cadillac-world-thorium-fuel-concept-1

Thorium lasers: The thoroughly plausible idea for nuclear cars

Some proposed technological innovations seem so far out that they are easy to reject out of hand. But sometimes, a new idea has a kernel of plausibility. Such is the case with a new project to develop a thorium laser power generation system that its creator says could provide electricity for the grid, stand-alone power applications and even cars.

Charles Stevens, an inventor and entrepreneur, recently revealed that his Massachusetts-based R&D firm, Laser Power Systems (LPS), is working on a turbine/electric generator system that is powered by “an accelerator-driven thorium-based laser.” The thorium laser does not produce a beam of coherent light like conventional lasers, but instead merely heats up and gives off energy.

Thorium, a silvery-white metal, is a mildly radioactive element (with an atomic weight of 90) that is as abundant as lead. It is present in large quantities in India and is a much-touted stand in for uranium in nuclear reactors because its fission is not self-sustaining, a type of reaction called “sub-critical.”

The idea has energized the small but active thorium community, which holds that it is the answer to our clean energy needs because it could, effectively, power a car forever. The new technology “would be totally emissions-free,” Stevens said, “with no need for recharging.”

Laser Heating

The LPS power plant, for all its whiz-bang properties, isn’t a complete departure from traditional power generation: the thorium is lased and the resulting heat flashes a fluid and creates pressurized steam inside a closed-loop system. The steam then drives a turbine that turns an electric generator.

A 250-kilowatt unit (equivalent to about 335 horsepower) weighing about 500 pounds would be small and light enough to put under the hood of a car, Stevens claims. And because a gram of thorium has the equivalent potential energy content of 7,500 gallons of gasoline, LPS calculates that using just 8 grams of thorium in the unit could power an average car for 5,000 hours, or about 300,000 miles of normal driving.

Stevens isn’t the only one who believes thorium could power cars. In 2009 Cadillac introduced a thorium-powered concept car at the Chicago Auto Show. Designed by Lorus Kulesus, the sleek World Thorium Fuel Concept did not contain a working thorium-fueled nuclear-fission reactor that could generate the electricity to power it. But somebody at General Motors thought the idea to be sufficiently interesting to build a vehicle to show it off.

Thorium as a Power Source

Researchers in Russia, India and more recently, in China and North America, have studied using thorium as fuel for nuclear reactors, partly because it is more difficult to use in atomic weapons than uranium or plutonium.  In addition, only a thin layer of aluminum foil is needed to shield people from the weakly emitting metal.

Although prototype thorium-fueled nuclear reactors have been developed, the technology has never been adopted for commercial use because the nuclear powers opted after the Second World War to focus on uranium-based atomic energy. (Incidentally, the major powers chose to focus on Uranium reactors precisely because it could be weaponized, Stevens has said).

Thorium-Based Laser

Stevens’ innovation is to use thorium to make a laser, not a nuclear power reactor.

Indeed, the use of radioactive materials in lasers is not unheard of either. After all, when Bell Labs researchers demonstrated the second laser ever in 1960, they used a flashlamp (a very bright light) to excite a crystal of uranium-doped calcium fluoride to lase in the infrared light spectrum. Because of the need for a cryogenic (ultralow-temperature) system to cool the hot laser-gain medium during operation, however, uranium lasers never found much practical use.

The key twist to Stevens’ thorium-laser power concept is that it would use a radioactive element-based laser to produce heat, not a beam of coherent light.

Remaining Technical Hurdles

Stevens says that developing a compact turbine and generator set is proving to be more difficult than making the thorium laser itself. “We can build the laser, but the biggest problem has turned out to be integrating it efficiently with the turbine and generator,” he notes. LPS’ thorium laser itself is simply an adaptation of the MaxFeLaser, a design Stevens built in1985.

Stevens said his company has fabricated a modified Tesla turbine (no relation to the car company) to convert steam pressure into rotary motion. Unlike more familiar turbine types, a Tesla turbine is a bladeless centripetal-flow unit with a set of smooth disks that are placed in motion by directing moving gas, via nozzles, at the edges of the disks. The viscous (boundary-layer) drag on the disk surfaces that is produced by the gas flow causes them to rotate.

Further, after having found no off-the-shelf high-speed generators that fit his special application, his team has had to design a custom unit to efficiently produce electricity for his one-of-a-kind power plant.

Whether authorities will allow thorium-powered cars to roam the streets is another question. Stevens has not set a date for a prototype version (Ed. a prior version of this story incorrectly stated he had).

Top image: Cadillac’s World Thorium Fuel Concept. Courtesy Cadillac

Steven Ashley is a contributing editor at Scientific American magazine, where he writes and edits articles on general science and technology topics. Ashley’s work has been published in Popular Science, MIT’s Technology Review and Physics Today, among others.

Related Txchnologist Articles

Comments

  1. Thomas

    What is the timeline prototype?
    What is the projected weight and sheilding requirements?
    Has DARPA put this on their consideration list?

    • Mark T. “Bull” Jones

      Never. No one in the industry wants a cheap, abundant fuel source, and Washington will nix the entire thing due to environmental whackos fretting over earthworms.

      • josh

        Earthworms are tasty.

        • Frank

          Yeah, fish worms are tasty, but gritty and hard to digest.

        • Calonzap

          …..and they give you diarrhea.

      • A. Graf Matuschka

        With; competition between countries, and companies this will fly no matter what you think. Engines and healing systems were invented by various people and some where laughed out of their hometowns, but in the end, what works always will end up being used despite the aggravations they bring to the inventor. Ciao, Atti

      • Archer

        Earthworms aside, there is real environmental damage to be concerned about, and not due to typical exhaust-type pollution, but something far more human: car accidents. Can you imagine the cumulative radioactive effects of 6,000,000 car accidents per year? (http://www.lawcore.com/car-accident/statistics.html) even if only 1/1000 were enough to leak radio-active material, that’s BAD.

        I agree that this technology is a no go, at least until we have a full grid of self-driving cars.

        • WillieT

          Thorium is, as the story says, “as abundant as lead” & “In addition, only a thin layer of aluminum foil is needed to shield people from the weakly emitting metal.”

          I do not think thorium presents a radioactive contamination threat. But should that be a concern, building the laser with sufficient protection to ensure that the thorium “core” is not exposed during an accident shouldn’t add too much cost.

          The thing that will prevent, or at least delay such a concept from becoming reality is this – we live in a petroleum-based society. The wealthiest of the wealthy who basically control the planet, do so primarily through oil. Take away the power of oil and their control over everything becomes extremely shaky. The rich don’t like it when you mess with their power.

        • yeah jus immagine thorium run cars in the hands of terrorists

          it will be a real scare atomic activity on the roads

        • Avid Flyer

          This would not be that big of a problem to overcome we have cars that can take a 60MPH head on crash and you can walk away from it. Putting the device in the rear of the car would be the best bet or a mid-engine type design with a titanium Frame boxing in the power unit you could make it useable. Your biggest problem is steam generation and making a system that won’t corrode I saw a steam powered car in the late 70′s and they guy had the patents on it but the government would not allow it to be driven on public roads, their reason the steam pressure was too high to be safe enough for U.S. drivers. It could be done but passing it threw the government may prove to be impossible. Cars now days can take a head on collision at 55 MPH and walk away from it so making a cage for the power plant and putting it in their rear could make it possible to be safe. The safety devices needed to protect us from the morons who do stupid things they shouldn’t be the hardest thing to overcome. Darwin awards would or could effect all of us.

        • Chuck Dewey

          Thorium is easily shielded, and could easily be put into a container that could never be opened during a car crash (ever hear of a airplanes black box?) It seems that whenever something promising comes along there is the same group of save the planet people that will come up with some far-fetched senerio that will be used to prevent us from going forward. How about looking for solutions instead of looking for reasons not to do something?

  2. Bill

    Why do this silly comic book stuff when a LFTR really was built and could solve all of our energy problems.

    Try the AimHigh google talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgKfS74hVvQ

    Or maybe anything by Sorensen: http://energyfromthorium.com/

  3. Leslie Linton

    Is this the start of development/prototype for skateboard flat cell electric energy
    drive vehicles that were/have been discueedd for the past two decades .
    How ca this be used with a rotary engine like Mazda’s currently fitted in their RX8?

    Is the thought to focus on necular cells to produce/store the potential energy,
    the origional idea for elecrtic cell “skate boards” was to store electricity in the
    board and have electric motors at each wheel. necular power is unstable out of
    its liquid environment and dangerious if spilled or combined/consumed by a fire.

    • Niam Krawt

      The word is spelled “nuclear”, and not all nuclear materials are “unstable”. Thorium, as the article clearly states, is sub-critical radioactive material, meaning it can’t, under normal conditions, melt down by itself. It requires a small amount of external energy to kickstart the radiation process, which stops when that energy is removed.

      Also, the article states that as little as 8 grams of thorium would be needed for the lifetime of the car – an amount that small could easily be protected from most crashes.

