Thorium

Things to do with reduced Costs

2013-01-31T13:42:00.004-08:00

Things to do with reduced Costs
Since various energy sources could theoretically reduce costs substantially, both economically and to the environment and with longevity concerns, cheap energy could also revolutionize various energy constrained industries.

In addition to the cost of electricity/energy going down, such as for air conditioning, heating, water heating, the costs of many goods could go down as well.

Since 90% of business; average cost of goods could go down, etc.

Some more specific Stuff
Carbon fiber, for instance, typically uses a PAN substrate that is roughly 3 dollars per pound. After the precision electric heating, and vacuum chamber treatment, and many other energy intensive procedures, the cost of carbon fiber is increased to roughly 15 dollars per pound. Since carbon fiber has roughly the same strength, but is roughly 1/5th the weight of, steel, at 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter compared to roughly 7.85 grams per cubic centimeter for iron, unit per unit, carbon fiber is only roughly 3 times more expensive than iron, at around 1 dollar per pound. If these costs could be cut down to just a 1/3 of their current costs, carbon fiber would suddenly become as viable as steel for building structures, potentially cars. In 2004, the U.S. peak oil import was etc. If cars were just 3 times lighter weight (which depending on the steel and other heavier materials content, could be significantly more), foreign oil could be kicked out and the virtual cost of oil would be reduced due to the increased efficiency. A standard car, having roughly 20 mpg, would suddenly have 60 mpg just by reducing the weight. By using carbon fiber, the vehicles would not only be just as safe and reliable as steel cars, but potentially more so, especially since there would be less energy per accident (lighter weight vehicles). The vehicles would also have 3 times the range, so in the case of electric cars, could have considerably longer ranges. Instead of 150-200 miles per charge, the vehicle could have 450-600, if not more depending on how effective the weight savings could be with various models. By utilizing the now cheaper, and stronger light weight materials, cars could become substantially more efficient, potentially enough to have electric cars. Given that gasoline costs tend to drive the cost of everything in market, due to shipping and processing, these issues could be alleviated, in addition to what the average person pays for gasoline.

Lithium ion is made from potassium chloride and lithium chloride, through electrolysis. Since lithium chloride and potassium chloride are both roughly a dollar per pound or less, when in industrial use, and lithium ion is roughly 30-40 dollars per pound, it's easy to see how the major cost of lithium ion comes from the highly inefficient electrolysis production method. Electrolysis works by bathing these materials in enormous amounts of electricity until the chemical bonds of each material are broken down and changed; if electricity costs were alleviated, say to being 10 times cheaper, it's easy to see how the nearly negligible material cost would allow a previously 40 dollar per pound battery, to be roughly 4-5 dollars per pound. At 1/10th the cost, an average 10-15,000 dollar lithium ion battery could be reduced to around 1000-1500 dollars. This might make long range, easily rechargeable batteries a feasible reality, allowing for a non-polluting, and now significantly cheaper, long range highly efficient emission free electric car.

Other batteries, such as lithium titinate and "carbonized" batteries, could be recharged much quicker. Since both use lithium ion as a base material, and these costs could be alleviated, the over-all cost of the battery could be greatly reduced. In the case of the graphite based "carbonized" battery, the battery could be recharged 30-120 times faster, or in minutes rather than hours; this might make recharging at a "pump" a tad more realistic for long range travel. These batteries would essentially use energy intensive method, pyrolysis or destructive distillation, to be carbonized, which are energy intensive methods. By reducing the base cost of electricity, the costs for these batteries could be eliminated. This alone would allow for cheaper, easily recharged batteries, making convenient electric cars an affordable reality.

The Government

I know that a large variety of costs, for the government, goes to energy costs. Social security, for instance, in large part pays for sustenance to stay living, which is in large part energy costs, for electricity, heating, water etc. I know that the average social security payout is around 1200 dollars per month, or around 14,000 dollars per year. I also know that the average utility bill is approximately 2200 dollars per year. By comparing the total number of social security beneficiaries to the total social security system cost, or in 2013, 821 billion dollars for social security to 58 million recipients, by ensuring 2200 dollars could be removed per person annually, this could result in roughly 127.6 billion dollars to be cut without removing utilities (simply, if the costs of utility were reduced). This is only around 15% of the social security bill, but it's conceivable that costs for gasoline, food, water, or other commodities could go down as a result, further reducing the required social security payment (in a sense, paying for electricity and energy by utilizing cheaper electricity). It's conceivable that a person in retirement or who is unemployed, mostly pays for sustenance, such as water, electricity, and food, rather than bills for an actual house or car itself, meaning that living costs could be reduced, which are generally energy intensive. For the individuals with disability or whom still receive social security benefits, potential driving and transportation costs could be reduced. This represents a reduction, although only a relatively small reduction of the over-all costs of social security.

More importantly, however is medicare and medicade.

Thorium

2013-01-27T22:47:00.001-08:00

Thorium

Thorium is 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction, is only mildly radioactive, can produce a significant amount of power (it can theoretically produce 200 times more power than uranium, per kilogram [1][2][3]), has no emissions, and would otherwise be an ideal fuel source.

Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction; it is fertile, but fissile.[1][2][3] It can be used as fuel, under the right conditions, but it does not support a self sustaining reaction (like uranium-235 or plutonium-239) and cannot be used in an atom bomb or similiar explosive. Unlike uranium or plutonium, Thorium does not release neutrons during fission, disallowing the fission of Thorium to initiate the fission of another Thorium atom.[1][2][3] Thorium is therefore functionally incapable of supporting a nuclear chain reaction; therefore energy cannot be released exponentially in an uncontrolled manner, or cause a melt down or explosion; with a subcritical accelerator driven reactor, the reaction will cease unless continually fed neutrons from an outside source.[1][2][3] This means that if the mechanism shuts down or fails, it will not be able to release energy, making the design inherently safe.

Thorium is only mildly radioactive[1][2][3], as it produces alpha particles, which are incapable of getting through human skin.[1][2][3] With a half life of roughly 14.05 billion years, or over the estimated length of the life of the universe, thorium is unlikely to produce significant amounts of radiation or by products when compared to something like uranium.[1][2][3][4] Thorium used to be used frequently, and still is used commonly in gas mantles or lanterns, giving the lanterns a distinctive and somewhat brighter appearance. [1][2][3] Despite recent concerns of potential health risks, even in relatively high concentrations Thorium poses little if any major health risk unless inhaled or consumed in abundant quantities. X amount would be dangerous.[1][2][3][4]

Thorium is an abundant element, roughly 3 times more abundant as tin and about as abundant as lead.[1][2][3][4] Found in nature in almost 100% concentrations of Thorium-232, or the stable fissionable type of Thorium, it is present in soil, on average, at about 6 parts per million, or about 1 in 166,000. [1][2][3] Thorium is only mildly radioactive, so it doesn't present a significant threat despite it's naturally wide spread abundance. Thorium is present in X quantities in certain places.

Potential Reactor Designs and Costs
There are many potential reactor designs for Thorium, ranging from plutonium initiated designs, to fusion initiated, to accelerator driven "sub-critical" designs. The accelerator driven system seems to be the most promising, since it could produce potentially over 200 times the power of Uranium, per kilogram, and short lived weakly radioactive waste, and wouldn't require the proliferation of dangerous or hazardous materials such as P-239 (and compared to the fusion variant, is relatively well developed). In all systems, regardless, they have the potential to be incredibly cheap. These systems do not require a breeding process like with uranium, nor expensive safety restrictions and protections due to their inherent safety. The cost of the fuel, reactor, and liquid salt design are all that are required to determine the cost of Thorium.

Since the energy levels of Thorium are comparable to Uranium, and the primary costs from uranium come from the breeding process and safety issues, it's conceivable Thorium could be substantially cheaper for the same power output. Uranium powers roughly 20.9% of the nation's energy[1][2][3], with approximately 104 reactors[1][2][3]. Annually, roughly 6,000 tonnes of uranium are consumed [1][2][3]; the U.S. peaked mining at roughly 16,000 tonnes in X year.[1][2] Uranium costs roughly 125 dollars per kilogram[1][2][3][4]; this means that for annual consumption, the fuel costs are only roughly 750 million to 2 billion dollars. Yet annually, from this uranium, the costs for uranium power were over 200 billion dollars (due to the fact it provides 20% of the nation's power?).[1][2][3] The rest of the cost for uranium rests in processing, safety protocols, the breeding process, safe transportation, waste disposal, and various other issues.[1][2] Since much of this could be eliminated with Thorium, it is conceivable that Thorium could be significantly cheaper based on these features alone.

This means that Thorium is not only safe, clean, and abundant, but potentially an incredibly cheap power source as well.

Accelerator Driven Costs
The accelerator driven method would utilize a large proton accelerator, somewhere between 800 Mega eV and 1 Giga eV, at around 12 mega watts, to slam protons into a nuetron spallation material, and then utilize these ejected neutrons (ejected at high velocities) to initiate fission in Thorium. The accelerator driven method promises potentially up to 200 times more power, per kilogram, than current uranium power sources, due to the higher levels of efficiencies theoretically obtainable, and short lived radioactive waste, that would only produce as much radiation as coal ash, or in other words, as much radiation as coal waste for roughly 500 years (in other words, short lived, practically non-radioactive waste).

The only obvious problems with the design rest in the liquid salt design and proton accelerator (which, are relatively easy to develop), the liquid salt design which is currently a strong replacement candidate for water, whether used in a coal, uranium or otherwise a steam based turbine (using liquid molten salts instead of water, with higher efficiency, higher heat volume and less expansion, or pressures at higher temperatures, allowing for a smaller, more efficient design with less chance of leaking or pressure builds up).

