The Mudcat Café TM
Thread #90532   Message #1717361
Posted By: beardedbruce
13-Apr-06 - 01:52 PM
Thread Name: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
Subject: RE: BS: Nuke vs. Fossil Elec/Cost-Benefit?
"Foolestroupe - PM
Date: 13 Apr 06 - 09:23 AM

The USA went the Uranium path because the output contains fissionable material - i.e., you can make bombs. The Thorium path doesn't allow that, the waste is radioactive for hundreds, not hundreds of thousands of years, and it is not 'self starting', but needs an 'igniter', either a uranium/thorium mis, or a particle accelerator, which when switched off shuts it all down, i.e., no runaway, no meltdown.

On tonight's Catalyst, but sadly not on their web page currently, was a report about this.

It talked about localised 50 megawatt plants, being suitable for communities, or desalination plants. The plants also can burn all teh current warhead material, removing it from the reach of terrorists, and warmongers.

Australia has much of the world's thorium, BTW... :-) "




Just one problem- Thorium breeder reactors DO produce fissionable material, ( U234) which can be chemically seperated. So, they actually increase the amount of bomb-grade material available.

Sorry if the facts have gotten in the way again....