Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Oct 19, 2018 10:03 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 11, 2015 12:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Torres wrote:
It is time to negotiate and not the time for war. The whole world recognize it.
The Integral Molten Salt Reactor that will be available in 2020 can be a very attractive proposal to exchange for the Iran's heavy water reactor.


The IMSR will still require uranium enrichment capabilities comparable to an LWR and enrichment is the whole bone of contention with the Iranians. I don't see what geopolitical problem having an IMSR will solve.


Yes, it appears the problem that much of the world has with Iran is their seemingly obsessive-compulsive behavior to enrich uranium. They claim that this is all for peaceful purposes but they have plans to build centrifuges that can reach a capacity well beyond what their power reactors could consume in any reasonable time frame. The only conclusion a reasonable person could conclude is that they do not intend to use future enrichment capacity for peaceful purposes.

Enrichment of uranium requires some very expensive equipment and lots of energy. The reactors that consume enriched uranium can be built at a cost that does not make up for the expensive enrichment. We know this because we have years of experience with third generation reactors that will burn natural uranium.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 11, 2015 7:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
I'm listening to the radio today and I hear that Iran has said that they expect the sanctions against them to end as soon as they sign their agreement with the UN. At the same time the UN expects inspections to resume before they will lift sanctions. This tells me that the sanctions will remain. This also tells me that Iran will not export or down blend their HEU, will continue to enrich uranium, will double or triple their enrichment capacity as planned, and will continue their construction of new reactors.

The US has its own export sanctions to Iran, as I suspect every NATO nation does. Obama seems to believe that this agreement will allow him to lift US sanctions against Iran. Any treaty such as this one will have to go through the Senate. I suspect very few senators will agree to this as it would be political suicide. Those that might agree to this would be retiring or in "safe" states, states where they run essentially unopposed. I see a handful of Democrat senators will be retiring. McCain might go for something like this since he has such a history of "reaching across the aisle" and either plans to retire or expects to lose re-election. Even being generous on who would go for this gets Obama halfway on the number of votes he'd need.

Also, this would do nothing to effect other sanctions on Iran because of human rights violations, which is a separate matter. Stoning rape victims, hanging homosexuals from bridges, are just a couple examples of what Iran does to it's own citizens that lend me to believe that sanctions are called for.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 11, 2015 7:48 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 104
Kurt Sellner wrote:
Also, this would do nothing to effect other sanctions on Iran because of human rights violations, which is a separate matter. Stoning rape victims, hanging homosexuals from bridges, are just a couple examples of what Iran does to it's own citizens that lend me to believe that sanctions are called for.


Saudi Arabia is as bad as Iran when it comes to human rights violations. No sanctions for Saudi Arabia when it comes to human rights. Just billions of dollars of weaponry for Saudi Arabia. Never put sanctions on your allies. Just change teams because your Allies are now bombing the ones you endorsed.


Last edited by Wilson on Apr 12, 2015 9:16 am, edited 3 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 11, 2015 8:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 104
Cost to enrich 235U to 5% is cheap (.1 cent / kwhr) Especially when you make it yourself. Centrifuges are not rocket science.
http://thoriumenergyalliance.com/downlo ... 0TEAC5.pdf slide 15


Last edited by Wilson on Apr 11, 2015 9:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 11, 2015 9:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 104
On July 31 2006, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1696[2] and imposed sanctions after Iran refused to suspend its uranium enrichment program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanctions_against_Iran

Iran did not have centrifuges until Feb 2007. Iran did not start enriching until June 2007
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/p ... -Final.pdf

Sanctions were imposed on Iran for refusing to suspend its uranium enrichment even though Iran did NOT have any centrifuges or enriched LEU 235U in 2006. Sanctions was never about stockpiling 235U in 2006. It was about, not allowing Iran to enrich 235U for their power plant.

It took 9 years for Iran to show the world that it has the right to enrich 235U. In the past 9 years,Iran has never went over the limit in enrichment to what other countries are allowed to enrich. (19.9%)

To my knowledge, their is no limit of how much LEU 235U countries can stock pile if they have signed NPT.

Iran should be allowed to get more then 3 years out of their nuclear power plant. It cost them 10 billion dollars and took 36 years to build.

How about the world give equal rights to Iran. The world is demanding Iran to do so. Lets lead by example.


Last edited by Wilson on Apr 12, 2015 9:38 am, edited 4 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 12, 2015 12:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 104
Kurt Sellner wrote:
This also tells me that Iran will not export or down blend their HEU


Iran dos not have any HEU.
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/p ... -Final.pdf

HEU is above 19.9%


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 12, 2015 5:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
Wilson wrote:
Iran dos not have any HEU.


At least that is what they tell us.

