1

A New Energy Age for DoDUnlimited Power to Support DoD Missions

ThoriumThe Enabler

The Future Becomes Reality

Presented to 1st Thorium Energy Alliance Conference! The Future Thorium Energy Economy 20 October 2009

James R. Howe Vision Centric Inc. 256- 489-0869James.r.howe@visioncentricinc.com

2

Outline

• Background• Historic Service Programs Provide Foundation• Proposed Solution• DoD Energy requirements

-- DoD Distributed Power Requirement

-- DoD Remote Power Missions

-- DoD Logistics Issues: Electricity, Fuel, and Water

-- DoD Power Projection Missions• Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) Support to Service Missions

- Army/Marines

- Air Force

- Navy• Conclusions

3

Background• DoD energy needs are increasing as available fossil fuels increase in cost

and decrease in availability

• Hundreds of small nuclear reactors have been built, mostly for naval use and as neutron sources

• National Security requirement for independent power supply for DoD bases

– Multiple small reactors could either be distributed or clustered to solve energy demand

– Could be part of a Sandia National Laboratory micro grid concept

• Characteristics of smaller nuclear reactors:

– Greater simplicity of design

– Economy of mass production

– Reduce cost of site

– High level of passive/inherent safety

Congress is funding research: Advanced gas cooled designs Factory provided, assembled on-site

4

Background (Continued)

• Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, IL) has developed a liquid-lead-cooled, fast-spectrum, solid-core reactor concept.– Requires a minimum of maintenance and can operate 30 years w/o

refueling– Passive safety systems– Cooled by natural convection

• Office of the Secretary of the Army for Installations and Environment– Leverages Energy and Environment projects– Uses catalyst technology projects– Executed by Florida International University

• USAF is considering building a nuclear power reactor at one or more of its bases, to be privately owned and operated– Started by Kevin Billings, Assistant Secretary AF for energy, environment,

saftey and occupational health (MAR 08)• Senator Larry Craig (ID) sent letter to SAF asking if AF was interested• Senator Pete Domenici (NM) sent a similar letter

5

Three Branches—Three Reactor Programs

• Naval Reactor efforts began in the late 1940s with Rickover’s pursuit of a nuclear reactor for a submarines, culminating in the launch of the USS Nautilus in 1954.

• Pressurized water reactor technologies were chosen based on their compactness and relative simplicity.

• The Air Force also had a desire for a nuclear-powered aircraft that would serve as a long-range bomber.

• An aircraft reactor was far more challenging than a terrestrial reactor because of the importance of high-temperatures, light weight, and simplicity of operation.

• The Nuclear Aircraft Program led to revolutionary reactor designs, one of which was the liquid-fluoride reactor.

• The Army Reactor Program began in 1953 to enable nuclear power for remote sites—they chose PWR technology because the Navy did.

• Reactors for Ft. Belvoir, Ft. Greely, Camp Century, and other sites were built.

6

Army Nuclear Power ProgramThe Army Nuclear Power Program (ANPP) was a program of the United States

Army to develop small pressurized water and boiling water nuclear power reactors for use in remote sites.

Eight reactors were built in all: (Of the 8 built, 6 produced operationally useful power for an extended period)

• SM-1, 2 MWe. Fort Belvoir, VA, first criticality 1957 (several months before the Shippingport Reactor) and the first U.S. nuclear power plant to be connected to an electrical grid.

• SM-1A, 2 MWe, plus heating. Fort Greely, Alaska. First criticality 1962.• PM-2A, 2 MWe, plus heating. Camp Century, Greenland. First criticality 1961.• PM-1, 1.25 MWe, plus heating. Sundance, Wyoming. Owned by the Air Force, used to power a radar station. First

criticality 1962.• PM-3A, 1.75 MWe, plus heating. McMurdo Station, Antarctica. Owned by the Navy. First criticality 1962,

decommissioned 1972.• SL-1, BWR, 200kWe, plus heating. Idaho Reactor Testing Station. First criticality 1958. Site of the only fatal

accident at a US nuclear power reactor, on January 3 1961, which destroyed the reactor.• ML-1, first closed cycle gas turbine. Designed for 300 kW, but only achieved 140 kW. Operated for only a few

hundred hours of testing before being shut down in 1963.• MH-1A, 10 MWe, plus fresh water supply to the adjacent base. Mounted on the Sturgis, a barge converted from a

Liberty ship, and moored in the Panama Canal Zone. Installed 1968, removed on cessation of US zone ownership in 1975 (the last of the eight to permanently cease operation).

Key to the codes: First letter: S - stationary, M - mobile, P - portable.

