Re: [Vo]:Thorium

2022-07-18 Thread Axil Axil
NRA regulates fissionable content of fuel at 5% or less. All fuel is
buffered with U238 at 95% or more to prevent proliferation. The fissionable
content produces Pu239 from U238. U233 inclusion in the fuel as the
fissionable component makes the reprocessing of the used fuel very
dangerous because of its U232 content. U232, a strong alpha/gamma emitter
that makes used fuel deteriorate eventually into deadly airborne
nanoparticle dust.

U232 is the most deadly stuff used as a potential proliferation deterrent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-232

Some opinions about U232
https://www.quora.com/Nuclear-Weapons-How-dangerous-is-the-U-232-mixed-with-U-233-coming-out-of-a-Thorium-fuel-cycle-reactor

On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 7:39 PM Robin 
wrote:

> In reply to  MSF's message of Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:26:34 +:
> Hi,
> [snip]
> >I admit to being a thorium aficianado with a heavy prejudice toward the
> development of the thorium molten salt reactor. I have often wondered about
> its abandonment.
> >
> >So, from my point of view, I am quite pleased that Senator Tuberville
> wants to continue with thorium development.
> >
> >
> https://www.ans.org/news/article-4074/tubervilles-legislation-would-stop-destruction-of-thorium-stockpiles/
>
> ..so exactly how does one go about "destroying" a Thorium stockpile? By
> moving it from one stockpile to another??
>
> The whole concept is ridiculous on the face of it, which leads me to
> suspect that "freeing up space" is just an excuse
> to ensure that the Thorium never actually gets used to generate power.
>
> I see two possible reasons for this:
> 1) The coal lobby.
> 2) U233 can be used for bombs. However this doesn't make a lot of sense,
> because so can Plutonium, and both U233 &
> Plutonium can be used to generate power in nuclear reactors.
>
> I would say, if they want to get rid of U233, then they can give it to
> India. It will cut decades off their Thorium
> program. ;)
>
> BTW (quote):-
>
> **
> The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates that there “is enough thorium in the
> United States alone to power the country at
> its current energy level for over 1,000 years.” However, Tuberville points
> out that as the United States has been
> destroying its U-233 supplies (much of which is stored at Oak Ridge
> National Laboratory), China has begun constructing
> nuclear reactors powered by thorium and is also considering using it to
> power its aircraft carriers.
>
> In addition, given that the U.S. imports 79 percent of the uranium used in
> its nuclear power plants, Tuberville goes on
> to remark, “We don’t want to be using Russia’s uranium. . . . We don’t
> want to go to Russia to buy [thorium]. Just think
> about the national security for this.”
>
> **
> The second paragraph of this quote is at odds with the first. If the USA
> has a thousand years worth of Thorium, then why
> would they need to go to Russia to buy it? (The author of the quote
> probably misunderstood the Senator's intention. More
> likely IMO is that he meant that the US wouldn't want to have to go to
> Russia to buy U233, which the Russians would be
> making in breeder reactors.)
>
> BTW2, How has the US been "destroying it's U-233 supplies", but using them
> in reactors? I wouldn't call that destroying
> them, but rather simply using them for their intended purpose.
>
> BTW3 AFAIK, the US can import all the Uranium it wants from Australia.
>
> I suspect that "The sickness country" in northern Australia got it's name
> because people got radiation sickness from the
> Uranium deposits, after long exposure (i.e. living on top of it.)
> If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)
>
>


Re: [Vo]:Thorium

2022-07-18 Thread Robin
In reply to  MSF's message of Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:26:34 +:
Hi,
[snip]
>I admit to being a thorium aficianado with a heavy prejudice toward the 
>development of the thorium molten salt reactor. I have often wondered about 
>its abandonment.
>
>So, from my point of view, I am quite pleased that Senator Tuberville wants to 
>continue with thorium development.
>
>https://www.ans.org/news/article-4074/tubervilles-legislation-would-stop-destruction-of-thorium-stockpiles/

..so exactly how does one go about "destroying" a Thorium stockpile? By moving 
it from one stockpile to another??

The whole concept is ridiculous on the face of it, which leads me to suspect 
that "freeing up space" is just an excuse
to ensure that the Thorium never actually gets used to generate power.

I see two possible reasons for this:
1) The coal lobby.
2) U233 can be used for bombs. However this doesn't make a lot of sense, 
because so can Plutonium, and both U233 &
Plutonium can be used to generate power in nuclear reactors.

