China is leading the way with thorium Reactor

[Karl]

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium - Telegraph

I particularity like the following comment;

"US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power, the plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs."

Is there no end to the madness of the oil & power barons? & get this;

"As a happy bonus, it can burn up plutonium and toxic waste from old reactors, reducing radio-toxicity and acting as an eco-cleaner." WTF? so why the hell are we not using thorium, if only to clean up??

[thedude]

here! here!

Doesn't that just salt the open wound! This is typical of human nature. There is nothing kind about "Man-kind".

At least this is a step in the right direction, although i still view it with much, much speculation. We are constantly told that one is safe only to discover that the real safety resides within a stipulation, and that stipulation carries with it a unimaginable risk. When the unimaginable happens, no one is to blame... who could have predicted!

I really do believe that any centralized system in place is going to be subject to failure over the next few decades. Distributed energy technology is the best and most effective solution and won't fall apart should the conduits become severed. It is my sincere belief that such innovation is already available, but it resides securely under the fat ass of some bureaucratic elitist money grubbing waste of skin that deserves to have his head chopped cleanly off. My disdain for the wealthy eugenicist knows no bounds.

I do very much enjoy the idea of reducing the existing supply of such materials. My faith in our governments use of technology is very suspect. Talk about Pandora's box. The nuclear bug is a hard one to keep safely, perhaps thorium is the way. thanks for this info Karl.

[rickoff]

Research underway for self-sustaining thorium reactor

The Brookhaven National Laboratory, in New York, received a Grant last year to develop a thorium-based, self-sustaining light water reactor that will produce and consume about the same amounts of fuel. NASA scientist, and thorium expert, Kirk Sorensen calls thorium the "next giant leap" in energy technology, noting that the "potential energy in thorium is staggering," and explaining how just 8 tablespoons of thorium could provide the energy used by an American during his or her lifetime.

Thorium is plentiful worldwide, and is far more abundant than uranium. In fact, it is estimated that thorium could supply the world's energy needs for 1,000 years! And that is just the short side estimate, since the potential is nearly unlimited if Brookhaven's self-sustaining reactor project is successful. Even with existing technology, a single ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 200 tons of uranium, or 3,500,000 tons of coal. The reason why thorium is so much more potent than uranium is because it comes out of the ground as a 100% usable isotope, whereas uranium is only 0.7% fissionable and must be enriched for use in a reactor.

When you think of the massive amounts of dirty, polluting coal being burned at coal-fired power plants, and the huge amounts of deadly toxic uranium waste that cannot be stored anywhere safely, aren't you just a bit peeved that thorium use has all but been ignored even though the technology has been available since the 1960's?

Rick

[Savvypro]

"US physicists in the late 1940s explored thorium fuel for power, the plans were shelved because thorium does not produce plutonium for bombs."

Even if they didn't say it, there is no other logical explanation for the development of nuclear power than to produce weapons. Especially considering the fact that the technology is only 30% efficient (about as efficient as burning wood), even after the US alone, has spent over $1 trillion on nuclear research and development (including for power use).

Were not going to see hot fusion any time soon, and if we do - the technology will require that the reactor be dismantled after just 2 years of use - as the walls of the reactor will become extremely radio active. It's funny, a technology that should be safe - will turn out to be just as dangerous as the technology it's meant to replace. Will end up being more costly (reactor rebuilds every 2 years), and just as dangerous if not more so.

You know - there is a pattern to all this, only the most dangerous incarnations of a technology field are fully developed. While things that are safe are discarded, in some fields their mocked or worse: the people who try to develop it are either forced to stop or terminated.

This is not just limited to energy (oil/nuke alternatives) - you can see the results every where. Medicine we all know about, farming, aviation (just take a look at rexresearch).

The alternatives that are allowed to be developed are jokes and the plonkers that be know it.

Doesn't that just salt the open wound! This is typical of human nature. There is nothing kind about "Man-kind".

I really do believe that any centralized system in place is going to be subject to failure over the next few decades. Distributed energy technology is the best and most effective solution and won't fall apart should the conduits become severed. It is my sincere belief that such innovation is already available, but it resides securely under the fat ass of some bureaucratic elitist money grubbing waste of skin that deserves to have his head chopped cleanly off. My disdain for the wealthy eugenicist knows no bounds.

