New technology could allow cars to never refuel again

reply to post by Illustronic


I've long known about the thorium nuclear reactors... which is what we should build... they are way way way way safer than the uranium/plutonium reactors we are building now.

I don't know why they haven't been built yet... nuclear industry control?

reply to post by Vitchilo


they want to prevent society from attempting to build them in their backyards.. so they suppress the research.

Once mom and pop are building reactors your potential for problems skyrocket.

reply to post by James1982

The other problem I see with this is the water issue. This thing is basically just a steam engine that uses a turbine instead of pistons. You are probably going to have to carry around a bunch of water. If you carry, say, 100 gallons, that's close to 1,000 lbs of extra weight. This extra weight means the car will have to have a heavier frame and be larger, and will be far less efficient with all that water weight.

Turbine engines don't really run off of water, but off of high-pressure, super-heated steam. It's a closed-loop system - no water leaves - it simply gets heated and cycled back through the system.

It would make more sense for the turbine to spin a generator, which in turn powers the actual drive train.

Turbines are horrible to use for a car's propulsion system. The lack of torque, being the main issue.

I agree - and that may be the goal, here - I'm not entirely certain of the specifics regarding this prototype. However, if the guy makes this type of reactor and fails because of his power train, I'd still take the reactor and drop it into an electric car with in-wheel motors.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by tauristercus

 

it uses a laser powered by a battery to create teh reaction in the thorium...

so as soon as the laser shuts off the reaction stops. A collisions in which the car was damaged would not result in a meltdown. Youd have to alter or remove teh cars built in failsafes to keep the laser constantly on after collision.

The article explains that the energy is released by

The heat surges produced by the element ...

by initially heating the thorium with laser pulses.

Unfortunately "heat surges" just doesn't cut the mustard as an explanation.
Now either the thorium is fissioning or it's not.
If it's not, then we're talking at best about nothing more than a chemical reaction of sorts as an explanation for the generated energy, But there is no way in hell any chemical based reaction could generate 10 years worth of energy from just 8 grams of an element.
If it is a fission reaction, then how is the thorium induced to fission ? How will the fission reaction be moderated or damped ? We're talking huge quantities of neutron production during the fission process. How much water will need to be circulating and flashed into steam on a continuous basis as the reactor runs ? How is the steam condensed back into water and re-circulated ? Just HOW big will the turbine have to be to generate the required energy to run the car ?

I could go on and on .... but in the final analysis, the physics AND engineering behind this scam are completely FLAWED ... and that's even before getting stuck into the laser ignition/control system !

Click here for more information.

And finally .... this should make it perfectly clear why thorium powered cars will NEVER be seen on the roads and why the article is nothing more than a con ....

The following quotes are taken from the PSR fact sheet (Physicians for Social Responsibility)

Thorium “fuel” has been proposed as an alternative to uranium fuel in nuclear reactors.
There are not “thorium reactors,” but rather proposals to use thorium as a “fuel” in
different types of reactors, including existing light‐water reactors and various fast breeder
reactor designs.

Contrary to the claims made or implied by thorium proponents, however, thorium doesn’t
solve the proliferation, waste, safety, or cost problems of nuclear power, and it still faces
major technical hurdles for commercialization.

Thorium is not actually a “fuel” because it is not fissile and therefore cannot be used to start
or sustain a nuclear chain reaction. A fissile material, such as uranium‐235 (U‐235) or
plutonium‐239 (which is made in reactors from uranium‐238), is required to kick‐start the
reaction. The enriched uranium fuel or plutonium fuel also maintains the chain reaction
until enough of the thorium target material has been converted into fissile uranium‐233 (U‐
233) to take over much or most of the job. An advantage of thorium is that it absorbs slow
neutrons relatively efficiently (compared to uranium‐238) to produce fissile uranium‐233.

'nuff said ....

You have to look at the facts before you find that the laser they are talking about is a gamma-ray laser.

Problem is no one has ever built a gamma-ray laser.(gaser)

A gaser in its self would be a WMD

So as long as the laser is firing, the thorium gives off a huge amount of heat which superheats water for a power generating turbine that must dissipate it's excess heat through a huge radiator (or carry lots of water) while powering electric motors for propulsion, pumps for circulation, fans for cooling, and charging a large bank of batteries needed to power the laser process to begin with?

Sounds like this might be more suited to the needs of the railroad than a family car. Wouldn't a working system be extremely heavy and enormous?

Turbines are horrible to use for a car's propulsion system. The lack of torque, being the main issue.

