SPS, Nuke waste, Mass Accelerators

> Thorium reactors are now a proven technology, several have been
> constucted, and to my knowledge, all dismantled again.
>
> Well, Nuclear power generation has a Uranium economy, not Thorium.
>
> Thorium reactors are much more desirable than Uranium. The waste is
> considered to be high level for approx. 50 years, not thousands.
>
> Thorium reactors can not meltdown, they need a neutron particle
beam
> to keep the neutron density at a critical level as Thorium fission
> does not produce enough neutrons on its own.
>
> Turn off the beam, the reactor stops.
>
> Thorium is more common than Uranium. Thorium can not be used to
> produce fissile material, such as in a breeder reactor, (to my
> knowledge, correct me if wrong). Bombs can not be made.
>
> So, that's nice, what do we do with the mess we have now?
>
> You do not put it on a rocket to send into space. Bad idea.
> Rockets tend to explode every now and then.
> Ever noticed that?
>
> Mass accelerators, keep in mind that if you punch something into
> space using wicked g's, it will no doubt ablate somewhat BEFORE it
> gets into space.
>
> Also, keep in mind the low level waste, hundreds of thousands of
> tons, of liquid poison that is sitting in rusting tanks like oil
> farms. The infrastructure is old and corroding. I don't hear much
> about the fix for this one.
>
> I have no solution for the current mess, but always thought synroc
> was probably one of the better ideas.
>
> Best idea is always to avoid the problem in first place, we are
> beyond that, sadly.
>
> Mass accelerators, magnetic/electric systems are techo and neat,
but,
> when gravity/kinetic/mass/recoil will do the same thing?
>
> Huh? you say.
>
> I see a use for this on the Moon, not Earth. Yet. Unless it's
> military.
>
> DO NOT DO THIS UNLESS YOU HAVE A LARGE EXPANSE OF OCEAN TO YOUR
WEST.
> Even as a test. What goes up comes down, usually to the west due to
> Earth's rotation. Vertical transitions are a piece of cake,
horizontal
> transitions, you will need some mechanical assistance.
>
> This IS dangerous, if it's not obvious.
>
> If too much energy is imparted to the projectile, and it surpasses
> the structural strength of the material used, it will shatter, or
> explode.
>
> There is a toy on the market that actually demonstates this effect
> using rubber balls. The speeds produced by the rubber ball toy are
> much safer but, still dangerous. I am no longer in possesion of the
> formula for the exact calculation. One of those, Hard Drive crashes
> that you will just never get the info again, because it is not
> available for download.
> That I am aware of.
>
> Kevin Forbes, VK3UKF.
> http://www.vk3ukf.com/
> http://www.qsl.net/vk3ukf/
>

So as not to pile on, I'd like to address the thorium reactors you
referenced. Just by doing a little research, I found that the world
is not as resistant to thorium reactors as you state. There are good
reasons for keeping uranium reactors around, namely for nuclear fuel
generation and for making weapons grade nukes. Ifother people have
them, we should too. I read not too long ago about a few
experimental thorium reactors, one I think in Texas and another in
Norway maybe. With us moving to the Moon, I think you'll see alot
more official research dedicated to the thorium fuel cycle.

Here are a couple good links:
http://selenianboondocks.blogspot.com/2006/05/thorium-reactors-for-
moon.html
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/

Alexander DeClama
Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity - Seneca
http://potentiatenebrasrepellendi.blogspot.com/
Nec Aspera Terrent!