I agree, just look at nature - nothing is centralised. Instead of learning from nature, the ignorant experts assume they know better and can do better. Which results in tech which =

[dutchdivco]

karl

In reading your post, i find myself in total agreement, particularly in regards to centralised vs. decentralised.Currently, we all live at the end of very long, frail and tenous supply lines, and are dependent on them for our 'necessities'.
I see your comment about disdain for the 'wealthy eugenicists' and I see why you responded to me in another thread with such vehemence. I am neither wealthy, nor a eugenicist.
I simply have opinions, like everyone, that shape my world view.Decentralisation vs. centralisation is a big part of it. I also think such a change would also, logically, lead to a reduction in population.To continue to produce more people, dependent on and placing more demands on a profit driven system of supply lines, or grids, for energy, potable water, food, shelter, medical care, information, entertainment, public safety, 'financial services' and even employment is insane.Jim

[protecheqp]

Energy from Thorium nice reading also from march 23/2011

[mbrownn]

I could not have said it better

[mbrownn]

In reading your post, i find myself in total agreement, particularly in regards to centralised vs. decentralised.Currently, we all live at the end of very long, frail and tenous supply lines, and are dependent on them for our 'necessities'.
I see your comment about disdain for the 'wealthy eugenicists' and I see why you responded to me in another thread with such vehemence. I am neither wealthy, nor a eugenicist.
I simply have opinions, like everyone, that shape my world view.Decentralisation vs. centralisation is a big part of it. I also think such a change would also, logically, lead to a reduction in population.To continue to produce more people, dependent on and placing more demands on a profit driven system of supply lines, or grids, for energy, potable water, food, shelter, medical care, information, entertainment, public safety, 'financial services' and even employment is insane.Jim

[kippered]

[142857]

Lets not forget, in the meantime they are also burning more coal than anyone on the planet.
Suppose the chinese did create the ultimate clean super power plant....why would they share it with us....and if they did, what makes you think it wouldn't wind up just as convoluted and just as big a rip off as anything else before you get a taste of it. Who would controll the worlds great new power supply?

Prolly the same people who controll it all now.........

[dutchdivco]

mbrownn

No, I live in US, in an area of 14 interlocked cities, with I don't know how many million people.China has plenty of corruption, although I do admire their way of dealing with it; Gov't employee arrested for corruption, 6 week trial, 1 week appeal then they hang the barstud! Anyway, also horrible ecological record, and is currently hording rare earth metals.I just feel like every 'solution' we come up with causes 3 or 4 new problems, in large part because we don't want to accept unappealing difficult solutions.So, we go for whats do-able.Oh, and not trying to push your buttons; I actually thought we were agreeing on a lot of things.Jim

[kippered]

I agree with both of the last 2 posts.

But is that not exactly what the west did to get into power?

[dutchdivco]

Yes it is

exactly what the west did.Doesn't make it right.And, when you've got China and India, with their populations, sitting where Western countries were at beginning of 20th century; massive industrial 'revolution', no pollution controls, worker safety rules, etc.you get massive despoiling of the air and water.Remember during Chinese Olympics, when athletes were concern about competing in such air pollution; they cleaned it up for the Olympics, by short term extreme measures, restricting driving, etc. but long term the problem continues.Understand; I've got nothing against China or India; many things about both cultures I respect. Its just the #'s I find intimidating. Several Billion people driving to work and home each day; each wanting to live in an energy profligate way, like those in the west have done.
Its like its not bad enough that 300 million people are heading off a cliff like lemmings, but there's 'X' billion more right behind.Jim

[kippered]

I agree totally.

Thats why I hope they figure out a better solution and save themselves and hopefully us in the process.

[ltseung888]

China and India focusing on new Energy Technologies?

Dear All,

I have now completed the simple computer model that conclusively showed that kinetic energy of air molecules can be brought-in at resonance. The random motion of air molecules can be changed into a pulsing order by the vibrating tuning forks to do work. The energy is mainly from the kinetic energy of the air molecules.
Scientific Debate with MileHigh - participants and moderator only

I believe that the Steven Mark Device may be a case of two LCR circuits tuned to resonance. That condition can bring-in electron motion energy of the orbiting electrons. I have not done enough research into the Steven Mark device to tell whether such an assertion is true. Your comments are welcome.

Steven Mark Device video.
free energy Steven Mark solid state generator video 5