The GOP Triangulates

Tahts a good point. It is weird that hydrogen is not much of a issue. I thought that in California there was a huge move to do that but I lost track of how that was going

It's really simple, but hard to find.

Our pollution and oil dependence is 95% due to one thing-vehicles. We don't use much oil for electricity.

We should move to hydro and electricity for vehicles for our economy, health and national security.

Carbon credit schemes are NOT aimed at getting us off oil, it's about juicing depreciation, fraud, and tax avoidance.

It doesn't make much sense to create hydrogen as a fuel source when you have to burn natural gas to make it. The only other alternative is to build a couple hundred new nuclear plants to do it, and that idea isn't going to happen until we exhaust all other energy sources.

The only other alternative is to build a couple hundred new nuclear plants to do it, and that idea isn't going to happen until we exhaust all other energy sources.

We should start now with R&D on Thorium reactors. See here for the advantages of Thorium over enriched Uranium for nuclear power generation.

Whoa, way over my head.

Some things I do well, like posting Anna Kournakova photos, or Pearls Before Swine comics, but the nuances of nuclear physics is not one of them.

I'll say this. If it's better than enriched uranium, that's what the market will choose for future design.

When you have Republicans advocating new taxes, I know they're going to remain in the minority.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." -Manuel II Paleologus

I'll say this. If it's better than enriched uranium, that's what the market will choose for future design.

Well, IMO the market will need a bit of help, what with the greenies and all. The more people who know something about it the better.
Nuclear physics isn't one of my strengths either, but please bear with me.

These 4 points are explained farther down the article I linked to.

(1) Weapons-grade fissionable material (uranium233) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from the thorium reactor than plutonium is from the uranium breeder reactor.
(2) Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste than uranium or plutonium reactors.

(3) Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U235.
(4) Because thorium does not sustain chain reaction, fission stops by default if we stop priming it, and a runaway chain reaction accident is improbable.

1. Plutonium, while highly radioactive, can be shielded and concealed for shipping and storage, because the alpha rays that it emits do not penetrate lead. On the other hand, uranium233, the weapons-grade material that could be recovered from the thorium reactor, can not be as easily concealed. U233 is almost inextricably accompanied by 0.1% of U232, which, after a series of dissociations (to thallium208) emits gamma rays that penetrate everything.

2. This may be a sticking point, for it isn't quite as safe as that sounds, but still far safer than waste from conventional reactors.
The radioactive waste from the thorium reactor contains vastly less long-lived radioactive material than that from conventional reactors. In particular, plutonium is completely absent absent from the thorium reactor's waste. While the radioactivity during the first few days is likely to be similar to that in conventional reactors, there is at least a ten-fold reduction of radioactivity in the waste products after 100 years, and a 10,000 fold reduction after 500 years. From a waste storage point of view, this is a significant advantage.

3. Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U235.

Natural uranium (U238) contains only 0.7% fissionable U235. So they have to be separated. That's where the business of centrifuges comes in. The uranium is converted to some kind of gaseous compound, and the 2 gaseous uranium compounds are separated in a centrifuge because one is slightly heavier than the other. U238 vs U235.

4. Because thorium does not sustain chain reaction, fission stops by default if we stop priming it, and a runaway chain reaction accident is improbable.

Once a uranium reactor gets going it is self sustaining. I think, during the process of fission - the uranium is broken apart and some energy, some waste and some neutrons are produced , and the neutrons break apart more uranium atoms etc etc. If too many extra neutrons are produced the reaction can run away leading to a meltdown, so there is a delicate balance between having the reaction die, and having it run away. Thorium does not sustain a chain reaction, so you have to continually bombard it with protons from an attached particle accelerator. If things start to get out of hand the particle accelerator can be stopped and the reactoor shuts down. Phew. It's been 50 years since I had a physics course.

There is also an advantage in the cooling process which is explained in the article.

Also from the article.

A good introduction to Rubbia's idea is in "Megawatts and Megatons," (pp153-163) by Richard Garwin and Georges Charpak, Knopf, NY 2001 (originally published in 1997 in French). Another summary, just 3 pages long, is in the CERN Courier, a publication of the European collider laboratory, of April 1995, available on the web at http://einstein.unh.edu/FWHersman/energy_amplifier.html . The CERN report closes with this sentence: "With the heavy ecological implications of present nuclear and conventional energy sources, it is surprising how little R&D work is being invested anywhere in this potentially rewarding alternative energy solution."

I ordered "Megawatts and Megatons" from Amazon a couple of weeks ago and it just came in the mail on Friday. Have only glanced at it so far, but it looks readable.

CE