RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

Tue, 20 May 2014 08:56:45 -0700 

 

 

From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

 

 

 

2014-05-20 8:28 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List 
<[email protected]>:

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)

 

Why does your article say that "Attempts to recover uranium 233 from its 
irradiated thorium fuel were described, however, as a “financial disaster.” " 
if it is that easy ?

 

Not my article – you would need to ask the author. I have read elsewhere – and 
it made sense to me – that because the U233 and the Thorium are different 
elements it is possible to separate them using chemical means as opposed to the 
very expensive (also in terms of energy expended) separation by gas centrifuge 
that is necessary for separating the U235 out from the U238.

Chris

 

Regards,

Quentin

 

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: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 10:25 PM
To: [email protected]
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.





 

-- 

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger 
Hauer)

-- 
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to