Car Runs 1 Million Miles on 8 Grams of Thorium

ANNED
For over 60 years Thorium dioxide was used in Colman gas lamp mantles.

you can still get higher then normal radioactive readings around old campgrounds.(1100-2100 CPM. )
io9.com...

Thanks for that factoid. I'm cracking up as I muse about all the Coleman lantern mantles I have handled and used over my lifetime. Campgrounds used to be lit up for miles with the sound of hissing, glowing Thorium lanterns.

Oh, the Boy Scout memories.

reply to post by intrptr


You could do it with a fairly normal lab setup. Which is the point of one of the articles I posted. The IAEA would never know you were doing it, and it wouldn't take a lot of thorium to get the amount required.

mrbeardo42
Sadly it's likely that this will never be allowed into production. Any vehicle that becomes independent from the energy (Oil/Electricity) industry would lobby the hell out of governments to stop it in some way.

Oil Companies rule every household, every person that uses electricity, and so pretty much the world.

Look at 9/11 (New York), 7/7 (London) and 11/3 (Madrid), it was staged, and was not just about the corrupt secret agencies and billionaire corporate bosses of America, Europe and Britain being able to get the public to be more accepting of their spying and world domination activities.

If you don't thin it's possible that I could be right, notice that even the food we'd prefer not to eat just to stay healthy is being secretly and forcefully fed to us these days by means of affordability and suppression of knowledge, and false (pseudo) science.

I wish we all headed the lyrics of Lennon, MJ, SOAD, Green Day and Rage while we still had a chance to stop the cancerous growth of these nasty groups of people.

True, that. "Nasty groups of people", that's it exactly.

All I want is to build my life on MY terms, not THEIR terms. Yet they ARE enforcing THEIR terms on me, and I imagines, the rest of people are aren't filthy rich like these "elite" creeps.

(sighs).

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by mbkennel

 

For your consideration: Thorium

Natural thorium decays very slowly compared to many other radioactive materials, and the ALPHA radiation emitted cannot penetrate human skin meaning owning and handling small amounts of thorium, such as a gas mantle, is considered safe.

What was that? Alpha radiation? hmmm.
What kind of shielding does one need for Alpha radiation?

Thorium emits trivial amoutns of alpha radiation as long as it stays thorium.

If you transmute it in a fissile breeder reactor to make power ("your goes a mlilion miles on 8 grams of thorium"), then the waste products from that whole chain are a cornucopia of dangerous radioisotopes.

reply to post by intrptr

reply to post by mbkennel


For those going on about U233, dirty bombs, waste, and otherwise continuing to ring the alarm bell:

Thorium has its flaws. The metallurgy is complex. It is "fertile" but not fissile, and has to be converted in Uranium 233. Claims by the International Atomic Energy Institute in 2005 that it has "intrinsic resistance" to proliferation but have since been qualified. It could be used as feedstock for bombs, though not easily.
Yet it leaves far less toxic residue. Most of the mineral is used up in the fission process, while uranium reactors use up just 0.7pc. It can even burn up existing stockpiles of plutonium and hazardous waste.

Cambridge scientists published a tantalising study in the Annals of Nuclear Energy in February showing that it is possible to "achieve near complete transuranic waste incineration" by throwing the old residue into the reactor with thorium.

In other words, it can help clean up the mess left by a half a century of nuclear weapons and uranium reactors, instead of transporting it at great cost to be encased in concrete and buried for millennia.

Article Source
and
Cited Journal Entry in Annals of Nuclear Energy Feb 2012: Near-complete transuranic waste incineration in a thorium fuelled pressurised water reactor

While those still ringing the alarm bell ... before we even have a working solution ... a solution, as indicated in the citation above that could be used to "Mr. Fusion" (Back To The Future reference, and yes, it's actually fission going on) away half a century of dirty bomb making material, I'm going to continue giving this technology my moral support.

Granted, to be clear, the above citation refers installation Thorium Reactors, and has nothing to do with this car engine concept, but, I thought it important enough to highlight.

