On Mon, Feb 8, 2010 at 3:34 PM, Owen Densmore <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2010, at 1:15 PM, Douglas Roberts wrote: > > The term "breakthrough" is a bit of an overstatement, since Thorium > reactors have been around since the 50's. When I worked at the Westinghouse > Naval Reactors Faclility at INEL in the early 80's we took receipt of a > Thorium reactor core that had been operated for a few years as a test by the > Duquesne Power company. NRF cut it up and tested to see if it actually did > breed (it did). > > The real reason for the current emergent interest in Thorium cycle reactors > is cost. Thorium is more abundant than Uranium, more efficient as a breeder > fuel, and supposedly generates less waste. > > Check out what our friends at Wikipedia have to say: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor > > --Doug > > > So should this be the solution to the proliferation of nuclear bombs? I.e. > these reactors are not only are sensible, they also do not produce material > easily used for making a bomb? > > -- Owen > Fortunately, I'm not a bomb-maker, so I have no idea. --Doug
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
