... with a careful choice of input materials. It just seems like there is money sitting there rotting... What matters is what makes economic sense, not 'rotting' And if you care about that, use Thorium based nukes. Which won't be the whole answer, Waste never is. since the lion's share of nuclear waste isn't spent fuel, but "water" Doesnt have to be if the excess heat is ...
... waste from nukes. 0.05%% of the waste volume, and that with a careful choice of input materials. It just seems like there is money sitting there rotting... And if you care about that, use Thorium based nukes. Which won't be the whole answer, since the lion's share of nuclear waste isn't spent fuel, but "water" and structures. ... Corse we can. Whether it makes sense to ...
...I said. CANDU reactors harvest the control rods for medical procedures and sterilization purposes. So there no point in obsessing about waste from nukes. And if you care about that, use Thorium based nukes. Coal-fired plants dump a lot of radioactivity into the atmosphere, but their collected ash is a product, as is sulfur collected from their smokestacks. And ...
... today). No news. And we don't have to use uranium *at all*. We can use thorium which is 4 times as abundant. It takes only ONE TON of Th to power a 1GW reactor for a year. It's also a proven technology. We need to start switching over to thorium so that in 50 year we can have the "Thorium Economy". The main advantage there is that is cant be used to make bombs with.
...the one of the biggest sources for uranium in the environment today). And we don't have to use uranium *at all*. We can use thorium which is 4 times as abundant. It takes only ONE TON of Th to power a 1GW reactor for a year. It's also a proven technology. We need to start switching over to thorium so that in 50 year we can have the "Thorium Economy". David
..., little different from what gets dup up out of the ground. Not a whole lot much more radioactive than what lines the subways of New York City, in terms of concentrations of uranium and/or thorium. But U-238 is not fissionable in the sense of making a fission weapon; this takes the U-235 isotope. Which amounts to fraction of the raw uranium ore, and which requires the aforemention ...
... our new and improved national (meaning interstate/federal) power grids, with remote pocket communities using thorium and a host of perfectly viable forms of renewable alternatives (if need be including those vast ... good at $10/kwhr, mostly because wind, tidal, solar and geothermal as well as thorium and 3He/ fusion derived energy doesn't make weapons grade fuel for accommodating your WWIII, ...
... more than likely it'll be headed towards the $100/gallon mark, and otherwise our electrical energy looking good at $10/kwhr, mostly because wind, tidal, solar and geothermal as well as thorium derived energy doesn't make weapons grade fuel for your WWIII, WWIV and WWV. Running the same equipment at the current levels of performance, with the same amounts of cargo and passenger capability ...
... After that it's only about 6 lbs of raw thorium a day to keep the reaction going for 80 years...exact electric kWh production in a plutonium fast breeder (or a thorium molten salt reactor) per tonn of natural uranium or thorium? I mean, I sometimes read the value in the range of 2...5 TWh electric per tonn of natural uranium (I think for thorium/U-233 is quite the same). What do you think ...
... and India with a serious Thorium program (and reserves). LFTRs, once they... economy in the 21 Century: a thorium economy. One question about ... India envisages to develop the thorium cycle with heavy water (CANDU)... reactors fleet to eventually use thorium in a "near breeding" mode,... about 6 lbs of raw thorium a day to keep the ... the money. With a real Thorium Grand Plan, this would be ...