Given that the liquid salt design would be relatively easy to establish, in theory, and could potentially be replaced by a standard water baster steam generator instead, the real issue lies in the proton accelerator. Proton accelerators are generally large and expensive. The CERN facility, known for housing the largest proton accelerator in the world, as well as many others, is roughly 27 kilometers (17 miles) in circumference, or around, essentially 17 miles long. The entire facility cost somewhere around 10 billion U.S. dollars, including the super computers for recording the data, several other colliders, and many other features. Since only a large hadron collider is desired, the majority of this may be unnecessary for power generation; however, the general idea of cost for several major hadron colliders around the U.S., to provide power, can seem staggering.

The CERN facility costs somewhere around 10 billion dollars, total, and current liquid salt designs call for roughly 1 gigawatt of power generation; that is, 1 gigawatt, per second. This would generate, if operating 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 356 days a year etc., 8760 gigawatt hours of power, or if rounding down (to compensate for any potential down time), around 8 terra watt hours a year. The U.S. consumes roughly 4000 terra watt hours per year, so this would require approximately 500 reactors, which would cost 5 trillion dollars. Over it's life, it has cost roughly 1 billion dollars in various maintenance and experiment costs, which construction began sometime in 1998. At these costs, over a period of 20 years, the down payment for 500 of these facilities would be roughly 250 billion dollars a year, and maintenance costs plus the liquid water or salt reactors might bump this up to 300 billion or so. Considering that the U.S. spends roughly 1 trillion dollars on electricity annually, this would be slightly less or roughly equal to a third of general electricity costs. Based on the extra energy produced annually, the power grid could currently support 84% of electric cars, if they were to immediately switch from gasoline to electric, virtually over night. Therefore only a small amount of extra power would be needed to power electric cars, despite the massive consumption of gasoline.

However, this would be unnecessary. In large part, many of the smaller colliders could be removed from the basic design. Since the design would not necessarily exist for scientific data, many of the monitoring and sensory equipment could be removed or dumbed down, enough to run the facility and gather basic data. Not as many scientists and high profile teams would need to be at the facility, and the computers wouldn't need to be anywhere near as powerful or capable. As well, a Thorium hadron collider would only require, at maximum, roughly .8-1 GeV, as compared to the 7-8 TeV currently obtainable in the large collider, or roughly 10,000 times the power as necessary to cause fission in the Thorium. This means the reactor could produce significantly more power, or could be considerably smaller. With a constant beam of protons at 1/1,000th the maximum strength, only 50 facilities would be required; this would be 1/10th of the 300 billion dollar cost, or roughly 30 billion dollars. Not considering the increased cost for 10 gigawatt molten salt reactors; considering that these designs can be easily scaled up (simply being used to turn the heat into, through the use of a liquid salt based steam turbine, instead of water, energy), this wouldn't be too incredibly difficult to do. Operating at around 1/100th the strength, only around 5 facilities would need to be built, or would cost some 3 billion (not including the costs of the 100 megawatt liquid energy to electricity transformation stuffsz) a year. It's conceivable, then, operating at 1/100th full strength, the designs could still produce electricity at least 100 times cheaper than it is now.

Even if 10 times cheaper, this would allow certain materials, that otherwise would have been too expensive due to energy constraints, to suddenly become economical. Lithium ion or carbon fiber, for instance, both of which have relatively cheap substrate costs, at 3 dollars per pound for PAN and 1 dollars per pound for lithium chloride and potassium chloride, respectively, but high energy and manufacturing costs (carbon fiber is 15 dollars per pound, produced under immense pressure, low pressure, and extremely high heat, while lithium ion is around 30-40, produced from electrolysis), are ideal for the production of feasible electric/hybrid cars, or just regular cars (carbon fiber potentially reducing the weight of the vehicle by over 3 times it's amount, and therefore increasing fuel efficiency the same). This in turn could make long range high grade, quickly rechargeable and high powered electric cars a feasible reality, in addition to reducing costs associated with living, medical costs, and many other production costs. Since electricity would be considerably cheaper, as well, the price of transportation of goods could be reduced and with a more reliable energy supply, could pave the way for an easily expandable future without much concern for running out of fuel, emissions, environmental or safety hazards, and even cost.

At 200 times the efficiency of uranium, this would allow for roughly 3 tons to power the entire United State's energy supply, and even if 10 were used per year, based on the amount of Thorium disposed of in X bomb range, it could power the earth for X years. Earth's reserves, India, U.S., convenient democratic countries.

Thorium then, could, even in an incredibly difficult to apply form (using accelerators), solve a wide variety of problems faced by the U.S. and other countries today. Reducing living costs, transportation costs, and medical costs could not only alleviating the average costs faced by regular people, but also government spending. Since a large part of the cost of medical care and social security are in energy, as well as for military purposes, these costs could be alleviated and could reduce government spending without reducing coverage, in addition to creating more powerful and capable materials and procedures that previously were to energy costly.

By reducing base energy costs, a wide variety of problems, from the economy to the environment, could be solved. It is therefore, imperative, that Thorium is considered as a viable power source for dah future.

Cool stuff to do with Thorium

2013-01-21T17:41:00.003-08:00

Cool stuff to do with Thorium

Since Thorium would produce little to no emissions, could produce weak or extremely weakly radioactive waste (in the case of accelerator driven systems, equal to coal ash, or in essence nearly non-existent), small amounts of easily manageable waste, has no chance of a melt down, produces alpha particles that can't get through the skin (so it's virtually harmless), using it as a power source would be extremely beneficial. It wouldn't pollute or have the potential to be dangerous like uranium power. And since it's only weakly radioactive and presents little danger to humans, it isn't as controlled a substance, reducing these issues and costs as well.

Uranium power is already around the same cost of coal; it also provides 20% of the U.S.'s power, with just 106 reactors. The cost of uranium, per kilogram, is usually around 125-500 dollars per kilogram; at 125 dollars per kilogram, for roughly 6000 metric tons this would be 750 million dollars; the U.S. peaked mining (which wasn't all used in a year) at around 16,000 tons a year, or the equivalent of around 2 billion dollars. Since Uranium provides about 200 billion dollars worth of electricity, the cost of fuel isn't particularly high, relatively speaking. Even more so, Thorium is roughly 3-4 times more abundant than uranium, and there are large amounts of unused Thorium in storage by the United States' government and in other facilities that could theoretically be tapped into, in addition to mines, for relatively low costs, that could theoretically cover the necessary power needs of say, the U.S., for many years. The actual cost of fuel is relatively low, when it comes to both uranium and Thorium, especially compared to their power (uranium, and thorium, provide roughly 3 million times the energy, per kilogram, as coal).

The primary costs associated with uranium are the breeding process and safety measures. While it depends on the reactor for uranium costs, by removing these costs (due to the inherent safety and concentration of Thorium at near 100% Thorium-232), it's easy to see how Thorium power could essentially operate in a similiar manner but be safer and significantly cheaper. Utilizing newer, molten salt reactors, which have a higher thermodynamic efficiency than water and can store over 200 times the thermal volume as water, they can potentially eliminate problems associated with accidents like Chernobyl, without losing energy. This allows for a molten salt design to be more efficient with less issues. By utilizing thorium, in these methods, it would be theoretically possible to eliminate safety issues, and therefore the primary costs associated with uranium. This means Thorium could be significantly cheaper than current uranium power, which is also cheaper than coal.

If Electricity was cheaper and cleaner

Lots of things would be available if electricity was cheaper; electric cars would be a more feasible reality, since electricity would cheaper, and there really would be close to no emissions, eliminating this as an issue. Smog would be reduced, at the very least, in city areas and people could rely on electric for heating, air conditioning, and other things without as much a concern for their cost. Electric cars would become a more feasible reality.

If electricity was just 3-4 times cheaper, certain materials could be made cheaper, that have relatively high energy costs, which would allow them to be more practical for every day use. Carbon fiber for instance, is roughly 15 dollars per pound, while steel is less than 1 pound; iron has a density of roughly 7.85 cubic grams per centimeter, while carbon fiber is around 1.5, or around 5 times lighter weight. This means that, in terms of usable material (say, a car frame), carbon fiber is roughly 5 times lighter weight, at around the same strength as steel (depending on the grade), but 3 times more expensive. Building a car out of predominately carbon fiber might more than triple the price. However, if it was made predominately out of carbon fiber, the vehicles range and efficiency could increase somewhere between 3-5 times it's current amount, depending on it's iron and other heavy materials content, and would actually be safer, as the vehicle would be lighter weight and have less energy per accident, despite being the same strength as steel.

Since the primary expense of carbon fiber is in the manufacturing, since it's substrate cost is relatively cheap, which it's made from rayon or similiar polymers, and the cost of manufacturing is mostly from energy costs, or electricity, it is theoretically possible to reduce the cost of carbon fiber with potentially cheaper thorium energy. Since carbon fiber is roughly 15 dollars per pound, if it was 3 times cheaper, or electricity was some 3-4 times cheaper, than carbon fiber could be around the price of steel. The precursor material of polyacrylonitrile, for higher grade carbon fiber, is around 3 dollars per pound, so energy cost reductions could theoretically reduce it to roughly 1/5th the cost. Some less expensive rayon or pitch variants could be significantly cheaper, allowing for it to be significantly cheaper than steel. By reducing energy costs, even if just by 4 times our current amount, we allow the economic production of materials that could revolutionize energy usage in the U.S., giving cars further range and higher gas mileage, going from 20 miles to 60 miles per gallon, on average, or allowing electric cars to have 3-4 times the range depending on their carbon fiber content.

Combined with hybrid designs, improved aerodynamics or other such things, cars could become significantly cheaper and more fuel efficient. If vehicles were just 3 times more efficient, the U.S. could kick out all foreign oil usage, as in 2004 their peak imports were at 65%. While it's around 50%, as of now, this could reduce the strain on local oil drilling and virtually decrease the cost, as well as it's impact. With the improved efficiency of the lighter weight, but still high strength design, electric cars may become a feasible reality.

