Move Over Hydrogen

OK, I'm in, lets see a working prototype!

 

Not until it is first put to use in stationary power plants by the electric utilities.

 

Sleek looking artist's conception. I'm in too. But some questions come to mind.

Can I use my Thius to power my home when we lose grid power? And at what wattage capacity at 120 volts (or will this depend on how many effective grams I have left in the chamber)?

If the Thius power plant lasts ~100 years, will the warranty still be 8 or 10 years (depending on the state I live in), or will they perhaps increase the power train warranty?

The article mentions Thorium 233, but that has a very short half-life of about 24 days and is somewhat dangerous. Which isotope of Thorium is actually more likely in the Thius; the more common Thorium 232 or Thorium 229?

Is the Thorium engine noisy or quiet?

What about thermal and radiation shielding protecting the occupants?

We've all heard about Tesla batteries catching fire in bad accidents. What assurance do I have against Thorium leakage? Can it experience a core breach like in star ships?

Thanks in advance.

 

Like the cost reducing decision of using off the shelf bicycle tires, but how does that affect air drag?

 

One word, WOW !!!!

 

good luck, looks like a whole lot of politics before it can be used

imagine a normal household getting easy access to a nuclear device, lol, just lol, too much politics involved

 

I would love it if someone would get a very safe inexpensive thorium power plant built. That would be step one. Cheap power + PHEV 60 (where fuel for the non electric miles would be gas, biofuels, or hydrogen) would solve much of our oil dependance.

A nuclear submarine is brilliant. The people cost a lot of money, so the ability to safely stay under and quiet during war is is worth a lot of money on power plant. It is doubtful that a safe thorium 50 kw reactor could even be built at the price of a volt. Silly idea. Now the lander for a mission to mars? If thorium reactor is cheaper than a standard nuc, then by all means.

 

Um, car accidents and burning wrecks? I'd say the less radioactivity in an activity that goes wrong ~11 million times a year (and that's just 2009 in the US!), the better.

 

Sound like a technology for the 22nd century.........
Let's focus on near-term technologies that will get us through this one first!

 

Already done.



Banana peels & beer can remnants not included

.

 

Looks and smells like a black hole for investors money, not anything real.

 

I'd say let's build some thorium reactors and let the EV crowd enjoy cheaper electricity first. I'm a little rusty on my nuclear physics (I was a 'forward' ET....not a %$#@! nuke ET... ) but I believe that some of the newer thorium reactors that they're tinkering with could be used as a plutonium sink.
Three Birds. One rock.

We'll see if the testing in Norway scales up, but I'm still a little dubious about a thorium powered car, even with a tank range of 250,000 miles....

 

I'm thinking that if the Industrial military complex has even the most remote chance that the byproduct(s) can be weponized, we'll be all over it.

Nuclear weapons suddenly easier with ‘wonder fuel’

​

.​

 

Wow, this is wonderful. i really love this post. Thanks a lot for this.

 

You have it backwards.
I believe Eisenhower actually said "Military Industrial complex."

The MIC that exists in the United States doesn't need to tinker with Thorium. They already have ready access to conventional fissile materials.

 

Agreed. But then again (dry humor warning) - if you can create a less expensive way to destroy the world 100 times over ... what the heck ... why not do your patriotic duty and help reduce spending. However when our neighbors in the middle east (who hate our guts for setting up dictators there so we can control one of their only natural resources) begin monkeying with thorium under the pretext of battery developement - I guess we'll just have to presume they're telling the truth.
.

 

I think they are overstating their case a little.
"However, if thorium is bombarded with neutrons for about one month and the resulting isotope (Protactinium-233) allowed to decay naturally, it will produce pure U-233. The proliferation problem stems from the fact that neutron irradiation of thorium could be done in a small research reactor, of which 500 already exist worldwide. The thorium would not have to be inventoried in a nuclear generation plant and, therefore, would be extremely hard to trace by inspectors."
To use thorium as a fuel you need a neutron donor for the neutron bombardment. For most of the proposed reactors that donor is plutonium. Uranium is another donor for the neutrons. So, those that can make weapon grade uranium from thorium already have access to it or better. This could let a nation build up a supply quicker it seems, but having just one is enough for major concern.

More oversight wouldn't hurt, but some nut job isn't going to be making U-233 out of a bucket of thorium in their kitchen.

 

I'm rusty, so cannot check the math, but I have some doubt about the numbers.
If I remember correctly from some chemistry course in uni, 1g of uranium was not that much on the grand scale of things.

But I was smarter back then, so I am open to being proved wrong

 

I can not find anything describing the physics of how this works. Even the owners web site is loony. What evidence is there that this is something other than a grand scam?