Isn't a supercharger more like a turbine than a turbo charger in a car engine? Low end torque, no stupid rev jerk.

reply to post by tauristercus

Unfortunately "heat surges" just doesn't cut the mustard as an explanation.

Depends. When he's got a power plant based off of it, I'll worry about what, exactly, is producing the power. Until then - I am content to let the man use simple speak.

Now either the thorium is fissioning or it's not.

That leaves a lot of open territory.

If it's not, then we're talking at best about nothing more than a chemical reaction of sorts as an explanation for the generated energy, But there is no way in hell any chemical based reaction could generate 10 years worth of energy from just 8 grams of an element.

Barring some other kind of reaction, yes.

If it is a fission reaction, then how is the thorium induced to fission ?

Probably not in the way described by the inventor.

How will the fission reaction be moderated or damped ?

Thorium doesn't undergo fission without a primer.

We're talking huge quantities of neutron production during the fission process.

The claim is that the device is sub-critical. However, going on the more practical basis that we're looking at a fission reaction - it really depends upon how much power you need as to how much neutron radiation there is, and what is necessary to shield against it. For the power levels necessary in a motor vehicle - something akin to an engine-block, itself, would likely provide enough shielding.

How much water will need to be circulating and flashed into steam on a continuous basis as the reactor runs ? How is the steam condensed back into water and re-circulated ?

Modern miniature nuclear reactors do not require traditional condenser stages. In theory, you can have some very tiny nuclear reactors that are all self-contained. Granted, many of the types being paraded around these days are the size of a semi trailer.

Just HOW big will the turbine have to be to generate the required energy to run the car ?

Not very big. It is mostly going to depend upon the type of load you're going to put on the turbine and your gear systems to be attached. The turbine probably wouldn't need to be larger than a shoe box - though you're going to have accompanying gear systems and your entire circulation system.

I could go on and on .... but in the final analysis, the physics AND engineering behind this scam are completely FLAWED ... and that's even before getting stuck into the laser ignition/control system !

The idea of a nuclear powered car is nothing new, and is nothing impractical. Whether or not this particular system works is not all that relevant to the case.

The only impractical portion is the high initial investment to the end user. Your average power plant would last longer than the car, and cost several years' worth of gasoline used in a standard vehicle - all at once.

Otherwise, the dangers of a nuclear powered vehicle are minor compared to the dangers of driving around with a tank full of flammable liquid.

Originally posted by tauristercus
I'm calling a big, fat HOAX on this story.

According to the article, a total of ONLY 8 grams of thorium are required over a period of 10 years.
It therefore follows that any energy produced/extracted from the thorium MUST be nuclear in origin as there is none or little useful chemical energy in such a small quantity of the material.

Also, to heat a useful amount of water to boiling point in order to produce large quantities of steam sufficient to power a turbine large enough to produce sufficient electricity, would require essentially a NUCLEAR FISSION type of reaction ... nothing else would come even close in power generation capability.

Then I can foresee problems in shielding and moderating the nuclear fission reaction.

So essentially you'd have a mini nuclear reactor sitting under the hood and within a metre or so of the driver and passengers ... and just pray to god that the technology is fail proof otherwise you just may end up with your own personal Fukushima or Chernobyl !

C'mon people ... use a bit of common sense, logic and physics and you'll see that this just has to be yet another in the long line of cheap, free energy scams !

Your right the article is misleading what there talking about is a particle accelerator-driven system.Thorium nuclei would absorb the excess neutrons creating uranium-233.This is a fissile isotope that is not found in nature. Moderated neutrons would produce fissioned U-233, which releases enough energy to power the particle accelerator and drive a power plant. However there is still some danger of radiation release therefore i doubt you would put it in vehicles that could be involved in wrecks???

Great Scott! I guess we could try looking to make a Mr Fusion system like Doc fitted to his Delorean in Back to the Future - producing 1.21 gigawatts of clean energy from banana peels and soft drink, that ran the flux capacitor and the anti gravity drive
- admittedly it could tear apart the space time continuum and destroy the whole universe!
- or perhaps be localised to our own galaxy!

"why are things so heavy in the future? Is there something effecting the earth's gravity?"

reply to post by posthuman


Its not perpetual motion, there will always be losses. Also, you need an initial input of energy to put the system into action.

If anyone is interested, the source of the article is Here.

The company they are talking about is Here.


Another look at the CEO.

Please don't subject yourself of the anguish of trying to interpret this gibberish! He alternately describes this as not a fission reaction (although he doesn't appear know to what fission is, describing it as 232Th --> 233U...), but claims energy densities which strictly apply to fission reactions only. Claims thorium "molecules" [sic] give off heat when they become "dense". Claims there is lasing involved somewhere.

