If there is Concern About Iran & Nuclear Weapons - Y not use Thorium Fueled Reactors?

[wwswimming]

The US did a lot of research into Thorium fueled nuclear reactors in the 1950's and into the early 1960's.

From the US point of view, and also the Israeli point of of view, thorium reactors had a significant defect - they could not be used to build a nuclear weapon.

But they made perfectly fine nuclear reactors !


Now that the US & Israel have their nuclear stockpiles, and say that they are concerned about Iran getting access to nuclear weapons - why does neither government push Iran to use Thorium ?

Well, if they did it privately, we wouldn't know about it, and perhaps that has happened.

Still, if we take US & Israeli statements about Iran at face value, if they are sincere about promoting peaceful applications of nuclear technology in Iran, I would expect them to push Thorium-fueled nuclear technology really hard. It works, it's safe (compared to Uranium fueled), and it can't be used to build weapons.


"The thorium fuel cycle is a nuclear fuel cycle that uses the naturally abundant isotope of thorium, 232 Th, as the fertile material. In the reactor 232 Th is transmuted into the fissile artificial uranium isotope 233 U which is the nuclear fuel. Unlike natural uranium, natural thorium contains only trace amounts of fissile material (such as 231 Th), which are insufficient to initiate a nuclear chain reaction."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle


"Thorium-232 was used for breeding nuclear fuel – uranium-233, for example, in the molten-salt reactor experiment (MSR) conducted in the United States from 1964 to 1969. Most of the initial test reactors were closed down. However, countries including Russia, India, and recently China, have plans to use thorium for their nuclear power, partly because of its safety benefits."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium


" * Thorium is much more abundant in nature than uranium.
* Thorium can also be used as a nuclear fuel through breeding to fissile uranium-233.

Thorium continues to be a tanatalising possibility for use in nuclear power reactors, though for many years India has been the only sponsor of major research efforts to use it. Other endeavours include the development of the Radkowsky Thorium Reactor concept being carried out by US company Thorium Power (now Lightbridge Corporation) with Russian collaboration.

In mid-2009, AECL signed agreements with three Chinese entities to develop and demonstrate the use of thorium fuel in the Candu reactors at Qinshan in China. Another mid-2009 agreement, between Areva and Lightbridge Corporation, was for assessing the use of thorium fuel in Areva's EPR, drawing upon earlier research. Thorium can also be used in Generation IV and other advanced nuclear fuel cycle systems.
Nature and sources of thorium

Thorium is a naturally-occurring, slightly radioactive metal discovered in 1828 by the Swedish chemist Jons Jakob Berzelius, who named it after Thor, the Norse god of thunder. It is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils, where it is about three times more abundant than uranium. Soil commonly contains an average of around 6 parts per million (ppm) of thorium."
http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

 

[MotF Bane]

Iran wants nukes. /thread

 

[Jhhnn]

Thorium reactors are a theoretical possibility at this point, with primary efforts being in India and China. China in particular has the kind of technical experience and expertise to engage in that. Iran does not. They're still working on getting their first power generating reactor working, the Bushehr reactor, started by French interests and finished by Russians...

Their uranium enrichment facilities, monitored by the IAEA, are producing fuel grade uranium, not weapons grade. They do have the capabilities to alter their centrifuge cascade to create weapons grade material, but that'd mean kicking out the inspectors, and then there are additional highly technical steps to actually creating weapons.

It's not like I trust the Iranians, but I do trust the IAEA, because they're not any happier about the Iranian program than the ROTW.

 

[wwswimming]

Thorium reactors are a theoretical possibility at this point, with primary efforts being in India and China.

there's nothing theoretical about them, other than the physics theory they are based on.

that is, they are completely operational, have a long usage history.

they were just discarded by the US during the height of the Cold War & never re-visited by the US.

 

[fskimospy]

The byproduct of a thorium reactor, uranium 233, can also be used in nuclear weapons.

 

[Zebo]

Cuz they want weapons. They burn off millions of CFM of gas a day in their oil fields which could be used for power. This whole shtick about power is a ruse.

 

[Zebo]

Thorium reactors are a theoretical possibility at this point, with primary efforts being in India and China. China in particular has the kind of technical experience and expertise to engage in that. Iran does not. They're still working on getting their first power generating reactor working, the Bushehr reactor, started by French interests and finished by Russians...

