[ExI] Written for another list

[Eugen Leitl]

On Fri, Aug 03, 2012 at 04:40:40PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 3, 2012  PM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:
> 
> > There are plenty of technical report on operation experience, or, rather,
> > absence,
> 
> 
> Well, the last LFTR was shut down in 1969 so I admit there are not a lot of

The last LFTR was not a breeder. It did not ran on the thorium fuel cycle. 
At all. It did not do online fuel reprocessing. It also ran too hot. It also had
fluorine liberation due to irradtion, despite monel alloy. It also ran
three orders of magnitude below production power.

All in all LFTR did not really exist, nevermind exist long enough
to gather enough data points.

See? These all things off the top off my head none of the thorium
polyannas mention. And this is why I refuse to discuss it. Because
it's not worth it. Somebody is wrong on the Internet? Big fucking deal.

> people with experience at operating one, although many more than have
> experience operating a power satellite.
> 
> > CANDU
> 
> 
> CANDU is a solid fuel Uranium reactor. A LFTR is a liquid fuel Thorium

There are thorium CANDUs. As a thorium advocate you should be very 
aware of differences between the different types. Why aren't you?

> reactor. Big difference

Exactly.
 
> > proliferation risk of U-233,
> 
> 
> Proliferation is a vastly smaller problem with a LFTR and its U-233 than
> with a conventional reactor and its Plutonium for a number of reasons:
> 
> 1) Theoretically you can do it but it's hard to make a bomb with U-233,
> much harder than with Plutonium,  and in fact nobody has ever made a pure

Bullshit. I can make you a U233 bomb no problem. So why don't we send
the issue to the pile of the history, where it belongs?

> U-233 bomb; the closest was a Plutonium/ U-233 hybrid and the explosive

BZZT.

> yield was much less than expected, almost a fizzle.
> 
> 2) In a LFTR U-233 will always be contaminated with U232 which gives off
> such intense Gamma rays it would screw up the bomb electronics, be easy to
> detect, and probably killed the terrorist long before he was half finished
> making it.

BZZT.
 
> 3) The U233 is completely burned up inside the reactor where its hard to

You forget online fuel processing. BZZT.

> steal, unlike existing reactors where used fuel rods are shipped to

There are no rods in a molten salt, which is processed incrementally.

> reprocessing  plants to extract the Plutonium. In one case the potential

U233 is separated online, so no PUREX. Very easy.

> bomb making material needs to be shipped across the country, with a LFTR it
> never leaves the reactor building.

Yes, you produce your fissibles inside the very building incrementally.
Ain't that the greatest feature ever?
 
> 4) A regular reactor produces lots of neutrons but a LFTR makes less of
> them, so it needs all that U233 to keep the chain reaction going, if you
> try stealing some the reactor will simply stop operating making the theft
> obvious.

Fast breeders and slow breeders have different breeding factors. Why
don't you know that, as a thorium advocate?
 
> > if you think corn prices doubling to tripling won't do a thing to Mexico
> > and South America... they will.
> >
> 
> And one reason corn is so expensive is that idiotic renewable energy

The reason corn will be so expensive is because we've got crop failure.

How many crop failures is the world away from starvation?

> resource Bio-fuel; turning food into fuel is just not a good idea.

It is an idiotic idea. But the Irish died fine despite absence of
biofuels. All it takes is 2-3 years of consecutive crop failure.
So if the rains stay out, and you have no energy for seawater desalination
nor irrigation nor nitrogen fixation, what are you gonna do? What are
you gonna do? Try dying. It's so easy. It's the default. It takes
work not to.