The scammer has incorporated himself as "Laser Power Systems, LLC." His previous startup, "Helyxzion, LLC", was in genomics.

The same person behind this scheme, with his genome scheme:

Here.

He even used the same templates for both sites.

SCAM

reply to post by DivineIntervention


Though I agree that Yes big oil would be affected by this type of tech (if they could make it work) being put to use in automotive applications, but this would not be the kill shot that most of the population thinks it would be. Most people do not realize that oil touches pretty much EVERYTHING that you touch, from the wrapper on your Twinkies, to some of the clothing you wear. Cars will still need tires, and your feet will still need shoes.

Power Plants run by natural gas, heavy trucks, heavy equipment, air travel, trains, cargo ships, and for all other elements of infrastructure this type of power source, (in my opinion) could not be retrofitted or produced new for many many years. In that time companies that produce oil would shift some focus to Thorium mining operations to still monopolize the energy sector while still recieving the same tax advantages they have enjoyed all along ie...15% Depleating asset write off on all product produced, and Intangiable Costs write offs for upwards of 85% or more of operating funds being spent on things that cannot be recovered or reused, meaning 85% or more of thier operating costs could be written off against thier income, all the while they would still be raking in money from producing oil to continue running the before mentioned infrastructure.

Here is a big point to speak on the Greed of big oil...

"Over the last five years, earnings for the oil and natural gas industry have been
in line with U.S. manufacturing – averaging just 7 cents for every dollar of sales.
Contrary to popular belief and what some critics might say, America’s oil companies
aren’t owned by a small group of wealthy investors.
• Only 1.5 percent of industry shares are owned by corporate management.
The rest is owned by tens of millions of Americans.
• If you are part of the 55 million U.S. households with a mutual fund, or the
45 million with personal retirement accounts, there is a good chance you
invest in oil and natural gas stocks."

That being said, I see the effect on big oil companies would be bigger profits for everyone, and in the long run no real negative effects would show to drastically alter thier bottom lines. Hell even the turbines in the new Thorium powered autos would still require some sort of petrolium based lubricants to remain operational.

Truth be told we will likely never be able to seperate ourselves from our dependence on Black Gold (Americans use somewhere around 2.7 gallons of oil a day per citizen, China and India nipping at our heels), because we know that producing gas for our daily drivers is not the biggest money makers for big oil to begin with, as that title goes to industry. So you see how little damage to the oil industry this would actually cause.

"The U.S. consumes about 19.5 million barrels/day (tonto.eia.doe.gov...).
The U.S. population is roughly 300 million (www.census.gov...). A barrel of oil contains 42 gallons. So, that’s about 820 million gallons of oil per day divided by 300 million, which gives a per person, per day consumption of approximately 2.7 gallons, which equals approximately 2 barrels of oil per month,
per person."

Here is a great link from the American Petrolium Institute that I drew some of the facts in this post from: www.api.org...

There is still a lot of research and study going on into the strong nuclear force, but one thing is clear in that it is strong. There is a strong proven relationship with energy -> matter -> energy -> matter -> ... Now we just need to find a way to harness this without destroying civilisation and the planet. Thorium does sound sound very interesting with it cleansing affect to uranium reactions. Quite a few other elements are also getting examined, hydrogen, nickel, palladium and others.

reply to post by boncho

Claims thorium "molecules" [sic] give off heat when they become "dense".

This does make sense when looking at DBL physics www.abovetopsecret.com... . The basic idea with this theoretical framework is that everything is made from just two elements - time and space. It is still a new emerging theory but has made a lot of important fundamental relationships when looking at the details.

reply to post by kwakakev


Sorry, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology disagrees with you. Atoms, Molecules - Two different things, especially when related to Nuclear Science.

Atomic Data for Thorium (Th)

Atomic Number = 90

Atomic Weight = 232.0381

Reference E95

Source

reply to post by boncho

Sorry, but the National Institute of Standards and Technology disagrees with you.

Nothing new their, we disagree on a few thing.

Don't you guys get it, we will never get anything other than what we already have.

If it doesn't benefit the people who run this world(money wise). Then its never gonna happen.

If we wanted to get smarter and actually evolve out of this # world we live in. We would need to start a new slate one without giant corps running the show. We need intelligent people who aren't in it for money. Most importantly though we need a society that works with each other an makes the most of each others best talents.

I dun know guess I'm just day dreaming here.