  4. Chuck B

    To Thomas’ input I, too, would like to know what the prototyping timeline looks like.
    The shielding could be merely standard 6061-T6 Aluminum plate .25″ thick as part of the physical mounting of the container.
    After 5 decades of uranium-based thinking and no push for alternative radiological applications, WHY get DARPA involved? So the government can mandate arbitrary control over free enterprise again?

    I pose the query, “Have any of the major automakers even given Stevens offers to partner with him in the development of his technology?”
    He apparently has the heat-generation stage developed. THEY are masters of mechanical power transmission systems, so why not approach one with a partnership proposal? Let’s get these cars on the road!
    The planet NEEDS this technology NOW!

    • MorituriMax

      Screw the planet! I want one!

    • SPENCER

      I HAVE BEEN WONDERING FOR DECADES WHEN WE WERE GOING TO GO NUCLEAR! BUT THE BIG 3 WILL SNAFU THE WHOLE IBEA AND WE WILL : 1) NOT GET THE VEHICLE AND 2) WE WILL BE ON THE GROUND STILL BURNING MORE FOSSIL FUEL OUT THE TAIL PIPE AND ON THE GROUND WITH TIRES!

  5. Paul Rako

    This is such an obvious fraud, GE should be ashamed to give it any credence to it at all. It is also a fraud on many levels. First, this is not a Cadillac prototype. It is some undrivable goofball concept with no engine that was dreamed up by a skateboard designer. Next, lasers do not give off energy, they are not Zero-Point modules from Stargate Atlantis. You have to pump a laser with more energy than you get from it. Next, the energy figures for thorium are most likely based on the energy contained in the strong-force bonds of the nucleus. Unless this hoaxer is proposing to have a nuclear reactor in the car, clearly impractical, all he can get out of radioactive isotopes of thorium is a bit of gentle heat as it decays.

    “The thorium laser does not produce a beam of coherent light like conventional lasers, but instead merely heats up and gives off energy.”

    Good gosh, is our country so full of idiots that we can’t parse this sentence to see it is at best a joke and at worst an actionable hoax perpetrated by criminals?

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      Paul,
      We feel a bit skeptical ourselves, so it’s fair comment.
      However, General Electric, as far as I know, has no opinion on this technology either way.
      The magazine is sponsored by GE, but most stories are about the wide world of technology not what the company is doing.
      Editor

      • Evan

        Well, the idea of a laser that does not produce a beam of coherent light is ridiculous. That’s like talking about water ice that isn’t made of frozen water. If it’s not a beam of coherent light, it isn’t a laser!

        And everything I can find on the subject of thorium as a power source indicates you’re talking about a nuclear reactor. Which is not something you ever, EVER want to put in a car. The mind boggles.

        • K Swanson

          Lasers do not have to be coherent light. Lasers come in many flavors we cannnot see. Such as IR, UV and Xray.

        • Bubba

          Not all light is visible to human eyes

      • Dave G

        Matthew,

        As Editor, it IS your job to vet this dis-information. It’s even worse than you think. I got to this website from a link in EE&T magazine, which has photos of a supposed prototype. This is absolutely a scam. By just parroting this stuff without any checking, you give scheisters like this guy an undeserved air of legitimacy. When his investors finally wise-up, he will probably be sharing a jail cell with Bernie Madoff.

        • Matthew Van Dusen

          Dave,
          I would imagine that the prototype you saw was the World Thorium Fuel concept car by Cadillac, which is not associated with Laser Power Systems.
          See also the Wards Auto story on LPS http://wardsauto.com/ar/thorium_power_car_110811/, in which other researchers say they are familiar with Stevens’ work.
          I think we made it clear that we are not entirely convinced, in the absence of a prototype, by saying the idea has a “kernel of plausibility.”
          Your skepticism is welcome though.

      • Dave G

        Matthew,

        This is the article i was referring to:

        http://eetweb.com/news/thorium-generator-091211/index.html

        It shows photos of a prototype power generator. It has to be a scam. There is no way that is a functioning nuclear reactor. It is sad that the internet can be so easily abused to spread dis-information to a large number of gullible people.

    • paul lewis

      I completely agree with you. Cheers to you Paul!
      GE needs to take some responsibility for promoting things like this. There is no beef in any of the backup material or the referenced web site that is related to the advertised “laser gizmo”.

      • Matthew Van Dusen

        I can’t stress this enough Paul: GE is not promoting this.
        This is a technology magazine. We write about technology ideas and inventions, which may or may not work.

        • S.Evans

          It’d be nice to at least give the new technology a cursory look to make sure it doesn’t violate any of the major laws of physics, like, oh, conservation of energy.

