Gold/Mining/Energy | What is Thorium


Previous 10 | Next 10 
To: Diamond Daze who wrote (383)3/19/2007 9:52:14 AM
From: thorium   of 825
 
DD, i was thinking the same thing. It makes me wounder if they know something we don't. That worries me a little bit.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

To: Diamond Daze who wrote (383)3/19/2007 11:20:03 AM
From: thorium   of 825
 
my guess is the lack of credibility. They should have never merged with novastar and took the company public that way. It associates them with trash investments. Novastar was a vapor stock, as was the stock that was before it. Novastar is disolved, they are useless to Thorium power now and in the future. All the countries they are talking business with want to be fuel exporters.... THPW will never mine or supply thorium. If they did, it would be 20 years away.... it was a waste. My guess is NVAS used THPW to get out of the business using the name...(penny stock style), This is why when the merger went public the stock dropped... NVAS investors got it and cashed out. They got as high as 80 cents using Thorium power.. i think that's all they wanted.. Just so you know,, NVAS contacted Thorium power for this stock merger and convinced them it was a good idea. It was just a bad move.

They should have stayed private equity a bit longer, built a bit bigger of a business then spun and IPO onto the NASDAQ... but going to the OTCBB through novastar only benefits small investors like us. If they did it the right way, we would never be able to buy at a market cap of less than 500 mil.

Maybe all that has supressed the bigger players to really take a good look into what this company could do down the road... They were probably wating for tech testing to be completed because its was being funded by the goverment. A buyout would have made more sense after there was no oppertunity for thorium power to get free funding.

My guess is once some business is signed and they move to the Nasdaq, credibility will be gained and it would be a less risky investment for a big house.

But if i were GE or westinghouse, 35 mil -40 mil is nothing to them. I don't know what they know, but in my opinion they are blind!

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: thorium who wrote (385)3/19/2007 3:17:05 PM
From: thorium   of 825
 
Thorium Power at Westminster Energy Forum

westminsterenergy.org 

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: thorium who wrote (386)3/20/2007 11:11:55 AM
From: thorium   of 825
 
income people are not factoring in

read page 10 here westminsterenergy.org 

"Participation in sales consortia for new reactors in markets with
proliferation and waste concerns"

this is something i have spoken to Peter Charles about, at thorium power.

For example, if a country, say poland or india, was to build a reacotor for the sole reason of running thorium fuel then thorium power may actually get a sales commission on the sale of the whole thing . So if a westinghouse reactor is 5 billion. They, for example, could get a 5 % commission or 250 million dollars.

If they get one deal like this market cap would move to a minimum of 1 billion in a few days.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Yorikke3/20/2007 6:50:37 PM
   of 825
 
Form 10KSB for THORIUM POWER, LTD
-------------------------------------------------------------
biz.yahoo.com 


20 -Mar-2007
Annual Report



Item 6. MANAGEMENT'S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS OR PLAN OF OPERATIONS.
The following discussion should be read in conjunction with our financial statements, together with the notes to those statements, included elsewhere in this report. The following discussion contains forward-looking statements that involve risks, uncertainties, and assumptions such as statements of our plans, objectives, expectations, and intentions. Our actual results may differ materially from those discussed in these forward-looking statements because of the risks and uncertainties inherent in future events.

General Overview

On October 6, 2006, we acquired Thorium Power, Inc. through a merger transaction. Thorium Power, Inc. was incorporated on January 8, 1992. Thorium Power, Inc. has patented proprietary nuclear fuel designs for use in existing commercial nuclear power plants. The merger was accounted for as a reverse merger and Thorium Power, Inc. is being treated as the accounting acquiror.

--------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in more detail below, in connection with the merger, we changed our line of business. This new line of business, which is now our only business line, is research and development of proprietary nuclear fuel designs for use in nuclear power plants. We began to shift our focus to this business in anticipation of the merger with Thorium Power, Inc. and, upon completion of the merger, this business is conducted through both Thorium Power, Inc. and the Company. Our historical business preceding the merger was mineral exploration which has been phased out completely and all operations of the Company now revolve around Thorium Power, Inc.'s proprietary nuclear fuel designs, although the Company maintains ownership of mineral rights.