Perhaps even better, lithium ion is created through electrolysis with various lithium containing compounds. In 1998, the costs were roughly 43.33 dollars per pound, while it is now between 28-35 dollars per pound. Since lithium chloride and potassium chloride are both only a few dollars per pound (1-12), particularly in bulk, the actual cost of lithium ion primarily rests in production, which is in large part energy costs. If these could be alleviated, the price of lithium ion could be alleviated substantially; if just 3 times cheaper, than a 15,000 dollar lithium ion battery would suddenly be 5000 dollars, particularly in a now cheaper carbon fiber car. This would give it substantially farther range and efficiency at a substantially reduced price.

Although lithium titanate uses titanium, if the costs of lithium ion and the vaporizing process were reduced (by using cheaper electricity!) the cost of lithium titanate could also drop, which can be recharged significantly faster, in minutes instead of hours, allowing for it's use without incredible prices.

This could be the revolution needed to push electric cars over the edge; with no emissions and of course, cheaper electricity, electric cars would be an even more viable option. This could in large part alleviate energy concerns and other issues currently faced by electric cars.

If electricity was 10 times cheaper

If electricity was 10 times cheaper, electricity would be cheaper for water heating, air conditioning, cooking, and lots of other things. Since it is usually more efficient to use natural gas for heating, rather than use natural gas, turn it into heat, turn a small portion of that heat into electricity, and then turn that electricity back into heat, natural gas is usually cheaper for boiling water, cooking and heating than using electric; however, electric has other advantages, such as more precision electronic control, and generally being easier to use. If electricity was substantially cheaper, however, than heating, air conditioning, and most other costs, even if they were cheaper with natural gas before, could now be cheaper, as well.

This could allow for substantially cheaper housing and living, which would make living even easier; with gasoline replaced and having a more efficient car, a lot of expendable money could be reduced, meaning that the base cost of living would go down. With no emissions, there's no concern of pollution, either. Since carbon fiber and lithium ion (among other batteries, that could potentially recharge significantly faster) would be even cheaper than steel at this point, it would be even cheaper to have a car and reduce the cost of transportation, and therefore the cost of everything as well as a major cost to most Americans.

Another interesting thing you could do is turn mercury into gold. Usually, the energy costs involved in turning mercury into gold, is somewhere between 6-9 times higher than the actual cost of gold itself. Artificial gold is therefore more expensive than ordinary gold, which is exceedingly rare. By decreasing the base cost of electricity, it would be possible to decrease the cost of many materials; carbon fiber and lithium ion, of course, but also potentially turning elements into other elements, or mercury (better than lead) into gold. This might allow for increased production, particularly of gold in this case, or other materials.

Batteries could essentially be, 10 times cheaper, so a 15,000 dollar battery is now 1500 dollars; in a carbon fiber car that is only a few thousand dollars. Long range easily rechargeable cars are now 5000 dollars or so. This pretty much solves transportation, energy, and other issues, and could theoretically improve the quality of life considerably.

If it was 100 times cheaper?!

If it was possible, things like the mass production of graphene would be possible. In addition to completely fundamentally changing how our society operates when we eliminate problems associated with energy costs and all the new energy intensive materials we could create (at this point), we could also make tons of graphene.

Graphene is roughly 200 times stronger than steel, can conduct electricity at near super conductor levels, can be used as an insulator or a conductor or heat (depending on the variation), capable of conducting heat at near the speed of electricity, revolutionizing the way we use thermal energy, and lots of other cool stuff or great properties (it could serve as both a high definition, low energy cost computer screen and a computer substrate, great for iphones) as well as can be see through and flexible.

But it's relatively expensive. For high quality graphene, it can range near 40,000 dollars per kilogram, or around 18,000 dollars per pound.

Plutonium Driven Fission

2013-01-21T11:49:00.001-08:00

Plutonium Driven Fission

Fusion Driven Thorium

2013-01-21T11:48:00.004-08:00

Fusion Driven Thorium

Accelerator Driven Method

2013-01-21T11:48:00.002-08:00

Accelerator Driven Method

Cool stuff to do with Thorium

2013-01-19T08:10:00.000-08:00

Cool stuff to do with Thorium
If electricity was just 3-4 times cheaper, than it could compete with natural gas and oil for heating, housing, and potentially even transportation. Costs for manufacturing, production of goods, and industry would all fall considerably, and if it was made from a source that released little to no emissions and didn't pollute, you could switch over to electric cars and use all electric without most issues currently associated with it.

Things like carbon fiber, or certain types of batteries, that have an extensive chemical and energy cost, could have their costs reduced significantly. Carbon fiber is about 15 dollars per pound, while iron is slightly under a dollar per pound. The density of iron is about 7.85 grams centimeter, while carbon fiber is about 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter, while carbon fiber is about the same strength.

Cars could potentially be 3-5 times lighter weight, depending on their steel or iron content, reducing energy costs by the equivalent and increasing engine life, as well as safety. Being so strong and lightweight, it would theoretically reduce the energy of every car crash, and due to it's ability to dissipate energy well (as it disintegrates, or breaks apart, rather than bends, on impact), cars could be safer and be lighter weight. If cars were just 1/3 the weight of their current counterparts, they could, on average, go from roughly 20 miles per gallon to 60. In 2004, the U.S.'s peak oil imports topped out at about 65%, or roughly 2/3rd's the nation's oil supply; if the efficiency was tripled, than the U.S. could kick out the use of foreign oil and essentially, lower oil's price by 1/3 it's amount.