          That’s one of the reasons hybrid gas/electric cars are so silly, the electricity (or hydrogen fuel cells) have to have been filled somewhere, at some energy cost. The only way to make it NOT silly if if we didn’t burn coal for most of our energy needs. So, unless your area is supplied by nuclear or renewable sources, you’re actually putting more crap into the air by purchasing one of those hybrids.

        • Dave G

          Matthew,

          The title of this article contains the phrase “COMPLETELY PLAUSIBLE IDEA”! The respected name GE attached to this website is terrible.

          S.Evans,

          I own a 2005 Prius. I have 100,000 miles on it now. I have kept a log book of every drop of gas I have put into it. My average mileage is 48 mpg. This is definitely an efficiency improvement over a conventional car. True, it is not a long term solution and it still uses fossil fuel which is not sustainable. The hybrid system does several things to improve efficiency. 1) Braking energy is used to generate electricity to charge the battery instead of wasting it as heat, which improves the city mileage. 2) The gas engine doesn’t idle at traffic lights – the computer shuts the engine off. 3) The motor-generator acts like a complex and efficient automatic transmission which puts the optimum torque load on the gas engine to keep it operating in its most efficient range, no matter what speed you are going. It’s not “silly”.

        • Bob S

          Matthew,

          I can’t seen you are not embarrassed to have juxtaposed those two sentences. “This is a technology magazine” and “We write about technology ideas and inventions, which may or may not work”.

          You can have one,or the other, but both together don’t work. Inventions that don’t work are what, junk? Bricks? Ideas that don’t work might be “good efforts”, but ideas that can’t work are hoaxes or frauds. As described, the ideas here are ideas that can’t work. Therefore you are a hoaxster. Or you are so incredibly naive and unknowing about science that you are proudly shilling for this idea.

        • Matthew Van Dusen

          Really Bob? We can only write about things that “work”?
          So, let’s say we write about cold fusion and decide that it doesn’t work. Should we scrap the article?

    • Siôn Jones

      How do you know it is a fraud? Do you understand the physics?

      Now it might well be true that Thorium powered steam generators might not be the best or only use of this technology, but if it pays for the R&D, what is wrong with it?

    • Dr Evil

      Dr. Evil: [about his new "laser"] You see, I’ve turned the moon into what I like to call a “Death Star”.
      [Scott snickers]
      Dr. Evil: What?
      Scott: Oh, nothing, Darth.
      Dr. Evil: What did you call me?
      Scott: Nothing.
      Scott: [pretends to sneeze] Ripoff.
      Dr. Evil: Bless you.

    • russ reed

      I hope you dont feel too silly when the truth about this gets out eventually.
      Howard Huges built a protoype of a nuclear powered car in 1958 and tested it for months in the desert of New Mexico while my grandfather worked on NERVA systems at Los alamos…and the guys at Los alamos literally walked over to the Hughes team and checked it all out.
      Its likely the hughes reactor was based on this concept, since my grandfather told me the reactor core was the size of a ketchup bottle.
      This is absolute fact, and snopes sucks ass, so forget 2 minute fact-finding using the lame ass internet.
      My grandfather would never lie about that, and armed with details from him, I will uncover evidence obvious enough for people who are thick enough to still believe the cosmos is earth-centered.

    • Ty

      Having done work on this it is far from a scam. The idea is radical but can and will be done. I can understand the doubt but maybe if you look into the info thats out there or the LPS website you will get a better idea of how this is being done.

    • Jim

      Thank God we have people like you to kill any innovative thought before it takes root and possibly succeeds. Every innovation from global maritime navigation to space flight was assailed by this type of venomous reaction. While there is some validity in your statements and you apparently have some understanding about some types of lasers, your imagination and ability to see the possibility of things go lacking. Remember, the world is NOT flat.

    • Private

      Hay guys, the technology is the same thing they use in regular nuclear reactors. It is very real. However, they miniaturized the reactor, and use a safer fuel. The thorium reaction is safer only because it is not self sustaining. This means you need a continual source of energy (like a laser) to keep it going. The reaction then would give off more energy then you put into heating it due to nuclear fission. You can then recycle part of the power back into the laser beam, and use the rest to power something.
      Now, this sounds great, and would make a terrific power plant. The article is also correct about material storage needing minimal shielding. However, you would still need thick shielding of lead and neutrino shielding while the thing is in operation. (like a foot worth). The reason is that the reaction gives off gamma rays and neutrinos just like a regular nuclear reactor. It also still gives off nuclear waste, which this article completely ignores. See this — http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium

      For these reasons, it would be completely insane to put one of these in a car. Nobody wants radio active cars making radio active waste being used by the general public. If that wasn’t an issue, it would be a great idea.