If anything, from a conspiracy standpoint, one could potentially go so far as to nod in the direction that those agitating for alarm over Thorium Reactor technology are afraid of the very potential cited above such that Thorium Reactors can be facilitated to burn away and destroy all that messy waste and hazardous material left over from standard nuclear power solutions.
Alarmists are not actually scared of proliferation as they might say, but, the opposite; reduction in dirty material that this technology offers?


That may be so, or not, but, too much protest against the development of a cleaner, safer, more sustainable, and altogether less expensive nuclear power solution that can even be facilitated to destroy and clean up the waste we already have on hand, well, too much protest against it strikes me as a little suspicious.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


I would LOVE to see thorium reactors in power plants. I don't want to see thorium reactors driving down my street. There's a huge difference between the two.

The half-life of thorium is 14 billion years. Great idea that.

reply to post by AliceBleachWhite


If all that were true, they would have done it already. Besides, there are no working thorium reactors. Thorium reactors are the proponents of nuclear power oft used idea to suggest the continuance of nuclear power thru new designs using old ideas (like thorium).

That may be so, or not, but, too much protest against the development of a cleaner, safer, more sustainable, and altogether less expensive nuclear power solution that can even be facilitated to destroy and clean up the waste we already have on hand, well, too much protest against it strikes me as a little suspicious.

Look at where the industry has taken us so far:

threats include health risks and environmental damage from uranium mining, processing and transport, the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation or sabotage, and the unsolved problem of radioactive nuclear waste. They also contend that reactors themselves are enormously complex machines where many things can and do go wrong, and there have been many serious nuclear accidents. Critics do not believe that these risks can be reduced through new technology. They argue that when all the energy-intensive stages of the nuclear fuel chain are considered, from uranium mining to nuclear decommissioning, nuclear power is not a low-carbon electricity source.

Scrapping an entire industry and switching to Thorium reactor technology, for instance (that doesn't exist yet) would involve enormous cost to the consumer, not considering cleaning the mess up from the existing industry. The Nuclear Power companies have all their eggs in one basket and haven't changed that much since its inception. The reactors in place around the US for instance consist of older GE Mk1 BWR design, the same as the ones in Japan. All the waste from the reactors (spent fuel rods) are still inside the respective buildings there from the beginning of operations. These plants are aging, some of them are at the end of their useful life cycle. No new (nuclear) option exists at this time. Hack articles about magic nucklear cars are just that, hacked up out of thin air for mass consumption.

So when you hear about new nuclear technology that will be cleaner, safer and more efficient...

(insert tongue in cheek emoticon)

en.wikipedia.org...

Well, what about a safer alternative isotope that is more stable but also releases alpha radiation? Something like nickel-63? Creating a battery from that stuff that self-charges overnight might be a workable idea, although it might not last as long. Fifty years or so. Or are we talking gamma contamination and possible weaponization of nickel-63, too?

reply to post by Blue Shift


If they can come up with something that works, and is safe, I'd be all for it. Nuclear powered cars (because that's essentially what a thorium engine is) is just not the way to go.

reply to post by intrptr


The extext you cited seems more prevalent to current nuclear power paradigms. I recommend a little more intellectual honesty, please.

As to, um, 'magical' new nuclear technology? Well, someone should tell the National efforts of China, Japan, and a consortium of other national entities working in coordination and cooperation with those efforts, including proposals and guarded flirtation from U.S. interests for caring and sharing that all the hundreds of millions of $$$, and frantic rush to solution are entirely wasted, and everyone should just retire that money to the Caribbean for wave, tidal, and wind generators along with all the complicated fussy little drinks with umbrellas in them on the beach.

Certainly I agree and recognize that Thor-tech isn't realized yet.
Efforts, however, are there, even franticly so in the case of China with its current energy needs and near panic over growing demands and near future sustainability.

I'm not under the illusion that Thor-tech is going to magically make current Nuclear reactors go away overnight.

The potential, however, for an energy revolution is there and much more so than any of the other more Science Fictiony solutions being researched or toyed with like Fusion, Vacuum Energy, etc.

I'm all for Thorium, and, but, since it isn't realized yet, as stated earlier, were it legal, and cost effective, I'd even personally very happily use current RTG technology as a source for energy independence, and GPHS-RTGs aren't nearly as clean and safe as projections with Thorium.
Granted, GPHS-RTG tech is a working tried and true technology where Thorium hasn't even given us a Mw of power yet.
The effort, interest, and potential, however, is there.

