Talk-Polywell.org

Here is the link through which you may access the ebook I recently wrote, which describes the upcoming problem of energy scarcity, and the possible solution:
http://www.broadbit.net/energy

Over the perspective of a few decades, our quality of life is effected mostly by the way that this energy security issue is resolved. That is why I wrote this book, as I found that polywell fusion needs to be put into perspective, otherwise people appreciate neither the problem it solves or its urgency.
Also the chapter is polywell fusion is after the chapter on thorium-fueled fission, as this latter technology is the more commercialization-ready means of solving the energy scarcity problem. I hope that you do not disagree with that order.

Please forward this ebook link to your friends, so that the knowledge spreads.

ankovacs wrote:Here is the link through which you may access the ebook I recently wrote, which describes the upcoming problem of energy scarcity, and the possible solution:
http://www.broadbit.net/energy

Over the perspective of a few decades, our quality of life is effected mostly by the way that this energy security issue is resolved. That is why I wrote this book, as I found that polywell fusion needs to be put into perspective, otherwise people appreciate neither the problem it solves or its urgency.
Also the chapter is polywell fusion is after the chapter on thorium-fueled fission, as this latter technology is the more commercialization-ready means of solving the energy scarcity problem. I hope that you do not disagree with that order.

Please forward this ebook link to your friends, so that the knowledge spreads.

It isn't that urgent. I hate blind panics.

We need to keep moving. No need to break into a run.

Allocating resources to polywell / thorium fuel research described in my book is urgent - so that there would be no eventual energy scarcity and no panic.
I think my opinion is just the same as what you have in your signature.

When you talk to scientists, there is no need to convey a sense of urgency, as they can distinguish important / secondary and short-term / long-term issues. When you do public awareness, which my book aims to do, conveying a sense of urgency is the only way raise public attention.
I hope that my work is not too early, and having public support of polywell research is indeed as urgent as other 'urgent matters', like using taxpayer money to fill those money gaps which bankers pocketed during past years.

I got into energy in the early 60s because we were "running out".

I no longer believe we are running out.

As to my sig: I'd like to give Polywell a good kick. Just because I'd like to see it in the next 20 years. But if it takes 30 I will be disappointed but civilization is not going to come to an end.

MSimon wrote:I got into energy in the early 60s because we were "running out".

I no longer believe we are running out.

Sun-powered device converts CO2 into fuel
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 ... -fuel.html

Nano-team spins tomorrow's yarn
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3872931.stm

Breeders deserve attention and the Thorium-cycle too, so these are excellent energy options to publicize.
However I was asking myself many questions after reading your paper.
I do not understand why you put the emphasis on Thorium rather than on the breeder reactor technology which IMO is the keypoint. From a fuel cycle standpoint, what can be obtained from breeder technology using Th232 can be obtained in pretty much the same way using U238. Do you mean that Th-breeders are easier to build and operate than U-breeders?
Regarding the waste, do you have reasons to believe that there will be a significant difference between a U-breeder and a Th-breeder? The main difference I can think of is the presence of unburnt Pu239 (half-life: 24,000 yr) instead of U233 (half-life: 120,000 yrs). This would not be in favor of the Thorium cycle, though I am far from an expert in the field.
I do not understand either why Thorium should be more proliferation-resistant than Uranium. Is it much more difficult to make bombs out of U233 than Pu239? BTW I swear I never tried either.
My view is that the proliferation risks of nuclear power plants are over-estimated. Real villains have easier ways to get military-grade Plutonium unfortunately.
Finally, you mentioned France several times while I had the impression that Thorium was more India's big thing than France's (India has huge reserves).

There is many times as much thorium in the Earth's crust as there is uranium.

4 to 5 times I guess. At the same time there is 140 times more U238 than U235 in the Earth's crust, which is why I consider that the breeder technology is THE major breakthrough, as regards fission.
According to the OECD, Uranium reserves amount to 70-250 years at the current rate of consumption.
Moving to breeders would allow to burn U238 after transmutation into Pu within the reactor (LWRs do that too but on a very limited scale: within a LWR about 1/3rd of the energy is actually produced by Plutonium atoms , which still leaves 99% of the natural Uranium useless). This would extend our energetic potential to 5,000 to 20,000 years. Add Thorium on top of this and you could expect 25,000 to 100,000 years.

Breeders account for a factor of 70 to 100, Thorium for a factor of 4. That was my point and that is all good news. Worth thinking about.

olivier wrote:4 to 5 times I guess. ...
Breeders account for a factor of 70 to 100, Thorium for a factor of 4. That was my point and that is all good news. Worth thinking about.

No, Thorium accounts for a factor of 280-500 (4 to 5 times 70 to 100) and is less susceptible to weapons proliferation.

Breeders work and we should we have built plenty. Thorium is the preferred option if you have access to Thorium ressources and Thorium technology.

KitemanSA wrote:less susceptible to weapons proliferation

Let us say it is slightly more challenging to make a bomb with U233 than Pu239, and the result will be slightly less powerful for the same mass, but that does not make much of a difference if you are down under.

It has been maintained on these pages that a Thorium source for U233 also includes other U isotopes, at least one of which is a fairly strong gamma emitter. In the MSR, this is a minor issue but in bomb making it becomes a significant player.

Yes, U232 is present which, although not a gamma emitter, decays into gamma emitters. Practically that means (1) bad guys who want build stuff out of it will need a telemanipulator and a shield instead of a simple glove box (no big deal), (2) life will be miserable for smugglers (good point).

AND...
Sheilding the electronics becomes problematical.

olivier wrote:Breeders work and we should we have built plenty. Thorium is the preferred option if you have access to Thorium ressources and Thorium technology.

KitemanSA wrote:less susceptible to weapons proliferation

Let us say it slightly more challenging to make a bomb with U233 than Pu239, and the result will be slightly less powerful for the same mass, but that does not make much of a difference if you are down under.

Consider also that No one has built U233 based weapons, and it would require some weapons testing, which would be a nice tip-off.

One nice thing about this forum, beyond the physics and technology knowledge of all participants, is that is helps improve my English (I did not know what "tip-off" meant).
I did some Internet search. Look for the word "MET" on this page. Ok, the yield was only 22 kt, instead of the planned 33 kt, but it would still hurt if it fell on your toes.
My takeaway from this: Th is less efficient and more costly for weapon-makers. Th will not be the preferred choice for whom has access to Pu. But if you are nasty and patient, half a loaf is better than no loaf. The Th-cycle is in no way going to be proliferation resistant.
Having said that, Th is indeed a clever source of energy. It is ironic that, although perhaps the most promising nuclear fuel, Thorium was left aside because research was historically driven by military objectives.