      These might find great use however in large ships, trains, etc. Basically any large transport that can use proper shielding, and be trusted to properly handle the waste. This is already being used in newer nuke plants since it is obviously safer.
      Another possible use would be to use the reactor to crack water into hydrogen and oxygen. The hydrogen fuel could then be safely and cleanly used in regular cars with only minor modifications. (same engine block, different fuel storage, and fuel regulator systems). Cars using this would be as clean as possible, literally spitting pure water out there pipe. Hybrid designs that can burn any liquid or gas are actually quite simple and practice to make. This is the likely direction cars will go as the worlds oil slowly runs out.

      • William Carr

        Yes, this idea doesn’t work for cars, but it would be fine for, say, transport ships.

        They’ve got the space for the shielding, and if they sink, the Thorium reaction would stop.

        Maybe this or Hydrogen Nickel Fusion will end up being how we produce the hydrogen for our cars.

    • Roto

      I agree with this analysis. From a physics viewpoint, the words are mumbo jumbo for the reasons mentioned. I would go further to say this is not just a hoax its a con job. Gullible and uneducated those that would believe in this technical non-possibility. Thorium can fuel future nuclear reactors, but not in the way described by the proponent of this car. “Lasers” sounds ooh … ahhh, but its nothing more than the stimulation of atoms to a high quantum energy level which then relax to give off light of various frequencies. As the respondent said, lasers take net energy and create less than they use. That’s a fact.

    • shawn disney

      Paul: I suggest you are over-specialized, if you think that even the average engineer is going to see that the story is not physically possible. You should give some rational explanation.

  6. Ron F

    out here on the left coast …there are a couple of APU ( Auxiliary Power Units) manufacturing companies using miniature gas turbines to turn generators for use in aircraft and public transportation ( Hamilton Sundstrand in Sun Diego /Honeywell in Az, and Capstone Turbine up in Lost Angels)…paging Mr. Stevens!

  7. Emanuel Cooper

    I agree with Paul. Unless the reporter misunderstood a lot, this looks like a perpetuum mobile machine or worse. There has been a flurry of publicity and exchanges lately concerning fission nuclear power from thorium breeders, a legitimate and promising technology. I think Mr. Stevens and his company are trying to catch a free ride on the sudden public awareness of thorium, for reasons I will not speculate on.

    • MorituriMax

      Actually, the article states that theoretically x grams of thorium would last for y miles. Not unlimited miles. So, no, it’s not describing a perpetual motion machine per se.

  8. Codewalker

    its time we take back what we are meant to do toward humanity, design, create, build and progress rather than allow DARPA or any other governmental politicos structured entity to overtake the people simply because weaponization and mass control of the people in their minds are what has to be attained for their one world order. The reality is, if we make the world a better place, keep people producing, busy and in good spirits, provide ethical freedoms, we will see far more greater benefits in this world than having to be harnest to the few controllers in world powers. Yes, I already know the thorium avenue of future energy will work in combination with hydrogen, it is all about convincing the masses that conversion is the real ticket in creatign a real commonality for all humankind on all this place we all call home, eterra, earth… so get a grip and dont be jsut another sellout to the large goliath players as they will do more than try to own all, control all, they will ultimately destroy what was never theirs to take, you, your generations to come and the beauty of this complex self sustaining planet we all call home… we really as one species with all the power over all other species on thsi planet need to understand, we’re all here togther, on one eartrh, under One God, indivisable if our freewill allows us all to come together… if not, all anyone will see soon is destruction and mayhem… that, is not my promise… just ask Him^….

    • MorituriMax

      This made it through the moderator? Really? Do we really need to veer off into one god (coincidentally the one you worship) deciding whether we use coal or thorium for fuel? Wouldn’t it be better if we let “God” post here himself instead of someone using him for a cheap stab at speaking from a higher authority? I sincerely hope something like this thorium engine makes it into actual production. and I want it to look like the concept car pictured above!

  9. Eletruk

    He’s going about it all wrong. Just take the Thorium Laser to Jey Leno and hook it up to his Stanley Steamer. Why convert heat->steam->turbine->electric->motor when you can go straight heat->steam->motor?
    With the theoretical energy capacity, the energy efficiency isn’t an issue, and steam cars have been around for over 100 years.

    • Richard S

      Eletruk

      Why not heat -> (Latest type) Stirling Engine

      • Renewable Energy

        There is a working 100 kW system in two locations powered by nuclear energy using this technology. The source of the energy is not exotic or toxic materials it is nuclear energy in the form of photons delivered free from the sun. So forget the wiz-bang and think reality something that works now and makes the world better.