If a car could be just as safe (if not safer), and be lighter weight, then electric cars could become a lot more feasible, as well. A car with a 150 or 200 miles range now suddenly has a 450 or 600 mile range. Certain batteries, such as lithium titanate, could be produced, possibly cheaper (mostly chemical costs, and the vaporizing cost), reducing the cost of batteries that could be charged quickly or last a long time, potentially reducing that as an issue, as well. All of this could help to eliminate problems associated with electric cars, making the electric car a feasible reality, in addition to ultra high efficient oil or natural gas based cars. By reducing the base cost of these more preferable materials, you could make these vehicles significantly more affordable at their relative levels, solving most of our transportation problems, and reducing a major cost most Americans spend money on, which is oil and power.

Electric power would be feasible for cooking, air conditioning, and heating as well, simplifying it's use, being practical for use, and allowing for the use of integrated electronics and precision control in most stuffsz; also potentially reducing the cost of air conditioning, water heaters, and many other devices. If energy and transportation costs were reduced significantly for Americans, the price of nearly everything could be reduced; this would not only help American business, but also the consumers who consume them.

If electricity was 1/10th it's price, than electric heating and air conditioning, along with other appliances, could be considerably cheaper, and the production of gold from mercury, which is usually between 6-9 times the cost of non-synthetic gold itself, would suddenly become profitable. Carbon fiber would be cheaper than steel, and cars might even be cheaper than current costs, as well as be considerably better. American car manufacturing could also be on top again, conveniently, or any country that used cheap Thorium power to help out industry.

Natural gas can be 3-4 times cheaper than electric, in terms of heating, but often has other complications associated with accidents or

Nanotechnology!

Thorium

2012-12-02T10:50:00.005-08:00

Thorium has relatively high potential for being an ideal fuel source. It has the potential to be 200 times more powerful than uranium, has no chance of a melt down, can produce relatively minor nuclear waste, can clean up nuclear waste, and produces no emissions in it's fuel process.

Compared to Uranium, Thorium needs no breeding process and is 3-4 times abundant, or about as common as lead. Depending on the method utilized, the Accelerator Driven method, Plutonium initiated version, and even fusion initiated version, it can substantially more efficient or powerful than uranium and current fuel sources, in addition to cheaper. Combined with improvements in reactor designs, such as liquid salt designs, substantial power can be generated, relatively safely and cheaply.

Accelerator Driven Method
The accelerator driven method essentially uses a large proton accelerator to accelerate protons into a thin film, which then jettisons neutrons, with enough velocity to initiate fission in thorium, or other materials. Because Thorium is fertile, and not fissile, it cannot sustain a chain reaction, and therefore needs an outside source of neutrons in order to initiate fission, and produce energy. This also makes it significantly safer and unable to be used in atom bombs, and removes the possibility of a run-away melt down almost entirely. When the reactor shuts down, the thorium will stop producing energy, since it is not self sustaining.

This method also promises the least radioactive waste, producing waste that is only as radioactive as ash, or relatively nonradioactive, and only for a few hundred years, compared to millions with highly dangerous nuclear waste. It of course, releases no emissions. Utilizing a liquid salt design in order to operate a turbine and produce energy, it should produce enormous amounts of energy with relatively little safety problems. Because the liquid salt can store almost 200 times more heat than water, there is little chance for their to be pressure issues, since it won't be under as high as pressures as with water with the same energy levels.

Problems with the design are general technical problems. There are no cheap proton accelerators yet large enough in the world to be viable to produce electricity, and promoting high nuetron economy is relatively difficult as not much is known about it's behavior in this method, since it is currently not being utilized.

However, a single reactor could provide over 200 times the power as uranium, or around 200 times the efficiency. This could mean that, pound for pound, Thorium could provide over 200 times more power than uranium, which is roughly 3 million times more powerful than coal. As a result, thorium in this method has the potential for roughly 600 million times the energy as coal per pound. In the United States, roughly 1 billion tons of coal are used every year to produce roughly half of the U.S.'s electricity.This means that, theoretically, compensating for power grid inefficiencies, and even efficiency from turbines and other sources, then roughly 1.67 tons of Thorium could be used to power roughly half of the U.S.'s electricity. Double this and a little more, or say 4 tons, would be all the electricity in the U.S., or compensating for multiple potential issues, such as increased electricity use and the replacement of gasoline and natural gas, the U.S. would need at most 8-10 tons of Thorium per year. Since the U.S. uses some 19% of the total world's energy supply, this would only mean about 20-40 tons to power then entire world, although due to inefficiencies of energy use in large energy consumers, such as China, it may be substantially less.

