Board index › General Discussion › News and Current Events

Radiation Suppression in Japan

Page 4 of 4 [ 64 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

19 Apr 2011, 4:30 pm

Jono wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Breeder reactors have their positives, but what about the extra Uranium-233 hanging around? Do we really need a surplus.

Ruvey, what I meant was, I haven't read about Thorium being transmuted into lead in breeder reactors. I read about thorium producing U-233. There's a thorium reactor in India, it's still experimental. There are no commercial thorium reactors at the moment, according to the stuff I have read so far on the internet.


You don't seem to understand how breeder reactors work. Breeder reactors do not necessarily have to be thorium fueled reactors. With, regards to the thorium fuel cycle, thorium cannot be used directly for nuclear power because it is not fissionable. The actual fuel used in thorium fueled reactors is the uranium-233 which is transmuted from the thorium, so the uranium will not be dumped anywhere because it is not waste. Secondly, the breeder reactors also re-use the fission products of the uranium as fuel as well, and again re-use the products of those etc (or if not, it can be re-used in another different kind of breeder reactor). Lead would be the final end product of this whole chain of nuclear reactions, it does not mean that thorium has to be transmuted directly to lead.

I read there will be a surplus of U-233 in such breeder reactors and it can be sold to other places needing fuel or used to manufacture missiles.



Inventor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,014
Location: New Orleans

19 Apr 2011, 10:28 pm

The problem with breeders is, the local power company would have bomb grade material. I do not trust Entergy that much, neither does the Atomic Energy Commission, or the international oversite groups.

Using warheads for fuel has to be secure, very secure. 16 pounds makes a bomb, suitcase nuke.

Hanford and Oak Ridge could be secure, already have the bomb, we must dispose of a lot, various grades, a breeder works, and we get energy to do other things.

10% of our warheads could destroy the planet, We still have bombs made in the 40's. Other people have more.

Disposing of excess overkill is a good idea.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

20 Apr 2011, 12:17 am

Inventor wrote:
The problem with breeders is, the local power company would have bomb grade material. I do not trust Entergy that much, neither does the Atomic Energy Commission, or the international oversite groups.

Using warheads for fuel has to be secure, very secure. 16 pounds makes a bomb, suitcase nuke.

Hanford and Oak Ridge could be secure, already have the bomb, we must dispose of a lot, various grades, a breeder works, and we get energy to do other things.

10% of our warheads could destroy the planet, We still have bombs made in the 40's. Other people have more.

Disposing of excess overkill is a good idea.

That's what I was getting at Inventor. Ouch, the power companies would have all this spare U-233. I knew someone would have it, didn't know who. Private citizens, energy regulating committees, energy corporations, government personnel, nuclear regulatory commission or just private uranium brokers, lol.
My problem with hatching this breeder program is too much Uranium floating around. It could backfire on us. We could be hit with a dirty bomb if it gets in the wrong hands. With domestic and international terrorists as potential markets, do we want to risk it?
Some experts think there are suitcases of spare Plutonium already in this country waiting to be made into dirty bombs.

Thing is, since power companies will have the excess, and they are companies, they are going to be tempted to make some money by selling it.



Jono
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 Jul 2008
Age: 43
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,606
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa

26 Apr 2011, 5:28 am

Inventor wrote:
The problem with breeders is, the local power company would have bomb grade material. I do not trust Entergy that much, neither does the Atomic Energy Commission, or the international oversite groups.

Using warheads for fuel has to be secure, very secure. 16 pounds makes a bomb, suitcase nuke.

Hanford and Oak Ridge could be secure, already have the bomb, we must dispose of a lot, various grades, a breeder works, and we get energy to do other things.

10% of our warheads could destroy the planet, We still have bombs made in the 40's. Other people have more.

Disposing of excess overkill is a good idea.


Or it could just be used as fuel at other nuclear power stations, which I think is a good use for it. If we banned every technology that could be used for bad things and could be dangerous then humans would never of been able to utilize fire even after it was discovered it discovered how to control it. I don't see the potential of nuclear weapons proliferation as a reason to ban breeder reactors altogether anymore than the possibility of murdering someone with a spear is a reason to ban hunting spears. I also think that the fact that the extra U-233 can be used for energy is actually a good thing. Besides, the IAEA can regulate the usage and send inspectors to make sure that you're not manufacturing nuclear weapons.