        GH Dairy, using 100 kW solar sterling engine powered array at one of the Sarah Farms milk processing facilities in Yuma, AZ owned by GH Dairy. The project uses of a solar thermal technology called the PowerDish™ by which utilizes a stirling engine paired with a parabolic mirrored dish to produce clean electricity efficiently.

        The other using the same technology at Frito Lay (Division of Pepsico) 
Capacity: 30 kW

  10. Samuel Cox

    How big would the heat transfer surface need to be for a condenser on a 250kW ST? Assuming we are talking about low to medium steam temperatures <900°F the ST efficiency would be less than 15%. Thus the total heat input would be 1666.7 kW . The waste heat would be 1666.7 x 0.85 x (3412 BTU/kWh) or 4.83 10^6 BTU/h. So the mass begins to be a problem on closed systems. I think there was a condenser/radiator option on the Stanely steamer, however it was only rated at 115 hp (86kW). 250kW equates to 335 hp. This just might be something Jey Leno or maybe a big rig manufacturer could put to use. Hmm, what kind of horn do you put on a nuclear semi?

    There was just an article about Miniature Nuclear Reactors in space on http://www.innovationnewsdaily.com sized at 40 kw. The DOE at Idaho National Laboratory is working on this one. It appears from older articles that NASA was using a 40kW Stirling engine. http://www.technologyreview.com/energy/23247/

  11. Owen

    oooh shall we learn to walk before we try a 100m sprint ?

    walking =
    thorium powered power station, electricty generated used to split hydrogen

    hydrogen oxidised in fuel cell in a car.

    all of these we can do and have infrastructure we can re-use (natural gas / lpg distribution) …

    …trying to do the whole shbang in one step in a car……. doh. over-reaching.
    anyway, a car you don’t have to refuel, do you think the big oil/ energy companies would allow that to come to pass !

  12. David

    I am not sure if putting radioactive materials in cars on the road is such a great idea. “What could possibly go wrong”. It is not impossible for cars to get into accidents or burn up, which could basically create a dirty bomb that would realese this radioactive material. We forget how people work and behave, and especially the media and politicians. In this consumerist society, people throw away toxic materials all the time without any thought, as to the environmental consequence, these things headed towards a land fill, or an incinertor, to be introduced to the local water supply or the air of the community. We can’t get people to recycle their batteries, lead car batteries, alkaline batteries, computers. TVs, what makes us think that we can get them to properly handle radioactive cars when we have been totally incompetent in setting up systems to handle this myriad of other toxic materials? Many cities in the US have absolutely no recycling at all, not to mention no recycling or proper disposal of these materials. This is not only incompetence of joe six pack, but incompetence of the entire, industrial and scientific, and regulatory community for not creating systems to properly handle toxic waste if even the top notch scientists and policy makers cannot handle this, not to mention joe six pack, there is no reason to expect that this thorium radioactive cars will not end up in a land fill or left for the thorium to spill out of a rusting car in a field.

    It would be a lot better of an idea to use the thorium in a larger electrical generation plant operated by a power utility, where the handling of the toxic waste can be highly monitored by the government. It is a lot easier to monitor this handling of toxic waste when you have a handful of facilities where you know where this waste is, rather than millions and millions of cars. It helps contian the risk at a fewer number of easily monitored sites, so is much safer,

  13. somebody steal my concept

    I had proposed a similar idea to DOE for funding back in 2009. Somehow my proposal did not approve. My ideal is for different type of conversion and should be safer. I had no cue who steal my idea. I should apply patent back then.

  14. AgentG

    They should use the thorium laser and steam generator as an electrical power source to charge a battery or drive an electric vehicle. In this manner, they can use the weight that a larger battery would need. Since the generator does not create any exhaust, it could be run all the time to provide power into the power grid. You could also integrate a CO2 and pollutant scrubbing device using the excess power, which would make each vehicle a greenhouse gas and pollutant **eliminator**. This means the more such vehicles are sold and used, the cleaner the air would become. That is a powerful marketing advantage.

  15. Jack Palmer

    They should look into partnering with Cyclone Power Technologies in Florida. They have a robust radial steam engine already developed. Basically, you’d just be replacing the heat source. Their engine operates at steam pressures over 2000 psi and sends power straight to the wheels – no transmission losses – with full torque at startup.

    • Jim McLain

      This might not work really well here in Alaska. That much torque on slick roads might cause a few problems with staying on the road in winter. Just a thought . . .

