feature dynamic competence and knowledge networks (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991). The TIS approach is often used as an intervention model to support policies and strategies, it also supports a continue interaction view to innovation as opposed to a model with linear stages, each stage containing separate actors.

“A dynamic network of agents interacting in a specific economic/industrial area under a particular institutional infrastructure and involved in the generation, diffusion, and utilisation of technology.” Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1991, p. 93).

The TIS approach has been applied on the subject of sustainable innovation (Suurs, 2009). The TIS approach in particular is a suitable method for analysing the structure of an innovation system connected to a technology and it can be used to find the drivers and barriers to the development of the technology. This makes the TIS approach suitable as a underlying framework for this research.

The TIS approach centres on a technology or a field of technologies (Suurs, 2009), in this case LFTR technology. A TIS is sometimes described as a micro version of a SIS and as such multiple TIS may form a SIS (Ibid.). Indeed LFTR, is closely related to other Thorium and Uranium energy generation technologies, which may influence the development of LFTR. LWR technology as such has considerable overlap with TIS, as do competing Thorium reactor designs as analysed by Pool (2013). The TIS approach sets itself further apart with the following two characteristics. First of all the TIS approach stresses that stimulating knowledge flows is not enough to induce technological change and economic performance (Suurs, 2009). Instead, the ability to develop and exploit new business opportunities is deemed a crucial component of technological innovation (Ibid.). By this definition, the entrepreneur and entrepreneurial activities are stressed as a source of innovation.


2.3.1. What is included in a TIS At this point, it may be relevant to ask ourselves, so what is it exactly that one looks at in a TIS, where does one draw the boundary of what is to be analysed? Suurs defines the boundaries of a TIS in a practical analysis as in figure 6.

TIS theory provides us with a set of structures that serve as explanatory variable of how the system is build up. In addition dynamics and the previously mentioned external influencers play important roles in the construction, build-up and thus analysis of a TIS.

The figure highlights the iterative nature of this research and development of delineation is likely if the system develops. Therefore the most important internal and external factors have to be discovered, important in the way that they capture the reality of the problem as identified by the research.

Figure 6: boundaries of a TIS.



2.4 Structures of a Technological Innovation System

S

tructural factors of a TIS represent the static element of a TIS and serve as explanatory variables of the system (Suurs, 2009). With static it is meant that they are relatively stable over time. However, they are in fact dynamic over longer periods of time or when reflecting back to the TIS history (Ibid.). Suurs identifies three basic characteristics that make up a TIS structure; Actors, Institutions and Technology (2009). 2.4.1. Actors Actors as defined by Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1991) Jacobsson and Johnson (2000) and Suurs (2009) includes any organization contributing to the emerging technology in focus, e.g. as a financer, regulator, developer, adopter etc. (Suurs, 2009). It does this through the use of its knowledge and competences. However, the nature of the TIS depends largely on the actor’s willingness and ability to take action (Ibid.). Their skills and choice of action are critical to the diffusion, utilization and generation of the technology (Ibid.). The development of the TIS and the technology is therefore dependent on these actors and their interrelations. Moreover, it is the variety of actors that make up networks within a TIS. Suurs exemplifies these relations with the example that entrepreneurs are unlikely to invest if governments are not willing to support them financially (2009). Whether or not this example is factual is the domain of entrepreneurial theory. An important consideration when looking at actors is to understand the reason why certain actors take certain action. In analysing the underlying reasoning of actors, it is possible to classify each using the enactors-selectors perspective developed by Garud and Ahlstrom (1997) and further developed by Rip (2006). Understanding the role, intentions and underlying reasoning of actors also allows the research to identify possible prime movers. Prime movers are actors that have the power and will to set a TIS in motion by itself (Jasobsson and Johnson, 2000; Suurs, 2009). One can imagine that identifying such a prime mover in the formative stage of a TIS can be very valuable for other actors and policy makers within and outside of the TIS.

Actors for example may still influence potential prime movers. However it does not sufficiently explain the actions taking place within the TIS (Suurs, 2009), which is why the enactors-selectors theory is preferable. In this theory enactors are closely involved in developing a particular technology and thus fundamentally dependant on the success of that technology. Technology enactors are often subject to a concentric bias as they are solely focused on enacting (Rip, 2006; Van Merkerk, 2007). Selectors, on the other hand, are characterized as engaging the technology at a distance. This may derive for example from having multiple alternatives and also have the possibility to choose between these options (Suurs, 2009). Selectors may include regulators, financers, large companies or users. While enactors are usually industries dedicated to developing a certain technology, scientists and other small technology developers. Furthermore, the roles of actors may change which can cause an enactor to change in a selector and vice versa (Suurs, 2009). However the concentric bias and gaps between these enactors and selectors, often create a situation where actors does not fully understand the system and its processes but also the roles of other actors (Van Merkerk, 2007). This can limit innovation processes. However these gaps can be bridged through Broadening and Enriching, which allows actors to play their role better in the innovation process. (Ibid.). Enriching is defined as: “increasing the understanding of actors in the complex dynamics of innovation processes and their role therein” (Ibid. p.42).


While broadening is defined as: “widen the perspectives of actors in terms of identifying a broader set of actors and aspects” (Ibid. p.42). Van Merkerk explains this as: “Actors broaden their perspectives when it becomes clearer for them who the actors and aspects are, and what can be expected from these actors. Actors enrich their insights into innovation processes when it becomes clearer for them how different actors relate to each other and what their role in innovation processes is or can be” (Van Merkerk, 2007, p.42). It is clear from this definition that this research contributes to broadening in the sense of identifying actors and their expectations. Besides, it tries to analyse the relationships between actors and their roles, opening possibilities to enrichment. However, this is not the objective of the research as such. It is also possible that there are existing actors that do not see themselves as part of a TIS, or that a TIS starts as a loose and fragmented structure (Suurs, 2009). In the latter case, there is not really a system but rather an analytical concept in the mind of the researcher (Suurs, 2009). This concept can still be used to guide the analysis and evaluation of a formative TIS (Suurs, 2009). A TIS in the purest sense is mostly a social construct which exists because it is perceived by the participating actors in it (Suurs, 2009). 2.4.2. Institutions Institutions are humanly designed constraints within an innovation system that shape human interaction (North, 1990), they are sometimes referred to as “the rules of the game”. As such these institutional structures are at the core of the innovation system (Edquist and Johnson, 1997). Institutions themselves can be divided in both formal and informal institutions (North, 1990). Formal institutions are referred to as those rules that are codified and enforced by some authority (Suurs, 2009). Informal institutions are more tacit in nature and shaped by the collective actions of actors, and thus organic (Ibid.). Informal institutions can be either normative or cognitive.

Normative institutions consist of norms and values whereas cognitive rules are considered as social paradigms or collective mind frames (Scott, 2001). An example of an informal institution may be the feeling of responsibility (normative) a company or group of people have towards cleaning their neighbourhood. While a formal institution would be laws and policies enforced by the government. Suurs states that for TIS in the formative stage it is likely that the institutional structure in underdeveloped, especially the formal institutions (2009). The institutions that are in place are often maladapted to the emerging technology (Suurs, 2009). Furthermore, in this formative stage with an absence of formal institutions, it is the informal institutions that gain importance and help guide the actions of actors. Especially enactors create visions and expectations in this stage (Ibid.), that are one of the only reasons for other actors to inspire action. Another point raised in the discussion of institutions is their relation with a TIS in terms of intervention. Governmental policies and business strategies are often aimed at these institutional factors. The presence, skills and willingness of selectors and enactors can only be influenced indirectly, through the institutional structure (support programs, tax incentives, subsidies etc.) of the TIS (Suurs, 2009). However, if institutional factors of a competing TIS are already present, they may form considerable barriers to innovation of an emerging technology. Governments, their policy and the institutions they create, may become rigid and dedicated to a certain technology. For example in the case of Thomas Edison, gas companies provided the lighting of New York, Edison’s new technology had to break through the institutions of both the gas industry and the local governmental institutions, before even being able to launch his electric lightning onto the consumer market (Hargadon and Douglas, 2001). In this case, offering a superior technical product is no longer enough, instead Edison imitated features of gas lighting to help regulators, consumers and investors to understand and identify with the new technology (Ibid.).


2.4.3. Technologies Technological factors are important to an innovation system as their artefacts and associated techno-economic workings may drive the rate of development of the TIS (Suurs, 2009). The progress of technological change in the case of emerging technologies relies on these workings. Examples may include cost structures, safety, reliability, availability of raw resources, required infrastructure or emission characteristics. Moreover, these characteristics, while not necessarily static, may set in motion a TIS development or stop the development all together. For example, if a new energy technology is found to be too expensive and harmful to the environment, chances are this will severely hinder or even stop the development of its innovation process. Technology, like institutions, may constrain or drive innovation further. In this paper technology is limited to the liquid fluoride thorium reactor, it’s workings, potentials and characteristics. 2.4.4. Relationships and Networks Structures as previously examined make up the main components of a TIS. In addition, these structures are not independent but rather form intricate relationships and networks with each other. These relations can be between actors, institutions and technology, but also between actors and institutions, actors and technology and institutions and technology. Murman and Frenken state that actor-actor relationships involve action (e.g. transaction, collaboration, construction etc.) while technology-technology and institution-institution relationships resolve around the relations of design (2006). Rules thus refer to other rules, creating a system of rules. However if rules are contradict, there exists misalignment, vice versa, if rules reinforce each other there exists alignment. For example a rule stating a certain percentage of all power needs to be generated sustainably, benefits the use of sustainable energy technologies. Likewise a ban on phone calls while driving a motor vehicle benefits hands free technology systems.

The Actor-actor relationships are characterized by mutual autonomy and two way interactions (Markard and Truffer, 2008). While actor-institution and actor-technology relations are analogous and not truly interactive (Ibid.). Furthermore through their actions, actors influence the rules (technology and institutions) for other actors. The degree this happens is dependent on the actor’s position and competences within a TIS (Suurs, 2009). Networks may be formed if relationships and linkages between actors are strong enough. For example a research network can be formed supported by a subsidy program. Examples of networks are research communities, user-supplier relations, industry associations and other as discussed by Carlsson and Stankiewicz (1991). Network structures are important because they facilitate the exchange of knowledge (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991). Networks also allow for a form of coordination between actors and strike a balance between trust and competition. These networks are deemed of crucial importance to TIS development (Ibid.). Networks can be transformed into synergistic clusters of firms and technologies within an industry, so called development blocks (Ibid.). Structural tensions and synergies, arising from the relationships in and between networks, give form to the dynamics within a TIS (Suurs, 2009). These dynamics are discussed in chapter 2.6.


2.4.5. System configuration A combination of all the structural factors can be made by combining them into one network. This network can be analysed by looking at its 5 components as shown in figure 7. The system components as explained in Appendix VI consist of a combination of actors, institutions and technologies (Suurs, 2009). Some of these may be part multiple networks and multiple system components (Ibid.). Relations with other system configurations outside the TIS are also a possibility. A structural analysis would result in the identification of drivers and barriers to innovation.

Typologies of structural barriers to innovation can be made through the identification of so-called system failures. The thesis limits its scope by focussing on the Government(al) structure as the government actors were found to be key stakeholders in the research of Pool. Moreover, focus on the knowledge structure in inevitable as this is closely tied with the government structure through funding. Furthermore, knowledge creation is at the base of innovation (Suurs, 2009), and is expected to be somewhat developed even in an emerging technology.

Figure 7: Five system configuration of a TIS (Suurs, 2009).



2.5 System failure

A

s in any system, a TIS may have imperfections in the institutions, actors and their relations. These imperfections may lead to so called system failures, which limit innovation or development in a certain way. Several possible failures have been established by IS authorities such as Smith, Edquist, Carlsson and Johnson and others (1999; 1998; 1997). However due to differences in definition these system, imperfections would be unreliable to consistently use in this research. Instead this research uses the definitions as proposed by Klein Woolthuis, based on the aforementioned scholarly theorists (2005).

These system failures can be used to analyse where failures occur, which type of failure and between what actors, networks and interactions (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). Moreover, identifying system failures, partially establishes barriers to the innovation process and the development of the system. The different failures therefore serve as a typology of barriers (failures) that occur within the TIS. As such they can be used by policy makers to base decisions on or to create plans to overcome these failures. However the system failures have been developed with the concept of national innovation systems in mind. Therefore, not all system failures may occur or are relevant in a niche level such as in a TIS. Nonetheless the system failure concept holds its value and can still be adopted for this research.

infrastructural failures can play an important role when analysing innovation systems. Technological innovation system analysis is more likely to focus only on several important infrastructural factors. For example, the presence of LFTR test facilities and other resources needed for development may be significant to the TIS while the presence of smooth roads and an advanced ICT infrastructure may not be. However, it is likely that minimal requirements must be met on all factors, e.g. roads and telecommunications need to be present for any business. Likewise, oversaturation may not improve development of the TIS, e.g. a dozen test facilities may not drive innovation significantly more than half a dozen facilities could.

2.5.1. Infrastructural failures

Institutional failures are recognized by most IS authors. Moreover, institutions form a key component of system theory and are regarded as a defining and structuring element in the system (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). However, inconsistency exists in defining the different forms of failure in the institutional context. For example Edquist et al refer to consciously created versus spontaneously evolved institutions (1998) while Carlsson and Jacobsson refer to hard versus soft institutions (1997) and Johnson and Gregersen mention formal and informal institutions (1994). However there is considerable overlap in the explanation of what these two different institutions are. As such Hard institutions are consciously created, formal and written institutions while soft refers to implicit rules of the game (North, 1990) which are informal and created spontaneously (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). As such it is important to differentiate between their associated system failures.

The physical infrastructure that is needed for the actors in the system to function. If this infrastructure is not present or underdeveloped we may speak of an infrastructural failure. Edquist et al and Smith (1997; 1999) distinguish the required infrastructure on the following basis: Communication and Energy: these include things such as high speed ICT infrastructure, energy, telecommunications etc. (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). Science-technology infrastructure: availability of scientific and applied knowledge and skills, testing facilities, patents, knowledge transfer, training and education (Ibid.). Moreover, supporting infrastructures (e.g. smooth roads and railways) are also deemed important to the development of innovation in a region. It is clear from this definition that

2.5.2. Institutional failures


2.5.3. Hard systems failure Hard systems failure, as explained earlier, refer to the formal institutional systems that are hindering innovation. For example these include the laws and regulations such as labour law, health and safety regulations, technical standards but also the legal system (Smith, 1999). Intellectual property rights is regarded as an important condition for innovation as it allows actors to reap the rewards of innovation (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). 2.5.4. Soft systems failure As opposed to the formal written rules of hard institutions, the soft institutional failures often derive from social values and political culture. These shape the rules of the game and public policy objectives (Smith, 1999). As such these include social norms, values, culture, the entrepreneurial spirit, willingness to share resources between actors, risk averseness and many others (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). As such the soft institutional structure may either hinder or drive innovation within the system. 2.5.5. Interaction failures Interactions take place within the system as parts of networks or relations between combinations of actors, technology and institutions, as described in chapter 2.4. Interactions failures can come into existence when there is too little or too much interaction, these lead to the same systematic failure. As such strong network failure can occur (too much interaction) or weak failures can occur (too little interaction. Klein Woolthuis has expanded upon different interaction failures as can be read below (2005). 2.5.6. Strong interaction failure Klein Woolthuis first establishes that intensive cooperation and interaction between actors can be a source of synergy, and thus positive to the innovation process (2005). However there is also the risk that individual actors are guided (in the wrong direction) by other actors in their network (Ibid.). Moreover, they fail to supply each other the required knowledge which is caused by a lack of information exchange from bridging actors.

Bridging actors are actors that tap into new knowledge or question existing routines (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). As such this blocks renewal and the actors basically lock themselves in. The strong system failure can have multiple causes as defined by Klein Woolthuis (2005), these are briefly touched upon in the following paragraphs. A Myopia due to internal orientation may cause strong network failure. If the network relationships between actors are long established with a high level of trust and habituation, they may become reluctant to let new entrants into the existing group as well as be reluctant to leave the existing group themselves (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). Group think may occur as a consequence of this process. Moreover myopia and inertia may occur, meaning that actors or groups may focus on what they do well themselves and forget about developments on the outside. Furthermore this can cause the group to be locked in technologically, causing a once successful group to become unsuccessful (Ibid.). A second cause of strong interaction failure is a lack of weak ties. Weak ties may form bridges to different industries, actors or other players that are not in the so called inner circle and have thus not been influenced by group think (Granovetter, 1983; Klein Woolthuis, 2005). Moreover, weak links are regarded as important because they are the gateway to new knowledge and function as linkages between external parties that may offer new knowledge, skills and resources that the group or individual actors in a closed network lack. Dependence on dominant partners is a third cause of strong network failure. Actors may be locked into a relationship a with a partner that they are not able to change (e.g. due to high switching costs or lack of alternatives). As such they have no alternative than to work with this partner, causing a potential system failure (Klein Woolthuis, 2005; Williamson, 1985).


2.5.7. Weak network failure

2.5.9. Absence of actors

As opposed to the strong interaction failure there is the weak network failure. As already described earlier, innovation and synergy can be the result of strong cooperation between actors in a network. However if this connectivity does not occur, learning and innovation is hindered, resulting in a weak network failure.

As the previous system failures have all identified failures deriving from relationships and networks, it is also possible, says Klein Woolthuis that innovation is held back because certain actors are not present (2005). As such a network cannot form or only can only partially be formed. Especially during the emerging stages of a TIS, one can imagine that it takes time for actors to enter an innovation system. The absence of actors could be strongly related to technological barriers (e.g. costs and other barriers to entry) but also to existing network characteristics (e.g. groups preventing new entrants). Moreover it is possible that external factors may discourage actors to enter a new TIS (e.g. nuclear disasters and changes in public opinion).

Weak network failure can cause an under-utilisation of interactive learning and innovation (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). Moreover, actors may interact poorly leading to inconsistent visions to the development of technology, which causes problems with innovation coordination of research and investment (Carlsson and Jacobsson, 1997). 2.5.8. Capabilities failures Companies may lack the competences, capacity and resources to make the leap from an old to a new technology. This is referred to as capabilities failure (Klein Woolthuis, 2005). Klein Woolthuis states that being able to make a leap is central to this discussion and firms need flexibility, learning potential and resources to adapt to new technologies and market demands to survive (2005). It is also possible that firms gain access to new technology through their interactions with other actors. However, it is important to understand that firms may only get access if they have a good bargaining position, e.g. they need to be able to offer something in return. Another point which has been brought up by Smith (1999) is that firms often focus on what they are good at, those that they have experience and skills in. However this “specialised focus” hinders the ability of firms to adapt their capabilities to new technologies (Ibid.). A so called transition failure then occurs in which firms are locked-in to a technology (Ibid.).



2.6 TIS Dynamics

T

he TIS dynamics represent the activities and forces that drive or limit innovation and development of a TIS through time. The work of Bergek aimed to find commonalities in existing IS literature to create a list of shared activities that needs to be present for an IS to develop positively (Bergek, 2002; Suurs, 2009) and hence, specify the build-up of a TIS. By combining structures and system functions many of the shortcomings of a structural analysis can be overcome (shortcomings are highlighted by Suurs, 2009. P49-50). This has led to the initial development of eight functions and refined into the seven system functions. 2.6.1. Seven system functions The seven systems functions, as used in this research, is built on the work of the aforementioned eight systems functions by Bergek. However, the seven systems function differs in the way that it has been subject of empirical validation and discussion through the works of Alkemade, Negro, Suurs and Van Alphen (Alkemade et al., 2007; Negro, 2007; Negro et al., 2007; Negro et al., 2008; Suurs, 2009; Van Alphen et al., 2008a; Van Alphen et al., 2008b). As such the seven systems functions can be regarded as the most recent empirically proven TIS model. Please find an elaborate explanation on the seven systems functions and their relation to the concept of

cumulative causation in the work of Suurs (2009, p. 49-59). The figure 8 and 9 is highlighting the seven system functions as defined by Suurs (2009) and Hekkert et al (2007). A crucial component of technological innovation is the ability to develop and exploit new business opportunities (Suurs, 2009). The entrepreneur and entrepreneurial activities are important as a source of innovation. Appendix VII explores entrepreneurial activities as a part of TIS dynamics and figure 10 explains how performance of an innovation system is measured with the 7 system functions.

Figure 8: Seven system functions of a TIS (Hekkert, et al 2007; Suurs 2009).


The seven system functions will be used to help assigning roles to different actors in the TIS. Additionally, they help to assess whether barriers and drivers to innovation are derived from certain actors, institutions and networks, and in what way. Therefore, these can also be considered a form of a typology. This report will take the seven functions as basis and assign actors to the functions according to the gathered data. One actor can fulfil multiple functions, but it is also possible that one of the functions is not fulfilled by any actor. The latter may mean this is a barrier to innovation. Hence the seven systems functions will be a key analytical tool that helps the classification of barriers and supports system failures. Another advantage of using the seven system functions is that so-called motors of innovation can be discovered (Suurs, 2009). These motors are also a typology and help explain how innovation is stimulated and from which system functions in the TIS.

Figure 9: Events as indicators of system functions (Suurs, 2009).


Figure 10: TIS performance based on system functions (Suurs, 2012).

Note that while TIS was intended to be used as a historical narrative, this thesis uses it more as an instrument to assess the current and near future barriers to innovation. One reason is that there are very little concentrated historical events over its 50 year history. The system dynamics, normally used in the historical event analysis, are also suitable as a category for current activities.

By using these empirically tested categories the research can identify barriers, drivers and system failures that are inherently connected to the dynamics. The focus lies on the current TIS, effectively creating a current situation narrative from the value judgements of the interviewees, backed up by other sources.



2.7 Framework

T

he literature review, defines a framework for analysing the research questions. However, because of the lengthy literature review, the final framework is briefly discussed here.

This research aims to identify actors and institutions and their relationships (and networks) with each other within the LFTR technical innovation system. Roles are assigned to the actors based on whether they drive or form barriers to innovation. The roles of actors can be specified using the seven system functions, it can also be used to see in what way a certain actor can drive or hinder innovation. The actors and institutions (and their relationships) are examined after identification. Moreover, this is intended to lead to an understanding of barriers and drivers (to TIS development) related to these structural factors. Barriers and drivers to innovation deriving from technology are also discussed but are already largely identified in the literature review.

Finally drivers and barriers within the TIS are identified, and more importantly when the networks and relations are formed, one can assign a system failure typology to them, where applicable. This framework will therefore identify relevant structural factors, their role in creating barriers or drivers to innovation and finally answer where system failures occur. The framework also explains why thorium is not being developed in Europe as opposed to other alternative energy sources. Moreover, it allows for policy makers or future researches to create intervention models to overcome identified barriers or stimulate drivers of innovation. The figure 11 below exemplifies the framework.

Figure 11: Research framework



3. Methodology

T

he methodology will first establish the research philosophy of this report. Later in this methodology the data collection methods used to answer the research questions will be discussed. This section also features the case study protocol of this research and the limitations.

3.1. Methods and research philosophy The research philosophy that was found to be the most suitable towards this research is that of pragmatism. According to Saunders, pragmatism argues that the research question is at the determinant of the adopted epistemology, ontology and axiology (2009). Choosing between one position or the other is not required as a pragmatist (Saunders, 2009). This allows for choosing mixed methods in answering the research question, which enables triangulation (ibid.). Moreover a focus on applied research is given in which different perspectives are taken to interpret the data (ibid.). A mix of objective and subjective viewpoints ate thus used in interpreting the results (ibid.). Multiple methods were considered to answer the research questions, leading to answering the research question. These include the triangulation of findings through expert interviews who are associated with LFTR and the TIS. A theoretical basis is derived from secondary sources and supplemented by interviews with actors in a TIS. This research is inductive in the sense that it builds a theory to why LFTR is not widely developed or used, rather than stating a hypothesis and trying to verify or falsify it (Saunders et al, 2009). As a research strategy, this study is a case study of LFTR using TIS as an analytical framework. The case study design is further elaborated in chapter 3.1.1.and includes discussion on the protocol. While the timeframe of the research is cross-sectional, as it is about the current position of LFTR and its TIS, it can also be continued in a longitudinal research by using the principle of TIS dynamics. As such this research may be used as a start to understanding the changed in LFTR innovation and TIS dynamics over time.

This research report considers several methods in answering the research questions as defined earlier giving it the characteristic of being a mixed method research with multiple interview methods and secondary research methods. However, as opposed to a regular IBS thesis, the intention of this report is largely exploratory in nature as it aims to gather new knowledge in the field of LFTR (as opposed to problem solving), while also utilising the relatively novel concept of TIS. The foundation of this research lies largely in descriptive research reports on LFTR and applied research reports on TIS, as such this research brings together two previously unrelated subjects and may form a basis for future research. A large part of the study is in essence descriptive as knowledge of the LFTR TIS is not available. That is why this research can arguably be called a descripto-explanatory study in which the description used in this research is a precursor for explanation (Saunders et al, 2009). In reality this research also possesses many components of exploratory research and aims to lay a foundation for future research. The scope can be adjusted so that this research can be continued in the future, i.e. more stakeholders can be considered or the unit of analysis may become Asia, the USA or the entire world. The descriptive aspect of the study is related to the functioning of LFTR, which was studied by Pool (2013). While the exploratory part is related to mapping the TIS system and identifying actors, institutions and networks. When these are established, and barriers and drivers are found, the research turns into a more explanatory study in the sense that it aims to provide an answer towards why LFTR is not being developed in the EU. It does so by building a theory derived from the structural barriers and drivers in the govern-


mental structure of the TIS. Not all factors are examined, so a final answer cannot be given, but rather a theory is built which can be researched further, or which explains part of the question. 3.1.1. Case study protocol This research uses the case study method, which has been chosen so that the phenomenon of LFTR can be studied in its real life context (Yin, 2014). Moreover, case studies allow for a holistic view and flexibility while seeking analytical generalisations (Yin, 2009). Case studies also have the advantage that they can be used to investigate broader issues across boundaries and allow for the use of various sources of data (Manickam, 2014). Within this case study there is an embedded case study of LFTR in The Netherlands, which is used as an illustrative case study. Besides, these can then be used to analytically generalise (with limitations) the findings to other EU countries. However, where possible, these findings have to be triangulated or additional case studies have to be performed in future research to check the validity of the findings for other EU countries. A single case study is suitable because it is an exploratory study but also fills the requirements of an unusual (critical) case. Nevertheless this brings about validity and generalizability concerns, which are discussed in the limitations (Appendix IX). A first step in reducing limitations is through setting up a case study protocol (Appendix IX). The protocol serves to ensure reliability and addresses many of the methodological issues the study faces in a structured fashion, it also includes the ethics.



3.2 Interviews

W

hile the theoretical basis of this research is largely provided by secondary sources, it is important to cross verify sources with each other, hence a literature review. Moreover, this information is verified by expert interviews. The main interviews were held with actors of the TIS.

The purpose of these interviews was to discover the roles of various actors, their importance, networks, functioning of these networks and in which sense they form barriers to innovation or alternatively drive innovation. The intention and goals of the interviews were carefully explained beforehand to ensure validity of the findings. Interviews are especially suited for this research because qualitative information and opinions needed to be gathered to understand the role of actors. Moreover the reason LFTR is not developed could be found in statements of actors that would not have been given in a questionnaire, either because actors may not be informed enough of the subject or because they are not aware of their own role in the TIS. An open to semi structured interview approach was used as this combines the ability for the researcher to ask the desired questions while also leaving room for the interviewee to elaborate and give insights in that were previously not thought of by the researcher (Cooper and Schindler, 2011). An open interview style is actually more common when doing case study research (Yin, 2009). However, this is time consuming and when contacting high ranking participants, they often desired the interview topic up front. For conducting interviews, a personal interview is preferable due to the ability to read body language, however a phone/Skype interview used throughout this research due to the inability of the researcher to visit each interview candidate throughout Europe. If an oral interview was not possible, e-mail was considered. Participant error needed to be considered when planning these phone interviews. Moreover, the participant needs to consent to the interview and be able to fully understand the intention and outcomes of the interview to reduce participant bias (Saunders, 2009).

Reliability concerns are reduced by combining these two reductions of participant bias and error (Saunders, 2009). The interviews were all recorded and transcribed into abstracts, which could be sent to the interviewee for approval and triangulation. Furthermore, the texts were processed with NVivo which helped to analyse, order and visualise large amounts of data in writing. At first automatic audio-text transcribing was preferred, however current software and device testing gave insufficient quality of transcription. Hence it was chosen to do an extensive manual abstract, as full transcriptions would take too much time. Experts in this research are LFTR or Nuclear energy specialists such as Doctors working for a university or high ranking employees in a nuclear energy occupation. Besides Dr. Kloosterman, other experts were considered, also depending on the subject nature at hand that needed to triangulated. For the actors a list of potential candidates and their representatives was created based on their perceived significance to the TIS. The snowball method was used in identifying other actors and experts, which in turn were approached for an interview and continued the snowballing. However, the scope of this research remains on the most important actors deriving from the government sector, NGOs and lobby groups, as these players are likely to form close ties with each other and have considerable influence in early TIS development. A list of interviews can be found in Appendix XII. An interview protocol can be found in Appendix XI.



3.3 Answering the research questions

T

he research questions are answered with a combination of multiple sources as can be viewed in the case study protocol (Appendix IX). The following paragraphs describe exactly how this data is used to answer the research questions.

The first research question (figure 12) can be answered by using multiple methods that are intended to triangulate the findings. First, influential actors were identified. This was done by creating a list of potential actors through literature research and interviews. The initial list can be found in Appendix IX. Moreover, snowballing during the interviews with actors resulted in new interviewee candidates. This snowballing was into motion from the first interview to generate a complete list, which is expanded through expert interviews and secondary sources. Likewise, the institutions are examined and discussed during the interviews. Since institutions (“rules of the game”) themselves cannot be interviewed, the data for this is dependent on interviews with actors, experts and secondary sources such as reports but also archives and documents. The technological characteristics of a TIS needed to be listed as has already been done in the literature review and through the work of Pool (2013).

The second research question aimed to identify the barriers and drivers to innovation within the TIS and their associated origins. The information needed was gathered through the same interviews as the first research question. However more specific questions were asked to discover more about actors’ roles and networks. The end goal of drivers and barriers is met when the gathered data was processed and analysed by the researcher. The roles of the interviewed and examined actors, institutions and technology, and their associated drivers and barriers to innovation were established in lieu with the methods (7 system components) as described in the framework.The final research question and outcome of the research is to create system failures with the combination of drivers and barriers to innovation with the associated sources (actors, technology and institutions) and networks. Information gathered from the previous questions was used to identify the system failures.

Figure 12: Research Questions



4. Findings and Discussion

T

he following chapter will be a journey through the findings of this research. This is done through telling the story on the build-up of the innovation system. Recall that the purpose of the research was to explain why LFTR is not being developed. By going through the complete TIS structure together “we” (the reader and the researcher) encounter the different actors, their roles, actions (system dynamics) and map out their network and relations. The mapping is done as we progress through the story in what is called slices of the system. Together the slices form one large system. A slice always consists of LFTR as a technology and an actor group (e.g. universities and research centres), and their relations with other actor groups by function. These actor groups are simplified but in reality consist out of multiple individual actors that form a network amongst themselves. However mapping this would be terribly complex and confusing. Thus we paint a picture of the system in The Netherlands that can be easily imported to other nations with small variations in relationships. The interview findings (Appendix XII) will be used to illustrate the issues at hand. Let us visualise the starting situation of the system before thinking about relations or networks (figure 13).

Centrally displayed is the LFTR as a technology and surrounding it are the actor or stakeholder groups. The government includes politicians, ministries and institutions, while the people include the general public. NGOs include both advocates and opponents to the technology as well as environmental groups. The market referred to is the energy market, which also includes the uranium industry. Lastly, the research centres represent scientific centres that are primarily concerned with knowledge creation on LFTR.

Figure 13: LFTR TIS sans relations, networks and dynamics.


Starting at the central hub on LFTR, recollect that the technology itself is a factor that can drive or hinder innovation. Naturally if the balance between these factors is positive rather than negative it may drive innovation of the technology. Seemingly, LFTR has many more positive characteristics than negative challenges as concluded by Pool (2013) and discussed in the literature review. Experts, Dr. Kloosterman and the anonymous expert, agree that the LFTR and other MSRs solve many of the problems that the LWR faces and that the technological challenges are not insurmountable (2014). However for challenges to be overcome, research is needed which is dependant on resources. We can call these resources funding but also the availability of facilities, expertise, etc. are considered resources.

To simplify things we can say that in solving the technological challenges of LFTR, funding is required. Translating this to system dynamics, one requires resource mobilisation (F6) for knowledge development (F2). However, this is a feedback loop that reinforces itself. Positive results and expectations identified through knowledge development can give way to an increased resource mobilisation to pursue these expectations. This brings us to the first system slice; research centres.



4.1 Research centres system slice

T

his system slice is concerned with the universities and research centres, and is visually displayed next to this text. To recap, universities and research centres create knowledge (F2) but also diffuse the knowledge (F3). Funding (F6) is required to enable knowledge creation. Nuclear research is constrained through funding. Currently, national governments and the EU provide this funding. The Netherlands subsidises little nuclear research explains the Anonymous expert (2014). Indeed, there is a general decline of nuclear knowledge and infrastructure in The Netherlands, states Senator Dr. Kees de Lange (2014). Nuclear research centres have disappeared (De Lange, 2014), Dr. Schram (NRG) exemplifies this by saying that the NRG research programme diminishes by 25% next year (2014). The Weinberg foundation confirms this general decline in nuclear research and states that in the last two decades much of the UK’s nuclear research has been systematically closed (2014). This diminishing trickle has to be divided over multiple research programmes, Molten Salt Reactors as a new technology have to directly compete with other research programmes (Anonymous expert, 2014). Dr. Kloosterman believes Europe is currently still competitive in LFTR expertise but swift action is required to retain this lead (2014). These statements highlight that the general financial climate for nuclear research centres is less than ideal. However it is also evident that some funding is available, which in itself drives the innovation of LFTR through (limited) knowledge development. 4.1.1. How are the research centres being funded?

Figure 14: Universities and Research centres system slice

National governments do not directly fund/ commission MSR research but rather provide the budget for research groups. These groups generate knowledge and ideally also share this knowledge amongst them and with the national government. The EU also funds research, however Dr. Stainsby (National Nuclear Laboratory) states that the EU is moving towards a role of coordinating research instead of funding (2014). It is the national governments that decide on the energy policy and which technologies to back (Stainsby, 2014).


While the EU does fund research and has funded MSR research, it is only a trifle of the total research budget. Project EVOL, the latest Molten Salt Fast Reactor project (Appendix III) was funded under the EU framework programme and had a budget of only 1.8 million euro, of which almost 1 million euro was provided by the EU. It is obvious that this is very little money for a project that involves multiple international research centres spread across Europe. If we were to compare this to ordinary objects, the relative cost of the EVOL project becomes clear, for instance a roundabout. The average cost of a single lane roundabout in The Netherlands is 400.000 euro (SWOV, 2012). The researcher grew up in a village with about 5000 inhabitants and 5 roundabouts. EVOL cost the governments of multiple nations about 1 million euro while the municipality of this village has spent 2 million euros on roundabouts alone. It is debatable which is the better plan; funding a reactor or building roundabouts. Nonetheless it exemplifies how little money actually goes towards Molten Salt Reactor research in the EU. So why is not more money going to Molten Salt Reactor research? The basic science has to be worked out first before a public body can justify investing in a technology states Dr. Stainsby (2014). So is it that the technology is not far enough developed to warrant government spending on it? To find the answer we must visit the government system slice. We are leaving the knowledge diffusion unexplained right now but will get back to this later as it is an integral part of the discussion.



4.2 Government system slice

T

he government system slice has many similarities to the previous slice, as they form a system together. We have already explained that the government funds research centres and research centres create knowledge to further the innovation of LFTR. However the government guides the search (F4) through targets and funding. 4.2.1. Prioritising investment Several technological options exist in the field of sustainable energy, all of which may require investment. The government has to focus on one or several options or risk diluting the limited resources, the latter hurts all technological innovation from prospering while focussing too much decreases variety in the options (Suurs, 2009). By investing in technology A and not in B, the search towards A is intensified while B weakens. LFTR can be considered “B” based on the funding characteristics. Moreover, Dr. Stainsby explains that for the SNETP (Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform) Molten Salt Reactors are not a priority (2014). Furthermore, in France other closed cycle nuclear technologies like sodium fast reactors, and to a lesser extent gas cooled reactors, have been chosen as the preferred technology (Stainsby, 2014).

Logically if politicians decide to pursue sustainable energy and cherry pick what belongs to it, disregarding factual information, one runs the risk of omitting potentially feasible alternatives.

The Netherlands is mainly concerned with sustainable energy solutions. Representative Jan Vos of the labour party says that the party has decided to put all efforts on sustainables (2014). For the labour party sustainability does not include nuclear energy (Vos, 2014).

This starts a dual discussion, the first concerns the perception of nuclear power by the government and the people. The perception of nuclear energy will be discussed when we talk about people as a slice of the system. The second point is whether the government (e.g. politicians and ministries) understands the differences between different reactor types and fuel cycles (thorium vs uranium and closed vs open cycles). This understanding can only be achieved through possessing sufficient knowledge on the subject, this knowledge is available as demonstrated by this thesis. The information needs to reach the recipient through knowledge diffusion (F3), so that a well-balanced decision can be made on whether or not the technology is interesting to pursue (F4). The following subchapter narrates the opinion amongst the politicians in The Netherlands on LFTR.

VVD politician René Leegte also states that sustainability does not include uranium or thorium energy (2014). PVV politician Reinette Klever further confirms this by stating that the words nuclear energy and thorium do not exist in the current energy agreement because this does not fit into the dogma of what sustainable energy is (as it is being used by all other parties). Senator De Lange (OSF) believes that thinking in black and white does not further the discussion, but also recognizes that thorium energy could certainly fall into the category of sustainable energy (2014).

Most of the interviewees agree that LFTR can be regarded as sustainable within the Brundtland definition due to its breeding capabilities, long term fuel supply and other characteristics. Whether or not thorium is really sustainable, it currently is not officially regarded as such nor is it included in the Dutch “Topsectoren” or other government energy plans which aim to support the Dutch sustainable energy sector (ERKC, 2014). At this point one would wonder why some CO2 neutral energy technologies are supported while others are not.


4.2.2. Awareness and knowledge base of the government The first thing to consider is whether the government has ever heard of Molten Salt reactors. Without awareness there is also no debate and without a debate there is no support or opposition for that matter. All interviewed people agree that thorium, molten salt reactors and LFTR are not on the political agenda and that an active debate is not present. LAKA goes as far as saying that there is nothing to debate about since LFTR does not exist (2014). Nonetheless the VVD, PVV, SGP and PVDA political parties all state that they are following the developments of Thorium technology closely and with interest (Klever, 2014; Leegte, 2014; SGP, 2014; Vos, 2014). A certain level of awareness exists. Both the VVD and the PVV claim their members have heard of thorium ( Klever, 2014; Leegte, 2014). Also Jan Vos (PVDA) claims to know about thorium and has in the past made an inquiry on the matter in the House of Representatives (2014). On the other side, Senator De Lange has mentioned thorium once in an energy debate, but nobody had ever heard about this alternative energy (2014). Pool also finds a similar opinion in his research where a member of the CDA estimates that other political parties have not heard about thorium (2013). De Lange believes he is possibly one of the only people in the Senate that understands what Molten Salt Reactors and Thorium are really about (2014). There is a clear difference, awareness of the word thorium is not the same as understanding the benefits or weaknesses of the technology. Dr. Kloosterman (TU Delft, involved in EVOL) is considered the Dutch expert on Molten Salt Reactors but has never received questions on this technology from national politics (2014). Dr. Kloosterman does not believe that the members of the Senate and House of Representatives have substantial knowledge on LFTR (2014). At some point LFTR will need to come on the political agenda, and then politicians will have to deepen their knowledge (Ibid.).

At this point we can assume that Dutch national politics may or may not have heard about thorium, but what is certain is that there is no basic understanding of what a molten salt reactor actually is and how it works. René Leegte admits not possessing this knowledge yet, and states the VVD is investigating the claims (2014). Several critical interviewees believe that the current level of debate on renewables is relatively basic in both The Netherlands (De Lange, 2014; WISE, 2014) and the UK (Stainsby, 2014; The Alvin Weinberg Foundation, 2014). 4.2.3. Who should invest? Labour party member, Jan Vos, believes that the government should not invest in thorium at all, at least not at this moment (2014). The reason is that the PVDA has not heard a convincing story why the government should invest in thorium. Vos concludes that the risks are too great (2014). A source of information for Vos is nuclear physicist and party leader Samsom (2014). Moreover the Ministry of Economic Affairs has answered his enquiries to the minister (2014). One of the prime sources of information on nuclear safety in the Ministry of Economic affairs is the department of Nuclear Installations and Safety (pdNIV). Please refer to appendix VII where we discuss the role of the pdNIV and conclude that the pdNIV has insufficient expertise on LFTR and MSRs. This is the first indication that insufficient factual knowledge is present. There are also some indications that even the people that claim to know about thorium actually possess insufficient information on the subject, Vos for example states that he is following the developments in Japan and Norway (2014). However Norway is not developing a Molten Salt Reactor of any kind, instead it is exploring thorium solid fuel alternatives. What again seems to be lacking is thorough understanding of Molten Salt Reactors and of nuclear energy. But before we go down this rabbit hole, we should finish how politicians would like to see LFTR funded.


René Leegte (VVD) also believes that the government should not invest in thorium because politics is about the goal and not about the tools and methods. The market will need to finance the development of thorium states Leegte (2014). Vos agrees and states that the government should not interfere with the market (2014). Reinette Klever (PVV) blames the other parties for continually stimulating sustainable power such as wind and solar energy, which causes the market to be the only remaining possibility for LFTR to be developed. We will further discuss in the market slice why the market is not funding LFTR. At this point we get back to knowledge diffusion (F2). It seems that at some point in the innovation system knowledge is either not diffused towards to government or the government does not actively search for information. A third possibility is that knowledge is adequately diffused but not assimilated by the government. Whatever the reason, the effect is the same; politicians and the government have insufficient knowledge on thorium energy and LFTR. Since politicians are not informed, there is no debate thus politicians do not care to inform themselves to begin with. Obviously this is a generalisation but it does indicate a vicious circle. Due to this circle thorium is not on the agenda and not seen as a possible alternative to meeting the CO2 neutral quota. Even if awareness is created; a large threat is that politicians do not fully understand the message (on MSRs) or only partially utilise the message (Anonymous expert, 2014). This may cause that politicians give out scientifically incorrect statements. 4.2.4. Self-fulfilling prophecies This research has also identified another possible reason why politicians do not consider LFTR and MSRs. LFTR and MSRs are fifteen, twenty, forty or more years away from commercialisation and are thus not invested in. The estimates differ a little but connections can certainly be found. The NIV (Economic Affairs) is not actively concerned with LFTR (2014). The NIV states that there is no indication that within a reasonable time (around ten years) a serious request for a LFTR permit in The Netherlands will be made (2014). They conclude that the technology is still in its infancy (Ibid.).

The NIV certainly has a point here but it also indicates that the political vision is limited. Senator De Lange confirms this and states that 10-20 years is outside of the timeframe for politicians (2014). However, the Senator also states that the feasibility of thorium is much larger than that of fusion (2014), while fusion is invested in by European governments. De Lange believes that fusion may be better in the long run, but it is unwise to put all eggs in one basket (Ibid.). Also the anti-nuclear WISE (World Information Service on Energy) agrees with De Lange that other options should be considered and that a mix of measures has to be taken to solve the current energy problems (2014). However, WISE believes that thorium and LFTR are too late to be implemented for the short term and pleads for the development of renewables (2014). The consensus of opinion (in the SNETP) is that the Molten Salt Fast Reactors are beyond the forty year timeframe (based on technological readiness levels) for commercial deployment (Stainsby, 2014). However, to some extent one has to guard against these things becoming self-fulfilling prophecies says Dr. Stainsby (2014). “People may say that because it will not be around for another 40 years, they won’t invest in it, then because nobody invests in it won’t be around for 40 years – Stainsby, 2014”. In reality the development time of LTFR is not that far away if you compare it with other construction projects such as high speed rail lines states the Alvin Weinberg Foundation (2014). Also the Foundation recognises that if people keep saying that we cannot develop MSRs because it is ten years away, it will always be ten years (2014). At some point we have to seize the moment and go out and develop this says the Foundation (2014). Dr. Stainsby also states that at point in time a decision has to be made (2014). It may be that because of perceived insecurities in the development time MSRs are not on the agenda and not seen as part of the energy solution. Moreover this perception may have something to do with the knowledge levels. In turn, all these factors contribute to a guidance of the search away from MSR technologies which results in less resource mobili-


sation, less knowledge development and an longer period of development time before a MSR can be commercialised. It is very well possible that another vicious circle is created through these factors. 4.2.5. Scepticism and insufficient knowledge: If thorium and molten salt reactor possess so many positive characteristics as opposed to other nuclear reactors, then why did nobody develop these reactors. The NIV indicates that while the Oak Ridge reactor experiment was initiated in the 60’s, in the 50 years after, it never led to another test reactor (2014). The NIV states; “Ask yourself the question why the development of this technology has largely stagnated, while for example the fast reactor (both lead and sodium cooled) and high temperature gas cooled reactors were further developed (2014)”. Also LAKA is stating that there must be a reason why in the 30 years after the MSRE, there were no research programmes on the topic of Molten Salt Reactors (2014). It cannot be because the project leaders did not know MSRs exist states LAKA (2014). Both LAKA and the NIV reason that there must be a series of technical problems with LFTR and MSRs. This is another sign that some interviewees possessing insufficient knowledge as is manifested in these statements on the history of thorium.

The Oak Ridge Molten Salt Reactor experiment as a proven technology is doubted since; if it really was such a good technology, then why did nobody invest in it after it ended in 1969? This thesis already explained in Appendix II that it has to do with the changing perspectives on the necessity to breed (which thorium is less suitable for) and the discovery of more uranium than was initially expected. There was no fatal flaw that caused the reactor to be abandoned but instead priorities and perspectives caused a stop to the development of the MSR. We can conclude that, while to knowledge to answer this question is available, the people that give these statements were not aware of it. There is simply a lack of correct and scientific information. However, this does not take away from the fact that technological improvements need to be made to the reactor design before commercialisation is possible. Figure 15 shows the final government slice, we have already explained the relations between the government and research centres. The following sections will gradually explain the remaining relations (market, people and finally advocacy groups). A recap on the findings can be found in figure 16.

Figure 15: Government system slice


Figure 16: Recap on the government slice



4.3 The energy market system slice

W

hile this research’s scope is not set to include the energy market, nonetheless we encountered a barrier from this market. Recall that the Dutch representatives suggest that the government should not fund LFTR but the market should. However the market is currently not doing this states Vos (2014). Dr. Schram confirms that the government is watching and waiting for the market but that the market is not doing anything. The system slice thus looks like figure 17 and is explained further on in this chapter.

Figure 17: Energy market system slice. René Leegte explains that an overcapacity of electricity in Western Europe is causing the energy market not to invest in any new power plants (2014). Vos states that if thorium energy would really be as cheap as promised, the market would also invest in it (2014). There must be something (risks or costs) for companies that make thorium unattractive, concludes Vos (2014). On the other hand, the government does subsidise sustainable energy while nuclear power is left at the hands of the market so there is no “ level playing field” (De Lange, 2014, Leegte, 2014; LAKA, 2014; Schram, 2014,). Since we did not actively research this we cannot give an answer to why the market does not invest in thorium. However, what we can do is give plausible explanations why the nuclear industry/uranium industry does not invest in thorium or molten salt reactors.

Dr. Schram believes that the industry is not against innovation and development but that billions has been invested into an infrastructure revolving around uranium (mines, enrichment, reactors, reprocessing). While the nuclear industry can still sell their old product (uranium energy) there is no incentive for them to do anything different (Anonymous expert, 2014; Schram, 2014). Also WISE confirms that investing in thorium would mean an end to the profit model of uranium enrichment companies since enriching thorium is not needed (2014). Moreover, WISE believes that the industry still needs to earn back their previous investments of “old (generation III)” uranium reactors (2014). There simply is a lot of money invested in uranium enrichment and uranium mines (Anonymous expert, 2014). Senator De Lange further stresses that the market is not going to pay for the development and that through subsidising windmills, other technologies (such as LFTR) are blocked.


Dr. Stainsby states that the nuclear industry bases a lot of things on Technological Readiness Levels (1-9, where 1 is a blue sky idea and 9 is commercial deployment). In the SNETP they may look at levels 6-7 (TLR). While MSRs are more around level 3. It is about timescale, member state policy and priority for the SNETP says Dr. Stainsby (2014). He also recognizes that one has got to be careful with these things as you might condemn a technology by saying that they are starting too far behind and thus we should not invest in them (Stainsby, 2014). To conclude reasons that the market may not invest in thorium have to do with the maturity of the technology but mainly because investments in uranium become obsolete. Moreover, this also implies that a new infrastructure towards thorium has to be built and is currently not available (SGP, 2014). Pool (2013) suggested similar constraints from the uranium industry and like him, this research must also conclude that more research needs to be done on this topic. An investigation to the barriers from the energy market would have to be conducted before definite conclusions are drawn. However, since the market is not present the functions Market Formation (F5), Resource Mobilisation (F6), and possibly Entrepreneurial Activities (F1) are further constrained. Entrepreneurial activities to LFTR or other MSRs within Europe were also not found indicating an absence of F1.



4.4 People & the public opinion system slice

T

he public opinion system slice is an interesting one as it is closely related to politics, because the people elect the government and the government informs people. Then there are the NGOs and lobby groups who influence the public opinion and vice versa. While the public opinion itself does not fall into the scope of the research, its relations with the government and lobby groups do. Hence a (possibly incomplete) image (figure 18) can be sketched of this system slice. The first problem is that nuclear energy is dangerous in the perception of the general public (De Lange, 2014). The objections that are associated with nuclear power are a major problem (Appendix IV on radiophobia), and some are justified states Senator De Lange (2014). Indeed, even though most people have not heard about thorium to begin with, they will automatically be against it because it is a form of nuclear power says WISE (2014). The Alvin Weinberg also states that there is lack of information and that the energy debate is too simplistic (2014). Moreover, many people simply do not know about alternative forms of nuclear energy such as MSR nor that they were proven during the Oak Ridge experiment (Alvin Weinberg Foundation, 2014).

The PVV sees this as a barrier to an otherwise safe, clean and affordable form of energy (Klever, 2014). The Alvin Weinberg Foundation further confirms the findings by stating that; “there is definitely scepticism about MSRs and LFTR because of the past broken promises surrounding nuclear and their inherit scepticism towards nuclear to begin with. There is a lot of scepticism and fear in Europe about nuclear energy. Furthermore there is a big anti-nuclear movement in Europe, politicians are afraid of that – Alvin Weinberg Foundation, 2014”.

Figure 18: NGOs and the people system slices. Politician Jan Vos also states that thorium and LFTR bring safety risks and do not have the public support needed (2014). Vos is of the opinion that LFTR and thorium are hard to sell in politics because there will be public resistance (2014). The people want sustainable energy says Vos and nuclear does not bring you votes (2014).

The cause of this (anti-nuclear sentiment) has to do with the sensitivity surrounding nuclear energy says Dr. Schram (2014). The issue is different in each country; it can be about safety, fear of radiation (Appendix IV) and societal or economic concerns such as subsidies (Schram, 2014). Especially In the 80s the discussion was very polarised, now it is different


because people are better informed (Ibid.). Still nuclear energy remains a subject that gives way to a lot of discussion and even divides people (Ibid.). Dr. Schram believes this topic is worth a thesis in itself to which the researcher agrees. However we can assume that there a significant anti-nuclear sentiments in Europe, or can we? The Netherlands and Europe are not anti-nuclear, states Dutch politician René Leegte (2014). There is resistance against every type of energy believes Leegte (2014). The public opinion is an advantage for LFTR says Dr. Kloosterman (2014). Kloosterman noticed that since Fukushima there is a lot more interest in the MSR (2014). It is safer and more sustainable, thus people see it as a new form of nuclear energy according to Kloosterman (2014). Also Dr. Stainsby of the UK National Nuclear laboratory offers an alternative vision: Politicians have to balance public opinion and the technical arguments says Stainsby (2014). Generally, the electorate responds emotionally rather than in response to the strength of the technical arguments (Stainsby, 2014). The subtleties of the arguments about whether fuel cycle A is better than fuel cycle B can be lost in such a debate (Ibid.). The debate is generally about whether or not a state should avoid, adopt or abandon nuclear power, not about the basis of the fuel cycle.

With regard to the question of the adoption (or continued adoption) of nuclear power, over the last ten years the UK has made a complete policy turnaround in regards of nuclear, which went by largely unopposed by the public and the media (Ibid.). Currently all three of the main political parties back nuclear power (Ibid.). With other energy sources people are concerned about loss of habitat, wetlands, rivers and the general natural environment (Ibid.). Dependence on Russian gas has also caused a need for energy independence and security (Stainsby, 2014). Richard Stainsby cannot remember a time that the UK has been more at ease with using nuclear energy than it is right now (Ibid.). Likewise, France is a different environment where nuclear energy is embraced and investments in closed fuel cycle reactors are made (Stainsby, 2014). We can conclude from this that it is hard to generalize Europe in this regard. There are a lot of perceived anti-nuclear sentiments but the degree of it differs across Europe. The anti-nuclear sentiment is due to the power of green groups (WISE, 2014; Alvin Weinberg Foundation, 2014), which we explore in the next section. The public opinion in this aspect can be considered a barrier in countries where anti-nuclear segments form the majority, which causes negative or limited support from Advocacy Coalitions (F7). However, thorium could be set apart from conventional nuclear power according to Kloosterman (2014).

Figure 19: Recap II.



4.5 Lobby groups and NGOs system slice

T

he lobby groups and NGOs system slice primarily consists of various groups active as advocacy coalitions (F7). However, besides the Alvin Weinberg Foundation, no advocacy groups for MSRs or LFTR could be identified in The Netherlands or the EU political structure. We can therefore speak of an absence of F7 from lobby groups and NGOs. Since thorium technology is associated with nuclear, there are various anti-nuclear groups in the EU that are inherently sceptical of MSR (Alvin Weinberg Foundation, 2014). The Alvin Weinberg Foundation tries to bring these groups, the people, and policy makers together to inform them of MSR technology and encourage future research (Ibid.). The Weinberg foundation thus tries to raise awareness, spread information and acts as an advocacy coalition. Likewise, anti-nuclear groups create an inertia by doing the same activities but then against nuclear energy in all forms (Alvin Weinberg Foundation, 2014; WISE, 2014).

This inertia is a major hurdle to the development of LFTR. Dr. Stainsby believes the foundation has done a good job in raising awareness (2014). There is an absence of (pro-thorium) advocacy coalitions in the Netherlands and Europe. Advocacy coalitions of other technologies do exist, creating resistance and inertia (a barrier). Normally these barriers do not fall into the TIS but are graphically represented in this research as otherwise the bubbles would not interact and would not show a barrier. The system slice thus looks like figure 18.

Figure 18 (repeated): NGOs and the people system slices.

Figure 20: Recap III



4.6 System failures: a summary of the findings

T

he previous sections have highlighted the system slices and identified barriers and drivers. These findings are summarised in figure 21 and 22. Moreover the system failures are described in this section. Finally the researcher discusses a way to solve some of the barriers.

Figure 21: TIS structure


System Function Actors F1: Entrepreneurial None Activities

Barrier/Driver Barrier; no significant entrepreneurial activities are conducted

F2: Knowledge development

Research groups

Driver; however limited by funding

F3: Knowledge Diffusion

Research centres, lobby Barrier; positive groups and NGOs expectations drive innovation from F2 but spreading correct information outside of the scientific network fails.

F4: Guidance of the Search

The Government

Barrier; Guidance of the search away from nuclear and MSRs

Assumed Cause F6 failure, F5 failure, F7 failure, F2 (immature technology to commercialise) Funding (F6) limits speed of development and capacity Insufficient F7 is performed to let diffusion take place; the knowledge exchange network is not present towards the public or politics but limited to the scientific network. F3: insufficient knowledge at policy makers. F7: public support is missing and lobbying is absent to overcome the inertia.

System Failure -Absence of Actors

-Infrastructural failure (e.g. experimental facilities) -Weak network failure -Absence of Actors (F7)

Primary: -Weak network failure -Absence of actors to form networks -Soft systems failure Secondary: -Strong network failure (group think towards renewables omitting alternatives)

F5: Market Formation

None

F6: Resource Mobilisation

The Government

Barrier, this function is No evidence or absent. indication of market formation in the near future

Limited barrier, insuffi- Insufficient awareness cient funds are directed and information, to the technology. presumably because Private investors not of F3 failure. Private present investors F7: Support from Advo- NGOs, lobby groups Barrier, absence of Lack of awareness (F3 cacy Coalitions and individuals/the actors + inertia to nu- failure). people clear through opposing coalitions (e.g. Green groups) Figure 22: Table of barriers, drivers and failures in the system.

-Absence of Actors

Directly related to F4 system failures.

-Absence of Actors

This research identified the following system failures as represented in the previous figure and explained in the next sections.


4.6.1. Weak network failure Actors interact poorly leading to inconsistent visions to the development of technology, which causes problems with coordination of research and investment. This failure occurs primarily on the subject of knowledge exchange (F3), which may have led to a guidance of the search (F4) away from MSRs or even nuclear technology. The degree of the latter is strongly country dependant. 4.6.2. Absence of Actors Advocacy groups (F7) and entrepreneurial activities (F1) are not present nor are their actors. 4.6.3. Soft Systems failure (Institutional failure) Social values and political culture currently create a soft system failure towards nuclear technology. Public policy objectives are not aimed at nuclear or alternative nuclear, although the degree varies per country. The soft institutional structure currently hinders the development of LFTR and likely other forms of alternative nuclear energy. This factor is related to information (F3), public opinion (F7) and directs the search (F4) towards sustainable technologies. Fear and emotions may also lie at the heart of this failure (Appendix IV).

4.6.5. Strong network failure in the uranium industry A strong network failure may be occurring (this was not investigated) as the nuclear industry is technologically locked into uranium. The initial cause is related to evolutionary economics and path dependency but it may be that groupthink enforces this process in which only uranium based technologies are pursued. An argument against this possibility is that it is simple economics (investment in uranium infrastructure) that cause limited variety in innovation. Insufficient incentives to developing alternative nuclear lay at the foundation of these problems. 4.6.6. External barriers & drivers Fukushima and other disasters create a negative image to nuclear and can act as a barrier or a driver depending on whether LFTR is associated with conventional nuclear or as an answer to the problems of conventional nuclear. Competing technologies may form a barrier. Likewise breakthroughs and research projects in other countries on MSRs may create an external driver to the European innovation system. Research programmes could be combined to cross borders and boost innovation. Finally it is possible that a private investor emerges that is willing to invest in LFTR.

4.6.4. Infrastructural failure Science and technology are present but limited and declining, due to a lack of funding (F6) caused by a different guidance of the search (F4). Supply chains for commercialisation have naturally not developed, as the technology is immature. The technology cannot be purchased off-the-shelf anytime soon nor the components and resources are available.


4.6.7. Knowledge as a motor to innovation While the TIS seemingly fails in many ways it still succeeds to continually yet slowly progress in the development of LFTR. Knowledge creation (F2) is this driver that manages to do this despite limited resources (F6). There is hope yet for the TIS if it were to develop a science and technology push motor, to which it shares characteristics (Suurs, 2009). However before this occurs, funding must be increased, the figure 22 shows that funding (F6) is dependent on guidance (F4), which is limited in itself by various factors as explored in the previous sections.

The knowledge creators could unify and focus on a better direct knowledge diffusion to the government and/or engage in the creation of an advocacy coalition (e.g. a lobby group) to change the political and societal inertia, thus indirectly influencing guidance of the search (F4). The figure 23 exemplifies this motor in which F7 is created by scientists and F1 (entrepreneurial activities) may occur at the end of the motor when funding and guidance are resolved for LFTR. Multiple interviewees have suggested similar ideas in which coalitions are formed and conferences are organised (Kloosterman, 2014; De Lange, 2014; The Alvin Weinberg Foundation, 2014).

Figure 23: Potential science & technology push motor for LFTR.



4.7 Re-exploring TIS theory: prerequisites to innovation

T

he current concept in TIS theory is that knowledge creation is at the basis of innovation as highlighted by Lundvall in Suurs (2009) in the quote below;

“The Knowledge Development function is a prerequisite for the development of an emerging technology. It is existing knowledge which is to be recombined, by entrepreneurs, to form technological innovations. The importance of Knowledge Development as a basic factor was especially stressed by Lundvall, who goes so far to state that: ‘The most fundamental resource in the modern economy is knowledge and, accordingly, the most important process is learning’ (Lundvall, 1992, p. 1. in Suurs, 2009. p. 54”. However, during the process of this research it was noted that resources are needed to be able to do research and development (F2) to begin with thus this research would like to make the case against knowledge as the basic factor but instead the ability to dedicate resources in the pursuit of knowledge should be the basis to innovation. While some innovation and technologies may be achieved without a great deal of resources, it is advanced technologies such as LFTR that require a significant presence of, and access to; infrastructure and facilities, as well as access to previous technological developments (e.g. the uranium cycle), knowledge, expertise but also the time and resources required for long term development and experimentation.

A second point that must be explored is whether innovation within a TIS is dependent on the maturity of other technologies on which it is (historically) dependent. Thorium Molten Salt Reactors are historically dependent on the maturity and availability of the uranium cycle as fissile start-up fuel is required, likewise a car cannot be developed without inventing the wheel. There could be a connectedness/linkage between technological innovation systems. The resources of one system can be used to explore new technologies outside the TIS where discoveries give birth to a new TIS.

Not research is at the basis of a technological innovation system but the resources that give way to the potential creation of a TIS through knowledge development. A minimum level (baseline) of resource mobilisation is always a predecessor to knowledge development. The baseline varies in intensity depending on the technology, its complexity and economic factors.



5. Conclusions and Recommendations

L

iquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) technology is a promising CO2 neutral technology that delivers an additional possibility in solving the current energy and climate problems. Previous research by Pool (2013) established that LFTR possesses many positive characteristics that have been scientifically proven. LFTR can offer a cleaner, safer and cheaper alternative to conventional nuclear power. However it is doubtful if every positive aspect is indeed a significant advantage over conventional nuclear energy, for instance LFTR’s waste profile is a debatable characteristic (Appendix V). The cost structure of LFTR has also not been determined. Although the expectations indicate a cost lower than coal. LFTR also faces several technical problems, which according to experts, can be overcome. More on LFTR can be found in chapter 2.1. This research attempts to answer why LFTR, despite its potential, is not being developed in Europe and The Netherlands. Technological Innovation systems theory (TIS) was used to examine the barriers and drivers to innovation for LFTR in the government structure (chapter 2.2). Technological innovation systems include all actors and institutions that are involved in the development and utilisation of a technology, in this case those that are related to the government structure were actively investigated. For a technology to develop successfully, certain functions need to be present in the TIS. These functions have been analysed and mapped through data gathered from documents, interviews, experts and online resources (chapter 4), which is then used to answer the research questions. The LFTR TIS was assumed and found to be embryotic given the maturity of the emerging technology. Finally recommendations that transcend the research questions have been given on how to solve possible barriers. These can be found in this chapter and chapter 4.

Since policy makers either are not familiar with the technology or have misconceptions of MSRs, LFTR is not actively pursued. Instead in The Netherlands the guidance of the search is aimed at sustainable and renewable technology. Subsidies and a regulatory framework is in favour of these renewable technologies and have not been developed for LFTR or other Molten Salt Reactors, nor does the ministry intend to in the next decade. A counterproductive guidance of the search is found due to the above reasons. These findings lay at the heart of the problem in explaining why the resource mobilisation function is insufficiently present in the TIS. A vicious circle is created where due to a lack of funding the knowledge development loses momentum and the time till commercialisation is extended, which discourages investors and further decreases potential funding. This research also finds that the support from advocacy coalitions, market formation and entrepreneurial activities functions are (nearly) absent in the TIS, forming the bases of an important system failure in the form of an absence of actors.

A vicious circle: knowledge, guidance and resources The research finds that in the system, limited funds are available for research but that despite these limited funds the knowledge creation function performs well under the circumstances. Despite positive research results the government and the general public are not aware or sufficiently informed about the technology, thus indicating a barrier in knowledge diffusion.


Unsuitable social climate: The political and societal climate in The Netherlands and some parts of Europe is not suited for the development of LFTR. This soft system failure creates hindrance to LFTR in the form of public policy aimed at non-nuclear energy alternatives. However, the different opinions on nuclear energy differ per country making it hard to generalise this failure for the entire EU. Instinctively, many people will be against LFTR because it is a form of nuclear. Nevertheless if thorium MSRs can be set apart from uranium reactors they could potentially benefit by profiling the technology as a sustainable response to nuclear. Market forces Politicians in The Netherlands do not wish to fund LTFR and state that this is the responsibility of the market. The western European energy market is not suitable for new technological developments, amongst others due to an overcapacity of electricity and sustainable energy subsidies. Moreover the nuclear industry has invested billions of euros into uranium infrastructure (reactors, enrichment, reprocessing and mines), all which would become obsolete with the introduction of thorium molten salt reactors. Currently the industry does not have a stimulus to make this transition despite the advantages of LFTR over conventional reactors. Development time, risks and obsoleting uranium technology block development. Meanwhile the infrastructure for thorium and molten salt reactors has to be built up from scratch.


5.1. Recommendations There are many misconceptions about nuclear energy. Its safety and characteristics have become attached to emotional responses and fear. Many people are against nuclear energy for the wrong reasons. Likewise nuclear is also subject to legitimate objections. Although, LFTR solves many problems that conventional reactors face. Whether nuclear deserves a future is up to the individual. However, this research would like to stress that a technology should not be condemned due to insufficient scientific knowledge on behalf of the individual. Much can be done in solving the barriers of LFTR, simply by improving information exchange, since thorium, LFTR and other MSRs are simply unknown to many people and policy makers. Recommendation to policy makers Policy makers have to realise that MSRs are a valuable tool in solving the climate crisis. LFTR improves on conventional uranium reactors. A recognition has to emerge that nuclear energy is part of the solution and likely necessary in generating a CO2 neutral base-load supply of energy. While a mix of solutions is probable, neither nuclear alone nor renewables alone can supply a 100% sustainable supply of energy. Especially solar and wind energy are vulnerable to inconsistent energy generation. Moreover, some alternative energies are costly and increase the price of energy. The economic consequences of this may be disastrous to national industry competitiveness. Investing in all technologies is essential in working towards a cheap and sustainable solution. Climate change is imminent and dangerous, therefore swift action is required. LFTR is a source of clean, safe and cheap energy which can be used to secure energy independence and security for Europe. Furthermore, the thorium industry would bring economic advantages to the nations possessing this technology first. Recommendations to environmental organisations Environmental organisations are recommended to keep an unprejudiced view on nuclear energy. LFTR solves many problems the conventional uranium reactors face. Stating that

all nuclear is equally bad is grossly simplistic and scientifically wrong. Ideally, all the world’s energy demands come from renewables. However, with the increasing global demand for energy and the urgency of climate change, it may be more strategic to direct funding to sustainable nuclear energy alternatives. It is dangerous to exempt technological alternatives out of principle, while a fully renewable energy society may be impossible to attain in the near future. Furthermore, reliance on fossil fuels or a technological breakthrough from fusion will likely lead to disaster. Consequently, it is recommended that green groups inform themselves with an open mind yet be critical on the scientific facts of LFTR in judging whether LFTR and MSRs could fulfil a role in the energy solution. A scientific thorium union & network Awareness and factual scientific information on LFTR and MSRs is lacking with political actors, various environmental groups and the public. A barrier in knowledge exchange will need to be solved to create this awareness and spread correct, well-balanced, scientific information on MSRs. The presence of non-factual information is detrimental to the perception of MSRs. Different actors all have to exchange information with each other at an early stage; these include politicians, ministries, NGOs and research groups. It is strongly recommended that research centres across Europe (or the whole world) join forces to create a thorium MSR super network. The purpose of the network should be increasing research efforts and securing funding for the research on MSRs. Not commercialization but technological maturity should be pursued so that the network remains scientifically independent. This network can be used to spread information through organising conferences with esteemed speakers to which press and politicians are invited. Moreover a scientific lobbying group/advocacy group needs to be set up to inform the public and politicians. In the UK the Alvin Weinberg Foundation has been successful in doing so. The concept of this Foundation can be exported to individual nations through the super network.


In The Netherlands a small scientific conference could be achieved within the next year or two to get thorium on the political agenda. It must be stressed that any advocacy coalition or conference should be fair and scientific about the characteristics (pros and cons) of MSRs and thorium. It should not be used to sell the technology through propaganda and promises that can never be met. Senator De Lange (2014) states that a similar tactic has worked to ensure funding for the laser centre at the University of Amsterdam (VU). The speakers at the conference would have to be famous and influential to increase the impact. Recommendations for future research There are several topics identified throughout this study and that of Pool, which can be researched further. The costs and feasibility of LFTR will need to be investigated. Moreover, this thesis focuses on the governmental structure of the TIS. Specific research into the market structure and the role of the energy industry could prove additional insights. Furthermore, an investigation on the perception of nuclear power in various countries could help focus solutions in resolving barriers to innovation. A repetition of this research with a case study for another country than The Netherlands may also bring forth other relations, networks, drivers and barriers that may influence the LFTR TIS. A case study of Germany, France or The UK is recommended due to the indications in a significantly different political environment and vision on nuclear power. A detailed reflection on the research can be found in the separate Reflection Report.


Reference List: Please find the references used in this report below. The references for primary (interview) sources is found under “primary data sources” at the end of the list. Referencing is done according to Harvard standards, in line with the thesis handbook, as found on the Anglia Ruskin University library page. AIP, 1995. Abstract: The results of the investigations of Russian Research Center—‘‘Kurchatov Institute’’ on molten salt applications to problems of nuclear energy systems. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 18 September 2014]. Alkemade, F., Kleinschmidt, C. and Hekkert, M.P., 2007. Analysing emerging Innovation Systems: A Functions Approach to foresight. International Journal of Foresight and Innovation Policy 3(2): 139-168. Bentor, 2013. Chemical elements. [online] Available at: <www.chemicalelements.com> [Accessed: 22 July 2014]. Bergek, A., 2002. Shaping and exploiting technological opportunities: The case of Renewable Energy Technology in Sweden. Ph.D. Chalmers University of Technology, Göteborg, Sweden. Carlsson, B. and Jacobsson, S., 1997. In search of useful public policies: key lessons and issues for policy makers. In: Carlsson, B., (Ed.), Technological Systems and Industrial Dynamics, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht. Carlsson, B. and Stankiewicz, R., 1991. On the nature, function, and composition of Technological Systems. Journal of Evolutionary Economics 1(2): 93-118. Carpenter, J., 2003. Neutron Production, Moderation, and Characterization of Sources. (online) Available at: [Accessed: 1 September 2014]. CORDIS, 2014. Evaluation and Viability of Liquid Fuel Fast Reactor System. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 8 October 2014]. Cooper, D.R. and Schindler, P.S., 2011. Business Research Methods. 3rd European ed. London, McGraw Hill. Deutch, J. M. et al., 2009. The future of nuclear power; Update of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 2003. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 29 July 2014]. Dual Fluide Project, 2014. IFK Berlin; Dual fluid reactor project. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 28 October 2014]. Edquist, C. and Johnson, B., 1997. Institutions and Organisations in Systems of Innovation. In: C. Edquist (Ed.), Systems of Innovation – Technologies, Institutions and Organizations. Pinter, London. Edquist, C., 2004. Systems of Innovation: Perspectives and Challenges. In: J. Fagerberg, D.C. Mowery and R.R. Nelson (Eds), The Oxford Handbook of Innovation. Oxford University Press, Oxford, 181-208.


Energy from Thorium Foundation, 2012. Energy from thorium.com. [online] Available at: <www. energyfromthorium.com> [Accessed: 22 July 2014]. Energy from Thorium Foundation, 2012b. Dr. Bill Tesling Article: A worldwide energy solution America can supply. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 22 July 2014]. Energy from Thorium Foundation, 2014. LFTR VS Cancer. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 9 October, 2014]. ERKC, 2014. European Commission: Energy Research Knowledge Centre – The Netherlands [website]. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 13 October 2014]. European Commission, 2014. Sustainable development. [Online] Available at [Accessed: 15 November 2014] . Fetter, S., 2009. How long will the world’s uranium supplies last. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 22 July 2014]. Freeman, C., 1987. Technology Policy and Economic Performance – Lessons from Japan. Science Policy Research Unit, University of Sussex. Pinter, London and New York. Foro Nuclear, 2011. Are there enough uranium reserves for the functioning the worlds future nuclear park. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 12 July 2014]. Garud, R. and Ahlstrom, D., 1997. Technology Assessment: A socio-cognitive perspective. Journal of Engineering and Technology Management 14: 25-48. Genyk, S., 2013. University of Michigan; Environmental Impacts of Nuclear Proliferation. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 24 July 2014]. Granovetter, M., 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociological Theory 1: 201–233. Hargadon, A.B. and Douglas, Y., 2001. When Innovations Meet Institutions: Edison and the Design of the Electric Light. Administrative Science Quarterly 2001 46: 476. Hargraves, R. and Moir, R., 2010. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors. American Scientist, 98(July/ August), 304-313. Hargraves, R., 2012. Thorium: energy cheaper than coal. (online) Available at: [Accessed: 10 October 2014]. Hart, J., 2011. Toepassing van Thorium in de Nucleaire Splijtstofcyclus. Petten: Ministerie van Economische Zaken.


Hekkert, M.P., Suurs, R.A.A., Negro, S.O., Kuhlmann, S. and Smits, R.E.H.M., 2007. Functions of Innovation Systems: A new approach for analysing technological change. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 74: 413-432. IAEA, 2007. Status of small reactor designs without on-site refuelling. IAEA-TECDOC-1536. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 19 September 2014]. Ingersoll, D. T., Parma, E. J., Forsberg, C. W. and Renier, J. P., n.d. Core physics characteristics and issues for the advanced high temperature reactor (AHTR). (online) Available at: [Accessed: 18 September 2014]. Jacobsson, S. and Johnson, A., 2000. The diffusion of renewable energy technology: An analytical framework and key issues for research. Energy Policy 28(9): 625-640. Juhasz, A. J., Rarick, R. A. and Rangarajan, R., 2009. High Efficiency Nuclear Power Plants Using Liquid Fluoride Reactor Technology. Cleveland: NASA. Klein Woolthuis, R., Lankhuizen, M. and Gilsing, V., 2005. A System Failure Framework for Innovation Policy Design. Technovation 25(6): 609-619. LeBlanc, D., 2009. Molten salt reactors: A new beginning for an old idea. Nuclear engineering and design 240(6): 1644-1656. Lundvall, B. Å., 1992. National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive Learning. Pinter, London. Manickam, A., 2014. Case study research [lecture]. GPJ preparation IBS BBA 4th year research methods lecture slides, available through Hanzehogeschool Blackboard. Markard, J. and Truffer, B., 2008. Technological Innovation Systems and the Multi-Level Perspective: Towards an Integrated Framework. Research Policy 37(4): 596-615. Matson, J., 2011. What Happens during a nuclear meltdown. [online] Available at: [Accessed 24 July, 2014]. Metcalfe, J.S., 1995. Technology systems and technology policy in an evolutionary framework. Cambridge Journal of Economics 19: 25-46. Moir, R., 2002. Cost of electricity from molten salt reactors. Nuclear Technology 138: 93-95. Murmann, J.P. and Frenken, K., 2006. Toward a systematic framework for research on dominant designs, technological innovations, and industrial change. Research Policy 35: 925-952. NASA, 2001. Map of Martian Thorium at Mid-Latitudes. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 24 July 2014]. NNL (National Nuclear Laboratory), 2012. Comparison of thorium and uranium fuel cycles 5th ed. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 15 July 2014]. Nature Geoscience, 2011. Map of the abundance of the element thorium on the moon’s surface. [online] Available at: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v4/n8/fig_tab/ngeo1225_F1.html [Accessed, 24 July 2014].


Negro, S.O., 2007. Dynamics of Technological Innovation Systems – The case of Biomass Energy. Ph.D. Utrecht University, Utrecht. Negro, S.O., Hekkert, M.P. and Smits, R.E., 2007. Explaining the failure of the Dutch Innovation System for Biomass Digestion – A functional analysis. Energy Policy 35: 925-938. Negro, S.O., Suurs, R.A.A. and Hekkert, M.P., 2008. The bumpy road of Biomass Gasification in the Netherlands: Explaining the rise and fall of an emerging innovation system. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 75(1): 57-77. NEI, 2013. On-Site Storage of Nuclear Waste. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 24 July 2014]. North, D.C., 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge University Press, New York. NOS, 2014. CDA denkt weer aan kernerngie. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 15 September 2014]. Oak Ridge Annual Clean-up report, 2013. Annual Clean-up Repport. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 2 November 2014]. Pool, L., 2013. Advantages & disadvantages of thorium fuelled nuclear power when generated in the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor compared to uranium fuelled nuclear power & stakeholders in the decision making process. BBA (unpublished), Hanzehogeschool: Groningen. Rip, A., 2006. Folk theories of Nanotechnologists. Science as Culture 15(4): 349-365. Runeson, P. and Höst, M., 2008. Guidelines for conducting and reporting case study research in software engineering. Empirical Software Engineering 14: 131–164. Saunders, M., Lewis, P. and Thornhill, A., 2009. Research methods for business students. 5th ed. Harlow, Pearson Education/Prentice Hall. Serp, J., Allibert, M., Bene, O., Delpech, S., Feynberg, O., Ghetta, V., Heuer, D., Holcomb, D., Ignatiev, V., Kloosterman, J.L., Luzzi, L., Merle-Lucotte, E., Uhlí, J., Yoshioka, R. and Zhimin, D., 2014. The molten salt reactor (MSR) in generation IV: overview and perspectives. Elsevier (in press), Progress in Nuclear Energy, xxx 1-12. SNETP SRIA, 2013. Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda 2013. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 8 October 2014]. Smith, K., 1999. Innovation as a systemic phenomenon: rethinking the role of policy. In: Bryant, K., Wells, A. (Eds.), A New Economic Paradigm? Innovation-Based Evolutionary Systems. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Industry, Science and Resources, Science and Technology Policy Branch, Canberra, 10–47. Sohal, M., Ebner, M., Sabarwall, P. and Sharpe, P., 2010. Engineering database of liquid salt thermophysical and thermochemical properties. Idaho Falls: Idaho National Laboratory. Sorensen, K., 2009. Energy from thorium: a nuclear waste burning liquid salt thorium reactor. 2009. [Film] Directed by Kirk Sorensen. Mountain View, California, U.S.A.: Google Tech Talks. Sorensen, K., 2011. The Thorium Molten-Salt reactor: why didn’t this happen? (and why is now the right time?). [Film] Google Tech talks.


Online available at: [Accessed: 18 October 2014]. Suurs, R.A.A., 2009. Motors of sustainable innovation; towards a theory on the dynamics of technological innovation systems. Ph.D. Utrecht University: Utrecht. SWOV, 2012. Factsheet Rotondes. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 18 November 2014]. Telegraph, 2013. China blazes trail for ‘clean’ nuclear power from thorium. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 19 September 2014]. The Economist, 2014. Thorium Reactors; Asgard’s fire. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 19 September 2014]. Thoriumremix, 2011. Thoriumremix2011 [Film] Directed by Kirk Sorenson and Gordon McDowell. United States of America: Thorium remix. US department of energy, 1997. Alternatives for the Removal and Disposition of Molten Salt Reactor Experiment Fluoride Salts. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 2 November 2014]. Van Alphen, K., Hekkert, M.P. and Van Sark, W.G.J.H.M., 2008a. Renewable Energy Technologies in the Maldives – Realizing the potential. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Review 12(1): 162180. Van Alphen, K., Van Ruijven, J., Kasa, S., Hekkert, M. and Turkenburg, W., 2008b. The performance of the Norwegian Carbon Dioxide, Capture and Storage Innovation System. Energy Policy 37(1): 43-55. Van Merkerk, R.O., 2007. Intervening in emerging nanotechnologies. A CTA of Lab-on-a-Chip Technology. Ph.D. Utrecht University, Utrecht. Verhoeven, N., 2014. Wat is onderzoek? 5th ed. Boom-Lemma uitgevers, NL. Available through Boom digitale bibiliotheek, accessible via Hanze Media Centre. Williamson, O.E., 1985. The Economic Institutions of Capitalism: Firms, Markets, Relational Contracting. The Free Press, New York. World nuclear association, 2013a. Nuclear Power Reactors. [online] Available at: [Accessed 15 July 2014]. World Nuclear Association, 2014a. Plutonium. [online] Available at: [Accessed 16 July 2014]. World Nuclear Association, 2014b. Thorium. [online] Available at: [Accessed: 7 July 2014]. Yin, R.K., 2009. Case study research: design and methods 4th ed. Sage, USA. Yin, R.K., 2014. Case study research: design and methods 5th ed. Sage, USA.


Primary data sources: Despite conventional Harvard referencing style the researcher decided to use the names of interviewees in the “in-text” referencing to ensure a clearer story of “who says what”. Please find the complete list of references below and a table of interviews in Appendix XII. Kloosterman, J.L., 2014. Interview with Dr. Kloosterman. Available in Appendix XII. LAKA, 2014. Interview with Dirk Bannink; Laka. Available in Appendix XII. Anonymous expert, 2014. Interview with Anonymous expert. Available in Appendix XII. Schram, R., 2014. Interview with Dr. R. Schram. Available in Appendix XII. NIV (EZ), 2014. pdNIV’s letter. Available in Appendix XII. The Alvin Weinberg Foundation, 2014. Interview with a representative of the Alvin Weinberg Foundation. Available in Appendix XII. WISE, 2014. Interview with Peer de Rijk. Available in Appendix XII. Stainsby, R., 2014. Interview with Dr. R. Stainsby on behalf of the NNL & SNETP. Available in Appendix XII. De Lange, C.A., 2014. Interview with Senator prof. dr. De Lange, OSF. Available in Appendix XII. Leegte, R., 2014. Interview with R. Leegte, VVD. Available in Appendix XII. Vos, J., 2014. Interview with J. Vos, PVDA. Available in Appendix XII. Klever, R., 2014. Interview with R. Klever, PVV. Available in Appendix XIII. SGP, 2014. E-mail statement from the SGP. Available in Appendix XIII.


Appendix I: Moir’s cost analysis of a MSR

T

he following figure shows the cost analysis of MSR electricity based on the Oak Ridge reactor experiment (Moir, 2002; Pool; 2013).

Figure 24: Cost analysis of a MSR (Moir, 2002). The total costs of a 1000MWe (commercial) MSR in 2000 were estimated to be 1584 million dollars while comparatively pressurised water reactors cost 1448 million dollars and coal plants costs 1106 million dollars. Note that the cost is taken from the 1978 Oak Ridge estimate, which is in turn based on the MSRexperiment. Nonetheless the cost per kWh for MSR is 3.84 dollar cents while coal is 4.19 cents and pressurized water reactors cost 4.11 cents per kWh.

However the estimate does not include modern safety, licensing and environmental standards. These are likely to impact costs for MSR but also for coal and virtually any other power generating station. While initial MSR capital costs in 1978 were higher, this may no longer be true due to the above reasons. Moreover, the down time of a MSR is expected to be lower, thus decreasing the cost of electricity. Other reasons indicated are fuel cost, decommissioning cost and cheaper reactor buildings.


Appendix II: History Why MSR’s were forgotten

A

question that often occurs when discussing LFTR and MSR’s is; If this technology is so great, why was it not developed in the past? The given answer is often that thorium is less suitable for nuclear weapon production. However this is not the real reason says Dr. Kloosterman. The real reason thorium MSR reactors were abandoned has to with breeder reactors (Anonymous expert, 2014; Kloosterman, 2014). Sorensen also confirms this but holds more factors responsible as summarised in this chapter. Weapon production could be a factor, but by the time the MSR was explored, there were already LWRs in operation and plutonium stockpiles were available (Kloosterman, 2014).

Breeder Reactors Breeder reactors have a neutron economy, that when positive, produce more fissile materials than is put in (It breeds fissile fuel). A fuel has to be able to produce more than 2 neutrons to sustain the neutron economy, Sorensen calls this the threshold of 2 (2011). Fast breeder reactors on plutonium are much better suited for breeding than thorium molten salt breeder reactors as they emit more neutrons (Kloosterman, 2014). Dr. Kloosterman and the Anonymous expert (2014) believe that breeder reactors are a more important reason than the production of nuclear weapons, as a historical reason. Back then, plutonium reactors already existed and a lot of plutonium was already produced. People thought nuclear energy would expand enormously, and that the supply of uranium would be depleted. That is why investments were made in breeder reactors. With the uranium-plutonium cycle, one can breed faster than with the thorium cycle. The USA was only willing to invest in either the plutonium fast breeder or the molten salt reactor due to budget constraints. The former was chosen. The demand for nuclear energy decreased in the 70s and more uranium deposits were discovered, decreasing the necessity for breeder reactors (Anonymous expert, 2014; Kloosterman, 2014). Moreover, a lot of experience was already present in PWRs/LWRs. It was more cost efficient to continue with the established technology than to build a completely new experimental reactor design (Kloosterman, 2014).

It is also important to note that the LWR does not perform exceptionally well (safety or waste wise), however this was not that important in those days (Kloosterman, 2014). Politics President Nixon and Congressman Holifield saw the fast breeder reactor as a fast opportunity to create jobs in California, says Sorensen (2011). It was an economic opportunity and a way of achieving US energy independence. When fuel reprocessing in the USA was cancelled, the plutonium fast breeder reactor became obsolete. However nobody revisited the molten salt reactor, which had been cancelled in the 70’s. Weinberg Alvin Weinberg one of the co-founders of the pressurised water reactor and the director of Oak Ridge National Laboratory , was critical towards the fast breeder reactor and concerned about reactor safety (Sorensen, 2011). As such he promoted the MSR which could provide safer nuclear energy. Weinberg was fired shortly after the MSR experiment, the next MSR experiment was abandoned (due to budgetary reasons) and the team was dispersed. Further research into the MSR reactor were thus very limited. An MSR reactor technology never fully matured and was never commercialised and thus also not available (off-the-shelf ) for energy companies.


Appendix III: Current MSR experiments

A

t the moment of writing there are several Molten Salt Reactor experiments being conducted in the world. The experiments are either recently completed or ongoing. MSRs are a family of generation IV reactors, amongst them is LFTR. The reactors all share features of each other, such as using thorium as a fuel and other technological features. This appendix aims to give a brief overview of the developments around these reactors but does not aim to explain the reactors, their benefits, constraints or required technology.

The most well know historic development in the history of MSRs is the U.S. based Oak ridge National laboratory experiment which achieved a successfully operating albeit rudimental experimental MSR. Another experiment was performed by the Russian Karchatov institute which concluded that there are no obstacles towards the application of Molten Salt deriving from technology or physics (AIP, 1995). As a response to this several designs have since been made through the FUJI experiments in Japan and their international collaborations (IAEA, 2007). The IAEA gives a list of reactor designs per country (2007) which can be used for further reference for interested parties. However please note that the report also features other reactors (non-MSR) as long as they are small reactors without a need for onsite refuelling. Currently the Chinese are spearheading the development of MSR reactors with a 350 million dollar research budget (Telegraph, 2013). Around 140 PhD scientist are working on the project with an estimated 750 staff members by 2015 (Telegraph, 2013). Furthermore India and Norway are also performing their own research programmes (including test reactors), investigating thorium solid fuel reactors (The Economist, 2014).

The MSFR project is funded under the FP7 EU framework programme (CORDIS, 2014). The most recent project, EVOL, had a total cost of EUR 1.855.883, from which EUR 995.860 was funded by the EU. It is developed by French CNRS (centre national de la recherche scientifique) and features participants from Belgium, The Netherlands (TU Delft), Russia, Germany, Italy, The UK, Italy, France, Hungary and The Czech republic (CORDIS, 2014). The MSFR research ran from 2001 (project MOST) to 2013 as project EVOL and is a continuation of projects LICORN, ALISIA and SUMO all conducted through EURATOM, the European atomic energy community. In Germany the dual fluid (thorium) reactor is being developed (Dual Fluid project, 2014) The MSFR is especially similar to LFTR as it uses liquid salt and thorium as a fuel (Serp et al, 2014) while also having many other advantages (e.g. safety, low proliferation, waste advantages and a higher efficiency). Likewise the Czech SPHINX project is initiated since 2004 to develop and verify selected fuel cycle technologies (Serp et al, 2014). It aims to develop the structural material for MSRs and conducts theoretical and experimental studies towards the MSRs physics (Serp et al, 2014).

MSFR in Europe The Russian MOSART and French led MSFR project both aim to develop and design a fast spectrum MSR which can be used for nuclear waste burning purposes and generation of electricity (Serp et al, 2014).


Concrete examples of developments are the research towards fission product separation and the verification of MSR(on-line) reprocessing technology (Serp, et al). Many of these solutions and developments can also be used in LFTR as the reactor designs have many similarities and face similar challenges. Some developments towards the optimizing of the graphite-salt lattice of the thermal spectrum MSR has been performed at the TU Delft in The Netherlands (Serp et al, 2014). Serp et al (2014) gives an overview of all MSR development throughout the world and can be used as a reference for interested parties. The sustainable nuclear energy technology platform (SNETP) also identifies thorium as a potential replacement fuel for uranium in the long run (SNETP SRIA, 2013). There are common themes in the research efforts in the MSR family; “the most prominent are the liquid salt technology and materials behavior, the fuel and fuel cycle chemistry and modeling, and the numerical simulation and safety design aspects of the reactor”(Serp et al, 2014, p.11). It is possible that these relatively recent developments towards the MSR family have been a result of the renewed interest in alternative nuclear. For example the French MSFR is aimed primarily at waste management through its actinide burner. France as a country is heavily invested into (uranium) nuclear power, as such a waste burning reactor would benefit both the politicians, society and uranium industry by making nuclear waste a non-issue while allowing the country to continue its old way of power generation. This is further emphasized through project ASTRID, a French fast breeder reactor project which is also capable of waste management (IAEA, 2007).


Appendix IV: Societal effects of radiophobia

T

he following section explores a possible external factor as a barrier to the development of LFTR. Radiophobia and its connection with the public opinion on nuclear energy has not been researched nor verified for this thesis. The following should be read as the authors observations and thoughts on how radiophobia and the development of LFTR are connected, which is backed up by literature sources. Fear of radiation (radiophobia) and (irrational) opposition to nuclear energy are often said to be related. Let us revisit the quote by Dr. Alvin Weinberg at the start of this report: “The main thing wrong with nuclear energy is that an awful lot of people are afraid of nuclear energy, particularly since the accident at Three Mile Island….I am not exaggerating when I say that our Western society, for reasons that are unclear to me, suffers from massive hysteria….Once we have overcome that hysteria, we can look forward to a second nuclear era in which we can fully enjoy the not inconsiderable advantages of nuclear energy - Weinberg 1983, p.1052; p.1055; p.1056.” Weinberg describes what he sees as a mass hysteria working against the development of nuclear power. At that time he identified the three miles island accident as a major cause to this hysteria. Little did Weinberg know that disasters like Chernobyl and Fukushima Dachii would follow.

Surely disasters like these have made the public wary or even fearful of nuclear power. Understanding the effects of radiation is key in overcoming this fear. Cancer and other health effects are often ascribed to being caused by increases of exposure to ionizing radiation. The Linear No threshold (LNT) model assumes that the risk of cancer (biological damage) caused by ionising radiation is (linearly) proportional to the dose. The higher the dose, the higher the risk for biological damage (and cancer), as such the dose should be minimized. However the LNT model is highly criticized by several academic researchers. Especially the linearity of the model in low radiation doses is being disputed. Hargraves (2012) lists the following arguments against LNT (figure 25):

Figure 25: Arguments disputing the LNT (Hargraves, 2012).


It seems that if the LNT model is incorrect in regards to low (<10 or even <100mSv) radiation doses, the associated fear of these doses is also not necessary. Minimizing the dose to the current standards brings about a great deal of economic damages. How many people were needlessly displaced during the Fukushima disaster due to fear of low levels of radiation? Does this fear damage the development of technology such as LFTR? Do people flee to “safe” renewable (and expensive) energy forms because of this fear?

boycotts led by environmentalists can be expected. Moreover consumers may not want to buy electricity from a company with nuclear power plants and politicians may lose votes on their statements. The direct effect of this is that technology like LFTR can be forgotten or deemed too risky, as it lacks popular support. If an irrational fear could really be contributing (for whatever reason) to the innovation and development of technology (and thus the progress of humankind), it would have to be overcome.

It also seems that keeping the fear of radiation intact is paramount to some groups in our society. After all fear sells (Hargraves, 2012). The are several reasons for radiophobia as described by Jawarowski (figure 26) in Hargraves (2012):

A research on radiophobia and its effects on innovation of LFTR (or another technology) would have to be conducted to verify these assumptions and how the effects of radiophobia can be overcome.

Figure 26: Reasons for radiophobia (Hargraves, 2012). Environmental groups that often campaign against nuclear power are obviously very happy with this phobia. After all it makes their campaigns more effective. In this research one such group (WISE) has admitted that environmental groups contribute to this fear and wish that this remains intact. Politicians have also stated in this research that nuclear power is sensitive in the public opinion and thus it does not sell well politically. So even if we assume radiophobia is present in our society (it is not up to this research to verify this), what are the effects of it? One can imagine that funding a nuclear programme will be very difficult for the government and for companies. Protests, demonstrations and

For now it is up to the reader to determine if radiophobia is indeed an irrational or justified fear that influences the public against potentially valuable technologies such as LFTR.


Appendix V: Thorium fuel cycle and waste

O

ne of the seemingly major advantages of LFTR and other MSRs is its waste profile. Thorium is frequently advertised to be a solution to nuclear waste problems and righteously critiqued for claiming this. First we will discuss the waste characteristics of the thorium versus the uranium cycle, after which the waste characteristics of LFTR/MSRs are examined. Thorium cycle versus the Uranium cycle

Thorium solid fuel performance

The first thing that is important to note is that the thorium fuel cycle requires uranium for it to start (Schram, 2014; Stainsby, 2014). In both the thorium and uranium cycle, uranium is being fissioned states the anonymous expert (2014). However in the thorium cycle the main product being fissioned is u-233 (figure 27) while in the uranium cycle u-235 is most common. The fission products are more or less the same state the anonymous expert and Dr. Kloosterman. Not every element is the same but about the same amount of fission products are present. These are important for waste storage, there is an equal amount of Iodine, selenium, chlorine etc. (Anonymous expert, 2014). The radionuclides determine the danger in ultimate waste storage solutions (Anonymous expert, 2014).

The NRG compared the thorium with the uranium cycle and concluded that thorium is actually performing very desirably as a solid fuel says Dr. Schram (2014). It is equal to or better than the uranium oxide (Schram, 2014. Solid thorium oxide is very inert, which means it retains the fission products very well and is also interesting as a material for ultimate storage says Dr. Schram. It is so suitable for storage because has good chemical characteristics explains Dr. Schram. The NRG’s research showed that a Pressurised Water Reactor can just as well run on thorium oxide (Schram, 2014).

The big difference between the cycles is that if you start lower on the table of nuclides, it also takes longer before you are producing plutonium, americium or neptunium (Anonymous expert, 2014). If you start with thorium, you encounter higher uranium isotopes that also fission easier. Thus you generate less transuranic elements. This is the major advantage concerning waste in the thorium cycle. You will not have the extremely long lived transuranic element (Anonymous expert, 2014). Dr. Kloosterman confirms that the thorium cycle contains less plutonium and other higher actinides (2014). However, you can always start the debate whether this is really an advantage in waste storage says the anonymous expert.

Storage of thorium waste: Since the fission products of thorium fuel and uranium fuel are very similar (besides the transuranics) the waste storage is also very similar. People that are concerned with waste storage are not concerned with plutonium, curium, americium or other long living elements (Anonymous expert, 2014; Schram, 2014). The reason is that these elements do not play a role in the risk analysis, instead iodine, selenium, chlorine and other radionuclides form the danger in waste solutions (Anonymous expert, 2014) When storing LWR fission products these products automatically create a plutonium mine since the products decay, states the Anonymous expert. While thorium does not do this, it is debatable that the creation of plutonium really forms a problem. Only the transuranics and actinides (it is the same family) differ which determine the radiotoxicity (Kloosterman, 2014; Anonymous expert, 2014).


Figure 27: LFTR’s U-Th (closed) fuel cycle (Energy From Thorium Foundation, 2012b). LFTR: The LFTR like other MSRs ideally uses u-233 as a start-up fuel, however insufficient of this fuel is available leading to the utilization of u-235 or plutonium (Anonymous expert, 2014; Kloosterman, 2013; 2014). Due to this alternative start-up fuel transuranic elements are formed in the fuel. However due to the chemical reprocessing plan these transuranic elements (actinides) remain in the salt where they are fissioned over time (Anonymous expert, 2014; Kloosterman, 2013; 2014). Typically LFTR and other MSRs have very similar fission products compared to Light Water Reactors but do not have the depleted uranium waste or damaged fuel rod waste (spent fuel). Around 83% of the LFTR’s waste has a life time of 10 years, this includes elements such as Iodine, caesium and tellurium (Anonymous expert, 2014). Another 17% of the waste has a lifetime of 300-500 years (Kloosterman, 2014) and includes zirconium and some rare earth elements (Anonymous expert, 2014). A small portion (<1%) of plutonium waste is expected (Hargraves, 2012; Pool, 2013) due to the imperfections in the reprocessing plant. This plutonium waste consists out of several isotopes and if recycled into the salt mixture can eventually fission (Kloosterman, 2014).

A very large part of the periodic system is present in the waste but it is the short living materials (short half-lives) that form the danger in an accident (Anonymous expert, 2014). These include iodine-131, trontium-92, caesium-133 (Anonymous expert, 2014). As mentioned in the literature review the salt mixture has strong chemical bonds preventing the elements to contaminate the surrounding area in the event of reactor breach. It must also be noted that the salt mixture itself is polluted after operation and requires cleaning and storage as ceramic or vitrified waste. To conclude, while the fission products are the same, the thorium cycle produced less long lived nuclear waste. Whether this is relevant in the storage of nuclear waste is debatable. To conclude; both the LFTR and LWR produce similar quantities of fission products, however the LFTR’s are safe after 500 years while the LWR’s include transuranics which remain dangerous for thousands of years. Moreover the LWR produces a lot of spent fuel and depleted uranium through its cycle, which creates a higher quantity of fuel that has to be reprocessed, disposed or recycled.


Appendix VI: Five system components explained

T

he following figure 28 shows Suurs’ explanation of the 5 system components (2009).

Figure 28: Five system configuration components (Suurs, 2009, p.48-49).


Appendix VII: Entrepreneurship in TIS Dynamics

T

he first out of seven functions of TIS Dynamics are entrepreneurial activities. These activities are considered a crucial source of technological innovation through their ability to develop and exploit new business opportunities (Suurs, 2009). A brief description is given below since entrepreneurship is unlikely to occur in the scope of this research, yet remains vital to further TIS development. The importance of Entrepreneurial activities to innovation was already established in the early 20th century by the renowned economist Joseph Schumpeter who had the idea that entrepreneurs are the source of innovation and drive creative destruction. Suurs regards entrepreneurs to be at the core of a TIS. The role of the entrepreneur is to create new business opportunities with the use of knowledge (2009). These opportunities can then become innovations (Suurs, 2009). An Entrepreneur in the sense of technical innovation systems can be a private enterprise which is diversifying its business, entering new markets or alternatively a new entrant shaping a market (ibid.). However Suurs also mentions that entrepreneurs can be both private companies and public agents; “as long as their actions are directed at conducting market-oriented experiments with an emerging technology (Suurs, 2009)”. However, it may also be significant to mention the importance of innovators that do not conduct market-oriented experiments. The importance of Entrepreneurial activities is what defines a TIS over normal R&D according to Markard and Truffer (2008; Suurs, 2009).

The aforementioned entrepreneurial activities bring about change towards the emerging technology and its related institutions (Suurs, 2009). These activities are also necessary to overcome the uncertainties associated with emerging technologies (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991; Meijer, 2008). In turn these uncertainties often emerge from misfits between the new technology and the structure in which it is embedded (Suurs, 2009). However this can be solved through adapting one to the other and practical experimentation (ibid.). In this way either the structure or the technology (or both) converged to fit the other. Moreover the convergence process heavily depends on other factors, especially Guidance of the search (as discussed in point four of TIS dynamics, chapter 2.6.). Furthermore, economic competences are identified as a crucial factor in the development of an emerging technology (Carlsson and Stankiewicz, 1991).


Appendix VIII: LFTR misconceptions at the NIV

the Dutch Ministry of Economic affairs Department of Nuclear Installations and Safety (pdNIV).

T

he ministry of economic affairs (pdNIV) delivers information and advice concerning the technical feasibility, safety, radiation protection, radioactive waste and granting of permits.

The NIV has several experts amongst their staff that know about the technical aspects of the molten salt reactor types (NIV, 2014). Given the premature state of this technology, and the unlikelihood of a permit request for this type of reactor in the coming years, the NIV follows the developments from a distance (NIV, 2014). One would expect that the NIV has the basics knowledge of LFTR and other MSRs, given the above statements made in a letter to the researcher (Appendix XIII). However the NIV gave of a few curious statements at the end of the letter, which we let an anonymous expert examine. The following in bold are the NIV (2014) statements followed by the anonymous expert’s response. The expert judges the overall statement as an example of insufficient knowledge; “You have already stated in your introduction that in the early 60s it was proven that the MSTR technology is achievable (MSRE project of Oak Ridge). However, in the 50 years after, this never led to another test reactor. Ask yourself the question why the development of this technology has largely stagnated, while for example the fast reactor (both lead as sodium cooled) and high temperature gas cooled reactors were further developed”. Expert: This is related to the changing insights on the necessity of breeding, and the insight that more uranium is present on earth than was originally suspected in the 60’s. The electric car also required a lot of time to penetrate the market, even though it was developed at the start of the automotive history. The petrol engine seemed better initially just as the LWR seemed better than the MSR.

“However, there are also significant disadvantages, both on safety, economically and technologically. The largest challenges are in the chemistry of the molten salt”. Expert: enormously exaggerated. The MSR has more inherent safety than a LWR. Economic and technologic disadvantages? “Practically you receive a nuclear reactor and a fuel reprocessing facility in one, since the molten salt a mix is of all known elements due to the fission products.” Expert: With many of the current nuclear power reactors there is a reactor and a temporary waste storage in one, so the source term is high (see Fukushima). The advantage of the MSR is that you can reprocess without having to cool down the fission material, and thus by doing this continually the source term stays low. Researcher’s edit: The source term is the amount of radioactive material that can be released in an accident. “The material of the pumps, piping, the reactor vessel and the heat exchanger have to be a match for the mix of the materials. The problems are for example the corrosion and deposit of materials, especially on the heat exchanger”. Expert: This is correct, but not an insurmountable technological problem. Corrosion was not a problem in the MSRE (5 years of operating). Deposits in the heat exchanger can be solved with the help of Helium Bubbling.


“Besides, given that the fuel is already molten, this takes away some barriers that prevent radioactive materials to be contained. These are present in conventional reactors”. Expert: Apparently the knowledge of fission fuels is too limited. In uranium dioxide fission fuels, the volatile fission products such as the Cs and the Is are not chemically bound and would easily be released. Therefore it is essential that a barrier (cladding) of the material is present in conventional reactors. In a molten salt reactor, the volatile fission products are chemically bound and is the temperature low, causing the salt itself to be an excellent barrier.

The previous exchange of statements exemplifies that even in (probably) the most knowledgeable department of the Dutch government on nuclear power there exists a lack of information and a confusion about the facts of MSRs. The pdNIV does admit they do not have all the expertise for a permit in-house and need to hire this expertise from other organisations (TSO’s). However we sincerely doubt this happens when the government requires information in debates or advice on research projects is requested. The pdNIV would be strongly advised to supplement their existing expertise on the subject of MSRs before the political debate occurs.

“Practically one would have a heavily polluted primary circuit, which means any form of damage of your primary circuit (e.g. leaks, piping failures, damage to the heat exchanger) directly leads to a very serious discharge”. Expert: Once again there is a blending of knowledge about traditional reactors. Indeed, damage to a LWR directly lead to dangerous contaminations (leaks) because dangerous volatile fission products such as Cs-123, I-131 and Sr-90 can be released. As stated before, in the MSR these are strongly bound to the salt, a leak would thus cause the salt to spread in the reactor building, in which the salt will almost surely solidify and form an additional barrier. However there is no situation in which the fission products will be easily released and spread in the surrounding area. For this one would need pressure (steam, hydrogen). “Moreover, the presence of large amounts of radioactive materials in the primary circuit make maintenance to the circuit extremely difficult and dangerous” Expert: In principle this is right, but you can drain the primary circuit.


Appendix IX: Case study protocol

P

lease note that the following case study protocol is a slightly updated proposal version and includes the original plan and the carried out actions, this is done for replication purposes. All steps were carried out according to plan, with a slight variance in the interview demographics (Appendix XII).

1. Change Record

Figure 29: Change record.

2. Background Previous research previous research: mainly Pool (2013), Suurs (2009) and (Hargraves and Moir, 2010). A full literature review has been conducted in chapter 2. Main Research question: The main purpose of the research is to understand “why is LFTR not developed or used in Europe?” through the aforementioned literature sources, TIS has been identified as a means to answer this. The main research question becomes: What are the drivers and barriers to the development of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor technology within its European Technological Innovation System?

2: Within the (governmental) TIS where do barriers and drivers to innovation occur and from which actors, institutions, networks and technological factors are they derived? 3: Which system failures can be identified in the LFTR TIS based on the identified barriers and drivers to innovation?

Sub research questions: 1: What is the current (National/Dutch) governmental structure of the LFTR technological innovation system?


3. Design A single case study with a single embedded (illustrative) case was chosen as a design. The single case being the obstacles to LFTR development in the EU while the embedded case looks at the possible factors influencing this in The Netherlands, thus building a theory towards the European situation. Multiple embedded cases would be (more) suitable but due to the limitations (budget and time) it is not possible to have multiple embedded case studies, e.g. have multiple countries to investigate. Having a single case study with an embedded case study allows for generalisation while also limiting the scope. Moreover the research can be easily repeated to other countries, e.g. Germany, France or the UK.

The first three propositions are answered through the sub research question as derived from the framework and the literature review (chapter 2). While the fourth falls outside the scope of the research. Pool (2013) and the researcher are aware of other factors limiting the development of LFTR. As such these were not actively investigated, but were observed, investigated and noted down during some of the scheduled interviews. All propositions were identified and confirmed in varying degrees.

Scope and object of study: The innovation and development of a “new” alternative energy source (Thorium) and means of utilizing this (LFTR) is the object of this study. Barriers and drivers from technological innovation systems theory to LFTR’s development play a central role. The government structure (actors, institutions, technology and their relationships/ networks) of the TIS has been specifically chosen as a unit of analysis to limit the scope and focus on factors deriving from governments, politicians and lobby groups (including NGOs such as Greenpeace). The propositions of this case study were: -The governmental drivers and barriers to innovation limit or even lock in the development of the LFTR TIS. -The barriers and drivers are derived from within the TIS, e.g. from actors, networks, institutions and technology. -A system failure occurs within the TIS. -External factors (outside of the TIS) further limit the development of LFTR


4. Data Collection

Figure 30: Data collection by research question. Data collection plan: Interviews with actors and experts were used in addition to documents and other secondary literature sources to gain information on the first two research questions. Findings were triangulated by a combination of actors (including elite interviews), experts and literature (research papers, EU archives and other documents). Semi-structured/Open interviews allowed for flexibility and structure in interviewing the interviewees. The Snowball method was the chosen technique to identify important interviewees that had not been identified by the researcher. Interviewees must understand the purpose of the research before consenting to an interview. However, it may be preferable in some instances to not explain the full intention of the research as this could put off interview candidates that, for example, are significantly opposed to LFTR, and do not want this to leak into the public domain. In itself this leads to an ethical consideration, which are discussed later in the limitations. This did not occur but if it did transparency was deemed preferable. Within the governmental TIS structure it was intended to have a minimum of 10-15 interviews. If time permits or if additional data was needed extra interviews could be held, this is reflected in the third interview round. While

the first round is for initial data gathering and the second for the continuation of snowballing and triangulation. The third could be considered as “tying up the loose ends”. In reality one continuous round was held which could roughly be divided in two “rounds”. One round for exploration and one for triangulation, confirmation and exploring new theories. The research planning can be found in Appendix X. Interview List: The following initial groups of interviewees was intended to be reached. A list of the 10 achieved interviews and 2 detailed (letter) statements can be viewed in Appendix XII. Below is the target list of potential interviewees. Political Actors: -4 Dutch policy makers deriving from government institutions or ministries such as the Parliament (1e and 2e Kamer), Duurzame energie koepel, Ministry of economic affairs, kernfysische dienst). Sybrand Buma (CDA) has stated that nuclear energy should be discussed (NOS, 2014). The previous research also found CDA to be approachable. Moreover Diederik Samson (PVDA) has a nuclear physics degree and could provide interesting insights.


