In reply to Jones Beene's message of Thu, 26 Jan 2017 08:16:26 -0800: Hi, [snip] >Robin wrote >> >> You would get a far greater yield from your muons, if you use muon >> catalyzed T-D >> fusion to create 14 MeV neutrons that directly fission a Thorium >> blanket. >> > >Hi, > >Well, there is no evidence for this conclusion insofar as "greater >yield" is concerned. This is because we do not know the details of the >energy release from muon induced fission in thorium. It could be more or >less than a two stage process involving fast neutrons and it would not >be a surprise if it was actually more.
In order to be at least the same, and considering that the energy input per fission event would need to be about 10 MeV, you would need at least 1 GeV muons. Furthermore, being charged particles, the muons are going to lose energy through ionization in the electron clouds of the fuel atoms. The high energy (1 GeV) muons need to created with input energy, whereas the fusion route can use low energy muons. So I guess the degree to which the two processes compare depends on the energy of the muons that you start out with. > >At any rate, the energy release is so massive in either case that the >output difference is irrelevant considering the extra risk and cost of >tritium. What we do know is that tritium is a serious proliferation risk >and costs $30,000/gram. Actually there are plenty of free neutrons in a fission reactor, so you could probably create it in-situ, just as is planned for ITER (IIRC). >The aim of any alternative energy effort is >generally this - go small, go simple and go cheap - forget the large >expensive grid plant and find solutions for small scale implementation. Fission of any kind is never going to be a small or simple implementation because there will always be the problem of radioactive waste to contend with. > >One more detail: since muon induced fission is not a neutron mediated >process, it is possible that minimally refined monazite ore can be used >in place of refined thorium metal. This would make it attractive for >countries like India, with massive deposits of ore and massive need of >energy at the lowest possible cost. I fail to see why the same can not be said for a fast neutron approach. Also the energy cost of chemical refining is trivial when it comes to fission fuel. AFAIK, for Uranium, the primary cost of fuel production is in isotope enrichment, but this would be unnecessary in either case. What both approaches have going for them is that they fully burn up any Actinides. That means a huge increase in efficiency of fuel reserve usage, and also a huge reduction in long term waste. In fact the Actinide waste that is currently being stored (short term), and looking for a home in impossibly long term storage, would become a fuel supply. Even if that were the only reason, such reactors would be worth constructing. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/project.html
