Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
1–10 of 73 posts
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#2The post doesn't give a definite answer to the question in the title, but it is interesting.
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#3Thorium is 4 times more abundant in the Earth’s crust than uranium. It occurs in only one isotope, thorium-232. There is therefore no isotope separation, and 100% of the mined thorium is useful in a power reactor. Very little of the mined uranium is useful. You can’t make a bomb out of thorium.
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#4The short answer is that there are many entrenched interests who are not keen on the idea: Uranium mines, nuclear industry, weapons manufacturers, not to mention the oil, gas and coal lobbies, even the alternative energy suppliers like solar. Thorium would rain on all their parades.
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#5I've read somewhere that one problem with Thorium is it can easily be converted to a fissionable isotope (of Uranium?) which can be used to build bombs. So there's that.
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#6I've read somewhere that one problem with Thorium is it can easily be converted to a fissionable isotope (of Uranium?) which can be used to build bombs. So there's that.
One of the anti-proliferation points is that U233 (which is the isotope you're thinking of) is mixed with U232, which decays to products with high gamma output, meaning that it's more dangerous to work with than the more typical fissionable materials, and much easier to detect. For a state this probably wouldn't be a significant barrier, but it's a fair point with respect to terrorist bombs. Of course, we haven't seen any of those, which implies that there's some non-obvious factor at work, here.
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#7I've read somewhere that one problem with Thorium is it can easily be converted to a fissionable isotope (of Uranium?) which can be used to build bombs. So there's that.
No. The problem is the other way around: It _can't_ easily be converted. That's why is was not investigated in the 40s and during the cold war too much: People were interested in bombs, too.
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#8If you need lots of thorium you can usually find a ton of it Winterspring or the Burning Steppes!
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#9I've read somewhere that one problem with Thorium is it can easily be converted to a fissionable isotope (of Uranium?) which can be used to build bombs. So there's that.
One of the anti-proliferation points is that U233 (which is the isotope you're thinking of) is mixed with U232, which decays to products with high gamma output, meaning that it's more dangerous to work with than the more typical fissionable materials, and much easier to detect. For a state this probably wouldn't be a significant barrier, but it's a fair point with respect to terrorist bombs. Of course, we haven't see…
From the OP:
You will hear that we can’t make bombs out of U-233 because it is a virulent gamma-ray emitter. This is not true, and I find it curious that it is used as a reason. U-233 has a 158,000-year half-life. What they are referring to is the protactinium-233 contaminant, which has a 27-day half-life, beta-decaying into U-233 with gamma-ray involvement. Chemically scrub the protactinium, of course, or just wait a year and it will be gone.
Re: Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?
#10The short answer is that there are many entrenched interests who are not keen on the idea: Uranium mines, nuclear industry, weapons manufacturers, not to mention the oil, gas and coal lobbies, even the alternative energy suppliers like solar. Thorium would rain on all their parades.
Exactly. Mainly, the current nuclear power industry, i.e. Areva, Westinghouse and GE make all their money on the fabrication fo fuel rod assemblies. They tried to make thorium fuel rods work in Indian Point Unit 1, but the layout of the rod bundles was tough to optimize to allow fertile material to become fissile and cycle correctly to be efficient at heating up the primary coolant.
Add this to all the regulatory hurdles and the big three nuke companies see no reason to pursue such a financial risk.