Thorium !! Infinite source of nuclear power found. | |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 29320440 Norway 12/10/2012 05:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
The Scientist User ID: 23788152 United Kingdom 12/10/2012 05:39 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
NSF001 User ID: 29415023 United Kingdom 12/10/2012 05:43 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Ye, the nazis saw the potential back in the day, though at the time they used it to make bomb-grade Uranium; [link to en.wikipedia.org] I don't think so, he's up there with the others laying low, vying with those who you've traded your life to to bless your soul, |
Defj@m User ID: 7058546 United Kingdom 12/10/2012 06:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | After reading the wikipedia article OP, I am also a little confused as to why all reactors weren't thorium based. Aside from the initially higher costs the benefits would far outweight the negatives. It's either all about money or all about the fact that once in place the running costs are far too low to con the masses into paying for higher priced energy. Shame really. When you do things right people won't be sure you've done anything at all |
NSF001 User ID: 29415023 United Kingdom 12/10/2012 06:07 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | After reading the wikipedia article OP, I am also a little confused as to why all reactors weren't thorium based. Aside from the initially higher costs the benefits would far outweight the negatives. Quoting: Defj@m It's either all about money or all about the fact that once in place the running costs are far too low to con the masses into paying for higher priced energy. Shame really. Uranium is more abundent and I think easier to extract. Thorium is easier to weaponise. Thorium is the way forward if we're going to stick with nuclear though. I don't think so, he's up there with the others laying low, vying with those who you've traded your life to to bless your soul, |
Anonymous Coward (OP) User ID: 29320440 Norway 12/10/2012 06:17 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5676214 United States 12/10/2012 06:20 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | After reading the wikipedia article OP, I am also a little confused as to why all reactors weren't thorium based. Aside from the initially higher costs the benefits would far outweight the negatives. Quoting: Defj@m It's either all about money or all about the fact that once in place the running costs are far too low to con the masses into paying for higher priced energy. Shame really. Uranium is more abundent and I think easier to extract. Thorium is easier to weaponise. Thorium is the way forward if we're going to stick with nuclear though. Uranium is more abundent------False Thorium is easier to weaponise----False Thorium is safe and plentiful and is the way to the future. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 5676214 United States 12/10/2012 06:25 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1483106 New Zealand 12/10/2012 06:28 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | New Zealand had a Thorium reactor for a while to investigate the production of U233 for producing nuclear weapons. As you all know, U233 is bread from Thorium 232 by neutron capture. It can be then be separated chemical to provide small critical mass weapons, but U234 has a high capture cross section and is not easily fissile. The U232 handling issues are another problem, making pit design complicated, but worth the effort if you can reduce the U232 below 200ppm. Plutonium is easier to work - but more deadly. Dreaming of Thorium reactors? lol! |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 29330683 Canada 12/10/2012 06:35 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
NSF001 User ID: 29415023 United Kingdom 12/10/2012 06:37 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | After reading the wikipedia article OP, I am also a little confused as to why all reactors weren't thorium based. Aside from the initially higher costs the benefits would far outweight the negatives. Quoting: Defj@m It's either all about money or all about the fact that once in place the running costs are far too low to con the masses into paying for higher priced energy. Shame really. Uranium is more abundent and I think easier to extract. Thorium is easier to weaponise. Thorium is the way forward if we're going to stick with nuclear though. Uranium is more abundent------False Thorium is easier to weaponise----False Thorium is safe and plentiful and is the way to the future. My bad, it seems there is more Thorium in the earths crust, I couldn't find figures for how much is extractable. As for weaponisation, I'm not sure how to include images in a post but check out this; [link to www.ourprg.com] the thorium taken from the ground will readily absorb Neutrons and after a month decay, naturally into U233. I don't think so, he's up there with the others laying low, vying with those who you've traded your life to to bless your soul, |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 29401069 United States 12/10/2012 06:45 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1483106 New Zealand 12/10/2012 07:03 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | Well Children, NZ obtained its thorium as a waste product from a Monazite Mine in Australia, which purified beach sands for rare earth extraction. Byron Bay. Be careful if you go to Byron bay, the Australians made their houses and filled in the foundations of their buildings and roads with the waste. You can get 50 microSieverts per hour walking down past the local cafe. |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 1483106 New Zealand 12/10/2012 07:05 AM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Frater User ID: 28363777 United States 12/15/2012 04:21 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |
Anonymous Coward User ID: 11270093 United Kingdom 12/15/2012 04:58 PM Report Abusive Post Report Copyright Violation | |