Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Apr 24, 2018 11:40 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18
Author Message
PostPosted: May 20, 2010 2:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 19, 2006 11:01 am
Posts: 395
Location: Knoxville, TN
Please someone split the offtopic proliferation fantasies from the thread.

PS: The idea of using a radioactive and hot exotic fissile material for a warhead is just plain nuts. Wrap explosives around a red hot fissile core, hmmm ... There are six decades of experience with the usual fissile materials which do not have these drawbacks. This accumulated experience includes textbook methods how to make and isolate such materials, freely available blueprints for devices which are known to work, and the fact that even starving and isolated pathetic dictatorship of North Korea can pull it off this way. Going the exotic route would mean to reinvent and re-test all this, which would be expensive, time consuming, and prone to detection - in addition to the problems originating from the inherent radioactivity and heat issues.

Anyone who would chose the complicated troublesome exotic route would be setting himself for a failure, and everyone who gave it a serious thought understands that. I suggest we stop chasing unicorns here.

PPS: We are seriously missing DV82XL comments in this offtopic thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2010 3:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 01, 2010 11:33 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Berkeley, CA
More of the 'if it worked, people would be using it' fallacy? I could say the same thing about LFTR itself.

Proliferation is not a technical issue but if it were, selling LFTR as proliferation-proof would be incorrect. This hasn't been the first time I've discovered revisionist conspiracy theories derived from LFTR messaging floating around the interwebs. Folks within the community should keep an eye on their kool aid consumption also.

-Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2010 7:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 22, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 123
clumma wrote:
arcs_n_sparks wrote:
I'll agree with the first part of your statement: you are not a weapons expert. Having worked over three decades at one of the nuclear priesthood labs, you can be assured they are not selecting materials and designs to make their life hard.


Sorry, are you saying you know something about weapon design?

-Carl


Sorry my post was so cryptic to you, but the answer is yes. And this is my last response to all the bait you have tossed out in this thread.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2010 1:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1058
The opposition to nuclear waste is rooted in the unconscious and primal fear of death and the basic distrust in human nature as irrational, self destructive, and ingeniously perverse beyond any mortal limit.


Down deep in their brain, the public fear that some wild and diabolical nuclear priest can achieve almost any demonic level of atomic evil given the slightest means and materials. This superhuman godlike genius can fashion the end of human civilization out of just about anything let alone the seething and radioactive constituents of nuclear waste, a cocktail chock full of the ways and means to the ultimate nuclear disaster.


This primal fear is channeled to the governing elite via the political process who pander and explode such illogical passions to further their policy objectives.


Illustrative is Jimmy Carter’s self serving declassification and selective release of some partial results describing a nuclear bomb test utilizing degraded plutonium derived from Light Water Reactor wastes.



These fears being thus verified and amplified by the highest authority, it’s no wonder that we see in these later times irrational fear and distrust of all things nuclear running roughshod across the land.


The release of the flawed and ineffectual teapot test result is another example of how such selected information release affects us adversely today in the fear and mistrust that it fosters.


When faced by such pathology, when logic and reason have no impact, when blunt and honest argument is hopeless in its result, it is best to relent, to understand in tender sympathy and to move on.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2010 4:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 01, 2010 11:33 pm
Posts: 61
Location: Berkeley, CA
arcs_n_sparks wrote:
Sorry my post was so cryptic to you, but the answer is yes. And this is my last response to all the bait you have tossed out in this thread.


Your second and last, contributing a grand total of zero information. Good for you!

Sorry, third. You said earlier that TRISO fuel was invented for naval use. Which is wrong.

-Carl


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 20, 2010 11:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Apr 27, 2010 12:48 am
Posts: 34
ondrejch wrote:
Please someone split the offtopic proliferation fantasies from the thread.


I just messaged thradmin about this. Suggested he copy and paste it all to the thread: "Making the argument that LFTR is anti-proliferative."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 22, 2010 12:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1058
@clumma from your previous post on this thread as follows:

Quote:
.Meaningless without rates and quantities. Th230 is exceedingly rare in nature, owing to its 75Kyr half-life



In the case of thorium fuel, only the Th232 isotope is considered to be naturally present and assumed to be 100% abundant. However, it has been stated in the literature that the isotopic composition of thorium ores varies considerably, depending on the amount of associated uranium and its effect in producing an admixture of Th230 daughter. A survey by (Figgins and Kirby, 1966) indicated that the ionium content of thorium ores can vary from almost zero up to as much as 11.6%. This report is referred to on p. 87 in a book by (Stewart, 1985).

In theory, if an uranium ore has an extremely high U/Th atom ratio (on the order of 10,000) and is old enough (more than 350,000 years), the isotopic abundance of Th230 could be greater than 10% as mentioned by Professor Chih-An Huh (Huh, 1999). In view of the hard gamma radiation from the daughters of U232, it is necessary to prefer thorium ores with high Th230 content as anti-proliferative. If such highly contaminated Th232 is designated as a premium and required feedstock for the Lftr, a correspondingly high U232 contamination level above 11% in U233 is nominal for the Lftr.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 22, 2010 4:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Aug 21, 2008 12:57 pm
Posts: 1058
clumma wrote:
Axil wrote:
Reactors don’t make bombs, the type of fuel that they burn may or may not be used for bombs; it depends.


LFTR breeds fissile material. That's weapons-useful, period.

Quote:
The primary disincentive for weapons use involves OSHA issues due to personnel radiation exposure from U-232, which can be avoided by choosing weapons grade plutonium or HEU instead of U-232.


If you can handle it at a power plant you can handle it at a bomb factory.

-Carl




Carl:

See this Post.

.

_________________
The old Zenith slogan: The quality goes in before the name goes on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: May 23, 2010 8:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 22, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 123
Axil,

You need to recognize a troll and stop feeding it......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mar 26, 2014 9:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mar 22, 2014 2:34 pm
Posts: 73
Location: Germany
Today WHO confirmed 7 million deaths worldwide because of Smog. http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/25/health/who-air-pollution-deaths/
Even 47,000 deaths in germany ( i was shocked!).

I honestly dont know how important waste longevity is for the nuclear opposition. But i do know that Smog is a very good agrument to convince them for MSRs.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 265 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group