It wasn't just Teller (apparently he was party to the discrediting of Robert
Oppenheimer BTW). I believe it was Jimmy Carter that banned the reprocessing
of spent uranium in the US out of concerns over proliferation. The U.S. is
probably one of the only major nuclear countries that don't reprocess. As a
result we have a disproportionally high amount of waste to deal with and are
largely dependent on Canada for medical radioisotopes as I understand.
Thorium 232 is significantly more common than uranium and transmutes to
U-233 which can be used in the production of many useful isotopes,
particularly those used with medical applications.
After the 60s, the industry settled on two basic reactor designs for power
generation, boiling water reactors (BWR) and pressure water reactors (PWR).
Both systems have comparative advantages and disadvantages. The lack of
funding and support to develop alternative systems hasn't provided an
incentive to develop anything else. Reactors tend to be very expensive,
mega-projects taking years to complete and even longer to realize a return
on investment assuming nothing goes wrong.
In the 50's the AEC promoted the idea that power would be produced at a cost
too cheap to meter. On paper, perhaps but the giant kettle and all the
systems that are required to operate it safely are extremely complex and
expensive. The general public are also not exactly supportive of nuclear
energy but that's probably due to the worst mismanaged public relations and
education program in modern history. Building a single giant reactor
requires more complex, onsite engineering and production processes than just
about anything modern engineering can come up with. This combined with a lot
of things that can go wrong due to the complexity, materials and processes
involved. New approaches to nuclear power are actually not new. Smaller,
modular systems that are built in factories then shipped to the point of use
are being revisited along with thorium in molten salt reactors. In some
respects the SL-1 reactor concept made a lot of sense. Much of the
technology developed in nuclear propulsion systems will also be useful in
advancing these designs. We could also really use a more efficient solution
than traditional chemical rockets to go to space.
Anthony J. Cesaroni
President/CEO
Cesaroni Technology/Cesaroni Aerospace
http://www.cesaronitech.com/
(941) 360-3100 x101 Sarasota
(905) 887-2370 x222 Toronto
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> On Behalf
Of John Dom
Sent: Friday, July 12, 2019 5:53 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: MSR reactors.
Thorium reactors are still taken as a serious alternative to uranium ones
AFAIK. But no one ever experimented with Th much. The late Teller liked the
Th concept I read.
As to Pu: the now miraculous stellar V'gers got the go-ahead to travel on
this week with their RTG's outputs rearranged. A 5 year mission extension?
To really colonize Mars, or to go stellar, Dyson's far out nuke Orion drive
may prove unavoidable. Activated beyond LEO or LMO preferably.
John
-----Original Message-----
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Henry Spencer
Sent: vrijdag 12 juli 2019 23:19
To: Arocket List
Subject: [AR] Re: MSR reactors.
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019, Anthony Cesaroni wrote:
...If the reactor and particularly all of the biological shieldingconcept.
didn't weigh so much, it would have been the ticket for the proposed
air breathing jet engine cycles. The USAF just had to have a nuclear
bomber so they plowed on despite all the obvious silliness of the whole
