New Age Nuclear (Thorium is safer & cleaner)

Cosmos Magazine ^

[rednesss]

It’s also the type of radiation. Shorter lived nuclides tend to emit gamma radiation, highly energetic, highly penetrating type of radiation as compared to alpha emitters. Alpha particles are in essence a helium atom and thus is non-penetrating. Gamma rays in theory could zip right through a concrete wall 9’ thick, while an alpha particle could get bounced back by a sheet of toilet paper.

[Centurion2000]

I was just working today with activated aluminum

Uhm .... why?? You working for Putin BTW? :)

Maybe making some pellets to be shot from umbrellas?

[AdrianR]

Breeder reactors burn U235 and produce plutonium as a by-product. Thorium burns up the plutonium. No weapons application.

They're simply incorrect about that. Thorium-based breeders produce Uranium-233. There haven't been U233-based weapons yet but, in principle, U233 can be used for weapons just as U235 or plutonium.

[rednesss]

Don’t they prefer Polonium????

[AdrianR]

A slightly simplistic explanation would be this: the number of radioactive particles emitted by a gram of radioactive element, over its lifetime, is roughly the same for different elements. And, if the one element stays radioactive for 100 years and the other for 100,000 years, then the first one must be emitting 1000 times more radioactivity per hour, so that the total amount of radiactivity in its lifetime is the same.

[chimera]

It's a very nice experiment we show classes that illustrates isotopic production via neutron capture and then measurement of a short-lived radionuclide. I always get around 2 min. 20 sec. or so using a simple survey meter and a stopwatch. People are always amazed that you can do such accurate measurements with such simple equipment.

28Al wouldn't be a very effective radiological weapon. Doesn't last long enough.

[AdrianR]

And what if the waste produced by such a reactor was radioactive for a mere few hundred years rather than tens of thousands?

A pound of radioactive waste that is radioactive for a few hundred years rather than tens of thousands of years is WAY more dangerous.

They could be claiming that uranium waste contains both components that are radioactive for 100s of years and 10,000s of years (e.g. Pu239) and thorium waste contains only the ones with lifetime of 100s of years and less. In that case, both types of waste are highly dangerous for 100s of years but uranium waste is still (somewhat less) dangerous after that and thorium waste is not.

[BlackJack]

I still think that storing waste for 100 years is a lot less
complicated and less expensive than trying to build
safe storage for 10,000 years.

[Tarantulas]

Thanks for that information, although I suspect you mean liquid sodium rather than liquid salt. The Fast Flux Test Facility, built at the Hanford Site in the late 1970s, was the prototype for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. It used liquid sodium as a coolant. As stated previously, our one and only breeder reactor project was killed by Jimmah Cotter, our worst President ever, to prevent "proliferation." Hence the current uranium shortage.

This fuel cycle starts and ends with uranium. I don't see what's so superior about it.

[TXnMA]

There is so much wild@$$ eco-freako (aka"ecotard") baloney in the article that it renders the author's thorium argument less credible...

[rednesss]

Yep, but they could accomplish that by reprocessing. For once the French get something right. The Japanese are busy at it as well, and the Brits.

[chimera]

You could get essentially that with reprocessing and full actinide recycle. Burning out the actinides reduces the heat load from the waste, which is really the limiting factor for waste repository capacity. If we did actinide recycle the Yucca Mountain facility would have essentially infinite capacity. Waste partitioning recovers 238U, unburned 235U, and 239Pu, all useful materials in the energy production cycle. Taking out other useful radionuclides with an additional partitioning step further reduces waste volume.

[Flash Bazbeaux]

“Where does the thorium fuel come from?”

Thorium sands? They have them in India, among other places.

[aruanan]

Why do you say that?

Can you explain?

Something that is radioactive is emitting one or more of the following: gamma rays, alpha particles, beta particles. The rate at which it decays is a measure of its radioactivity. If its half-life is 200,000,000 years, one half of it will radioactively decay to daughter elements (which may or may not be radioactive). If the half-life of something else is 200 years, one half of it will decay in that time. The danger posed by radioactivity is proportional to the amount of exposure. A pound of something with a very short half-life will expose you to a whole lot more radiation in the same length of time as something with a very long half-life. There may be so much radiation pouring off of it that you could be cooked.

[aruanan]

In that case, both types of waste are highly dangerous for 100s of years but uranium waste is still (somewhat less) dangerous after that and thorium waste is not.

And arsenic has a half-life of forever. This is what comes out of coal-fired plants in addition to tons of uncontrolled radioactive waste from just a single large coal-fired plant every year. Even from a non-thorium using nuclear plant, the amount of high-level radioactive waste per year would fit under a card table.

[Erasmus]

I thought they preferred Stalinium, or its decay product, Chernobium.

[BlackJack]

A lot of people are not aware that coal burning releases a lot
of other things besides mercury....it also releases radioactive
materials.

[Rick_Michael]

Must look at...thanks.

[Uncledave]

Renewable Energy Ping

Please Freep Mail me if you'd like on/off

[aruanan]

A lot of people are not aware that coal burning releases a lot of other things besides mercury....it also releases radioactive materials.

Yes, radioactive elements constitute 1 to several parts per million. A coal-fired generator that burns a million tons of coal a year puts out as waste 1 to several tons of radioactive elements every year. See Before It's Too Late, A Scientist's Case for Nuclear Energy by Bernard Cohen. It's great.