Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently Apr 24, 2018 11:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 13, 2015 7:21 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
E Ireland wrote:
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.


No one really knows what they believe in their hearts. If they say they want to kill us all even if it means their own death then I'm inclined to believe them. Sounds like Saudi Arabia believes them, they have purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan. As they have not yet taken delivery of them they are still, technically, honoring the NPT. If Iran does abide by the NPT then Saudi Arabia will not either.

E Ireland wrote:
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.


There is no bright line defining reactor generations. I've seen Gen III defined as such:
- Bigger than Gen II (which brings into question on what defines Gen II)
- Mass produced and/or standardized
- Some measure of passive safety systems
- Some definitions include measures to deter weapon production

What is Gen II then? I've seen:
- Bigger than Gen I, smaller than Gen III
- Used to produce power but may also be used to produce plutonium
- Few or no passive safeties
- One off designs, each a custom build

Gen I? Something like:
- Little to no power production
- Primarily used for research or weapon production
- Only active safety systems

CANDU reactors were built four at a time, produced 500MW to 1GW, have passive safety systems, and have little to no use for plutonium production. RBMK were larger (capable of 1GW+ of electricity production), were built to be dual use (power and plutonium production), no passive safety systems, and each one was largely unique. Magnox reactors were quite small (20 to 500MW electric), primarily used for plutonium production, the safety of these reactors relied in the low power density and gas cooling (convection of atmosphere alone would prevent meltdown).

I'd say that CANDU family reactors are early third generation, RBMK are second generation (as each one was quite unique this maybe even overly broad), and Magnox either late first generation or early second generation.

Point is that if Iran wanted to it could spend the money it is now using to build centrifuges to build third generation reactors that would:
- Produce 1GW+ electricity
- Be fueled by natural uranium
- Have "walk away" safety
- Be from plans that have already been highly scrutinized by some of the best and most experienced nuclear engineers in the world

Why won't they do this? Simple really. They want bombs.

_________________
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 10:31 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1506
The only British Magnox reactors that were ever operated primarily for plutonium production were the twelve 50MWe units built in the first phase of the programme, six at Calder Hall and the other six at Capenhurst. These facilities being notable as the only "commercial" British nuclear power stations to be ever be equipped with cooling towers.
The others, which were by far the majority of the programme megawattage, were operated purely for electricity generation as operating with the very low burnups required for weapons grade plutonium production was considered uneconomic, even with on load refueling (which has been a feature of every major British reactor design, something close to it was even implemented on the SGHWR).
Most of the weapons grade plutonium produced by the Capenhurst and Calder Hall reactors was sold to the Americans in return for HEU - the Treasury coming to the conclusion that HEU weapons were far cheaper than Plutonium ones. (An important feature of the British Governmental system is that the Treasury has enormous power over everything).


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 15, 2015 11:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
Candu Energy's Advanced Fuel CANDU® Reactor (AFCRTM) is capable of efficiently using recycled uranium- (RU) and thorium-based fuels. It is the only generation III reactor design that can do so, that is available now
The AFCR is designed to use advanced fuel cycles: derivatives of recycled uranium (DRU) and low-enriched uranium/thorium (LEU/Th) fuels

http://www.neimagazine.com/features/fea ... s-4432140/


Last edited by Wilson on Apr 17, 2015 1:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 15, 2015 11:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
But the ACR-1000 of 1080-1200 MWe (3200 MWt) became the focus of attention by AECL (now Candu Energy Inc). It has more fuel channels (each of which can be regarded as a module of about 2.5 MWe). The ACR will run on low-enriched uranium (about 1.5-2.0% U-235) with high burn-up
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nucle ... -Reactors/


Last edited by Wilson on Apr 17, 2015 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 16, 2015 1:20 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
Iran announced that China has agreed to assist in the building of five new nuclear plants across the country, according to Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization

Russia has already helped to start construction of at least two plants in southern Iran, while the Chinese will assist with the rest, Kamalvandi revealed

In addition to the light water reactors, Iran plans to build “small nuclear power plants” around the Persian Gulf area for the reported purpose of desalinating water, Fars reported.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... s-in-iran/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 18, 2015 11:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
Wilson, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make since the articles you linked to gave examples of nuclear reactors that can be fueled with natural uranium, and that there is a concern that Iran is using their nuclear power plants and/or centrifuges to produce weapon grade material.