EU:

5. Analysis

-2 EU policy makers (European commission for energy, WNA)

Analysis of the case study was conducted through NVivo. The analysis was carried out in parallel to data collection as this is flexible and allows new insights to be discovered during the analysis (Runeson and Höst, 2008). Moreover, interviews could then be adjusted to confirm findings or fill knowledge gaps. The analysis in this thesis is an iterative process of hypothesis generation (on barriers) and hypothesis confirmation through triangulation. Analysing is done through a series of recording, transcribing, coding and grouping actions in NVivo and finally conclusions were drawn after triangulation.

-1 EU Political entity (parliament members, individual commission members, political alliances (e.g. the greens) etc.). while similar in nature to the other actors, this can be used to investigate leads, or verify information. Moreover someone opposing the current policy can also be chosen for an alternative take on things. Lobby groups: - 3 lobby groups, active in Holland and the EU (e.g. Laka, Greenpeace, World information service on energy). - 1 lobby group preferably pro/neutral to nuclear energy. - 1 Research Group developing a similar reactor to the LFTR (EU MSFR reactor project a generation IV generator) Expert interviews: The two expert interviews were intended to create triangulation and verify findings. Preferably a LFTR expert and a EU nuclear energy expert, for example someone from the World nuclear association or the previously interviewed expert, Dr. Kloosterman from the Delft University of technology. Data storage: Data was stored in two ways. Interviews were recorded and transferred digitally (as long abstracts and quotes) to Nvivo. Long abstracts and notes were made for interviews, discussions, documents, observations and archival data to be exported in Nvivo. All data is gathered in Nvivo for analysis. Initially an audio to text program such as Dragon or Evernote was to be used, but proved inefficient. Full transcripts were not made to save time as agreed with the thesis supervisor, nonetheless the long abstracts are very detailed (but leave out off-topic discussion, questions and the exact wording of statements).

The researcher had to remain unbiased to allow for negative case analysis which finds alternative explanations of the results related to the hypothesis. The report was reviewed by the thesis supervisor and Lector supervisor through a draft report and finally will be marked by a Hanze UAS marker and an Anglia Ruskin co-marker through the established IBS review procedures. 6. Plan Validity Construct validity was ensured through ensuring the use of multiple sources of evidence, triangulation and using the planned operating procedures. The purpose and content of interviews were clearly communicated to interviewees beforehand. Moreover after the interview, the researcher confirmed the abstract with the interviewee. To Ensure that the researcher and the interviewer interpret questions and answers in the same way. Internal validity is hard to monitor in this papers since causal relationships cannot and will not be examined or tested. Instead theory is build which does have explanatory elements. Moreover, interviewer and interviewee bias has to be reduced to not needlessly expand internal validity. A critical approach was used where the researcher tried to be aware of hidden agendas of the interviewees, and their biases. This is something especially relevant in political


interviewees and lobby groups which are non-independent and thus biased sources of information.

information should be pursued, however encountering non-factual information can be a barrier in itself.

Reliability is improved through transparent but strict coding procedures and through reviewing interview questions by the thesis supervisor and a third party peer (a fellow student) so that their clarity is assured.

-External factors, that are not present in the TIS framework, are largely ignored, but came up during the research, however adding them to the framework would set the scope to infinity. An example of external factor encountered is a nuclear disaster such as Fukushima and the public opinion. Where possible these have been referred to in the relevant sections. Some of these are suitable for future research.

Finally external validity must always be considered, the case study can merely be used to generalise theory in the EU. Therefore a word towards generalisation is in order. This study uses analytical generalisation as opposed to statistical generalisation. However only one (embedded) case can be used to back up theory, limiting generalisation towards other cases as other (rival) theories can still be plausible (Yin, 2009). For example two cases backing up a theory and even disproving a rival theory are stronger than one case (Yin, 2009). However as Yin states, it must be avoided to think of cases as single samples (2009). Therefore a single case can still be used. 7. Study Limitations It is important for any research to understand the limitations predicted and encountered during the research. The following limitations are established for this research: This research is dependent on interviews and available published documents and archives. The chosen interview candidates are busy and relatively inaccessible people, which slowed data collection. Moreover, the controversial nature and complexity of the issue may have put people off. As such the researcher needed to be persistent to ensure that the interviews could take place. However alternatives to the initial interviewees were established and used immediately, before the first contact. Alternatives included similar interviewees or a reliance on more accessible interviewees such as Dutch experts and actors from the previous study or international actors with which the previous research (Lucas Pool) has been in contact with. Within the conducted interviews, the researcher needed to be weary for personal bias on the side of both the researcher and the interviewee. Factual

-The actors, technology, institutions (and nations) in the EU are still a very large (diverse) group and cannot all be examined for this research. Therefore it was decided to focus on the government structure and other policy makers such as NGOs and lobby groups. A European wide generalisation is thus not truly possible. Rather there is a focus on drivers and barriers driving from structural factors within the government component (please refer to the system configuration, chapter 2.4.5.). -The scope of the EU does not cover other parts of the world where TIS conditions are different, these areas may have influence on the EU TIS, especially since a TIS is not bound by geographical boundaries and LFTR is a relatively unknown technology, meaning that the networks are likely smaller and cross borders. -Generalisation is limited since only one embedded case study is present. The Netherlands as embedded case study was chosen to limit the scope with the other limitations (time and resources) in mind. However multiple embedded case studies (e.g. UK, Germany, France etc.) would strengthen the findings towards building a theory. Nonetheless a single case with an embedded case study can still be used to generalize using analytical generalisation, not the frequently misused statistical generalisation (Yin, 2009; 2014). After all case studies cannot be regarded as a single sample (Yin, 2009; 2014). -Longitudinal research is not possible due to the time frame of this research, despite TIS theory being especially suitable for it.


-This research is not funded which creates a constraint towards personal interviews through budgeting limitations. -Time causes a constraint towards the scope. Only one researcher is active within the timeframe meaning that the scope must be set accordingly and the research must allow other researchers to supplement or continue the topic in the future. -Due to the nature of this research topic and its complexity it proved difficult to arrange interviews with actors, especially the politicians. -Limitations regarding reliability and validity are discussed in the Case study protocol (Appendix IX section 6). 8. Ethics It is vital to this research to keep a high ethical standard. This was done by ensuring the possibility for anonymity and obtaining consent throughout the research for involved interviewees. Moreover, the research is intended to be publicly available to the interviewees after the deadline is due. Finally abstracts will be sent to interviewees before they are being utilised in the research, this allows for triangulation and consent from interviewees. A second concern was if through the interviews, controversial or valuable statements are made, which interviewees would like to see retracted. A choice has to be made between furthering the research on a critical note and honouring the interviewees request but potentially damaging the research validity. If such a dilemma would have occurred it would have been discussed with the research supervisors before a decision is made. No such scenario occurred. A final concern is that it is the researcher’s responsibility to discuss factual information about LFTR and its TIS. Speculation without a scientific basis must be presented as such. A first step towards this is a critical attitude of the researcher towards any statements. Moreover the researcher must remain neutral and clearly communicate this towards interviewees. Analysis is done on the basis of the abstracts, not through observations within the conversations, as these are prone to bias.


Appendix X: Research planning A Gantt chart was created for this research as a planning tool. An image of this chart as handed in with the thesis proposal is shown below. During this thesis the chart has generally been kept intact. However, interview rounds were conducted more like one continuous round from October 14 – November 14 and the deadline for the thesis was formally extended towards the 5th of January.

Figure 31: Gantt chart


Appendix XI: Interview protocol

T

he interview protocol forms the basis of every interview and is based on the work of Verhoeven (2014). The interview method is an open one, thus the questions in this protocol are not necessarily in order. The questions should be reagarded as topics with the given questions as an example of what would be talked about during the interview. Interview questions outside the generic topic list have been added to the respective interview abstracts. Interview setting: -Prepare background information on interviewee or their expertise. -Choose a quiet room (if possible), to enable recording and minimize distractions. -Wear appropriate clothes (fit in). -Try not to sit opposite the interviewee, directly facing him/her to increase comfort. Introduction. -Break the ice before the interview by commenting on the interior (for example a painting). -Thank the interviewee for their participation. -Introduction, research goal, interview goal. -Tell how the interview will look like: order of topics, several open questions, duration of the interview is 60 (or 30) minutes. -Do you agree with the recording of this interview. Explain it is only for analytical purposes. -Confidentiality of data, no third parties involved. Data is only used for this research. Possibility to be presented anonymous. -Do you have any questions?

Generic Subject list Part 1: personal role and governmental structure (barriers and roles) -Do you have previous knowledge of LFTR or Thorium? -What is your opinion of the LFTR as an alternative form of nuclear power? -What role would the government have to play in the development of LFTR? -Which role does (insert candidate) fulfil in the discussion surrounding nuclear energy and thorium energy, in comparison to other parties? -Who are your supporters and opponents in the area of nuclear power and thorium? Which


other political parties share your view in the Netherlands and how is this in Europe? -Does the house of representatives/EU give attention to technology like LFTR, and is LFTR on the political agenda? If not, why are technologies like LFTR not being embraced by politicians? -Are there any parties in The Netherlands that block the development of LFTR or that stimulate it? If yes, who are this and what are their roles and motivations? -Are there parties in the EU that encourage or block the development of LFTR. If yes, who are this and what are their roles and motivations? -Should the government play a role in the development of technology like LFTR? If so, which role should she play? -To which degree should the development of LFTR be stimulated or subsidised by the (Dutch) government or the EU. -Are there any barriers that need to be conquered before LFTR is accepted in Dutch/EU politics, if so which barriers? -Outside of politics, which obstacles do you see in the development of LFTR? -How does the future look for LFTR in Europe, under the current circumstances? Part 2: The devil’s advocate -Devil’s advocate questions to gain clarity are given. E.g. Do you think LFTR is sustainable, if not, then why not. Why is biomass sustainable according to your party and LFTR not? (e.g. for politicians) -What do you think is the public opinion on thorium as a nuclear energy form. If negative, in what way has your organisation contributed to this? (e.g. for environmentalists) Closing the interview -I would like to conclude the interview. Are there any subjects that have not been discussed and should be in your opinion? Would you like to add anything? -Do you know any other persons in your environment that are involved with LFTR in any way? -We will contact you within 1 week to provide you an abstract of this interview for verification purposes. -May we contact you if we have further questions? -Thank you for the interview and your time


Appendix XII: Interviews

A

list of the different interviews is given below. Moreover all full interview abstracts are provided further on in this Appendix. The abstracts are defined per category A-D, in which category an interview falls can be viewed in the table below and its corresponding pagenumber can be found through the Table of Contents. The letters of various groups are provided in Appendix XIII. The interview transcripts are written in Dutch (if applicable) with an English translation in bold below the Dutch paragraphs. Interviewee overview. Interviewee

Organisation

Mr. J. Vos.

Dutch House of Representatives for the Labour Party (PVDA).

Mr. R. Leegte.

Ms. R. Klever.

Prof. Dr. C. De Lange.

Program Direction Nuclear Installations & Safety (pdNIV).

Main roles by function and activity T4: Guidance of the search. T6: Resource mobilisation.

Dutch House of Representatives for the Liberal Party (VVD).

T4: Guidance of the search

Dutch House of Representatives for the Party for Freedom (PVV)

T4: Guidance of the search.

Senate of The Netherlands/ Eerste Kamer. Independent Senate Group (OSF). Ministry of Economic Affairs.

T4: Guidance of the search.

T6: Resource mobilisation.

T6: Resource mobilisation.

T6: Resource mobilisation. F3: knowledge diffusion.

Stance on LFTR

The PVDA is against nuclear but show interest in thorium.

Data collection method & Section Telephone Interview. Section C.

The VVD is not against nuclear. Curiously-optimistic on LFTR/ thorium/MSRs.

Personal interview.

The PVV is pro-nuclear and enthusiastic about LFTR.

Letter/questionnaire.

Section C.

Appendix XIII.

Kees de Lange is Personal Interknowledgeable view. and an advocate for MSRs. Section C.

The pdNIV is technology neutral and not concerned with LFTR due to its long .development time.

Letter/questionnaire. Appendix XIII.


Dr. J.L. Kloosterman (Expert).

Reactor institute F2: Knowledge Technical Univer- development. sity Delft (TU) F3: knowledge diffusion.

Pro-MSRs, including LFTR.

Section A.

F7: advocacy. Anonymous expert

Dr. R. Schram.

Connected to a Research Centre or University

F2: Knowledge development. F3: knowledge diffusion.

Nuclear Research F2: Knowledge and consultancy development. Group (NRG).

Technologically neutral, but understands the advantages of LFTR.

Phone interview.

Positive on solid thorium fuels, interested in MSRs. Pro-MSR & next generation nuclear

Phone interview.

Section A.

Section D.

Representative of the Alvin Weinberg Foundation.

The Alvin Weinberg Foundation.

Dr. R. Stainsby

National Nuclear F2: Knowledge Laboratory (NNL) development & the SNETP. F3: knowledge diffusion SNETP somewhat: F4, F6 .

Technologically Phone interview. neutral. Pro-nuclear and next Section D. generation nuclear. Not negative on MSRs.

P. De Rijk.

WISE; World Information Service on Energy

F3: knowledge diffusion.

Anti-nuclear. Do Personal internot want to con- view. clude on MSRs yet. Section B.

LAKA


D. Bannink


Phone interview, website, Pool’s interviews, E-mails.

F7: advocacy.

F7: advocacy.

F7: advocacy.

Skype interview. Section B.

Anti-nuclear. Personal interMSRs should not view. be researched. Section B.

Figure 32: Table of interviews.


A: Expert Interviews Expert interview with Dr. Ir. Jan Leen Kloosterman, TU Delft Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Dr. ir. J.L. Kloosterman Interview method: telephone open-interview Time: 20-10-2014: 11:00 – 11:30 Place: N/A About Dr. Kloosterman: Dr. Ir. Jan Leen Kloosterman is a Dutch researcher and associate professor working for the TU Delft (a university with a large nuclear knowledge centre and their own reactor). He is also the Section Head Nuclear Energy & Radiation Applications (NERA) and Program Director Sustainable Energy Technology (SET). Kloosterman teaches nuclear reactor physics (among others) and is involved with research projects related to the thorium fuel cycle, such as project EVOL. Kloosterman is often considered one of the experts on Thorium Molten Salt related technology and has made appearances on television and in national newspapers. Interview: This interview was different from other interviews as it consisted of a technical part on the LFTR technology, and the regular questions (as asked to all other participants in some form). Only the technical part includes the question as the regular part is provided by the interview protocol.

Technical questions: Q: Wat zijn de historische reden dat LFTR niet gebruikt wordt. De opgegeven reden is vaak dat het minder geschikt is voor het produceren van kernwapens. U had het over de Breeder reactor (op de KIVI avond), kunt u dat bevestigen? A: Kloosterman denkt dat Breeder reactoren een belangrijkere reden vormen dan het produceren van wapens. Plutonium reactoren waren er toen al, en er was al een heleboel plutonium geproduceerd. Nucleair zou snel uitbreiden dacht men toen, uranium zou zo snel opraken. Daarom werd er ingezet op kweekreactoren. Met de uranium plutonium cyclus kun je sneller kweken dan met de thorium cyclus. Uiteindelijk gaat het over budget. Amerika had het geld niet om zowel de snelle kweek reactor als de molten salt reactor tegelijk te ontwikkelen zegt Kloosterman. De snelle kweek reactor met de uranium/plutonium. De vraag naar kernenergie nam af tijdens de jaren 70. Er werd meer Uranium ontdekt dus de noodzaak naar kweek reactoren nam af. Er was veel ervaring op de PWR, doorgaans was het dus veel goedkoper dan een heel nieuw reactor type te bouwen.de LWR presteert niet bijster best, maar destijds was dat minder belangrijk. Sorensen heeft het over het creëren van banen in Zuid Californië (als reden dat andere reactoren dan MSR gekozen werden), of dit echt een rol speelt betwijfeld, Dr. Kloosterman., het zou kunnen.


Q: What are the historical reasons that LFTR is not being used, often it is stated this has to do with nuclear weapon production? However, you were talking about breeder reactors (at the KIVI evening), can you confirm that? A: Kloosterman believes that breeder reactors are a more important reason than the production of nuclear weapons, as a historical reason. Back then, plutonium reactors already existed and a lot of plutonium was already produced. People thought nuclear energy would grow enormously, and that the supply of uranium would be depleted. That’s why breeder reactors were invested in. With the uranium-plutonium cycle, one can breed faster than with the thorium cycle. In the end its about budget constraints. The USA only had enough money to invest in either the plutonium fast breeder or the molten salt reactor. The former was chosen. Then demand of nuclear energy decreased in the 70s. Also more Uranium deposits were discovered. This decreased the necessity for breeder reactors. Moreover, a lot of experience was already present in PWR/LWR’s. It was cheaper to continue with the established technology than to build a completely new experimental reactor design. It is also important to note that the LWR does not perform exceptionally well (safety or waste wise), however this was not that important in those days. Kloosterman doubts that the creation of jobs in southern California really played a role, as Sorensen says in one of his video’s. However the possibility exists. Q: Bij het verbranden van nucleair afval in LFTR, wat kan er allemaal verbrand worden? Spent fuel, plutonium en actinides? Andere dingen? Wat is er daarvan aanwezig in Nederland? Aangezien wij reprocessen. A: Actiniden zijn splijtbaar en kunnen zowel in snelle kweek reactoren als in de MSR gespleten worden. Het type MSR heeft nog invloed, een MSR met grafiet in de kern werkt minder goed dan een reactor met gesmolten zout kern en een snel neutronen spectrum. Uiteindelijk zijn dit details. Nederland werkt de gebruikte splijtstof op, dit betekend dat Uranium en Plutonium er uit worden gehaald. De rest komt in het verglaasde afval te zitten. Hier moet je niet aankomen zegt Kloosterman. Het plutonium en uranium kun je recycleren. Borsele is begonnen met het recycleren van plutonium. Je kunt dit 1 a 2 keer doen, wat er overblijft kun je bijvoorbeeld in de MSR verder gebruiken. Q: When burning nuclear waste in LFTR, what exactly can be burned? Spent fuel, plutonium and actinides? Or also other things? How much of that is present in The Netherlands, since “we” reprocess spent fuel. A: Actinides are fissile and can fission in both MSR’s and fast breeder reactors. The type of MSR has some influence to this, an MSR with a graphite core is less suitable than a molten salt core with a fast neutron spectrum. However these are details says Kloosterman. In The Netherlands, the spend nuclear fuel is reprocessed, this means uranium and Plutonium are taken out. The remainder will be vitrified nuclear waste. You should not touch this says Dr. Kloosterman. But the plutonium and uranium can be recycled. The nuclear plant in Borsele has now begun with the recycling of plutonium.


Q: Het plutonium restant wat als afval overblijft in de LFTR, waar bestaat dit uit? Is dit pu-239 of een combinatie? A: Het is altijd een mix van isotopen. De actinide mix zit relatief lang in de reactor, en dan krijg je een mix. Je kunt de plutonium isotopen niet scheiden. Als je blijft recycleren zou je alles kunnen splijten, omdat pu-239 goed splijt en pu-240 kan pu-241 van gemaakt worden, wat ook weer goed splijtbaar is. Q: What is included into the plutonium waste that remains in LFTR. Is this pu-239 or another combination. A: It is always a mix of isotopes. The actinides remain relatively long in the reactor, which causes a mix. One cannot separate the plutonium isotopes says Dr. Kloosterman. However, if you would keep recycling the waste, everything would eventually fission, because pu-239 is fissile and pu-240 can be turned to pu-241 which is fissile. Q: Komt er pu-238 vrij in de LFTR? Zou dit ook gescheiden kunnen worden om te worden gebruikt door bijv. NASA? A: Pu-238 moet speciaal gemaakt worden voor NASA, LFTR kan dit niet. Pu-238 wordt via een heel andere route gemaakt. Dr. Kloosterman heeft nog nooit gehoord dat je dit zou kunnen maken met een LFTR, het zal zeker geen belangrijke toepassing zijn. Q: Is Pu-238 produced in LFTR? Would it be possible to separate this so that it can be used by NASA? A: Pu-238 has to be made especially for NASA, LFTR cannot do this. Pu-238 is made through a whole different route. Dr. Kloosterman has never heard of using LFTR for pu238 production, it certainly won’t be an important application of LFTR. Q: LFTR heeft een aantal technische challenges (chemical processing, cleaning/ manipulatie van het zout mengsel , Hastelloy-N) Zijn er nog overige technische challenges voor LFTR (welke niet beschreven waren in de thesis van Lucas Pool)? A: De chemical processing en Hastelloy N zijn de belangrijkste. De beperkingen van een reactor zit hem bijna altijd in de materialen. Je moet met Hastelloy N beginnen en dit verbeteren. Q: LFTR has several technical challenges (chemical processing/cleaning and manipulation of the salt mixture, Hastelloy-N) Are there any other technical challenges for LFTR (that may not have been present in Lucas Pool’s thesis)? A: The chemical processing and Hastelloy-N are the most important. The limitations of any reactor are always in the available materials. Hastelloy-N has to be used as a starting point and then improved says Dr. Kloosterman. Q: Start-up fuel zou geen probleem zijn volgens u (Pool, 2013)? A: Het maakt niet echt uit waarmee je LFTR opstart. Er is voor honderden jaren genoeg uranium. Je kunt U-235, U-233 of plutonium gebruiken. Dit is echt geen probleem, er is genoeg voorhanden, alle “normale” reactoren lopen hier immers op. Q: Start-up fuel would not be a problem according to you (Pool, 2013)? A: It doesn’t matter how you start up LFTR. There is enough uranium for hundreds of


years. You could use U-235, U233 or Plutonium. This is really not a problem, there is enough available, all normal reactors run on this right now said Dr. Kloosterman.

Regular interview questions: Dr. Kloosterman wordt wel eens iets gevraagd over de MSR, door de staten politiek, maar niet door de tweede kamer. Dr. Kloosterman does receive questions about the MSR from provincial politics, but not from the House of representatives (national politics). Dr. Kloosterman denkt niet dat de mensen in de tweede of eerste kamer inhoudelijke kennis hebben over LFTR. Dat moet nog komen. Het moet een keer op de politieke agenda komen en dan moeten Kamerleden zich gaan verdiepen. Dr. Kloosterman does not believe that the members of the Senate and House of representatives have substantial knowledge about LFTR. At some point if will need to come on the political agenda, and then members will have to deepen their knowledge. Het is vreemd dat er politici zijn die denken dat LFTR niet duurzaam is. De definitie van duurzaam is natuurlijk een beetje vaag volgens Kloosterman. Er is hernieuwbare energie en duurzame energie. Kloosterman zou zeggen het is niet hernieuwbaar maar wel duurzaam. Kloosterman denkt dat de politici zelf het verschil tussen de twee niet goed weten. Mensen denken bij duurzaam meteen aan zon en wind, maar er is meer en ook goedkoper. Kloosterman denkt dat de politiek hier een kans laat liggen. It is strange that politicians believe LFTR is not sustainable. The definition of sustainability is a little bit vague says Kloosterman. There is renewable energy and sustainable energy. Kloosterman thinks that politicians themselves do not really know the difference between the two. People often think of solar and wind when discussing sustainable energy. But there are more options and also cheaper ones. Kloosterman would say LFTR is sustainable but not renewable. Deze verwarring (tussen duurzaam en renewable) zou kunnen komen omdat de politiek onvoldoende informatie heeft over LFTR of omdat men niet goed nadenkt over wat voor mogelijkheden er allemaal liggen. This confusion between sustainable and renewable could occur because politicians have insufficient information about LFTR. Or because people do not really think about the possibilities that are available. In Nederland wordt LFTR niet ontwikkeld wegens dezelfde reden dat Nederland achterloopt op hernieuwbare energie. Nederland heeft lange tijd veel gas gehad (te lang, te veel), andere ontwikkelingen hebben we laten liggen. We hebben altijd achtergelopen op nucleair. Als je voor iets kiest moet je doorzetten. Dit zie je ook bij zon en wind, we lopen achter op Europa. In The Netherlands, LFTR is not being developed due to the same reason that The Netherlands is lagging behind in renewable energy. The Netherlands have had a lot of natural gas for a long time (too much, too long). Other developments have been passed on. The Netherlands has always been lagging behind on nuclear energy. If you chose for something, you have to go through with it. You see the same thing with wind and solar, we are lagging behind Europe. Europa is te versnippert om LFTR te ontwikkelen. Elk land op zich is te klein om LFTR te ontwikkelen en er is geen Europese coördinatie.. Er is wel een coalitie op het gebied van kernfusie. Zo


iets zou je ook op het gebied van de gesmolten zout reactoren moeten hebben. Europe is too fragmented to develop LFTR. Every country by itself is too small to develop LFTR and there is no European coordination. However, there is a coalition in the field of nuclear fusion. Something like that would be needed in the field of molten salt reactors. Kloosterman hoopt dat er in de toekomst vanuit de EU commissie een beweging op gang komt, waardoor er een Europees LFTR ontwerp komt. Er moet waarschijnlijk gelobbyd worden in Brussel en mensen moeten zich realiseren dat er zoveel energie nodig is dat we alles moeten aanpakken wat we kunnen gebruiken. Als de nood te hoog wordt is het misschien al te laat. Kloosterman hopes that, in the future, a movement originating from the EU commission can be set into motion, which causes a European LFTR design. Probably a lot of lobbying in Brussels is needed. People also have to realize that we need so much energy, that we should accept anything we can and utilise it. Before it is too late. Een lobby zou begonnen moeten worden door organisaties die pro LFTR zijn, zoals de Weinberg foundation. Universiteiten spelen een secundaire rol, onze inbreng is heel klein. Je moet je organiseren , Europa breed, zo krijg je misschien wel gehoor in Brussel. A lobby will need to be started by an organisation that is pro LFTR, like the Weinberg foundation. Universities and research institutes play an important secondary role. Their power is very modest. You would have to organize and unite them, Europe wide, to get attention from Brussels. Europa heeft op dit moment veel kennis over LFTR en doet zeker niet onder voor andere landen. Kloosterman denkt dat Europa op sommige gebieden vooruitloopt. Er moet wel snel gehandeld worden voordat Europa deze voorsprong kwijt is. Europe possesses a lot of knowledge right now on LFTR and is certainly not lagging behind other countries. Kloosterman thinks that Europe is taking the lead in some fields. However, rapid action is needed to ensure that Europe does not lose this lead. Kloosterman probeert op dit moment geld te krijgen voor onderzoek. Via een onderzoeksvoorstel komt het ook op de Europese agenda zegt Kloosterman. TU Delft neemt de leiding in het vervolg van project EVOL. At the moment Kloosterman tries to do this by getting funding for more research. Through a research proposal MSR’s also reach the European union’s agenda. TU Delft is taking the lead in the follow up project of EVOL. De publieke opinie is in het voordeel van LFTR. Sinds Fukushima heeft Kloosterman veel belangstelling gekregen voor de MSR. De veiligheid is veel beter, en het is duurzamer, mensen zien het als een nieuwe vorm van nucleair. Mensen zijn te ongeduldig, ze denken dat het binnen 10 jaar allemaal gerealiseerd kan zijn. Ze zijn eerder teleurgesteld dat het zo lang duurt dan dat ze tegen zijn. Kloosterman is nog niet echt mensen tegengekomen die tegen zijn. The public opinion is an advantage for LFTR. Kloosterman noticed that since Fukushima there is a lot more interest in the MSR. It is safer and more sustainable, thus people see it as a new form of nuclear energy. However, people are impatient, they believe an MSR can be realised in 10 years. They are often disappointed that it takes so long rather than against MSR’s. Kloosterman has not really met anyone that is really against it.


Expert Interview with the Anonymous Expert. Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Anonymous expert Interview method: telephone open-interview Time: 13-11-2014: 17:00 – 18:00 (Dutch Time) Place: N/A About our Anonymous expert: Because of anonymity we cannot state anything about this person other than that he/she is a nuclear expert and an expert on MSRs. His/Her expertise should be considered on par with Dr. Kloosterman (our other expert). The anonymous expert holds a Phd in the field of nuclear (the exact field is subject to anonymity) and holds a senior position as a researcher. The anonymous expert is also knowledgeable about the EU policies on nuclear energy and knows about the policies of (some) member states. The expert has been verified to be an expert by Dr. Kloosterman (TU Delft) and Dr. Schram (NRG). The real identity of this expert is known only to the researcher and the supervisors.

Interview: Technical questions: In both the thorium and the uranium cycle, uranium is being fissioned. In the former it is u-233 and the latter uses u-235. The fission products are more or less the same. Not every element is the same but you have about the same amount of fission products that are important for waste storage, so there is an equal amount of Iodine, selenium, chlorine etc. It are the radionuclides that determine the danger in final waste storage solutions. The big difference between the cycles is that if you start lower on the table of nuclides, it also takes longer before you are producing plutonium, americium or neptunium. If you start with thorium, you encounter higher uranium isotopes that also fission easier. Thus you generate less transuranic elements. This is the major advantage concerning waste in the thorium cycle. You will not have the extremely long lived transuranic elements. However, you can always start the debate whether this is really an advantage. When you start talking to people that are concerned with waste storage, they will tell you that they are not concerned with plutonium, curium or americium because these elements do not play a role in the risk analysis. Iodine, selenium, chlorine etc. are the radionuclides that form and determine the danger in waste storage solutions. Normally, when you dispose of a fission product from a LWR, you automatically create a plutonium mine because the products decay during the storage says the anonymous expert. Whether or not this is really a problem or whether thorium offers advantages is something to debate about. Only the transuranic elements are different. The radiotoxicity is mostly determined by the actinides. The advantages of the MSR is that only the elements that disrupt the fission process are taken out of the salt mixture. The other elements remain in the salt, which causes more material to be fissioned.


In the fission products of a LFTR one can find the following types of fission products: 83% of the waste with a life of 10 years: Iodine, caesium, tellurium etc. 17% of the waste with a life of 300-500 years: zirconium and some rare earth elements. As a matter of speech; half the periodic system is present, but it is the short living materials such as Iodine-131, trontium-92 or caesium-133 that form the danger in an accident. In the ideal scenario, an MSR uses u-233 as start-up fuel, however this is insufficiently available. Then you should use u-235 or plutonium. This means you also start to form transuranic elements in an MSR but because of the chemical (re)processing plant these actinides remain in the salt and become harmless. The salt mixture will need to be transformed for storage. This mixture has to be treated and usefull materials need to be separated from it. After doing so it can be stored in a ceramic or vitrified form. The knowledge that is being gained now during decommissioning has to be used in new reactors says the anonymous expert. The problem with Oak Ridge (MSRE) is that it has been left untouched for a long time, the salt was drained in tanks and after this nothing was done with it. That was the problem; due to the radiation in the salt, fluoride was formed which reacted with the uranium to form uf-6 (a gas). If you would design an MSR right now, you would immediately design the clean-up factory with it. This is really a must says the anonymous expert. The problem with the MSRE was that there was no chemical factory with the reactor. Clean-up has an impact on the cost of a reactor. But you would have very diferent costs than with an LWR. You do not need enrichment for example. However, there is no experience with the MSR so the estimated costs may turn out different than the reality.

Political questions: The network of the EU is not limited to the EVOL group but also David LeBlanc in Canada and Ignatiev in Russia are part of the network. However for salt mixtures, you have to be in Karlsruhe. But Karlsruhe also has knowledge on separation processes and thorium as a fission material The Anonymous nuclear expert is (technology) neutral and independent from his job position. We do not concern ourselves with the creation of new technology but we provide information on, for example, the safety says the expert. However, as you work with something, you will also see the advantages of a technology which influences your contribution and motivation to the continuation of a research says the anonymous expert. In Europe the commission does not control the energy politics. It can support certain research projects or stimulate them. The development of new reactors, or making a choice between alternatives, is not a task of the commission. The latter is something nations decide for themselves. The MSR has to compete with other nuclear research programmes. Whether a proposal is granted depends on the quality of the proposed work, the quality of the consortium but also other criteria. There is not a certain underlying policy behind this. On a national level these things do happen. France is primarily focussing on sodium reactors while academics are mainly proposing molten salt reactors. The Netherlands subsidises very little nuclear research says the anonymous expert, the NRG can tell you that. In the Netherlands, Urenco is enriching uranium, they make a lot of money on this. There is only a limited interest in nuclear energy, and then the MSR is also a new technolo-


gy. Theo Wolters is campaigning for more research towards the MSR as an economic opportunity for The Netherlands. He talks about an ASML effect (ASML is a Dutch company that makes the machines that are used for the production of microchips, such as INTEL’s). In the ASML effect, the Dutch industry could supply components and knowledge without ever having to build their own reactor. A large threat is that politicians do not fully understand the message (on MSRs) or only partially utilise the message. This can cause that they will give statements that does not quite cover the subject. Moreover, there are no political gains to be had at this moment on nuclear power says the anonymous expert, so there is also no reason to stick out their necks. Maybe if a different way of thinking emerges. The political climate is not really positive. What maybe needs to happen to change this is the recognition that the MSR is a technology that can avoid many of problems the LWR faces. The second recognition is that nuclear energy is probably needed to achieve a CO2 neutral energy supply. The book by David Mackay: sustainable energy without the hot air, is strongly recommended. Out of this book came that nuclear is essential in creating a base-load for the long term. What eventually needs to happen is that the debate on nuclear energy becomes detached from emotions. You cannot convince the other party if this does not happen. Emotionally the debate is too sensitive. Something has to happen in the energy market to make people think differently. The personal opinion of the expert is that the energy discussion is a discussion of luxuries. We can permit ourselves to talk and think about all kinds of energy alternatives because we are rich, we can afford that extra 10 cents. Maybe the industry cannot. However, there are a lot of people that, without any problem, can pay a higher price for energy. It is these people that also dominate the debate. Something else that needs to happen is that people get a better awareness of the risks. In the current nuclear debate we are discussing risks that are actually very tiny. People do not accept these risks but instead do take risks that are many times larger. The uranium industry is not occupied with thorium because there is no necessity. There is a lot of money invested in uranium enrichment and uranium mines. The only demands from the industry are those of the chemical industry and owners of mines where thorium is a by-product. The anonymous expert believes that nuclear energy (including thorium) are sustainable within the EU/Brundtland definition since it is possible to breed. The anonymous expert believes it is hard to answer whether LFTR has a future under the current circumstances. There is currently an inertia to all forms of nuclear energy. If something happens, and that inertia is broken, the potential is there but is all depends on external circumstances. The development of the MSR is not possible without government support. Look at all other nuclear projects. There is progress in this area. Funding from the market is very hard at this moment. Fukushima can be considered negative for all nuclear technologies thinks the expert. The expert had hoped that after Fukushima more attention would be directed towards alternative nuclear alternatives that do not have the weaknesses of the LWR.


B: NGO Interviews Interview with Peer de Rijk, Director of the World Information Service on Energy (WISE) international. Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Peer De Rijk Interview method: face to face open interview Time: 14-10-2014 15:00 – 15:55 Place: WISE Amsterdam Office About WISE: WISE, is an anti-nuclear environmental organisation based in The Netherlands but active throughout the world. More information on the role of Wise is provided in the interview.