Another way to look at is, the U.S. uses about 4000 terra watt hours of energy annually.
Plutonium Driven Method

Fusion Initiated Hybrid

Some ideas

Thorium

2012-08-31T20:03:00.001-07:00

Thorium
Thorium in particular, sheds light on a method to cheaply produce large amounts of energy. Thorium is approximately 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, 200 times more powerful (with the sub-critical method), has no chance of a meltdown, is only mildly radioactive, and can potentially clean up nuclear waste. By itself, it has the to capacity to be approximately 600 million times more powerful than coal (in terms of mass), uranium being approximately 3 million times more powerful than coal, with 200 times more power than uranium.

Originally, it was believed that Uranium was vastly more abundant than thorium in nature, mostly because this is true. However, only a certain percentage of uranium, approximately .7204%, is useful in fissionable reactions for electricity production. In nature, uranium is found predominantly as uranium-238 (99.2742%) and uranium-235 (0.7204%). Thorium on the other hand, is found in almost 100% concentration of Thorium 232, which does not require enrichment processes and is significantly safer to use and distribute. Due to this, the amount of naturally occurring, useable, fissionable Uranium is actually a full two magnitudes lower than the total amount of Uranium that exists and therefore, 3-4 times less abundant than useful Thorium.

Thorium can be 200 times more efficient than Uranium, with the sub-critical method. The sub-critical method is where a large proton accelerator bombards a thin film of material in order to release neutrons; these neutrons, at high speed, then come in contact with the Thorium, causing fission. Unlike some forms of uranium, Thorium is functionally incapable of supporting a nuclear chain reaction; therefore energy cannot be released exponentially in an uncontrolled manner, or cause a melt down; with a subcritical reactor, the reaction will cease unless continually fed neutrons from an outside source.

Uranium is approximately 3 million times more powerful than coal. Approximately 6.75 Billion tons of coal are used each year to power the World’s electricity supply. If we assume the efficiency of coal and uranium power plants are the same, as they both use steam turbines, we get that approximately 2250 tons of (fissionable) uranium could be used to power the entire world’s coal supply for a year (which is approximately half of all the electricity produced), or roughly double that to replace all electricity. Theoretically, only 1/200th of this is required of thorium per year to produce the same amount of electricity, so roughly 11.25 tons or 22.5 tons of Thorium would be required per year to provide for all the electricity provided by coal, or double that for the entire world, respectively. Even if we assume large inefficiencies for whatever reasons (which are hopefully mitigated by the amount of energy produced with coal per year compensating for the efficiency, even though Thorium could theoretically be better), at a third, fifth, or even a tenth this amount the raw power of thorium would easily be enough to compensate. Based on the estimates OECD/NEA geographical survey, approximately 400,000-440,000 tons of Thorium exists in the United States alone. Based on these figures, it would be possible to power the entire world, for the Thorium present in the United States, for approximately 22,000 to 44,000 years, respectively, if we replaced coal or the entire world’s Electricity supply. The predictions for the entire World’s Thorium reserve varies greatly, even within the same study (Between 1.3-2.6 million tons), however, in the United States it is at a fairly stable 400-440,000 ton estimate, and based even on the minimum conservative estimate the World’s Thorium supply is theoretically enough thorium to power the world for 67-135,000 years. To power the United States alone (the user of approximately 15-20% of the entire world’s electricity supply) we would only need approximately 4 tons of Thorium annually at its current power usage, and have enough power to power the United States coal supply for approximately 220-286,000 years.
Additionally, the money produced from the electricity could be heavily taxed and provide a form of revenue for both the United States and its workers, and potentially reduce the cost of not only daily electrical expenses, but also electrical costs for business drastically. Even if we assume massive or unnoticed inefficiencies in its production, in the order of a magnitude, or 10 times than originally predicted (making it only 20 times more powerful than Uranium, in practice) it’s still enough power to power the entire world and the United States for thousands of years, and two magnitudes lower (100 times less efficient) is enough to power the Entire world for Hundreds of years, and still power the U.S. for thousands, just based on the estimates of Thorium in the United States alone. The United States recovered 988 Tons of thorium, presumably still held in storage, between 1955-1958, which would theoretically be enough to power the U.S. for 250-365 years alone, at relatively little to no cost, since the fuel was provided by the U.S. and was already obtained, even as a result of a single clean up incident.

It is an extremely powerful and available fuel source that most likely should be used and adapted quickly, which through sheer power and availability in nature, could provide cheap, stable, voluminous and clean of energy for nearly everyone for thousands of years.