We are primarily engaged in the development of proprietary nuclear fuel designs which we intend ultimately to introduce for sale into three markets: (1) nuclear fuel designs for use in commercial nuclear power plants, (2) nuclear fuel designs for reactor-grade plutonium disposition, and (3) nuclear fuel designs for weapons-grade plutonium disposition. These fuel designs are primarily for use in existing or future VVER-1000 light water reactors. We have also been conducting research and development relating to a variant of these nuclear fuel designs for use in existing pressurized water reactors (PWR).

Our future customers may include nuclear fuel fabricators and/or nuclear power plants, and/or the U.S. or foreign governments.

To date, our operations have been devoted primarily to the development and demonstration of out nuclear fuel designs, developing strategic relationships within and outside of the nuclear power industry, securing political and financial support from the U.S. and Russian governments, the filing of patent applications and related administrative functions. We do not currently have any revenues from our activities in this area and expect that we will not generate licensing revenues from this business for several years, until our fuel designs can be fully tested and demonstrated and we obtain the proper approvals to use our nuclear fuel designs in nuclear reactors. Future revenues could be generated through the licensing of our technology and also by providing other services in the nuclear power industry. Accordingly, we prepare our financial statements as a development stage company in accordance with FASB Statement No. 7, "Accounting and Reporting by Development Stage Enterprises."

Material Opportunities and Challenges

We believe that a major opportunity for us is the possibility that our fuel designs, which are currently in the research and development stage, will be used in the manufacturing of nuclear fuel utilized in many existing light water nuclear reactors in the future. Light water reactors are the dominant reactor types currently in use in the world and fuels for such reactors constitute the majority of the commercial market for nuclear fuel. Our focus is on three different types, or variants, of thorium fuel designs. The first is designed to provide reactor owner-operators with an economically viable alternative fuel that will not generate weapons-usable plutonium in the spent fuel. The second is designed to dispose of reactor-grade plutonium that has been extracted from spent fuel from commercial rectors and stockpiled in Russia, Western Europe, the U.S., Japan and other countries. The third is designed to dispose of weapons-grade plutonium that is stockpiled in Russia and the United States. All three of these fuel variants are expected to have additional benefits, including reduced volume and reduced long-term radio-toxicity of spent fuel for the same amount of electricity generated, as compared with the uranium fuels that are currently used in light water reactors and as compared with MOX fuel.

Thorium Power, Inc. has been developing relations with relevant entities within the United States and Russian governments for over thirteen years. Thorium Power, Inc., in cooperation with these governments, has been demonstrating its fuel designs in a research reactor in Russia for over three years. Independent analyses of the technology have been performed, including a May 2005 report by the IAEA and a Spring 2005 report by Westinghouse Electric Company LLC ("Westinghouse"). The IAEA and Westinghouse analyses were positive and management believes that they can help lead to the favorable reception of our nuclear fuel designs in the future.

We are also working with Russian nuclear research institutes and Russian nuclear regulatory authorities to have one or more of the fuel designs demonstrated in a Russian VVER-1000 reactor as soon as three years from now, if we are able to obtain necessary support and an agreement with the Russian government. Management believes that it will be necessary to enter into commercial arrangements with one or more major nuclear fuel fabricators, which in many cases are also nuclear fuel vendors, as a prerequisite to having our fuel designs widely deployed in global markets.

Our nuclear fuel designs have never been demonstrated in a full-size commercial reactor. Our planned demonstration of the fuels in a VVER-1000 reactor in Russia would provide operating experience that is critical to reactor owners and regulatory authorities. We believe that once the fuels have been demonstrated in the VVER-1000 reactor, this can help convince other light water reactor operators around the world to accept our thorium fuel designs.