Interview: WISE probeert groepen die in contact komen met kernenergie, waar dan ook ter wereld, te voorzien van bruikbare informatie. WISE speelt een achtergrondrol in het netwerk als informatie voorziener. WISE probeert op de hoogte te blijven van technologische ontwikkelingen. WISE tries to assist groups that come in contact with nuclear power, wherever they are in the world, by providing them useful information. WISE has a background role in their network as a supplier for information. As such, WISE tries to stay up to date on the latest technological developments. Het netwerk van WISE is zowel lokaal als internationaal. WISE heeft toegang en uitwisseling met grotere netwerken zoals Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth en het WNF. Maar ook met veel lokale groepen. WISE deelt bijvoorbeeld haar kantoor met Milieudefensie, een Nederlandse milieugroep. The network of WISE contains both local and international links. WISE has access and exchanges with larger networks such as Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and the WWF. However local groups also play an important role. For example, WISE share their office with Milieudefensie, a Dutch environmental organisation. WISE krijgt vaak informatie en vertaalt dit tot bruikbare brokken voor lokale groepen. WISE is als het ware een trechter. WISE often receives information from these environmental groups and translates this to bite size chunks for local organisations. WISE functions as a funnel. WISE ziet recentelijk meer informatie over LFTR passeren en tevens dat er hernieuwde aandacht voor het onderwerp is. Indien er genoeg aandacht voor het onderwerp is en het belangrijk genoeg is, zal WISE zich ook verder moeten verdiepen. Op dit moment doet WISE dit niet actief. Recently has seen a renewed interest in Thorium and LFTR, more information is passing by. If there is enough attention for this topic, and it is deemed important enough, WISE will need to deepen their understanding of LFTR. At this moment, WISE does not do that actively.


WISE is tegen kernenergie, in de huidige vorm, inclusief de nieuwe generatie (generation IV) normale reactoren. Deze moeten verdwijnen. Onderzoek naar alternatieven, zoals LFTR, moeten echter niet uitgesloten worden. WISE is against nuclear energy, in its current form. This includes the new generation IV (normal/uranium) reactors. WISE believes these have to disappear. Research towards alternatives, such as LFTR, should not be ruled out. Als vandaag het besluit wordt genomen om te stoppen met kernenergie, dan heb je nog decennia lang opgeleide mensen nodig met kennis van kernenergie. WISE vindt dus dat wetenschappelijk onderzoek en opleidingsprogramma’s door moeten gaan. If a decision is made today about abandoning regular nuclear energy, the world will still need highly trained people with knowledge of nuclear power for many years. WISE thus believes that the continuation of research and training programmes should continue. Onderzoeksgeld kun je maar 1 keer uitgeven. Voor WISE moet dit gaan naar de duurzame oplossingen. De afweging is waar men geld in gaat steken. Principieel zegt WISE dat men niet alles op een paard moet wedden. De samenleving (incl. WISE en milieuorganisaties) moeten wel durven kijken naar alternatieven zoals Thorium en LFTR. Research funds can only be spend once. WISE believes this money should go to sustainable solutions. The dilemma is where to invest the money. WISE remains firm in their principle and states that not all eggs should be put in one basket. Society needs to be bold and also look at alternative solutions such as Thorium and LFTR. Stel dat de LFTR de levensduur van afval kan terugbrengen, dan is dat een gigantische winst. Het dilemma voor WISE is echter: wordt de technologie gebruikt om echt het kernafval probleem op te lossen, of wordt het gebruikt als legitimatie om door te gaan met (normale) kernenergie. If LFTR can really decrease the life span of nuclear waste, then this would be an enormous gain. However WISE faces a dilemma: is the technology being used to really tackle the nuclear waste problem, or is it being used to legitimize and warrant the continuation of nuclear power in its current form. Als er een oplossing is voor het afvalprobleem dan valt een belangrijk argument weg tegen kernenergie. Puur kijkend naar de technologie zou dit een fantastische oplossing kunnen zijn. If a solution exists for the nuclear waste problem, it would mean an important argument against nuclear waste will disappear. Purely taking the technology (i.e. LFTR) into account, this could be a fantastic solution. WISE durft nog geen oordeel te geven over Thorium en LFTR, WISE wil niet als legitimatie worden gebruikt om door te gaan met kernenergie. Het heeft veel te maken met de inschatting van hoe wordt de technologie gebruikt. However, WISE does not want to judge Thorium and LFTR yet. WISE does not want to be used as legitimisation for the continuation of regular nuclear power. This has a lot to do with the prognosis; How and to what purpose is the technology used? Her is erg moeilijk te achterhalen wat de motivatie achter een project is. Kernafval is een obstakel voor verdere doorgroei van de industrie. Er is een gemeenschappelijk belang dat dit opgelost wordt, maar we moeten kijken naar het onderliggende motief en het effect hiervan.


The underlying motives of a project is often hard to come by. Nuclear waste is an obstacle for the growth of the nuclear industry. There is a mutual interest to solve this problem, but WISE also has to look at the underlying motives and the effect of solving the problem. Financiering van LFTR zal moeten komen vanuit de nucleaire energie sector en de overheid. Beide hebben belang bij het oplossen van het afval probleem en het opwekken van energie. Financing of LFTR will have to come from the nuclear industry and the government. It is in both of their interests to solve the waste problem and generate electricity. De nucleaire industrie staat hier volgens WISE niet op te wachten, De nucleaire industrie willen hun oude reactoren nog verkopen. De bedrijven hebben geen baat bij een nieuw type reactoren, ze moeten de investering in de nieuwe uranium reactoren nog terugverdienen. Verrijken van thorium is ook niet nodig, dat winst model valt weg. The nuclear industry is not looking forward to the technology, says WISE. They want to sell their old reactors. There is no gain to be had in a new LFTR reactor since they still need to sell their old uranium reactors to earn back their investments. Also, enriching of Thorium is not needed, this profit model will disappear. WISE kent geen lobby groepen in Europa die actief voor of tegen Thorium energie en LFTR zijn. Zodra er een groot industrieel of financieel belang ontstaat, zoals een grote investering in LFTR, zal er ook een lobby ontstaan in Europa. WISE is not aware of either pro or anti-thorium lobby groups in the EU. As soon as a major industrial or financial stake is created, for example through a major investment in LFTR, a lobby group will also rise in Europe. Veel milieuorganisaties zullen nu denken, het loopt zo’n vaart niet. Als het realistisch wordt gaan dat soort organisaties er pas naar kijken volgens WISE. Currently, a lot of environmental organizations will think that LFTR is far away. As soon as it become real and immediate, these organisations will put their attention towards it, says WISE. WISE vindt dit jammer, het zou beter zijn als een milieu groep met voldoende wetenschappelijk kennis er in een vroeg stadium bij is. Er zou dan samen gewerkt kunnen worden met voorstanders, om de nadelen van LFTR op te lossen. Hierdoor voorkom je ook dat milieuorganisaties met de hakken in het zand gaan staan, een soort Pavlov reactie op het onderwerp nucleaire energie. WISE thinks this is a shame; It would be better to have a (scientifically) knowledgeable environmental organisation directly involved at an early stage. This way, cooperation with pro-thorium groups can be established and problems can be solved early on. This prevents resistance from environmentalists who often have a Pavlov like reaction towards the subject of nuclear energy. De Nederlandse politiek is hier niet mee bezig, deze is te reactief. LFTR staat niet op de agenda volgens WISE. Dutch politics is not concerned with LFTR says WISE. Politics is too reactive. It is certainly not on the agenda of the politicians. Soms is er een kamerlid dat een voorstel doet over LFTR of Thorium. Volgens WISE is dit vaak


om even op te vallen, zonder dat hij/zij er veel kennis van de technologie heeft. Het wordt vaak ook snel af-geserveerd. WISE is hier erg cynisch over. Het huidige energiedebat heeft überhaupt een lage kwaliteit. LFTR is dan al helemaal te ver van hun bed of te ingewikkeld. Sometimes, a member of the house of representatives (of the Netherlands) will propose or say something about Thorium. WISE believes they do this to get noticed without knowing much about the technology. These type of comments are often swiftly dismissed. WISE is very cynical about this. The current debate around energy in The Netherlands is of a very low standard to begin with. Nederland zou deze technologie minstens goed moeten kunnen volgen. Anders loopt Nederland het risico de ontwikkeling mis te lopen. Het onderwerp moet begrepen worden. The Netherlands should at least be able to closely follow this technology. If they do not, The Netherlands will risk missing the developments on LFTR. The subject has to be understood. Mocht LFTR toch ontwikkeld gaan worden, dan moeten verschillende stakeholders betrokken worden, dit om de eerder genoemde Pavlov reactie tegen te gaan. Proactief vooruit denken en onderzoek doen is belangrijk volgens WISE. If, by any chance, LFTR is going to be developed in The Netherlands, a wide range of stakeholder has to be involved to counteract the previously mentioned Pavlov reaction. Research and proactive thinking about the future is important according to WISE. Regelgeving op het gebied van Thorium en FLTR is er niet, dit moet er wel komen. De overheid moet hier proactief met bezig zijn. Zodra een investeerder een reactor wil bouwen in Nederland moet er een vergunning afgegeven kunnen worden. Op dit moment zou de overheid niet weten wat ze hier mee zouden moeten doen. Regulations on LFTR and Thorium do not exist, but have to be created. The government has to be proactive in this. As soon as an investor would want to build a (thorium) reactor in The Netherlands, a permit should possibly be provided. At the moment the government would not know what to do with this situation. Nederland kan dus praktisch geen vergunning afgeven of een voorstel beoordelen volgens WISE. Ambtenaren moeten er dus nu al over gaan nadenken. De Europese regelgeving biedt ook geen soelaas. Practically speaking, the Netherlands is not able to give a permit or judge a proposal says WISE. Civil servants should already start thinking about this right now. The European regulations also do not offer a way out. LFTR is meer dan een brugtechnologie, maar heeft een breed politiek besluit nodig om toekomst te hebben volgens WISE. LFTR zou er kunnen komen als er mondiaal en massaal publiek geld naartoe gaat. Het is vergelijkbaar met het besluit om naar de maan te gaan, een besluit van dezelfde orde moet er komen volgens WISE, voordat LFTR ontwikkeld zal worden. LFTR is more than a bridging technology. However it needs a wide political decision to have a future. LFTR could exist if globally and en masse funds are directed towards it. A decision comparable to deciding to go to the moon is needed. Het publiek zal ook niet weten waar LFTR en Thorium over gaat. Gevoelsmatig zullen ze negatief zijn omdat het kernenergie is. Milieuorganisaties dragen hier aan bij, zij houden dat in principe graag in stand.


The general public will also not know about LFTR and Thorium. Instinctively they will be negative about LFTR because it is a form of nuclear power. Environmental organisations, such as WISE, contribute to this and prefer this remains intact on principle. Er is een dilemma: Wil een milieuorganisatie dat er veel onderzoek naar LFTR gaat, en dat het (deels) een oplossing van het (klimaat en energie)probleem wordt? Of wil een organisatie vasthouden aan het volledig inzetten op duurzaamheid, waarbij kernenergie geen rol mag spelen. A dilemma occurs: does an environmental organisation want that a lot of research is directed towards LFTR, and that it becomes part of the solution (towards climate change and the energy crisis)? Or does the organisation remain steadfast and completely argue for sustainability without a role for nuclear power. WISE denkt dat er een mix van maatregelen zal moeten plaatsvinden. Thorium/LFTR komt te laat, tenminste op de korte termijn. LFTR en thorium moet wel verder onderzocht worden. Aan de andere kant, de euro moet wel verdeeld worden. WISE zegt nog steeds volledig in te zetten op renewables, maar dit niet de enige optie. WISE believes a mix of measures will need to be taken. Thorium and LFTR in this sense are too late for the short term. However, LFTR and Thorium should be research further. On the other side, the research funds have to be divided. WISE still pleads fully for the development of renewables. However WISE knows this is not the only option. WISE wil graag de resultaten van het onderzoek inzien. WISE would like to view the results of the research.


Interview with Dirk Bannink, LAKA foundation Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Peer De Rijk Interview method: face to face open interview Time: 8-11-2014 11:00-12:30 Place: LAKA Amsterdam Office About LAKA: LAKA foundation is an independent anti-nuclear centre for documentation and research about nuclear power. Dirk Bannink was also present during the KIVI evening about molten salt reactors.

Interview: Er zijn veel anti-windenergie sentimenten, dat zie je op bijvoorbeeld de KIVI avond. Rechts eigent zich min of meer kernenergie op denk Bannink, die hebben een hekel aan de milieu beweging. De PVV is bijvoorbeeld voor kernenergie omdat de milieubewegingen tegen zijn. Dat zie je doorspelen in het KIVI debat. Het is geen discussie over techniek maar over voorkeuren. There are a lot of anti-wind energy sentiments, one can see that during the KIVI evening for example. Political right has more or less claimed nuclear power says Bannink, they also hate environmental groups. The PVV (freedom party) is against nuclear power purely because environmental groups are against. You can see this during the KIVI debate. It is not a discussion about technology but about preferences. De regering moet regeren, hier hoort ook het verlenen van subsidies bij. Alleen maar doelen stellen is niet genoeg, de weg daar naartoe moet ook vastgesteld worden. Om ontwikkelingen alleen aan de markt over te laten is een slecht idee zegt Bannink. Bannink is niet tegen subsidie van energie vormen. Een level playing field op energie gebied zou mooi zijn zegt Bannink, maar dit is niet het geval. Olie en Kolen zijn gesubsidieerd, dit betaalt de maatschappij. Kerncentrales krijgen vergunningen voor onbepaalde tijd en windmolens voor 20 jaar. Ook de inkoop van elektriciteit wordt van te voren afgesproken voor een bepaalde prijs. Er is dus geen level playing field. The government needs to govern and this includes the granting of subsidies. Only setting goals is not enough, the road towards these goals also needs to be defined. It is a bad idea to only trust the market with new developments says Bannink. Bannink is not against subsidising energy. A level playing field in the energy market would be a nice idea says Bannink, but this is not the case. Oil and Coal are being subsidised, our society pays for this. Nuclear power plants receive permits for unlimited time while windmills receive permits for 20 years. Also the procurement of electricity and its price is agreed upon beforehand. So there is no level playing field. Duurzame energievoorziening voor een beter klimaat kost geld. Men kan geld maar een keer uitgeven. Investeren in duurzame energie kost dus geld maar er moet sowieso geïnvesteerd worden in capaciteit, het verschil is dan echt niet zo groot zegt Bannink. Sustainable energy for a better environment costs money. You can only spend money once. Investing in sustainable energy costs money but we have to invest in capacity anyway, the difference in investment is really not significant says Bannink.


De elektriciteitsprijs is op dit moment voornamelijk belasting. Het kan nog veel duurder worden. Energie is te goedkoop zegt Bannink. De oplossing van het energie probleem zou moeten bestaan uit een duurzame mix met misschien een rol voor aardgas zegt Bannink. The price of electricity at this moment mostly consists of taxes. It could become much more expensive. Energy is too cheap says Bannink. The solution of the energy problem would have to be a sustainable mix with maybe a role for natural gas says Bannink. Bannink vindt het toevallig dat de MSR nu opeens weer in de belangstelling staat. Het is niet voor niks dat de afgelopen 30 jaar de onderzoeksprogramma’s niet over MSRs gingen. Bannink weet niet waarom er in het verleden niet naar MSRs is gekeken (bijvoorbeeld tijdens de bouw van HTRs), dat is niet omdat ze er niet van wisten zegt Bannink. Er moeten dus technologische problemen zijn, er moet nog een doorbraak komen zegt Bannink. Het is maar één van de typen thorium reactoren die nu relatief veel gehypet wordt. Bannink thinks it is curious that the MSR is in the spotlight all of the sudden. There must be a reason that the past 30 years no research programmes on the MSR were conducted. Bannink does not know why the MSR was not an option in the past (e.g. during the building of HTRs), that cannot be because they did not know about the MSR says Bannink. There must be a series of technical problems and a breakthrough must still come says Bannink. The MSR is only one type of thorium reactors that is now relatively hyped at the moment. Bannink is sceptisch over de voordelen en nadelen van MSRs. Er zitten overal nadelen aan, ook aan wind of zon, dus dat zou geen reden zijn om het hele idee te negeren. Er moet nagedacht te worden om nadelen weg te poetsen of zo klein mogelijk te houden. Bannink zegt dat hij afgaat op wat andere instituten zeggen, dat de thorium en uranium cyclus toch grotendeels hetzelfde zijn. De NNL zegt dit ook. Bannink is sceptical about the pro and cons of the MSRs. There are disadvantages with everything, also with wind and solar, so in itself that should not be a reason to ignore an idea. However, one must think about the possibility of minimising or solving the disadvantages. Bannink is following what other institutes say about that the thorium and uranium cycle are mostly the same. The NNL also says this. Er is op dit moment geen discussie over thorium in Nederland. Die discussie komt een beetje, of eigenlijk niet echt. Af en toe praten er eens drie mensen over zegt Bannink. Niemand zit specifiek op thorium binnen LAKA. Bannink houdt het wel bij. Af en toe hoort LAKA vanuit de wind energie hoek dat ze zich met thorium bezig moeten. Dit komt doordat er een anti-wind sentiment is binnen thorium-kernenergie voorstanders. Ze zien dat als een bedreiging voor wind, zegt Bannink. At this moment there is no discussion about thorium in The Netherlands. The discussion is developing, or actually not really. Sometimes three people talk about it says Bannink. Nobody is specialised in thorium at LAKA. Bannink is keeping up with the developments. Sometimes LAKA hears from wind energy advocates that LAKA should be actively engaged in thorium. This is caused because there is an anti-wind sentiment with the thorium advocates. The wind advocates see this as a threat says Bannink. Er is geen thorium discussie in Nederland maar ook niet over fusie. Het is moeilijk een discussie te starten over iets wat niet bestaat. Bannink vindt niet dat er een discussie over thorium zou moeten komen. Tevens is hij tegen onderzoek naar kernenergie, dus ook naar thorium. Voor thorium heb je verrijking nodig, opwerking nodig en uranium nodig, dus wat is het verschil? De chemische fabriek is een vorm van opwerking. Ook wordt de Oak Ridge reactor nog steeds schoongemaakt vertelt Bannink.


There is no thorium discussion in Holland, but also not one about fusion. It is hard to have a discussion on something that does not exists. Bannink does not think there should be a thorium discussion. Moreover, he is against further research in nuclear power, including thorium. thorium requires enrichment, reprocessing, and uranium, so what is the difference? The chemical factory is a form of reprocessing. Moreover, the Oak Ridge MSRE is still being cleaned says Bannink. Thorium is niet duurzaam zegt Bannink, ook het afval van LFTR geeft een hoop problemen. Duurzaam en renewable hebben veel met elkaar te maken zegt Bannink. Thorium is not sustainable says Bannink, also the waste of LFTR gives a lot of problems. Sustainable and renewable have much in common explains Bannink. Bannink is niet voor onderzoek naar thorium. Niet alles hoeft onderzocht te worden, ook niet omdat men dan misschien een kans mist..Ik geloof daar niet in, aldus Bannink. Je moet prioriteiten stellen zegt Bannink Waar is thorium een alternatief voor vraagt Bannink. Omdat er voordelen zijn aan een techniek, zoals het produceren van medische isotopen, betekent niet dat die specifiek met thorium techniek moeten worden gemaakt. Dit kan ook met cyclotrons zegt Bannink. Bannink is not for further research into thorium. Not everything needs to be investigated, also not if that might cause the loss of an opportunity.I do not believe that, says Bannink. You have to prioritise says Bannink For what is thorium an alternative? asks Bannink. Just because there are advantages to a technology, like the capability to produce medical isotopes, does not mean that these have to be made specifically with thorium technology. This is also possible with cyclotrons says Bannink. De noodzaak ontbreekt om een nieuwe vorm van energie productie te onderzoeken volgens Bannink. We hebben genoeg aan de technologieën die we nu hebben, er zijn genoeg alternatieven, thorium is dus niet nodig zegt Bannink. Het afval probleem zal ook niet opgelost worden met LFTR. Er is al te weinig afval in Nederland (overcapaciteit) en bovendien is het verglaast. Je moet precies hetzelfde doen met 5 meter3 als met 50 meter3 of 500 meter3 afval zegt Bannink. Het terugbrengen van de levensduur van afval is ook geen argument, het radioactieve afval vervalt sneller en heeft een kortere levensduur maar is radioactiever. Bannink thinks that the necessity for researching a new type of energy production is missing. The current technologies are sufficient, there are plenty of alternatives so thorium is not needed. The waste problem will also not be solved with LFTR. There is not enough waste in The Netherlands (overcapacity) and the waste is vitrified. One would have to do the same things with 5 cubic meters of waste as with 50 cubic meters or 500 cubic meters says Bannink. Decreasing the lifetime of the waste is also not an argument as the radioactive waste decays faster it is also more radioactive. De meeste groepen besteden weinig tijd aan thorium, er is namelijk geen reden voor. Het zal zo’n vaart niet lopen is de gedachte zegt Bannink. Most organisations and groups do not spend much time on thorium, there is no reason to do so. The thought is that it is still far away says Bannink. De uranium industrie is niet voor thorium, dit is ideologisch, als je zegt dat thorium veilige kernenergie is zeg je automatisch dat uranium dat dus niet is. The uranium industry is not pro thorium, this is ideologically so. If you say that thorium is safer than regular nuclear energy, you automatically say that uranium is not safe.


Bannink hoeft niet zozeer een conferentie/debat over thorium bij te wonen. Misschien uit nieuwsgierigheid zegt Bannink. Ik sta daar niet om te springen aldus Bannink, ik sta er neutraal in. Bannink does not really need to attend a thorium debate or conference. Maybe out of curiosity says Bannink. I am not really excited says Bannink, I am neutral. Ook in Europa (Brussel) is dit geen discussie. Ze gokken op fusie. Of er dan nog ruimte in het budget en in de gedachten is voor nog een technologie betwijfeld Bannink. Het zal niet makkelijk zijn daar veel geld te krijgen. Er is geen debat en er is dus ook geen reden voor politici om zich te verdiepen in LFTR. Also in Europe (Brussels) there is no discussion on Thorium. They are betting on fusion. Bannink doubts whether there is enough space in the budget and minds for another technology. It won’t be easy to get a lot of funding. There is no debate so also no reason for politicians to inform themselves on LFTR. Op dit moment wordt bezwaar gemaakt tegen alles wat gebouwd wordt, zeker een kerncentrale, maar zelfs een kleuterschool. At this moment, people object against everything that is being built, especially a nuclear power plant but even a kindergarten. Er komt pas een maatschappelijk debat als er onrust is. Dit komt vaak pas bij negatieve dingen. Als de nood hoog is komt er geen debat over LFTR (of over iets anders wat mogelijk in de toekomst een oplossing is). Only when there is unrest a societal debate will commence. Usually this only develops with negative things. When the need is highest there will not be a debate about LFTR (or about other things that may be a possibility in the future). Bannink had het idee dat dit onderzoek in gang was gezet om de harten rijp te maken voor thorium/LFTR. Bannink denkt dat dit onderzoek het goed vindt om de barrières op te lossen van thorium en zo naar het bouwen van een thorium reactor te gaan. Bannink has the idea that this research is set into motion to ready the hearts and minds for Thorium and LFTR. Bannink also believes that this research would like to see the barriers (to Thorium innovation) resolved and to aim towards the building of a thorium reactor. LAKA wil graag dit onderzoek inzien en het onderzoek van vorig jaar. LAKA would like to see the results of this research and that of last year.


Interview with the Alvin Weinberg Foundation Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Representative of the Alvin Weinberg foundation who wishes to remain anonymous Interview method: Skype; open interview Time: 28-10-2014, 15:00 – 15:55 (Dutch time) Place: N/A About the Alvin Weinberg foundation: The Alvin Weinberg foundation is a UK based pro thorium lobby group. The foundation works with NGOs, policy makers, researchers and industry to stimulate the debate around Next generation nuclear and especially molten salt reactors. It does this mainly in the UK but also in Europe. The Weinberg foundation is not aimed at commercializing MSR reactors but focusses on research efforts. More can be found on their website: http://www.the-weinberg-foundation. org/about/what-we-do/ Interview abstract: The Weinberg foundation is acting as a lobby group for molten salt reactors in the UK. The foundation brings together academic researchers and government officials (it facilitates meetings). The foundation wishes to stress that it is not for commercial purposes but purely for further academic research in MSR’s. It does this because there is hardly any funding in the UK for this research, says the representative for the foundation. Other roles of the foundation include raising public awareness through the media. Moreover the foundation also tries to raise awareness and inform the environmental groups (e.g. Greenpeace UK, friends of the earth). The foundation has also hosted a round table meeting with green groups in the UK. To summarise, the foundation attempts to change the political climate but also links academic groups together so they can apply for funding and raise public awareness. The Weinberg foundation tries to inform others with correct scientific information. The network of the Weinberg foundation consists of European organisations such as SNETP. The Weinberg foundation has limited resources but does have the desire to work with European organisations such as the EU commission. Many NGOs and green groups are anti-nuclear and sceptical of MSR reactors says the foundation. However the green groups are divided, some believe we should use everything available, while others stay anti-nuclear and only want to use renewables. There is definitely scepticism about MSRs and LFTR because of the past broken promises surrounding nuclear and their inherit scepticism towards nuclear to begin with. Nuclear waste management is used as a prime argument for using MSR’s. The current (often outdated) nuclear reactors need replacing. If an MSR is developed these LWR’s can be replaced with MSRs. NGOs are almost paranoid about nuclear energy. The foundation believes that there is not enough public awareness about how dangerous the current situation is surrounding climate change. Moreover, they do not realise how difficult it is to replace fossil fuels, which have to be eliminated, to combat climate change, within the next 3-4 decades says the foundation. Most groups do not understand the difficulty of replacing our energy needs with clean electricity. There is a lack of information and the public debate is too simplistic says the representative of the Weinberg foundation. A second point is that most people do not know there is this (MSR’s) form of nuclear energy and that it is proven by the Oak Ridge experiment.


Unlike nuclear fusion, MSR’s have been proven. Compared to the funding between these two, almost nothing goes to Thorium. Fusion is not proven yet, and even if it works ITER will only produce 500MW (about half of a normal nuclear power plant) says the foundation. This means you will have to build hundreds of ITERs. It is almost crazy to spend this much money on fusion and not on MSR’s. Politicians and the EU do not embrace this technology because there is a lack of awareness. They simply do not know says the Weinberg Foundation. There is a lot of scepticism and fear in Europe about nuclear energy. Furthermore there is a big anti-nuclear movement in Europe, politicians are afraid of that. Also, nuclear research and development has been cut, in the UK it has been cut by 99% in 25 years says the foundation. There is a much reduced capability, only France has the capability left. France, Germany, The Netherlands and The United Kingdom would have to work together to develop a MSR. The foundation agrees with Dr. Kloosterman that cooperation between research centres is needed to get attention from the EU (like with ITER). If an MSR is developed it has to be in the EU says the foundation spokesperson; something similar as with Airbus, which has facilities all across the EU. The foundation does not really know why the EU is not pursuing Molten Salt Reactors. After all the member states together have the capabilities to do so. MSR’s is a massive opportunity for Europe. Increased energy security for Europe is also a factor that works for the development of MSR’s. Europe would also have a product to sell to the world, making it the leader in fighting climate change. The existing industry is very worried about alternative forms of nuclear. This industry, which is very powerful is in favour of LWR’s and fast breeder reactors. The French nuclear industry is very influential in Europe. They have a bad attitude about MSRs. While the industry may not block the development of MSRs, they are certainly not helping says the foundation. However there is a growing interest in MSRs, for example in Berlin they developed a dual fluid MSR which is designed to eliminate nuclear waste. However they have little funding and there is no political willpower. The EU member states should fund ideas like this. Between 27 member states of the EU, the funding would not be so much. The foundation estimates less than a 100 million euro each in 5 years. The market will probably not fund this at the moment since there is little money for research and development. Labs such as at the TU delft is very limited in capacity. An ITER type (or EU space agency) project is needed. The governments have the responsibility and duty to think for the long term and avoid climate change, the foundation thinks this can be done with the development of MSR’s. However, the foundation thinks the private market and banks will not fund this due to the political risk involved. The governments and EU institutions will need to commit to the MSR, after which the private market may assist in funding. The foundation is not aware of EU institutions that are pro or against MSR’s. It simply not on the agenda. Nuclear is associated with large “old style” nuclear plants, not with advanced technology like MSRs. Public opinion and that of green groups is also a major hurdle for the development of all MSRs says the foundation. All major green groups in Europe are anti-nuclear. Setting MSRs apart from other forms of nuclear will require a lot of public information and education to set it apart from LWRs says the Weinberg foundation. It will require something like a documentary film to create awareness. Saying that because of one type of nuclear energy, that all nuclear energy is bad, is grossly simplistic says the foundation spokesperson. Moreover it is technically wrong.


The future of MSRs (and LFTR) under the current circumstances is hard to predict. The best we can currently hope for is that Europe joins another countries research programme. However the future for the reactor around the world is very bright because there is a lot of interest in it around the world says the foundation. It will not happen without political change and change of the public opinion. The future is in the balance says the foundation. The foundation believes that all researchers in the EU could write a common statement on molten salt reactor technology. This can then be taken to Brussels. Unity is needed. However there are currently scientist that do not believe Thorium will ever happen because they want their fast breeder reactor project to be funded says the foundation. There is too much rivalry at the moment and the budget is too low. The Alvin Weinberg foundation is open for discussion with environmental groups across Europe. A round table dialogue on a European level about MSRs could be a good idea. The development time of LTFR is not that far away if you compare it with other construction projects such as high speed rail lines. If people keep saying we cannot do it because it is 10 years away, it will always be 10 years away says the foundation. At some point we have to seize the moment and go out and develop this. Not just advanced nuclear but also better solar and energy storage or electric cars says the foundation.


C: Political Interviews Interview with Prof. Dr. C.A. (Kees) de Lange, Dutch Senator for the OSF & emeritus professor laser physics at the University of Amsterdam (UvA) and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam (VUA). Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Kees de Lange Interview method: face to face open interview Time: 5-11-2014, 11:00-13:30 Place: Amsterdam Central Station; Grand café het eerste perron About OSF & C.A. De Lange: Prof. Dr. C.A. De Lange is a Dutch senator for the independent senate group. The group holds one seat in the senate and represents several provinces. De Lange is also an emeritus professor in laser physics at two universities in Amsterdam and has fulfilled several other functions as an academic and politician.

Interview: De Lange kwam zelf in aanraking met Thorium Molten Salt Reactors naar aanleiding van een debat in Limburg over kernenergie. Er werd destijds een voordracht gegeven over de Thorium cyclus. Begin dit jaar was er een debat over energie in de Eerste Kamer. Kernenergie kwam toen aan de orde waarop De Lange interrumpeerde over de thorium cyclus als alternatief. Het was duidelijk dat niemand anders hier kennis van had. De Lange heeft het idee dat hij de enige in de Eerste Kamer is die redelijk goed op de hoogte is van het onderwerp thorium en Molten Salt reactors. Dat zou ook verklaren waarom er niet meer reactie op het onderzoek kwam vanuit de Eerste Kamer, aldus De Lange. De Lange first got into contact with Thorium Molten Salt reactors after attending a debate in Limburg (a Dutch province) about nuclear energy. During the debate there was also a presentation about the Thorium cycle. At the start of this year there was a debate in the Senate about energy. Nuclear energy was mentioned, after which, De Lange interrupted the speaker to ask about Thorium. It was clear that nobody had any knowledge about it. De Lange has the idea that he is the only one in the Senate that has some detailed knowledge about Thorium and Molten Salt Reactors. This would explain why other senators did not respond to this research’ interview request says De Lange. In het publieke debat worden veel woorden gebruikt met een mooie gevoelsinhoud, zonder dat deze nader gedefinieerd worden zegt Kees de Lange. Innovatie is zo’n kreet, maar ook duurzaamheid en renewables. Voordat je weet wat de definitie is van deze woorden, kun je er vrij weinig mee zegt De Lange. Wat is Duurzaamheid? Het is een lege discussie, we moeten ook niet in absolutismen gaan denken vindt De Lange. De Lange concludeert dat thorium zeker wel duurzaam zou kunnen worden genoemd. In the public debate, people use a lot of words with a nice ring to it, without precisely defining these terms. Innovation is an example but also sustainability and renewables. Before one knows that the definition is, one cannot say much about it thinks De Lange. What is sustainability? It is an empty discussion and we should not think in black and


white says De Lange. De Lange concludes that Thorium MSRs could certainly be classified under sustainable energy. Het huidige energie debat is ook zo’n kwestie. Energie is ook transport, bijvoorbeeld een elektrische auto. Maar waar komt deze elektriciteit vandaan en hoeveel verlies lijd je door het converteren van deze energie naar een auto? Hier zou je naar moeten kijken zegt De Lange, of de balans positief uitvalt is maar de vraag. Vaak worden er door voorstanders van (bijv. windmolens) de dingen meegenomen die hun te pas komen. Een volledig beeld is dus niet aanwezig, of men moet hier actief naar zoeken. The current energy debate is similar to this. Energy includes transportation, for example an electric car. But where does this electricity come from and how much do you lose through converting the energy to electricity to a car. We should be looking at this says De Lange, whether the balance sheet is a positive one remains to be seen. In Nederland wordt veel gekeken naar andere energie vormen, echter niet al deze energievormen zijn effectief of haalbaar in Nederland, bijvoorbeeld getijdenenergie. Kijk ook naar andere landen, zoals Denemarken waar men na grote investering in wind energie, juist veel terughoudender is geworden. De kleinverbruiker moet de kosten betalen voor de grootverbruikers. Anders zijn de industrieën niet meer competitief door de hoge prijs van energie vertelt De Lange. There is a lot of attention for other forms of energy in The Netherlands. However not all of these are efficient or attainable in The Netherlands, for example Tidal power. Look at what other countries do, like Denmark, which invested heavily into wind energy but recently stopped doing this for a good reason. The small consumers (e.g. households) of electricity has to pay the price for the large users (e.g. industry). Otherwise the national industry is no longer competitive due to the high energy costs says De Lange. Politiek is er geen groot belang om eerlijk over de kosten te praten van bijvoorbeeld windenergie. Dat is geen toeval zegt De Lange. De mensen realiseren zich niet hoeveel geld de burger kwijt zal zijn als er 100% duurzame (wind) energie zal worden opgewekt. Er zijn wel kritische wetenschappers tegen windenergie, maar dit wordt genegeerd, of er worden belanghebbenden aan het woord gelaten (bijv. Eneco). Een echte wetenschappelijke discussie ontbreekt volgens De Lange. Dit gebeurt ook met kernenergie. In politics there is no major interest to be honest about the costs of, for example, wind energy. That is not a coincidence says De Lange. People do not realise how much money the average citizen loses if all energy is powered by wind or another costly sustainable source. While there are critical scientists, that are against wind energy, they are often ignored. Moreover, stakeholders with an interest in wind energy are often heard from (for example Eneco, a Dutch energy company). A real scientific discussion is lacking says De Lange. The same thing happens with nuclear power. Je zou verwachten dat kernenergie een belangrijke rol speelt in de discussie. Dat doet het niet. Hier zijn redenen voor. Het eerste probleem is dat kernenergie is vooral gevaarlijk is in de perceptie van de burger. De bezwaren die er aan kleven (soms terecht) vormen een groot probleem. Het tweede probleem is dat enorm veel kennis en infrastructuur op het gebied van kernenergie in Nederland volkomen verdwenen zijn in de afgelopen 10-15 jaar. Dit veroorzaakt dat een medische reactor in Petten bestuurd wordt door operators die niet alles helemaal geweldig aanpakken. Volgens Kees de Lange wordt dit dan weer geweldig uitvergroot in de media, terwijl dat niet nodig is. Alleen in Delft is er nog reactor kunde, maar dit begint ook een noodlijdend geheel te worden. Over 10 jaar zou deze kennis weg kunnen zijn zegt De Lange. One would assume that nuclear energy plays an important role in the (energy) discussion. It does not. There a some reasons for this says De Lange. The first problem is that


nuclear energy is dangerous in the perception of the general public. The objections that are associated with nuclear power are a major problem, and some are justified. The second issue is that all Nuclear knowledge and infrastructure in The Netherlands has to a large extent disappeared in the past 10-15 years. This causes that medical reactors such as in Petten are being operated by operators that are not handling everything absolutely well. According to Kees de Lange the recent incident at the reactor is then terribly inflated in the media, while this is not necessary. Besides that only the TU Delft possesses a lot of knowledge but this is also starting to starve. In 10 years this knowledge could disappear says De Lange. Er is weinig twijfel over dat thorium ruim beschikbaar is. De schattingen van hoeveel gas en uranium beschikbaar is worden ook steeds naar boven bijgesteld zegt De Lange. There is little doubt that thorium (ore) is abundant and available. However, the estimations of gas and uranium reserves are also always positively adjusted says De Lange. Het zal toch echt 10-20 jaar duren om thorium reactoren te commercialiseren. Dit valt buiten de termijn van de politieke visie. Er zou wel wat moeten gebeuren in de politiek zelf voordat dit überhaupt bespreekbaar is. It will really take 10 to 20 years before a Thorium reactor can be commercialised. This would fall outside the timeframe of the political vision. However some things have to happen in politics before this subject is debatable to begin with. De voordelen van LFTR zijn duidelijk volgens De Lange. Bij uranium reactoren is er ook veel veranderd natuurlijk. Veiligheid en risicomanagement blijven wel belangrijke factoren. De kans op een ramp is klein maar de gevolgen zijn groot. Wat men meeneemt bij een risico analyse is afhankelijk van de fantasie van de analist. Er werd door de Japanners geen rekening gehouden met een zware aardbeving en tegelijk een zware Tsunami terwijl de (Fukushima) reactor wel bestendig was tegen beide rampen, alleen niet dat ze tegelijk zouden komen volgens De Lange. Ook speelde menselijk falen bij de bestrijding van de ramp een grote rol. The advantages of LFTR are clear according to De Lange. Uranium reactors have also changed a lot of course. However safety and risk management remain important factors. The chance of a nuclear disaster is currently small but the consequences are great. What is included in the risk analysis depends on the fantasy of the analyst. In Japan they counted on an independent earthquake, and on an independent Tsunami. The Fukushima Dachii reactor was with these assumptions. What they did not count on was both at the same time says De Lange. Also human failure in controlling the disaster played an important role. Er is maar weinig mis gegaan met kernenergie in de geschiedenis. Three Mile Island viel wel mee, en er waren geen doden. Tsjernobyl was een menselijk falen terwijl er op oude reactoren werd ingezet. Er zijn wel doden gevallen bij de bestrijding zelf, maar hoeveel er in totaal door straling zijn overleden is onbekend. Dit heeft te maken met de relatie tussen stralingsniveau en gezondheidsproblemen. Bij lage stralingsniveaus is de lineaire relatie die vaak wordt aangenomen niet bewezen, sterker nog er wordt zelfs beweerd dat de lineaire dosis-effect relatie hier niet geldig is. Not that many things have gone wrong in the history of nuclear energy. Three mile Island was not as bad and there were no casualties. Chernobyl was mainly a human failure in combination with the aged reactor. There were casualties in controlling the disaster, but it is unknown how many people besides the workers have died of radiation. This is related to the relation between radiation levels and health problems. At low radiation levels, the linearity of this relation which is often assumed is not proven. Moreover there is evidence to support that there are no negative health effects at a low level of radiation.