Their uranium enrichment facilities, monitored by the IAEA, are producing fuel grade uranium, not weapons grade. They do have the capabilities to alter their centrifuge cascade to create weapons grade material, but that'd mean kicking out the inspectors, and then there are additional highly technical steps to actually creating weapons.

It's not like I trust the Iranians, but I do trust the IAEA, because they're not any happier about the Iranian program than the ROTW.

Hidden facilities, buried deep facilities, off limits facilities etc just because IAEA don't trust their lying eyes doesn't mean you have to.

 

[Craig234]

Hidden facilities, buried deep facilities, off limits facilities etc just because IAEA don't trust their lying eyes doesn't mean you have to.

Just like how the IAEA missed all those hidden Iraqi nuclear operation.

2002 is calling, something about knowing there are WMD.

Thing is, while there's hardly proof regarding Iranian nuclear intentions, though it's always possible they have them, I question our right to deny them nuclear weapons.

Could we do much more to give them reason to want them?

Let's see, a history of aggression, overthrowing their government, installing a tyrant for decades. Check.

Invading their neighbor under false pretenses, showing international law against aggressive war is no protection, by a group of people on record saying what a great choice Iraq was to invade because it offered a permanent US military presence that would be a great base for war on Iran. Check.

A history of special forces operating in their country, and crippling their nuclear power program, check.

Backing the 'terrorist' Saddam Hussein with the US military protecting Iraq from Iran after Iraq started war with Iran, causing a million Iranian casualties, check.

Why would Iran possibly want a nuclear deterrent against attack?

There's a case to be made for the reduced risk of nations not having nukes. But the way to get that is for nations not to need them as deterrents for protection.

We haven't done too well at that, instead giving a nation like Iran huge reason to want protection.

We could also honor our own commitments to a nuclear free world; we aren't doing that, either.

It's pretty questionable about our telling Iran they aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons, whatever the benefits for them not to get them.

Save234

 

[lothar]

Thorium reactors are a theoretical possibility at this point, with primary efforts being in India and China. China in particular has the kind of technical experience and expertise to engage in that. Iran does not. They're still working on getting their first power generating reactor working, the Bushehr reactor, started by French interests and finished by Russians...

Their uranium enrichment facilities, monitored by the IAEA, are producing fuel grade uranium, not weapons grade. They do have the capabilities to alter their centrifuge cascade to create weapons grade material, but that'd mean kicking out the inspectors, and then there are additional highly technical steps to actually creating weapons.

It's not like I trust the Iranians, but I do trust the IAEA, because they're not any happier about the Iranian program than the ROTW.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4315394...un-report-iran-secretly-working-nuclear-arms/

If you trust the IAEA, then you should trust that report.

 

[Steeplerot]

The IAEA is just a lapdog for the nuke industry criminals.

Thorium is hopeless as you need massive amounts of rare element.

Solar and wind and better grid is the answer. We need to shut down all these expensive dirty bombs that blight the planet. With fukishima nuke power is done in most of the world. It an expensive toy from the 50s humans are too selfish for nuke power to grasp the long term harm obviously.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The IAEA is just a lapdog for the nuke industry criminals.

Thorium is hopeless as you need massive amounts of rare element.

Solar and wind and better grid is the answer. We need to shut down all these expensive dirty bombs that blight the planet. With fukishima nuke power is done in most of the world. It an expensive toy from the 50s humans are too selfish for nuke power to grasp the long term harm obviously.

Technology needs to improve to handle the nuclear waste. shutting down the nukes will not solve the electrical power issue but do the reverse. to the environment; coal is just as bad.

Solar and wind are not 100% reliable for a given area.
Large storage and backup is needed.

Tree huggers reject wind - it will kill birds (darwin should beproud)
Solar is presently inefficient and requires large space. Maybe install panels over parking spaces. dual benefit

• Area is already unusable for animals and fauna
• Putting up panels will also lower cooling requirements for items stored under the panels.

Tidal would be a worthwhile investment - remove the need for diesel generators up/down the coast. the design of the turbines will reduce fill kills and the impact to the source is nill.

Storage capacity would be minimal - turbines work with in and out flows.

 

[Craig234]

The IAEA is just a lapdog for the nuke industry criminals.

Thorium is hopeless as you need massive amounts of rare element.

Solar and wind and better grid is the answer. We need to shut down all these expensive dirty bombs that blight the planet. With fukishima nuke power is done in most of the world. It an expensive toy from the 50s humans are too selfish for nuke power to grasp the long term harm obviously.

