Thorium Reactors are really, really awesome! China building them now.

[Woodsman]

I'd heard about Thorium Molten Salt Reactors before, mostly from excited science geeks frustrated about misconceptions regarding nuclear technology, -and I promptly tuned them out because I wasn't interested in learning in that direction and because I thought I knew all I needed to know.

Bzzt.

I was very wrong. Nuclear is not what I thought it was.

Watch this video; a very well-spoken engineer explains how Thorium reactors are night and day different from the outmoded and incredibly unsafe 50's era vision of the nuclear industry we have today, and what the nuclear industry SHOULD be doing instead...

http://<iframe width="560" height="...K8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The main points are:

1. Thorium reactors don't require high pressure water systems and 9-inch thick steel pipes and all the dangers associated with accidents and subsequent meltdowns. They are much safer, work at low pressure, and consequently bear a much lower cost to build and maintain. They can't melt down because they if they get too hot, the nuclear reaction stalls out.

2. Thorium reactors are incredibly efficient; they burn through virtually all the fissile material put into them, (they can even accept as fuel, nuclear waste currently buried in dump sites). Where 50's era reactors burn about 1% of their fuel and create mountains of waste, Liquid Salt Reactors burn 99% and the leftover waste is currently a valued commodity in the space and medical industry, and is no longer being made today in any reactors in the West.


After reviewing this stuff, it became fairly obvious that the bureaucratic and political push which diverted money and resources away from and shut down the promising Thorium reactor project in the early days of nuclear energy, and gave us instead the embarrassing nuclear technology we have today was linked to the efforts to maintain U.S. hegemony through Oil power. -And to corporate greed.

Like the cynical inkjet printer scam many computer users are familiar with, whereby computer companies sell printers at a loss leader in an effort to make up the profits by selling ridiculously over-priced inkjet cartridges, the nuclear industry behaves the same way. Westinghouse and GE don't sell nuclear plants anymore. They sell uranium fuel pellets, which burn quickly, are incredibly expensive to make, and where there is no competitive market; the maker of your plant is the only supplier for the fuel pellets; they can price them at whatever they wish, and do so. That's where all the money is coming from in nuclear power today. Selling pellets. Thorium reactors don't allow for this profit model. They present a cheaper, cleaner, competitive model which would upset the current status-quo and geo-political power base.

Interestingly, China is all over Thorium; and they expect to have their first industrial liquid salt reactors on-line within a few years.

I wonder where Russia is on that development track as well. I wouldn't be at all surprised if they are pushing forward with, essentially, free energy.

 

[beetlemaniac]

Hi Woodsman,

I was introduced to Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactors (LFTR) by a forum member and it took some effort for it to break through my anti-nuclear stance at the time. But I can see as you do the benefits of such plants -- and imagine if it is combined with this Reactionless Generator (http://tapnewswire.com/2015/09/india-permits-free-energy-technology-despite-threats-from-uk-us-saudi-arabia/) capable of generating electricity at beyond 200% efficiency. Now that's free energy!

Like the cynical inkjet printer scam many computer users are familiar with, whereby computer companies sell printers at a loss leader in an effort to make up the profits by selling ridiculously over-priced inkjet cartridges, the nuclear industry behaves the same way. Westinghouse and GE don't sell nuclear plants anymore. They sell uranium fuel pellets, which burn quickly, are incredibly expensive to make, and where there is no competitive market; the maker of your plant is the only supplier for the fuel pellets; they can price them at whatever they wish, and do so. That's where all the money is coming from in nuclear power today. Selling pellets. Thorium reactors don't allow for this profit model. They present a cheaper, cleaner, competitive model which would upset the current status-quo and geo-political power base.

One thing I was curious about after reading the above was -- what is Rosatom's modus operandi in the uranium reactor industry? Are they also getting contracts to build plants, then selling these fuel pellets at exorbitant prices?

Interestingly, China is all over Thorium; and they expect to have their first industrial liquid salt reactors on-line within a few years.