My comment on Iran's human rights sanctions was intended to be just an aside since I expected someone to point out that all sanctions would not be lifted, or were not lifted, as part of the nuclear enrichment negotiations. If you want to talk about it, then I'll talk about it.

Saudi Arabia's human rights violations does not excuse Iran's. Saudi Arabia should have equivalent sanctions. Complaining that Iran is not getting fair treatment sounds like a complaint from a toddler. Life isn't fair.

Centrifuges are not rocket science, neither is building a reactor that burns natural uranium. I've said this before and I'll say it again, any nation that builds new centrifuges in 2015 is doing so to develop weapons. A nation that keeps existing centrifuges operating can be excused as that is a sunk cost in building them and, as you point out, operating them is a minimal expense. Building more centrifuges is inexcusable as that is money spent to support fist and second generation reactors when plans for third and fourth generation reactors are readily available, much safer, have a reduced or no application to generate weapon grade material, and have lower operating cost.

You ask that we treat Iran with respect when they do not treat their own citizens with respect. Why should we expect Iran to treat it's citizens with respect AFTER we lift sanctions against them? What leverage would we have any more? You tell me that Iran allows women to attend men's sporting events now, do you expect me to do a little dance in celebration? At this rate maybe women will get the right to vote in three hundred years.

The people that run Iran are insane. I don't mean run of the mill criminally insane because they think that tossing homosexuals out of high rise windows to their deaths is acceptable. I mean these people are bark at the moon insane, mad as a hatter, that were they not living in a nation that just fell out of the stone age these people would be placed in padded rooms. These people need to be removed from power, or walled in like North Korea, or we are going to see pictures from orbit of the fires they light like Saddam Hussein did when he invaded Kuwait.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 12, 2015 5:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
and if they built an NU fueled reactor - they would be accused of building reactors to make plutonium for weapons.

Additionally - the French are still building centrifuge capacity at Tricastin - I assume its entirely for weapons purposes?
As to non-enrichment requiring "fourth generation reactors"..... how many of these magical reactors are shovel ready today?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 12, 2015 7:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 104
At Kurt Seller
Give a little science to your post next time rather then spin speculation.

Kurt Sellner wrote:
At least that is what they tell us.

At what % of enrichment do you say Iran has enriched to. If you believe they have HEU, where is it. You can detect a stockpile of uranium from space. If Iran was hiding any uranium the United States would know it. Your just spinning speculation.

Kurt Sellner wrote:
Complaining that Iran is not getting fair treatment sounds like a complaint from a toddler

I guess 95% of Iranians are a bunch of toddlers.

Kurt Sellner wrote:
any nation that builds new centrifuges in 2015 is doing so to develop weapons.

I will mention that to David since he needs to enrich for his IMSR.


.
Kurt Sellner wrote:
You ask that we treat Iran with respect when they do not treat their own citizens with respect. Why should we expect Iran to treat it's citizens with respect AFTER we lift sanctions against them?

Who said they would treat their citizens different.

Kurt Sellner wrote:
At this rate maybe women will get the right to vote in three hundred years.
Please do your research before you post
50 years ago, in 1963, Iranian women secured the right to vote
http://en.qantara.de/content/50-years-w ... -vote-iran
It was during the First World War that some women in Canada were finally allowed to vote and in 1919 all women over 21 had the right to vote in a federal election.
http://www.canadahistoryproject.ca/1914 ... -vote.html
Looks like Canada is 49 years ahead of Iran when it comes to women's voting rights. That's amazing.
Another way to look at makes Iran look better then Canada. It took 58 years for Canada to give women's voting right where as it took Iran only 28 years to give women's
voting right. I will let you do the research to figure out the simple math.

Your last paragraph was just a rant, so I'm not going to go there.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 12, 2015 8:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 104
E Ireland wrote:
and if they built an NU fueled reactor - they would be accused of building reactors to make plutonium for weapons.


Yes, they would be, even though a lot of people say you can't make weapons grade plutonium from a NU power plant.

Its debatable
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor-grade_plutonium

Has anyone ever done it. Here is a hint.
No information, available in the public domain, suggests that any well funded entity has ever achieved, or seriously pursued creating, a nuclear weapon with the same isotopic composition of modern, high burn up, reactor grade plutonium All nuclear weapon states have taken the more conventional path to nuclear weapons by either uranium enrichment or producing low burn up, "fuel-grade" and weapons-grade plutonium, in reactors capable of operating as production reactors. While the isotopic content of reactor-grade plutonium, created by the most common commercial power reactor design, the pressurized water reactor, never directly being considered for weapons use.

