I looked around for some info on Thorium reactors. There are several very long papers on the net about them, and they offer good insight as to why they haven't been used.I finally found this link, which is kinda long; but if you want to go to the part about Thorium reactors, take the side button down almost exactly half way down the page. The Thorium reactor discussion there is a lot more moder than most of the other papers on the net.Seems there are two types of Thorium reactor. The first uses a seed bar inside the fuel rod, like a corn dog.Thorium won't sustain fission alone. The technologies for seeding it were developed primarily by the russians; what they do is they wrap a bar of plutonium: which the reaction eats and disposes of completely - with some Thorium, and sustain the reaction, that way.The greatest advantage of this type, is it both EATs plutonium: thereby disposing of nuclear waste: and, it can be used, in current reactors, with modification.There is another type called an "accelerator reactor' which is a new type. This type, bombards the Thorium bar or, an Thorium/Uranium bar, with particles, which send it into fission.The greatest advantage of this type, is that it is ALWAYS being run sub critical. Literally, no matter what, the power can be shut off, and it is theoretically, impossible for one to melt down: because if ANYthing goes wrong, the thing self extinguishes.I really do recommend you guys read up on Thorium reactors. They are, if you'll notice, also the most effective way to DISPOSE of, nuclear material. They will eat plutonium completely; and, they don't produce plutonium.If you'll also notice the radioactivity of them is way, way, way lower.Also, Thorium, is much more abundent in the earth than Uranium. Also, i think, 70% of that thorium is suitable for fissile work. Wheras only about POINT 7 % of Uranium is.Pretty good read here. If you want to read more about the drawbacks, just search Thorium reactor, and look around till you find something at your particular reading level.<a class="user" href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348">http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348</a>
As far as I'm concerned, ethanol and other biofuels were never an appropriate solution to this problem. We already have a forseeable shortage in land availability for growing food crops, and to make this problem worse by having to compete for land for fuel growing operations just seems absurd.
Its stupid, there isn't enough farmland in the world to grow both he food that is already in short demand worldwide and then waste the rest on a idea of fuel that just isn't the case. Here switch our larger power needs such as coal, natural gas and even fuel oil power plants to a standardized nuclear designed plant and that problem is solved. Then for our transportation needs require hybrid technology in every vehicle within the next 5 or 10 years to have a 50+ MPG at least and slowly weave that use of oil slowly until a better alternative can be found such as hydrogen or some yet undiscovered fuel. We already have the things we need and trying to implement all these utterly useless fuel alternatives is a waste of time and money and won't do anyone that much good. I know there is a global pollution problem and want to fix it, but there are less complicated ways of doing it. Ethanol is a joke, Id much rather eat then pay a half a cent less per gallon and know that I'm going to pay more for food and also take away food from a world that already is using 80%percent of all available farmland while half of it is currently starving. Even if we planted on all land including cities there isnt enough corn in the world, also agricultural isn't the most environmentally friendly thing. Damn hippies as my boy Eric Cartman would say.
This information is not "emerging." The result is obvious just by looking at the stoichiometry of combusting ethanol.I urge people not to ever read these types of pop-science articles. If you look to actual academic papers, easily accessible through Google Scholar, you'll find that pretty much all of the "science news" that appears on Digg is actually five years old.
I doubt 200 people can die with ethanol. Ethanol is not that harmful. I use that in my lab like everyday... Better check the result... the sources from where they got this information :)
Closed AccountApr 20, 2007
I looked around for some info on Thorium reactors. There are several very long papers on the net about them, and they offer good insight as to why they haven't been used.I finally found this link, which is kinda long; but if you want to go to the part about Thorium reactors, take the side button down almost exactly half way down the page. The Thorium reactor discussion there is a lot more moder than most of the other papers on the net.Seems there are two types of Thorium reactor. The first uses a seed bar inside the fuel rod, like a corn dog.Thorium won't sustain fission alone. The technologies for seeding it were developed primarily by the russians; what they do is they wrap a bar of plutonium: which the reaction eats and disposes of completely - with some Thorium, and sustain the reaction, that way.The greatest advantage of this type, is it both EATs plutonium: thereby disposing of nuclear waste: and, it can be used, in current reactors, with modification.There is another type called an "accelerator reactor' which is a new type. This type, bombards the Thorium bar or, an Thorium/Uranium bar, with particles, which send it into fission.The greatest advantage of this type, is that it is ALWAYS being run sub critical. Literally, no matter what, the power can be shut off, and it is theoretically, impossible for one to melt down: because if ANYthing goes wrong, the thing self extinguishes.I really do recommend you guys read up on Thorium reactors. They are, if you'll notice, also the most effective way to DISPOSE of, nuclear material. They will eat plutonium completely; and, they don't produce plutonium.If you'll also notice the radioactivity of them is way, way, way lower.Also, Thorium, is much more abundent in the earth than Uranium. Also, i think, 70% of that thorium is suitable for fissile work. Wheras only about POINT 7 % of Uranium is.Pretty good read here. If you want to read more about the drawbacks, just search Thorium reactor, and look around till you find something at your particular reading level.<a class="user" href="http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348">http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/348</a>
arpadApr 20, 2007
And what do you mean by "their" problems? Are you a member of another specie or just better then "them"?
marsplasticApr 20, 2007
As far as I'm concerned, ethanol and other biofuels were never an appropriate solution to this problem. We already have a forseeable shortage in land availability for growing food crops, and to make this problem worse by having to compete for land for fuel growing operations just seems absurd.
Closed AccountApr 20, 2007
and, another blog. These guys seem like they are comfortable with Thorium reactors. Like i said, all this is just for your viewing pleasure; i don't actually have a Thorium reactor to sell you. <a class="user" href="http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/th_solves_globa_1.php">http://www.treehugger.com/files/2006/10/th_solves_globa_1.php</a>And, an "Energy from Thorium" site i found...<a class="user" href="http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/">http://www.energyfromthorium.com/forum/</a>
richiestang78Apr 20, 2007
Its stupid, there isn't enough farmland in the world to grow both he food that is already in short demand worldwide and then waste the rest on a idea of fuel that just isn't the case. Here switch our larger power needs such as coal, natural gas and even fuel oil power plants to a standardized nuclear designed plant and that problem is solved. Then for our transportation needs require hybrid technology in every vehicle within the next 5 or 10 years to have a 50+ MPG at least and slowly weave that use of oil slowly until a better alternative can be found such as hydrogen or some yet undiscovered fuel. We already have the things we need and trying to implement all these utterly useless fuel alternatives is a waste of time and money and won't do anyone that much good. I know there is a global pollution problem and want to fix it, but there are less complicated ways of doing it. Ethanol is a joke, Id much rather eat then pay a half a cent less per gallon and know that I'm going to pay more for food and also take away food from a world that already is using 80%percent of all available farmland while half of it is currently starving. Even if we planted on all land including cities there isnt enough corn in the world, also agricultural isn't the most environmentally friendly thing. Damn hippies as my boy Eric Cartman would say.
moridinamaelApr 21, 2007
This information is not "emerging." The result is obvious just by looking at the stoichiometry of combusting ethanol.I urge people not to ever read these types of pop-science articles. If you look to actual academic papers, easily accessible through Google Scholar, you'll find that pretty much all of the "science news" that appears on Digg is actually five years old.
candlelightApr 21, 2007
I doubt 200 people can die with ethanol. Ethanol is not that harmful. I use that in my lab like everyday... Better check the result... the sources from where they got this information :)
qooseApr 22, 2007
Since when has alcohol not been the answer?