Re: [pfaf] Re: something for nothing
- I saw a news item a month ago saying that the new Chinese nuclear
reactors will be Thorium fuelled and making the point that there was
nothing new in the technology. Indeed, as you say, Western development
had followed the needs of the military for the byproducts and thus
stifled Thorium development. It was either in the Daily telegraph or BBC.
Matthew Sleigh wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 10:28 PM, GRISELDA <mussetts@...
> <mailto:mussetts%40btinternet.com>> wrote:
> > I read a letter in the New Scientist a couple of weeks ago saying
> that our nuclear industries use plutonium and uranium only because the
> military liked the killing capacity locked up in their wavelengths,
> but that we could be using thorium instead which still provides power
> ('for nothing'), but without the deadly side-effects.
> > I am not a physicist at all, but I guess the New Scientist would
> only publish letters which have some kind of reliability in them.
> > Griselda
> There are many reasons why Thorium would be a better fuel than
> plutonium, uranium or carbon "fossil fuels".
> Basically Thorium is cheaper, and less toxic at all stages, from
> extraction to disposal. The alpha radiation emitted cannot penetrate
> human skin. Researchers are developing a thorium-based,
> self-sustaining light water reactor that will *produce and consume*
> about the same amounts of fuel.