I would say, if they want to get rid of U233, then they can give it to India. 
It will cut decades off their Thorium
program. ;)

BTW (quote):-
**
The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates that there “is enough thorium in the 
United States alone to power the country at
its current energy level for over 1,000 years.” However, Tuberville points out 
that as the United States has been
destroying its U-233 supplies (much of which is stored at Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory), China has begun constructing
nuclear reactors powered by thorium and is also considering using it to power 
its aircraft carriers.

In addition, given that the U.S. imports 79 percent of the uranium used in its 
nuclear power plants, Tuberville goes on
to remark, “We don’t want to be using Russia’s uranium. . . . We don’t want to 
go to Russia to buy [thorium]. Just think
about the national security for this.”
**
The second paragraph of this quote is at odds with the first. If the USA has a 
thousand years worth of Thorium, then why
would they need to go to Russia to buy it? (The author of the quote probably 
misunderstood the Senator's intention. More
likely IMO is that he meant that the US wouldn't want to have to go to Russia 
to buy U233, which the Russians would be
making in breeder reactors.)

BTW2, How has the US been "destroying it's U-233 supplies", but using them in 
reactors? I wouldn't call that destroying
them, but rather simply using them for their intended purpose.

BTW3 AFAIK, the US can import all the Uranium it wants from Australia.

I suspect that "The sickness country" in northern Australia got it's name 
because people got radiation sickness from the
Uranium deposits, after long exposure (i.e. living on top of it.)
If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :)



Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-05-02 Thread mixent
In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Thu, 2 May 2019 17:36:47
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>With such a reactor, I would hope a scale-up in size with several prototype 
>reactors is in the card to demonstrate validation of the design concept.  

That would certainly be the prudent thing to do. Note that much of the initial
work has already been done in various places. Google "Aqueous Homogeneous
Reactor".

>Controlling the concentration of dissolved fuel—U-235 in the thorium breeder 
>reactor concept would be difficult to assure a reasonably steady power with 
>good reactivity control IMHO.

Possibly, though reprocessing is "designed in", and changes can be made in very
small increments to "test the waters". ;)
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-05-02 Thread Jed Rothwell
 wrote:

Some points.
>
> 1) The fuel is dissolved in the water, so initially there is no fuel in the
> reactor until water is added, then criticality is achieved at startup by
> pulling
> control rods somewhat once the water (and fuel) has been added.
> At this point, the negative temperature coefficient is already in effect.
> . . .


All in all, this sounds much better than a conventional uranium reactor.

I have heard that the people at BARC are enthusiastic about this kind of
reactor.


RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-05-02 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
With such a reactor, I would hope a scale-up in size with several prototype 
reactors is in the card to demonstrate validation of the design concept.  
Controlling the concentration of dissolved fuel—U-235 in the thorium breeder 
reactor concept would be difficult to assure a reasonably steady power with 
good reactivity control IMHO.



Bob Cook




From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2019 2:08:49 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Wed, 1 May 2019 02:47:34
+:
Hi Bob,

Some points.

1) The fuel is dissolved in the water, so initially there is no fuel in the
reactor until water is added, then criticality is achieved at startup by pulling
control rods somewhat once the water (and fuel) has been added.
At this point, the negative temperature coefficient is already in effect.

2) If all the water were to rapidly evaporate, and leave a solid salt
(impossible by the way), the reactor would long have shut down because only fast
neutrons with a too small fission cross section would remain (i.e. no
moderator).
If the water were all to leak out, then the fuel would go with it leaving an
empty reactor. Leakage should probably be caught in a flat tray with an area
large enough to ensure that only a thin layer could exist even with all the
water from the reactor in it. The large area thin layer would ensure that too
many neutrons would be lost to sustain a chain reaction in the pan. This is a
passive safety measure.
Furthermore anything leaking into the pan under normal use could be pumped back
into the reactor ensuring that it could keep running normally even with a leak.

3) Because fission products are constantly being removed during operation
(liquid fuel cycle), there would be few left to produce decay heat, so a
melt-down could not happen.

4) If all external systems fail at once, and there is no leak, then the water
boils off (pressure release valve) and the reactor shuts down (no moderator).

5) Another advantage of a liquid fuel reactor is that the total fuel load in the
reactor at any one time can be kept small, and fuel constantly added as
required. I.e. it doesn't need to have years worth of fuel in the reactor at all
times. This is another safety feature.

>Without water—lost in the steam production—the negative temperature coeff.  Is 
>diminished or lost completely.

