Have not a pet cause yet? Perhaps this one is for you: saving the United States Uranium 233 supply housed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
There is a move afoot at the United States Department of Energy to destroy the Unites States' existing supply of U233. Uranium 233 does not exist naturally and is a byproduct of various nuclear programs. U233 is necessary for Thorium fuel cycle reactors and has applications in nuclear medicine.
The two big objections to the destruction of the U233 are really quite practical: Uranium 233 is part of the Thorium fuel cycle which is a superior means of generating vast amounts of cleaner energy and its destruction is slated to cost on the order half a billion dollars, much greater than the cost of sitting on the U233 in the first place.
Uranium 233 is not a naturally occurring substance and is fairly difficult to make. You need to petition your Congress Critters, Secretary of Energy Dr. Chu and Mr. Obama to keep the United States' U233 stockpile. When the time comes to use it, having Uranium 233 is much better than trying to cook it up from scratch.
While your at it, you ought to put in a plug for amending and reintroducing the Thorium Energy and Security Act of 2008. This proposed law is a bi-partisan initiative co-sponsored by Senator's Harry Reid (D-NV) and Orrin Hatch (R-UT).
If you think long and hard enough about the future of energy on this planet, Thorium fuel cycle nuclear reactors are the logical conclusion. Having Uranium 233 on hand to start such reactors is a real plus and it is not in the interest of the People of the United States to have our stockpile destroyed.
A few other resources on the subject for your perusal: IAEA Thorium Fuel Cycle Potential Benefits and Challenges and the Energy From Thorium website and blog.
DISCLOSURE: I am long in Lightbridge Corporation(LTBR)...and perhaps you should be, too!
Posts
what is the reason they want to destroy it in the first place? How does one go about with this destruction?
ReplyDeleteAs near as I can tell, the reason for the "destruction" of the Uranium 233 came from a recommendation by the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board.
ReplyDeleteIn particular, it would be DFNSB's Recommendation 97-1. In this document, concerns about the dispersal of U233 throughout the U.S. nuclear complex, the deterioration of containers and facilities containing U233 at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and worker safety hazards due to the by products of U233 decay were all mentioned as cause for action. The stuff is "hot" which is why it is not used for bombs (you could, it was done, but it is more difficult).
It is interesting to note that the DFNSB did not say anything about "destroying" the U233 stockpile in 97-1. They seem to specify that its safety and long term storage needed to be worked out more satisfactorily.
As to your second question, "destruction" is not a technically satisfactorily term...though it is wonderfully sensational! The correct term would be "downblending" In the nuclear fuel business, downblending is the opposite of enrichment.
Regarding the DOE's plan for the U233 stockpile, the idea is to downblend the stuff with depleted uranium. Essentially, they are going to dilute it to make it safer to handle.
I tried to put links to all this stuff in the comment but I guess it is not allowed. Apologies!