/sci/ - Science & Math

>>4749089

>spallation is not subtle

I herr dat! Pic related.

>dat energy range

>>4590379

I'm not saying they're the same thing, I'm saying that they don't even have a comparative source strength, in fact, the entire point is to minimize neutron flux in a tokamak (btw, flux is directly correlated to source strength...you're an idiot, so I know it can be difficult for a person like you to understand). It takes a LOT of time to breed plutonium in reactors, which, comparatively have the highest neutron strength/flux of any source.

Take a look at the attached image. 10^15 (reactor) > 10^13 (neutron flux of a tokamak). The accelerators listed are mostly spallation sources, so they're for the most part discounted from this discussion. Also, Z-pinch is irrelevant because it's pulsed and not continuous source.

Now, let's think about this for a second. Not only do reactors have a higher neutron density, but they're also operating on a thermal spectrum. With D-T energy neutrons (14.1 Mev) you're going to end up fissioning more U-238 that transmuting it. You are much better off having U-238 absorbing under thermal conditions.

In summation, you're a fool for thinking that tokamaks are a proliferation risk both for the reasons listed above and with the fact that current research for tokamaks is based on limiting neutron flux.