...but while this is happening the reaction stops (loss of moderator).
>
>
>
>The rate at which reactivity is added to the reactor is important in startup 
>to avoid super criticality and an uncontrolled –run-away—reaction.  Any 
>positive temperature coeff.  resulting in an increase in fast neutron flux is 
>unacceptable and needs to be avoided.   Loss of liquid water would be a 
>problem if it happened fast and added reactivity and loss of the negative 
>temperature coeff.
>
>
>
>Bob Cook
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-05-01 Thread mixent
In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Wed, 1 May 2019 02:47:34
+:
Hi Bob,

Some points.

1) The fuel is dissolved in the water, so initially there is no fuel in the
reactor until water is added, then criticality is achieved at startup by pulling
control rods somewhat once the water (and fuel) has been added.
At this point, the negative temperature coefficient is already in effect.

2) If all the water were to rapidly evaporate, and leave a solid salt
(impossible by the way), the reactor would long have shut down because only fast
neutrons with a too small fission cross section would remain (i.e. no
moderator).
If the water were all to leak out, then the fuel would go with it leaving an
empty reactor. Leakage should probably be caught in a flat tray with an area
large enough to ensure that only a thin layer could exist even with all the
water from the reactor in it. The large area thin layer would ensure that too
many neutrons would be lost to sustain a chain reaction in the pan. This is a
passive safety measure.
Furthermore anything leaking into the pan under normal use could be pumped back
into the reactor ensuring that it could keep running normally even with a leak.

3) Because fission products are constantly being removed during operation
(liquid fuel cycle), there would be few left to produce decay heat, so a
melt-down could not happen.

4) If all external systems fail at once, and there is no leak, then the water
boils off (pressure release valve) and the reactor shuts down (no moderator). 

5) Another advantage of a liquid fuel reactor is that the total fuel load in the
reactor at any one time can be kept small, and fuel constantly added as
required. I.e. it doesn't need to have years worth of fuel in the reactor at all
times. This is another safety feature.

>Without water—lost in the steam production—the negative temperature coeff.  Is 
>diminished or lost completely.

...but while this is happening the reaction stops (loss of moderator).
>
>
>
>The rate at which reactivity is added to the reactor is important in startup 
>to avoid super criticality and an uncontrolled –run-away—reaction.  Any 
>positive temperature coeff.  resulting in an increase in fast neutron flux is 
>unacceptable and needs to be avoided.   Loss of liquid water would be a 
>problem if it happened fast and added reactivity and loss of the negative 
>temperature coeff.
>
>
>
>Bob Cook
[snip]
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-30 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
No.



I meant fast neutrons.  Without the water there will be only a spectrum of fast 
neutrons.  Add water and the reactor will go critical just as it would if rods 
were pulled.



FRC



Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10




From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:51:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 20:57:40
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>As suggested, steam would reduce the flux of thermalized neutrons in the 
>reactor and shut it down.  To maintain criticality, reactivity would need to 
>be added, probably by the movement of control rods to increase the flux of 
>fast neutrons upon which criticality depended.

Did you mean "...to increase the flux of [slow] neutrons"?

>Control systems, including the mechanical portion of the system for insertion 
>of negative reactivity—the control rods, need to be very fast to avoid super 
>critical conditions.

I think that would only be true is the feedback were positive, however negative
feedback is by definition self-regulating. IOW a power increase leads to more
boiling reducing the slow neutron flux and therefore slowing the reactor down
again. Inversely, a power decrease reduces the number & size of steam bubbles,
resulting in more moderation, and an increase in thermal neutron triggered
fission events and the power increases. IOW a boiling water reactor would be
self-regulating and tend to stabilize at a fixed power level. The actual level
at which it stabilized could be regulated by control rods, the degree of
insertion thereof determining the current stable power level. Of course the
maximum power level would be determined by the overall size of the reactor and
the concentration of fuel nuclei in the solution.

Radiolysis is a potential problem, though I think that can largely be overcome
by using recombiners. Note that bubbles created by radiolysis have the same
negative feedback characteristic that steam bubbles have.

> The design of fast control systems with high reliability is a problem IMHO 
> given the complex analysis associated with knowing the local variety of 
> materials at any given place.
>
>
>
>The “nice” thing  (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) about normal fission reactors is the 
>reliable knowledge of the location of the various isotopes in a dynamic 
>reactor with pressure, temperature and dimensional change occurring rapidly.
>
I think such variability "might" be reduced to acceptable levels by pumping the
working fluid through a many densely packed parallel tubes in the reactor core,
rather than having it is a single large container.

Individual tubes tend to minimize convection currents, especially if they run
horizontally. A rapid fluid flow also helps.