We believe that our greatest challenge will be acceptance of these fuel designs by nuclear power plant operators, which have in the past been hesitant to be the first to use a new type of nuclear fuel. In addition, our fuel designs would require regulatory approval by relevant nuclear regulatory authorities, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the United States or its equivalent agencies in other countries, before they can be used in commercial reactors. The regulatory review process, which is outside of our control, may take longer than expected and may delay a rollout of the fuel designs into the market. Management believes that demonstration of one of the Company's fuel designs in a commercial nuclear reactor would make deployment of the other designs easier due to the many similarities that exist among all of our fuel designs.


--------------------------------------------------------------

Thorium Power, Inc. has been building relationships with companies and organizations in the nuclear power industry for several years. We will attempt to cause some or all of these companies and organizations to work in a consortium or a joint venture type arrangement with us in the future, however, we may not be able to develop any such consortium or arrangement in the near term or at all. The companies that we have identified for potential relationships have existing contracts with nuclear power plant owner-operators under which they supply nuclear fuel branded with their name to such nuclear power plants. We will attempt to cause these nuclear fuel vending companies to provide their nuclear power plant operating customers with fuels that are designed with our technology. To do so, we will need to enter into agreements with one or more of these companies. Without such arrangements it would be more difficult for us to license our fuel designs because, in addition to the reputations, guarantees, services, and other benefits that these nuclear fuel vendors provide when selling fuel to nuclear power plant operators, they also often have multi-year fuel supply contracts with the reactor operators. These multi-year fuel supply contracts act as a barrier to entry into the market, such that it can be almost impossible to penetrate some markets for nuclear fuel without working with a nuclear fuel vendor that can support long term contracts. If we are successful in demonstrating our fuel designs in Russia and in continuing to build relationships with nuclear fuel vendors, we believe it may lead to one or more of these major companies in the nuclear power industry working with us in producing and selling our nuclear fuel designs to commercial reactor operators and governments.

Plan of Operation

At December 31, 2006, our total assets were approximately $11.6 million. Liabilities as of December 31, 2006 totaled approximately $2.6 million. We had working capital surplus of approximately $8.7 million at December 31, 2006.

While management presently expects that our present working capital will meet our foreseeable working capital needs for the next 10-12 months from the date of this filing. Our current average monthly projected working capital requirements for the company, excluding the $5 million of research and development expenses we expect to incur in Russia over the next 12-15 months, as mentioned below, is approximately $500,000 per month (including approximately $100,000 per month for payroll and payroll-related fringe benefits). We will need to raise additional capital by way of an offering of equity securities, an offering of debt securities, or by obtaining financing through a bank or other entity sometime in 2007 in order to insure we have the necessary working capital available to continue our operations in 2008. If we need to obtain additional financing, that financing may not be available or we may not be able to obtain that financing on terms acceptable to us. If additional funds are raised through the issuance of equity securities, there may be a significant dilution in the value of our outstanding common stock.

Over the next 12 to 15 months we expect to incur approximately $5 million in research and development expenses related to the development of our proprietary nuclear fuel designs. Of the $5 million, the cost of seed and blanket fuel fabrication equipment that would be purchased and used to fabricate trial seed and blanket fuel rods is expected to be approximately $2 million and the cost of nuclear materials used in fabrication of trial seed and blanket fuel rods is estimated at about $850,000. We expect to incur these expenses after we have reached a formal agreement with Russian nuclear entities that will grant us licensing and other rights to use such technologies or intellectual property developed by the Russian entities. We expect this agreement to be signed within the next several months and these research expenses to be in the range of approximately $2 million to $2.5 million for fiscal 2007, but it is possible that such expenses could be less or more than those amounts. We spent approximately $35,000 for research and development in 2006 and no significant additional amounts spent in 2007, as of the date of this filing.

