4 ms·
I keep hearing "fusion" and keep wondering if we shouldn't go for the thorium route first. It's safer than fission w/uranium and can even be taught to third wor
by trebor 15y ago
I keep hearing "fusion" and keep wondering if we shouldn't go for the thorium route first. It's safer than fission w/uranium and can even be taught to third world countries without fear of giving them nuclear bombs.
- iwwr 15y agoLess proliferation risk, but not zero. It's still possible to build a bomb from U233 (obtained from the thorium cycle).
- ams6110 15y agoAt this point in time, how much additional risk does it add though? Any nation-state that is bound and determined to develop nuclear weapons pretty much just does it (e.g. Iran, North Korea) and the supposed anti-proliferation watchdogs (UN, IAEA) pretty much just stand on the outskirts and say "please stop," which has about as much effect as you'd expect.
- iwwr 15y agoThe thorium cycle is a higher technological level and more expensive to develop, so a state capable of developing one is more than capable of a conventional uranium bomb program.
- trebor 15y agoBut the way I understand it is that Thorium-based fission is more costly to weaponize than uranium, or plutonium based fission. Might be more technical, but it should be able to be operated without such a high technological level. So you could sell a system to a third world country without a great deal of concern over their nuclear capabilities.