On May 25, 1:24*pm, "hanson" wrote:
"Brad Guth" wrote:

hanson wrote:

... ahahahaha... Brad, don't be so anxious.
WAIT for some responses.
You are NOT "them", = other posters.
Here again is the issue at hand:

- * * * * * * * ----------------------

hanson wrote:

Since you are the idea man
around here, how does a Guth Nuke Reactor look
like that, on danger signal input/sensing, will not
only shut down, but distributes the individual small
unit nuke fuel pellets quickly and so far apart that
a meltdown simply can NOT occur?

Brad wrote:

With an AP-1000 or similar reactor fueled by thorium,
you simply remove or turn off the source of neutrons,
which could be as complicated as a light switch in the
control room or via remote command via secure internet. *
Gravity cooling as backup brings down the reactor core
temp within minutes to a failsafe level of passive cooling
(no auxiliary power needed unless other options are desired)

Secondly, no trained monkeys ever allowed to run or
supervise anything.

If we could only manage to get thorium to produce as
much or more plutonium as conventional uranium fueled
reactors, all reactors would have been thorium fueled to
begin with.

hanson wrote:

Thanks, Brad. 1st though, let me hear how your
fail-safe nuclear Th reactor is "received" by other
commentators, given that, AFAIK, no working
commercial Th nuker is on-line anywhere and
producing industrial quantities of power output.
Talk to you later, alligator.
hanson

The latest Popular Science publication covers a couple of relatively
failsafe reactor alternatives, including a technically proven thorium
fueled reactor. Changing the primary fuel from uranium to thorium is
not rocket science, or any other kind of insurmountably complex
science. The only significant things you don't get from using thorium
is plutonium and/or large amounts of nasty spent fuel, and otherwise
the all-inclusive grid energy cost isn't 10% of burning uranium.
Brad Guth