As of April 2012, there were thirty-one countries that have civil nuclear power plants,[10] of which nine have nuclear weapons, and almost every nuclear weapons state began producing weapons first instead of commercial nuclear power plants. Moreover, the re-purposing of civilian nuclear industries for military purposes would be a breach of the Non-proliferation treaty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactor-grade_plutonium

Looks like no one has ever done it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 12, 2015 9:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
E Ireland wrote:
and if they built an NU fueled reactor - they would be accused of building reactors to make plutonium for weapons.


That's what happens when it is government policy to scrub Israel from the earth. I just got done listening to LtCol Oliver North explain on a podcast how Iran does not expect to survive their next war. They see Israel and the USA as evil states and heaven awaits them if they commit nationwide suicide if they can destroy us. While construction of NU fueled reactors alone would not put the world at ease it is essentially required for them to do so. Dismantling all nuclear reactors is another option.

E Ireland wrote:
Additionally - the French are still building centrifuge capacity at Tricastin - I assume its entirely for weapons purposes?


The French have said that the enrichment is to produce enriched uranium for export, it appears the primary customer is South Korea. They are a nation known to possess nuclear weapons so expanding their enrichment capability is not considered a proliferation risk. While I see the French using these centrifuges only for power production there is no doubt that using these to produce weapons is possible.

E Ireland wrote:
As to non-enrichment requiring "fourth generation reactors"..... how many of these magical reactors are shovel ready today?


Canada has 20+ reactors that burn natural uranium, India has 12+, South Korea has four. Some of these third generation reactors went online in the 1980s, perhaps earlier. Fourth generation reactors have been in operation since the 1990s. Depending on how one defines "fourth generation reactors" one could claim we've seen operating reactors for 25 years or as long as 50 years.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 12, 2015 10:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
Wilson wrote:
At what % of enrichment do you say Iran has enriched to. If you believe they have HEU, where is it. You can detect a stockpile of uranium from space. If Iran was hiding any uranium the United States would know it. Your just spinning speculation.


It is impossible to tell from orbit if a site contains 100kg of 90% HEU, 600kg of 15% LEU, 1800kg of 5% LEU, or 13000kg of NU. It would be trivial to hide HEU among LEU stockpiles to avoid detection.

Iran has admitted to have had weapon grade uranium in the past but claims to have down blended it in the 1970s. Traces of weapon grade uranium was found on Iranian equipment during an inspection in 2007, Iran claimed it was contamination from improper cleaning of imported equipment. The inspectors seemed to believe them but I don't.

It is impossible to tell how much HEU Iran has now but even President Obama has admitted that Iran would be days away from weapons grade uranium if they chose to do so.

Wilson wrote:
I guess 95% of Iranians are a bunch of toddlers.


Not ALL Iranians, just those in power.

Wilson wrote:
Kurt Sellner wrote:
any nation that builds new centrifuges in 2015 is doing so to develop weapons.

I will mention that to David since he needs to enrich for his IMSR.


That would be relevant, as Mr. Sorensen pointed out, if Iran were to consider building an IMSR.

Wilson wrote:
Kurt Sellner wrote:
You ask that we treat Iran with respect when they do not treat their own citizens with respect. Why should we expect Iran to treat it's citizens with respect AFTER we lift sanctions against them?

Who said they would treat their citizens different.


I didn't. I don't expect Iran to join the 21st century any time soon. I don't expect them to join the 18th century soon either.

Wilson wrote:
Kurt Sellner wrote:
At this rate maybe women will get the right to vote in three hundred years.
Please do your research before you post
50 years ago, in 1963, Iranian women secured the right to vote
http://en.qantara.de/content/50-years-w ... -vote-iran
It was during the First World War that some women in Canada were finally allowed to vote and in 1919 all women over 21 had the right to vote in a federal election.
http://www.canadahistoryproject.ca/1914 ... -vote.html
Looks like Canada is 49 years ahead of Iran when it comes to women's voting rights. That's amazing.
Another way to look at makes Iran look better then Canada. It took 58 years for Canada to give women's voting right where as it took Iran only 28 years to give women's
voting right. I will let you do the research to figure out the simple math.


While researching this I found reports of women being intimidated to stay home from elections, being beaten for voting or voting "incorrectly", and being jailed for voting. I will admit that I did not do my homework on the change in law on women's right to vote in Iran, I also maintain that the right of women to vote exists only on paper.

Wilson wrote:
Your last paragraph was just a rant, so I'm not going to go there.


That's fine. I didn't expect you to. I just went there to show that these people are not reasonable, they cannot be reasoned with. They cannot be expected to live up to any treaty they sign. These people should be treated as the barking raving insane people they are.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 13, 2015 1:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Sep 02, 2009 10:24 am
Posts: 511
Kurt Sellner wrote:
It is impossible to tell from orbit if a site contains 100kg of 90% HEU, 600kg of 15% LEU, 1800kg of 5% LEU, or 13000kg of NU. It would be trivial to hide HEU among LEU stockpiles to avoid detection.


