Comments on: “De-Clawed” Nuclear Fuel Would Provide Only Electricity, Not Bombs

By: mike

mike — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 17:30:25 +0000

It is entirely possible to have a nuclear fuel cycle that does not produce weapons useable waste.
Why do we still use the 1940’s style Pressurized Water Reactor with its need for Uranium Enrichment? 65 years later we have other choices. If the standard was a Thorium fuel cycle, then we would know that any country pursuing Uranium enrichment was doing so for weapons.

Let’s have 21st century Nuclear Power where it is possible to have NO long lived waste, and energy abundance for all people on Earth.

By: Lisette Root

Lisette Root — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 19:34:44 +0000

Just because a thing can be done does not mean that it should be done. The money and resources which are being spent on this type of research would be better spent, in my opinion, on solar, wind and water generated electricity. Stopping all “research” of this nature, by all nations, would create a safer world for all of us.

By: Allen Ev.

Allen Ev. — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 20:38:54 +0000

We should start by “declawing” all weapons grade material from decommissioned nuclear warheads.

By: TJ

TJ — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 15:10:09 +0000

Reply to “J” . If the IAEA were to require Iran and ALL other countries to use thorium + americum in their uclear generation plants wouldn’t that be a win-win-win situation for the world?

By: J

Wed, 11 Mar 2009 01:03:19 +0000

As a nuclear engineer and avid watcher of issues related to Iran’s nuclear development I believe I can offer a likely answer (though perhaps slightly incorrect since I haven’t seen the research to be certain).
Americium is a fissile element, but it’s properties prevent it from being useful as a weapon – it’s basically prevented from going critical in the ways most desired for bombs I believe. It also soaks up neutrons at the speed that are given off when exploding a nuclear weapon (extremely simplified, but accurate I think). If too many neutrons are soaked up by Am instead of plutonium, then the bomb doesn’t really explode – or at least only a small explosion on the order of something with some C4 I think.
In the basic chemical reprocessing of nuclear fuels we have today in a few places (and as were used in the big US and Russian plutonium production facilities), you created alot of Plutonium without creating Americium because they are too chemically close to separate.
If you “dope” the fuel with Am that doesn’t get used up at the slower neutron speeds that you use to make electricity, it will still be there if someone tries to extract the plutonium for a bomb. I believe that was the basic idea, and the research probably just determined the exact amounts needed.

There seem to be 2 ways to get material for a nuclear bomb: reprocess fuel after you use it in a reactor for electricity, or to enrich Uranium to the point that you can craft it into a weapon. North Korea went for the 1st option, Iran is suspected of the second.

The reason why Iran’s motives are suspect even by the IAEA is that they don’t have enough natural uranium to make it worth developing an enrichment program – especially when they have vast reserves of natural gas that provide a cheaper alternative. For somewhat of an analogy; you wouldn’t build a new oil refinery to refine enough oil for one tank of gas. That’s sort of the situation in Iran – they only have enough uranium for a few reactor loads, so why spend billions of dollars developing a plant and technology to make fuel? The fear – and prevailing consensus – is the ability to use that same technology to make the uranium into a weapon.

But the bottom line: Am is not easy to separate in meaningful amounts when you reprocess nuclear fuel. If you dope the fuel with Am, an attempted bomb will fissile. There are likely ways around this, just like anything else in the world, but the more effort it takes, the more money it costs, and the more likely someone is to discover what is trying to be done – and this would be a clear indicator that someone was attempting to build a weapon.

By: Dean

Dean — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 15:54:57 +0000

I would say the time for this is when ALL nations give up all their bombs, why would any nation guarantee it’s military inferiority to any other nation? This Israeli line of “we’re the good guys” is bunk.

By: John Lerch

John Lerch — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 14:02:11 +0000

I don’t see how adding Americium to the fuel would prevent its use as a bomb. Isn’t Americium in a different sub-column on the periodic table? As such isn’t is possible to remove it chemically? It would generate nuclear waste; but it would be a lot easier than centrifrugation.

By: Stuart Wall

Stuart Wall — Sun, 08 Mar 2009 21:32:38 +0000

How can someone say that Iran is not threatening anyone, when their president constantly talks about wiping Israel off the map, and some of their populace chant death to America? I think this discovery by the Israelis is a fantastic first step in making nuclear power safer. You have to credit Israel for doing everything possible to resolve their national security peacefully.

By: Ken Erickson

Ken Erickson — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 20:01:21 +0000

A Canadian was maced when entering the U.S. because he insisted on being treated in a respectful manner. I suspect the Iranians have feelings parallel to those of the Canadian for similar sorts of reasons.

By: Grace

Grace — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 01:22:25 +0000

That’s not a fix, Larry. It doesn’t address Iran’s long-term need for independent, self-sufficient energy production – something it needs so that its electric grid can’t be held as a political hostage to the countries with a monopoly on fuel production. Iran has the independence it has now in large part because of its oil supply, which won’t last forever. If it can refine its own fuel – which can be purchased in raw form from a large number of countries around the world, not just a handful of nuclear powers – it can remain independent in the long term.

By: Larry

Larry — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:27:46 +0000

Actually this is relevant to Iran, offer to give the denatured fuel in a large quantity in return for complete destruction of fuel processing capabilities. If they agree clearly they have as they claim a civilian power program, if they refuse then there should be no question that its a cover for weapons development.

By: Blah

Blah — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 17:20:44 +0000

Once again we’ve got a bunch of Iranians on here advertising how wonderful they are, than we’ve got some owners of the THPW stock trying to inflate their earnings.

Good job guys.

By: Nick

Nick — Fri, 06 Mar 2009 03:34:58 +0000

Oddly enough, I woke up and twittered that Thorium was the Thunder Element.

By: Jmalis11

Jmalis11 — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:53:44 +0000

Thorium power is better. Stock Symbol THPW.

By: Lizzie

Lizzie — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 22:04:02 +0000

Incidentally, Iran has offered to give up plutonium reprocessing – so it would not be able to make a bomb that way either.