Thorium nuclear reactors

[bush_cheney2004]

....I don't know how it could be worse than the current nuclear waste that is produced from nuclear reactors. The cleanest run ones are the CANDU reactors by far. They still create waste, not as much, and no weapons grade materials to work with. But it is still highly radioactive.

CANDU reactors are still very useful for a necessary "weapons grade material"...notably tritium. Just ask Pakistan and India.

[GostHacked]

CANDU reactors are still very useful for a necessary "weapons grade material"...notably tritium. Just ask Pakistan and India.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritium

Apparently tritium is used in watches !!! But yes it is used as an additive in nukes to make the boom bigger.

[DogOnPorch]

Chernobyl was the fault of poor Soviet-style contruction with no safety features.

Re: proactium...a 32,000 year half-life is still huge. The 'short' half-life = more radiation over a shorter time. It's also incredibly difficult to seperate out proactium from the rest of the waste products. This would also be a dollar factor re: the reactor's use.

[Bonam]

Thorium reactors won't be built for political and societal reasons, not technical ones. The public and politicians view nuclear technology as something dangerous, and if anything is gonna get built, it is stuff with a long track record of safety and success, that is, uranium fueled reactors. There is no reason to push for thorium reactors anyway, uranium plants can be built as needed wherever public approval can be obtained, and we have more than enough uranium to last until we can move to better technologies like fusion.

Chernobyl was the fault of poor Soviet-style contruction with no safety features.

Actually Chernobyl wasn't so much a result of poor construction or design as of extremely poor choices by the staff operating the facility immediately prior to the incident. There were numerous safety systems in place, all of which were bypassed or shutdown. There was no reactor engineer on site who in the moments leading up to the meltdown who could have realized that the unforeseeable and idiotic mode in which the reactor had been operated for the past few hours had caused Xenon poisoning of the core, which had the effect of turning the final "failsafe" SHUT OFF switch that the staff pulled in a panic to have the opposite effect, causing uncontrolled overload of the reactor rather than shut down. We went over the exact chain of events leading to the meltdown in my senior nuclear physics class, was quite fascinating.

CANDU reactors are still very useful for a necessary "weapons grade material"...notably tritium. Just ask Pakistan and India.

Tritium is used in the production of thermonuclear weapons. It is not necessary to produce a basic, fission only, nuclear weapon. Concerns about proliferation mostly revolve around the weapons grade fissile materials, uranium 235 and plutonium 239. This is because, if one has these materials, producing a basic nuclear weapon (comparable to those used in 1945), is essentially trivial. In contrast, tritium by itself does not enable one to build a nuclear weapon. In fact, even if one has both tritium and a functional fission device, making a thermonuclear device would still present an IMMENSE engineering challenge, unlike making a fission weapon which is EASY if you have u-235 or pu-239.

In fact, tritium is of such low concern for proliferation that it really is not that difficult to obtain. I've seen bottles of tritium just lying around on shelves in labs I've worked in. It is used commercially in a variety of applications, and there is extensive R&D in the field of using it to produce betavoltaic batteries. Tritium decays by emitting an energetic electron (electricity), and has a half life of 12 years. In a decade or two, tritium batteries will be commonplace and will allow our portable electronic devices to function without recharge or pause for decades.

[bush_cheney2004]

Tritium is used in the production of thermonuclear weapons. It is not necessary to produce a basic, fission only, nuclear weapon.

True, but tritium (plus deuterium) can also be used to increase the yield of fission bombs, which supports smaller designs (i.e. miniaturization).

In fact, tritium is of such low concern for proliferation that it really is not that difficult to obtain.

Yet, international control of tritium remains an agenda item for non-proliferation wonks. So many do not agree with you.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/63596646-69244790/content~content=a788808458&db=all

http://books.google.com/books?id=hAsAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA41&lpg=PA41&dq=tritium+controls&source=bl&ots=UPHCtNYWjr&sig=J68aPMZZ8HCQ_6moa8Dnia7vFNA&hl=en&ei=_TF-S77FKcqjnQeaxLFQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CCMQ6AEwBzgU#v=onepage&q=tritium%20controls&f=false

Edited February 19, 2010 by bush_cheney2004

[Bonam]

True, but tritium (plus deuterium) can also be used to increase the yield of fission bombs, which supports smaller designs (i.e. miniaturization).

In weapons, the deuterium-tritium (DT) reaction is initiated by the detonation of a critical mass of fissile material. The DT does not assist in or reduce the size of that critical mass, nor does it reduce the size or complexity of the systems for bringing together that mass in the timeframe necessary for effective detonation. Adding DT will increase the yield of a weapon, but any fusion weapon will be larger and more complex than a bare minimum, low yield fission weapon.

Low yield fission devices are the kinds of weapons that people worry about most in regards to proliferation. Small, simple devices that could be smuggled and used by terrorists have no need of tritium. Furthermore, the engineering required to successfully initiate a DT reaction with the fission explosive is very complex, and unlike the information needed to produce basic fission weapons, is highly secret.

Edit: Your google books link makes my point for me. It admits that "boosted" weapons are not a realistic possibility in the foreseeable future for either India or Pakistan. It advocates a tritium control treaty between India and Pakistan primarily as a diplomatic and confidence building measure.

Edited February 19, 2010 by Bonam

[bush_cheney2004]

..... Adding DT will increase the yield of a weapon, but any fusion weapon will be larger and more complex than a bare minimum, low yield fission weapon.

