Posted on 01/07/2011 9:47:41 PM PST by Straight Vermonter
ping
This is a big story. The combination of thorium reactors and supercapacitor vehicles could end the petroleum economy and OPEC.
bflr
The PhD who visited me (interested in my tunneling experience) method uses 16 isotopes, and 16 cheap medical accelerators hitting a detrium pellet coated with Lithium, and H3 gas to syphon off the energy and 4 - 5 smaller containment chambers.
Both methods claim they can generate fusion power by 2018. No radiation or waste. Question is? which method is best. Both have web sites ITER and fusionpowercorporation.
If it were perfected tomorrow, the Eco-Nuts would find something about it to riot over!
It’s pretty clear that some form of nuclear energy is the way to go, may not be the same tech we use now.
The sooner the better!
I want my 100 Octane alcohol free gas back, and I want it CHEAP!
Apparently we chose uranium over this, just for the nuke weapons.
We can only hope
Thorium bombs are not possible?
Fusion reactions do throw off radiation... can’t be avoided. This sounds like a scam.
Eco-nuts would whine about the liquid lead.
No, Thorium bombs are not possible, but there is a weapon hidden in the Thorium reactor scheme.
When Thorium captures a neutron, it eventually converts to Uranium 233. Just like the more widely known U-235, this is a fissile material which can be made into nuclear weapons.
And, separating U-233 from Thorium is easy compared to separating U-235 from U-238.
Fusion reactions do throw off radiation... can’t be avoided. This sounds like a scam.
The “radiation” from fusion reactions is in the form of the high energy neutrons coming off the fusing ions, and of the very low enrgy decay products of the dueterium production (or tritium) used as the fuel.
Since the neutrons must be captured to heat up the water that actually produces the steam that produces the useable energy out of the plant, the neutron “losses” (absorbed into steel and concrete and piping and heat exchangers) “stays” in those “permanent” plant equipment. It isn’t “released” to the environment, and - unlike the fission fuel by products and decay products - is not a high radioactive gas or soluble chemical.
Yes - It is mildly radioactive. But manageable.
Sounds like it’ll work. After all, Cobalt Thorium G has has a half-life of 93 years...
Hmmm, but what sort of quantities do you get?
100 Lb. of Thorium yields ? U-233?
Over what time frame?
Would it be an efficient source for U-235?
Maybe this is what happened to the fish and the birds?
Or, how about that Large Hadron Collider?
My 2007 Mustang GT takes regular gas....but, yes, ALCOHOL FREEEEEEEEEEEEE!
Pardon me for being a skeptic, but I remember how 'nuclear power generated electricity was going to be so cheap to produce that it would be free'...
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for developing alternate forms of energy generation and transport. What I reasonably fear is the sort of political climate which discards that which works for that which does not, and then mandates the latter. In the end, the marketplace should decide.
It's small wonder why both India and China are aggressively developing thorium-based reactors, especially since thorium is far more available than uranium naturally.
What’s going on with Polywell fusion? I’ve been monitoring this website ( http://iecfusiontech.blogspot.com/ ) for a few years to keep up but it’s been dead since the middle of last summer.
And thorium is an unwanted byproduct of Rare Earth Metals refining, and one of the reason we were prevented mining them here. Since China at present has a stranglehold monopoly on supplying these critical metals, they likewise would love a thorium-to-energy solution.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.