4 ms·

I posted further up thread, and I am not an expert, that thorium based nuclear power may be safer with less dangerous waste and potential for weaponization.

acqq 8y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-... "Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option" and https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protacti... "Protactinium separations provide a pathway for obtaining highly attractive weapons-grade uranium 233 from thorium fuel cycles. The difficulties of safeguarding commercial spent fuel reprocessing are significant for any type of fuel cycle, and thorium is no exception."
- fromMars 8y ago
  What I got from the first article you linked is that Thorium reactors produce less radioactive waste but are unproven technologies.
  - acqq 8y ago
    Don't stop at the first sentence. Read the whole article. It answers the propaganda claim of "less radioactive waste": "Less" is only if need thorium would magically materialize out of nothing, that is, if you ignore the whole process. In reality, thorium inevitably has to be prepared with uranium rectors: "Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos. This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years). Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste." Not to mention that these hypothetical reactors simply don't work: if they would be viable means to produce energy, nobody would wait for the taxpayer subsidies, there's enough money which couldn't wait to make huge profits, if they were possible: "'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'"
    - dTal 8y ago
      Remember, the longer the half life, the less dangerous the waste as it dumps its energy more slowly. Consider technetium-99, for instance (from Wiki): "The weak beta emission is stopped by the walls of laboratory glassware. Soft X-rays are emitted when the beta particles are stopped, but as long as the body is kept more than 30 cm away these should pose no problem. The primary hazard when working with technetium is inhalation of dust; such radioactive contamination in the lungs can pose a significant cancer risk."[1] Laboratory glassware, safe distance 30cm. Hardly a "pretty deep hole"! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99
      - acqq 8y ago
        That's completely irrelevant to the issues mentioned, once again: "Protactinium separations provide a pathway for obtaining highly attractive weapons-grade uranium 233 from thorium fuel cycles. The difficulties of safeguarding commercial spent fuel reprocessing are significant for any type of fuel cycle, and thorium is no exception."

acqq 8y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-... "Don't believe the spin on thorium being a greener nuclear option" and https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protactinium-problem/ https://thebulletin.org/2018/08/thorium-power-has-a-protacti... "Protactinium separations provide a pathway for obtaining highly attractive weapons-grade uranium 233 from thorium fuel cycles. The difficulties of safeguarding commercial spent fuel reprocessing are significant for any type of fuel cycle, and thorium is no exception."

fromMars 8y ago
What I got from the first article you linked is that Thorium reactors produce less radioactive waste but are unproven technologies.
- acqq 8y ago
  Don't stop at the first sentence. Read the whole article. It answers the propaganda claim of "less radioactive waste": "Less" is only if need thorium would magically materialize out of nothing, that is, if you ignore the whole process. In reality, thorium inevitably has to be prepared with uranium rectors: "Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos. This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years). Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste." Not to mention that these hypothetical reactors simply don't work: if they would be viable means to produce energy, nobody would wait for the taxpayer subsidies, there's enough money which couldn't wait to make huge profits, if they were possible: "'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'"
  - dTal 8y ago
    Remember, the longer the half life, the less dangerous the waste as it dumps its energy more slowly. Consider technetium-99, for instance (from Wiki): "The weak beta emission is stopped by the walls of laboratory glassware. Soft X-rays are emitted when the beta particles are stopped, but as long as the body is kept more than 30 cm away these should pose no problem. The primary hazard when working with technetium is inhalation of dust; such radioactive contamination in the lungs can pose a significant cancer risk."[1] Laboratory glassware, safe distance 30cm. Hardly a "pretty deep hole"! [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99
    - acqq 8y ago
      That's completely irrelevant to the issues mentioned, once again: "Protactinium separations provide a pathway for obtaining highly attractive weapons-grade uranium 233 from thorium fuel cycles. The difficulties of safeguarding commercial spent fuel reprocessing are significant for any type of fuel cycle, and thorium is no exception."