Users Online Now:
1,739
(
Who's On?
)
Visitors Today:
1,011,822
Pageviews Today:
1,757,598
Threads Today:
684
Posts Today:
13,458
07:15 PM
Directory
Adv. Search
Topics
Forum
Back to Forum
Back to Thread
REPLY TO THREAD
Subject
Something Just Went BEZERK in the Gulf of Mexico. The US Navy just sunk a French Submarine
User Name
Font color:
Default
Dark Red
Red
Orange
Brown
Yellow
Green
Olive
Cyan
Blue
Dark Blue
Indigo
Violet
Black
Font:
Default
Verdana
Tahoma
Ms Sans Serif
In accordance with industry accepted best practices we ask that users limit their copy / paste of copyrighted material to the relevant portions of the article you wish to discuss and no more than 50% of the source material, provide a link back to the original article and provide your original comments / criticism in your post with the article.
[quote:option8 1115212:MV8xMTEzNTg2XzE5NjExNzk1X0MyMEFDODk=] [quote:bevvy] Development of Tiny Thorium Reactors Could Wean the World Off Oil In Just Five Years Quote [link to www.popsci.com] One ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium and 3.5 million tons of coal, according to the former director of CERN. via Telegraph An abundant metal with vast energy potential could quickly wean the world off oil, if only Western political leaders would muster the will to do it. hi rkn. as a young bloke i got quite excited when i found out about thoriums potential. I soon came down to earth when i found out that back in the early post ww2 era when nuke power was being developed, thorium vs uranium reactors WERE debated. but since the massive cost of research,design and development only one fuel source was developed. This fuel had the value adding feature that made weapons grade plutonium , which back then was in short supply. I dont think anyone has ironed out all the problems they have with getting a thorium reactor up as yet but there may be a pilot plant somewhere by now. Id love to know... anyone??? Because thorium reactorss present no proliferation risk, and because they solve the safety problems associated with earlier reactors, they will be able to use reasonable rather than obsessive standards for security and reliability. If we can reach the $145-in-1971-dollars/kW milestone experienced by Commonwealth Edison in 1971, we can decrease costs for a 1-gigawatt plant to at most $780 million, rather than the $1,100 million to build such a plant today. In fact, you might be able to go as low as $220 million or below, if 80% of reactor costs truly are attributable to expensive anti-meltdown measures. A thorium reactor does not, in fact, need a containment wall. Putting the reactor vessel in a standard industrial building is sufficient. http://www.thorium.tv/en/thorium_costs/thorium_costs.php found this edit to say, prolly worse than spent uranium to the health, only guessing though, always a down side to these things... [/quote] thanks bevvy ,obviously plenty of good clean air blowin across port philip bay ,keepin those brain cell fireing. I think spent thorium has a hugely shorter half life than uranium which was the selling point back then. i read this back before internet so cant give a link,soz. [/quote]
Original Message
My girl friend has a D.E.D link on her laptop from the French Embassy. (She works at the embassy)
Crazy traffic on DED
Pictures (click to insert)
General
Politics
Bananas
People
Potentially Offensive
Emotions
Big Round Smilies
Aliens and Space
Friendship & Love
Textual
Doom
Misc Small Smilies
Religion
Love
Random
View All Categories
|
Next Page >>