Thorium reactors, a.k.a LFTR, a.k.a. "hope-ium" are still very much on the drawing board. They have some nice properties (stability, safer, liquid based).
p.s. I am pro renewable. Nuclear will comeback around 2050 when we run out of space...
Thorium reactors, a.k.a LFTR, a.k.a. "hope-ium" are still very much on the drawing board. They have some nice properties (stability, safer, liquid based).
p.s. I am pro renewable. Nuclear will comeback around 2050 when we run out of space...
Consider that the world's first commercial nuclear power station, Calder Hall at Windscale, England, was opened in 1956¹, has there ever been a nuclear material used as a weapon other than the obvious two and conventional depleted uranium armour piercing projectiles?
I would be curious to hear how/if thorium presents a qualitatively different proliferation problem.
Though, when talking of nuclear proliferation, we almost always mean just the proliferation of nuclear and thermonuclear explosive devices.
North Korea used a power reactor to produce all of the Plutonium for its nuclear explosive devices, some of which were supposedly of a weapon form-factor have been used. If by "used" you mean "used in anger", then of course, there are only the two instances. (It also should be noted that in the context of nuclear reactors and proliferation, Little Boy is only tangentially related. Nuclear reactors weren't used in the production of Little Boy.)
Thorium breeder reactors in fact will work just fine for big booms by selectively producing protactinium-233 and then running it through a couple of decay and chemical separation cycles.
So maybe U233 could be used to make a weapon. I don't know whether that possibility makes it a big proliferation risk or not.
India has made an explicit decision not to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT). As a member of the Nuclear Suppliers Group, Australia is supposed to export only to countries that have signed the NPT. An exemption has been granted to India. This means India is receiving uranium from Australia, but its facilities are not subject to the full range of inspections required under the NPT. It's reasonable to assume that India will go as far as it can in its role as a non-signatory to the NPT.
Essentially India said "trust us", and Australia said "show us the money."
http://isis-online.org/isis-reports/detail/north-koreas-lith...