The LFTR, which I agree is a better system, is more stable because the slow neutron cycle means it runs at a lower energy and thus temperature. It is not a susceptible to meltdown. However, the fissile wastes are still a problem.
If thorium fission reactors become a normal part of our world, more than likely they will have "Made in China" embossed on them. They are working along these lines. The U --> Np --> Pu fast breeder operates with higher energy and the neutrons are higher energy or "fast." This was decided by Nixon in part because Pu-239 is useful in nuclear weapons because it does not spontaneously fission. The commercial nuclear power system is a sort of after-thought, LC On Friday, July 24, 2020 at 10:13:58 AM UTC-5 [email protected] wrote: > On Fri, Jul 24, 2020 at 2:51 AM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote: > > > https://planetofthehumans.com/ <https://planetofthehumans.com/> >> Largely correct, but omits the solution; thorium reactors. Check Wiki for >> the residuals; no gamma rays. AG >> > > *YES!* I've been a fan of Thorium reactors for years, in particular > Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) and I'm very impressed, I don't > believe nearly enough is being done in this area. Consider the advantages: > > *Thorium is much more common than Uranium, almost twice as common as Tin > in fact. And Thorium is easier to extract from its ore than Uranium. > > *A Thorium reactor burns up all the Thorium in it so at current usage that > element could supply our energy needs for many thousands, perhaps millions > of years; A conventional light water reactor only burns .7% of the Uranium > in it. > > * To burn the remaining 99.3% of Uranium you'd have to use a exotic fast > neutron breeder reactor, Thorium reactors use slow neutrons and so are > inherently more stable because you have much more time to react if > something goes wrong. Also breeders produce massive amounts of Plutonium > which is a bad thing if you're worried about people making bombs. > > *Thorium reactors produce an insignificant amount of Plutonium, they do > produce Uranium-233 and theoretically you could make a bomb out of that, > but it would be contaminated with Uranium-232 which is a powerful gamma ray > emitter which would make it suicidal to work with unless extraordinary > precautions were taken, and even then the unexploded bomb would be so > radioactive it would give away its location if you tried to hide it, and > the gamma rays would destroy its electronic firing circuits, and degrade > its chemical explosives. As far as I know a U-233 bomb was attempted only > twice, in 1955 the USA set off a Plutonium/U233 composite bomb, it was > expected to produce 33 kilotons but only managed 22; the only pure U-233 > bomb I know of was set off in 1998 by India, but it was a fizzle, a > complete flop, it produced a minuscule explosion of only equivalent to 200 > tons of TNT due to pre-detonation. For these reasons even after 75 years no > nation currently has U233 bombs in their arsenal because if you want to > kill people on a mass scale Uranium-235 and Plutonium-239 are far more > practical than Uranium-233. > > *A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much radioactive waste as a > conventional reactor, and the stuff it does make is not as nasty, after > about 5 years 87% of it would be safe and the remaining 13% in 300 years; a > conventional reactor would take 100,000 years. > > *A LFTR Thorium reactor has an inherent safety feature, the fuel is in > liquid form (Thorium dissolved in un-corrosive molten Fluoride salts) so if > for whatever reason things get too hot the liquid expands and so the fuel > gets less dense and the reaction slows down. > > *There is yet another fail safe device. At the bottom of the reactor is > something called a "freeze plug", fans blow on it to freeze it solid, if > things get too hot the plug melts and the liquid drains out into a holding > tank and the reaction stops; also, if all electronic controls die due to > a loss of electrical power the fans will stop the plug will melt and the > reaction will stop. > > *Thorium reactors work at much higher temperatures than conventional > reactors so you have better energy efficiency; in fact they are so hot the > waste heat could be used to desalinate sea water or generate hydrogen fuel > from water. > > * Although the liquid Fluoride salt is very hot it is not under pressure > so that makes the plumbing of the thing much easier, and even if you did > get a leak it would not be the utter disaster it would be in a conventional > reactor; that's also why the containment building in common light water > reactors need to be so much larger than the reactor itself and why the > walls of it needs to be so thick. With Thorium nothing is under pressure > and there is no danger of a disastrous phase change, like ultra hot > pressurized water turning into steam, so the super expensive containment > building can be made much more compact. > > John K Clark > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/71fca559-a659-4e19-ba13-f5c91ca892cdn%40googlegroups.com.