Control rods can be inserted between the tubes, and parallel with them.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-30 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Without water—lost in the steam production—the negative temperature coeff.  Is 
diminished or lost completely.



The rate at which reactivity is added to the reactor is important in startup to 
avoid super criticality and an uncontrolled –run-away—reaction.  Any positive 
temperature coeff.  resulting in an increase in fast neutron flux is 
unacceptable and needs to be avoided.   Loss of liquid water would be a problem 
if it happened fast and added reactivity and loss of the negative temperature 
coeff.



Bob Cook







































Bob Cook



Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows 10




From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 3:51:31 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 20:57:40
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>As suggested, steam would reduce the flux of thermalized neutrons in the 
>reactor and shut it down.  To maintain criticality, reactivity would need to 
>be added, probably by the movement of control rods to increase the flux of 
>fast neutrons upon which criticality depended.

Did you mean "...to increase the flux of [slow] neutrons"?

>Control systems, including the mechanical portion of the system for insertion 
>of negative reactivity—the control rods, need to be very fast to avoid super 
>critical conditions.

I think that would only be true is the feedback were positive, however negative
feedback is by definition self-regulating. IOW a power increase leads to more
boiling reducing the slow neutron flux and therefore slowing the reactor down
again. Inversely, a power decrease reduces the number & size of steam bubbles,
resulting in more moderation, and an increase in thermal neutron triggered
fission events and the power increases. IOW a boiling water reactor would be
self-regulating and tend to stabilize at a fixed power level. The actual level
at which it stabilized could be regulated by control rods, the degree of
insertion thereof determining the current stable power level. Of course the
maximum power level would be determined by the overall size of the reactor and
the concentration of fuel nuclei in the solution.

Radiolysis is a potential problem, though I think that can largely be overcome
by using recombiners. Note that bubbles created by radiolysis have the same
negative feedback characteristic that steam bubbles have.

> The design of fast control systems with high reliability is a problem IMHO 
> given the complex analysis associated with knowing the local variety of 
> materials at any given place.
>
>
>
>The “nice” thing  (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) about normal fission reactors is the 
>reliable knowledge of the location of the various isotopes in a dynamic 
>reactor with pressure, temperature and dimensional change occurring rapidly.
>
I think such variability "might" be reduced to acceptable levels by pumping the
working fluid through a many densely packed parallel tubes in the reactor core,
rather than having it is a single large container.

Individual tubes tend to minimize convection currents, especially if they run
horizontally. A rapid fluid flow also helps.

Control rods can be inserted between the tubes, and parallel with them.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-30 Thread mixent
In reply to  bobcook39...@hotmail.com's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 20:57:40
+:
Hi Bob,
[snip]
>As suggested, steam would reduce the flux of thermalized neutrons in the 
>reactor and shut it down.  To maintain criticality, reactivity would need to 
>be added, probably by the movement of control rods to increase the flux of 
>fast neutrons upon which criticality depended.  

Did you mean "...to increase the flux of [slow] neutrons"?

>Control systems, including the mechanical portion of the system for insertion 
>of negative reactivity—the control rods, need to be very fast to avoid super 
>critical conditions. 

I think that would only be true is the feedback were positive, however negative
feedback is by definition self-regulating. IOW a power increase leads to more
boiling reducing the slow neutron flux and therefore slowing the reactor down
again. Inversely, a power decrease reduces the number & size of steam bubbles,
resulting in more moderation, and an increase in thermal neutron triggered
fission events and the power increases. IOW a boiling water reactor would be
self-regulating and tend to stabilize at a fixed power level. The actual level
at which it stabilized could be regulated by control rods, the degree of
insertion thereof determining the current stable power level. Of course the
maximum power level would be determined by the overall size of the reactor and
the concentration of fuel nuclei in the solution.

Radiolysis is a potential problem, though I think that can largely be overcome
by using recombiners. Note that bubbles created by radiolysis have the same
negative feedback characteristic that steam bubbles have.

> The design of fast control systems with high reliability is a problem IMHO 
> given the complex analysis associated with knowing the local variety of 
> materials at any given place.
>
>
>
>The “nice” thing  (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) about normal fission reactors is the 
>reliable knowledge of the location of the various isotopes in a dynamic 
>reactor with pressure, temperature and dimensional change occurring rapidly.
>
I think such variability "might" be reduced to acceptable levels by pumping the
working fluid through a many densely packed parallel tubes in the reactor core,
rather than having it is a single large container.

Individual tubes tend to minimize convection currents, especially if they run
horizontally. A rapid fluid flow also helps.

