On 4/5/2015 11:09 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
Actually compared with the Uranium fuel cycle the Thorium fuel cycle is neutron poor, a LFTR produces enough neutrons to burn up 100% of the Thorium but there isn't a lot of wiggle room, however this is an advantage not a disadvantage. If somebody tried to secretly siphon off some of the U233 produced in a reactor to make a bomb the reactor would simply stop and it would be hard to keep that secret, also fewer neutrons means less damage to the equipment, you already don't have to worry about the most important maintenance problem that a conventional reactor has, cracks in the solid fuel rods caused by neutrons, because a LFTR has no solid fuel rods, it's fuel is a liquid and you can't crack a liquid.
The reason LFTRs have been touted as proliferation resistant is that the U233 is mixed with U232 which makes its use in a weapons almost impossible. But the proliferation problem for a LFTR is that Proactinium can be chemically remove from the cycle, which prevents the accumulation of U232. Then the U233 can be siphoned off and used. A 2GW LFTR is expected to produce about 60Kg of excess U233 per year; enough for 7 to 8 nuclear weapons. So the proliferation resistance is exaggerated.
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.