In natuursteen komt ook straling voor. Als je een huis bouwt van natuursteen, en de ventilatie is slecht, kan de straling ver boven de achtergrondstraling uitkomen. Toch test niemand dit als ze een huis bouwen. Terwijl straling in de media bij rampen zoals Fukushima breed uitgemeten worden. Natural rocks are radioactive. If you would build a house out of natural stone, and do not ventilate it properly, then the radiation levels can far exceed the background radiation. However, nobody tests this when building a house. At the same time radiation, such as with Fukushima, is prominently featured in the media. Van de 999 uit de 1000 studies kunnen bijvoorbeeld aantonen dat er geen relatie is tussen gezondheidsproblemen en het wonen onder een hoogspanningskabel. De 1000e wordt er dan uitgepakt als bewijs dat er wel een effect is en wordt er weer aangedrongen op meer onderzoek. Out of 1000 studies, 999 can prove that there is no relation between health problems and living underneath a high tension power cable. Then the 1000th report is being used as evidence to support that there indeed is an effect, and the need for more research is claimed. Er is veel belangenverstrengeling, het zouden de toetsbare feiten moeten zijn die voor zichzelf spreken. Ook voorstanders van kernenergie zijn schuldig aan bijvoorbeeld een te rooskleurig beeld schetsen. There are many conflicts of interest while it should be so that the empirical facts speak for themselves. Also advocates of nuclear power are guilty of this by sketching a rosy image. De bezwaren van thorium moeten kleiner zijn dan die van uranium maar ook de bezwaren welke overblijven moeten hanteerbaar zijn. Als men kijkt naar de informatie die voorhanden is en historisch toch het een en ander bewezen is via projecten zoals Oak Ridge en China investeert op dit moment in LFTR, dan zou het wel een optie kunnen zijn. The objections to thorium have to be smaller than those of uranium. Moreover the objections also have to be manageable. If one would look at the available information on thorium, and that it is historically proven through projects like Oak Ridge, but also because China invests in it, one would say that thorium is a possible option. Nederland is energie afhankelijk van gas maar claimt ook graag technologisch geavanceerd te zijn. Een aantal verstandige thorium onderzoeksprojecten zouden dus wel aan de orde zijn volgens Kees de Lange. Technisch is thoriumsplijting relatief eenvoudig in vergelijking met bijvoorbeeld kernfusie, waar al zeer lang research naar gedaan wordt. De Lange is hier ook een voorstander van, ook al levert het nog niks op over 30 jaar. De realiseerbaarheid van de thoriumcyclus op een termijn van 20 jaar is veel groter dan die van kernfusie volgens De Lange. Op lange termijn is fusie wel beter, maar je moet niet alle kaarten op fusie zetten, aangezien er zoveel onzekerheden zijn zegt De Lange. The Netherlands is reliant on natural gas but also likes to claim they are technologically advanced. Several sensible thorium research projects would be in order says De Lange. Technologically the thorium cycle is much easier to realise than for example nuclear fusion (which has been researched for a long time). De Lange is also an advocate of fusion, even if it results to nothing in 30 years. The degree of feasibility for thorium in the next 20 years is much larger than that of fusion says De Lange. In the long run, fusion will be better but we should not put all eggs in one baskets says De Lange; because there are so many uncertainties. De Lange heeft ook contact gehad met KIVI lid Ir. Theo Wolters over dit onderwerp (welke de


onderzoeker zelf ook ontmoet heeft tijdens een lezing). Tevens Eric Smaling van de SP zou belangstelling hebben voor dit onderwerp. De Lange denkt dat dit ook interessante gesprekspartners zijn voor dit of toekomstig onderzoek. Verder heeft Kees de Lange het idee dat er in de nationale politiek geen of nauwelijks kennis is over thorium, op misschien een klein aantal mensen zoals René Leegte na. De VVD zal niet op de bres gaan voor thorium als er geen draagvlak is. Groen Links en de PvdA zullen waarschijnlijk tegen thorium en LFTR zijn volgens De Lange. De Lange has had contact in the past with KIVI member Ir. Theo Wolters about this subject (which the researcher met during a KIVI lecture). Also politician Eric Smaling of the Socialist Party has an interest in thorium. De Lange thinks these could be interesting conversation partners for this or future research. Besides that De Lange does not have the idea that many representatives in national politics have knowledge about the thorium cyclus, besides maybe René Leegte (VVD politician). The VVD will not seek the forefront for thorium if there is no political support. GroenLinks (The Greens) and the PvdA (labour party) will probably be against thorium and LFTR says De Lange. Er zijn mensen met kennis nodig die deskundig over dit onderwerp in debat kunnen gaan. Publicatie (van bijvoorbeeld dit onderzoek) in een tijdschrift of bijvoorbeeld in het blad van de KIVI zou hieraan kunnen bijdragen. Politieke partijen die geen kennis van zaken hebben maar wel open-minded zijn kunnen ook een rol spelen. D66 weet er naar mijn gevoel weinig van en is opportunistisch m.b.t. de peilingen terwijl de SP wel open-minded is, maar de achterban waarschijnlijk niet voor kernenergie zal zijn zegt De Lange. De PVV is misschien voor maar heeft te weinig kennis in huis volgens De Lange. Mogelijk pleiten ze wel eens voor thorium in de Tweede Kamer, al acht De Lange deze kans klein. In de Eerste Kamer is dit in ieder geval nooit gebeurd. People with knowledge are needed to professionally be able to debate about this topic. Publication (of this research for example) in a magazine or the magazine of the KIVI could contribute to this. Political parties that are open minded without having much knowledge cold also play a role. D66 are opportunistic (by looking at the polls) and have limited knowledge about this topic. While the Socialist Party (SP) is open minded but their voters may be against nuclear energy says De Lange. The PVV (Freedom Party) may be an advocate for Thorium but lack relevant knowledge thinks De Lange. It is possible that the PVV has mentioned thorium in the House of Representatives, however De Lange thinks this chance is slim. In the Senate, De Lange, certainly never heard them talk about this. De Lange zegt ook dat Kamervragen ook makkelijk af geserveerd zijn in het verleden door de Minister en het ministerie EZ. Het stellen van Kamervragen heeft geen zin out of the blue. Indien er een positieve aanleiding is, bijvoorbeeld een pro thorium onderzoek wat in de media komt dan zou De Lange zich graag aansluiten bij het stellen van Kamervragen. Enquiries from the House of Representatives are written off too easily by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. Enquiring out of the blue has no use. If there is a positive reason, for example a pro Thorium research with media attention, then De Lange would like to join the enquiry. Het energie akkoord is van een laag niveau, de voorzitter weet inhoudelijk zelf weinig over energie. Het debat en akkoord gaan nergens over zegt De Lange. The Dutch energy agreement is of a low level, the chairman knows little about energy content wise. The debate and the agreement are unfortunately about nothing says Senator De Lange.


In Europa zijn er geen politieke partijen of instanties bezig met thorium zegt De Lange. In Frankrijk is wel een groot draagvlak voor kernenergie maar alternatieven daarvoor hoor je niks over zegt De Lange. Logisch, Frankrijk denkt het goed voor elkaar te hebben met goedkope en betrouwbare energie. Er zijn weinig problemen met kernenergie in Frankrijk, er zijn geen echte rampen gebeurd. In Europe there are no political parties or organisations that are active in thorium says De Lange. In France there is much support for nuclear power but one seldom hears about alternative nuclear power says De Lange. This is logical, France thinks they are well organised by having cheap and reliable energy. Moreover, there have been little issues with nuclear power in France, no real disasters happened. Links Europa is het over veel dingen niet eens, maar wel dat kernenergie slecht is. Duitsland, Scandinavië zijn tegen. In andere landen zoals Italië en Spanje is de kennis onvoldoende aanwezig, ook niet over de uranium cyclus. De VS en Canada hebben wel veel kennis over kernenergie en gebruiken die ook. De noodzaak om van uranium over te stappen op iets anders is daar niet zo groot op korte termijn. Een land als de VS of Canada heeft een goede infrastructuur om iets van de grond te krijgen op het gebied van alternatieve kernenergie. The political left in Europe is disagreeing about many things but they all agree that nuclear energy is bad. Germany and Scandinavia are against. Other countries such as Italy and Spain do not have sufficient knowledge, even about the uranium cycle. The USA and Canada have a lot of knowledge and apply this. However the necessity and urgency to transfer to something else (than uranium) is not present in the short term. Countries like the USA and Canada possess the right infrastructure to develop alternative nuclear power. Of in Nederland en Europa thorium reactoren ontwikkeld zouden kunnen worden is maar de vraag. De financieringsstromen zijn er in ieder geval wel. Indien er een consortium gebouwd zou worden door bijvoorbeeld een aantal groepen uit de TU Delft , Frankrijk en de UK, dan zou er een stappenplan ontwikkeld kunnen worden om financiering te krijgen. Dit moet stapsgewijs beginnend met kleinere projecten. Het lasercentrum aan de VU is op deze manier uitgebouwd en ontvangt nu een Europees budget van ongeveer 30 miljoen op jaarbasis. Kleinschalige internationale projecten om de kennis te vergroten samen met het consortium zijn nodig als eerste stap. Uiteindelijk zou dit tot een groot commercieel project kunnen leiden waarbij de verschillende ministeries van economische zaken betrokken zijn. Je kunt niet van niks naar een groot project zegt De Lange. Samenwerken met landen buiten de EU zou ook kunnen, bijvoorbeeld met Oak Ridge (USA). Daar is de infrastructuur en de kennis aanwezig. Bij het VU laser centrum duurde de stap van niets naar een succesvol project meer dan 20 jaar. Whether The Netherlands and Europe are able to develop thorium reactors is a question in its own right. At least the financial capability is present. If a consortium would be built by groups such as TU Delft, France and the UK, then they could develop a step by step plan to achieve funding. This really has to be step by step with small projects. The VU (Amsterdam University) laser centre was started and built up along these lines and now receives a European budget of 30 million euro yearly. Small scale international projects to increase knowledge within the consortium are needed. In the end this could lead to a large commercial project in cooperation with several ministries of economic affairs. You cannot go from zero to a large project says De Lange. De markt gaat dit op dit moment niet betalen. Zelf zou De Lange zijn spaargeld ook niet steken in een bedrijf dat claimt een commerciële MSR te ontwikkelen binnen 10 jaar. De markt doet dit dus ook niet. Daar komt bij dat de subsidie voor bijvoorbeeld windmolens deze technologie


blokkeert. Het belet het nadenken zegt De Lange. Er moet echt begonnen worden met een research stadium op Europees niveau, dit kan dan weer een hefboom zijn op nationaal niveau. Een internationaal samenwerkingsverband binnen Europa zou de voorkeur hebben, dit is deels het doel van dit soort Europese projecten. The market is not going to pay for the development. De Lange would not invest his savings in a company that claims to be developing and commercialising a reactor within 10 years. Thus the market also does not. Moreover the current subsidizing of for example windmills blocks technologies such as LFTR. It disables rational thinking says De Lange. A start has to be made with a research period on a European level, this can be used in turn on a national level. An international cooperation within Europe would be preferred since this is partially the purpose of the European project. Het aantal mensen dat in de politiek iets van kernenergie weet is helaas uiterst gering zegt De Lange. Het aantal mensen dat iets van laser techniek weet is even gering, maar lasertechnologie en bijvoorbeeld MRI hebben een veel beter politiek imago volgens De Lange. The number of people in politics that know something about nuclear energy is not abundant, on the contrary says De Lange. The people that know about laser technology is also small, but laser technology and for example MRI technology have a much better political image than Thorium says De Lange. Het begin van een consortium door middel van het organiseren van een conferentie waarbij ook beleidsmakers aanwezig zijn zou een oplossing kunnen vormen. Dit is ook gebeurd met de laser fysica, door met de groepen die geïnteresseerd zijn een kleine wetenschappelijke conferentie te organiseren en hiervoor de pers en opiniemakers uit te nodigen. Dit is een belangrijke stap in plaats van het meteen inzetten op grote onrealistische overheidsbudgetten. Dit heeft eerder gewerkt, dus waarom zou het niet weer werken zegt De Lange. Als er geen Europees netwerk is dan moet je het bouwen. De mensen die hier heil in zien moeten dit dan gaan bouwen, bijvoorbeeld de onderzoekscentra. Deze hebben het op dit moment moeilijk, kernenergie glijdt steeds verder af in Nederland volgens De lange. De Pallas in Petten is al heel moeilijk, en onderzoekcentra voor kernenergie zoals in Groningen en bij de VU zijn ook verdwenen. Starting a consortium and organising a conference where also policy makers will be present will form a possible solution. This also happened with laser physics, by talking to interested parties and organising a small scientific conference and inviting the press and policy makers. This worked, so why wouldn’t it work again says De Lange. If there is not European network for Thorium, you have to build it. The people that are positive about it should build this, for example research centres. These centres in The Netherlands are facing difficulties says De Lange, The Pallas reactor in Petten (a medical reactor) is already a problem and nuclear research centres such as Groningen an the VU have also disappeared. De conferentie moet echt toonaangevende sprekers hebben met kennis van zaken. Wetenschappelijk moet het onaantastbaar zijn, het moet dus geen lobby bijeenkomst zijn zegt De Lange. Het moet ook toegankelijk zijn voor de ontwikkelde leek en politici. Zo krijg je het onderwerp op de kaart, en misschien zelfs op de politieke agenda. The conference would have to feature leading speakers with scientific knowledge. It has to be scientifically sacrosanct and not become a lobby meeting says De Lange. However it should also be accessible for the developed novice and politicians. This is how you get the issue on the map and maybe even on the political agenda.


Er valt onderscheid te maken tussen thorium en uranium, al zal het brede publiek dit niet meteen inzien of heeft er gewoon geen mening over. Het moet komen van een aantal invloedrijke mensen in de maatschappij en media, om het idee te pushen. De conferentie is hier een onmisbaar hulpmiddel voor. EZ moet hierin betrokken worden. Thorium and uranium have to be distinguished from each other, but the general public will not directly understand the difference or it will not show interest. This movement has to come from some influential people in the society and media, to push the idea. The conference is an important tool to do this. The ministry of Economic Affairs has to be involved in this. Als er een serieuze lobby ontstaat met een realistisch plan dan zouden politici en EZ ook bereid worden om hierover te praten. Er moet alleen wel voorbereiding plaats vinden, politici moeten geïnformeerd worden, men kan niet opeens uit het niks aankomen om hierover te praten. Met het VU lasercentrum is dit gelukt. Hier is jarenlang aan getrokken voordat er investering kwam uit de EU. If a serious lobby would be created with a realistic plan then politicians and Economic Affairs should be willing to talk about it. However, some preparation is needed. Politicians need to be informed and brought up to speed. Someone cannot just come out of the blue to talk about this subject. With the VU laser centre we managed to do this. This took many years of perseverance before investments came from the EU. De toekomst van thorium reactoren is sterk afhankelijk van het netwerk van de pro-thorium groepen. Als deze bereid zijn tijd te investeren en hun nek uit te steken (inclusief een haalbare ambitie), dan is de weg naar een conferentie goed haalbaar binnen een jaar. Het haalbare (realiseerbaar en financierbaar) stappenplan moet leiden tot het realiseren van de ambitie. The future of thorium reactors is very dependent on the formed networks of the pro-thorium groups. If these are willing to invest time and take risks and also have an attainable ambition, than the road to a conference is very well achievable within a year. A manageable (attainable and the ability to be financed) step by step plan should lead to the realising of this ambition. Er is te weinig maatschappelijk draagvlak en visie om massaal op thorium in te zetten zoals vroeger bij de maanlanding is gebeurd. Er zijn nou eenmaal veel verkeerde ideeën over kernenergie. Je kunt niet wachten tot deze uit de wereld zijn zegt De Lange. There is too little political support and vision in the current society to be able to invest massively on Thorium, as was done with the moon landing project for example. Reality is that there are a lot of wrong ideas about nuclear power. You cannot wait till these have disappeared says De Lange. Er is diversificatie nodig bij het energie probleem. Kernenergie heeft hier ook een plaats in. Er waren veel problemen met kernenergie maar thorium als nieuw concept lost dit grotendeels op in vergelijking met uranium. De grote weerstanden bij uranium vallen bij thorium grotendeels weg. Thorium zou een realiseerbare en waardevolle bijdrage kunnen vormen. Wie zijn er nou gek, de Chinezen of wij? Er is een PR exercitie nodig, maar niet door een belanghebbende van het (fictieve) bedrijf Thorium Incorporated zegt De Lange. Diversification is also needed in solving the energy problem. Nuclear energy also has a role and place in this. There were a lot of problems with nuclear power but with thorium as a new concept these can (partially) be solved for major part in comparison with uranium. The major resistance with uranium will disappear with thorium (in a molten salt reactor). Thorium could be an attainable and valuable contribution. Who is crazy, the Chi-


nese or we? An exercise in PR is needed though, but not by stakeholders with interests in Thorium like (the fictive) Thorium Incorporated, says De Lange. In je eentje wordt je sowieso niet gehoord in Brussel, ongeacht het vakgebied. Ze moeten zich organiseren. Iemand in deze groep moet zich bijvoorbeeld bezig houden met fondsen werving. Richard Branson steekt ook geld in commerciële ruimtevaart. Dat is een even grote fictie als thorium met vergelijkbare kosten. Als je een Bill Gates (welke open staat voor kernenergie) als spreker krijgt op je congres zit je gebakken zegt De Lange. De Nederlandse politiek wordt hierdoor beïnvloed en wil volgens De Lange dan graag meeliften voor relatief lage kosten. A single research centre or person is not being heard in Brussels to begin with, regardless of their research area or trade. They have to organise themselves. Somebody in this group should then be busy with fundraising. Richard Branson invests money in commercial spaceflight. This is the same order of fiction as thorium with comparable costs. If Bill Gates (who is open to nuclear power) would be a speaker at the conference, many problems would disappear says De Lange. The Dutch politics would be influenced by Gates and would want to latch on to the idea for a relatively low price. De Nederlandse visie is erg beperkt door de huidige economische afhankelijkheid van agrarische producten en kassenbouw en bijvoorbeeld aardgas zegt De Lange. In het Midden-Oosten gebeurt dit ook maar dan met olie. Soms zijn bodemschatten eerder een vloek dan een zegen voor de toekomst. The Dutch vision is very limited due to the current economic dependence on agricultural related products but also because of natural gas says De Lange. In the middle east this also happens but then with oil. Sometimes resources are a curse rather than a blessing for the future of a country. De Lange denkt dat het zou goed zijn als er in het verslag een stukje kernfysica zou staan. Een vergelijking van de uranium en de thorium cyclus met een overzicht van alle half waardes. Het zou goed zijn als een fysicus het controleert. Doe je dit niet dan geef je de tegenstanders te makkelijk een aangrijpingspunt vindt Kees de Lange. De Lange believes it would be good for the research if there would be a short section about nuclear physics in it. A comparison of the uranium and thorium cycle, with an overview of all the elements and their half-lifes would be valuable. It would be wise if a nuclear physicist would check this. If you do not do this then you may give the opposition points to attack you on, which is not needed says De Lange.


Interview with Jan Vos, PVDA (Labour party) politician, spokesperson for energy in the Dutch house of representatives Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Jan Vos Interview method: telephone open-interview Time: 17-10-2014: 10:00 – 10:52 Place: N/A About the PVDA: The PVDA (Labour Party) is a (left wing) political party in The Netherlands. The party holds 38 seats in the House of Representatives (second largest party), and supplies part of the cabinet as the ruling party in a coalition with the VVD. The PVDA holds 14/75 seats in the senate, 107/566 in the States Provincial and 3/26 in the EU parliament. Jan Vos is a PVDA member of the House of Representatives and spokesperson for energy matters.

Interview: De PVDA is niet tegen Thorium energie en LFTR. Jan Vos volgt de experimenten in Japan, Noorwegen en Frankrijk met belangstelling. Thorium moet wel gezien worden als alternatief. The PVDA is not against Thorium energy nor LFTR. Jan Vos follows the current experiments in Japan, Norway and France with interest. Thorium has to be seen as an alternative. De PVDA is volgens Jan Vos op de hoogte van Thorium. Diederik Samsom heeft hier als kernfysicus kennis van, zelf heeft Jan Vos Kamervragen gesteld over dit onderwerp. De informatie van Jan Vos over Thorium komt van beleidsmedewerkers, Diederik Samsom en het ministerie van Economische Zaken. Zelf heeft Jan Vos geen of zeer beperkt onderzoek gedaan naar Thorium energie. The PVDA is knowledgeable about Thorium says Vos. Diederik Samsom is a nuclear physicist and knows about these matters. Jan Vos himself has asked questions about Thorium to the Minister in the House of representatives. The information about Thorium energy is mainly coming from policy employees who made a summary about this topic, this was then assessed by Jan Vos. Moreover Samsom was asked for his opinion. Lastly the minister responded to the questions and is backed by the ministry of economic affairs. De PVDA ziet LFTR en Thorium niet als volledig duurzaam. Er is immers risico aan verbonden met betrekking tot afval en veiligheid. De grondstoffen moeten gedolven worden. Aan de andere kant, kernenergie is wel een vorm van energie met de minste CO2 uitstoot. De PVDA wil aan de discussie nog geen eind conclusie verbinden. The PVDA does not see LFTR and Thorium as a completely sustainable source of energy. There is a waste and safety risk. Furthermore, the (raw) resources (e.g. Thorium), have to be mined. On the flip side, Nuclear power is a form of energy with the least CO2 emissions. The PVDA does not want to conclude the discussion just yet.


Voor de PVDA ligt Thorium energie niet voor de hand. De PVDA maakt de keuze om volledig in te zetten op duurzame energie. Thorium en LFTR hebben veiligheidsrisico’s en missen maatschappelijk draagvlak. For the PVDA, thorium energy is not a logical option. The party has chosen to put all effort on sustainable energy. Thorium and LFTR bring safety risks and do not have the public support needed. Jan Vos geeft toe dat Thorium kernenergie en LFTR wel onder duurzaamheid zouden kunnen vallen. Immers andere duurzame vormen van energie (zoals zonnepanelen) zijn ook afhankelijk van grondstoffen. Jan Vos admits that Thorium energy and LFTR could possibly be labeled as sustainable. Other forms of sustainable energy are also dependent on (raw)resources and materials (i.e. solar panels). LFTR en Thorium energie is politiek moeilijk te verkopen. Er zal maatschappelijk verzet ontstaan. Een experiment zoals bij schaliegas zou wel haalbaar zijn bij Thorium. Jan Vos denkt alleen dat, net zoals bij schaliegas, de winning zelf niet haalbaar is (i.v.m. verzet). LFTR and Thorium energy is hard to sell in politics. There will be public resistance. An experiment, like has been done with shale gas, is a possibility for Thorium. However resistance may occur (like with shale gas) if this is commercialised. De rol van de overheid is vooral het volgen van het onderwerp en de ontwikkeling van LFTR/ Thorium. Er moet niet zomaar iets uitgesloten worden. Een voorbeeld is Waterstof, hier is Nederland niet leidend in, maar het wordt wel met interesse gevolgd. The role of the government is to follow the development of Thorium and LFTR. It should not be excluded from the possibilities. An example of this is Hydrogen. The Netherlands is not leading in this technology but is following the developments with interest. Thorium energie zal veel geld kosten. Dat geld zou ook naar bijvoorbeeld windmolens kunnen gaan. Als een conventionele reactor, zoals in het Verenigd Koninkrijk, al 17 miljard kost, dan is Thorium waarschijnlijk duurder. Thorium energy will cost a lot of money says Vos. This money could also go to wind turbines. If a conventional nuclear power plant, such as in the UK, already costs 17 billion euro, then how much will Thorium cost? Als het zo goedkoop isals beloofd wordt, dan zou de markt iets met Thorium doen. Jan Vos krijgt geen (aan)vragen voor de bouw van een Thorium centrale. Als het zo goedkoop was, dan verwacht Jan Vos dat de bedrijven morgen op de stoep staan. Het moet dus niet aantrekkelijk zijn. Dit kan liggen aan grote risico’s of kosten. If Thorium really is as cheap as promised, then the market would be investing in this. Jan Vos does not receive any questions or permit requests from companies that want to build a Thorium nuclear power plant. If it really was as cheap as it is promised, they would be waiting in line says Vos. There must be something that is not attractive for these companies. This could be the risks or costs according to Vos. Een vergunning zou op dit moment een politiek besluit zijn volgens Jan Vos. Er is al een overschot aan energie in Nederland, dus dit zou moeilijk liggen. Als een Thorium centrale wordt gebouwd in het kader van duurzaamheid, zou hier wel een politiek besluit over genomen kunnen worden.


Currently, if a permit is requested right now, this would require a political decision. The energy market in The Netherlands already has a surplus, so it would be hard to warrant the building of a new plant. If a Thorium plant would be built for sustainable purposes, the politicians could make a decision about it. Andere partijen hebben wel kennis van LFTR zegt Jan Vos. De PVV heeft het vaak over Thorium in de debatten, zonder inhoudelijk hierover op in te gaan. De VVD zal ook openstaan voor nucleaire energie. De PVDA zegt op dit moment nog geen nee. Partijen zoals Groenlinks zullen wel weerstand bieden. Volgens Vos zou het CDA er nog over na willen denken. Op dit moment is Thorium en LFTR zeker geen hot topic in de politiek. Other political parties have some knowledge about Thorium and LFTR, says Vos. The PVV often refers to Thorium in the political debates, but does not go into detail with respect to content. The VVD would probably be open to nuclear energy. The PVDA (Vos’ party) is not saying no just yet. It is likely that political parties like GroenLinks will resist Thorium. Vos believes the CDA will probably want to think about the option. At this moment Thorium is not a hot topic in the political agenda. Op Europees niveau zal er waarschijnlijk weerstand zijn van de Groenen (in het euro parlement). In het politieke midden zal de opinie over Thorium sterk verschillen; van belangstelling tot als het ware morgen beginnen met bouwen, volgens Jan Vos. At a European level, the Greens (coalition of parties) will probably resist Thorium and LFTR. In the political center the opinions will vary significantly says Vos. There could be parties that are interested or even want to begin construction tomorrow. LFTR en Thorium hebben geen pro of contra lobby groepen (zover bekend) volgens Vos. Misschien komt dit omdat LFTR geen hoge prioriteit heeft in het debat. Of de ontwikkeling te ver weg is weet Vos niet, in de politiek is het niet ongebruikelijk om het te hebben over 10-15 jaar in de toekomst. LFTR and Thorium do not have a pro and contra lobby groups, as far as Vos knows. Vos thinks this could be because Thorium does not have a high priority in the (energy) debate nor in politics. Investeerders geven geen geld aan Thorium, de overheid moet zich niet bemoeien met deze marktwerking. Investors do not give money to Thorium, the government should not interfere with the market. De overheid moet hier helemaal niet in investeren op dit moment volgens Vos. De PVDA heeft nog geen overtuigend verhaal gehoord waarom dit zou moeten. De risico’s zijn te groot. The government should not invest in Thorium at all, at this moment in time says Vos. The PVDA has not heard a convincing story why the government should invest in Thorium. The risks are too great says Vos. De publieke opinie over thorium zal niet meehelpen. De mensen willen duurzaamheid. The opinion of the general public will not contribute to the development of LFTR. People want sustainable energy. Jan Vos denkt dat de PVDA voldoende kennis van Thorium energie heeft. Deze informatie komt vanuit Jan Vos zelf (via een beleidsmedewerker), toen hij Kamervragen stelde, het antwoord


van de minister en de informatie van het ministerie. Ook denkt Vos dat Diederik Samsom kennis heeft over dit onderwerp als kernfysicus. Jan Vos believes the PVDA is knowledgeable enough about Thorium energy and LFTR. Vos himself (through a PVDA policy employee) and Diederik Samsom (as a nuclear physicist) have knowledge of this topic. Moreover information from the ministry was received through the debate on thorium initiated by Vos. De toekomst van LFTR is nog zeer onbekend, hier durft Jan Vos nog geen uitspraak over te doen. The future of LFTR is still (very) unknown. Vos does not want to give a verdict about the future of LFTR or Thorium yet.


Interview with René Leegte, member of the Dutch House of Representatives for VVD.

Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: René Leegte Interview method: face to face open interview Time: 6-11-2014, 10:30-11:00 Place: Dutch Houses of Parliament, Den Haag Plein 1a. About the VVD: The VVD meaning peoples party for freedom and democracy (referred to as the liberal party in this research) is a (center right wing) political party in The Netherlands. The party holds 41 seats in the House of Representatives (largest party), and supplies part of the cabinet as the ruling party in a coalition with the PVDA. The VVD holds 16/75 seats in the senate, 122/566 in the States Provincial and 3/26 in the EU parliament. René Leegte is a VVD member of the House of Representatives and spokesperson for energy matters. The VVD is considered to be open to nuclear.

Interview: René Leegte is nieuwsgierig optimistisch over Thorium en MSRs. Onder andere zijn stagiaire gaat hier onderzoek naar doen. René Leegte is curious and optmisitic about Thorium and MSRs. Amongst others, his intern will be researching Thorium. Thorium wordt wel steeds vaker gehoord. Misschien niet in de politiek. Leegte vind dat het in de politiek niet moet gaan over de middelen maar het doel. De politiek zegt minder CO2, en de markt moet dit dan verder uitwerken. Thorium Is increasingly heard of, but maybe not in politics. Leegte believes that politics should not be about the tools and methods but about the goal. We (politicians) say something about less CO2 and then the market has to work out how to achieve this. De markt moet dus de ontwikkeling van Thorium financieren. The market will need to finance the development of Thorium. Of de technologie bewezen is weet René Leegte niet helemaal. Dat gaan wij uitzoeken. Hernieuwbare energie wordt erg gesubsidieerd, dit klopt zegt René Leegte. Thorium en Uranium vallen niet onder duurzaam volgens Europa, dit kan teruglezen worden op de website van de EU. Leegte does not know for sure whether or not the MSR technology is proven. We are going to research this. Renewable energy is being subsidised, this isn’t right says René Leegte. Thorium and Uranium are not sustainable according to the EU, you can read this on the website of the EU. Warmte-krachtkoppelingen vallen daar niet in, en Thorium en Uranium ook niet. Duurzaam en renewables zijn semantisch.


Cogeneration does not belong to this, Thorium and Uranium also do not. Sustainability and Renewables are semantic. Of het een oplossing is in de energie transitie moeten wij nog onderzoeken. Of mensen vinden dat iets duurzaam is en dat staat niet in de definitie dan is het dus niet zo, dat is het lastige van politiek. Whether it is a solution in the energy transition is something we have yet to research. Whether or not people believe something is sustainable but it does not fall into the category of sustainability according to the definition, then it is naturally not true. That is the hard part of politics. Thorium staat niet op de huidige politieke agenda. Er is in Noord-West Europa een overschot (en overcapaciteit) aan elektriciteit op de markt. Om nieuwe ontwikkelingen te doen die elektriciteit leveren zullen marktpartijen dus niet snel op inspringen. Het heeft puur met de markt te maken dat er geen centrale wordt gebouwd, of dit nou Kolen, Gas of Thorium is. De overcapaciteit is veroorzaakt door de subsidies op hernieuwbare energie zegt René Leegte. Thorium is currently not on the political agenda. In North Western Europe there is an overcapacity and surplus of electricity on the market. Developing new ways to generate electricity is thus not supported by private investors and corporations. In essence it has to with the current market that no power plants are built, whether this is a Coal, Gas or Thorium plant. The overcapacity is caused by the subsidies on renewable energy says Leegte. Het oplossen van het afval probleem met een MSR is een hypothese, als dat waar is dan kan dat een oplossing zijn. René Leegte wil hier nog niet over oordelen omdat de technologie nog onbekend is voor hem. Solving the waste problem with an MSR is a hypothesis, if it is true then this could be a solution. René Leegte currently refrains from judging this as the technology is yet unknown to him. In India zijn ze veel verder zegt René Leegte. Dat is dan weer een andere technologie. Als VVD zijn wij techniek neutraal. Het heeft met de doelstellingen te maken, niet met de methode. In India they are much more advanced in Thorium says Leegte. This is a different technology. The VVD is technology neutral. This has to do with the goals, not with the method. René Leegte is politicus en geen techneut, hij houd zich niet bezig met het bouwen van kerncentrales. Bovendien is het geen actueel debat. Dit zijn redenen waarom de VVD en hijzelf hier weinig kennis over hebben. Wel is hij actief bezig via zijn stagiair om toch meer te weten te komen over Thorium. René Leegte is a politician and not a technician, he is not concerned with building nuclear power plants. Moreover, currently there is no debate. These are reasons why the VVD and himself possess little knowledge about this subject. However, Leegte is active in this topic, through his intern, and would like to know more about Thorium. René Leegte staat open voor een gesprek met een aantal partijen. Het is een interessante discussie. René Leegte wil snappen wat iets is, maar niet om te zeggen dat er nu een Thorium centrale gemaakt moet worden.


René Leegte is open to a conversation with several groups. It is an interesting discussion. René Leegte would like to know what something is about, but not to directly say that Thorium plants should be built. René Leegte gelooft dat het bewezen is maar ziet in de wereld niet zoveel gebeuren op het gebied van Thorium en LFTR. Dat is een indicatie dat er toch iets is wat men niet helemaal zeker weet zegt René Leegte. Als Nederland het niet doet, India het niet doet, Japan het niet doet.. als het echt een oplossing zou zijn dan zou Japan hier bovenop zitten. René Leegte believes that Thorium is proven but does not see much happening in the world regarding Thorium and LFTR. This is an indication that there is something going on that people are not entirely sure about. De verwachtingen (van 10 jaar), zijn alleen verwachtingen. Expectations (like LFTR in 10 years) are merely expectations. René Leegte denkt niet dat Thorium af geserveerd wordt in het politieke debat of door Minister Kamp. De meeste Kamerleden kennen Thorium, misschien niet inhoudelijk hoe het precies werkt, maar ze hebben er van gehoord zegt Leegte. René Leegte does not believe Thorium is easily dismissed in the political debate by Minister Kamp. Most representatives know about Thorium, maybe not content wise and how it works exactly but they certainly heard about it says Leegte. René Leegte gelooft dat er ingezet moet worden op alle vormen van energie om de (CO2) doelstellingen te halen. De ontwikkelingen van deze vormen van energie moeten komen vanuit innovatiepotten zoals de TU Delft en Topsectoren energie. René Leegte believes that all forms of energy should be utilised to meet the CO2 goals. The developments of these different energy types has to come from innovation budgets from groups like the TU Delft and Topsectoren energie (: Dutch government funded initiative in the innovation of selected energy alternatives, nuclear is not selected). Buskruit komt uit China, dat hebben zij uitgevonden en wij gebruikt. Waarom zou dat niet met energie kunnen denkt René Leegte. Samenwerken met een buitenlandse partner zou een mogelijkheid zijn. Gun powder comes from China, they invented it but we use it. Why would this not be possible with energy says René Leegte. Cooperation with a foreign partner could be a solution. Dat de kennis bij groepen zoals de TU Delft snel minder wordt kan kloppen. Dit werkt twee kanten op, het kan ook snel meer worden, afhankelijk aan hoe de markt veranderd. That the knowledge base in (research) groups such as TU delft is swiftly decreasing is probably true. This works both ways, it can also quickly increase, depending on how the market is changing. De meeste partijen zijn enigszins optimistisch nieuwsgierig verwacht René Leegte. Most political parties are somewhat optimistic and curious, expects René Leegte. In de EU is Thorium ook geen onderwerp, er is geen debat, er is geen urgentie.


In the EU, Thorium is also not a topic, there is no debate and no sense of urgency. Nederland is niet tegen Kernenergie volgens René Leegte. Wij hebben zelfs de mogelijkheid vrij gemaakt om een nieuwe kerncentrale te bouwen in Borsele. Leegte weerspreekt de claim dat Europa (met uitzondering van Frankrijk) anti nucleair zou zijn. Het VK bouwt een nieuwe centrale, Finland bouwt een nieuwe centrale, België; Duitsland stopt. Er is tegen alle vormen van energie wel weerstand. The Netherlands is not anti-nuclear thinks René Leegte. We even gave the possibility to build a new nuclear power plant in Borsele. Leegte contradicts the claim that Europe (except France) is anti-nuclear. The UK is building a new plant, Finland also builds a new plant, Belgium, but Germany is stopping. There is resistance against every type of energy. De politiek speelt een rol als het gaat over vergunningen en veiligheid. Of een testreactor gestimuleerd moet worden hangt van de ontwikkelingen af volgens René Leegte. Politics plays a role in the debate when it is about safety and licences. Whether an experimental/test reactor should be stimulated by the government depends on the developments says Leegte. Onder de huidige omstandigheden is er geen toekomst voor LFTR omdat er een overcapaciteit is. Het beleid in Europa moet eerst veranderen op het gebied van vernieuwbare energie. Als het ergens anders in de wereld ontwikkeld wordt dan kunnen wij het alsnog implementeren zegt René Leegte. Of je dan afhankelijk bent ziet Leegte niet als een probleem, dat is altijd een wederzijdse afhankelijkheid. Dat we alles zelf zouden moeten doen is kortzichtig. Toch doet Europa wel iets, Noorwegen is er ook mee bezig. Under the current circumstances there is no future for LFTR because there is an overcapacity. The European renewable energy policy would first have to change. If LFTR is developed somewhere else in the world, we could still implement it says René Leegte. René Leegte does not think it is a problem if you are then dependant (on the foreign partner). It is always a mutual dependence. That we should do everything by ourselves is short sighted. Nonetheless Europe is still doing something, Norway is also active. Bij het besluiten waar geld naar zou moeten gaan vanuit de EU moet er iedere keer bekeken worden welke oplossing het beste is zegt Leegte. Dat houd iedereen scherp. Het is fundamenteel verkeerd als de politiek een middel kiest om te subsidiëren. Dit gebeurd wel met windenergie op dit moment. In deciding where funding should go from the EU, people should always look which solution is the best says Leegte. This keeps everyone sharp. It is fundamentally wrong if politicians decide on a method (technology) to be subsidised. This currently happens with wind energy. Leegte vindt dat dit onderzoek te vroeg komt met haar vragen, omdat de VVD juist nu nog onderzoek moet doen. Verder vindt Leegte de vragen te specifiek. Hij zou in het onderzoek meer willen zien over de context en hoe Thorium daarin past. Leegte en zijn stagiaire willen de context niet uit het oog verliezen of Thorium als zaligmakend middel zien. René Leegte benadrukt dat de vragen die dit onderzoek stelt technisch zijn en dat deze als politicus moeilijk te beantwoorden zijn. Leegte believes this research and its questions comes to soon, especially because the VVD still has to do research on this topic. Furthermore, Leegte believes that the questions asked are too specific. He would like to see more about the context in the research, and how Thorium fits into this. Leegte and his intern do not want to lose touch of the


context nor do they want to view Thorium as a sanctifying method. René Leegte would like to stress that the questions asked during this research are technical and that he as a politician has trouble answering them. Perceptie van de voor en nadelen van Thorium is ook erg belangrijk. Het gaat niet altijd over feiten in de tweede kamer. Percepties zijn ook feiten zegt Leegte. Perception about the pro and cons of Thorium is also important. It is not always about the facts in the House of Representatives. Perception is also a fact says Leegte.


D: Research Groups Interviews Interview with Dr. Ronald Schram, Unit manager Research & Innovation, NRG

Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Ronald Schram Interview method: telephone interview Time: 10-11-2014, 10:00-11:00 Place: n/a About the NRG: NRG (Nuclear Research and consultancy Group) is the nuclear service provider in the Netherlands. The NRG has done previous research on the Thorium Fuel cycle in the PWR, a research that Dr. Schram was also involved in as a coordinator. The NRG operates a high flux reactor in Petten (NL) which produces medical isotopes and produces a large proportion of the world’s molybdenum supply. NRG is also researching ways to make nuclear energy more sustainable such as fourth generation nuclear energy systems and nuclear fusion.

Interview: Please note that this interview abstract was not explicitly varified but also not corrected. The candidate did have the opportunity to do so but did not respond to messages. Het NRG neemt deel aan internationale programma’s, bijvoorbeeld die van het EU framework programma. Daar doen wij projecten in zoals de splijtstof cyclus en materiaal beproevingen. Dit is ook gebeurd met een Thorium Cyclus project waar de NRG de Europese coördinator was. Het recyclen van radioactieve stoffen was een onderwerp, maar ook kijkend naar andere splijtstof cyclussen. Bestralingen werden in Petten uitgevoerd maar ook in een duitse reactor, wel als vaste stof met keramisch materieel, zoals bijvoorbeeld mox/uox. The NRG takes part in international programmes, for example the EU framework programmes. They do projects related to the cycle of the nuclear fission product and material testing. This also happened with the Thorium cycle project where the NRG was the European coordinator. The recycling of radioactive compounds was subject to the research but also alternative fission products (like thorium) were looked into. Radiation testing was done in Petten but also in a german commercial reactor. However it was done with a solid fuel ceramic material, like mox/uox. Bij thorium was de vraag hoe het thorium oxide zich zou gedragen maar ook hoe goed je het materiaal zou kunnen maken. Men moet namelijk aan strenge eisen voldoen; wat zijn de bestralingseigenschappen en hoe zit het met de uitloog eigenschappen. Het laatste is belangrijk indien je wilt iets wilt weten over het uitlogen van de brandstof in eindbergingscondities, dus het gedrag van het materiaal op lange termijn. Dat heeft de NRG vergeleken met de uranium cyclus, waaruit kwam dat thorium het eigenlijk heel goed doet vertelt Dr. Schram. Het is het zelfde of beter dan de uranium oxide. Vaste thorium oxide is zeer inert, het houdt de splijtingsproducten dus heel goed vast en als eindbergingsmateriaal is het interessant zegt Schram. Het heeft ook goede karakteristieken voor eindopslag wegens de goede chemische karakteris-


tieken vertelt Dr. Schram. With thorium the question was how the thorium oxide would behave but also how easy it is to make the material (since strict requirements are present in the industry), but also what the radiation characteristics are and what the leaching characteristics are. The latter is important if you talk about leaching of the fuel for ultimate storage conditions, so it is the behaviour of the material in the long term. The NRG compared this with the uranium cycle and concluded that thorium is actually performing very desirably says Schram. It is equal to or better than the uranium oxide. Solid thorium oxide is very inert, which means it retains the fission products very well and as a material for ultimate storage it is interesting says Dr. Schram. It is so suitable for storage because has good chemical characteristics explains Dr. Schram. Het is net zoals bij auto’s, deze kunnen op verschillende brandstoffen rijden. Reactoren kunnen dit ook maar natuurlijk niet zonder aanpassingen te maken in het ontwerp, de veiligheid, vergunningen, hoe de splijtstof cyclus er uit gaat zien en hoe lang mag ik een materiaal in de reactor houden. Dit soort sommen heeft het onderzoek toen gemaakt. Als startmateriaal gebruikten wij plutonium. Het liet zien dat de PWR ook gewoon op thorium oxide kon draaien. It is just as with cars, they can run on different kind of fuels. Reactors can also operate on different types of fuel but you have to make adjustments in the design, safety measures, permits, the fission cycle and how much time a substance remains in the reactor. These kind of calculations were made in the NRG research says Schram. As a start-up material plutonium was used. It showed that the Pressurised Water Reactor can just as well run on thorium oxide. De wereldwijde thorium reserves zijn groter dan uranium. Dus als je als maatschappij langer gebruik wil maken van kernenergie dan is er een groot reservoir aan thorium. Maar het is een andere brandstof dus de infrastructuur moet aangepast worden. Net zoals bijvoorbeeld auto’s van diesel naar waterstof. Splijtstof fabrieken en reactoren moeten aangepast worden. Op zichzelf is thorium een prima materiaal voor de langere termijn. Als energievoorzieningszekerheid biedt het perspectieven. The world’s thorium reserves are much greater than uranium. So if, as a society, we want to make use of nuclear power for a longer time then there is a large reservoir of thorium. With a different fuel we would also have to change the infrastructure. Just as with cars running on diesel to hydrogen fuel. Nuclear Fission product factories and reactors would have to be adjusted. Thorium in itself is an excellent material for the long run. It is suitable to achieve energy supply security. Met Molten Salt Reactoren is de NRG op dit moment begonnen, in het verleden niet. Samen met het transuranium instituut en ook Delft gaan zij onderzoek doen. Wij gaan kijken naar de bestraling van zouten met thorium er in, en hoe de uraan 233 ingroeit, splijtingsinventaris etc. Een aantal eenvoudige testjes in materiaal eigenschappen en splijtingsontwikkeling vertelt Schram. Volgend jaar gaan we hier mee aan de slag en mogelijk in de toekomst komt er meer. Op zich is de techniek erg elegant vanwege de simpelheid van de processing. Molten Salt Reactor research is just starting at the NRG at this moment, in the past they did not research this. A research will be conducted together with the institute for transuranium elements and also the TU Delft. We will be looking at the irradiation of salts with thorium in it and how u-233 grows in the mixture but also we are looking at fission inventories etc. A couple of easy tests in material characteristics and fission development are going to be conducted says Dr. Schram. Next year we will be doing this says Schram, and maybe more in the future. The MSR technology in itself is very elegant due to the simplicity of the processing.


Thorium moet je eerst kweken/breeden terwijl uranium meteen splijtbaar is. De thorium cyclus is nou niet specifiek verbonden met de MSRs, er zijn ook andere toepassingen al weet Dr. Schram dat niet zeker. Schram denkt dat thorium en MSRs samen worden genomen omdat het twee relatief nieuwe technologieën zijn. Thorium heeft grotere reserves dus op de lange termijn is het interessant. In vergelijking met het afval tussen uranium en thorium zitten er bij uranium een aantal transuranen met lange levensduur. Dat heeft thorium minder, hier moet je nog even goed naar kijken zegt Schram. Jan leen Kloosterman en jouw anonieme expert weten dit ook wel. Het afval karakteristiek zou gunstiger zijn bij thorium, maar in welk opzicht? Er wordt vaak gekeken naar de radiotoxciciteit en naar de tijd. De actiniden (transuraan) hebben dan een lange levensduur. Radioactiviteit vervalt, wat men dan bedoelt met de levensduur is als de radioactiviteit de natuurlijke grens heeft bereikt. You have to breed thorium first while uranium is directly fissile. The thorium cycle is not specifically connected to the MSR since there are other possibilities with thorium says Dr. Schram. However he is not entirely sure about this. Schram believes MSRs and thorium are used together because they are both relatively new technologies. Thorium has larger reserves, so in the long run it is interesting. In comparing nuclear waste between uranium and thorium, there would be several transuranics in the uranium cycle with a very long halflife. Thorium has less of that, however you should look at this further says Schram . Your anonymous expert or Dr. Kloosterman most likely know this. The waste characteristics would be more favourable with thorium than with uranium. But in what regard? Mostly one looks at the radiotoxicity and the time. The actinides (transuranics) have a long lifetime. Radioactivity declines, so what they mean with lifetime is when the radiation has reached the naturally occurring level of the material. Bij eindberging is de vraag wat het risico is van het materiaal dat dat in het leef systeem komt. Thorium oxide heeft een iets gunstigere mix, als vaste stof, bij zout weet Dr. Schram het niet. Sommige experts zeggen dat het niet uitmaakt of het nou een kilo of een gram is, als het maar in evenwicht is, het gaat er dus om of het materiaal nog echt aanwezig is en dus nog steeds negatieve effecten heeft. With the waste storage and disposal one would have to ask what is the risk that the (radioactive) material enters the environment/lifesystem. Thorium oxide has a slightly favourable mix (as opposed to uranium) as a solid fuel, with a (molten) salt Dr. Schram does not know. Some experts state that it does not matter if the material to be disposed is a kilo or a gram, as long as it is balanced. What it is about in storage is that the material is still present and thus still has its negative effects. De MSR is buitengewoon interessant omdat de chemie en het opwerkingsproces samen genomen kunnen worden wegens het zout. Dan kan in situ chemie toegepast worden. Bij vaste stoffen is het gescheiden. The MSR is extraordinarily interesting because the chemistry and the reprocessing process are taken together because of the salt. This makes it possible to apply chemistry in situ. With solid fuels this is separated. Je moet je afvragen in hoeverre kernenergie (en dus ook de MSR) op de politieke agenda staat en in hoeverre politici hier iets over willen weten, dat is vrij laag denkt Schram. Nederland heeft maar een reactor (voor elektriciteit), er zijn maar weinig landen die er maar één hebben. In de politiek is het dus niet een onderwerp waar men veel ervaring mee heeft. Het komt alleen op de agenda als er een issue is met Borsele of in het buitenland iets gebeurt. Dan herinneren


de politici zich weer dat Nederland er ook een heeft. Er is dus geen grote politieke aandacht voor kernenergie denkt Schram. Nederland heeft een soort no regret policy; Nederland wil de opties open houden om in de toekomst meer aan kernenergie te doen als hier reden toe is. One would have to wonder if nuclear energy (and thus also MSRs) are on the political agenda and thus to what degree politicians want to know something about it. This is relatively low says Schram. The Netherlands only has one reactor (for electricity). There are not many countries that only have one reactor. Dutch politics is thus not experienced with this subject. It only enters the political angenda if there is an issue with Borsele or something happens abroad. Then politicians remember that The Netherlands also has a reactor. So there is no large political attention to nuclear power thinks Schram. The Netherlands has a kind of no regret policy; The Netherlands wants to keep all options open to apply (more) nuclear energy in the future if there is a reason to do so. In Europa is dit heel anders. Een aantal landen zet fors op nuclear in en een aantal niet. Van landen die geen kernenergie hebben, van landen zoals Duitsland en van landen die een nucleaire portofolio hebben. De onderzoekprogramma’s zijn dus heel divers in Europa. Er is dus een gemengd beeld als de vraag is In hoeverre kernenergie op de agenda staat. De volgende vraag is dan binnen die context;wat is dan de aandacht en kennis voor MSRs, die is veel kleiner, dat heeft dus met kernenergie te maken niet specifiek met MSR. Als de aandacht voor kernenergie wordt vergoot zal dat van de MSR ook worden vergroot. Er is op dit moment echt een herbezinning van kernenergie, het is pas op de plaats zegt Dr. Schram. Het blijft wel belangrijk om verder onderzoek te doen, maar vanuit de politiek zal hier weinig belangstelling voor zijn. In Europe the situation is very different. A couple of nations are severely utilising nuclear while other do not. There is a division; countries that have no nuclear, countries like Germany who quit and countries that have a nuclear portfolio. The research programmes are thus very diverse in Europe. There is a mixed image if you ask about nuclear power and whether it is on the political agenda. The next questions within that context is whether people have knowledge and attention for MSRs. This is much smaller, this has to do with nuclear energy as a whole and not specifically with the MSR. If there is more attention to nuclear energy this also enlarges the attention for the MSR. At this moment the EU is rethinking nuclear energy, we are marching on the spot says Schram. It remains important to do research but from a political angle there will be little interest. De oorzaak van deze situatie heeft te maken met de blik op kernenergie. Maar hoe komt dit? Dit heeft te maken met de gevoeligheid voor kernenergie zegt Schram. Dit verschilt per land. Dit kan te maken hebben met veiligheid, angst voor straling en maatschappelijk of economische vraagstukken zoals subsidies. Vroeger (jaren 80) was dit erg gepolariseerd, nu is het anders omdat men beter geïnformeerd is. Toch blijft kernenergie een onderwerp wat aanleiding geeft tot veel discussie en verdeeldheid zegt Dr. Schram. Dat is een aparte scriptie waard denkt Schram. The reason for this situation has to do with the current perspective on nuclear energy. How is this caused? It has to do with the sensitivity to nuclear energy says Schram. This is different in each country. It can be about safety, fear for radiation and societal or economic concerns such as subsidies. In the 80s this was very polarised, now it is different because people are better informed. Still nuclear energy remains a subject that gives way to a lot of discussion and even divides people. Dr. Schram believes this topic is worth a thesis in itself. In het westen werd kernenergie geassocieerd met afval, wapens, veiligheid en de staat. Terwijl in de Sovjet Unie het positief gezien werd als energie voor de massa. De meningen zijn nu ook


verdeeld denkt Schram. In het VK en Frankrijk ligt het anders dan in bijvoorbeeld Duitsland (waar een sterke anti nucleaire beweging is) terwijl men wel sterk geïnvesteerd had in kernenergie. In the west nuclear energy was associated with nuclear waste, weapons, safety and the state as an institution. While in the Soviet Union it was seen positively as energy for the masses. The opinions are now also divided thinks Schram. In the UK and France the situation is different than Germany, where a powerful anti-nuclear movement is active, while Germany had already invested heavily in nuclear energy. Dr. Schram vindt het lastig te beoordelen of er partijen en mensen zijn die tegen of voor thorium zijn. In de politiek gaat het niet over de techniek, het is dienend aan het doel. Zij moeten die doelen verwoorden, promoten of realiseren. Dus partijen die al voor kernenergie zijn zullen andere ontwikkelingen ook eerder steunen. De MSR karakteristieken zijn wel politiek vertaalbaar naar de doelen van de politiek. Deze moet je duidelijk maken en vergelijken met andere systemen om dat doel te halen. In Nederland zijn er maar een paar die het dossier kennen, de meeste zullen moeite hebben om dit bij te houden denkt Schram. Dr. Schram believes it is difficult to judge whether people or parties will be against or pro thorium. In politics it is not about technology but about how it serves a goal. Politicians have to phrase these goals and promote or realise them. So Schram thinks that political parties who already support nuclear power will also support new developments. The MSR characteristics are translatable to political goals. These characteristics have to be clearly defined and compared with other systems that can achieve a target. In The Netherlands there are only a couple of politicians who know the dossiers, most will have difficulty in keeping up says Schram. Het is de taak van de overheid om de lange termijn belangen zeker te stellen. De overheid zou dit soort ontwikkelingen moeten stimuleren indien zij denken dat het van belang is voor de lange termijn. Maar als je kijkt naar de programma’s dan leveren de onderzoekprogramma’s op kernenergie alleen maar in. Bij de NRG wordt het onderzoeksprogramma ook een kwart kleiner zegt Schram. It is the task of the government to ensure interests are secured in the long term. The government should stimulate these kind of developments if they believe these are relevant in the long term. But if you look at research programmes then all nuclear research programmes are declining. At the NRG the research programme is also becoming 25% smaller says Schram. Wat ook goed is om te noemen, zegt Schram, is het resultaat van het NRG thorium project. Dat zag er allemaal goed belovend uit maar toen men na 7 jaar om de tafel ging met participanten vanuit de industrie kreeg Schram de opmerking; Je denkt toch niet dat we dit gaan invoeren he? What also may be relevant, says Schram, is the result of the thorium cycle project of the NRG. It all looked very promising but after 7 years, when we discussed it with the participants from the industry we heard the following; You do not really think we are going to implement this do you? De industrie is niet tegen ontwikkeling maar je moet je realiseren dat er een miljarden kostende infrastructuur staat voor de uranium cyclus. Er is industrieel dus weinig stimulans om te investeren in iets anders. Dit kan wel veranderen, door bijvoorbeeld andere eisen te stellen aan afval karakteristieken of aan recycling gaan doen. De nucleaire sector zal dus niet snel voor nieuwe activiteiten gaan.


The industry is not against innovation and development but one has to realise that there already is an infrastructure for the uranium cycle present which costs billions. There is thus little incentive to invest in something else. This may change, by for example, setting new standards to waste characteristics or deciding to recycle fuel. The nuclear sector will not suddenly go for new activities. Dr. Schram bevestigt dat de overheid naar de markt kijkt maar de markt zelf niks doet zolang zij hun product (uranium energie) nog goed kunnen verkopen. Aan de andere kant de overheid subsidieert wel duurzame energie maar kernenergie wordt weer aan de markt over gelaten, er wordt dus niet altijd op dezelfde manier naar energie gekeken. Dr. Schram confirms that the government is watching and waiting for the market but that the market is not doing anything while they can still sell their old product. On the other hand the government does subsidise sustainable energy while nuclear power is left at the hands of the market. The way energy is looked at is thus not always equal. Of MSR duurzaam is? De vraag wat bedoelt u met duurzaam is ook een leuke vraag. Meestal krijg je dan veel fronsen of geen goed antwoord. Als je dat dus niet krijgt weet je dat de rest van de discussie niet veel zin heeft. Whether the MSR is sustainable? The question; what do you mean with sustainable is maybe also nice. Often you receive a lot of frowns and no right answer, so then you know that the rest of the discussion has no use. Wij gebruiken de Brundtland definitie met betrekking tot duurzaamheid. De NRG zegt niet dat kernenergie duurzaam is maar heeft het over verduurzaming. De definitie van duurzaamheid is dan: De aanspraak die een generatie maakt op haar voorzieningen moet de volgende generatie niet limiteren om datzelfde te doen zegt Schram. Als je hier heel streng naar kijkt zou silicium winning voor het maken van zonnepanelen hier ook niet invallen. De definitie geeft hier een soort gevoel voor, maar niets is eigenlijk helemaal duurzaam. Misschien als we op hout stoken en terug gaan naar het jager zijn met veel minder aardbewonders. We use the Brundtland definition when talking about sustainability. The NRG does not say nuclear power is sustainable but we talk about making it more sustainable. The definition of sustainability is: meeting the needs of present generations without jeopardizing the ability of futures generations to meet their own needs. If you look at this strictly then solar power is also bad because it requires extracting silicon from the earth. The definition gives a certain feeling but nothing is truly sustainable. Maybe using wood and going back to being a hunter with far less earthlings comes closest. De MSR kun je dus duurzamer noemen; want recycling is mogelijk, de emissie performance is beter etc. Het scoort goed op een aantal duurzaamheid parameters. De discussie of iets duurzaam is, is zelfs voor renewables niet echt zinvol, je moet kijken naar hoe het de volgende generatie beperkt. You can call the MSR more sustainable because of recycling and emission performance. It scores well on a number of sustainability parameters. The discussion if something is sustainable also does not make sense for renewables. You have to look if it limits the next generation.


Interview with Dr. Richard Stainsby, Chief Technologist Fuel Cycle Solutions at the NNL and on behalf of the SNETP Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Richard Stainsby Interview method: Telephone Time: 13-11-2014, 15:00 – 16:30 (Dutch time) Place: N/A About the NNL & SNETP: Details on the exact role and operation of both the National Nuclear Laboratory (UK) and the Sustainable Nuclear Energy Technology Platform (EU) are provided in the text.

Interview abstract: Many different concepts of MSR, EVOL types are sort of mainstream with a core and blanket, like the MSRE. But there are many different types of Molten Salt Reactors. Thorium as a fuel and MSR reactors are decoupled to some extent. MSRs can run on any fuel and thorium can be applied in other reactor types. By combining the two you also get more problems thinks Stainsby. You are trying to introduce simultaneously both a new fuel cycle and a new reactor design. Compare it to cars and the transitionfrom petrol/diesel to hydrogen. There is still quite some inertia to overcome in introducing a new fuel in motor vehicles. The investment in the fuelling infrastructure is massive and a large part of the fleet becomes obsolete. In a way, this can be compared to Thorium. What is important to note is that this analogy is not fully accurate as the Thorium fuel cycle requires a mature uranium fuel cycle to exist to provide the fissile material to start the first generation of thorium-loaded reactors. A country thus needs access to a mature uranium fuel cycle as well. There is thus a dependency on the “uranium/plutonium age” to get to the thorium age. Parallel fuel cycles at some point during the transition are likely. This creates some business problems by itself, e.g. attracting investors for soon to be obsolete plants which have long operating lives but are dependent on an outgoing fuel cycle. The diesel to hydrogen transition in motor vehicles is a good analogy up to a limit, there is the historical dependency in the nuclear fuel cycles which does not exist for motor vehicles says Dr. Stainsby. The fissile material bred in the first generation can then be used in the next generation and so on. The thorium cycle will provide just enough fuel to start up the next generation (its replacement) but because of the low breeding ratio (creating long doubling times), so it is hard to expand the fleet of thorium reactors based on just thorium reactors (without an external feed of new fissile start-up fuel). For example in the UK civil stockpile there is enough plutonium to start about 7 1GWe Thorium MSR, when these come to the end of their lives, these can start up another 7 Thorium reactors of similar capacity with the fissile fuel they have bred. Diverging the fleet (growing it) is thus not really an option without more (external) fissile material. The NNL is researching such scenarios with their ORION fuel cycle simulation computer programme says Stainsby. The NNL has also researched breeding ratio’s and fleet divergence with a uranium-plutonium cycle but with breeding ratios representative of thorium-loaded reactors . In the future they intend to do research in how to grow a thorium reactor fleet when ORION has been extended to cope with a thorium fuel cycle directly says Stainsby.


The NNL acts as an advisor for policy. We present the facts and do not make decisions says Stainsby. The NNL takes a technologically neutral position and tries to present the facts without a hidden agenda or a personal bias. There is a lot of passion surrounding MSRs and Thorium, also around Uranium/Plutonium cycles. The NNL is campaigning for more research so that people can argue their positions from an understanding of the science and not based upon the superficial attractiveness of alternative systems. Politicians, have to balance public opinion than and the technical arguments. Generally, the electorate responds emotionally rather than in response to the strength of the technical arguments, so the subtleties of the arguments about whether fuel cycle A is better than fuel cycle B can be lost in such a debate. The debate is generally about whether or not a state should avoid, adopt or abandon nuclear power, not about the basis of the fuel cycle. With regard to question of the adoption (or continued adoption) of nuclear power, over the last ten years the UK has made a complete policy turnaround in regards of nuclear, which went by largely unopposed by the public and the media. Currently all three of the main political parties back nuclear power. The opinion of the SNETP on thorium and MSRs is described in the two annexes on the SNETP website. Thorium and MSRs were issued as appendices and not part of the mainstream Strategic Research Agenda. This is due to the timescale. The SNETP coordinates European research and delivers the nuclear component of the Strategic European Energy Technology plan (SETPlan). The SET-Plan has 2050 as a time horizon. The SNETP thus deemed the 40 year horizon as a short period of time for the nuclear industry and thus concerns itself on systems that are deployable on a commercial basis within that timeframe. As not to close the door on longer term technology, these two appendices were created. The SNETP holds an open door policy to MSR but concentrated to near future projects such as the sodium cooled fast reactor, gas cooled fast reactor and lead cooled fast reactor, with the first of these (SFR) being considered to be the nearest-term commercially deployable system. The SNETP has three pillars. 1. NUGFENIA looks at Generation II and III reactors. It is aimed at achieving sustainability through continued operation of existing reactors. i.e. reducing fuel usage, increasing availability, plant life time, minimize waste. 2. ESNII: European Sustainable Nuclear Industrial Initiative: has a 40 year time horizon and is about cooperating in and coordinating research projects on the aforementioned 3 solid fuel Generation IV fast reactors 3. Nuclear co-generation: using process low grade heat for district heating and for sea water desalination, and high-grade heat for chemical and industrial processing. The SNETP is currently limited because it has to comply with the timescale of the SET plan. The consensus of opinion is that the Molten Salt Fast Reactors are beyond the 40 year timeframe for commercial deployment. However, to some extent, one has to guard against these things becoming self-fulfilling prophecies says Stainsby. People may say that because it will not be around for another 40 years, so we won’t invest in it then because nobody invests in it won’t be around for 40 years. It largely comes down to making a decision at a given point in time. The nuclear industry bases a lot of things on Technological Readiness Levels (TRL 1-9, where 1 is a blue sky idea and 9 is commercial deployment). In the SNETP they may look at TRL 6-7. While MSRs are more around TLR 3. However Stainsby recognizes that one has got to be careful with these things as you might condemn them by saying that they starting too far behind and thus we should not invest in them. It is about timescale, member state policy and priority for SNETP.


France is probably the only country in the EU which has an active programme in support of closed fuel cycles. The main programme is the ASTRID sodium-cooled fast reactor but, to a much lesser extent also fund gas cooled fast reactors and via CNRS they fund MSRs. As such, they are not closing the door on these longer-term technologies. Maintaining a presence in longer-term, technologies is important says Stainsby, but it would take a brave politician to decide to use the least mature technology to close the fuel cycle, if closing the fuel cycle in the near future is a priority The NNL does a small amount of research on the behaviour of molten salts but does not have a programme specifically covering MSRs. NNL is actively engaged in research on Thorium, but to date this has been in the context as the fertile component of solid fuel to study its behaviour under irradiation. There is also potential interest to investigate the use thorium as a means to burn the plutonium stockpile as nuclear fuel without breeding further plutonium. The UK is embarking on a new national nuclear research program. The Nuclear Innovation and Research Office (NIRO) guided by the Nuclear Innovation and Research Advisory Board (NIRAB) are developing this programme and recommending it to the government. It is likely that this programme will seek in investment in thorium fuel research as well as keeping the option open on MSRs is asked for in a similar way as in France. The NNL also hopes be involved at some point when post-irradiation examination of thorium fuels is required. The UK is adopting a position as many other countries also do; the MSR is interesting but because of its low TRL it is difficult to make it a high priority. There are independent organisations in the UK such as the Weinberg Foundation who are interested in thorium as a fuel and MSRs. NNL has had discussions with them on how the NNL could support MSR projects and work with them. There is a fairly healthy and open dialogue with Weinberg. And the foundation has some backers in politics, industry and as individuals. Something promising may come out of our relationship with the Weinberg foundation says Stainsby. The EU has difficulties backing the development of any of the Generation IV reactor types because of the way the Euratom treaty works. It has unanimous voting (as opposed to majority voting), which means one nation can use their veto if they object nuclear power in general or breeder reactors in particular. Since Fukushima some states prefer that the money should go to improving the safety of the existing reactor fleet and not to the development of new reactor systems. Before 2011 they had strongly backed up all 6 Generation IV systems which has now become difficult. A move towards coordination of the work of the Member States is now preferred whereby they decide on the investment priorities themselves. The EU role is moving in the direction of becoming a coordinator of research rather than a funder of research for the development of Generation IV systems. The EU can set targets but the nation states set their own energy policy. The priority pre-2011 was very similar between solid fuel reactors and molten salt reactors in terms of the share of R&D funding from Euratom’s 6th and 7th Framework Programmes. The NNL has been quite active in the UK by giving out information and presentations on Thorium fuelled reactors. In 2012, Stainsby attended a session in the House of Lords on thorium energy, initiated by Baroness Worthington. Dr. Stainsby had never thought this debate would have happened even one or two years earlier. Most politicians would not know the difference between an open and closed fuel cycle before that, let alone be in a position to debate about whether a closed fuel cycle could be based on thorium . The Weinberg Foundation has done a very good job in raising the issue on closed fuel cycles in general and that different options exist for these. As a result the debate is much better informed and educated. With regard to what can be regarded as political opposition is most likely that the issue of thorium fuelled MSRs has not even reached the political agenda to begin with.


There is a significant opposition in the UK for on-shore wind power hence the drive for the more expensive offshore option. There is great opposition to the exploitation of shale gas. In comparison the opposition to nuclear power is relatively insignificant, partially because it is perceived to not intrude on daily lives and it is relatively cheap compared with offshore wind. With other energy sources people are concerned about loss of habitat, wetlands, rivers and the general natural environment. European dependence on Russian gas has also caused a need for energy independence and security both in Europe and the UK. Richard Stainsby cannot remember a time that the UK has been more at ease with using nuclear energy than it is right now. Unfortunately, the level of debate (in the UK) and the arguments being used are relatively basic when considering renewables, focussing on absolute capacity rather than availability says Stainsby. For the public at large, as with many technologies and renewable energy, the subtleties of nuclear power are often lost, as there are many shades of grey rather than things are never simply black and white. There are probably people in favour of nuclear power but against thorium. Whether they argue from a position of knowledge or fact is debatable. The number of people that are against uranium/plutonium but are for thorium is also interesting, as the former is a precursor for the latter. Most opposition will probably come from prioritization rather than being for or against a certain technology. It also depends where you live in the world. England has a lot of fertile material stockpiled in the form of depleted uranium arising from decades of uranium enrichment. We would need a very compelling reason to be using thorium as a material, of which we have none, over the current uranium/plutonium stockpiles. In India on the other hand they have lots of indigenous thorium but not much uranium/plutonium, so they want to fast-track the uranium/plutonium cycle to start their thorium cycle. There is no right or wrong answer in the deployment of nuclear energy, it depends on the conditions such as where you are, and when you are, says Stainsby. The debate over which fuel cycle to adopt is not really on the agenda in the House of Commons. Whilst the UK currently operates reprocessing plants, the current policy in the UK with regard to new build is to install between 16GWe and 75GWe of light water reactors which will operate in an open fuel cycle. We are currently evaluating energy needs and scenarios beyond 2050, so the option to transition to a closed-fuel cycle in the future is retained in the R&D roadmap. Should the transition to a closed fuel cycle be required, the decision remains to be made as to which closed cycle should then be used. Membership of bodies such as the SNETP is essential inform these decisions and to build European collaborations in fuel cycle technology At the moment, France is the only member state in the EU that has a policy to develop fast reactors to operate in a large-scale closed fuel cycle but not with thorium as the primary option. Dr. Stainsby believes that the national governments and the EU should be backing all low carbon technologies, regardless if these are nuclear or not. A lot of low carbon technologies are fairly embryonic besides maybe wind and solar photo-voltaic. Nuclear power is a low carbon energy source, but operating a nuclear park comprising breeder reactors in a self-sustaining closed fuel cycle on a large scale is embryonic. The timescales involved for the transition to a closed fuel cycle are beyond the timescales the in which the private sector tends to invest. Stainsby believes it is the government’s responsibility to invest in these long term technologies for the benefit of mankind, at least to the point where commercialization is possible. Thorium and MSRs have the same status as other low carbon alternatives but as R&D funding is not limitless, priorities have to be set by nations to match their own current and perceived future circumstances.


