What about the waste tails he alludes to. I had not known that they had actually constructed and tested U233 bombs - had always thought it was a hypothetical problem rather than an actual and supposedly - according to this article - a tested device. His point also that U233 does not need an implosion makes it a technically much simpler conventional bomb to build; no need for precisely timed shaped charges etc.
These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a proliferation of U233 (which can be relatively easily be chemically separated out from the thorium fluoride salt mix and purified into U233 metal) Furthermore based on the track records of the US, the former USSR, and the other declared and undeclared nuclear powers I am not nearly as sanguine as some about the actual outcomes for the long term sequestration of both the medium term and long term waste products. It is a real and valid concern that any proponent of such a system needs to be able to have a story for that is not based upon hypotheticals and fuzzy math (and dumping the problem onto the commons). Can it be shown that LFTR facilities could be largely self-contained well secured units, including within their compounds all the necessary re-processing support facilities etc. Can an LFTR system burn through the vast majority of the by-products until transmuted into stable end chain element isotopes. Thorium itself is pretty easy to come by and is not especially dangerous - chemically. Seems about like most heavy metals and so could pretty easily be mined, refined and transported. No issues with it until it becomes mixed in with U233. LFTR does seem to present a pretty safe operational design, from those I have seen, LFTR reactors can have simple passive failsafe designs that can make the reactor go into cold shutdown if something goes terribly wrong. All the operators could abandon their post and walk away and it would still fail safely. As simple as having a lower melting point plug on the reactor vessel bottom that will fail allowing the hot molten thorium/U233/flouride salt to flow out into a dispersed catchment chamber designed to hold it until it cools. I support looking into it; into a program to build a full scale pilot system - hopefully a self-enclosed loop system that slowly breeds its way through the feedstock. I have even dreamed of it in a science fiction context as the power source for distant outposts too far out for solar power; just saying I am even somewhat of an LFTR fan J But on the other hand to pretend that these criticisms are not valid is not going to make them go away. U233 is bomb grade stuff (admittedly very hard to handle, but dictators, criminal syndicates and fanatics care little about human life. The loss of a few CFUs or cannon fodder units to purify or transport the material is a loss I am certain they are willing to pay.) Though it is deadly to handle (for the handlers at least) it is also technically far easier to purify out from the thorium fluoride salt mix in which it is contained and once purified to a metal, much less difficult to turn into an effective device than the prevailing enriched uranium or plutonium devices. That qualifies as a pretty serious problem to me. Again not trying to be argumentative or start a flame war. As I said I am interested in LFTR, more so than most people are. My suggestion would be to go for a template of large scale sprawling self-contained facilities, with multiple passive failsafe design LFTR reactors coupled with the re-processing and other necessary support and short term waste sequestration facilities. Keeping the number of facilities that would need to be kept secured relatively small in number. A highly redundant and carefully audited accounting of all U233 throughout the chain should be maintained so that these stocks are safeguarded and the U233 never leaves these facilities. That would be my first proposal right off the bat. How do you think the issues raised can be addressed? Or if you feel these are not valid issues then could you explain your reasoning for feeling this way. Chris From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:25 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars <grin> this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 A mishmash of criticism most of which have to do with administrative and poltical mistakes or which apply to thorium power ideas quite different from the liquid salt design demonstrated at Oak Ridge. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
