Transuranic Waste Fission

File: Thorium_vs_Uranium_Fuel_Cycle.png (185KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

185KB, 640x480px

>>8441106
Simple.

Thorium cycle doesn't involve Plutonium-239 products, which has a half-life of 24,000 years. This is the primary transuranic waste of Uranium-cycle LWR.

This doubles as an excellent non-proliferation advantage, which is the primary reason Thorium was neglected for reactor research. The Military wanted their nukes so they could play Brinksmanship.

>>8441331
*I should add that LWRs are not the only way to do reactors and other types of reactors have higher burn-up of fission products like Plutonium. A lot of this is done by altering neutron densities.

But none of this matters, because there is quite literally only ONE thorium-based reactor that is COMMERICAL (all others are Experimental) even being built in the next 10 years. And it is not an MSR, due to all the extra difficulties and uncertainties with that design.

File: Fusion_Is_Coming.png (2MB, 2534x1452px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2534x1452px

>>8441106
>>8441331
>>8441347
I should also add that none of this matters in the end because FISSION is a dead-end.

The future is going to be Fusion, lead by the efforts of ITER and others such as the ARC Reactor at MIT. The recent advancements made in super-conducting electromagnets, necessary for plasma confinement is making Fusion is a reality. The big problem with Fusion was always in how to contain the Plasma for non-trivial periods. The next step will be understanding and creating better confinement chambers in the Tokamaks to withstand the neutron bombardment. That or switching to an alternative design like Lockheed Martin's energy amplifier, which intends to create a steady beam of neutrons that is manageable rather than have them go all over the place within a confinement chamber.

This is a really, really great watch if you are interested. It talks about where we are, how we got there, and what is next.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkpqA8yG9T4

>>8441367
>>8441347
>>8441331
Wasn't what I was looking for. I have been told that we can literally put our TRU into these thorium reactors and burn them for energy. How does this even work?

File: Stuart Henderson - Thorium Energy from Accelerator Driven Reactors.png (3MB, 2554x1286px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2554x1286px

>>8441372
Look at the graph here: >>8441331

With reprocessing (as has been proposed by many LFTR designs), it is typical to remove the U-233 as it is fissile and can be used to 'expand' the fleet of reactors. This is the primary reason why most designs include chemical reprocessing in-situ.

You can NEVER burn all the waste nor can all TRUs be completely fissioned off with any reasonably efficient process or any existing reactor design.

The best approach to removing TRU waste is typically keep up a continuous bombardment with neutrons forcing the very unlikely fission reactionss to take place to form short-lived TRUs instead. Department of Energy is conducting a lot of research into devices known as the ADS (Accelerator Driven System) that would provide this constant stream of bombardment and 'burn off' waste even if it is net-negative for energy production. Again, you CANNOT burn up all TRUs using only a LFTR. It is not possible.

If you are interested:

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgQzkCEteAI

ADS system, apart from allowing a constant stream of neutrons to bombard and elminate TRU waste, can also be partnered with normal Fission reactors (Including the LFTR) to provide the initial neutron bombardment for the Thorium cycle to initiate. This mitigates the need for using other fissile materials such as Plutonium-239 and Uranium-233 to start the reaction.

>>8441399
Ah, so we can burn off the Pu and U reactor waste?

Why are these materials even stored with the unusable TRUs? Is it difficult to process them out? Do we even need to process them out for LFTRs? Is this the reason people often say we can burn TRUs with these reactors?

>>8441417
And by TRU waste I'm referring to the shit they put 3 miles underground in the middle of a desert from U/Pu reactors of pretty much any kind.

>>8441372
>>8441399
If you are still curious you can also read this report detailing TRUs burn up within an MSR, but as I said, you cannot reduce all TRUs using an MSR along

>https://www.hzdr.de/FWS/publikat/JB02/JB_02_R09.pdf

>>8441425
I do suspect I'm getting into such depth that I would have to ask engineers on these projects, as I can't find much by googling.

Thanks though

>>8441417
>Is it difficult to process them out?

It is expensive an unnecessary considering the the economics of doing so. Better to dump most of the stuff out into a pool somewhere in a dessert. The original Oak Ridge MSR did not have the Uranium-233 separate from the TRUs until 2008 actually.

This is official documentation btw:
>http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/Publications/Advocates/4-10.pdf

>Do we even need to process them out for LFTRs?

Yes, certain isotopes can cause damage of the Hastealloy reactor chamber that is necessary to withstand the corrosive salts used in MSR.

Another official report. Tellurium fucks up the inner chamber.
>http://moltensalt.org.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/references/static/downloads/pdf/ORNL-TM-6002.pdf


If you haven't figured it out, MSR has decent potential but a lot of research, development, and tests are needed. I am talking at least a decade or two and several billion $$$. Considering the rate of Climate Change, we can't wait that long and most $ has been pumped into Fusion for long-term or Renewables which can actually save us in a reasonable timeframe.

>>8441367

>computer power not keeping up with fusion technology growth

>>8441450
Nice stuff, and my question in OP is answered.