2014-05-20 17:55 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < [email protected]>:
> > > > > *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 – > I know that you're not the author of the article and that wasn't implied in the "your 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 > Well, I've always read that it was very difficult to separate it from the thorium salt used in the reactor. I found this: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/nuclear/is-the-superfuel-thorium-riskier-than-we-thought-14821644 but is this preparation of the thorium fuel the way it would be used in a thorium reactor ? If yes, then sure it's bad... but it would be worse to have an energy crisis. Quentin > 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. > -- 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.
