Re: Thorium Nuclear Clocks

Sorry, I obsess. If I'd have my druthers, I'd druther have the lads at RIKEN in Japan create a fail-safe Thorium 232/U233 reactor to power civilization for the next 10 millennia, then a nice, atomic clock. Moreover, some years ago, the Canadians left their original Candu reactor (Th232-->U233) i

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 4:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: > > A thorium, liquid salt reactor does make Pu239, and it gets a lot of > it's energy from Pu239 fission. The difference is that it essentially > "burns" the plutonium as fast at it's made. > >From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuc

RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

very sound technical reasons. There is a wide variety of reasons, and they cannot all be lumped under the rubric of irrational opposition as you seem to imply. -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Tue, May 20, 2014 1:24 am Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: Atthe risk of re-starting the Thorium wars <grin> thisis a current article on the wh

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 2:28 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > What about the waste tails he alludes to. > A Thorium reactor only produces about 1% as much waste as a conventional reactor simply because Thorium has a atomic number of only 90

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

On Wed, May 21, 2014 at 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars this is a current >> article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses the

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 12:30 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars this is a current > article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. > > > http://thebulletin.org/thorium-won

RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:13 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/20/2014 11:45 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 20

RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2014 11:45 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't 2014-05-20 18:44 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : On

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegrou

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

On 5/20/2014 11:45 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2014-05-20 18:44 GMT+02:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a wo

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

Chris, Brent and other Th-savants: (I am not one) Whatever "radiates" is suspect to me. Humans' world is vulnerable. Bombs? We must WANT peace very much (si vis pacem, para bellum). Suppose: someone discovers a 'good'way to make a Th-bomb (a different route from the old one) - on historical example

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

2014-05-20 18:44 GMT+02:00 meekerdb : > On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature > but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of > thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

On 5/19/2014 11:48 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: These are valid criticisms that are very much not administrative nature but cut right to the core [pun intended] of a world in which a multitude of thorium U233 breeder reactors proliferate widely. There is a risk that this unintentionally leads to a

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

14 11:49 PM > > *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't > > > > > > > > 2014-05-20 8:28 GMT+02:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com>: > >

RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux Sent: Monday, May 19, 2014 11:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't 2014-05-20 8:28 GMT+02:00 'Chris d

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

ff the bat. > > How do you think the issues raised can be addressed? Or if you feel these > are not valid issues then could you explain your reasoning for feeling this > way. > > Chris > > > > *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: > everything-list@google

RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

Subject: Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thor

Re: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

On 5/19/2014 9:30 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 A mishmash of criticism most of whi

RE: Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

At the risk of re-starting the Thorium wars this is a current article on the why NOTS of Thorium. It addresses them point by point. http://thebulletin.org/thorium-wonder-fuel-wasnt7156 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: Re: Thorium!

everything-list Time: 2012-09-18, 13:43:40 Subject: Re: Thorium! On 9/18/2012 9:44 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb wrote: > I think most reactors using Hastelloy plumbing (one of several nickel > alloys). The containment vessels are steel and concrete. T

Re: Thorium!

On 9/18/2012 12:44 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb > wrote: > I think most reactors using Hastelloy plumbing (one of several nickel alloys). The containment vessels are steel and concrete. They differ a lot depending on

Re: Thorium!

On 9/18/2012 9:44 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb > wrote: > I think most reactors using Hastelloy plumbing (one of several nickel alloys). The containment vessels are steel and concrete. They differ a lot depending on

Re: Thorium!

On Sun, Sep 16, 2012 at 1:59 AM, meekerdb wrote: > > > I think most reactors using Hastelloy plumbing (one of several nickel > alloys). The containment vessels are steel and concrete. They differ a > lot depending on whether they are pressurized water reactors, boiling water > reactors, sodium

Re: Thorium!

On 9/15/2012 10:13 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I like this conversation! I am interested in the materials required for the vessel and the plumbing. Some kind of ceramic coated titanium or zirconium? Alumina reinforced steel

Re: Thorium!

On 9/16/2012 12:20 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Sep 15 meekerdb > wrote: > in the present case there is no mystery about where the CO2 comes from and whether it's a natural cycle - it's us. Probably, but I'm not terribly concerned about it, the increase in