Sorry that I've been so late in responding.
Is "Torium" just a misspelling, which should actually be "Thorium", or is there a newly added Element, which postdates my current version of the Periodic Table (1994)???
Thorium is named after the scandinavian god Thor. We spell him Tor in Swedish. You guess the rest...
![[Linked Image]](https://www.electrical-contractor.net/ubb/smile.gif)
Looking at the Periodic Table, it's Atomic Number is 90, and weight is 232 (and some change...).
Would be nearly as large and bulky as U 235 / 238, along with being totally unstable too.
It's almost as heavy as uranium, but more plentiful on earth.
1: Does this Element (one of it's Isotopes) "swallow up" Electrons in a Reactor and become highly Radioactive - similar to the way U 238 will catch a free flying Electron, turning into the highly Radioactive / sllloooowwww decaying (1/2 life) Isotope U239?
Yes, it catches neutrons and becomes something else instead: U233 and some U232. (I gloss over the two intermediate steps that take place by themselves) Because U232 emits lots of nasty gamma rays it's hard to make a bomb of the mixture.
There aren't enough neutrons emitted to keep the atom splitting going. The chain reaction stops after some time.
2: Does this Element create any "Fissionable new Elements" during a typical reaction - similar to how Uranium 235 will create a percentage of Plutonium, which will also be split (fission), and contribute to the complete heat volume generated in the reactor?
Yes.
3: How much usable fuel is available per Mole of "Raw Material" - like how Uranium base fuel contains mostly unusable U238, with... what is it, something like 30% U235 usable fuel?
Thorium only comes naturally as TH-232, which is the isotope that you use. So in effect 100% percent.
4: As compared to the total _Gross_ heat energy generated by Fission of Uranium 235 + Plutonium, what would the percentage be for Thorium?
I haven't the faintest idea, I'm afraid. What I know is that the process requires a neutron source to keep the chain reaction going. It can be a fuel like plutonium, uranium etc. or it can be a neutron emitting machine (an accelerator). The decay of a U233 atom releases 30 to 60 times as much energy as was needed to initiate the transformation. A few small test reactors where a fuel is used have been built or are under construction. As far as I know, there are still no accelerators near the size needed to run a full size reactor.
5: How long are Thorium's "Dirtiest Half-Lives" (half life events with higher Radiation emission than the Element would have naturally before Fission, or higher than Radium in its natural state)?
Thorium (the naturally occuring isotope) has a half life of 14 billion years, but the waste isotopes from the reactor (Uranium, Thorium and others) have half lives of less than a hundred years. This means the waste is "harmless" in a few hundred years. The ground doesn't need to be stable for 100 000 years, only 1 000 years, which makes it easier to predict. This means that in some cases, such the nuclear plant closest to me, the waste could be deposited on site.
6: Is Thorium very abundant, or will it need to be obtained from mines in "Difficult" areas (deep mining, minimal ore vs. overburden).
About three times as abundant as uranium, but the isotope is also more useful. (Like you pointed out in question 3, not all uranium is easily used in a reactor.)
This guy in Chicago built a thorium reactor in a shed in 1999, so it is doable. A teenager built a thorium/uranium breeder reactor in his mothers back yard a few years earlier as a scout project. (Don't you wish she had been a NIMBY?) I never thought you had to include the "Don't try this at home"-disclaimer when talking about nuclear reactors!!!
[This message has been edited by C-H (edited 07-24-2006).]
