Re: [Phys-l] global temperatures -- a modest proposal

["Bill Nettles" <bnettles@uu.edu>]

The Carter administration basically killed the thorium breeder program (Naval Reactors ran it at Shippingport, PA) because they didn't want to develop ANY future nuclear options, regardless that the cycle produces U233 as the fissile fuel, not the easiest "bomb" material. The breeding ratio was small, very close to 1, but it was self-sustaining fuel-wise. Carter didn't want to have any fuel reprocessing going on.
 
They also killed the fast breeder program which made Pu239, much more "newsworthy" fissile fuel, but there were technology problems with having large amounts of liquid sodium flowing around in addition to whatever proliferation demons were conjured. The Navy abandoned sodium reactors long before LMFBR.
 
Bill N

> > > John Denker <jsd@av8n.com> 4/6/2009 2:57 pm >>>
On 04/06/2009 09:42 AM, David Appell wrote:

> In 50 years we will probably have used up most of the oil, but then, if 
> nothing else is available, we will switch to coal, of which there is 
> enough to last a few hundred years.

Are you sure of that?  On a worldwide basis?

When I do the numbers, it looks like if present trends continue
within a few decades we will have used up all (not just most) 
of the world's oil, all of the world's coal, all of the world's 
natural gas, and all of the world's 235U.

  The numbers might /appear/ different if you include only the
  current US trends, because the US has a disproportionately
  large share of the world's coal yet is burning it at a
  disproportionately low rate, preferring (for the moment) to
  burn imported oil.

To repeat:  On a worldwide basis, including coal does not solve 
the problem, and even including 235U does not solve the problem.

There are only two ways out:  renewable energy and/or breeder
reactors.

  Breeder reactors can get energy from 238U, which is 200 times
  more abundant than 235U.  Also thorium.  This could provide
  energy for a few centuries (not just a few decades).  However,
  almost* nobody wants to propose this as a solution, because it 
  makes the weapons proliferation problem so much worse.  Also 
  the track record for breeder reactor safety is not good.

   (*) There are folks in India who want to build a thorium-based
   breeder.  Apparently India has indigenous supplies of thorium
   but not much uranium.  The safety and proliferation issues
   remain.

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l