Control rods can be inserted between the tubes, and parallel with them.

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-30 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
As suggested, steam would reduce the flux of thermalized neutrons in the 
reactor and shut it down.  To maintain criticality, reactivity would need to be 
added, probably by the movement of control rods to increase the flux of fast 
neutrons upon which criticality depended.  Control systems, including the 
mechanical portion of the system for insertion of negative reactivity—the 
control rods, need to be very fast to avoid super critical conditions.  The 
design of fast control systems with high reliability is a problem IMHO given 
the complex analysis associated with knowing the local variety of materials at 
any given place.



The “nice” thing  (RELATIVELY SPEAKING) about normal fission reactors is the 
reliable knowledge of the location of the various isotopes in a dynamic reactor 
with pressure, temperature and dimensional change occurring rapidly.



Bob Cook






From: mix...@bigpond.com 
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 12:34:22 PM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:42:54 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>On first glance, one obvious thermodynamic  problem is steam – in that every 
>fission fragment capable of knocking off a neutron is also able to boil off 
>several hundred million molecules of heavy water in the process of  
>thermalizing.

As you can see, from the second message I posted in this thread, this type of
reactor was in fact among the first reactors ever built. They do work.

Furthermore, I think steam production would probably be a negative feedback
mechanism which helps control the reactor. I.e. steam bubbles are less dense,
which reduces the amount of moderation available between nuclei, resulting in
faster neutrons with a lower fission cross-section. That means that steam
formation reduces the power generated and results in a self stabilizing reactor.

In fact they (google AHR), were known to be very easy to control, see the second
message I posted.
See also http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tilghman2/

There were corrosion problems when uranyl sulphate was used, but these were
largely overcome when they switched to uranyl nitrate in a stainless-steal
vessel. I suspect that corrosion could be further reduced by lining the metal
parts with teflon.

However what I was really wondering is whether or not fission fragments can
contribute significantly to the neutron efficiency by splitting D nuclei, in a
heavy water base? I'm guessing they do, because the AHR is known for a high
neutron flux, which would appear to make it a reasonable choice for a thorium
based breeder.

>
> Consequently maintaining a liquid state with uniformly  dissolved salt 
> becomes impossible even under high pressure.. A molten salt would be feasible 
> but not a dissolved salt in the liquid state.
>
>
>
>
>? Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html
>
>Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
>
>
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-30 Thread mixent
In reply to  JonesBeene's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 06:42:54 -0700:
Hi Jones,
[snip]
>Robin,
>
>On first glance, one obvious thermodynamic  problem is steam – in that every 
>fission fragment capable of knocking off a neutron is also able to boil off 
>several hundred million molecules of heavy water in the process of  
>thermalizing. 

As you can see, from the second message I posted in this thread, this type of
reactor was in fact among the first reactors ever built. They do work.

Furthermore, I think steam production would probably be a negative feedback
mechanism which helps control the reactor. I.e. steam bubbles are less dense,
which reduces the amount of moderation available between nuclei, resulting in
faster neutrons with a lower fission cross-section. That means that steam
formation reduces the power generated and results in a self stabilizing reactor.

In fact they (google AHR), were known to be very easy to control, see the second
message I posted.
See also http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/tilghman2/

There were corrosion problems when uranyl sulphate was used, but these were
largely overcome when they switched to uranyl nitrate in a stainless-steal
vessel. I suspect that corrosion could be further reduced by lining the metal
parts with teflon.

However what I was really wondering is whether or not fission fragments can
contribute significantly to the neutron efficiency by splitting D nuclei, in a
heavy water base? I'm guessing they do, because the AHR is known for a high
neutron flux, which would appear to make it a reasonable choice for a thorium
based breeder.

>
> Consequently maintaining a liquid state with uniformly  dissolved salt 
> becomes impossible even under high pressure.. A molten salt would be feasible 
> but not a dissolved salt in the liquid state.
>
>
>
>
>? Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html
>
>Regards, Robin van Spaandonk
>
>
Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-30 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Liquid salt is a bad idea for fissioin reactors IMHO.   When it cools it 
becomes a solid and needs some heating to bring it back to a liquid.  In 
general it does not afford good corrosion protection to reactor containment 
materials—like metal alloys---and is a difficult waste product to manage, 
assuming fission products remain associated/entrained.  Reactor maintenance is 
nearly impossible.It’s very costly compared to a reactor with  water as its 
coolant and neutron moderator.

Bob Cook

From: JonesBeene<mailto:jone...@pacbell.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2019 6:43 AM
To: vortex-l@eskimo.com<mailto:vortex-l@eskimo.com>
Subject: RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

Robin,

On first glance, one obvious thermodynamic  problem is steam – in that every 
fission fragment capable of knocking off a neutron is also able to boil off 
several hundred million molecules of heavy water in the process of  
thermalizing.

Consequently maintaining a liquid state with uniformly  dissolved salt becomes 
impossible even under high pressure.. A molten salt would be feasible but not a 
dissolved salt in the liquid state.





  *   Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html

Regards, Robin van Spaandonk






RE: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-30 Thread JonesBeene
Robin,

On first glance, one obvious thermodynamic  problem is steam – in that every 
fission fragment capable of knocking off a neutron is also able to boil off 
several hundred million molecules of heavy water in the process of  
thermalizing. 

 Consequently maintaining a liquid state with uniformly  dissolved salt becomes 
impossible even under high pressure.. A molten salt would be feasible but not a 
dissolved salt in the liquid state.




➢ Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html

Regards, Robin van Spaandonk





Re: [Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-30 Thread mixent
In reply to  mix...@bigpond.com's message of Tue, 30 Apr 2019 15:49:17 +1000:
Hi,
[snip]

See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueous_homogeneous_reactor

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



[Vo]:Thorium breeding now?

2019-04-29 Thread mixent
Hi,

Please see http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Thorium_breeder_in_solution.html

Regards,


Robin van Spaandonk

local asymmetry = temporary success



RE: [Vo]:Thorium-salt reactor starts up.

2019-03-13 Thread bobcook39...@hotmail.com
Axil suggests:

“ If they pull it off, it might just help usher in a safer future for nuclear 
power.”.

I  doubt it.

Bob Cook



From: Axil Axil 
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2019 6:17:11 PM
To: vortex-l
Subject: Re: [Vo]:Thorium-salt reactor starts up.

I order to get the thorium to burn, either U235 or Pu239 must be included in 
the fuel load. But to comply with Nuclear regulatory agency rules, only 5% or 
under U235/Pu239 concentration must be maintained. This means that almost 95% 
of the fuel load must be U238.  This fuel load generates mostly Pu239 with a 
small amount of U233 that comes from thorium breeding.

This makes Thorium a minor additive to a uranium breeder reactor. But molten 
salt is a good idea. The best application of the molten salt reactor is the 
pebble bed version designed by Dr. Per Peterson, IMHO. The salt keeps the 
radioactive dust from the pebbles under control.

https://kairospower.com/technology/


Now that LENR is working, this is all horse and buggy  tech.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:19 PM H LV 
mailto:hveeder...@gmail.com>> wrote:
https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608712/a-thorium-salt-reactor-has-fired-up-for-the-first-time-in-four-decades/?fbclid=IwAR2UXaco_FNvQq6WTJdBR60hc7IAhW-cmLK0Ivtgk0dg0uRe5XGck8OzphY

A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

The road to cleaner, meltdown-proof nuclear power has taken a big step forward. 
Researchers at NRG, a Dutch nuclear materials firm, have begun the first tests 
of nuclear fission using thorium salts since experiments ended at Oak Ridge 
National Laboratory in the early 1970s.

Thorium has several advantages over uranium, the fuel that powers most nuclear 
reactors in service today. First, it's much harder to weaponize. Second, as we 
pointed out last year in a long read on thorium-salt 
reactors<https://www.technologyreview.com/s/602051/fail-safe-nuclear-power/>, 
designs that call for using it in a liquid form are, essentially, 
self-regulating and fail-safe.

The team at NRG is testing several reactor 
designs<http://www.thoriumenergyworld.com/news/finally-worlds-first-tmsr-experiment-in-over-40-years-started>
 on a small scale at first. The first experiment is on a setup called a 
molten-salt fast reactor, which burns thorium salt and in theory should also be 
able to consume spent nuclear fuel from typical uranium fission reactions.

The tests come amid renewed global interest in thorium. While updated models of 
uranium-fueled power plants are struggling 
mightily<https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603647/meltdown-of-toshibas-nuclear-business-dooms-new-construction-in-the-us/>
 to get off the ground in the U.S., several startup companies are exploring 
molten-salt reactors. China, meanwhile, is charging ahead with big plans for 
its nuclear industry, including a heavy bet on thorium-based reactors. The 
country plans to have the first such power plants hooked up to the grid inside 
15 years. If they pull it off, it might just help usher in a safer future for 
nuclear power.


Re: [Vo]:Thorium-salt reactor starts up.