Over the next 3 years, we expect that our research and development activities will be primarily focused on testing and demonstration of our thorium/uranium and thorium/reactor-grade plutonium disposing fuel designs. The main objective of this research and development phase is to prepare for full-scale demonstration of our nuclear fuel technology in an operating commercial VVER-1000 reactor in Russia. Key research and development activities will include: (1) Scaling up the fuel fabrication process to full length (10 feet) rods used in commercial VVER-1000 reactors, (2) Validating thermal hydraulic performance of full size (10 feet) seed and blanket fuel assembly, (3) Performing post-irradiation examination of seed and blanket fuel samples that have been irradiated in a research reactor to confirm fuel performance, and (4) Obtaining final regulatory approvals for insertion of fuel in VVER-1000 commercial reactors. As this research and development program relates to commercial applications of our fuel technology and retaining ownership or control over as much key intellectual property as we possibly can is critical to the long-term success of our licensing business model, our plan is to fully fund these research and development activities ourselves. At the same time, we do not currently plan to fund research, testing and demonstration of our thorium/weapons-grade plutonium disposing fuel, which can only be used in the U.S.-Russia government-to-government weapons-grade plutonium disposition program and has no commercial applications. Hence, funding for any future research and development activities on this fuel design would have to be provided by the U.S. government or other stakeholders.

Additionally, we anticipate increasing our payroll and related fringe benefits costs in our fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as we are looking to hire a permanent Chief Financial Officer in 2007 to add to our management team.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Results of Operations

Fiscal Year 2006

We had no revenues during the fiscal years ended December 31, 2006.

Our total operating expenses for fiscal year 2006 were $12.3 million consisting of:

· $9.1 million of stock based compensation;

· $1.5 million in professional fees and other general and administrative expenses;

· $0.8 million of payroll and severance expenses;

· $0.6 million in contributions to a nuclear reactor project in Texas; and

· $0.3 million in consulting expenses.

Other income and expense was $0.6 million for fiscal year 2006. This consists of

· $1.9 million gain on the fair value of derivative instruments; and

· $0.1 million of interest income, which was offset by

· $1.0 million of warrant expense;

· $0.3 million of registration rights expense; and

· $0.1 million of stock settlement expense.

Our net loss was approximately $11.7 million in fiscal year 2006.

Since the acquisition by Thorium Power, Ltd. of Thorium Power, Inc. was treated from an accounting perspective as a reverse acquisition, income and loss of Thorium Power, Ltd prior to October 6, 2006 (the date of acquisition) is generally not included in the consolidated financial statements of Thorium Power, Ltd. However, prior to the acquisition, approximately $7.5 million in expenses were incurred by Thorium Power, Ltd. on behalf of Thorium Power, Inc. Consequently, this $7.5 million was allocated to Thorium Power, Inc. This allocation is the result of the application of SEC Staff Accounting Bulletin (SAB) T.1B1.

Fiscal Year 2005

We had no revenues in 2005.

Our total expenses for fiscal year 2005 were $0.8 million consisting of:

· $0.3 million of stock based compensation;

· $0.3 million of payroll expenses; and

· $0.2 million in other general and administrative expenses.

Our net loss was approximately $0.8 million in fiscal year 2005.

Liquidity and Capital Resources

As of December 31, 2006 and December 31, 2005, we had cash and cash equivalents of $10,927,775 and $283, respectively. At March 1, 2007 we had total cash and cash equivalents of $9.5 million. In 2007 we have set up a separate account ("R&D Account") and have designated $5 million of our total cash to be held in this R&D Account. The following table provides detailed information about our net cash flow for all financial statements periods presented in this Report.


Cash Flow

Years Ended December 31,
2006 2005
Net cash used in operating activities (3,746,188 ) (287,597 )
Net cash used in investing activities (17,625 ) (25,957 )
Net cash provided financing activities 14,691,305 313,375
Net cash Flow 10,927,492 (179 )




Operating Activities:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Net cash used for operating activities was $3,746,188 for the year ended December 31, 2006 which is an increase of $3,458,591 from the $287,597 net cash used for operating activities for the same period in 2005. This increase was mainly due to an increase in overhead expenses.

Investing Activities:

Net cash used for investing activities in the year ended December 31, 2006 was $17,625, which is a decrease of $8,332 from net cash used for investing activities of $25,957 in the same period of 2005 due to the company's purchase of equipment.