From what he says, the original research & development on Thorium reactors were done at Oak Ridge Lab in parallel with the uranium type. The decision was then made from high up somewhere to use the uranium fuel as it fulfilled the dual purpose of both fuel AND nuclear weapons for war. Also China had taken the previous research from said lab and has been working on them since.

 

[Woodsman]

Hi Woodsman,

I was introduced to Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactors (LFTR) by a forum member and it took some effort for it to break through my anti-nuclear stance at the time. But I can see as you do the benefits of such plants -- and imagine if it is combined with this Reactionless Generator (http://tapnewswire.com/2015/09/india-permits-free-energy-technology-despite-threats-from-uk-us-saudi-arabia/) capable of generating electricity at beyond 200% efficiency. Now that's free energy!

If Tewari actually had an over-unity device as he claims, he wouldn't need to power it with a boring old fission reactor.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I spent hundreds of hours in my youth exploring the idea of something-for-nothing magnet wheels. -Only to discover the bitter truth; All you can achieve is kinetic force storage and disguise it under layers of complexity as something else.

I did acquire a fairly intimate understanding of the principles involved, so I wouldn't call it a waste of my time. (And it wasn't even a particularly bitter truth; the physical universe is extremely elegant when you get to know it directly). But one of the things I learned was that, No, there is absolutely no such thing as Something For Nothing.

-That being said, I have no doubt that one can tap energy locked up in the fabric of reality. Nuclear Fission is an example of exactly this.

Further, there may well be exotic solutions involving multi-dimensional/density physics; some of the hints about UFO designs involve crystals and light energy transfer, spinning mercury and exotic energy flywheels and vortexes, which fit with observations of such craft. Other examples in other areas involve possible sound manipulation and capacitance of resonant vibration energy to perform work. And while those are more focused on anti-gravity, the moving of heavy objects and the execution of super-luminal communications rather than capturing Free Energy, they certainly exhibit qualities which suggest that our official understanding of energy leaves much to be desired.

However, Tewari's designs (like Kohei Minato's before him in Japan) don't involve any of these elements. It's just ferrous magnets and conductor coils; he has all the hallmarks of being another garden variety "magnet contraptions" guy.

The thing about these inventor types is that I suspect they really do believe at the beginning in what they're doing; they probably started out searching, convinced that they would find something, invested heavily, built some cool prototypes which almost nearly with just a few more modifications and some better magnets might just.......!

And at some point they realize that it's a pipe dream. But in their cases, they are too invested, made too many promises, hung their egos too much on the line and attracted too much media attention and investment to back out gracefully. (Either that, or they embrace a state of cognitive dissonance and double down before not-so-gracefully disintegrating.)

 

[beetlemaniac]

If Tewari actually had an over-unity device as he claims, he wouldn't need to power it with a boring old fission reactor.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I spent hundreds of hours in my youth exploring the idea of something-for-nothing magnet wheels. -Only to discover the bitter truth; All you can achieve is kinetic force storage and disguise it under layers of complexity as something else.

That's all very interesting. Are you an electrical engineer by any chance? I am but my college years are a blur, and my grasp of these concepts is shoddy to say the least. I wish I could understand more about it, but I find it hard to know where to start.

 

[Woodsman]

If Tewari actually had an over-unity device as he claims, he wouldn't need to power it with a boring old fission reactor.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I spent hundreds of hours in my youth exploring the idea of something-for-nothing magnet wheels. -Only to discover the bitter truth; All you can achieve is kinetic force storage and disguise it under layers of complexity as something else.

That's all very interesting. Are you an electrical engineer by any chance? I am but my college years are a blur, and my grasp of these concepts is shoddy to say the least. I wish I could understand more about it, but I find it hard to know where to start.

No, not an engineer. But I grew up in a family where science and engineering was important. My father early on explained to me the basics of conservation of energy and then humored me and showed a lot of patience while I ignored him. This pattern repeated on any number of subjects and I know it drove him a little batty. It wasn't until years later that I realized just how awesome he was for allowing me the space to explore. What a great Dad!