Second letter: H - high power, M - medium power, L - low power.

Digit: Sequence number.

Third letter: A indicates field installation.

MA-IA Reactor

7

Reactors can be very small and powerful, such as the Nuclear Aircraft Concept

Convair B-36 X-6 Four nuclear-powered

turbojets 200 MW thermal reactor

Liquid-Fluoride Reactor

8

Navy Nuclear Power Program

11 Nuclear Powered Carriers 69 Nuclear powered Submarines

More than 5500 reactor years without accident

9

Proposed Solution

• Small liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) driving closed cycle gas turbine engines– Characteristics;

• Capacity: 10 – 100 MW• Modular construction, capable of transportation by air and ground

vehicles.• Reactor size: 3m diameter, 6m high.

– Potential Cooling Methods• Water cooled – desalinate with waste heat• Air cooled

– Elements of design• Strongly negative power coefficient and void coefficient • Simple internal fuel and blanket reprocessing• High-temperature heat exchangers• Hastelloy-N core vessel stable in fluoride salt• Closed-cycle gas turbine with ~50% conversion efficiency• Hydrogen/ammonia production and desalination capability

10

DoD Power – Remote and Naval Ships

Army AFMarineCorps

Navy

DoD Power – Remote and Naval Ships

• Kwajalein Test Range• Ft. Greely, AK• Global Power Projection

– Lily Pad Strategy• Global Air and Missile Defense

Sites• Major Overseas Bases: 36

• BMD Early Warning Radars• Major Overseas Bases: 17• Global Power Projection

– Lily Pad Strategy

• Major Overseas Bases: 6• Global Power Projection

– Lily Pad Strategy

• Major Overseas Bases: 16• Global Power Projection

– Sea Basing• Naval Ships

– Carriers: 11– SSBN: 18– SSN: 53– CG(N)-X: 19?– Other Major Surface

Combatants

DoD CONUS Bases

• Power for each major base/ critical installation independent of the US Power Grid

– USAF: 71– USA: 59– USN: 57– USMC: 15

Ambassador Woosley: DoD Needs Distributed Power – “Small is Beautiful” (1)

Defense Infrastructure at Risk to National Grid Vulnerabilities

Need Power for Remote Sites, Global Bases, and Support to Expeditionary Forces

1. National Security and Homeland Security Issue

U.S. Overseas Deployments•> 700 bases in > 130 countries•> 250,000 personnel•> 44,000 buildings

Major Bases•Army – 36•Navy – 16•Air Force – 17•Marines – 15•Intelligence community

Joint Remote Site Power Production• All services have remote sites that require dependable 24/7/365 operation

Energy is a Major Component of Power Projection Logistics

• How can we sustain forward deployed and power projection forces in the face of uncertain energy supplies and asymmetric threats?

Nuclear energy is a compact, cost-effective sustainable energy source• Combat Logistics – “Tooth to tail” ratio > 10-1 Extended (and vulnerable) supply lines Prohibitive transportation costs – Fuel costs $100-600/gallon Storage and distribution challenges – Large infrastructure costs No, or inadequate local sources Combat Losses -- Men and material -- Impact on Combat operations Fuel Consumption per soldier is rapidly increasing• 2004 20 gallons/day• 2040 80 gallons/day Battlefield supply volume• Bulk petroleum 40%• Water 50%

Energy is the Enabler of Military Operations Energy is the Enabler of Military Operations

Transportable Reactors could Provide Electricity, Fuel and Water

The Past• ML-1 Reactor-1965• 6 Containers required

The Future• LFTR -10-30 MW• Air Transportable•Emplace in 3-5 days??

DoD Power Projection Missions

Iraq Bases Afghanistan Bases

LFTR could produce Power, Potable Water, and Hydrogen/Ammonium fuel for vehicles

Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor

Liquid-Fluoride Thorium Reactor

Desalination to Potable WaterFacilities Heating

Deployed forces logistics could be greatly reduced-no water, fuel, generators

Thorium

Electrical Generation (50% efficiency)

Low-temp Waste Heat

Power Conversion

Power Conversion Electrical

loadElectrolytic H2Process HeatProcess Heat

Thermo-chemical H2

Hydrogen fuel cellAmmonia (NH3) Generation

Automotive Fuel Cell (very simple)

17

LFTR Can Power Advanced Army Weapon/Sensor Concepts

Global, real time communications

Advanced high energy lasers, electromagnetic guns, and sensors will enable highly cost-effective ballistic missile defense and space operations

Electromagnetic Guns

18

Illustrative Long Range Strike Capabilities Enabled by Thorium Reactor Power Source

Hypervelocity Impact Imparts High Energy

Hypervelocity Impact (M5+)

