Utah Thorium Energy

I am very pleased to announce my new website devoted entirely to thorium molten salt reactors. The url is www.utahthoriumenergy.org 

 The following is from my first post:

After Peak Oil

Posted on October 6, 2013 by admin

Welcome to Utah Thorium Energy!
This site is about nuclear energy.  It is PRO nuclear.  Make no mistake about it!
These four points (which I stole from Dr. Gary North) are the reason for the website:
1. Oil is a nonrenewable resource.
2. The price of oil will rise in comparison to other energy sources.
3. At some price, oil will get too expensive to use in our cars and other tools.
4. We will switch to something else.
I want the “something else” to be thorium/uranium molten salt fission reactors. I hope to persuade enough people in Utah that “nuclear” is something not to be feared and maybe when #4 comes, nuclear will have a chance at powering our modern and growing economy (with emphasis on growing and modern).  This website is intended to educate, persuade and inform my fellow Utahns about what I believe are the overwhelming benefits of molten salt thorium/uranium reactors.
As time allows, I will be adding material covering a number of subjects; basic nuclear physics, the linear no-threshold hypothesis (LNT), what is radiation, safety, nuclear proliferation, reactor basics, nuclear history, benefits of nuclear power, etc.
Why Utah?  I have deep roots in Utah.  I live with my family in Utah.  I have children and hope to have grandchildren.  I am concerned for their future.  I want the future to be bright (pun intended) and prosperous.  And just maybe, we can all benefit from what Glenn Seaborg called the $50 qaudrillion discovery that I will tell you about in a future post.
bwr

Take a moment and check it out.  There will be plenty of interesting articles in the coming days!

David Stockman

"Instead, what is failing is the American state itself----a floundering leviathan which has been given one assignment after another over the past eight decades to manage the business cycle, even out the regions, roll out a giant social insurance blanket, end poverty, save the cities, house the nation, flood higher education with hundreds of billions, massively subsidize medical care, prop-up old industries like wheat and the merchant marine, foster new ones like wind turbines and electric cars, and most especially, police the world and bring the blessings of Coca Cola, the ballot box and satellite TV to the backward peoples of the earth."

David Stockman, former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (1981–1985)

Good Read for Mr. Davidson

I recently read this book on the past and future opportunities for thorium molten salt reactors. I enjoyed the history of the development of nuclear weapons and nuclear power, especially the parts that describe how we missed implementing thorium power the first time.

Basically there are three reasons why thorium power did not pan out:
1. The thorium cycle did not lead to or include nuclear weapons.
2. Admiral Rickover wanted power for his submarines in the most expeditious form, which was uranium light water reactors.
3. It was believed that uranium was very scarce and could not be diverted to start thorium molten salt reactors and had to be bred into plutonium for ever more bombs.

Number three turned out to be not true.  Number two was a poor reactor choice for civilian use (sub-servient to the military, pun intended), and America's greatest generation chose to make bombs for short-term military gain, instead of developing boundless energy for humanity that would be needed by everyone on the planet including us for all time.

Let's be smarter this time.

EBR I

I recently took a trip to the Idaho National Lab to tour EBR-I, (Experimental Breeder Reactor I).  It was like a trip back into the lives of my grandparents, since the reactor was built in the early 50s.

This, of course, brings up questions of the failed promises of nuclear power.  Why didn't it live up to its promise to provide abundant, clean and cheap power for the planet.  I would like to discuss this more in a future post, but for now I will just share the pictures from the National Historic Site.  (Spoiler alert: The reasons are not technological, they are sociological and political.)

 Me standing on top of the reactor. All of the fuel was removed  long ago, but I am still alive after this.  The radiation didn't get me and no, the fuel wasn't removed 10,000 years ago, and yes I am making fun of the radiophobes.

Leftovers of the misguided attempt to make a nuclear powered airplane - technically cool but cold war stupid.

Bee in My Bonnet

When you have an idea that just seems so delicious that you can't forget about it and you find yourself daydreaming about it you have a "bee in your bonnet".  Mine is nuclear energy.  Maybe it is an obsession?  Who knows?  But read this and think about buying a car with all the fuel it will every use included in the price ($8.50!!!! for the fuel) and more importantly, contained in the car itself! (I stole this in its entirety from "Energy from Thorium" FB page.  My apologies to Mr. Steinhaus.)

Bob Steinhaus NRC still permits garage tinkering and innovation in the fusion area including tolerating fusion reactor projects by talented high school senior fusion physicists like Taylor Wilson. It is possible to purchase high purity fusion fuels, like deuterium, on eBay.
http://www.ebay.com/itm/2-grams-pure-deuterium-oxide-D2O-heavy-water-in-glass-ampule-/280789792314?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item416060363a
(2 grams of 99.999% pure D2O heavy water for $8.50)

A question for the quantitatively inclined nuclear advocate -
Q: So how much energy could 2 grams (volume about 2 milli-liters) of D2O (heavy water) produce if fully consumed in a D-D fusion reactor?
A: 2 grams of D2O (heavy water), fully and efficiently consumed in a D-D fusion reactor would produce 4.6 x 10^5 MJ of energy. (D2O heavy water would need to be separated by electrolysis into [by molecule] two atoms of Deuterium + one atom of Oxygen - only the Deuterium is actually useful for fusion)
Fully burning a gallon of gasoline produces 136 MJ of energy.
Burning 2 grams of Deuterium, costing $8.50 on eBay, produces the same amount of energy as would be produced by efficiently burning 3,380 gallons of gasoline.

NRC's attitude regarding amateur access to fissile materials like U-233 or U-235 is markedly different than their attitude toward fusion fuel and if Taylor Wilson wants to innovate fission reactors, he will encounter much higher legal and regulatory obstacles.

Follow up question -
Q: If you had a Ford Fusion car that ran on Deuterium via the D-D fusion reaction instead of gasoline, and you poured all 2 grams of D2O purchased on eBay (for $8.50) into the Deuterium tank, how far could you drive, assuming the Deuterium in the heavy water was completely consumed?

A: Since 2 grams of D2O (heavy water) would produce 4.6 x 10^5 MJ of energy via D-D fusion
and that this amount of energy is equivalent to the energy produced by burning 3,380 gallons of gas
and that the average mileage of a Ford Fusion is 30 mpg
then
the Deuterium Ford Fusion automobile should be able to drive about 101,400 miles on 2 grams ($8.50 worth) of heavy water (which is about 4 times around the earth).
http://goo.gl/lvSYX

Note: 2 grams of Deuterium for $8.50 on eBay which is capable of producing the same amount of energy from D-D fusion as burning 3,800 gallons of gasoline could be a true energy bargain.
Disclosure - I have no financial interest whatsoever in the sale of Deuterium on eBay.

The Post Office and TSA will see you now!

Every once in a while, there is someone that comes along and says something so true and profound, I just have to repost it.  After all, isn't this really what Obama-care boils down to?

Valentine's Day

My daughter send this to me and it made me laugh:

Of course, it's the juxtaposition of dictators and mass muderers being full of love that strikes the funny bone.