I've come to learn that anybody, from any walk of life, given the time and resources and enough self confidence, has most of what is required to explore nearly any interest far enough to reach a fairly high level of understanding.

 

[Voyageur]

Thanks for posting. I did not know anything about Thorium reactors so checked it out. I still don't know, yet had a look over at Fairewinds.org to see what their take was, if any. This is what came up:

http://www.fairewinds.org/nuclear-energy-education/thorium-reactors?rq=Thorium%20reactors

There is a does of the climate change memes attached in the response below, and sometimes I think there is more of a missing design key that allows for the safest closed cycle loop rather than out and out dismissal, despite my tendency to dismiss - like we are still in the infancy stage of these technologies without really knowing how to harness these types of energies, and that is dangerous as we have come to know.

Truly looking before leaping...

Thorium Reactors
December 05, 2012

The latest nuclear power industry proposals focus on smaller reactors and the possibility of thorium fueled reactors. As the nuclear industry explores other fission products, Fairewinds Energy Education has been peppered with hundreds of questions regarding the feasibility and safety of thorium reactors that the nuclear industry is touting as a newer safer form of nuclear power. The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR) is being sold as a “market based environmental solution” and advertised by the nuclear industry as cheaper than coal. Molten Salt Reactors (MSR) use a molten salt mixture as the primary coolant, and sometimes the molten salt is even mixed directly with thorium in the reactor fuel.

Since Fairewinds has received so many questions regarding Thorium Reactors, let’s look at the facts about Thorium:

{see link for design}

According to questions we have received, proponents claim that thorium reactors produce less waste and its half-life is “only” a few hundred years rather than thousands. That still means hundreds of years of waste. However, contrary to proponent’s claims

If the spent fuel is not reprocessed, thorium-232 is very long lived (half-life: 14 billion years) and its decay products will build up over time in the spent fuel. This will make the spent fuel quite radiotoxic, in addition to all the fission products in it. It should also be noted that inhalation of a unit of radioactivity of thorium-232 or thorium-228 (which is also present as a decay product of thorium-232) produces a far higher dose, especially to certain organs, than the inhalation of uranium containing the same amount of radioactivity. For instance, the bone surface dose from breathing an amount (mass) of insoluble thorium is about 200 times that of breathing the same mass of uranium. 1

And there is still no geologic repository for the waste in the USA and most of the world, and even if there was, the encapsulation process designed to hold the waste has recently been shown to last only 100 years.

On the question of safety, here is how the Union of Concerned Scientists in its Statement on Thorium Fueled Reactors, answers:

Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors. However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of the very small "Molten Salt Reactor Experiment" that operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up. 2

Another claim thorium proponents make is that a thorium reactor is nearer to closing the nuclear fuel cycle. In an interview discussing that topic, Arnie Gundersen said,

The French, and actually the Japanese bought into this. No one has really what we call closed the nuclear fuel cycle. The Japanese tried for years and spent trillions of yen or hundreds of billions of dollars in trying to reprocess fuel and it failed every time. My point is if we had spent that money on alternative energy sources, we would be much more likely to have a solution right at hand that is really cheap. And instead we put all our money on the wrong horse in this race.3

Following a review, even the U. S. Department of Energy has concluded placed Thorium Reactors in the same category as all other nuclear power reactors.

The choice between uranium-based fuel and thorium-based fuel is seen basically as one of preference, with no fundamental difference in addressing the nuclear power issues [of waste management, proliferation risk, safety, security, economics, and sustainability]. Since no infrastructure currently exists in the U.S. for thorium-based fuels, and the processing of thorium-based fuels is at a lower level of technical maturity when compared to processing of uranium-based fuels, costs and RD&D [research, development and deployment] requirements for using thorium are anticipated to be higher. 4

Thorium 232 is not fissile, that means it can't split and create power. Thorium 232 needs a uranium reactor to get it started by sending out neutrons that the thorium 232 can absorb. When that happens, the thorium 232 changes to U233, which is fissile. So behind every thorium reactor there still is uranium and plutonium that must be disposed of.

