Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Thorium 232-Uranium 233 Nuclear Energy. No Route to Weapons Grade Fissile M

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
SanddancerUSA Donating Member (90 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 07:14 PM
Original message
Thorium 232-Uranium 233 Nuclear Energy. No Route to Weapons Grade Fissile M
Thorium 232 nuclear reactors. No route to weapons grade fissile material so this technology has been almost completely ignored by all parties.

I consider myself fairly well read regarding science and technology. So how come i missed this?

http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8746sci2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

Get ya fingers out people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Nov-18-09 08:12 PM
Response to Original message
1. Main reason is economics.
Edited on Wed Nov-18-09 08:26 PM by Statistical
Thorium has no isotope that can achieve criticality on its own. Thus you can never have a pure Th232 cycle.



(Hopefully wiki won't mind me leeching their image.)

Notice an initial neutron is needed, but TH232 never emits neutrons. So a Thorium reactor either needs
a) some uranium-235 "seed" fuel
b) massive neutron generator (increases cost & complexity)

The second issue is a very high burnup rate is required for Thorium fuel to remain "neutron rich". The cycle produces less thermal neutrons than U235 cycle. While this is possible it is harder to achieve commercially (cost) and also was much harder to acheive circa 1960. Also in 1960s we were looking for weapons grade production so that is where research was focused.

PWR can be adapted to Th232 but it isn't optimal. We have decades of research in PWR so there is reluctance for companies to drop all that and take a massive risk and try to commercialize molten salt Th232 reactor or some other exotic design.

U235 cycle "just works".

Current reactors can use a thorium fuel cycle but it does require some significant modification and for the time being U238 is more economical. Turning soviet warheads into MOX has lengthened the U238 lifespan. Even doubling or tripling price of U238 would only result in a small increase in overall electrical generaiton costs (<10%).

However going forward demand will likely exceed capacity of U238 in a couple decades this will require either
a) reprocessing (currently about 3x as expensive an enriching new uranium)
b) thorium fuel cycle
c) fast breeder reactors

There is less weapon risk with b but nuclear device can be made from U232. The combination of higher burnup rate and natural abundance means we have enough Thorium fuel for about 100+ years of electrical generation even if we quadruple nuclear capacity.

India is heavily focused on Th because they have large amounts of it but <1% of worldwide uranium supply.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Apr 23rd 2024, 06:05 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC