A New Energy Age for DoD

Unlimited Power to Support DoD Missions

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

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

Thorium
The Enabler

The Future
Becomes Reality 1

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
2

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
3

Background (Continued)
Argonne National Laboratory (Argonne, IL) has developed a liquidlead-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

Three BranchesThree Reactor Programs

Naval Reactor efforts began in the late 1940s with Rickovers

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 sitesthey chose PWR
technology because the Navy did.
Reactors for Ft. Belvoir, Ft. Greely,
Camp Century, and other sites were
built.

Army Nuclear Power Program

The 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).

MA-IA Reactor

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.

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

Navy Nuclear Power Program

11 Nuclear Powered Carriers

69 Nuclear powered Submarines

More than 5500 reactor years without accident

8

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
9

DoD Power Remote and Naval Ships

DoD Power Remote
and Naval Ships

Army

Marine
Corps

AF

Kwajalein Test Range

BMD Early Warning Radars
Ft. Greely, AK
Major Overseas Bases: 17
Global Power Projection
Global Power Projection
Lily Pad Strategy
Lily Pad Strategy
Global Air and Missile Defense
Sites
Major Overseas Bases: 36

Major Overseas Bases: 6

Global Power Projection
Lily Pad Strategy

DoD CONUS
Bases

Navy
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

Power for each major base/ critical

installation independent of the US
Power Grid
USAF: 71
USA: 59
USN: 57
USMC: 15

10

Ambassador Woosley: DoD Needs Distributed

Power Small is Beautiful (1)
Defense Infrastructure at Risk to
National Grid Vulnerabilities

Major Bases
Army 36
Navy 16
Air Force 17
Marines 15
Intelligence community
1. National Security and Homeland Security Issue

Need Power for Remote Sites, Global Bases,

and Support to Expeditionary Forces

U.S. Overseas Deployments

> 700 bases in > 130 countries
> 250,000 personnel
> 44,000 buildings

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

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
Thorium

LiquidFluoride
Thorium
Reactor

Power
Conversion
Process Heat

Low-temp Waste
Heat
Electrical
Generation (50%
efficiency)

Desalination to
Potable Water
Facilities
Heating
Electrical load
Electrolytic
H2

Thermo-chemical H2

Hydrogen fuel cell

Ammonia (NH3) Generation

Automotive Fuel Cell

(very simple)

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

LFTR Can Power Advanced Army

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

Global, real time communications

Electromagnetic Guns

17

Illustrative Long Range Strike Capabilities

Enabled by Thorium Reactor Power Source
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
Hypervelocity Impact Imparts
can destroy most targets of interest
High Energy
Sensors: Air, Ground, Sea
Scaleable Effects
Minimize Collateral Damage
Deep Magazines (1000-3000+ rounds/gun)
Non-explosive Round/No Gun Propellant
Simplified Logistics

Hypervelocity Impact
(M5+)

Game Changing Technology Across Conflict Spectrum

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

18

LFTR can Power Advanced Air Force Concepts

Radars

Overseas Bases

Long Endurance UAVs

Power Space Based Systems

- Communications
- Sensors

Thorium Reactors Can Be Cost-Effectively

Used for All Navy Ships

Aircraft Carriers - 12

Frigates 30
Littoral Combat Ships - TBD

Cruisers - 22

Amphibious Assault
Ships - 11

Destroyers 53+

SSBN 14
SSGN 4
SSN - 53

Thorium Reactors are expected to be smaller, lighter, safer and less costly 20

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, 2008
Nuclear 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.

11/19/2014

21
21

What Future Vessels Must Provide

Four themes hardware producers need to
accommodate
Systems must be capable of supporting the
transformation mission

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

LCS shallow water; High speed

Advanced weapons and sensors

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

11/19/2014

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
22
22

Thorium Reactors Can Capitalize on Existing Engine Design/Technology,

Significantly Reducing Engine Development Cost/Schedule

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

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

Computational fluid codes

to model engine dynamics
Aerogel insulation

11/19/2014

23
23

Ex: Pressurized-water Naval Nuclear Propulsion System

SSBN: 42
SSN: 33
CGN: 42

SSBN: 55
SSN: 42
CGN: 37
11/19/2014

24
24

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

More simple operation

Steam vs. fluids

No operational control rods
No re-fueling shut down

Smaller Crew
Lasts for Ship Lifetime
Recent Ship Propulsion Designs at NPGS have included thorium reactors
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
25
technology.

LFTR Supports Maritime Strategic Concept

Strategic Imperatives
Limit regional conflict with forward deployed, decisive maritime power
Deter major power war
Win our nations 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

11/19/2014

26
26

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors Significantly Enhance

the Following Capabilities:
Ship
Higher 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
11/19/2014

Fully Integrated Propulsion, Sensors, Weapons

27
27

Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors Significantly Enhance

the Following Capabilities (Cont.):
Force Enhancement
Reduced 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 presence
Response to crises/conflicts
Un-paralleled flexibility moving between theatres
Surge ability
On-station time
Superiority on the sea
Reduced cost/ship = more ships
11/19/2014

28
28

Reduced Transit Times to Potential Conflict Zones

A - Pearl Harbor
to Taiwan
4283 nm

E - Norfolk to
Persian Gulf
(via Suez canal)
~ 8,300 nm

C - San Diego
to Taiwan
5933 nm

D - San Diego
to Persian Gulf
B
(via Singapore)
D
~ 11,300 nm
B - Pearl Harbor
to Persian Gulf
(via Singapore)
~ 9500 nm

B&D

Transit time - hours

~ 20 kt speed
Need to re-fuel every 4-6 days
11/19/2014

Route

20 KT*

35 KT+?

A
B
C
D
E

214
475
296
565
415

122
271
169
322
237

*Plus Re-fuel time

LFTR Powered Ships Could Maintain 35+ KT Speed No Refueling

29
29

Illustrative Example of Thorium Reactor Provides

Weapon Power Source for All Naval Ships

Directed Energy Weapon

Advanced Radars

> 30 MW power needed

Electromagnetic Guns
11/19/2014

2020: > 500 km

2030: > 3000 km?

30
30

A 100 MW LFTR Can Provide the Power Needed for Electromagnetic

Guns for Both Advanced Weapons and Sensors (1)
Figure 2. Naval EM Gun System Architecture

Figure 5. Power Requirements as a

Function of Firing Rate.

EM Gun
20 kg Launch package
15 kg flight
2.5 km/s at muzzle
63 MJ Muzzle Energy
Range: ~ 500 km

(1) Data from Integration of

Electromagnetic Rail Gun into
Future Electric Warships., A.
Chaboka, et al.

31

Is this the future of naval forces?

The
Return
the
Battleship
Era Cover
Naval Figure
EM Guns9:
With
3,000
- 6,000ofkm
Range
Can 24/7/365
All Target Areas of Interest
3,000 Km

6,000 Km

6,000 Km

3,000 Km
3,000 Km

6,000 Km
3,000 Km

3,000 Km
3,000 Km

6,000 Km

Long
LongRange
Rangenaval
navalforces
forcesare
aretransformational,
transformational,change
changehow
howwars
wars
are
arefought,
fought,reduce
reduceresources
resourcesrequired
requiredand
andconflict
conflicttimeline.
timeline.
32
32

Conclusions
Liquid fluoride thorium reactors can provide a substantial proportion of
future DoD energy requirements
Major US Bases
Electricity

Remote Sites

Fuel

Forward Deployed Forces

Water

Power Projection Forces

Naval Ship Propulsion
Power New Weapon & Sensors