{see link for illustration}

To date, Fairewinds has seen no evidence that Thorium Reactors are ready for prime time. Thorium Reactors face the same environmental risks as the current fleet of nuclear power plants. And as Hurricane Sandy has proven, those issues will be even more challenging as global warming and its subsequent impact on weather patterns throughout the world continues to impact energy production. Nuclear power plants like Thorium Reactors need a stable geological location as well as long-term storage solutions.

As climate change becomes impossible to ignore, the nuclear industry is attempting to market itself as a cleaner alternative to fossil fuels. While nuclear reactors do not generate sooty particles that wind up in the atmosphere, the heavy dependence on cooling water for nuclear power plants makes nuclear power unfeasible as water temperatures rise around the globe. Additionally, mining and transporting uranium are carbon heavy activities. Finally, studies in Sweden have shown that the ceramic encapsulation, the anticipated solution to keep waste secure for hundreds of years will not even last 100 years, so there currently is no long term viable storage solution for nuclear waste.

In a joint project between the Nuclear Policy Research Institute and the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research (IEER), nuclear physicist Dr. Arjun Makhijani has written: Carbon-Free and Nuclear-Free: A Roadmap for U.S. Energy Policy. A former energy policy analysist for President Carter, Dr. Makhijani understands nuclear power and energy forecasting. Read the executive summary and the whole book will give you some of the energy answers you are seeking.

1

Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power

By Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd A Fact Sheet Produced by the Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Physicians for Social Responsibility

2

Union of Concerned Scientists Statement on Thorium Fueled Reactors

3

Capital Forums’ Tom Ritter interviews Arnie Gundersen

4

Roald Wigeland et al, "AFCI Options Study," Idaho National Laboratory, INL/EXT-10-17639, September 2009.

 

[aimarok]

After watching attached youtube video, I just want to say that Fairewinds folks are not fair enough. TMSRs are safer than uranium-based reactors by design. Reaction stops when overheating occurs, so there is no need to externally cool reactor in case of fault condition. Next, TMSRs don't require uranium for their operation, they need neutrons to start reaction, and uranium is not the only source of neutrons. The whole message feels biased, they point to problems of TMSRs which exist in URs as well. There is lot of money involved, so it's better to take each side's words with a grain of salt.

 

[Woodsman]

There appears to be some confusion based on which type of reactor Thorium is used in.

Reading through some of the collected criticisms of Thorium here...

http://nuclear-news.net/2014/06/01/countering-the-misinformation-promoting-thorium-nuclear-reactors/

Apparently, many of the concerns arise from efforts to use Thorium as a fuel in currently existing conventional nuclear reactor installations; as fuel pellets. This presents many of the same problems with current enrichment and disposal programs.

The arguments against the use of Thorium seem to blend concepts together without attempting to differentiate between two very different technologies.

Human-caused Climate Change alarmists have a well known penchant for being kind of nuts. Pulling reliable information from their collected literature is a bit of a challenge. Several of their documents, marked as, "Must Read!" are full of maybes and suppositions and claims which are not explained, all of which carries a spurious flavor.

Which is not to say that there are not numerous challenges associated with LFTR technology. Wikipedia (fwiw) lists a bunch of them.

This Google tech-talk video, with the same speaker, also addresses numerous of the concerns listed, particularly in the Q/A period at the end...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4823&v=AZR0UKxNPh8

 

[Voyageur]

After watching attached youtube video, I just want to say that Fairewinds folks are not fair enough. TMSRs are safer than uranium-based reactors by design. Reaction stops when overheating occurs, so there is no need to externally cool reactor in case of fault condition. Next, TMSRs don't require uranium for their operation, they need neutrons to start reaction, and uranium is not the only source of neutrons. The whole message feels biased, they point to problems of TMSRs which exist in URs as well. There is lot of money involved, so it's better to take each side's words with a grain of salt.

Yes, I'm trying to look at the grains of salt, and yes, there is a great deal of money at stake. Not sure why Arnie would provide a distorted picture as he seems, on the surface anyway, to be someone who would promote a safer, and of course a more closed cycle system. Gundersen has been subject of other critics, so am considering this as something to learn more about.

