Sunday, 6 August 2017

Better than Thorium

A Thorium nuclear reactor uses a neutron emitter to convert Thorium into uranium. The 233U isotope was rejected by the US, as it was very low yield.
A much better idea is a plasma tube. A steam plasma at 4 atmopheres produces 1.2MW of heat. With light and X-rays, no radioactive waste.
1 H2O+P+PL->E3+L+X-ray
So a Thorium ractor is a way to do uranium fission. Safer than 238U, but still U fission.

Thorium-based nuclear power - Wikipedia
Thorium-based nuclear power is nuclear reactor-based, fueled primarily by the nuclear fission of the isotope uranium-233 produced from the fertile element thorium. .... Thorium nuclear reactors are unlikely to produce cheaper energy, but the ...
So Thorium releases 180kW/m. And produces toxic waste. A plasma tube 1.2MW of heat, and no solid water.
A thermoelectric generator will produce 288kW of mains power. Thorium was an idea from unbder insured nuclear power, to still carry on with uranium fission – via the back door.
A Thorium reactor produces loads of toxic waste – ideal for a dirty bomb. And nuclear power is trying to sell these to medium and large companies.
But each reactor will still need 50 billion of insurance – there is no insurance above 1 billion available. The IAEA would not license any under insured nuclear plant to start operation.
So all Thorium reactors ILLEGAL. A plasma tube requires no insurance. A thermoelectric generator and plasma tube will cost under $1700. And use a miniscule amount of regular water.
A Thorium plant uses 231TH – which is not radioactive. But produces 233U and other radioactive substances. So it needs International Atomic Energy Association licensing. Sorry, I previously called them the IAAA.

Only nuclear power could ever run a Thorium reactor. But it could never get valid insurance.
ThoriumThorium is more abundant in nature than uranium. It is fertile rather thanfissile, and can only be used as a fuel in conjunction with a fissile material such as recycled plutonium.

No comments: