Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JimisJim who wrote (103198)	6/18/2008 6:42:21 PM
From: Elroy Jetson	Respond to of 206326

That can be part of the solution, but even with thorium we're still lacking the hard costs to make the rational comparisons you should make prior to committing to a "major national program". The energy cost problem will appear to recede in another six years and uneconomic decisions made in haste will be costly. .

To: JimisJim who wrote (103198)	6/20/2008 1:44:14 AM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 206326

RE: Weapons proliferation risk with Thorium fuel cycle - It appears that is is possible to make working gun type device with U 233. So the U233 can be chemically separated, and gun type devices are much simpler than the implosions needed for plutonium. The U232 traces are highly radioactive, and emit very strong gamma rays (5 Mev) that will go through lots of shielding. This makes working with the U233 difficult, and hiding a bomb more difficult also. But the thorium fuel cycle is not without risk.