Topic: Eliminate Nuclear Reactors

[charlesoakwood]

Compared to Uranium-238-based nuclear reactors currently in use today, a liquid flouride thorium reactor (LTFR) would be:

    Much safer -
    Much more efficient at producing energy -
    Less waste-generating -
    Much cheaper -
    More plentiful -
    Less controversial -
    Longer-lived -

Link

[Weisshaupt]

Compared to Uranium-238-based nuclear reactors currently in use today, a liquid flouride thorium reactor (LTFR) would be:

    Much safer -
    Much more efficient at producing energy -
    Less waste-generating -
    Much cheaper -
    More plentiful -
    Less controversial -
    Longer-lived -

Link

Its also  a huge proliferation risk because of the protactinium salt that must be removed- which decays into a fissionalbe isotope of uranium.

[Glock32]

Don't worry, solar/wind/algae/pixie-dust power is Just Around The Corner^TM

[charlesoakwood]

Isn't it a much smaller and manageable amount?  
We could use it in our arsenal and not worry about
all those fifty-five gallon drums decaying under
Nevada.  



                                                                Hey, Harry, come look at this!  SLAM!!
                                                                                                            

[EW1(SG)]

Isn't it a much smaller and manageable amount?  
We could use it in our arsenal and not worry about
all those fifty-five gallon drums decaying under
Nevada.  



                                                                Hey, Harry, come look at this!  SLAM!!
                                                                                                            

Hell, I've never been worried about the fifty-five gallon drums anyway.  Especially in Nevada.  Wildfires are a bigger problem there.

[Weisshaupt]

Isn't it a much smaller and manageable amount?  
We could use it in our arsenal and not worry about
all those fifty-five gallon drums decaying under
Nevada.  



                                                                Hey, Harry, come look at this!  SLAM!!
                                                                                                            

The throrium is much easier to get at the the uranium, and far more plentiful  The Thorium based reactors are also inherently safer, since they require injection of neutrons to keep the reaction going. Plus since the core is molten, when it gets too hot, it will melt a plug and let the contents empty into a cooling area. Nuke waste is about the same amount, since the first fissionable by product of the reaction is Uranium 233.  The protactinium however is a neutron absorber and must be removed - and reintorduced to the reactor 30-60 days later when it has decayed.  The U233  produced by this process really isn't good for a weapons stockpile - the protactinium decay basically leaves it  with an unstable sehelf life.  The danger is someone steals the protactinium and uses it for a dirty bomb, or waits till it become U233, build a simple Hiroshima style plunger bomb and uses it before the slef-life is up.  (the Hiroshima bomb design was never tested. They just dropped it and less than 0.1% fissioned. Still made an attention getting boom. )

[Sectionhand]

Isn't it a much smaller and manageable amount?  
We could use it in our arsenal and not worry about
all those fifty-five gallon drums decaying under
Nevada.  



                                                                Hey, Harry, come look at this!  SLAM!!
                                                                                                            

I'd like to see them decaying under Harry Reid .

[warpmine]

Protactinium is also very very toxic to human life. Special equipment would be required just to handle it. Unlike Plutonium, which has a half life in the hundreds of thousands of years, handling is easy when it cools as opposed to Protactinium emits high rates of decay and will kill you rather swiftly.

U233 was used for a bomb many years ago and it failed to impress even the bomb designer, fizzled much like N. Korean's last attempt. A LFTR type reactor will burn up at least 90% of the fissionable fuel with the by products having medical use. Another byproduct Pu238 is used for propulsion for the ion engines of space probes(currently buying the stuff from the Russians). No chance of melt down accidents with this type of reactor.

What's really disturbing other than the sheer ignorance of the population is that the United States pioneered the design successfully from 1965-69. Dr. Weinberg designed it for civilian use and it worked as designed. If it had produced Pu 239 then the government and military would have bought it but it burned up most of the fissionable fuel instead. Designed originally for the nuclear powered bomber requested by the government, they decided it was simply to costly vs midflight refueling.