In reply to Eric Walker's message of Mon, 18 Sep 2017 15:44:39 -0500:
>On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 3:12 PM, <mix...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>I don't think there is a lot to be gained from finding an additional means
>> bringing about fission. We already have a quite effective way of doing
>The things I like about the idea:
>- The process would not involve neutrons.
Fission of the actinides always produces some neutrons anyway.
>- There might be the potential for fission in stable (in contrast to
>radioactive) heavy isotopes, and so more fuel.
There is probably enough U & Th in the oceans to keep us going for millions
(billions?) of years. The Japanese have already developed an (expensive) method
of extracting the U, but not so expensive as to make it unfeasible.
>- Without knowing much about the feasibility of the process at this time,
>if it proved to be really effective, you might be able to fission medium
>mass isotopes, in contrast to heavy isotopes. The daughters would lie
>closer to the line of stability and hence be less radioactive or not
If it works, then you may not have to worry about radioactive daughters anyway.
Robin van Spaandonk