3 ms·

But this isn't practical in reality. First of all, you need a core of U-233 to start the process but once you start you're adding thorium at different points in

But this isn't practical in reality. First of all, you need a core of U-233 to start the process but once you start you're adding thorium at different points in time so the fuel slurry is going to be always a mix of thorium, protactinium, u-232, u-233 and other various products which makes extracting anything a royal pain. There's much easier ways of isolating weapons grade uranium instead of trying to extract it from a ongoing fuel process.

slurgfest 14y ago
The question isn't whether there are easier ways of producing, but whether the thorium reactor doesn't provide better concealment for producing what would bring unwanted attention when done in the 'easier' way.
- stcredzero 14y ago
  If you're trying to conceal what you're doing, it would be best by far to avoid U-232 being involved in the process.
jhartmann 14y ago
1) If you take away Uranium from a thorium reactor you will rather quickly lose criticality, so you won't be making any new protactinium. Thorium breeders run very close to steady state, and only make a very small fraction of fuel more then they need. 2) I'm pretty sure there is a rare reaction that you will get protactinium-232, which has a much shorter half life the protactinium-233 (about a day instead of about a month) but it can't be chemically separated. It will decay to U-232. The nature article is alarmist, and not practical. It would only make sense if you had a separate neutron source that was not a thorium breeder, and probably will still have a good amount of U-232. Since you have a neutron source (probably a light water reactor) why you wouldn't use the extremely well understood methods to make plutonium from U-238 is beyond me. You quite literally just need to put uranium metal in the neutron flux for 1 month and chemically separate out the plutonium. Much easier, if I was designing a nuclear weapons program I sure as hell wouldn't pick Thorium.

slurgfest 14y ago

The question isn't whether there are easier ways of producing, but whether the thorium reactor doesn't provide better concealment for producing what would bring unwanted attention when done in the 'easier' way.

stcredzero 14y ago
If you're trying to conceal what you're doing, it would be best by far to avoid U-232 being involved in the process.

jhartmann 14y ago

1) If you take away Uranium from a thorium reactor you will rather quickly lose criticality, so you won't be making any new protactinium. Thorium breeders run very close to steady state, and only make a very small fraction of fuel more then they need. 2) I'm pretty sure there is a rare reaction that you will get protactinium-232, which has a much shorter half life the protactinium-233 (about a day instead of about a month) but it can't be chemically separated. It will decay to U-232. The nature article is alarmist, and not practical. It would only make sense if you had a separate neutron source that was not a thorium breeder, and probably will still have a good amount of U-232. Since you have a neutron source (probably a light water reactor) why you wouldn't use the extremely well understood methods to make plutonium from U-238 is beyond me. You quite literally just need to put uranium metal in the neutron flux for 1 month and chemically separate out the plutonium. Much easier, if I was designing a nuclear weapons program I sure as hell wouldn't pick Thorium.