There appears to be some confusion based on which type of reactor Thorium is used in.

Reading through some of the collected criticisms of Thorium here...

http://nuclear-news.net/2014/06/01/countering-the-misinformation-promoting-thorium-nuclear-reactors/

Apparently, many of the concerns arise from efforts to use Thorium as a fuel in currently existing conventional nuclear reactor installations; as fuel pellets. This presents many of the same problems with current enrichment and disposal programs.

The arguments against the use of Thorium seem to blend concepts together without attempting to differentiate between two very different technologies.

Interesting, there are a great many papers to read there, appreciate the links.

Human-caused Climate Change alarmists have a well known penchant for being kind of nuts. Pulling reliable information from their collected literature is a bit of a challenge. Several of their documents, marked as, "Must Read!" are full of maybes and suppositions and claims which are not explained, all of which carries a spurious flavor.

Agreed, you have to be careful, and that "penchant" may be part of Arnie's thing, don't know.

Which is not to say that there are not numerous challenges associated with LFTR technology. Wikipedia (fwiw) lists a bunch of them.

This Google tech-talk video, with the same speaker, also addresses numerous of the concerns listed, particularly in the Q/A period at the end...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4823&v=AZR0UKxNPh8

I'll check that out.

 

[Woodsman]

voyageur, you're right to be cautious.

Kirk Sorensen, (the engineer speaking in those videos), also has a penchant for a bit of self delusion; one of the things which catches in my mind is his insistence that the nuclear energy industry has never resulted in any deaths.

This is a stretch; I realize that he's working against a tide of public fears in order to promote his vision and that it might be advisable to downplay any concerns of danger, but to suggest that radiation related cancer deaths are "theoretical" and unproven, and that the industry has pristine safety standards smacks of B.S.

There are any number of stories of regulatory breakdowns resulting in accidents.

The documentary film, "Nuclear Ginza" details in depth serious issues in the Japanese nuclear power industry, including deep ties to organized crime. It is one example of corruption leading to the reckless endangerment of workers and serious health consequences which only the most delusional person could deny exist upon reviewing the evidence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPD_YeOAJys

Essentially, when you involve humans in any big money endeavor, their ignorance regarding the various modes of ponorization leads to even the most fail-safe technology inevitably suffering from whatever issues are most likely to occur.

Thorium reactors just have far fewer issues on the design and fuel life-cycle side, fewer horrible things which can go wrong during active use, significantly less money is on the table, and the weapons industry doesn't have a direct feed line leading from the production cycle.

 

[Richs]

If Tewari actually had an over-unity device as he claims, he wouldn't need to power it with a boring old fission reactor.

I'm somewhat embarrassed to admit that I spent hundreds of hours in my youth exploring the idea of something-for-nothing magnet wheels. -Only to discover the bitter truth; All you can achieve is kinetic force storage and disguise it under layers of complexity as something else.

I did acquire a fairly intimate understanding of the principles involved, so I wouldn't call it a waste of my time. (And it wasn't even a particularly bitter truth; the physical universe is extremely elegant when you get to know it directly). But one of the things I learned was that, No, there is absolutely no such thing as Something For Nothing.

-That being said, I have no doubt that one can tap energy locked up in the fabric of reality. Nuclear Fission is an example of exactly this.

Further, there may well be exotic solutions involving multi-dimensional/density physics; some of the hints about UFO designs involve crystals and light energy transfer, spinning mercury and exotic energy flywheels and vortexes, which fit with observations of such craft. Other examples in other areas involve possible sound manipulation and capacitance of resonant vibration energy to perform work. And while those are more focused on anti-gravity, the moving of heavy objects and the execution of super-luminal communications rather than capturing Free Energy, they certainly exhibit qualities which suggest that our official understanding of energy leaves much to be desired.

I have also felt that at some point we would have access to 'free energy' devices, perhaps in quite a few different forms. The C's have more or less confirmed that free energy is possible in the session 980228:
"A: When one harnesses free energy, no limitations need apply."
It appears then that we just need to find ways to produce this free energy from whatever available source we can find.