If Iran was concerned about alleviating fears that they are hiding their nuclear weapons program under their civilian power program then they'd stop building centrifuges and start building reactors that burn natural uranium. Either this does not concern them, or it does not concern them and they intend to build nuclear weapons.

_________________
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 19, 2015 1:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
QUOTE
The ACR-1000 provides further demonstration of the flexibility of the CANDU core by using light water reactor coolant and higher burnup LEU (low enriched uranium) fuel while retaining many essential features of the operating CANDU 6 plant design such as heavy water moderator and on-load refuelling. The engineering development of the ACR-1000 design has been accompanied by a research and confirmatory testing program. END OF QUOTE

http://www.candu.com/en/home/candureactors/acr1000.aspx


Last edited by Wilson on Apr 19, 2015 1:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 19, 2015 1:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
QUOTE
Most of the 500 commercial nuclear power reactors operating or under construction in the world today require uranium 'enriched' in the U-235 isotope for their fuel.
•The commercial process employed for this enrichment involves gaseous uranium in centrifuges.An Australian process based on laser excitation is under development in the USA.
END OF QUOTE
http://world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-F ... nrichment/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 19, 2015 2:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
Iran's inventory of 235U in natural, 3.5 enriched and 19.75 enriched
Source of data
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/p ... -Final.pdf


Attachments:
iran235.JPG
iran235.JPG [ 50.49 KiB | Viewed 2371 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 19, 2015 3:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
QUOTE
The Enhanced CANDU 6 (EC6) Generation III reactor design is the only reactor that offers:
natural uranium fuelling

END OF QUOTE

http://www.candu.com/en/home/candureact ... fault.aspx


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 19, 2015 7:33 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
Wilson wrote:
Iran's inventory of 235U in natural, 3.5 enriched and 19.75 enriched
Source of data
http://www.isisnucleariran.org/assets/p ... -Final.pdf


That chart tells me that Iran is days or hours away from producing enough HEU for one or two nuclear weapon cores, weeks or months away from having a dozen or so. Is this somehow supposed to make me feel better?

Wilson wrote:
QUOTE
Most of the 500 commercial nuclear power reactors operating or under construction in the world today require uranium 'enriched' in the U-235 isotope for their fuel.


I don't doubt that. Again, if Iran wanted to convince the world that their civilian nuclear reactors weren't just a cover for a nuclear weapons program they'd be building heavy water reactors that don't require enriched fuel.

Many of the new nuclear reactors require enrichment because the fuel has been blended with thorium. If Iran was going to blend the enriched uranium with thorium then how much thorium do they have?

Wilson, again, why not state what you want to say rather than quote some articles and have me guess?

_________________
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 19, 2015 7:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Nov 14, 2013 7:47 pm
Posts: 569
Location: Iowa, USA
Iranian General stated intent to shoot UN nuclear inspectors:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ ... TE=DEFAULT

That is not how a peaceful nation responds to treaty requirements.

_________________
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 19, 2015 7:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
Quote
The Obama administration has said in the past that the construction of light water reactors such as the one in Bushehr does not violate existing United Nations restrictions or the interim accord struck with the country in 2013.
END OF QUOTE

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... s-in-iran/


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 19, 2015 8:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
QUOTE
"We will respond with hot lead (bullets) to those who speak of it," Salami said. "Iran will not become a paradise for spies. We will not roll out the red carpet for the enemy."
END OF QUOTE

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/ ... TE=DEFAULT


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: LFTR and Iran?
PostPosted: Apr 19, 2015 8:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Apr 23, 2011 8:47 pm
Posts: 101
QUOTE
On 2 April 2015 a framework agreement was struck by the P5+1 group and Iran, taking forward the November 2013 interim Joint Plan of Action and forming the foundation upon which the final text of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action can be written by the end of June.

Although there is no reference to military sites such as Parchin, under the terms of framework agreement, an intensive inspection regime is created, which will remain in place indefinitely. Inspectors from the IAEA should be able to access any facility, declared or otherwise, and Iran will be required to grant access to the IAEA to investigate ‘suspicious sites’ or allegations of covert facilities.
END OF QUOTES

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Count ... -G-N/Iran/


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 112 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


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:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group