I'm not sure that improved nuclear isn't an important part of future energy needs.

The alternatives you mention are good to do, but my impression is also inadequate.

Safety improvements could apparently have prevented even the Fukishima disaster - and plant location is clearly something to consider that doesn't seem to be done too well.

 

[MotF Bane]

The IAEA is just a lapdog for the nuke industry criminals.

Thorium is hopeless as you need massive amounts of rare element.

Solar and wind and better grid is the answer. We need to shut down all these expensive dirty bombs that blight the planet. With fukishima nuke power is done in most of the world. It an expensive toy from the 50s humans are too selfish for nuke power to grasp the long term harm obviously.

You're hilarious.

"Thorium (

/ˈθɔriəm/ thohr-ee-əm) is a naturally occurring radioactive chemical element, found in abundance throughout the world."

"Thorium is found in small amounts in most rocks and soils; it is three times more abundant than tin in the Earth's crust and is about as common as lead."

Don't let the facts get in the way of your misguided ideologically-driven hatred.

 

[MotF Bane]

I'm not sure that improved nuclear isn't an important part of future energy needs.

The alternatives you mention are good to do, but my impression is also inadequate.

Safety improvements could apparently have prevented even the Fukishima disaster - and plant location is clearly something to consider that doesn't seem to be done too well.

Then where better would you proposed for a location? Since you know so much about nuclear power plant locations, go find a better one.

 

[MotF Bane]

Technology needs to improve to handle the nuclear waste. shutting down the nukes will not solve the electrical power issue but do the reverse. to the environment; coal is just as bad.

Solar and wind are not 100% reliable for a given area.
Large storage and backup is needed.

Tree huggers reject wind - it will kill birds (darwin should beproud)
Solar is presently inefficient and requires large space. Maybe install panels over parking spaces. dual benefit

• Area is already unusable for animals and fauna
• Putting up panels will also lower cooling requirements for items stored under the panels.

Tidal would be a worthwhile investment - remove the need for diesel generators up/down the coast. the design of the turbines will reduce fill kills and the impact to the source is nill.

Storage capacity would be minimal - turbines work with in and out flows.

Or, with regards to wind power, consider Cape Wind, and how the Kennedy family, the left's favorite family, has fought to stop it because it would ruin their precious views.

 

[Steeplerot]

I am not talking about the fuel. The reactor need tons of some if the rarest stuff on earth. Another scam for the nuke industry to piss massive amounts of subsidies away to boil freaking water. Awesome idea but a big money waster.

Adressing the other person the coal vs nuke thing is a false choice the nuke industry feeds people. Guess what other industry these liars own also. Nuke power is a scam.

I can see uses for space. For at home it is suicidal when human error is in play.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Or, with regards to wind power, consider Cape Wind, and how the Kennedy family, the left's favorite family, has fought to stop it because it would ruin their precious views.

All of the renewables are not currently viable for 100%, or hell even 50%, of our energy sources. Solar can work, but not in regions that have a lot of cloud cover, and on average operate at ~20% of rated capacity last I checked. So, while it's great that Spain has a solar tower able to provide many MW's of electricity in theory, realistically it doesn't produce that much. We don't have any way to store power over time. That means it has to be generated as it's used. Renewables are not good in this regard.

In an ideal world we would be running on fusion. Next to ideal would be renewables like solar/wind. After that is fission. The absolute last option is coal and fossil fuels. We need to open up domestic drilling for fossil fuels while we get off foreign oil and build current gen nuclear reactors (ideally Thorium based). We use nuclear while we work on renewables, and then once we have a way to use those we move to them.

 

[PokerGuy]

Or, with regards to wind power, consider Cape Wind, and how the Kennedy family, the left's favorite family, has fought to stop it because it would ruin their precious views.

Shush. Environmentalism and responsible use of resources (sustainable resource use) are only important as long as it doesn't impact the elitists themselves. For reference, watch the goron fly around in his jet and live in his wasteful mansion while telling us about saving energy.

 

[Steeplerot]

All of the renewables are not currently viable for 100%, or hell even 50%, of our energy

Coal/nuke industry hogwash. We waste more energy in our old.transmission lines then all the nuke plants combined. Nuke is 30% or so of our power. With major wind solar tidal we could decommission nuke coal and gas and go with nor localized power anyhow. The problem is disinformation like you spreading disinformation from the industries who own DC.