We already do have some forms of free energy and some have been used for centuries. Wind power, solar and water power have been with us for quite some time, but obviously we need to find more powerful and abundant energy sources which can be small, light. very powerful and which can be used to what is currently used to power our homes, vehicles and industries in a way which does not pollute and are ultimately much less expensive than what is used today.

I have been watching a technology which appears to satisfy all the above and which I think will be proven to be viable in the very near future. If it is proven to work as claimed I will certainly announce it here on the Forum.

 

[Divide by Zero]

I've heard about these reactors and how much more safer they would be compared to current day nuclear power. The problem is that the current industry has been indemnified from lawsuits, so they are not liable for any issues regarding a meltdown etc. The governments have given them an incentive to keep running current systems instead of spending money on the newer systems which would be more expensive.

The same reason applies why Fukushima melted down. The GE reactor was designed to use titanium but they were allowed to cheapen it by using a cheaper alloy (which becomes exothermic and melts down much quicker than the titanium spec would allow). It's also "more efficient", but as I mentioned above, the incentive is not to prevent disaster, but risk manage it based on cost vs profit.

Woodsman, I agree there is no something for nothing. However, I think fission is a crude way of tapping energy from the fabric of reality. It's a way of trying to get the Blue M+M's from a bowl by eating the whole bowl and letting the stomach deal with the rest, lol.


RichardS,
No, solar and wind are really infinitesimal to our current grid demands. In fact, James McCanney, who came up with the electric universe theory, was on a coast to coast show a year or so ago where he explained how they were extremely over rated in order to sell more and fulfill false green initiatives (which we know are based on the false global warming hypothesis).

Not only that, our grid does not have much, if barely any, storage capability. He also mentioned this, but I can confirm that when I worked in the utility industry.


As for the invention that you claim is coming what you mention has been addressed in another thread that you started. They promised a release of this technology 3+ weeks ago with "10 days to go" and still nothing. I have read the information and much like an article from sott which dissapeared, the pseudoscience is more than dissapointing. Where is the simple test? Why more stories?

It doesn't require much to SHOW the technology working, without having to explain how it works. In fact, I am not qualified (and neither are you) to know why it works. What is simple is a simple power in and power out measurement of a normal useful load. That has not been accomplished by the group you claim to do this nor other groups.

It's easy to foist a lack of this on "coverups" and so on, but in reality, it takes a simple test spread on youtube (and re spread if youtube takes it down) to show that this does exist.

Same goes for the forklore surrounding Tesla and his free energy devices. I have read a lot of the information and with my technical electrical background, see that he did have a good idea to significantly reduce the energy waste of electrical transmission over wires by using wireless transmitters. However, nowhere do I find how or what he did to tap into some free energy source.

I find all of this a red herring because every time someone asks for simple tests, they are told that X Y Z agency/corp shut it down. Sure, that happens, but it's not too hard to dig up plans that someone else can reproduce- upload to youtube and keep re uploading. Heck, if you wanted to believe that, then how would Dolan still be able to get any classified info on aliens etc and publish it? Are we that gullible to believe that information can dissapear completely, yet the mythology remains?

Instead people like to hear a story of cover up and cling to that as truth.

 

[Woodsman]

I've heard about these reactors and how much more safer they would be compared to current day nuclear power. The problem is that the current industry has been indemnified from lawsuits, so they are not liable for any issues regarding a meltdown etc. The governments have given them an incentive to keep running current systems instead of spending money on the newer systems which would be more expensive.

The same reason applies why Fukushima melted down. The GE reactor was designed to use titanium but they were allowed to cheapen it by using a cheaper alloy (which becomes exothermic and melts down much quicker than the titanium spec would allow). It's also "more efficient", but as I mentioned above, the incentive is not to prevent disaster, but risk manage it based on cost vs profit.

Woodsman, I agree there is no something for nothing. However, I think fission is a crude way of tapping energy from the fabric of reality. It's a way of trying to get the Blue M+M's from a bowl by eating the whole bowl and letting the stomach deal with the rest, lol.

