Slashdot Mirror
Thorium, the Next Nuclear Fuel?
mrshermanoaks writes "When the choices for developing nuclear energy were being made, we went with uranium because it had the byproduct of producing plutonium that could be weaponized. But thorium is safer and easier to work with, and may cause a lot fewer headaches. 'It's abundant — the US has at least 175,000 tons of the stuff — and doesn't require costly processing. It is also extraordinarily efficient as a nuclear fuel. As it decays in a reactor core, its byproducts produce more neutrons per collision than conventional fuel. The more neutrons per collision, the more energy generated, the less total fuel consumed, and the less radioactive nastiness left behind. Even better, Weinberg realized that you could use thorium in an entirely new kind of reactor, one that would have zero risk of meltdown. The design is based on the lab's finding that thorium dissolves in hot liquid fluoride salts. This fission soup is poured into tubes in the core of the reactor, where the nuclear chain reaction — the billiard balls colliding — happens. The system makes the reactor self-regulating: When the soup gets too hot it expands and flows out of the tubes — slowing fission and eliminating the possibility of another Chernobyl. Any actinide can work in this method, but thorium is particularly well suited because it is so efficient at the high temperatures at which fission occurs in the soup.' So why are we not building these reactors?"
Hydrogen is a great way of storing energy but impossible to generate without electricity and the only natural available source is in oil/gas reserves.
Too bad there's no hydrogen in the oceans... oh, wait...
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
I'd rather they have MAD.
That only works when the opponents are relatively sane, and don't actually want to die.
Unfortunately, religious zealots aren't all that sane, and 72 virgins can seem pretty tempting when your wife is a cow wearing a big black bag.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
The United States has never threatened to yank the Israeli Defense Fund, and if it did so, it would be an empty threat. They enjoy an accountability-free existence. Sure, Europe pisses and moans, but the United States' veto power on the UN Security Council virtually guarantees that there will never be any UN sanctions on Israel.
Oh, and interesting factoid. No Israeli soldier has ever been prosecuted for the deaths of Palestinian civilians. Ever.
Uneducated people see or hear the word "nuclear" and think "OH MY EFFING GAWD! WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!" or think China Syndrome which is typical Hollywood bunk or think CHERNOBYL! EVERYBODY PANIC! Or just as bad, some do-gooder senator decides that a few desert tortoises are more valuable than a solar farm in a fairly remote area that would go a long way to solving California's electricity needs, or as bad as the NIMBYs who kill off a wind farm in another remote desert area because the power lines would have to cross the desert. You can't have it both ways, people. *facepalm*
After the release of the ClimateGate emails from the CRU, East-Anglia, I have been looking myself at some of the data, including the recently re-collated Siberian data and and weather observation station data from US and Europe. From a previously neutral position, I have rapidly concluded that the CRU presentation is fraudulent and the data, at best, indicates a .6 dC per century over the last 100 years. Mann, Jones and IPCC results can only be replicated by completely Cherry Picking the data. The Hockey Stick is horseshit. Also CO2 levels lag, not lead temperature.
AGW is a scam to persuade the population to pay more for energy, and Carbon Trading schemes, which have similar validity to CDOs.
I know, from personal knowledge, that Oil Companies regularly understate reserves, talk up risks and Peak-Oil, and fail to build reserve refining capacity in order to elevate the oil price. At USD 23.00 per barrel most US and European Oil Co(s) make a reasonable commercial profit, tax paid to producer countries. Two sets of books are normal.
Bert Rutan, the aeronautical engineer, has also come to the same conclusion and published his interim analysis here,
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.Intro.AGW.b.pdf
Common sense tells you we are being lied to, and on a grand scale.
Thorium Fission Reactors, Fusion Reactors and Geothermal Taps and another 6 technologies are all feasible real re-newables which are not compromised by higher cost, and do not involve diverting plant crops to fuel, thereby putting up the cost of food.
The idiot writes: "the enrichment process is more difficult and costly"
This is so ignorant it not only brings the rest of the unsupported assertions into question, it indicates the poster is an idiot.
Seastead this.