2019-03-12 Thread Axil Axil
I order to get the thorium to burn, either U235 or Pu239 must be included
in the fuel load. But to comply with Nuclear regulatory agency rules, only
5% or under U235/Pu239 concentration must be maintained. This means that
almost 95% of the fuel load must be U238.  This fuel load generates mostly
Pu239 with a small amount of U233 that comes from thorium breeding.

This makes Thorium a minor additive to a uranium breeder reactor. But
molten salt is a good idea. The best application of the molten salt reactor
is the pebble bed version designed by Dr. Per Peterson, IMHO. The salt
keeps the radioactive dust from the pebbles under control.

https://kairospower.com/technology/


Now that LENR is working, this is all horse and buggy  tech.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 8:19 PM H LV  wrote:

>
> https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608712/a-thorium-salt-reactor-has-fired-up-for-the-first-time-in-four-decades/?fbclid=IwAR2UXaco_FNvQq6WTJdBR60hc7IAhW-cmLK0Ivtgk0dg0uRe5XGck8OzphY
>
> A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades
>
> The road to cleaner, meltdown-proof nuclear power has taken a big step
> forward. Researchers at NRG, a Dutch nuclear materials firm, have begun the
> first tests of nuclear fission using thorium salts since experiments ended
> at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1970s.
>
> Thorium has several advantages over uranium, the fuel that powers most
> nuclear reactors in service today. First, it's much harder to weaponize.
> Second, as we pointed out last year in a long read on thorium-salt
> reactors
> ,
> designs that call for using it in a liquid form are, essentially,
> self-regulating and fail-safe.
>
> The team at NRG is testing several reactor designs
> 
>  on
> a small scale at first. The first experiment is on a setup called a
> molten-salt fast reactor, which burns thorium salt and in theory should
> also be able to consume spent nuclear fuel from typical uranium fission
> reactions.
>
> The tests come amid renewed global interest in thorium. While updated
> models of uranium-fueled power plants are struggling mightily
> 
>  to
> get off the ground in the U.S., several startup companies are exploring
> molten-salt reactors. China, meanwhile, is charging ahead with big plans
> for its nuclear industry, including a heavy bet on thorium-based reactors.
> The country plans to have the first such power plants hooked up to the grid
> inside 15 years. If they pull it off, it might just help usher in a safer
> future for nuclear power.
>


[Vo]:Thorium-salt reactor starts up.

2019-03-12 Thread H LV
https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/608712/a-thorium-salt-reactor-has-fired-up-for-the-first-time-in-four-decades/?fbclid=IwAR2UXaco_FNvQq6WTJdBR60hc7IAhW-cmLK0Ivtgk0dg0uRe5XGck8OzphY

A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

The road to cleaner, meltdown-proof nuclear power has taken a big step
forward. Researchers at NRG, a Dutch nuclear materials firm, have begun the
first tests of nuclear fission using thorium salts since experiments ended
at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the early 1970s.

Thorium has several advantages over uranium, the fuel that powers most
nuclear reactors in service today. First, it's much harder to weaponize.
Second, as we pointed out last year in a long read on thorium-salt reactors
,
designs that call for using it in a liquid form are, essentially,
self-regulating and fail-safe.

The team at NRG is testing several reactor designs

on
a small scale at first. The first experiment is on a setup called a
molten-salt fast reactor, which burns thorium salt and in theory should
also be able to consume spent nuclear fuel from typical uranium fission
reactions.

The tests come amid renewed global interest in thorium. While updated
models of uranium-fueled power plants are struggling mightily

to
get off the ground in the U.S., several startup companies are exploring
molten-salt reactors. China, meanwhile, is charging ahead with big plans
for its nuclear industry, including a heavy bet on thorium-based reactors.
The country plans to have the first such power plants hooked up to the grid
inside 15 years. If they pull it off, it might just help usher in a safer
future for nuclear power.


Re: [Vo]:Thorium Energy Alliance Conference (TEAC)

2015-01-23 Thread Terry Blanton
The made good tape decks too.

On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote:
 TEAC 7
 June 3rd and 4th, 2015
 Sheraton in Palo Alto, CA

 http://thoriumenergyalliance.com/index.html



Re: [Vo]:Thorium Energy Alliance Conference (TEAC)

2015-01-23 Thread ChemE Stewart
Still do!

http://www.teac-audio.eu/en/Cassette-Decks-84577.html

On Friday, January 23, 2015, Terry Blanton hohlr...@gmail.com wrote:

 The made good tape decks too.