  16. rrock

    Where exactly is the energy coming from – fission? What about the by products. If it is a laser it has to have crystal of a thorium compound that light can penetrate. What energy source will you use to excite the laser? Does the thorium crystal degrade with time through fission and have to be replaced. A comic book article for the uneducated.

    • S.Evans

      Maybe a neutron laser? That’s the only way I can see to excite the thorium and release any strong nuclear forces. An optical laser simply wouldn’t be up to the job without a truck following along behind the car to power it, and even then most of what it would be doing is just heating metal. Now, who things the US government is going to allow civilians of all people to drive around in vehicles that have, in effect, neutron spark plugs in each one? That’s one of the BIGGEST steps to building a detonator for a nuclear device, so even if he DOES build the engine there is no way in heck the government would license it for mass production.

      • Roto

        Nice thoughts, but lasers do not produce neutrons. The physics of lasers does not involve the nucleus at all. Just the various valence bands of electrons. Only photons are produced. A device that could produce neutrons would be in and of itself a nuclear reaction device that operated through radioactive decay, fission, fusion, or simple atomic bombardment of a nucleus by an accelerator. This is completely different than a laser (“light amplification by stimulated emission …”).

    • Ken

      Yes, I completely agree. We should not pursue any new technologies that would not be appropriate for the three people living in Alaska, even if the rest of the 7 billion people on the planet (and the planet itself) would greatly benefit. That would be unfair.

  17. Steve Nixon

    Ah, would that it were true!

    Surely if this Charles Stevens (or anyone else for that matter) had done such important work in 1985 or any recent year, there would have been some kind of patent activity as a result. There is no record of it.

    Therefore, this report is just a modern example of “yellow journalism” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism) done “idiocracy” style, since even a trivial search of Google Patents reveals ZERO entries for MaxFeLaser and similarly ZERO for this Charles Stevens having to do with Lasers or Thorium in 1985 or any other year.

    A quick search directly at the USPTO home page yields nearly the same results: they *do* list a “Charles Stevens Coffey” on ONE patent having nothing to do with this subject — obviously a different man — and ONE from N. Carolina early this year related to an adult toy at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-adv.htm&r=1&p=1&f=G&l=50&d=PTXT&S1=Stevens-Charles.INNM.&OS=in/Stevens-Charles&RS=IN/Stevens-Charles
    … which clearly seems like a different man as well.

    Thus I conclude that this story is all hogwash at best, and a fraudulent hoax at worst.

    The only reasonable exception to my reasoning is IF the USPTO, perhaps in concert with DoD, put a National Security gag order on the entire matter, in which case this Mr. Stevens will be spending the next few years in court, if not prison. ‘Nuff said.

    Keywords: “Charles Stevens” Patent MaxFeLaser Laser Thorium 1985 Hoax Fraud

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      Thanks for including the wikipedia link for yellow journalism.

  18. Jamie Patterson

    Reminds me of the GE Turboencabulator of 1962 in the General Electric Handbook.

  19. Ken

    This is progress. We must look into feasable advances for energy and other devices that move us down the road. I am most inerested in using electric power in aircraft. We will get there. It is good to have critics, but NEVER give up because of them. Keep the dream!

  20. shooter

    This sounds like a crock. If it were actually true, it should be used to power a neighborhood.

  21. Errick

    The only way this sounds like it could work, is if they are talking about accelerator driven nuclear fission with thorium as the fuel. In which case it would be technologically possible but politically impossible. You could not get government approval to sell people cars powered by miniature nuclear reactors. One reason is that everybody is worried about terrorists. You could make the car and the reactor safe but it would not matter.

  22. Dan Spratt

    Love the design I live in Michigan can I be a test driver of the proto type??=)

  23. Bill S.

    What powers the laser, before or after supposed reactions?

  24. HB

    We nee more engineers and fewer MBA & JD

  25. Adam

    What happens when you crash one of these?

    • Siôn Jones

      Exactly the same as if you crash a conventional car – you or somebody else die or get hurt. As far as the effect of the engine is concerned, there is no risk of a post collision explosion, killing survivors, as there is with a petroleum engine.

      • Adam’s Myth

        Of course, if the thorium leaks, then the crash site will be mildly radioactive for billions of years. But the US has only 40,000 fatal car crashes per year, so after 100 years we would have only 4 million permanently toxic roadside spots. What could go wrong?

        • shawn disney

          Adam: the whole world is ALREADY mildly radioactive, i.e all possible future “crash sites” . What is important is the concentration, dosages , etc.

