Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nachum

Someone needs to give us the downside of thorium-based reactors. There have to be some. Possibly the liquid fuel cycle is too touchy or the lifetime of the reactors is too short. It certainly can be done but economic considerations must be holding it back.

Please, please let’s not have our Federal Government throw billions of dollars toward a hoped-for a thorium-power breakthrough. We have over 70 years of nuclear research behind us. If thorium-based power production was clearly superior to uranium, we’d be using thorium now.


22 posted on 08/29/2010 1:19:08 PM PDT by frposty (I'm a simpleton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: frposty
If thorium-based power production was clearly superior to uranium, we’d be using thorium now.

Nuclear power, like the space program, were dual use programs: i.e. both civilian and defense.

The technology for rockets to the moon applied to ballistic missiles used to carry nuclear warheads.

Uranium cycle reactors produce plutonium used to make the warheads. The thorium cycle produces no fissile material and is of little use to the defense side of the coin. That is why uranium became the fuel of choice. Thorium has the particular advantage in that it cannot be used to make warheads if it gets into the wrong hands.

24 posted on 08/29/2010 1:38:46 PM PDT by seowulf ("If you write a whole line of zeroes, it's still---nothing"...Kira Alexandrovna Argounova)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson