Remember, I said LESS susceptible, not proliferation proof. Half a load, where a WMD is concerned, is better than a whole one!KitemanSA wrote: ... and is less susceptible to weapons proliferation.
Energy book - Polywell in perspective
It is interesting question to compare U-238 fueled fission with Thorium-fueled fission. The choice of proper fuel-cycle is a multi-dimensional problem:
1. Which fuel can be produced cheaper? Today U-238 would be the winner, as there are massive stockpiles of 'depleted uranium', and no established mining process of Thorium. In the future that may however change, if mass-mining of Thorium is started up, as it involves no isotope separation.
2. Which fuel type makes it easier to guarantee plant stability (i.e. negative temperature coefficient) and the reprocessing of spent fuel? I am not expert on this issue, but it seems that most scientists believe that Thorium-based cycle is better. Also, there are varying plant design concepts, which may influence the answer. (i.e. single molten salt reactor design and combined accelerator + molten salt reactor design).
3. Which type of fuel cycle produces higher energy density in the plant? Again the answer may depend on the plant design concept.
In my e-book I did not emphasize this comparison, as it is not easy to explain because of all above aspects. Perhaps someone could come up with a good name for the set of U-238 / Thorium fuel candidates, so that we can refer to one single good name when describing this type of future fission reactor design!
Indeed, making definite statements about proliferation is risky; the plant operator may try to 'hack the fuel cycle process' to extract weapons material - it depends on plant design details to what extent that is possible. I really wanted to focus only energy issues, perhaps should have avoided mentioning that aspect.
Anyway, it is clear that the problems of weapons proliferation and handling of radioactive output are reduced, but not completely resolved. So when Polywell fusion eventually becomes reality, it can take the role of definitely resolving these issues.
1. Which fuel can be produced cheaper? Today U-238 would be the winner, as there are massive stockpiles of 'depleted uranium', and no established mining process of Thorium. In the future that may however change, if mass-mining of Thorium is started up, as it involves no isotope separation.
2. Which fuel type makes it easier to guarantee plant stability (i.e. negative temperature coefficient) and the reprocessing of spent fuel? I am not expert on this issue, but it seems that most scientists believe that Thorium-based cycle is better. Also, there are varying plant design concepts, which may influence the answer. (i.e. single molten salt reactor design and combined accelerator + molten salt reactor design).
3. Which type of fuel cycle produces higher energy density in the plant? Again the answer may depend on the plant design concept.
In my e-book I did not emphasize this comparison, as it is not easy to explain because of all above aspects. Perhaps someone could come up with a good name for the set of U-238 / Thorium fuel candidates, so that we can refer to one single good name when describing this type of future fission reactor design!
Indeed, making definite statements about proliferation is risky; the plant operator may try to 'hack the fuel cycle process' to extract weapons material - it depends on plant design details to what extent that is possible. I really wanted to focus only energy issues, perhaps should have avoided mentioning that aspect.
Anyway, it is clear that the problems of weapons proliferation and handling of radioactive output are reduced, but not completely resolved. So when Polywell fusion eventually becomes reality, it can take the role of definitely resolving these issues.
You were right to include it.ankovacs wrote:I really wanted to focus only energy issues, perhaps should have avoided mentioning that aspect.
You have to include it, because proliferation, waste and operating safety are part and parcel of any nuclear option.
This is why getting an advanced fusion fuel technology on line as soon as possible is essential to the survival of civilization. IMO
It is a race against those who would love to take us back to a pre-industrial theocracy and don't care how many people they kill or how much land they make uninhabitable to do it. (as long as it is not Their holy land)
Polywell with PB11 fuel looks like our best shot at this time.
-Tom Boydston-
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein
"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn’t be called research, would it?" ~Albert Einstein