We have the power to solve our energy crisis safely, so why don't we?

[Thunder_Gooch]

This is a condensed version of the the good talks on thorium reactors.

 

 

The highlights of it:

 

Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors cannot melt down even in a natural disaster and are self regulating.

 

Thorium reactors can recycle waste from existing reactors and use it as fuel.

 

The waste they do produce is radioactive for only a short time in comparison with waste from existing reactors.

 

Thorium reactors are not suited to make nuclear bombs.

 

Thorium is plentiful, and cheap you can mine dirt anywhere on earth and get it economically.

 

We have much more thorium than uranium, and it doesn't need to be refined to be used as fuel.

 

One kilogram of Thorium has the same energy potential as 4,000 tons of coal.

 

We have enough proven reserves of Thorium to last us thousands of years even accounting for projected increases in energy consumption, and this includes transportation via fuel cell or battery powered vehicles.

 

Unlike fusion reactors Thorium reactors are a proven technology that we can build today.

 

They offer most of the benefits of fusion technology, and would allow us to have cheap energy for all.

Edited April 22, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Marblehead]

Ask the Oil Industry and our governments why.

[Dagon]

Edited April 22, 2011 by Dagon

[manitou]

I'm waiting for mastery of anti-gravity as an energy source.

[Dagon]

"Thorium, as well as uranium, can be used as a nuclear fuel. Although not fissile itself, Th-232 will absorb slow neutrons to produce uranium-233 (U-233)a, which is fissile (and long-lived). The irradiated fuel can then be unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated from the thorium, and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle. Alternatively, U-233 can be bred from thorium in a blanket, the U-233 separated, and then fed into the core.

 

In one significant respect U-233 is better than uranium-235 and plutonium-239, because of its higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed. Given a start with some other fissile material (U-233, U-235 or Pu-239) as a driver, a breeding cycle similar to but more efficient than that with U-238 and plutonium (in normal, slow neutron reactors) can be set up. (The driver fuels provide all the neutrons initially, but are progressively supplemented by U-233 as it forms from the thorium.) However, there are also features of the neutron economy which counter this advantage. In particular the intermediate product protactinium-233 (Pa-233) is a neutron absorber which diminishes U-233 yield.

 

Over the last 40 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium in today's reactorsb, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available (without recourse to fast neutron reactors). But this relative advantage vanishes if fast neutron reactors are used for uranium."

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

 

 

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that thorium could be substituted for uranium in a nuclear reactor. As great as this is, it won't do much to reduce the stranglehold the energy companies have over the energy. Most of these reactors have owners who care about profits and profit margin above all else. This is probably why it doesn't seem to be encountering as much resistance as cold fusion.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Dagon

[thelerner]

[Dagon]

I'm waiting for mastery of anti-gravity as an energy source.

 

John Searle has claimed to have done that.

 

 

 

Anti-gravity is said to be the bi-product.

[Thunder_Gooch]

It's a nuclear reactor just a different type. Also it is a technology we know works and has been verified, there is no reason why we couldn't switch to it now.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten_salt_reactor

 

 

"Thorium, as well as uranium, can be used as a nuclear fuel. Although not fissile itself, Th-232 will absorb slow neutrons to produce uranium-233 (U-233)a, which is fissile (and long-lived). The irradiated fuel can then be unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated from the thorium, and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle. Alternatively, U-233 can be bred from thorium in a blanket, the U-233 separated, and then fed into the core.

 

In one significant respect U-233 is better than uranium-235 and plutonium-239, because of its higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed. Given a start with some other fissile material (U-233, U-235 or Pu-239) as a driver, a breeding cycle similar to but more efficient than that with U-238 and plutonium (in normal, slow neutron reactors) can be set up. (The driver fuels provide all the neutrons initially, but are progressively supplemented by U-233 as it forms from the thorium.) However, there are also features of the neutron economy which counter this advantage. In particular the intermediate product protactinium-233 (Pa-233) is a neutron absorber which diminishes U-233 yield.

 

Over the last 40 years there has been interest in utilising thorium as a nuclear fuel since it is more abundant in the Earth's crust than uranium. Also, all of the mined thorium is potentially useable in a reactor, compared with the 0.7% of natural uranium in today's reactorsb, so some 40 times the amount of energy per unit mass might theoretically be available (without recourse to fast neutron reactors). But this relative advantage vanishes if fast neutron reactors are used for uranium."

