[PAA-Discuss] thorium vs uranium (was) Rolling electrical brownouts in Houston

[Randy Scott]

Virtually all EXISTING reactors are uranium fueled.

Thorium reactors are a relatively new technology. The last I read of it was that the Russians were
helping Iran (?) and maybe 1 or 2 other Asian countries build the first "proof-of-viability"
plants.

The thorium reactor requires an external power source to kick-start it's critical reaction. The
plants I read of were to use a particle accelerator to bombard the radioactive material with
charged particles to "spark" the fire (thorium isn't so atomically unstable as uranium). That's
why they're more expensive - not only does it require building the nuclear plant; it also requires
building the particle accelerator alongside it.

This is Just One More reason why I doubt the screaming rhetoric coming out of Washington about
Iran - If Iran is building a thorium reactor with Russian help, then they aren't building a
program that can create nuclear weapons. We've heard talk lately about underground facilities
being built in Iran. If they're building a thorium reactor, then the underground part might be the
particle accelerator.

The sweet thang about a thorium reactor is that it can use radioactive waste (plutonium &
"depleted" uranium) from any other nuke plant as fuel - sort of like running a diesel engine on
waste cooking oil, it can help clean up the mess instead of making more.

Then there's the "Why did God put our oil under their desert" problem: Uranium is abundant in
North America, not so much elsewhere. Thorium is abundant in several places all over the Big Blue
Marble, not so much in North America. So, one reason why The West won't build thorium reactors is
another question of import addiction.

There's another reason, I think, why The West won't build thorium reactors besides the intitial
cost - if you can't make weapons out of the waste material then it's not so attractive to a
military-industrial complex obsessed with making things that go boom.



--- Sarah Gonzales <slindahl at rounder-graphics.com> wrote:

> THANKS Randy - so... let me get this straight. Are all nuclear  
> reactors built for the purpose of power built this way? The reason  
> I'm confused is... 3 Mile Island is definitely a uranium based  
> reactor - correct? I'm not very knowledgable on this topic, but would  
> like to know more and be correct in my statements.
> 
> thx
> 
> On Apr 19, 2006, at 8:14 AM, Randy Scott wrote:
> 
> > A Thorium Reactor produces waste that is not nearly as toxic as  
> > that from a uranium reactor and
> > cannot be made into to weapons - in fact, a thorium reactor can be  
> > fueled by the "depleted"
> > uranium that is considered to be waste from a uranium reactor. On  
> > the down side; it's a bit more
> > expensive to build and operate, which is why it's not being used.
> >
> > Of course, we also know that "terrorists" are not the real threat  
> > regarding the use of "depleted"
> > uranium - that weapon of mass destruction is being produced and  
> > sold by our own
> > military-industrial, satan-worshipping aristocracy.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- Sarah Gonzales <slindahl at rounder-graphics.com> wrote:
> >
> >>>
> >> HOW DO WE KEEP THE WASTE PRODUCTS GENERATED FROM NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
> >> OUT THE HANDS OF THE TERRORISTS?
> >>
> >>
> >
> > "To paraphrase Winston Churchill, you can now have either your  
> > honor or the status quo.  If you do nothing regarding Peak Oil, you  
> > will soon have neither the status quo nor your honor." - Jeffrey J.  
> > Brown