 

[Jhhnn]

there's nothing theoretical about them, other than the physics theory they are based on.

that is, they are completely operational, have a long usage history.

they were just discarded by the US during the height of the Cold War & never re-visited by the US.

Near as I can tell, there are no operational thorium reactors, nor have there ever been. If you have links to the contrary, please post them.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4315394...un-report-iran-secretly-working-nuclear-arms/

If you trust the IAEA, then you should trust that report.

Try reading the report itself, rather than the article you linked, They cite no new evidence, merely assert old suspicions, even allow that it's a matter of form rather than substance-

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-7.pdf

See section G.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Thorium reactors don't exist. They could, but there's going to be unforeseen technical difficulties associated with such a high level engineering project. It's going to take billions to bring the first on line and I doubt that anyone is going to give Iran the first reactor.

 

[lothar]

Try reading the report itself, rather than the article you linked, They cite no new evidence, merely assert old suspicions, even allow that it's a matter of form rather than substance-

http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-7.pdf

See section G.

G. Possible Military Dimensions
34. The Board of Governors has called on Iran on a number of occasions to engage with the Agency on the resolution of all outstanding issues concerning Iran’s nuclear programme and, to this end, to cooperate fully with the Agency by providing such access and information that the Agency requests to resolve these issues. The Board has also requested the Director General to continue his efforts to, inter alia, resolve the outstanding issues which give rise to concerns, in order to exclude the existence of possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme. In resolution 1929 (2010), the Security Council reaffirmed Iran’s obligations to take the steps required by the Board of Governors in its resolutions GOV/2006/14 and GOV/2009/82, and to cooperate fully with the Agency on all outstanding issues, particularly those which give rise to concerns about the possible military dimensions, including by providing access without delay to all sites, equipment, persons and documents requested by the Agency.

35. Previous reports by the Director General have detailed the outstanding issues related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme and the actions required of Iran necessary to resolve these. Since August 2008, Iran has declined to discuss these outstanding issues with the Agency, or to provide any further information, or access to locations or persons necessary to address the Agency’s concerns.

36. As Iran has been informed previously, although most of the actions identified in the 2007 work plan agreed between Iran and the Agency (INFCIRC/711) have been completed, there remain issues that still need to be addressed. According to the work plan, Iran was required to provide the Agency with its assessment of the documentation related to the alleged studies to which the Agency had provided Iran access. In May 2008, Iran provided a 117-page assessment in which it asserted that the documentation was forged and fabricated. However, as the Agency considers this assessment to be focused on form rather than substance, it has on several subsequent occasions requested Iran to provide a substantive response. Iran has not yet done so. Moreover, based on the Agency’s analysis of additional information which has come to its attention since August 2008, including new information recently received, there are further concerns which the Agency also needs to clarify with Iran. For these reasons the Agency is unable to consider the issue of the alleged studies as referred to in the work plan as being closed.

37. Based on the Agency’s continued study of information which the Agency has acquired, not only from many Member States but also directly through its own efforts, the Agency remains concerned about the possible existence in Iran of past or current undisclosed nuclear related activities involving military related organizations, including activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile. As previously indicated by the Director General, there are indications that certain of these activities may have continued beyond 2004.

38. The Agency has yet to receive a reply to its letter dated 29 October 2010, in which it again reiterated its concerns to Iran and provided a list of those matters which remain to be addressed. These matters include a number of issues that have come to the Agency’s attention since August 2008.

39. The Agency has continued to request that Iran engage with the Agency on these issues, and that the Agency be permitted to visit all relevant sites, have access to all relevant equipment and documentation, and be allowed to interview all relevant persons, without further delay. The passage of time and the possible deterioration in the availability of some relevant information increase the urgency of this matter. Iran’s substantive and proactive engagement is essential to enable the Agency to make progress in its verification of the correctness and completeness of Iran’s declarations.

They also mentioned that the case isn't closed.
It's easy for them to reach such a conclusion(and an appropriate one at that) since Iran has been denying them access or not giving full access as the IAEA wants as required by the passed UN resolutions.

 

[nonlnear]

Just like how the IAEA missed all those hidden Iraqi nuclear operation.

2002 is calling, something about knowing there are WMD.

Thing is, while there's hardly proof regarding Iranian nuclear intentions, though it's always possible they have them, I question our right to deny them nuclear weapons.