Thorium is also relatively safe, especially when compared to Uranium. Thorium possesses no capacity for a melt down, as in its natural state it is not fissionable, and therefore does not represent a significant threat for a catastrophic melt down. Due to the thorium energy producing process, it is possible to produce only small amounts of its potentially dangerous nuclear waste which, can be nearly completely eliminated through the energy production process and is only produced in small amounts. Additionally, Thorium can be used to clean up nuclear waste, meaning that our stockpiles of nuclear waste could potentially be eliminated and actually put to good use. While its energy producing process it can produce a substantial amount of radiation, it is nothing more than what typical radiation shielding can prevent and absorb, and the radiation levels will immediately drop if the reactor failed, due to the inherent process required to extract the thorium electricity (it must be hot in order to operate, and shutting the operation down cools it down). In addition, Thorium is only mildly radioactive even in its natural state, and has a half-life longer than or as long as the predicted life of the Universe, at 14 billion years. In any case, Thorium produces Alpha Particles which are virtually incapable of getting through the skin, and rarely present a significant threat unless consumed or inhaled. Thorium dioxide (ThO2) and thorium nitrate (Th(NO3)4) are often used in mantles of portable gas lights, including natural gas lamps, oil lamps and camping lights. These mantles glow with an intense white light (unrelated to radioactivity) when heated in a gas flame, and its color can be shifted to yellow by addition of cerium.

Thorium dioxide can be a material for heat-resistant ceramics, and is used more or less for high-temperature laboratory crucibles. When added to glass, it helps increase refractive index and decrease dispersion. Such glass finds application in high-quality lenses for cameras and scientific instruments. The radiation from these lenses can self-darken (yellow) them over a period of years and degrade film, but the health risks are considered minimal (if present). Yellowed lenses can potentially be restored to their original colorless state with lengthy exposure to intense UV light.

Essentially, 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 with a gas mantle, is considered safe. Exposure to an aerosol of thorium can lead to increased risk of cancers to the internal organs as they can be penetrated by alpha radiation; Exposure to thorium internally can lead to an increased risk of liver diseases, and it is best to avoid it’s consumption or internal exposure, but is otherwise relatively safe (the over-consumption of copper, Nickel, and tungsten or really any metal can lead to disastrous effects in any case).
Luckily, Thorium is a relatively safe compound, and the Installation of a Thorium reactor close to a populated area presents no specific or significant risk to the surrounding populace, at least no more than most fuel sources, despite the fact that due to raw power only a few Thorium reactors would need to be made and thus could be rather far away from society in more strategic locations, in any case.

Thorium can be used to clean up nuclear waste in various methods, which can make the cleanup job in nuclear reactors significantly cheaper and easier, especially when compared to current methods, which essentially uses clay. This can help eliminate nuclear waste, potentially even from its own cycle.

The use of Thorium
Original estimates put Uranium at much higher naturally occurring rates than Thorium, which was proven to mostly be false in terms of useable, fissionable Uranium for use in generating electricity. Uranium was capable of producing easily useable weapons grade uranium and plutonium, for use in Atom Bombs, which allowed it to serve as a multi-purpose role in the market and produce greater profits. Additionally, many aspects of Thorium were mostly unknown and it hasn’t been until recently that ground breaking new processes and the understanding of the potential of Thorium has come to light, allowing us to realize what a powerful and wonderful fuel source it would be.

Because Atom Bombs are no longer required to be in mass production, and we know better, there is really very little stopping the use of Thorium. The true concerns expressed are the initial startup costs, which can be rather high, as building new reactors, gathering the Thorium, hiring nuclear physicists and establishing reactor complexes can be relatively difficult to do, and presents a great deal of cost for a lengthy period with little electricity production. It is simply more efficient (or easier) for current electric companies to continue what they are doing instead of attempting to create a new method of creating electricity.

In addition, while mining Thorium from mozanite sands would be relatively expensive (but still roughly half the price of coal given the current mining costs), even given the low tonnage required for power, a large amount of thorium exists in specifically specified areas in the United States to keep it from leaking out in large amounts into groundwater, despite the fact that there is three times as much thorium in the world than tin and almost equal amounts to lead, most of which is naturally present in most soil. Due to our heavy concentration of thorium after removing it from various metals and soil types as an impurity and storing it properly so that large amounts do not end up in any one space, a large amount of Thorium already exists inside the United States and is relatively available. If this was tapped into, rather than trying to find more thorium in any large amounts, the price of thorium could be relatively non-existent and a major problem associated with it would be eliminated.

If the startup costs for Thorium reactors were subsidized or at least some Thorium was provided, then the production of cheap electricity for the American or World Populace could be very profitable; additionally, while the startup costs for a thorium reactor in terms of electricity can be rather high, the energy produced by a Thorium reactor could serve as a cheap method for powering a second and a third reactor, meaning that the stable and continued generation of Thorium reactors would be relatively cheap to do. In the long term, thorium would serve as a cheaper replacement for current fuel sources, and is perfectly viable if we are able to look past the short term and potentially receive government grants for producing thorium based electricity.

Additionally, due it’s relative levels of safety, it geographical location and placement could be closer to the using populous and the efficiency of the transportation of energy could be increased by the shorter required proximity to the people it intends to provide power for, making it a practical power source that is substantially more powerful than uranium. Thorium can easily provide abundant, cheap, stable, and clean energy for millions, if not all Americans, and potentially the entire World. Given the U.S.’s current reserves from now, even from single isolated incidents, the price of thorium, as fuel, may be practically free.

As well, due to the difficulty in turning thorium into atomic weapons, it could be considerably easier to distribute on a global scale without having to worry about the impacts of potential nuclear weapons generation.