DT is used to "boost" fission bombs (increasing efficiency)...and was key to miniaturization (i.e. nuclear artillery, cruise missile warheads, depth bombs). This is an important consideration for delivery systems. DT can also be used outside the fissile core for enhanced radiation weapons (neutron bombs).

Low yield fission devices are the kinds of weapons that people worry about most in regards to proliferation. Small, simple devices that could be smuggled and used by terrorists have no need of tritium. Furthermore, the engineering required to successfully initiate a DT reaction with the fission explosive is very complex, and unlike the information needed to produce basic fission weapons, is highly secret.

Not so secret anymore, and at any rate, a logical consideration in the progression of nuclear weapons capability and designs for weaponization. NBCR threats from "terrorists" remain as a separate but likely outcome with the proliferation of weapons technology and materials.

Edit: Your google books link makes my point for me. It admits that "boosted" weapons are not a realistic possibility in the foreseeable future for either India or Pakistan. It advocates a tritium control treaty between India and Pakistan primarily as a diplomatic and confidence building measure.

Tritium control protocols are applicable to several NPT regimens. In the USA, a reduction in tritium production is seen as a proxy for warhead reduction:

COLUMBIA, S.C. -- The Department of Energy has taken a step toward reduced processing of tritium for nuclear weapons, which implies that a policy leading to further reductions in the nuclear stockpile is in the works, according to the environmental organization Friends of the Earth.

“We are pleased that the U.S. Government is reducing tritium production at the Savannah River Site and believe it confirms reductions in the nuclear weapons stockpile are being actively considered by the Obama Administration,” said Tom Clements, Southeastern Nuclear Campaign Coordinator for Friends of the Earth. “We hope that this move to curtail tritium production is a sign President Obama is serious about taking steps toward rapid elimination of nuclear weapons, as required by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”

....Tritium is produced by irradiating Tritium-Producing Burnable Absorber Rods (TPBARs) in the Watts Bar nuclear reactor, also called the Watts Bar Nuclear Bomb Reactor (WBNBR) as it is a commercial reactor producing nuclear weapons materials. Such production sends a dangerous non-proliferation message to the world, especially to Iran,...

http://www.foe.org/energy-department-reduces-tritium-processing

[Wild Bill]

The saftey record of nuclear powerplants around the world has been quite top notch though. Only a couple incidents, like 3-mile Island and Chernobyl come to mind. But a mistake like Chernobyl got all our attention on the dangers of using this fuel for power generation.

Quick quiz! How many people were hurt by Three Mile Island?

Zip!

Zilch!

Nada!

The safety design and devices all worked like they were supposed to work.

To compare Three Mile Island with Chernobyl is like comparing a Lexus with a Lada. Only someone with a simplistic view of science would equate the two in an argument against nuclear power.

[DogOnPorch]

Bonam: Actually Chernobyl wasn't so much a result of poor construction or design as of extremely poor choices by the staff operating the facility immediately prior to the incident. There were numerous safety systems in place, all of which were bypassed or shutdown. There was no reactor engineer on site who in the moments leading up to the meltdown who could have realized that the unforeseeable and idiotic mode in which the reactor had been operated for the past few hours had caused Xenon poisoning of the core, which had the effect of turning the final "failsafe" SHUT OFF switch that the staff pulled in a panic to have the opposite effect, causing uncontrolled overload of the reactor rather than shut down. We went over the exact chain of events leading to the meltdown in my senior nuclear physics class, was quite fascinating.

Good to see you around, Bonam.

Poor design was also a factor. The control rooms for reactors 3 & 4 didn't have near the shielding/concrete/steel that 1 & 2 reactor control rooms did. Some 'experts' claim if the same accident occured in reactors 1 or 2 (or in nearly any other reactor on the planet) that the disaster could have been contained inside the building.

[GostHacked]

Quick quiz! How many people were hurt by Three Mile Island?

You missed the the point I was trying to make. I said that the nuclear power plants have had a top notch safety record when you look at it overall. I said I can only recall a couple incidents where things went wrong. Chernobyl was the biggest obviously. But 3-Mile Island was a huge scare and a huge deal when it happened. Yes the safety measures works, and avoided a catastrophe, but still, something went wrong.

The question of safe operations of nuclear power plants did come into question when 3-Mile Island happened. And because of it, more stringent rules were put in place to make it safer. You just don't screw around with this kind of thing. We did not get safe nuclear power overnight. There have been problems.

The safe operation of these things have to be top notch or the consequences are not nice.

[Bonam]

Good to see you around, Bonam.

Poor design was also a factor. The control rooms for reactors 3 & 4 didn't have near the shielding/concrete/steel that 1 & 2 reactor control rooms did. Some 'experts' claim if the same accident occured in reactors 1 or 2 (or in nearly any other reactor on the planet) that the disaster could have been contained inside the building.

Yeah good to be back Been busy lately, moving and everything.

Anyway, I'm not sure how much shielding/concrete/steel is used on other reactors, but the amount of energy released in the meltdown of the reactor would have been the same, and would have been pretty catastrophic either way I think. Any practical amount of shielding would still have let through a lot of radiation, though perhaps the release of fallout could have been mitigated. But my point was mainly that the meltdown would never have happened to begin with if it were not for a series of extraordinarily poor decisions by the staff on hand.

[DogOnPorch]

Reactors 3 & 4 were apparently rush jobs. The control rooms were directly adjacent and barely shielded and reinforced. One and two's control rooms were/are bunker-like and across the building from the actual reactors. Apparently, two other reactors were also planned.