(1) Long-range Offensive Missiles cost ~ $500k to $3M+ and Defensive Interceptors cost $1-3M+

Game Changing Technology Across Conflict Spectrum

Cost – Cost – Cost: EMG Radically changes cost of waging war Offensive: $10-30 k/Rd and ~ $6 to launch 3000-6000 km Defensive: ~ $30 k/Interceptor

Greater Standoffs = Reduced Ship Vulnerability Volume and Precision Fires (< 3m CEP)

Multiple Objectives Time Critical Strike (6-15 min) All Weather Availability (24/7/365) Variety of Payloads

WH: Penetrators/KEPs – can destroy most targets of interest

Sensors: Air, Ground, Sea Scaleable Effects

Minimize Collateral Damage Deep Magazines (1000-3000+ rounds/gun) Non-explosive Round/No Gun Propellant

Simplified Logistics

LFTR can Power Advanced Air Force ConceptsRadars Long Endurance UAV’s

Overseas Bases Power Space Based Systems - Communications - Sensors

20

Thorium Reactors Can Be Cost-Effectively Used for All Navy Ships

Thorium Reactors are expected to be smaller, lighter, safer and less costlyThorium Reactors are expected to be smaller, lighter, safer and less costly

Frigates – 30Littoral Combat Ships - TBD

Aircraft Carriers - 12 Cruisers - 22 Destroyers – 53+

Amphibious Assault Ships - 11 SSBN – 14

SSGN – 4SSN - 53

21

Requirements to Construct Nuclear Powered Naval Ships

1) FY 2008 Defense Authorization Act• Section 1012 of the 2008 Defense Authorization Act (H.R.

4986/P.L. 110-181 of January 28, 2008Nuclear Power Systems for Major Combatant Naval Vessels – Requires that all new classes of submarines, aircraft carriers, cruisers, large escorts for carrier strike groups, expeditionary strike groups, and vessels comprising a sea base have integrated nuclear power systems, unless the Secretary of Defense submits a notification to Congress that the inclusion of an integrated nuclear power system in a given class of ship is not in the national interest.

2) Rapidly emerging need for high MW Electric Power ships for advanced weapons and sensors.

04/18/23 21

22

What Future Vessels Must Provide

“Four themes hardware producers need to accommodate

Systems must be capable of supporting the transformation mission

– LCS – shallow water; High speed– Advanced weapons and sensors

Reduced manning is vital– As personnel costs drive total cost, value of

reducing crew size achieves similar importance to acquisition system cost reduction

Logistics must be simplified– Common elements, reduced numbers of

models/series– De-salinated water and other products

Open Architecture is paramount– Allows rapid upgrade of systems to the latest

technologies– Allow for continuing competition of the best

ideas/capabilities”Donald C. Winter, Secretary of the Navy, remarks to Bear Sterns Defense and Aerospace

Conference, 31 May 2006, Ritz Carlton, Arlington, VA

LFTR successfully addresses each Scaleable to fit LCS and other ships Power for EM Guns/sensors Global range at flank speed Simplicity & safety reduces operations

manpower, increases flexibility which further reduces crew size

LFTR reduces ship fire and damage control crews

Reduced logistics- Cuts the single biggest supply line - fuel

Scales favorably All electric systems have reduced

maintenance & weapons have reduced logistics and storage requirements

Potentially fits into existing DDX vessel designs

All electric systems allow fast upgrades and retrofitting

04/18/23 22

23

Thorium Reactors Can Capitalize on Existing Engine Design/Technology, Significantly Reducing Engine Development Cost/Schedule

• Existing turbojet/turbofan engine technology can be adapted−Small cruise missile class to very large ship class−Dual mode is commonplace

− Technologies developed for early nuclear propulsion programs can be applied

Billions have been spent on optimizing jet engine technologies.

Available infrastructure is ready to optimize closed-cycle jet engine architecture

Key components:

Single crystal turbine blade manufacturing

Low-friction magnetic and mechanical bearings

Computational fluid codes to model engine dynamics

Aerogel insulation

04/18/23 23

24

Ex: Pressurized-water Naval Nuclear Propulsion System

SSBN: 55’SSN: 42’CGN: 37’

SSBN: 42’SSN: 33’CGN: 42’

04/18/23 24

25

LFTR Could Cost 30-50% Less Than Current Naval Reactors

No pressure vessel required Liquid fuel requires no expensive fuel fabrication and qualification Smaller power conversion system No steam generators required Factory built-modular construction Smaller containment vessel needed

Steam vs. fluids More simple operation

No operational control rods No re-fueling shut down

Smaller Crew Lasts for Ship Lifetime

•Preliminary LFTR design in work for a ship propulsion system•Neutronic codes for liquid fuels under development – Needed to design propulsion system•LFTR ship propulsion is expected to be smaller, lighter and cheaper than current nuclear propulsion systems•Utilizes closed-cycle gas turbines which can take advantage of existing gas turbine engine technology.