Can you detect Uranium from space? Especially if it's housed under a few metres of rock and inside a lead/boron lined chamber.

I notice a tendency to associate US spy satellites with incredible capabilities. For example, some people seem to believe that America must have satellite film of the Malaysian Airlines plane being shot down over Ukraine. Too many Hollywood movies.


Last edited by alexterrell on Apr 13, 2015 7:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 13, 2015 5:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1553
Kurt Sellner wrote:
That's what happens when it is government policy to scrub Israel from the earth. I just got done listening to LtCol Oliver North explain on a podcast how Iran does not expect to survive their next war. They see Israel and the USA as evil states and heaven awaits them if they commit nationwide suicide if they can destroy us. While construction of NU fueled reactors alone would not put the world at ease it is essentially required for them to do so. Dismantling all nuclear reactors is another option.

I honestly doubt that that is actually what the Iranian Government wants to happen.
Things it has to say to appease religious hardliners are very different from what it actually wants.
Kurt Sellner wrote:
The French have said that the enrichment is to produce enriched uranium for export, it appears the primary customer is South Korea. They are a nation known to possess nuclear weapons so expanding their enrichment capability is not considered a proliferation risk. While I see the French using these centrifuges only for power production there is no doubt that using these to produce weapons is possible.

The largest customer for the Tricastin plant is EDF - it must be, considering that they have just shut down the original Tricastin gaseous diffusion plant. If it wasn't they would not run out of enriched uranium for their enormous reactor park rather rapidly.

Kurt Sellner wrote:
Canada has 20+ reactors that burn natural uranium, India has 12+, South Korea has four. Some of these third generation reactors went online in the 1980s, perhaps earlier. Fourth generation reactors have been in operation since the 1990s. Depending on how one defines "fourth generation reactors" one could claim we've seen operating reactors for 25 years or as long as 50 years.

CANDU (even CANDU 6) is a Gen II design, same as later Magnox reactors or the RBMK.
EC6 might be a Gen III design, but there isn't one in existence.
There is no NU fueled Gen III design that I am aware of, and reactors commonly referred to as Gen IV are things like PRISM or one of the MSR proposals that is still years from being ready to commence construction.
Also the UK still has an NU fueled reactor, Wylfa 1 - operates until December.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 13, 2015 4:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 575
Location: Iowa, USA
alexterrell wrote:
Kurt Sellner wrote:
It is impossible to tell from orbit if a site contains 100kg of 90% HEU, 600kg of 15% LEU, 1800kg of 5% LEU, or 13000kg of NU. It would be trivial to hide HEU among LEU stockpiles to avoid detection.


Can you detect Uranium from space? Especially if it's housed under a few metres of rock and inside a lead/boron lined chamber.

I notice a tendency to associate US spy satellites with incredible capabilities. For example, some people seem to believe that America must have satellite film of the Malaysian Airlines plane being shot down over Ukraine. Too many Hollywood movies.


Here's what we know:
- US DOD operates satellites capable of detecting nuclear weapon detonations. MILSTAR, a constellation of communication satellites, and NAVSTAR, a constellation of GPS navigation satellites, both have this capability.
- Government and civilian satellites have been used to locate mineral resources on earth, including uranium, using a variety of techniques.
- There is at least a theoretical basis of detecting neutrinos from radioactive decay deep within Earth, use of multiple detection stations to triangulate material should be trivial.
- Those same NAVSTAR and MILSTAR satellites provide crazy accurate location data.

From that one might conclude that the US government is capable of tracking each and every nuclear weapons core on the planet. But that would be wrong.

Clarifying the above in order:
- These systems detect only detonations, not a weapon capable of detonation.
- The resolution of these ore finding satellites is not fine enough to locate a single weapon core. What can it find? I can't say.
- Detecting the location of radioactive material by neutrino emission requires a device much too large to put into orbit. The resolution they have is also very limited. What can they find? As it appears no one has used these devices to attempt locating radioactive material I'd say they can't locate anything.
- Even with crazy accurate location data it is useless without also having the means to detect the material. Assuming that there was sufficient location data from other sources could the NAVSTAR GPS lead one to the location of a single weapon core? I can't say.

Knowing what I know I can say with confidence that it would be trivial to hide weapon grade nuclear material from space based systems up until the point that the weapon is detonated. Given enough time in the same place a weapon core may be discovered because of space based observation. If one were to wrap a core made of HEU with a casing made of DU then by my estimation it would look like natural uranium ore up until the point where the observer was within arms length.

_________________
Disclaimer: I am an engineer but not a nuclear engineer, mechanical engineer, chemical engineer, or industrial engineer. My education included electrical, computer, and software engineering.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 113 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

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