Terence Hawkes January 23, 2018 08:48 AM THe idea that it is safer is debatable. If you get near an unshielded operating reactor or close to the plutonium required to get it started, you die. If the reactor contents leak, you die. If you handle the byproducts without protection, you die. If you think it is safe and you mske a mistske, you still die, notarichman January 23, 2018 10:30 AM the guy sitting on a huge thorium mine near boise, idaho will be glad to see this article...then he can sell it. AlainGassmann January 23, 2018 12:37 PM Safer, not completely safe although molten salt Thorium systems are getting that way. Using up stocks stockpiles of weapon grade plutonium will make the world a safer place, however, and that for the next few thousand years. The trouble is that the nuclear powers that be want the weapons grade plutonium. Buzzclick January 23, 2018 01:14 PM Terence Hawkes, judging by what you have written, one has the impression that you are a fatalist of some kind. Be careful if you go out and get in a car or airplane because one mistake and you might die. What the TPU is doing is remarkable and I wish them every possible success. Something has to be done about all the nuclear waste besides burying it. The fact that this process can potentially be used to produce hydrogen as well as produce more energy is a plus. Rustin Lee Haase January 23, 2018 01:29 PM If humanity was inherantly good, this would be a great technology. Unfortunately we are a deceptive, selfish lot and people would be more likely to build plants like this and gladly accept other people's plutonium and then stockpile it secretly instead of destroy it. I would definitely NOT trust the Russians, Chinese, or others who fear neither God nor man to actually destroy any plutonium they get their "hands" on. Because of human nature this is NOT a good way to get rid of plutonium. Only a fool would be so optimistic. We are going to have to count on upsidasium's (plutonium's) short half life to get rid of most of it, or we could bring lots of it together and.... That said, getting energy out of thorium isn't a bad idea and its good to see us working on such technology for that purpose. Bruce Golden January 23, 2018 01:34 PM The space agencies are consumers of plutonium for spacecraft missions that get past the point where solar cells can be a reasonable size (weight to launch). Plutonium has been used for several deep space missions. Was just an article here about NASA working on 1-10 kW nuclear reactors "because plutonium was in short supply". UK has reportedly 100 tonne of plutonium. Thorium is separately a possible earth energy resource and requires a neutron source to "fire" the reaction. Turn the source off and the thorium reaction ceases ... still have radiation and heat to manage but much lower possibility of a run away reaction. Expanded Viewpoint January 23, 2018 01:39 PM Exactly right there, Terrence and Alain. Nukes are like a comfort food to tyrants, they need them to feel safe and secure. According to something I'd read about 15 years ago, Hydroxy supposedly greatly reduces the level of radioactivity of fissile materials when heated to their melting point. It was not stated if the amount of the reduction of radioactivity was seen only on the first time the material was melted, or if it took a certain amount of time in the molten state for the effect to take place. It might be a bogus claim to begin with, but I don't happen to have any Plutonium sitting in my garage to test the theory out right now, I lent it to my good friend and mentor, Doc Brown. Kpar January 23, 2018 01:44 PM None of this is actually news- it has been argued for decades. For a more complete picture on Thorium, check out Thorium Energy Alliance.The future can be now... JimFox January 23, 2018 02:23 PM "but the technology has never been successfully developed" So the experimental LFTR at Oak Ridge designed & operated by Alvin Weinberg for FOUR years in the early 1960's doesn't count? Terence Hawkes-- LFTR & thorium reactors in general are proven far safer than the PWR's or other uranium fission reactors. Handling plutonium is indeed very risky- but that's true independent of thorium reactors; you still have to manage the stuff. What operating reactor of ANY type is ever unshielded? LFTR operates at near- atmospheric pressure; waste products are about 2% of those from a PWR; half lives are max 300 years, not tens of thousands; LFTR cannot explode nor melt down, the fuel is already in liquid form and the drain plug melts if temperature exceeds design, releasing the fuel into a drainage tank where it solidifies, ending the fission reaction. It is 'walk-away' safe. You would do better with a little basic research, otherwise your comments are unsubstantiated. JimFox January 23, 2018 02:27 PM Alan Gassman-- The 'powers that be' have far too much plutonium, that's the whole point of the article. Costs of safely storing this nightmare are astronomical which is why they want rid of most of it. Perhaps you didn't read the article closely enough?