Hacker News Reader

Comment by msandford | Hacker News Reader

I'm really glad to see that the concept is starting to take off.

It makes me sad that it's not happening in the US. If some folks in the government and business don't get their heads out of their asses a growth industry is going to bypass us entirely.

View on HN

Note that you can breed U-233 from thorium and use that in nuclear weapons. The critical mass of U-233 is about 50% higher than Pu-239 but otherwise it's usable in implosion-type bomb designs; the main hazard is the presence of U-232 as a contaminant (which is a high level gamma emitter and makes it dangerous to work with) -- the real question is how they plan to reduce the U-232 contamination level enough to make weapons-safe U-233.

As India is already a nuclear weapons power, this has no immediate proliferation implications ... but moving a nation of a billion-plus people onto an energy cycle that produces weaponizable material as a by-product might be considered unwise by some. Cf. concerns in the 1970s and 1980s about the implications of running a "plutonium cycle" fast breeder energy ecosystem.

If everyone in the world had enough energy to live a developed-world middle-class lifestyle -- and with thorium reactors this might be feasible -- might that not eliminate one of the driving forces behind global conflict?

I'm not saying it's a slam-dunk win for sure.

But I have noticed a lot of general apathy and aversion to violence in the developed world largely because people are just too busy living their lives; they have a lot to lose.

> the real question is how they plan to reduce the U-232 contamination level enough to make weapons-safe U-233

I'm not convinced that anyone has this goal in mind. Maybe they just want to provide power to their countrymen and continue to lift India out of poverty. There might be nothing nefarious about this, unless you consider poor people getting less poor to be a problem.

In certain parts of the world, maybe. In other parts differences in religion is the driving force behind conflict..

It never really is. It's always about resources and power. Sure, there's often a holy book involved, but it's just a way to divide people into tribes, like nationality, color etc. It's always we want our (un)fair piece of the cake, where we is some group affiliation and it doesn't really matter what the affiliation is based on.

Disagree. Religion is the vehicle. Inequality is the driver.

There were/are religious conflicts in communities where it's impossible to tell the belligerents apart -- ethnically, economically, you name it.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."

Inequality is definitely a contributing factor, perhaps even _the_ contributing factor, but don't count out religion.

Inequality is the wrong diagnosis. As msandford pointed out, it's more likely to be a minimum standard of living issue and having enough to lose. If inequality was a main factor, you would expect Pakistan to have similar crime rates as Sweden, when in reality they're not even close. (PG has an essay on inequality being a boon to a nation's economy: http://www.paulgraham.com/inequality.html) You could also look at the religiosity of a country, but the trend there is that lower standards of living correlate with higher religiosity. (http://www.gallup.com/poll/142727/religiosity-highest-world-...) I'm more inclined to think the causation goes from low standard of living --> religiosity rather than the other way around, given the United States. However there could be other deeper factors that give rise to a low standard of living, such as a nation's average IQ -- you're not going to see a nation with average IQ of 70 outperform let alone match a nation with average IQ of 100 in terms of standard of living.

Good point regarding inequality vs absolute standard of living, but you're also talking about inequality within national boundaries. A good bit of the resentment of the Muslim world towards the West stems from perceived injustice and power imbalance on a regional or global scale.

There is also a big difference between inequality as a ratio of rich to poor, and actual conditions. The poor in Sweden are better off relative to the rich than the poor in Pakistan.

I don't understand the whole "it has to be capable of making bombs to be viable" thing.

I mean, the local coal power plant can't make artillery shells, but we're not shutting it down...

Only an assumption here, but I would say its due to what to do with the waste. If the waste is useless, then we have to have a place to put it. If it has another use, then obviously we dont have to stick it in a hole somewhere.

Again, totally non-researched, off the top of my head assumption.

Thorium reactors breed U-233, but not as a waste product. The U-233 is consumed to generate power. I'm not sure what the U-233 produces when it undergoes fission but I don't think the result is weaponizable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com