Comments for The Energy From Thorium Foundation

Comment on Flibe Energy in the UK, Part 4: DECC by John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:06:38 +0000

@Kirk – JUST found out about this while listening to TED.

1. Congrats on starting your company! You hold a lot of hope in your two hands.
2. I haven’t been able to find much else since. What is the next step?

John

Comment on Flibe Energy in the UK, Part 4: DECC by John Wilkinson

John Wilkinson — Sat, 24 Nov 2012 00:01:11 +0000

Re: Sterling generator.
That’s what a nuclear power plant is. It uses high temperature water to turn turbines to turn a generator.

The Sterling Generator uses warm water to pump a piston to turn a generator.

You get a lot more power from the higher temperatures than the lower so you would wind up with at most 0.1% increase for the expense of building one.

Comment on LFTR leader JIANG Mianheng addresses iThEO by cthorm

cthorm — Fri, 23 Nov 2012 17:17:16 +0000

In a 2-fluid design the protactinium is pumped into a separate tank and stored for a few weeks, where it decays into 233U. Pa is water soluble, and 233Pa decays via beta emission at about 0.5 MeV with a 27 day halflife. The 232Pa isotope, which will also be present, is also a beta emitter but at a 1.337 MeV and a halflife of just 1 day. A human couldn’t be anywhere near this stuff while it decays, so remote manipulation would be necessary.

Comment on LFTR leader JIANG Mianheng addresses iThEO by Peter

Peter — Wed, 21 Nov 2012 01:09:21 +0000

Does the protactinium tank pose any health or other danger? How is this tank secured?

Comment on Ammoniac Nucléaire by fab

fab — Tue, 20 Nov 2012 23:54:16 +0000

Merci beaucoup pour cette traduction.

Comment on LFTR leader JIANG Mianheng addresses iThEO by Karlos

Karlos — Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:44:54 +0000

You can’t even say we’re in a race for thorium with the Chinese! Our priorities lie else where! Cause addicts to gasoline. And denying our Pushers Agenda is unthinkable.

I wish could have a Thorium Reactor tomorrow. But it’s never that easy!

Comment on LFTR leader JIANG Mianheng addresses iThEO by David Walters

David Walters — Wed, 14 Nov 2012 19:48:24 +0000

We heard him speak at UC Berkeley earlier in the year. It was his first public presentation to my knowledge and, open to the public.

The Chinese are R&Ding TWO thorium reactors: A solid fuel one, FIRST, with FLibE cooling and then, afterwards, a LFTR, (but once through).

The Molten Salt Cooled Thorium Reactor is being built first is expected to be 2.5 MWt. Most of the R&D money is going to this. Some smaller amount is going to their version of the LFTR.

Comment on 1973 Newspaper Article about MSR Cancellation by Frank Eggers

Frank Eggers — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 22:08:57 +0000

It should be noted that President Obama favors nuclear energy. Whether he is aware of thorium I don’t know, but efforts should be made to ensure that he is aware of thorium.

Comment on LFTR leader JIANG Mianheng addresses iThEO by Alex P.

Alex P. — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:52:08 +0000

Interesting enough, methanol can be also a good energy storage alternative to classic electric batteries. For example, by biomass gasification we yield a ratio ~ 1 of CO/H2 while needing two moles of H2 to produce one mole of MeOH : CO + 2 H2 = CH3OH. If we consider that even using electrolysis at moderate temps (~ 150 °C) we need only less than 40 kWh per kg of hydrogen
http://ieahia.org/pdfs/Task25/High_Temperature_Electrolysis_(HTE).pdf
and supposing, say, that one liter of MeOH = 8-10 km (rather than 15 km per liter of gasoline for an equivalent gasoline car), we need no more than 0,2-0,25 kWh per km, of course without considering the energy inputs of biomass and low temp heat – at that point, it’ almost the same electricity consumption of an electric vehicle or plugin needing something in the range of 0,2 kWh per km, but without the big drawback of not having an usefull and pratical liquid fuel.

Comment on LFTR leader JIANG Mianheng addresses iThEO by Alex P.

Alex P. — Mon, 12 Nov 2012 17:17:07 +0000

RobertTM,
methanol is actually safer than gasoline/diesel fuel, because it’s less volatile, much more difficult to ignite, and its fire is much less powerfull; and in case of leaks it biodegrades very quickly, unlike gasoline, etc…of course, it’s more toxic but this almost irrelevant because also gasoline and other oil by-products are toxic by ingestion/inalation, while methanol though toxic is not per se canceroginic (like gasolien/diesel), and can be easily cured taking small amount of ethanol(ethyl alcohool) if readily diagnosed

If you also consider that is much cleaner (even cleaner than natural gas that is not obviously liquid at room temperature, even avoiding NOx and some soot emissions of nat gas) and can be burned much more efficiently than gasoline (even better than diesel engine without the weight/bulk and emissions inherent of that system), I think that methanol together with DME for diesel, gas turbines and LPG replacement it’ s an interesting option to consider