*
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/physics/pdf/0 ... 1110v3.pdf
*
It is a question of Tritium. And using a 10MWth neutron creator to make Plutonium out of U238. And to make Tritium from Li6.
also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
Just in case you need a new hobby.
Simon
ITER and Weapons Proliferation
ITER and Weapons Proliferation
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Hey Simon that was a good read. It definately reliterates some of the discussion we have had here.
While the cat is out of the bag as far as polywell technology is concerned, i fear proliferation issues may interfere with reactor development in the future. It was nice when Dr Nebel informed me that fusion research was declassified under international treaty. But the article shows just how touchy the United States is, in handing out a little tritium to non nuclear weapon countries.
While the cat is out of the bag as far as polywell technology is concerned, i fear proliferation issues may interfere with reactor development in the future. It was nice when Dr Nebel informed me that fusion research was declassified under international treaty. But the article shows just how touchy the United States is, in handing out a little tritium to non nuclear weapon countries.
Also interesting ...The transportation of large quantities of tritium to Japan is a new and particularly sensitive issue because at present most of the tritium never leaves the national boundaries of nuclear weapon States. The present day industrial and scientific uses of tritium are such that only relatively small amounts are shipped between countries. On the other hand, “it is expected that about 25 kg of tritium will be transported during the course of ITER operations
I sincerely hope Polywell will changes this. I think alot of people are in for a rude shock when WB starts heating up.The main fundamental difference between fission and fusion energy systems is that the feasibility of fusion energy is still not proven, whereas the scientific and technical feasibility of fission was established right from the beginning. Moreover, in 1942, the construction and operation of the first atomic pile by Enrico Fermi and his collaborators proved to be so simple that it was possible to design, build and put into operation several fullscale, 1000 MW size, reactors in less than two years!
In comparison, after almost fifty years of fusion energy research, even the most optimistic scientifically competent proponent of fusion energy would not bet to see an operating thermonuclear reactor in his lifetime.
Purity is Power
Do fusion scientists have short lifespans? DEMO is an operational fusion reactor, and is supposed to go online in 25 years.In comparison, after almost fifty years of fusion energy research, even the most optimistic scientifically competent proponent of fusion energy would not bet to see an operating thermonuclear reactor in his lifetime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DEMO
I guess the implication here is they don't believe DEMO will work.
I'm getting a little sick of governments constantly talking about axing potentially promising nuclear programmes because of proliferation risk. If the fast breeders wasn't axed they would have probably got cheaper and more practical and we would already have commercial nuclear reactors capable of supplying mankinds energy needs using known economical reserves of fuel for centuries.
Instead we're left hoping we can purify enough Uranium-235 from seawater to power a nuclear renaissance of light water reactors.
Fission-fusion hybrids? Inescapeable, all forms of fusion energy have the potential to breed plutonium including the Polywelll, anything that can burn p-b can burn DT aswell if we're going to abandon everything just because there is a proliferation risk we may aswell give up the entire nuclear energy programme and build thousands of square miles of solar panels. Which aren't economic yet but might be.
Nuclear energy yields to many benefits to dismiss just because of prolieration fears, potentially it could allow us to expand an grow even after fossil fuels have run out. The only other technology that can do this s solar energy. Yes proliferation should be acknowledged but in the sense of "how do we systematically limit this risk once we take on this programme" not in the sense of "should we do this at all?"
Sometimes people die of food poisoning, there is always the potential of a terrorist breaking into a farm and feeding anthax to the cows. Hell, if you want to dream up a worst case scenario maybe a terrorist might break into a farm and feed the cows with a virus design to genetically modify them into mutant killers, maybe those mutant killer cows will them go on a rampage through every populated area killing 100,000's in their wake maybe they could spread the virus to other cows who in turn could become killer mutants, how could the world deal with billions of killer mutant cows?! Maybe we should place a blanket ban on farming!
Instead we're left hoping we can purify enough Uranium-235 from seawater to power a nuclear renaissance of light water reactors.
Fission-fusion hybrids? Inescapeable, all forms of fusion energy have the potential to breed plutonium including the Polywelll, anything that can burn p-b can burn DT aswell if we're going to abandon everything just because there is a proliferation risk we may aswell give up the entire nuclear energy programme and build thousands of square miles of solar panels. Which aren't economic yet but might be.
Nuclear energy yields to many benefits to dismiss just because of prolieration fears, potentially it could allow us to expand an grow even after fossil fuels have run out. The only other technology that can do this s solar energy. Yes proliferation should be acknowledged but in the sense of "how do we systematically limit this risk once we take on this programme" not in the sense of "should we do this at all?"
Sometimes people die of food poisoning, there is always the potential of a terrorist breaking into a farm and feeding anthax to the cows. Hell, if you want to dream up a worst case scenario maybe a terrorist might break into a farm and feed the cows with a virus design to genetically modify them into mutant killers, maybe those mutant killer cows will them go on a rampage through every populated area killing 100,000's in their wake maybe they could spread the virus to other cows who in turn could become killer mutants, how could the world deal with billions of killer mutant cows?! Maybe we should place a blanket ban on farming!
Seems to me that a viable nuclear energy technology that doesn't require certain materials central to nuclear bomb production would make it harder for rogue nations to hide a weapons program behind a nuclear power program. If they can build a viable fusion system that uses d-d or p-B, why would they need to produce tritium, enriched uranium, or plutonium?