There will be little difference in the reactions (opposition/acceptance) to different types of nuclear plants. Nuclear = Nuclear. The fact that one would have a reactor and reprocessing plant on the same location may negatively influence the perception of an MSR. On the other hand the fact that you do not transfer fissile material from the site could work as a positive factor. The closed fuel cycle decision would be essential to deciding which fuel to use. There are many conditional phases to go through before deciding that the Thorium fuel cycle is good for a country at the time that you want to introduce it. Potential advantages must be analysed. It is currently unsure if all the advantages are really advantages while one does not know all disadvantages. There is uncertainty regarding proliferation resistance of the thorium fuel cycle as it fissile product, U-233, is a weapons grade material. Without further details on the reprocessing plant and how easy it is to divert materials, it is hard to say that it is proliferation resistant. Another case is the waste argument, before 500 years it really doesn’t make much difference if it is waste from the thorium or the uranium cycle and a repository safety case tends to be based on the radiological impact over this time period.


Appendix XIII: E-mail information & statements

T

he following Appendix contains full text statements and E-mail conversations with stakeholders within the governmental structure. The information is primary data used exclusively for this research.

SGP statement by e-mail: Please find and English translation of this statement on the next page. About the SGP: The SGP(Reformed Political Party) is a Protestant party in the Dutch house of representatives and currently has 3 out of 150 seats. It also has a seat in the EU parliament and several seats in the states-provincial. The SGP is known by some as a conservative (testimonial party). Dutch Mail: RE: Aanvraag interview voor onderzoek naar Thorium kernsplijting Maljaars J. [[email protected]] Verzonden:vrijdag 3 oktober 2014 9:23 Aan: Swaneveld JM, Jorrit Geachte heer/mevrouw Swaneveld, Hartelijk dank voor uw e-mail. De SGP staat niet negatief tegenover het gebruik van kernenergie. We hebben eerder gepleit voor een nieuwe kerncentrale. De ontwikkeling van alternatieve kernenergie, waaronder de inzet van thorium, juichen we toe. Deze alternatieve kernenergie is relatief onbekend, ook bij ons. We hebben er wel positieve verhalen over gehoord. Dat de politiek, waaronder wijzelf, er verder weinig mee doet, komt misschien omdat er (voor zover ik weet) nog geen praktijkrijpe reactor is ontwikkeld en/of dat in ieder geval in Nederland nog geen gezaghebbende instantie zich voor de ontwikkeling en inzet van deze alternatieve kernenergie heeft ingezet. We hebben met betrekking tot alternatieve kernenergie denk ik weinig meer te melden dan bovenstaande. Gezien de prioriteiten die we als kleine fractie moeten stellen, willen we niet ingaan op het interviewverzoek. Dat neemt niet weg dat het onderzoek wel interessant is. Veel succes! Met vriendelijke groet, Beleidsmedewerker SGP-fractie Tweede Kamer


English translation SGP statement: Dear Mr./Ms. Swaneveld, Thank you for your email. The SGP is not negative about the use of nuclear power. We have pleaded for a new nuclear power plant before. The development of alternative nuclear energy, amongst this the use of thorium, is something we encourage. This alternative nuclear energy is relatively unknown, also within our party. We (did) hear positive stories about it. Politicians, including the SGP, may not utilize this because (as far as I know) there is no practically operating reactor developed yet and/or because in The Netherlands there has not been an (powerful) entity that has come forth to develop this form of alternative nuclear energy. We have no further comments in relation to alternative nuclear energy. We would like to decline the invitation for an interview given the priorities we have to make as a small faction. This does not take away that this research is very interesting. Good luck! Kind Regards, Policy Employee SGP House of representatives


Letter to PVV House of Representatives member Reinette Klever/Brief aan PVV tweede kamerlid Reinette Klever. Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Interviewee: Reinette Klever Interview method: E-mail correspondence with open questions Time: answers received on 16 October 2014 Place: n/a About the PVV: The Party for Freedom (PVV) is a Dutch party in the House of Representatives where it holds 12/150 seats. In the senate it holds 10/75 seats, in the States provincial it holds 53/566 and it has 4 seats in the European Parliament. Reinette Klever is a member of the House of Representatives and part of the commission for economic affairs, which also discusses energy matters.

Vragenlijst/Questionnaire: An English translation of the questions and answers given below the Dutch version (Q/A) Mag ik uw naam en de door u gegeven antwoorden gebruiken voor mijn onderzoek? Ja Q: Can I use your name and the answers provided by you, for my research? A: Yes Was u bekend met Thorium en LFTR voordat ik u benaderde? Ja, zeker het is een interessante ontwikkeling die wij nauwlettend volgen. Q: Were you familiar with Thorium and LFTR before I approached you? A: Yes, certainly, it is an interesting development that we follow closely Mag ik u contact met u opnemen indien ik vragen heb over uw opgegeven antwoorden? Dat mag, bij voorkeur per email. Q: May I contact you if I have questions about the answers you submitted? A: You may, my preference would be by e-mail 1. In het partijprogramma van de PVV uit 2012 staat “Kernenergie blijft, mits veilig en verantwoord”. Wilt u toelichten wat u daar precies mee bedoelt? Kunt u zeggen waarom de PVV openstaat voor kernenergie? Kernenergie is momenteel samen met kolen de goedkoopste vorm van energie. Tenminste 500.000 Nederlandse banen (rapport Deloitte) zijn sterk afhankelijk van de energieprijs. Het is daarom belangrijk om kernenergie te koesteren als goedkoopste vorm van energie. Q: In the election programme of the PVV from 2012 it states: Nuclear power stays, provided it is safe and responsible. Could you please explain the exact meaning of this? Can you say why the PVV is open to nuclear power? A: Nucleair power, together with coal, is currently the cheapest form of energy. At least 500.000 Dutch jobs (Deloitte report) are dependent on the price of energy. It is therefore important to cherish nuclear power as the cheapest form of energy.


2.

Waaraan moet volgens de PVV kernenergie voldoen om veilig en verantwoord te zijn?

De kans op een meltdown of ongelukken moet vrijwel uitgesloten zijn, hetgeen bij onze kerncentrales het geval is. Q: According to the PVV what requirements does nuclear power have to meet to be safe and responsible? A: The chance of a meltdown or accidents has to be nearly out of the question, this is the case with our nuclear power plants. 3.

Wat is uw mening over de LFTR als een alternatieve vorm van kernenergie?

Dat is een veelbelovende techniek, zowel qua kosten efficiëntie als veiligheid. Q: What is your opinion of the LFTR as an alternative form of nuclear power? A: It is a promising technology, both cost efficiency wise as safety wise. 4.

Wat voor rol zou volgens u de overheid moeten spelen in de ontwikkeling van LFTR?

Een faciliterende rol, wij zijn als PVV tegen een overheid die bepaalt welke energievorm er moet komen en dit voortdurend stuurt met bijvoorbeeld subsidies. Q: What role would the government have to play in the development of LFTR? A: A facilitating role, we as the PVV are against a government that decides which type of energy is being developed and that is steering this with (for example) subsidies. 5. Welke rol vervult de PVV in de discussie rond kernenergie en Thorium energie in vergelijking met andere partijen? Er is geen discussie mogelijk op het moment, omdat de overheid zich continu bemoeit met de energiemarkt en middels het energieakkoord heeft vastgelegd hoeveel MW aan windmolens er moeten komen en welke kolencentrales dicht moeten. De term kernenergie en thorium komen in het hele energieakkoord niet voor, omdat dit niet past binnen het dogma van duurzame energie dat door alle andere partijen (m.u.v. de PVV) wordt gehanteerd. Q: Which role does the PVV fulfil in the discussion about nuclear energy and thorium energy, in comparison to other parties? A: There is no discussion possible at this moment, because the government is continually interfering with the energy market. Moreover through the energy-agreement (plan for power in 2023) it has decided exactly how many MW of windmills should be build and that the coal plants need to be shut down. The words nuclear energy and thorium do not exist in the energy-agreement, because this does not fit into the dogma of sustainable energy which is being used by all other parties (except the PVV). 6. Wie zijn uw medestanders (personen of organisaties) en tegenstanders op het gebied van kernenergie en Thorium? welke politieke partijen delen uw standpunt in Nederland, en hoe is dit in Europa? Op enkele kritische wetenschappers na zijn er weinig voorstanders van kernenergie of thorium. Partijen als VVD en CDA geven weliswaar aan open te staan voor kernenergie, maar door hun constante roep om meer duurzame energie zoals windturbines, zal een nieuwe kern- of


thorium centrale uit de markt gesubsidieerd worden. In Europa zijn helaas ook de tegenstanders van kernenergie oververtegenwoordigd. Q: Who are your supporters and opponents in the area of nuclear power and thorium? Which other political parties share your view in the Netherlands and how is this in Europe? A: Besides a few critical scientists, there are few supporters for nuclear power or thorium. Parties like the VVD and CDA indeed say they are open to nuclear power, but because of their constant cry for more sustainable energy, like wind turbines, a new nuclear power plant or thorium plant will need to be subsidised by the energy market. Unfortunately, in Europe the opponents of nuclear energy are also the vast majority. 7. Wordt er wel aandacht besteed aan technologie zoals LFTR in de tweede kamer en staat LFTR wel op de politieke agenda? Zo niet waarom worden Thorium reactor technologieën zoals LFTR niet omarmd door de politiek volgens u? Dit huidige kabinet wordt op energiegebied gesteund door alle partijen (m.u.v. de PVV), waarin louter wordt gefocussed op het behalen van de 14% duurzame energie doelstelling in 2020. Om daaraan te voldoen wordt ons land en onze zee volgebouwd met miljarden gesubsidieerde windmolens en worden er Canadese oerbossen bijgestookt in onze kolencentrales (biomassa). Nieuwe technieken zoals LFTR komen niet in aanmerking voor duurzaamheidssubsidies en maken daarom geen kans op deze markt waarin reeds een overschot is aan energie. Q: Does the house of representatives give attention to technology like LFTR, and is LFTR on the political agenda? If not, why are technologies like LFTR not being embraced by politicians? A: the current cabinet is being supported on their energy policy by all parties (except the PVV). The only thing they focus on is achieving 14% sustainable energy in 2020. To achieve this, our land and sea is being built full with subsidised windmills and Canadian primary forests are being used as biomass fuel in coal power plants. New technologies like LFTR are not considered for “sustainability subsidies” and therefore stand no chance to be developed in a market where there is a surplus of energy. 8. Zijn er partijen in Nederland die de ontwikkeling van LFTR tegen houden of stimuleren? Zo ja, wie zijn dit en wat zijn hierbij hun rollen en wat zijn hun beweegredenen? Alle partijen (m.u.v. de PVV) houden dit tegen, want het is in strijd met het duurzaamheidsmantra. Q: Are there any parties in The Netherlands that block the development of LFTR or that stimulate it? If yes, who are this and what are their roles and motivations? A: All parties (except the PVV) block this, because it is clashing with the sustainability criteria. 8.1. Zijn er partijen in de EU die de ontwikkeling van LFTR tegen houden of stimuleren? Zo ja, wie zijn dit en wat zijn hierbij hun rollen en wat zijn hun beweegredenen? Ook in Europa zijn helaas klimaatfanatici in de meerderheid. Q: Are there parties in the EU that encourage or block the development of LFTR. If yes, who are this and what are their roles and motivations?


A: Unfortunately, the climate fanatics are also in majority in Europe. 9. Moet de politiek een rol spelen in de ontwikkeling van technologie zoals LFTR. Zo ja, welke rol moet of kan zij spelen? Indien er marktpartijen of onderzoeksinstanties (zoals TU Delft) komen die hier iets mee willen doen, dan moet de overheid dat zeker niet tegen houden. Q: Should the government play a role in the development of technology like LFTR? If so, which role should she play? A: If private investors (the market) or research groups (like TU Delft) would come with a plan to do something with LFTR, then the government should definitely not stop this. 10. In hoeverre moet ontwikkeling van LFTR worden gestimuleerd of zelfs bekostigd door de (Nederlandse) overheid of de EU? Wij zijn als PVV tegen subsidiering/stimulering van welke energievorm dan ook. Q: To which degree should the development of LFTR be stimulated or subsidised by the (Dutch) government or the EU. A: The PVV is against subsidizing/stimulating any form of energy, whatsoever. 11. Zijn er barrières welke overwonnen zouden moeten worden om LFTR geaccepteerd te krijgen in de Nederlandse politiek? Wat zijn deze barrières? Ja, de vrijwel onneembare barrière dat kernenergie een veilig, schone en vooral betaalbare energievorm is. Q: Are there any barriers that need to be conquered before LFTR is accepted in Dutch politics, if so which barriers? A: Yes, the virtually impregnable barrier that nuclear energy is a safe, clean and affordable form of energy. 12.

Welke obstakels in de ontwikkeling van LFTR ziet u buiten de politiek?

De macht van milieuclubs is ontzettend groot en ook in de mainstream media en dagbladen wordt LFTR gezien als kernenergie en kernenergie gezien als iets slechts. Q: Outside of politics, which obstacles do you see in the development of LFTR? A: The power of environmental organisations is incredibly strong, also in the mainstream media and daily newspapers is LFTR seen as nuclear power, and nuclear power as something bad. 13.

Hoe ziet de toekomst van LFTR er uit in Europa onder de huidige omstandigheden?

LFTR heeft geen toekomst in Europa onder de huidige omstandigheden. Q: How does the future look for LFTR in Europe, under the current circumstances? A: LFTR does not have a future in Europe under the current circumstances.


Heeft u nog suggesties wie ik verder nog zou kunnen benaderen voor dit onderzoek? Alle energiewoordvoerders. Q: Do you have any suggestions who else I could contact for this research? A: all energy spokespersons Welke vraag had u verwacht, maar werd niet gesteld? N/A Heeft u nog andere opmerkingen of toevoegingen? N/A


Letter to the ministry of Economic Affairs; Board of Nuclear installations and safety / Ministerie EZ; Directie Nucleaire installaties en Veiligheid pdNIV). Interviewer: Jorrit Swaneveld Contact person: Ir. Gert-Jan Auwerda Interview method: E-mail correspondence with open questions Time: answers received in November 2014 Place: n/a Mag ik uw naam en de door u gegeven antwoorden gebruiken voor mijn onderzoek? Ja, maar als u citeert uit dit document dan wil ik daar expliciete toestemming over kunnen geven, voordat het openbaar wordt. Voor de duidelijkheid, mijn naam is ir. Gert Jan Auwerda, senior beleidsmedewerker bij pdNIV. Ik ben ook degene die namens pdNIV contact heeft gehad met uw voorganger, Lucas Pool. Q: Can i use your name and the answer provided by you in my research? A: Yes, but if you cite from this document then I would like to be able to give explicit permission before it is made public. Just to be clear my name is ir. Gert Jan Auwerda, senior policy employee at the PdNIV. I am also the one that had contact on behalf of the pdNIV with your predecessor, Lucas Pool. Researcher’s Disclaimer: Please note that Mr. Auwerda’s name should not be present outside this abstract. Auwerda has agreed with the abstract as is and also confirmed that indirect quotes, such as “The NIV states that....”, are acceptable. This research does quote the abstract in Appendix VIII. However none of the abstracts are intended for publishing. Moreover it is only fair to quote the abstract “as is“ thus avoiding misquotations. It is not the researcher’s fault that the NIV has given out the statements as presented in this abstract. Explicit permission per quote is neither feasible nor scientifically sound, censuring this thesis is not an intention nor is damaging the NIV. Note that the comments on the NIV in Appendix VIII have been made by the Anonymous Expert and not by the researcher.

Was u bekend met Thorium en LFTR voordat ik u benaderde? Ja, ik heb er zelf onderzoek naar gedaan. Q: Did you know about thorium and LFTR before I approached you? A: Yes, I did a research on it myself. Mag ik contact met u opnemen indien ik vragen heb over uw opgegeven antwoorden? Ja Q: May I contact you if I have further questions on the answers provided by you? A: Yes.


Specifieke vragen/Specific questions for EZ NIV: 1.

Zou u kunnen toelichten waar het NIV zich mee bezig houd?

De programmadirectie NIV heeft als missie: “bescherming van mens en milieu tegen de risico’s van straling, nu en in de toekomst”. Taken van de pdNIV zijn o.a. • Het zorg dragen voor actuele en toegesneden nucleaire veiligheid- en stralingsbeschermingsregelgeving. Dit vertaald zich in het maken en up-to-date houden van regelgeving voor nucleaire installaties en stralingsbescherming. Hierbij wordt actief bijgedragen aan en geleerd van internationale ontwikkelingen, waaronder inzichten van de EU en de IAEA (international atomic energy agency). • Het zorg dragen voor het verlenen van vergunningen op grond van de kernenergiewet voor nucleaire installaties en het gebruik van radioactieve stoffen. Hieronder vallen het beoordelen van vergunningaanvragen en het schrijven van de tekst van de beschikkingen voor de vergunningen, waarin met name aandacht wordt besteed aan veiligheid en stralingsbescherming, en waarbij vaak extra voorschriften aan de vergunning worden verbonden om de bescherming van mens en milieu te garanderen. • Het zorg dragen voor het beleid voor radioactief afval, ontmanteling van installaties en om te komen tot een eindberging. • Beleid en weten regelgeving voor de beveiliging van nucleaire installaties en radioactieve stoffen. Ook wordt pdNIV regelmatig door andere afdelingen van de overheid om technisch advies gevraagd met betrekking tot straling en nucleaire installaties, vanwege de bij pdNIV aanwezige inhoudelijke kennis. Q: Could you explain what the NIV does exactly? A: The programme direction NIV has the mission to: protect human and environment against the risks of radiation, now and in the future. Tasks of the NIV include: -Ensuring that radiation protection regulations are current and focused. This translates into creating and maintaining (up to date) laws regarding the legislation for nuclear installations and radiation protection. In doing this, the NIV actively contributes and learns from international developments, amongst these are insights from the EU and the IAEA (international atomic energy agency). -Responsible for the evaluation of permits based on the nuclear energy law on nuclear installations and the use of radioactive materials. Amongst these are the evaluation of permit requests and the writing of the text concerning the authorisation of the permits on its conditions. In the latter extra attention is given to safety and radiation protection, and often extra regulations/conditions are defined in the permit with regards to the protection of human and environmental protection. -Responsible for the policy on radioactive waste, decommissioning of installations and ensuring a final storage solution. -Policies, laws and regulations for the security of nuclear installations and radioactive materials.


The pdNIV is also regularly asked by other government departments to provide technical advice on radiation and nuclear installations because the pdNIV has the necessary knowledge. 2. Wat is de rol van het NIV als het gaat om de discussie en mogelijkheden rond LFTR/ Thorium? Onze rol in de discussie rond LFTR en Thorium is informeel en adviserend. Als wij daarom gevraagd worden, leveren wij informatie en advies met betrekking tot de technische haalbaarheid, veiligheid, stralingsbescherming, radioactief afval en vergunningverlening. 2b. Volgt uw afdeling de ontwikkelingen bijvoorbeeld nauwlettend of heeft u toegang tot een expert? Wij hebben enkele experts onder ons personeel die goed op de hoogte zijn van de technische aspecten van gesmolten-zout type reactoren. Gezien de zeer premature staat van deze technologie, en de onwaarschijnlijkheid van een vergunningaanvraag van een dergelijke reactor de komende jaren, volgen wij de ontwikkelingen op afstand. Q: What is the role of the NIV in the discussion and the possibilities surrounding LFTR/ Thorium? A: Our role in the discussion surrounding LFTR and Thorium is informal and informing. If we are asked, we deliver information and advice concerning the technical feasibility, safety, radiation protection, radioactive waste and granting of permits. Q: 2b: Does your department follow the developments closely or do you have access to an expert? A: We have several experts amongst our staff that know well about the technical aspects of the molten salt reactor types. Given the premature state of this technology, and the unlikelihood of a permit request for this type of reactor in the coming years, we follow the developments from a distance. 3. Wat is uw mening over de LFTR als een alternatieve vorm van kernenergie? Heeft de NIV hier kennis van en is de NIV hier actief mee bezig? NIV houd zich nadrukkelijk niet bezig met de wenselijkheid van kernenergie. Aangezien er op dit moment geen enkele indicatie is dat binnen een afzienbare termijn (binnen tien jaar) een serieuze vergunningaanvraag voor een LFTR zou worden ingediend, zijn wij niet actief met de LFTR mee bezig. Vanuit onze verantwoordelijkheid voor veiligheid en het zorg dragen voor een wettelijk kader, is onze mening over de LFTR dat deze techniek nu nog in de kinderschoenen staat, en dat er de komende jaren nog geen noodzaak is tot het ontwikkelen van meer gedetailleerde regelgeving voor gesmolten-zout type reactoren. Q: What is your opinion on the LFTR as an alternative form of nuclear power? Does the NIV have knowledge of this and is the NIV actively concerned with this? A: The NIV empathically does not concern itself with the desirability of nuclear power. The NIV is not actively concerned with LFTR, given that at this moment there is no indication that within a reasonable time (10 years) a serious request for a LFTR permit will be expected. From our own responsibility concerning safety and laws and regulations, our opinion of the LFTR is that this technology is still in its infancy.


4. Wie of welke afdeling besluit tot het geven van subsidies voor bijvoorbeeld research projecten naar LFTR? Waarom gebeurd dit niet op dit moment volgens u? Zoals eerder aangegeven, houd NIV zich niet bezig met subsidies. Verdelen van onderzoeksgelden gebeurt onder andere via de NWO, via het ministerie van EZ, en via het ministerie van OC&W. Binnen het ministerie van EZ zouden eventuele subsidies kunnen worden toegekend via de directie Energie en Duurzaamheid (ED) of via het Directoraat-generaal Bedrijfsleven en Innovatie (B&I). Q: Who or Which department decides on the granting of subsidies, for example for research projects towards LFTR? Why does this not happen at this moment according to you? A: As we have said before, the NIV is not concerned with subsidies. Dividing the research budgets happens by the NOW, the ministry of economic affairs and through the ministry OC&W. Within the ministry of EZ, subsidies can be granted through the direction energy and sustainability (ED) or through the director-general business and innovation (B&I). 5. Stel dat er nu (vandaag) een investeerder is die (bij wijze van spreken) morgen een LFTR test reactor zou willen bouwen in Nederland, is dit mogelijk? Waarom wel of niet? Wat moet er nog gebeuren voordat dit mogelijk is? De technische staat van de LFTR technologie is op dit moment veel te prematuur om dit mogelijk te maken. De vraag is dermate hypothetisch dat een inhoudelijk antwoord naar mijn mening hier niet op zijn plaats is. Q: Suppose today an investor would like to build a LFTR in The Netherlands, is this possible? Why is it or why not? What would have to happen before this is possible? A: The technical state of the LFTR technology is too premature to make this possible. The question is too hypothetic that we think a substantial answer is not suitable. 6. Heeft EZ voldoende kennis in huis om een vergunning voor LFTR te kunnen beoordelen aangezien het een “nieuwe” technologie is? Of zullen de eisen van andere kerncentrales gebruikt worden? Ik verwijs hier ook naar de antwoorden bij 2b en 5. Bij pdNIV is voldoende kennis in huis om een ‘intelligent customer’ te zijn voor TSO’s (technical support organisations). Het is niet efficiënt om continue een hele organisatie op de been te hebben die alle specialistische kennis in huis heeft om elke reactor tot in detail te beoordelen, zeker als het gaat om een reactortype dat in de kinderschoenen staat en waarover de overheid de eerstkomende jaren geen veiligheidsoordeel hoeft te geven. Deze detail kennis is echter wel aanwezig bij verschillende TSO’s, die vaak internationaal opereren. pdNIV heeft voldoende kennis in huis om te weten voor welke specifieke specialistische taken de TSO’s ingehuurd zouden moeten worden, en om vervolgens deze resultaten te beoordelen. Q: Does EZ have enough in-house knowledge to evaluate a LFTR permit, given that LFTR is a new technology? Or would the permit conditions of other Nuclear plants be used. A: Please also refer to answers 2b and 5. The pdNIV has enough knowledge to be considered an “intelligent customer” for TSO’s (Technical Support Organisations). It is not efficient to continually have an entire organisation with all specialist knowledge to be able to evaluate every and all reactor types, especially not reactors that are still considered infant technologies that do not have to


be considered by the government in the coming years regarding safety. However, this detailed technical knowledge is present in several TSO’s, that often operate internationally. PdNIV has enough knowledge to know for which specific specialist tasks it would require the support of a TSO through hiring, after which the results can be assessed. 7. Indien LFTR gebouwd wordt, waar worden de veiligheidseisen dan op gebaseerd? Of moeten deze nog helemaal ontwikkeld worden? Op welk moment zou EZ hier actief mee bezig moeten zijn, of is het dat al? De veiligheidseisen waaraan elke kernreactor moet voldoen zijn vastgelegd in doelvoorschriften in relevante wet en regelgeving zoals b.v. de kernenergiewet, het besluit stralingsbescherming en het besluit kerninstallaties, splijtstoffen en ertsen. Deze eisen zijn technologie-neutraal en dus ook toepasbaar op bijvoorbeeld een LFTR. Voor het bepalen van hiervan afgeleide meer specifieke eisen die wel direct samenhangen met de gekozen technologie is allereerst meer informatie nodig over de toegepaste technologie. Hier zou NIV dus pas aan kunnen beginnen als: A. In de nabije toekomst een serieus initiatief verwacht kan worden voor het starten van een vergunningaanvraag voor een LFTR. B.

Meer bekend is over de technische details van de installatie.

Op dit moment is geen van beide van toepassen, en zou het een verspilling van middelen zijn nu al preventief technologie-specifieke eisen te ontwikkelen voor een technologie die nog in de kinderschoenen staat en waarvoor binnen Nederland in de nabije toekomst nog geen toepassing is voorzien. Op het moment dat de technologie voor de LFTR ver genoeg ontwikkeld zou zijn om tot een serieuze aanvraag voor een vergunning te kunnen leiden, zouden dergelijke eisen reeds verouderd zijn en niet toepasbaar zijn op het daadwerkelijke ontwerp van de aanvraag. Q: In the event that LFTR is being build, what would the safety standards be based on? Or do these have to be entirely developed? At which moment wold EZ (NIV) be actively pursuing this, if not so already? A: The safety standards that each nuclear reactor will need to comply with are recorded in the target regulations of the relevant law or regulation, e.g. the nuclear energy law, the decisions radiation protection and the decision nuclear installations, fission materials and ores. These requirements are technology neutral and thus also applicable for LFTR. In deciding the related (more) specific demands that are directly connected with the chosen technology, one would require more information on the applicable technology. The NIV would only start doing this if: A. In the near future a serious initiative is expected for the start of a LFTR permit application. B.

More is known about the technical details of the installation.

At this moment both are not applicable, and it would be a waste of resources to be preventive in developing technology specific requirements for an infant technology that is not expected to be applied in The Netherlands somewhere in the near future. At the moment that the LFTR technology is developed enough to lead to a serious permit application, these specific requirements would already be outdated and no longer applicable to the real design of the application.


8. Is er in Europa duidelijkheid over waar een Molten Salt Reactor, zoals LFTR, aan moet voldoen om gebouwd te mogen worden? (bijv. veiligheidseisen). Of moeten deze nog ontwikkeld worden? De belangrijkste veiligheidseisen zijn in de vorm van doelvoorschriften (zie bijvoorbeeld IAEA safety fundamentals en safety standards, WENRA reference levels). Deze eisen zijn voor een groot deel technologie-neutraal. Ook de methodologie van veiligheids- en risicoanalyses is algemeen toepasbaar (deterministisch en probabilistisch). Daar waar deze eisen niet direct toepasbaar zouden zijn voor de LFTR, zouden deze eisen gebruikt kunnen worden om technologie-specifieke eisen af te leiden voor de LFTR, zoals door de IAEA wordt aanbevolen. Deze technologie-specifieke eisen kunnen echter pas concreet gemaakt worden als er een werkelijk ontwerp van een reactor is. De LFTR is op dit moment nog zo prematuur, dat hier geen technologie specifieke veiligheidseisen voor te ontwikkelen zijn. Q: Is there clarity in Europe about what a Molten Salt Reactor, such as LFTR, will need to meet (in terms of requirements) before it is allowed to be built? Or do these (still) have to be developed? A: The most important safety requirements are in the form of target regulations (look at the IAEA safety fundamentals and safety standards or WENRA reference levels). These requirements are for a large part technology neutral. Also the methodology and safety and risk analysis are generally applicable (deterministic and probabilistic). Where and in the event if the requirements are not directly applicable to LFTR, they could be used to determine technology specific requirements for the LFTR, for example like how the IAEA would recommend them. These technologically specific demands can only be made concrete if there is an actual design of a reactor. The LFTR is at this moment so premature that there are no technology specific demands nor is it possible to develop these yet.

Overige vragen/Other Questions: De volgende vragen worden gesteld aan alle geïnterviewde stakeholders, ik wil u daarom ook vragen uw mening te geven. The following questions are being asked to all interviewed stakeholders, therefore I would also like to ask you to share your opinion. 9. Wordt er wel aandacht besteed aan technologie zoals LFTR in de nationale politiek en staat LFTR wel op de politieke agenda? Zo niet waarom worden Thorium reactor technologieën zoals LFTR niet omarmd door de politiek volgens u? Ook hier geldt weer dat technologie zoals LFTR nog zo in de kinderschoenen staat dat het nog niet op de politieke agenda staat. Q: IS there attention for technologies such as LFTR in national politics and is it LFTR on the political agenda? If not, why are thorium reactor technologies like LFTR not embraced in politics according to you? A: Also here the argument that LFTR is still an infant technology counts, this cases that it is not on the political agenda. 10. Moet de overheid een rol spelen in de ontwikkeling van technologie zoals LFTR. Zo ja, welke rol moet of kan zij spelen? Hier hebben wij als NIV geen mening over.


Q: should the government play a role in the development of technology such as LFTR? If so, which role should it play? A: We have no opinion on this as NIV. 11. In hoeverre moet ontwikkeling van LFTR worden gestimuleerd of zelfs bekostigd door de (Nederlandse) overheid of de EU? De EU draagt al bij aan de ontwikkeling van deze technologie middels Europese onderzoeksprogramma’s (Euratom). Als NIV hebben wij hier geen mening over. Q: To what degree should development of LFTR be stimulated or subsidised by the (Dutch) government or the EU? A: The EU already contributes to the development of this technology through European research programmes (Euratom). The NIV has no opinion on this. 12. Zijn er barrières welke overwonnen zouden moeten worden om LFTR geaccepteerd te krijgen in de Nederlandse politiek? Wat zijn deze barrières? Dit is op dit moment niet aan de orde, aangezien de technologie voor de LFTR nog in zijn kinderschoenen staat. Q: Are there barriers that need to be overcome before LFTR is accepted in Dutch politics? What are these barriers? A: At the moment these are not up for discussion, given that LFTR technology is still at an early (infant) stage. 13.

Welke obstakels in de ontwikkeling van LFTR ziet u buiten de politiek?

De technologie staat nog in de kinderschoenen, en dan met name de chemie. Zie bijvoorbeeld het annual report 2013 van het generation 4 international forum (www.gen-4.org). Hierin wordt uitdrukkelijk gesteld dat “The mastering of MSR technically challenging technology will require concerted, long-term international R&D efforts”. Ook wordt aangegeven dat gesmolten zout type reactoren de minst volwassen technolgie is van alle verwachte generatie 4 reactor types. Een eerste prototype van een gesmolten zout-type reactor wordt niet voor 2035 verwacht. Bovendien is het ontwikkelen van een nieuwe technologie erg duur en het is maar de vraag of de LFTR ook economisch rendabel is om te bouwen en opereren, zelfs na initiële investeringen voor ontwikkeling. Q: What other obstacles to the development of LFTR do you see outside politics? A: The technology can be considered an infant technology, especially the chemistry. For example, look at the annual report 2013 of the generation 4 international forum (www. generation4.org) . In this it states: “The mastering of MSR technically challenging technology will require concerted, long-term international R&D efforts”. It is also stated that the molten salt type reactors are the least mature technology out of the expected generation 4 reactor types. The first prototype of a molten salt type reactor is not expected till 2035. Besides, developing a new technology is very expensive and it remains the questions whether the LFTR is economically viable (feasible) to build and operate, even after the initial investments for the development.


14.

Hoe ziet de toekomst van LFTR er uit in Europa onder de huidige omstandigheden?

Zoals hierboven geschetst bij de antwoorden op eerdere vragen, de ontwikkeling van de LFTR is nog te prematuur om hier een uitspraak over te kunnen doen. Q: How does the future of LFTR look like in Europe under the current conditions? A: As explained in the previous questions, LFTR is is a premature technology that is insufficiently developed to give a statement about this. Heeft u nog andere opmerkingen of toevoegingen? U geeft zelf al aan in uw inleiding dat al in de begin jaren 60 is aangetoond dat de techniek van een MSTR haalbaar is (MSRE project van Oak Ridge). Echter, in de 50 jaar daarna heeft dit nooit tot een nieuwe testreactor geleid. Stel jezelf eens de vraag waarom de ontwikkeling van deze technologie hierna grotendeels is gestagneerd, terwijl bijvoorbeeld snelle reactor (zowel lood als natrium gekoeld) en hoge temperatuur gasgekoelde reactor wel doorontwikkeld werden. De potentiele voordelen (op papier) van een LFTR zijn groot. Echter, er zijn ook enorme nadelen, zowel voor de veiligheid, als economische, als technologische. De grootste uitdagingen liggen in de chemie van het gesmolten zout. In de praktijk krijg je een kernreactor en ‘fuel reprocessing facility’ in één, aangezien het gesmolten zout een mix van alle bekende elementen gaat bevatten vanwege de aanwezige splijtingsproducten. De materialen van de pompen, leidingen, het reactorvat, en de warmtewisselaar moeten bestand zijn tegen dit mengsel van materialen. Problemen zijn bijvoorbeeld corrosie en afzetting, met name in de warmtewisselaar. Daarnaast betekend het feit dat de brandstof reeds gesmolten is dat je feitelijk enkele barrières om radioactieve stoffen ingesloten te houden kwijt bent, die in conventionele reactoren wel aanwezig zijn. Je hebt in de praktijk een zeer zwaar verontreinigd primair circuit, waardoor elke vorm van schade aan je primaire circuit (een lekkage, leidingbreuk, beschadiging in de warmtewisselaar) direct leid tot een zeer ernstige lozing. Bovendien maakt de aanwezigheid van de grote hoeveelheid radioactieve stoffen in het primaire circuit het onderhoud aan je primaire circuit extreem lastig en gevaarlijk. Op papier is de LFTR een prachtig ontwerp. In de praktijk zijn er nog vele onopgeloste vraagstukken. Q: Do you have any other remarks or additions? A: You have already stated in your introduction that in the early 60s it was proven that the MSTR technology is achievable (MSRE project of Oak Ridge). However, in the 50 years after, this never led to another test reactor. Ask yourself the question why the development of this technology has largely stagnated, while for example the fast reactor (both lead as sodium cooled) and high temperature gas cooled reactors were further developed. The potential advantages (on paper) of a LFTR are large. However, there are also significant disadvantages, both on safety, economically and technologically. The largest challenges are in the chemistry of the molten salt. Practically you receive a nuclear reactor and a fuel reprocessing facility in one, since the molten salt a mix is of all known elements due to the fission products. The material of the pumps, piping, the reactor vessel and the heat exchanger have to be a match for the mix of the materials. The problems are for example the corrosion and deposit of materials, especially on the heat exchanger. Besides, given that the fuel is already molten, this takes away some barriers that prevent radioactive materials to be contained. These are present in conventional reactors. Practically one would have a heavily polluted primary circuit, which means any form of damage of your primary circuit (e.g.


leaks, piping failures, damage to the heat exchanger) directly leads to a very serious discharge. Moreover, the presence of large amounts of radioactive materials in the primary circuit make maintenance to the circuit extremely difficult and dangerous. On paper the LFTR is a great design but practically there are many unresolved issues.


Barriers and Drivers to Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor Technology

Recommend Documents