Well it is funny when people talk about radiation and radioactive material, because the fact is that for every m^3 of rock on the surface of the Earth, if you was to extract all radioactive content and smash it into its own block... that block would be 10cm^3 The Earth is rather radioactive, the point is concentrating it obviously makes it more hazardus, that said, what you should all look at is this comic strip.

While you might say "oh this is just a comic book strip" it actually is fairly accurate.

xkcd.com...

So do you live or work in a building made of concrete? well done you already have a dose of radiation per year worse than Fukashima put out and felt by tokyo in the water in the weeks following the incident.

Now you say... oh but thats 1 year and the other is a big dose in a short time... you are correct, but you must think of it in context. I know people who, because the US runs an X-ray scam in most doctors clinics, have had 7-10 x-rays for a problem which only required 1 or 2 at most... none of them seemed to worried about x-ray dosing. Oh wait whats that? Just got dosed more than Fukashima would have done in the same amount of time.

the problem with radiation is that, most people don't really understand it correctly, and so they are happier with dumping chemicals that are hazardous into rivers, that will stay hazardous for centuries/thousands of years in the many many tonnes, year round for 20-30 years... but radiation is scary and minute amounts scares people half to death. The whole "its an abomination that we bury our nuclear waste" crowd are the biggist guilty party... see the opening paragraph as to why.

Well? we got this radioactive material from rock... so we put it back... Seriously? whats the problem? There isn't one, last time i checked there was no animals and plants growing in solid rock, so why is it an issue to pack it up in concrete and bury it? so long as it doesn't get into the water, its all good. People clearly have no idea what they are talking about when it comes to these sorts of 'hands flapping' comments as some people here have rightly pointed out

The entire us economy is run by gasoline. If we should stop buying it that would spell the end of a lot of very important people's wealth. They will not let that happen. Therefore this invention, even if completely real and true, will never go anywhere.

Robonakka
The entire us economy is run by gasoline. If we should stop buying it that would spell the end of a lot of very important people's wealth. They will not let that happen. Therefore this invention, even if completely real and true, will never go anywhere.

Yeah, introduce gasoline to society and all the good people who make buggy whips will be out of a job. That's why photographers should also be regulated, because with photography you can make a million copies of a work of art, so all original art will become worthless. And we can't allow electricity into the cities, because it will eliminate the gas infrastructure that cooks all the food and heats homes.

The thing is, there is almost no significant new technology introduced that doesn't open up massive new development or investment opportunities for everyone.

AliceBleachWhite
reply to post by intrptr

 

The extext you cited seems more prevalent to current nuclear power paradigms. I recommend a little more intellectual honesty, please.

Current ones are the only ones. Paradigms aside, heres one thats "more honest", if you like.

Claims about Thorium

reply to post by ErosA433

So do you live or work in a building made of concrete? well done you already have a dose of radiation per year worse than Fukushima put out and felt by tokyo in the water in the weeks following the incident.

The radiation from a concrete wall is a poor comparison to what is occurring at Fukushima. Citing a place and time off shore a few weeks after the accident does not account for the potential release over eons from these plants at Fukushima. This debacle is only just beginning. Rising levels of radiation at the site should be some kind of clue as to what to expect in the future (we are in year three).

Sources of ionizing radiation from your concrete don't generally lodge in the body's bone and connective tissues the way nuclides and isotopes from Fukushima might...

...even a little bit

I predict the CEO will somehow commit "suicide" and a "terrorist" attack will befall the company.

Not many downsides to using Thorium as a fuel source.

Well not exactly, here is one:

If Thorium reactors become feasibly congruent... Those that want weapons will use it to help defray the energy cost of refining Uranium. This is one of the real obstacles in producing Nuclear weapons.... the time it takes, and the money it takes to refine Uranium....Plutonium. This potential shift in nuclear power producing strategies must take this fact into account for any country that is currently seeking more efficient ways to produce nuclear weapons.

reply to post by trollz


The government would just figure out what a person spends on a million miles worth of gas, and add that much tax into the purchase.

This design is a hoax. The technology is non existent. Also the sources make basic mathematical errors.