Could we do much more to give them reason to want them?

Let's see, a history of aggression, overthrowing their government, installing a tyrant for decades. Check.

Invading their neighbor under false pretenses, showing international law against aggressive war is no protection, by a group of people on record saying what a great choice Iraq was to invade because it offered a permanent US military presence that would be a great base for war on Iran. Check.

A history of special forces operating in their country, and crippling their nuclear power program, check.

Backing the 'terrorist' Saddam Hussein with the US military protecting Iraq from Iran after Iraq started war with Iran, causing a million Iranian casualties, check.

Why would Iran possibly want a nuclear deterrent against attack?

There's a case to be made for the reduced risk of nations not having nukes. But the way to get that is for nations not to need them as deterrents for protection.

We haven't done too well at that, instead giving a nation like Iran huge reason to want protection.

We could also honor our own commitments to a nuclear free world; we aren't doing that, either.

It's pretty questionable about our telling Iran they aren't allowed to have nuclear weapons, whatever the benefits for them not to get them.

Craig, this is one of your best posts of all time. I agree 100%.

 

[lothar]

There's also the last page.

3. Areas where Iran is not meeting its obligations, as indicated in this report and previous reports of the Director General
Iran has not suspended its enrichment related activities as follows:
• Production of UF6 at UCF as feed material for enrichment
• Manufacturing centrifuge components, and assembling and testing centrifuges
• Conducting enrichment related research and development
• Conducting operations, installation work and the production of LEU up to 3.5% U-235 at the Fuel Enrichment Plant (FEP)
• Conducting operations, installation work and the production of LEU up to 20% U-235 at the Pilot Fuel Enrichment Plant (PFEP)
• Conducting construction work at the Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant (FFEP)

Iran is not providing supporting information regarding the chronology of the design and construction, as well as the original purpose, of FFEP

Iran has not suspended work on heavy water related projects as follows:
• Continuing the construction of the IR-40 Reactor
• Production of heavy water at the Heavy Water Production Plant (HWPP)
• Preparing for conversion activities for the production of natural UO2 for IR-40 Reactor fuel
• Manufactured a fuel assembly, fuel rods and fuel pellets for the IR-40 Reactor

Iran has not permitted the Agency to verify suspension of its heavy water related projects by:
• Not permitting the Agency to take samples of the heavy water stored at UCF
• Not providing access to HWPP

Iran is not cooperating with the Agency regarding the outstanding issues which give rise to concern about possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme:
• Iran is not providing access to relevant locations, equipment, persons or documentation related to possible military dimensions to Iran’s nuclear programme; nor has Iran responded to the many questions the Agency has raised with Iran regarding procurement of nuclear related items

• Iran is not engaging with the Agency in substance on issues concerning the allegation that Iran is developing a nuclear payload for its missile programme. These issues refer to activities in Iran dealing with, inter alia:
o neutron generation and associated diagnostics
o uranium conversion and metallurgy
o high explosives manufacturing and testing
o exploding bridgewire detonator studies, particularly involving applications
necessitating high simultaneity
o multipoint explosive initiation and hemispherical detonation studies involving highly instrumented experiments
o high voltage firing equipment and instrumentation for explosives testing over long distances and possibly underground
o missile re-entry vehicle redesign activities for a new payload assessed as being nuclear in nature

Iran is not providing the requisite design information in accordance with the modified Code 3.1 in connection with:
• The IR-40 Reactor
• The announced new enrichment facilities
• The announced new reactor similar to TRR

Iran is not implementing its Additional Protocol

 

[Jhhnn]

There's also the last page.

None of which was part of the original NPT treaty signed by the Shah's govt decades ago. They are, rather, attempts to impose additional requirements on the Iranians by the IAEA at the behest of the US & other nuclear nations. The treaty itself is being used as a lever wrt the Iranians, and misrepresented to the American electorate at the same time. They and other signatory nations had the right to their own monitored enrichment programs all along, but nobody would sell them the technology. Their non-signatory neighbor to the East, Pakistan, changed all that.

They also have their own national security concerns, obviously, and what the IAEA demands is that they set those aside in order to prove a negative, that they aren't developing nukes.

Which is not to say that they're to be trusted, but rather that it's sometimes useful to put ourselves in the other guy's shoes. Imagine if the IAEA were making the same demands on the US, for example... or Israel, for that matter.