From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2013 7:52 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Nuclear power
On 11/15/2013 6:48 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
LFTR reactors would produce U233 - which is very nasty stuff.
>>But they breed only what they consume, none of it is 'waste'.
I realize this. From what I have read it seems that it should also be
possible for LFTR reactor complexes to do their fuel re-processing on-site.
Still preferable to the fast neutron U-238 breeder types that would create
the plutonium economy, but it is very nasty stuff in the hands of the wrong
people. How would the state prevent U233 from falling in the hands of the
wrong people if these small LFTR reactors became widely deployed all over
the world?
>>The U-233 is contaminated with 0.13% U-232 which is an intense gamma ray
source. Anybody taking material to make a bomb only has about 72hrs to
live. Of course that wouldn't deter some people.
My point exactly. The very intense gamma ray emissions of U-232 would make
it a horrendous material in a dirty bomb, if molecular scale particles
became fairly widely dispersed by chemical explosives. Technologically LFTR
could be feasible, but what about the price we will most certainly have to
pay in terms of living in a police state. Can you think of any other way
these deadly assets can be safeguarded and kept out of the wrong hands?
Some LFTR and other nuclear enthusiasts are all into the idea of small scale
modular reactors (sometimes cleverly re-branded as batteries). The problem
is not so much with the systems themselves, but with the risks that a highly
dispersed proliferation of small poorly defended nuclear reactors will pose
for the security of everyone. Any technology that provides such a huge power
lever for small group of fanatics is not a technology I would recommend. On
the fringe of the LFTR enthusiast crowd have you seen the design proposal
for a thorium powered car.. Can you imagine the hazmat situation if one of
these cars was involved in say a head on with a fully loaded 18-wheeler.
In order to protect these facilities and prevent U233 - and a lot of other
by-products - from being turned into very very dirty bombs we will guarantee
that we will live in a police state. How else could the entire sector be
kept secure?
Naah. We have reactors now that are more susceptible to making dirty bombs
and it doesn't require a police state to protect them. France gets most of
its power from nukes. What police state we have is too busy keeping people
from smoking pot, drinking and driving, and emigrating.
That is not entirely true. I agree with you - and am shocked and appalled at
how little protection - these plants use off the shelf industrial
controllers that can be (and have been) hacked into for example, to control
vital systems. But the number of plants is really quite small. Many nuclear
proponents are speaking about 30 MW or so scale plants that would be
proliferated everywhere.
This is a qualitatively different landscape than a few central facilities.
Chris
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
