Rick Maltese | Arkansas news, politics, opinion, restaurants, music, movies and art

Rick Maltese 
Member since Apr 12, 2012

Favorite Places

  • None.
Find places »

Saved Events

  • Nada.
Find events »

Saved Stories

  • Nope.
Find stories »

Custom Lists

  • Zip.


  • No friends yet.
Become My Friend Find friends »


Recent Comments

Re: “Back to the future with thorium

Your remark "The waste produced by a thorium reactor (while radioactively 'hotter,' and thus more dangerous) decays in only a few hundred years." The part in brackets is false. While it is true that the much reduced "waste" has a shorter half life the tiny amount left can actually be used further to benefit medical research etc.

The hotter fuel is NOT more dangerous. It is in a non-pressurized environment and the only way it could be perceived as more dangerous is when it needs to be handled. But that is never the case anyway so I'm not sure why you wanted to point that out.

Current reactors are more dangerous by design because they have no passive safety as do LFTRs. For example a Fukushima event would not have occured if the reactors were LFTRs. The US and Fukushima LWRs need pressurized domes so that higher temperatures can be reached in water but they are more costly to make and although they are not very dangerous they are comparatively more dangerous than LFTRs.

Another significant point is that a LFTR is called a thermal reactor and they will eventually provide spin-off benefits that use process heat that include distilled water. and creating hydrogen gas. There is an incredible list of reasons why they are better than current reactors. The fact that they don't need water to run makes them very flexible about where they can be used. But thanks for doing an otherwise well done review.

7 likes, 0 dislikes
Posted by Rick Maltese on 04/12/2012 at 5:46 PM


© 2018 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation