3 ms·
It's relative. It's difficult to shield relative to U-235 (for example), which means that handling raw fuel is more difficult. (It requires robotic manipulators
by uvdiv 14y ago
It's relative. It's difficult to shield relative to U-235 (for example), which means that handling raw fuel is more difficult. (It requires robotic manipulators -- hot cells, "waldos" [0] -- unlike conventional fuels which can be handled manually [1]). This is barely relevant for MSRs, because there is no fuel fabrication step (no fuel pellets). It is a difficulty for solid-fuelled thorium reactors.
It's of no importance in nuclear reactors, because there there rest vastly greater amounts of vastly more radioactive monsters.
The reason people talk about U-232 is this confusing debate about nuclear weapons -- there's a weak (I think spurious) argument that thorium is weapons-resistant, because the U-232 gamma radiation makes it difficult to machine/work with weapons cores. It's really not relevant to molten-salt reactors.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_manipulator
[1] proof by photo: https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objID=1269&mode=2&featurestory=DA_528176 https://inlportal.inl.gov/portal/server.pt?open=514&objI...
- thingification 14y agoU-232: I'm not sure that's really the good argument. The better argument is that it doesn't matter whether it is weaspons-resistant, because it is much easier to enrich U 235, even for U-poor countries. Is that argument also flawed? Unfortunately, I suspect some of the relevant knowledge is secret.
- uvdiv 14y agoU-232: I'm not sure that's really the good argument. The better argument is that it doesn't matter whether it is weaspons-resistant, because it is much easier to enrich U 235, even for U-poor countries. Yes, that's right. That's why the "debate" is spurious.