NRA regulates fissionable content of fuel at 5% or less. All fuel is buffered with U238 at 95% or more to prevent proliferation. The fissionable content produces Pu239 from U238. U233 inclusion in the fuel as the fissionable component makes the reprocessing of the used fuel very dangerous because of its U232 content. U232, a strong alpha/gamma emitter that makes used fuel deteriorate eventually into deadly airborne nanoparticle dust.
U232 is the most deadly stuff used as a potential proliferation deterrent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uranium-232 Some opinions about U232 https://www.quora.com/Nuclear-Weapons-How-dangerous-is-the-U-232-mixed-with-U-233-coming-out-of-a-Thorium-fuel-cycle-reactor On Mon, Jul 18, 2022 at 7:39 PM Robin <mixent...@aussiebroadband.com.au> wrote: > In reply to MSF's message of Mon, 18 Jul 2022 20:26:34 +0000: > Hi, > [snip] > >I admit to being a thorium aficianado with a heavy prejudice toward the > development of the thorium molten salt reactor. I have often wondered about > its abandonment. > > > >So, from my point of view, I am quite pleased that Senator Tuberville > wants to continue with thorium development. > > > > > https://www.ans.org/news/article-4074/tubervilles-legislation-would-stop-destruction-of-thorium-stockpiles/ > > ..so exactly how does one go about "destroying" a Thorium stockpile? By > moving it from one stockpile to another?? > > The whole concept is ridiculous on the face of it, which leads me to > suspect that "freeing up space" is just an excuse > to ensure that the Thorium never actually gets used to generate power. > > I see two possible reasons for this: > 1) The coal lobby. > 2) U233 can be used for bombs. However this doesn't make a lot of sense, > because so can Plutonium, and both U233 & > Plutonium can be used to generate power in nuclear reactors. > > I would say, if they want to get rid of U233, then they can give it to > India. It will cut decades off their Thorium > program. ;) > > BTW (quote):- > > ********************************************************************************************************************** > The Thorium Energy Alliance estimates that there “is enough thorium in the > United States alone to power the country at > its current energy level for over 1,000 years.” However, Tuberville points > out that as the United States has been > destroying its U-233 supplies (much of which is stored at Oak Ridge > National Laboratory), China has begun constructing > nuclear reactors powered by thorium and is also considering using it to > power its aircraft carriers. > > In addition, given that the U.S. imports 79 percent of the uranium used in > its nuclear power plants, Tuberville goes on > to remark, “We don’t want to be using Russia’s uranium. . . . We don’t > want to go to Russia to buy [thorium]. Just think > about the national security for this.” > > ********************************************************************************************************************** > The second paragraph of this quote is at odds with the first. If the USA > has a thousand years worth of Thorium, then why > would they need to go to Russia to buy it? (The author of the quote > probably misunderstood the Senator's intention. More > likely IMO is that he meant that the US wouldn't want to have to go to > Russia to buy U233, which the Russians would be > making in breeder reactors.) > > BTW2, How has the US been "destroying it's U-233 supplies", but using them > in reactors? I wouldn't call that destroying > them, but rather simply using them for their intended purpose. > > BTW3 AFAIK, the US can import all the Uranium it wants from Australia. > > I suspect that "The sickness country" in northern Australia got it's name > because people got radiation sickness from the > Uranium deposits, after long exposure (i.e. living on top of it.) > If no one clicked on ads companies would stop paying for them. :) > >
