Hi james I've heard this as well and maybe it's all true. Definitely Thorium sounds a lot safer. But I think it's a case of "we've spent so much on this damned thing that we have to use it" rather than "lets stop repeating all our mistakes and look for safe alternatives".
I used to work in a patents office in Holborn, many years ago. It was probably the worst job I ever had, but at least I got the chance to read all the patent applications. There were lots for alternative energy inventions, but they used to get bought up quickly - by - guess who? - the oil companies, who then probably got Anderson Consulting to shred them. Actually I've no idea where they ended up, but my point is, to limit ourselves to nuclear as the only viable "clean" energy is a fake choice. Thanks for the info on the article though, will try to get a copy of the current news scientist cheers, dave On 29 March 2011 13:04, James Morris <[email protected]> wrote: > There's some interesting stuff in the current newscientist magazine > (probably online too) about how all the reactors are based on 'legacy' > technology from back when the military was experimenting with it. Most > of the nuclear reactors today are based on military tech whose purpose > was weaponry rather than being specifically designed for power > stations. The case for starting from scratch is strong and if it was > done properly on first principles would be much safer. Of course it's > a lot of hard work and risky to design this new stuff so western > powers are reluctant to do so, but the China and India on the other > hand are looking at these new techs which use safer stuff like thorium > instead of uranium. > _______________________________________________ > NetBehaviour mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour > _______________________________________________ NetBehaviour mailing list [email protected] http://www.netbehaviour.org/mailman/listinfo/netbehaviour