Financing Activities:

Net cash provided by financing activities in the year ended December 31, 2006 totaled $14,691,305 as compared to $313,375 provided by financing activities in the same period of 2005. The increase of the cash provided by financing activities was mainly attributable to $2,202,678 of cash acquired from the issuance of the company's common stock ($650,000 received from Novastar Resources Ltd prior to the merger) and also $12,742,408 of cash acquired at the merger date (October 6, 2006) from Novastar Resources Ltd. We also purchased 850,000 shares of treasury stock in the open market at a total cost of $255,850.

While management expects these proceeds will meet our foreseeable needs for the next 10-12 months, we will need to raise additional capital by way of an offering of equity securities, an offering of debt securities, or by obtaining financing through a bank or other entity. If we need to obtain additional financing, that financing may not be available or we may not be able to obtain that financing on terms acceptable to us. If additional funds are raised through the issuance of equity securities, there may be a significant dilution in the value of our outstanding common stock.


Off Balance Sheet Arrangements
We do not have any off balance sheet arrangements that have or are reasonably likely to have a current or future effect on our financial condition, changes in financial condition, revenues or expenses, results of operations, liquidity or capital expenditures or capital resources that is material to an investor in our securities.

Seasonality

Our business has not been subject to any material seasonal variations in operations, although this may change in the future.

Inflation

As a development stage company, our business, revenues and operating results have not been affected in any material way by inflation. If and when it begins marketing thorium and other minerals, management expects its business will be affected by inflation and commodity price volatility.

Critical Accounting Policies

The SEC issued Financial Reporting Release No. 60, "Cautionary Advice Regarding Disclosure About Critical Accounting Policies" suggesting that companies provide additional disclosure and commentary on their most critical accounting policies. In Financial Reporting Release No. 60, the SEC has defined the most critical accounting policies as the ones that are most important to the portrayal of a company's financial condition and operating results, and require management to make its most difficult and subjective judgments, often as a result of the need to make estimates of matters that are inherently uncertain. Based on this definition, we have identified the following significant policies as critical to the understanding of our financial statements.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make a variety of estimates and assumptions that affect (i) the reported amounts of assets and liabilities and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as of the date of the financial statements and (ii) the reported amounts of revenues and expenses during the reporting periods covered by the financial statements.

Our management expects to make judgments and estimates about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. As the number of variables and assumptions affecting the future resolution of the uncertainties increase, these judgments become even more subjective and complex. Although we believe that our estimates and assumptions are reasonable, actual results may differ significantly from these estimates. Changes in estimates and assumptions based upon actual results may have a material impact on our results of operation and/or financial condition. We have identified certain accounting policies that we believe are most important to the portrayal of our current financial condition and results of operations. Our significant accounting policies are disclosed in Note 2 to the Consolidated Financial Statements included in the Annual Report on Form 10-KSB.

Deferred tax assets and liabilities

We will recognize the expected future tax benefit from deferred tax assets when the tax benefit is considered to be more likely than not of being realized. Assessing the recoverability of deferred tax assets requires management to make significant estimates related to expectations of future taxable income. Estimates of future taxable income are based on forecasted cash flows and the application of existing tax laws in each jurisdiction. To the extent that future cash flows and taxable income differ significantly from estimates, our ability to realize deferred tax assets could be impacted. Additionally, future changes in tax laws in the jurisdictions in which we operate could limit our ability to obtain the future tax benefits.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Accounting for Stock Based Compensation, Stock Options and Warrants Granted to Employees and Nonemployees

We adopted the provisions of SFAS 123R, which requires the use of the fair value method of accounting for share-based compensation. Under the fair value based method, compensation cost related to employee stock options or similar equity instruments is measured at the grant date based on the value of the award and is recognized over the service period, which is usually the vesting period. SFAS 123R also requires measurement of cost of a liability-classified award based on its current fair value. The fair value of the liability-classified award will be subsequently remeasured at each reporting date through the settlement date. Change in fair value during the requisite service period will be recognized as compensation cost over that period. We determine fair value using the Black-Scholes model. Under this model, certain assumptions, including the risk-free interest rate, the expected life of the options and the estimated fair value of our ordinary shares and the expected volatility, are required to determine the fair value of the options. If different assumptions had been used, the fair value of the options would have been different from the amount we computed and recorded, which would have resulted in either an increase or decrease in the compensation expense.

The options were valued using the Black-Scholes option pricing model. The assumptions used were as follows: volatility of 106% to 275%, a risk-free interest rate of 3.86% to 4.45%, dividend yield of 0% and an exercise term of one to five years.

Allocation of Expenses between Thorium Power Ltd. and Thorium Power Inc.

We adopted Staff Accounting Bulletin SAB.T.1B1 whereby 2006 expenses incurred by Thorium Power Ltd on behalf of Thorium Power Inc. prior to the merger on October 6, 2006, were allocated to Thorium Power Inc. and included as expenses in the accompanying Consolidated Statements of Operations. This allocation required management to make some estimates on how to allocate certain general and administrative expenses. A total of $7,477,700 of expenses was allocated for the period January 1, 2006 to October 6, 2006, which included $6,602,098 of stock based compensation and $875,602 of general and administrative expenses.

Registration Rights Expense

We incurred an estimated cost of approximately $354,000, captioned in the statement of operations as registration rights expense, due to the late date of a registration statement being declared effective that was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, filed in connection with the May 4, 2006 private placement and the Registration Rights agreement. This amount was estimated based on the responses we received from most of the investors. We have not yet settled with all the investors so our total expense could change in future periods, once we resolve this issue with all of the investors.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Yorikke3/22/2007 1:13:45 AM
   of 825
 
Uranium Depletion and Nuclear Power: Are We at Peak Uranium?

theoildrum.com 

An interesting read, Worth a few minutes of your time. Not directly Thorium related, but some interesting charts and concepts are covered.

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Yorikke who wrote (389)3/22/2007 2:55:20 PM
From: thorium   of 825
 
2006 Annual Report Mar,22 2007

library.corporate-ir.net 


"Moreover, in the past few months a number of foreign governments and businesses have sought us out.
They are attracted by our fuel technologies that offer proliferation resistance, less waste, potential for better operating
economics and use of available thorium reserves. We believe it is likely that the nuclear power industry will expand
to new countries, which in the past have not had it due partly to supplier countries’ concerns about the potential link
between the nuclear fuel cycle and nuclear weapons. Many of these countries are now exploring the option of
establishing a nuclear power industry by using highly proliferation-resistant fuel designs, which Thorium Power is in
a unique position to provide."

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read

From: Yorikke3/23/2007 3:05:10 PM
   of 825
 
This article is a year old, but bears rereading.

Note the great illustration of the Thorium Power fuel pack.

money.cnn.com 


Bombs away: Startup aims to defuse nuclear warheads

A small U.S. firm hopes to turn old Soviet plutonium warheads into electricity for Russia, and maybe even keep nukes out of the hands of terrorists.

By Peter Green
March 8, 2006: 10:43 AM EST


NEW YORK (FORTUNE Small Business) - It sounds like a tall order for a high-tech startup, but Seth Grae's two-man firm in a Washington, D.C., suburb might just save the world from nuclear annihilation.

Or at least reduce the risk that some rogue nation or freelance terrorist could make off with one of the many decommissioned Soviet-era nuclear warheads lying in storage across Russia. Using an obscure technology for fueling nuclear reactors, Grae's firm, Thorium Power, says it is within arm's reach of turning plutonium warheads into electricity for Russia's staggering economy. Along the way, Grae and his investors could make a tidy profit, assuming that they can persuade the U.S. government to back their plan.


Goodbye plutonium? The outer layer of Thorium Power's fuel pack contains uranium, thorium, and other metals. The inner layer contains higly toxic plutonium.

More from FSB
A small telecom lands a big deal

A well-hedged business: Topiary

Hired guns on the cheap


Current Issue

The key is a patented technology that combines warhead plutonium with the more stable element thorium in a fuel intended to work in existing Russian commercial reactors. After ten years of shoestring research at a nuclear laboratory in Moscow, Grae is waiting for the U.S. government to fund a final round of testing. For the first time, weapons-grade plutonium will have been burned in a commercial Russian reactor. If the tests are successful, Grae says, the Russians could start burning plutonium-rich Soviet-era warheads within three years.