Still a problem
Yes, fusion reactors would make it easy to declare enrichment is a solely military venture. The problem is that any viable d-d fusion reactor could be used for bomb production with minimal modification. It makes the intentions of nations caught enriching obvious, but it also makes a hidden enrichment program easier to build.hanelyp wrote:Seems to me that a viable nuclear energy technology that doesn't require certain materials central to nuclear bomb production would make it harder for rogue nations to hide a weapons program behind a nuclear power program. If they can build a viable fusion system that uses d-d or p-B, why would they need to produce tritium, enriched uranium, or plutonium?
1. Proliferation really isn't an issue with Polywells. If you introduce neutrons into the system (via D-D or D-T) you destroy the coils. These are inherently advanced fuel systems.
2. The worries about tritium production in ITER are also probably a red herring. To my knowledge, tritium isn't classified as a special nuclear material. I believe that the Canadians would be happy to sell you all that you want. I don't think that the IAEA even tracks it. This is not something that a potentially proliferent nation would be buying.
2. The worries about tritium production in ITER are also probably a red herring. To my knowledge, tritium isn't classified as a special nuclear material. I believe that the Canadians would be happy to sell you all that you want. I don't think that the IAEA even tracks it. This is not something that a potentially proliferent nation would be buying.
I have done some BOE engineering and MgB2 superconductors with dual water jackets (for cooling and moderation) and B10 neutron absorbers should have adequate lifetimes (2 to 10 years with D-D) to be used as proliferation devices.rnebel wrote:1. Proliferation really isn't an issue with Polywells. If you introduce neutrons into the system (via D-D or D-T) you destroy the coils. These are inherently advanced fuel systems.
2. The worries about tritium production in ITER are also probably a red herring. To my knowledge, tritium isn't classified as a special nuclear material. I believe that the Canadians would be happy to sell you all that you want. I don't think that the IAEA even tracks it. This is not something that a potentially proliferent nation would be buying.
However, devices not engineered for neutron production would degrade rapidly (a matter of hours of operation at most) if used with D-D fuel.
There are two critical upgrades - five nines B11 must be used in the superconductors. That gains you about three orders of magnitude improvement in life with a slight decrease in Tc (about 2K). Another two or three orders of magnitude increase in life is gained by moderation and absorption of neutrons.
The starting point is that MgB2 (natural B) can stand about 2E18 n/sq cm until it loses SuperConductivity. I used 1E18 for my calculations to get an engineering estimate. In theory if the B11 was perfectly pure the lifetime gain for substitution of B11 should be around 5,000. I used 1,000 as a working number.
I also assumed 4" of water gives 99.9% moderation of neutrons. That may be in error. Using B10 I assumed 100% absorption of moderated neutrons.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Initially, a pBj reactor might need neutron-resistant materials for side chain reactions. However, IIRC MSimon, you mentioned that a non-maxwellian plasma would have an even lower level of side chain reactions and neutron production than the straight cross-section tables indicate.
I don't think ignoring the neutron flux will ever be a reasonable design decision, but a pBj reactor can be designed to make DD fuel burning lead to self destruction.
I don't think ignoring the neutron flux will ever be a reasonable design decision, but a pBj reactor can be designed to make DD fuel burning lead to self destruction.
I don't disagree with that. What I disagree with is the idea that it can't be done. And that doing it would be really, really hard. It would merely be hard.dch24 wrote:Initially, a pBj reactor might need neutron-resistant materials for side chain reactions. However, IIRC MSimon, you mentioned that a non-maxwellian plasma would have an even lower level of side chain reactions and neutron production than the straight cross-section tables indicate.
I don't think ignoring the neutron flux will ever be a reasonable design decision, but a pBj reactor can be designed to make DD fuel burning lead to self destruction.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
Under IAEA or EURATOM regulations, there is no requirement for tritium. Conversely, tritium is controlled under French accountancy rules. So are deuterium and lithium-6. I guess ITER should be under control. One problem (other than proliferation) with tritium is that it is easily spread in the environment and difficult to get rid of.rnebel wrote:To my knowledge, tritium isn't classified as a special nuclear material.
IMHO "Polywell => p-B11 => no neutrons => no proliferation" is a strong point. A good marketing message, if I dare say.rnebel wrote:Proliferation really isn't an issue with Polywells. If you introduce neutrons into the system (via D-D or D-T) you destroy the coils. These are inherently advanced fuel systems.
No proliferation is too strong IMO. More difficult is more honest.olivier wrote:IMHO "Polywell => p-B11 => no neutrons => no proliferation" is a strong point. A good marketing message, if I dare say.rnebel wrote:Proliferation really isn't an issue with Polywells. If you introduce neutrons into the system (via D-D or D-T) you destroy the coils. These are inherently advanced fuel systems.
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
-
classicpenny
- Posts: 106
- Joined: Thu Feb 14, 2008 5:50 pm
- Location: Port Angeles WA USA
- Contact:
Yikes! Am I understanding this correctly? Does this mean that a full-scale D-D Polywell is entirely out of the picture with regard to Commercial Power Plants (as described on the "Power Systems Applications" page of askmar.com's "Should Google Go Nuclear")?rnebel wrote:1. Proliferation really isn't an issue with Polywells. If you introduce neutrons into the system (via D-D or D-T) you destroy the coils. These are inherently advanced fuel systems.
If the D-D polywell does indeed destroy its coils so readily, it would seem that p-B11 in the only way to go, and building the WB-100 as a D-D polywell should not even be an option.