The advantage of using Uranium is that it's production is controlled by friendly powers (US/Canada/Australia/etc). Perhaps this was a way to get various scientifically naive but highly influential individuals on board.
The GEC board of directors, Khim says, includes some well-known Washington D.C. Players, including former Secretary of Defense Frank Carlucci, former Congressman and Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, and former U.S. Congressman Tom Davis, among others. On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Jones Beene <[email protected]> wrote: > *From:* Peter Gluck **** > > ** ** > > Both inventors- who have later worked with Americium, have died**** > > due to leukemia. It was a tragedy- however no transmutation takes place, > sorry for that.**** > > ** ** > > Yes too bad, and your report casts doubt on the GEC implementation (unless > the two died of neutron radiation unbeknownst - myeloid leukemia is a > symptom of same)**** > > ** ** > > Other reports on the CG process have been favorable. Perhaps it gets back > to the issue of unreliability.**** > > ** ** > > *From*: blaze spinnaker**** > > ** ** > > What's interesting to me is that if this works, LENR isn't as > important… The GeNiE Reactor is not prone to melt down since it doesn't > rely on a chain-reaction to produce high-energy neutrons. The GeNiE Reactor > will extract more energy from the fuel than conventional nuclear Reactors. > The GeNiE Reactor is lower cost since it doesn't required enriched > uranium and it doesn't produce hazardous nuclear waste that is > costly to handle.**** > > ** ** > > The GEC reactor, as I understand it – produces fast neutrons from LENR > reactions. So it is a hybrid of the two.**** > > ** ** > > If that is true, then it could be very different from the Cincinnati group > technology. My apologies for the confusion, assuming this is true (and that > there really are fast neutrons in large enough amounts to be useful).**** > > ** ** > > However, if fast neutrons are being produced - they would NOT need uranium > and all the baggage that goes with this element, both in terms of PR and > cost. Therefore, one has to doubt the veracity of some of the information > coming out. **** > > ** ** > > Of course, GEC could use uranium anyway on a Navy base, despite the > negative features - and try to rationalize all the other objections, but no > clever nuclear engineer would do so unless there was a real imperative, > given that the cross-section of thorium for fast neutrons is about the > same, and it is cheaper and less toxic - and there are certainly better > choices than either for lower toxicity and compactness.**** > > ** ** > > Jones**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > ** ** >