 On Fri, Jan 23, 2015 at 8:51 AM, Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com
 javascript:; wrote:
  TEAC 7
  June 3rd and 4th, 2015
  Sheraton in Palo Alto, CA
 
  http://thoriumenergyalliance.com/index.html




[Vo]:Thorium Energy Alliance Conference (TEAC)

2015-01-23 Thread Jed Rothwell
TEAC 7
June 3rd and 4th, 2015
Sheraton in Palo Alto, CA

http://thoriumenergyalliance.com/index.html


[Vo]:Thorium Energy Alliance 6th Annual Conference

2014-05-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
May 29 - 30, 2014, Chicago, IL

See:

http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC6.html


Re: [Vo]:Thorium Energy Alliance 6th Annual Conference

2014-05-08 Thread Daniel Rocha
See what?


2014-05-08 22:45 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:

  [image: Boxbe] https://www.boxbe.com/overview This message is eligible
 for Automatic Cleanup! (jedrothw...@gmail.com) Add cleanup 
 rulehttps://www.boxbe.com/popup?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.boxbe.com%2Fcleanup%3Ftoken%3DBU6uq%252FE9j5557tYnjd5KM0Rhw28TXHPtZCpYMt7k%252BOsuLM4lAMyqlZXduq1dZjAx6GgN0EfrNhCMAeqXSUfN7cn%252BSjk8%252BRBv6a5W05G6LZJsihV4yhm7eqa9HH8%252Ff%252F4tTo0epII4g22oRFYofa7Bjw%253D%253D%26key%3DO7sNggLCM9XOmaojWPQjis1yz%252B9hdKSV3TvI0uQy47U%253Dtc_serial=17185917258tc_rand=818787216utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001|
  More
 infohttp://blog.boxbe.com/general/boxbe-automatic-cleanup?tc_serial=17185917258tc_rand=818787216utm_source=stfutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=ANNO_CLEANUP_ADDutm_content=001

 May 29 - 30, 2014, Chicago, IL

 See:

 http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC6.html




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com


Re: [Vo]:Thorium Energy Alliance 6th Annual Conference

2014-05-08 Thread Jed Rothwell
Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

See what?


I see that Gmail and Boxbe spam filter have collaborated to make your
messages go bonkers.

Gmail thought that message I just sent was spam.

See this:

http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC6.html

- Jed


Re: [Vo]:Thorium Energy Alliance 6th Annual Conference

2014-05-08 Thread Daniel Rocha
No, I saw that! :)

But I don't get the what I should look for in that site...


2014-05-08 23:12 GMT-03:00 Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com:

 Daniel Rocha danieldi...@gmail.com wrote:

 See what?


 I see that Gmail and Boxbe spam filter have collaborated to make your
 messages go bonkers.

 Gmail thought that message I just sent was spam.

 See this:

 http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/ThoriumSite/TEAC6.html

 - Jed




-- 
Daniel Rocha - RJ
danieldi...@gmail.com


[Vo]:Thorium being backed as a future fuel

2013-11-06 Thread Blaze Spinnaker
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24638816

Nuclear scientists are being urged by the former UN weapons inspector Hans
Blix to develop thorium as a new fuel.

Mr Blix says that the radioactive element may prove much safer in reactors
than uranium.


Re: [Vo]:Thorium being backed as a future fuel

2013-11-06 Thread Blaze Spinnaker
'If thorium ever makes it as a commercial nuclear fuel, uranium may be seen
as a massive and costly diversion. Some supporters of thorium believe that
it was bypassed in the past because governments wanted the plutonium from
certain conventional reactors to make atomic bombs.

They believe thorium was rejected because it was simply too safe.'

That rings true, given the mentality of the cold war.


On Wed, Nov 6, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Blaze Spinnaker blazespinna...@gmail.comwrote:

 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24638816

 Nuclear scientists are being urged by the former UN weapons inspector Hans
 Blix to develop thorium as a new fuel.

 Mr Blix says that the radioactive element may prove much safer in reactors
 than uranium.



[Vo]:Thorium

2011-02-08 Thread mixent
Hi Jones,

Here's a nice little clean (no radioisotopes) fission reaction for you, using H
clusters:-)


Th232 + 8H (cluster) = Ti50 + Os190 + 183.9 MeV

A fission reaction is essentially guaranteed given that for heavy metals such as
Th, U etc. it doesn't take much to cause them to fission. When you add a neutron
to U235, you are only adding 6.5 MeV which is apparently enough, yet when you
add 8 protons to Th232 you are adding 35.7 MeV, which should be more than
enough.
Regards,

Robin van Spaandonk

http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html