Thanks again Jeff. Will have a look at those references. On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 2:15 PM, Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thorium itself cannot be used directly. Natural thorium is mostly composed > of a single isotope, Th-232, that is only fertile, not fissile. Use of > thorium in a power reactor or weapon requires that the natural Th-232 be > transmuted within an already-operating reactor to U-233, which is fissile. > This "breeding" of U-233 is analogous to the way plutonium is "bred" in a > reactor from natural uranium. > > The difference is that in addition to the merely-fertile U-238, natural > uranium contains a nontrivial amount of fissile U-235 which can be > extracted (at significant expense) and used directly to make weapons. With > thorium, the only path to weapons-grade material requires an operating > reactor to produce fertile U-233 by transmutation. This requirement for an > operating reactor makes the process much easier for the international > community to monitor, among other things. > > U-233 is known to be suitable for weapons use - there is one document > example of the U.S. building and successfully detonating a weapon with a > U-233 "pit" (bomb core). So it's false to say that the thorium fuel cycle > is completely "weapons material clean." But I think it's true to say that > the risk of weapons proliferation is lower compared to starting with U. > > I found this document which has everything you could ever want to know > about this - although wikipedia seems good enough to answer almost any "lay > person" question in this case. > http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf > > Jeff > > > On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 6:49 PM, Patrick Ellul <ellulpatr...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> Thanks Jeff. Can enriched Thorium also be used for nuclear weapons? >> >> >> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Jeff Berkowitz <pdx...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I've looked at this a little. It's been under study for over 30 years, >>> so the pros and cons are pretty well understood. The wikipedia page >>> ("thorium fuel cycle") covers them. It's definitely feasible, probably an >>> economic win for countries with a lot of thorium (e.g. India), and arguably >>> a little safer. But for me, bottom line is that it doesn't change the >>> fundamentals. There are still waste handling issues and reactor design >>> issues and nuclear economy/proliferation issues. So moving from U to Th is >>> a difference (in the technology sphere) that doesn't really make a >>> difference (in the public policy sphere). >>> >>> Jeff >>> >>> >>> On Sun, Nov 18, 2012 at 4:11 PM, Patrick Ellul >>> <ellulpatr...@gmail.com>wrote: >>> >>>> Hello collective, >>>> >>>> Is Thorium really safer? And is it reallya a feasible solution? >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628905.600-indias-thoriumbased-nuclear-dream-inches-closer.html?cmpid=RSS|NSNS|2012-GLOBAL|online-news >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Patrick >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Patrick >> >> www.tRacePerfect.com >> The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! >> The quickest puzzle ever! >> >> > -- Patrick www.tRacePerfect.com The daily puzzle everyone can finish but not everyone can perfect! The quickest puzzle ever!