I find several things interesting when I consider nuclear energy.

One is that many UFO encounters feature radiation burns among witnesses. This suggests that these exotic, possibly alien technologies, in extracting energy for their purposes may be doing things which might not be so terribly different from our own crude explorations in the field. We may be much closer than we realize.

A second big thing I notice is just how effectively we as a race have been programmed to NOT explore these avenues. -We fear it, and our entire society has been channeled and organized in such a way that nuclear doesn't work without allowing for population control (through energy access) to continue unabated. -Which is pretty amazing, considering what free energy ought to imply; the main feature being freedom from slavery.

Nuclear power IS a magic bullet, it IS genuine, actual free energy. It's here. The science is out there for anybody to look at. But we don't think about it except in negative terms. We automatically shy away from it. Isn't that interesting?

This response is very similar, in fact, to the way we have been programmed to not eat the best foods; to fear saturated fats and remain addicted to carbs. Or to fear tobacco; to avoid something which has the potential to benefit humanity and elevate us out of the control systems all around us. The best prisons are ones without bars or concrete walls, where the captive population of their own volition refuse to leave the confines because they have been psychologically programmed to stay confined.

One of the things Kirk Sorensen points out is that there are hundreds of different ways to build a nuclear reactor. There isn't just one approach. Some are very efficient and clean and radically different from the those settled upon as Official Doctrine, but we have been programmed to only think of the dirty, stupid approaches which are indeed dangerous.

I think Free Energy is already here, but we are suffering as a species from psychological conditioning which keeps us from doing anything smart with it.

Looking for Free Energy in magnet contraptions is all fine and good, but current approaches strike me as being another control layer; we only ever see con men and empty promises, which are, I suspect, similar to junk news stories about actors being used in bombings; they get people worked up, make them appear irrational and deliver nothing but more confusion and ultimately, disinterest in exploring reality.

When it comes to exotic approaches, I wonder if matter might not be able to split atomically and thus release "Fabric of Reality" energy through the use of directed electromagnetic waves. But nobody is exploring that at all.

 

[Divide by Zero]

Woodsman, interesting connection to the UFO phenomena! I think Keel wrote about that too, but I don't have a searchable pdf to check.

I remember in physics learning what E=MC^2 means.
The teacher explained that the small piece of chalk converted to energy would power the USA for decades.

In fission, the problem was explained that it's not easily controlled. Perhaps Thorium is the answer to make it more manageable!

Fusion is the ideal extraction of energy, but it's been impossible so far to contain it, as it is so hot it melts any container. They have tried magnetic fields and such, but still it is not harness-able - besides to be used in a weapon, which in effect is an out of control reaction anyway!

Yeah, the magnet/electrical technology seems like a red herring. So far, I have yet to see one properly tested. We get a lot of shows, like David Copperfield doing his magic on camera- he sets the angle to make it look like he really has magical powers.

 

[Woodsman]

It's been six years since I first posted to this old thread.

It seems that various players in the world haven't remained idle during that time. Development has picked up steam. (heh).

Anton Petrov offers a look at the current state of Thorium reactors. Apparently China has had a working test model running since 2011, and is planning to deploy operational reactors to power cities in the near future. There are also a couple of private companies with big plans in Canada and the U.S., so the technology is being taken very seriously, and with good reason.

Compared to conventional nuclear power, LFTR tech, (if the Dark Side doesn't get their fingers in the pie), ought to be cheap, clean and safe. For real; not in the World Government brochure sense, (AKA, "Expensive, Dirty and Dangerous".)

I find it amazing that Free Energy, that holy grail of technologies, was invented more than half a century ago. We have sci-fi magic! Freedom from want, without strings, is basically within our grasp. And yet the public was successfully hoodwinked into not thinking about it, -or fearing and despising it when they did happen to think about it, (along with animal fat, carbon and more recently, their own sexual heritage, to name but a few inversions of truth).

We'll have to see how things develop, but unlike many such promising technologies, this one is happening right now.