Recent Ship Propulsion Designs at NPGS have included thorium reactors

26

LFTR Supports Maritime Strategic Concept

Strategic Imperatives– Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime power– Deter major power war– Win our nation’s wars– Contribute to homeland defense in depth– Foster and sustain cooperative relations with more international partners– Prevent or contain local disruptions before they impact the global system

Expanded Core Capabilities– Forward Presence– Deterrence– Sea Control– Power Projection– Maritime Security– Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief

04/18/23 26

27

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors Significantly Enhance the Following Capabilities:

ShipHigher sustained speeds provides real-time response

– Transit– Operations in Theatre

No requirement to re-fuel– Transit– Operations in Theatre

Power– Advanced Radars (New Aegis radar requires ~ 30 MW power)– Electro-magnetic guns – Need GW power levels

- Self Defense- Strike 2020: 500+ km 2030: 3000+ km- Ballistic Missile Defense 2020: 500+ km 2030: 3000+ km

– Directed Energy Weapons– Other Sensors, e.g. Pulsed Sonars– High Power Microwave Weapons

High Power Density Propulsion– Frees weight/space for high value/high impact assets

Survivability– No exhaust stack – reduced IR/RCS signatures– No fuel supply line– Power self defense capabilities

04/18/23 27Fully Integrated Propulsion, Sensors, Weapons

28

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors Significantly Enhance the Following Capabilities (Cont.):

Force EnhancementReduced energy independence – no reliance on fuel tankers

– No need to provide protection to tankers, LOCs, or fuel suppliers

– No dependence on foreign oil– No reduced transit speed/time off station to re-fuel

Greater forward presenceResponse to crises/conflictsUn-paralleled flexibility moving between theatres

– Surge ability– On-station time

Superiority on the seaReduced cost/ship = more ships

04/18/23 28

29

Reduced Transit Times to Potential Conflict Zones

• ~ 20 kt speed• Need to re-fuel every 4-6 days• ~ 20 kt speed• Need to re-fuel every 4-6 days

E - Norfolk to Persian Gulf

(via Suez canal) ~ 8,300 nm

D - San Diego to Persian Gulf (via Singapore)

~ 11,300 nmB - Pearl Harbor to Persian Gulf (via Singapore)

~ 9500 nm

C - San Diego to Taiwan5933 nm

A - Pearl Harbor to Taiwan 4283 nm

04/18/23 29LFTR Powered Ships Could Maintain 35+ KT Speed – No Refueling

Transit time - hours

Route 20 KT* 35 KT+?

ABCDE

214475296565415

122271169322237

*Plus Re-fuel time

B & D

C

D

A

B

30

Illustrative Example of Thorium Reactor ProvidesWeapon Power Source for All Naval Ships

> 30 MW power needed

2020: > 500 km2030: > 3000 km?

Directed Energy Weapon Advanced Radars

Electromagnetic Guns

04/18/23 30

31

A 100 MW LFTR Can Provide the Power Needed for Electromagnetic Guns for Both Advanced Weapons and Sensors (1)

Figure 5. Power Requirements as a Function of Firing Rate.

EM Gun20 kg Launch package15 kg flight2.5 km/s at muzzle63 MJ Muzzle EnergyRange: ~ 500 km

Figure 2. Naval EM Gun System Architecture

(1) Data from “Integration of Electromagnetic Rail Gun into Future Electric Warships.”, A. Chaboka, et al.

32

04/18/23

Naval EM Guns With 3,000 - 6,000 km Range Can 24/7/365 Cover All Target Areas of Interest

Figure 9: The Return of the Battleship Era

3,000 Km

3,000 Km

Long Range naval forces are transformational, change how wars are fought, reduce resources required and conflict timeline.

Long Range naval forces are transformational, change how wars are fought, reduce resources required and conflict timeline.

6,000 Km

6,000 Km

3,000 Km

3,000 Km

6,000 Km6,000 Km

3,000 Km3,000 Km

32

Is this the future of naval forces?

Conclusions

• Liquid fluoride thorium reactors can provide a substantial proportion of future DoD energy requirements

Electricity

Fuel

Water

Major US Bases

Remote Sites Forward Deployed Forces

Power Projection Forces

Naval Ship Propulsion

Power New Weapon & Sensors