ok, im a noob in space tech...just out of my curiositywhat are the better[cheaper and efficient] fuel than thorium? [for a flying bus or an Iron man suite]to be able to fly without propellers and less noise/pollution
got itso,what are the better[cheaper and efficient] fuel for a flying bus or an Iron man suite?which could be the best fit for this specific purpose?
as far as i know the primary advantages of Thorium are there are gobs and gobs and gobs and gobs of it and until it is ready to use it is basically harmless. so if a freight car of it exploded and fell over the U.S. it would just be a falling object problem and not an environmental catastrophe that needed billions for clean up, medical treatment and relocation monies.It is my understanding that Thorium reactors must first convert a working amount of harmless Thorium to a highly radioactive relatively short lived isotope of Uranium. So without knowledge of the stuff necessary to do that conversion (probably some sort of reactor in and of itself plus ancillary systems ) it would seem to be simple to only convert the Thorium as needed moment by moment to power the main reactor. But if you had to have a reactor to convert the Thorium you're back to the original problem anyway; flying dangerous nuclear material over the Earth's surface with a finite risk of horrible accidents.
it is my understanding based on dim memory of years old articles that I read way in the past; that the type of uranium involved is neither the common barely radioactive natural uranium nor the type commonly used in reactors or bombs. but a different even more highly radioactive isotope.ETA: Yup uranium 233.example: http://wordpress.mrreid.org/2010/07/22/uranium-233-and-the-thorium-future/
as far as i know the primary advantages of Thorium are there are gobs and gobs and gobs and gobs of it and until it is ready to use it is basically harmless. so if a freight car of it exploded and fell over the U.S. it would just be a falling object problem and not an environmental catastrophe that needed billions for clean up, medical treatment and relocation monies.
I think you would be right about that except for the peculiarities of the cycles. the thorium/u233 one can be done on the fly (I think.) I think i recall that the Thorium U233 cycle is safer environmentally and also from a proliferation perspective because you could make U233 at the burn rate for the reactor so there never was much of it at any one time and the uranium was unsuitable for practically sized fission or fusion bombs. Again i don't retain all the details of stuff i read over periods of years and i would be lucky if i got all that right from my poor memory.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/27/2017 06:59 amI think you would be right about that except for the peculiarities of the cycles. the thorium/u233 one can be done on the fly (I think.) I think i recall that the Thorium U233 cycle is safer environmentally and also from a proliferation perspective because you could make U233 at the burn rate for the reactor so there never was much of it at any one time and the uranium was unsuitable for practically sized fission or fusion bombs. Again i don't retain all the details of stuff i read over periods of years and i would be lucky if i got all that right from my poor memory.You are bringing up an entirely separate advantage of Thorium, the nuclear weapons proliferation issue. That doesn't justify your saying "you would be right about that except".No. I was right in what I said, with no "except". I never said there wasn't a weapon proliferation issue. I even said Thorium had other advantages and disadvantages. My point was just that the two issues you brought up originally as advantages of thorium aren't really advantages over uranium breeder reactors.
I think you would be right about that except for the peculiarities of the cycles. the thorium/u233 one can be done on the fly (I think.) I think i recall that the Thorium U233 cycle is safer environmentally and also from a proliferation perspective because you could make U233 at the burn rate for the reactor so there never was much of it at any one time and the uranium was unsuitable for practically sized fission or fusion bombs.
The meat of it (provided I am correct and not misremembering) is that the Thorium can be converted to U-233 in what amounts to an almost instant manner as needed. I do not think that is the case for normal uranium breeder cycles.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/27/2017 07:46 amThe meat of it (provided I am correct and not misremembering) is that the Thorium can be converted to U-233 in what amounts to an almost instant manner as needed. I do not think that is the case for normal uranium breeder cycles.I don't think you are remembering it right. IIRC both processes are similar:Th232+n -> Th233 -> Pa233 -> U233U238+n -> U239 -> Np239 -> Pu239Both are beta decay chains with several days half-lives in the second decay.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 04/27/2017 06:59 amI think you would be right about that except for the peculiarities of the cycles. the thorium/u233 one can be done on the fly (I think.) I think i recall that the Thorium U233 cycle is safer environmentally and also from a proliferation perspective because you could make U233 at the burn rate for the reactor so there never was much of it at any one time and the uranium was unsuitable for practically sized fission or fusion bombs.That's wrong - there would be more than enough U233 to build a bomb. Reactors have hundreds of tons of fuel in them. 1% burnup of thorium in such a reactor would yield some ~1 ton of U233 - enough for a hundred nukes.The problem (for bomb makers, that is) is that thorium reactors also generate U232, which has very undesirable radiological properties, contaminating that U233.