Licensing the technology to firms that win the U.S. contracts to eliminate the Soviet warheads could also generate tens of millions of dollars in royalties for Thorium Power (www.thoriumpower.com). An even larger market would be commercial nuclear power plants, which today spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the U.S. alone to store highly toxic plutonium waste. Using thorium technology, Grae says, they could turn their waste into more fuel that would leave far less radioactive material behind it.

The idea of recycling Russian plutonium into electricity was the brainchild of the late Edward Teller, the Hungarian-born father of the hydrogen bomb and the man who first conceived of the Star Wars missile defense plan. During Soviet-American arms reduction talks in the 1970s, an aging Teller grew fearful that spare warheads might go astray. In 1983, Teller called his former star student Alvin Radkowsky, then semiretired and teaching in Israel. Radkowsky, who invented the table-sized nuclear reactors that power the U.S. Navy, was regarded as America's best reactor designer. Teller asked him to devise a safe way to destroy plutonium warheads.

Radkowsky reached back to thorium, a fuel component he had first explored in the 1950s. He calculated that by wrapping a plutonium core in a blanket of thorium, uranium, and small amounts of other metals, he could create a controlled nuclear burn that would eliminate 90% of the plutonium at a fraction of the cost of other methods.

Eating and drinking with the Russians
In 1992, Radkowsky and Grae set up a firm to develop a thorium-plutonium fuel pack for use in Russian reactors. The problem was that nuclear research and development couldn't be done in a garage. So rather than deliver a finished product to the Russians, they decided to move the entire R&D effort to Russia and fund it partly with U.S. government money intended to discourage Soviet nuclear scientists from selling their services to rogue states such as North Korea and Iraq. In 1994, Grae and Radkowsky enlisted Moscow's respected Kurchatov Institute to develop a working model.

Radkowsky was Thorium Power's chief scientific officer until his death in 2002. Today more than 500 Russian nuclear scientists and technicians are working on the thorium project at Kurchatov. The work has been funded by $12 million in venture capital, more than $5 million in U.S. government financing, and in-kind contributions from the Russian government.

Grae has made dozens of trips to Moscow to oversee the Kurchatov project, working, eating, and drinking with the Russians. "I think that's the only reason they let me in," he said. "I don't speak Russian, and I'm not a physicist, so I couldn't steal any of their secrets."

Thorium Power faces a stiff challenge from a rival process called MOX (for mixed oxides), developed by subsidiaries of Areva, a French government-owned firm. The struggle has landed Grae's company in the middle of a Beltway catfight that pits a powerful office within the Department of Energy against senior members of Congress.

The Energy Department's National Nuclear Safety Administration (NNSA) has already selected MOX to dispose of plutonium in surplus U.S. warheads. NNSA officials will also fund and oversee the Russian plutonium-disposal program, and they take a dim view of rival technologies. NNSA spokesman Bryan Wilkes claims that Thorium Power relies on "immature technologies" and insists that the Russians will eventually choose MOX too.

Last April a review conducted for the Department of Energy by the nuclear-engineering firm Westinghouse Electric endorsed thorium over MOX as the best way to eliminate Russia's surplus plutonium warheads. "The bottom line is that from a technical standpoint [thorium] looks like a good technology and from a perspective of burning weapons-grade plutonium, it is preferable to all the others," says Regis Matzie, chief technology officer at Westinghouse Electric. According to Matzie, thorium can destroy plutonium about three times faster and at half to a third the cost of the only other technology on the table, MOX.

Wilkes dismisses the Westinghouse report, even though he works for the Department of Energy, and Russian embassy spokesman Vladimir Ryubachenko insists his country will not use Thorium Power's technology, even though the project is being developed in a Russian lab. "We will use MOX," he told FSB. "We think that French technology is more reliable." But Ryubachenko concedes that none of the contracts and agreements needed to implement either technology have yet been signed.