 

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/inf62.html

 

 

Thanks for the info, I didn't know that thorium could be substituted for uranium in a nuclear reactor. As great as this is, it won't do much to reduce the stranglehold the energy companies have over the energy. Most of these reactors have owners who care about profits and profit margin above all else. This is probably why it doesn't seem to be encountering as much resistance as cold fusion.

Edited April 22, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Marblehead]

 

Every few months I look to see what advances have been made in cold fusion. I still believe in the possibility of it becoming an efficient source of energy.

 

I also look for progress with the lithium-ion batteries because they are so much more efficient than lead-acid batteries for storing and releasing energy, mainly for solar collection.

 

Last night I saw a program that talked about two Chinese developers of solar power. They are miles ahead of anything that is happening in the US.

[Dagon]

have you heard of the Hutchison effect?

 

 

[paulno]

Oil.

[Dagon]

Here is another interesting video about HHO.

 

 

Keep in mind that this video was posted in 2007.

Edited April 22, 2011 by Dagon

[Thunder_Gooch]

[Thunder_Gooch]

The HHO welding guy is interesting but really it is more of an energy storage medium, he's using electricity to split water, then burning it for energy. Though it still requires a lot of energy to do that. Assuming you are using grid power to split the water you've still gotta burn coal to do it.

 

Check this guy out:

 

Daniel Nocera

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Nocera

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=shift-happens-will-artificial-photo-2010-03-03

 

This has a lot more potential than what that guy with the welder hho gas is doing:

 

 

 

 

Here is another interesting video about HHO.

 

 

Keep in mind that this video was posted in 2007.

Edited April 22, 2011 by More_Pie_Guy

[Dagon]

That's interesting but really it is more of an energy storage medium, he's using electricity to split water, then burning it for energy. Though it still requires a lot of energy to do that.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=shift-happens-will-artificial-photo-2010-03-03

 

This has a lot more potential than what that guy with the welder hho gas is doing:

 

 

True, but it beats gas and emissions, although required decent energy storage

[manitou]

John Searle has claimed to have done that.

 

 

 

Anti-gravity is said to be the bi-product.

 

Dagon - thanks, that was fascinating. I had a little trouble understanding the scientist through his accent. Not having watched the first 6 videos, could you answer a question for me? What's inside the disc that the cyllinders are rotating around? Is it some sort of magnet, or is it an electrical source of some sort? Also, those standing things on the outside of the rotation; are those the magnets? Does he ever find a way to isolate an area so that the energy can manifest outwards and useably?

[Thunder_Gooch]

True, but it beats gas and emissions, although required decent energy storage

 

Emissions might be actually be worse if you burn coal to generate the electricity to store as hho gas to burn in a car. True the car didn't emit anything but the coal and or natural gas power plants that made the electricity did, and electrolyzing water to hho is very inefficient I would bet that fuelcells would be more efficient.

[doc benway]

Sadly, we will not be permitted to solve our energy crisis until our masters have made enough money.

Anyone want to guess when that might happen?

Great posts everyone!

[gendao]

[Marblehead]

have you heard of the Hutchison effect?

 

 

Yes, I have heard of him and what he is doing. I'm not sure how it could be applied though. Afterall, if the energy requirements are greater than the resulting efficiency of the energy produced it is basically worthless.

[Dagon]

Yes, I have heard of him and what he is doing. I'm not sure how it could be applied though. Afterall, if the energy requirements are greater than the resulting efficiency of the energy produced it is basically worthless.

 

Once the energy is solved, this could be utilized as a means of transportation He's like working on the next part, hehe.

[Dagon]

Dagon - thanks, that was fascinating. I had a little trouble understanding the scientist through his accent. Not having watched the first 6 videos, could you answer a question for me? What's inside the disc that the cyllinders are rotating around? Is it some sort of magnet, or is it an electrical source of some sort? Also, those standing things on the outside of the rotation; are those the magnets? Does he ever find a way to isolate an area so that the energy can manifest outwards and useably?

 

 

He has the exact construction in a video somewhere but I can't find where. I believe it is copper, then aluminum, then plastic of sorts, then a magnet.

 

The rollers are also seperate pieces and similar to the center ring. I'll keep looking to see if I can find it!

[Dagon]

Here is a similar thing.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F4qjZocje0c&feature=related

 

Please realize this goes against the laws of thermodynamics, and I personally can't verify what they claim is true.

[Dagon]

Here is another one that would defy these laws.

 

 

There are many claims of these, but I can't verify. It is quite controversial.

[Dagon]

These guys have some nice tried and true Do it Yourself video's!

 

DIY SOLAR PANELS!

 

Edited April 22, 2011 by Dagon