Grae's outsider bid faces bureaucratic opposition because it appears to threaten the long-term prospects of the multibillion-dollar MOX industry, says Edwin Lyman, senior staff scientist at the Union of Concerned Scientists in Washington. Yet Lyman is hardly a thorium booster. He argues that neither MOX nor thorium will help halt the spread of nuclear weapons. He favors a third technology called "vitrification": sealing warhead plutonium in massive glass bricks that would be too heavy and radioactive to steal, then storing them in well-protected depots.

MOX has never been tested in Soviet-designed reactors, and Russia won't allow its decommissioned warheads to leave the country for processing abroad. Even MOX's backers agree it will take a decade of testing in Russian reactors before they can be sure that MOX fuel can be safely used there. And that is a decade that the world cannot afford, say many nuclear proliferation experts. It is only a matter of time, they say, before some nuclear-hungry state or terrorist group pries a warhead from Russia's loosely guarded stock.

'Government relations'
Grae is a seasoned Washington player who estimates that he spends about 10% of his time on "government relations," better known as lobbying. Faced with entrenched bureaucratic opposition from the Department of Energy, he has wisely sought support from Congress, which provides all of the agency's multibillion-dollar budget.

Thorium backers on Capitol Hill include Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) and Representative Jim Gibbons (R-Nevada), both of whom are especially concerned about safe nuclear-waste disposal because of the federal government's plan to build a central waste repository underneath Nevada's Yucca Mountain. Other prominent boosters are Senator John Warner (R-Virginia) and Representative Curt Weldon, a Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. "We have strong indications," says Grae, "that the project will receive additional government funding this year."

The tests at Kurchatov, the first long-term essay of a thorium-plutonium fuel pack, will indicate if the thorium technology can be used to burn through some 34 metric tons of plutonium that Russia has agreed to scrap under a 2000 agreement between presidents Putin and Bush. Grae and his backers say the technical results have been encouraging so far. The key, says Westinghouse's Matzie, is that the thorium fuel pack is designed to fit into Soviet-era reactors with minimal modification. That translates into huge cost savings. And the thorium manufacturing plant would cost about $100 million, they estimate, compared with nearly $1 billion for the more complex MOX plant.

In January, Thorium Power announced a merger with Novastar Resources, a small, publicly traded thorium mining company. Grae hopes that going public will allow Thorium to raise capital from a broad range of institutional investors. And money could ultimately decide the technological argument as well. Thorium Power promises commercialization in three years, as opposed to a minimum of ten years for MOX. Sealing the warheads in glass cubes won't help the Russians recoup any of the billions that they spent building their nuclear arsenal. "They paid for the plutonium," says Grae. "Now they want something from their resource."

----------------------------------------

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: Yorikke who wrote (391)3/28/2007 1:20:38 PM
From: thorium   of 825
 
Title Thorium Power participates in Conference on “Beyond Nuclear Weapons”
Date and Time Wednesday, March 28, 2007 12:00 p.m. ET
Location National Press Club
529 14th St. NW
Washington, DC

Description Thorium Power Chairman Ambassador Thomas Graham, Jr. speaks on “Zeroing out Nuclear Weapons – Only Exit Door from the Nuclear Dilemma.” Other speakers at the conference include Senators Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama and Dr. Hans Blix

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)

To: thorium who wrote (392)3/29/2007 10:26:25 AM
From: thorium   of 825
 
Plans for nuclear power plants in Norway

norwaypost.no 

IMO stock is up today, somone knows something or is speculating about who's helping them with fuel designs. Either way , this is big news because it is helping the case for using thorium in general

"
Plans have been presented for the building of Norway's first two nuclear power plants. They may be in operation in ten years time, and will be based on Thorium fuel. (Photo :CEO Alf Bjoerseth )

The plans have been presented by Thor Energi. CEO Alf Bjoerseth says reactors driven with thorium will never be exposed to a melt-down.
In addition, the problem with nuclear waste is minimal, and cannot be used to develop nuclear arms.

He says the two thorium plants clould supply 15 per cent of Norway's energy needs, and could be ready by 2017.

Norway has some of the largest thorium deposits in the world. "

Share Recommend | Keep | Reply | Mark as Last Read | Read Replies (1)
Previous 10 | Next 10 

Copyright © 1995-2013 Knight Sac Media. All rights reserved.