  26. Leonardo

    8 grams of thorium lol maybe it is the same in the monazite stone i had buy

  27. Carroll Brumfield

    Does the Obama administration know about this? Talk about a mission to excite the public into action!

    • TJ

      They will not pay attention unless they can throw more money away at it or profit from it after they leave office. Always follow the money. They just blew about a trillion dollars on GREEN nonsense already. If is is plausible the market will produce it. The market always wins vs forced winners and losers (usually losers when the govt. gets involved 9 time out of 10 these days).

      • seth

        Government is the only corporation in which we have vote, that has the ability to protect our land. Remember banning of freon? Significant ozone layer depleter, as a refrigerant? How was “market forces” going to correct that? you are parroting back soundbites, invented by the companies trying to rape our planet.

      • Richard

        TJ, the track record for venture capitalists is about the same. The government is not worse than private investments in picking winners.

        • Hot Dog Joe

          One difference – venture capitalists risk money of those willing to take the risk. Government is risking MY money without my approval – not one of their constitutional duties?

    • Dev

      countries with rich Thorium deposits beware … prepare for a US attack to give u freedom…..

      • Guy Noir

        Don’t be ignorant. The USA has ENORMOUS deposits of Thorium. A side effect of processing minerals to obtain Thorium is that they coexist with valuable Rare Earth Minerals (e.g. Lithium). You should probably take a bit of time before you just POP OFF with stuff because of bitterness over war. We all hate war, but it is impossible to prove (I mean the way REAL PEOPLE prove stuff, by actually studying evidence and obtaining vast amounts of it). that any of our wars are truly for the resources alone. Certainly nations producing plenty of oil are important because they are producing a valuable commodity, but there are plenty of oil producing nations which have absolutely no military contact with the USA. Think!

  28. Joe S.

    I doubt we’ll see anything like this in our lifetime. Consider me a conspiracy theory nut, but I don’t think other energy industries will allow something like this to come into fruition any time soon. Imagine the cut into their profit margin!

    • kelly

      You are so right. Congress always keeps the large corporations going. They haven’t allowed quite a few new technologies into light because of the nonsense of it will hurt the current corporations, economy, etc. They are fed by these big corporations. They are given votes, funds, etc. by them. That is why it is important for us to follow the new technologies and support them, etc. Look at Obama’s victory. Nobody thought he could win from a grass roots vote. He did. Just think what all of us could do if we get rid of alot of the congress that aren’t thinking progressively or keeping with the old timers, etc. We could have quite a change!

    • shawn disney

      Joe: Haven’t you heard of “Peak Oil”? What makes you think that the Powers that you fear cannot successfully get into Thorium LFTR power as well, and we all could (theoretically) benefit from it? Politics is forever, but technology can still evolve.

  29. Durwood M. Dugger

    I think this is likely a major direction of future alternative energy. However, given the level of gov. concern and or paranoia regarding nuclear terrorist threats: Wouldn’t the country’s roads covered with nuclear powered vehicles would make DHS and other watchdog agencies radioactivity scans for potential nuclear terrorist- virtually impossible? Does thorium put out a detectable, separable and or different radioactive signature than other radioactive products – uranium, plutonium, etc.? If so, it’s full speed ahead for thorium powered transportation.

    • Jack Holmgreen

      Each radioactive isotope has a distinctive signature.

    • C Matumbeya

      Thorium has no practical use for terrorists and would be a pointless target for them.

      Even the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor isn’t suitable for producing weapons grade materials (which is pretty much why they weren’t built during the time materials production for nuclear weapons was a priority to counter the Soviet threat).

    • Guy Noir

      Thorium puts out much less gamma output than similar sized masses of the materials you mention Uranium, etc. It is typically run, at least in a nuclear power plant for powering cities etc. as part of a breeder reactor, which has many tremendously good aspects:

      Runs “sub critical” so a failure results in scramming automatically.
      Puts out from 1/10 to, in some cased 1/10000th the amount of waste.
      The waste it does put out is radioactive for a much, much shorter time than other types (the U, or Pu)
      The USA has a 1,000 year supply at the minimum of Thorium
      Thorium is a biproduct of processing radioactive ores of rare earth metals which are valuable and strategic for our nation. [process the rare earth and you get Thorium falling out of the process]

      Look on the Wikipedia for “Thorium Fuel Cycle” and you will get the story and you need to click onward because there are several good sites on this.

  30. Jim McNeely

    I’ve been saying we need this for years. I want my nuclear powered car! I really really really hope this happens!

  31. scott davis

    Big oil will kill this like they kill every other technology that comes along to invade their bottom line. stephen has no lobbyists in washington

    • Meresa

      Nonsense. If it works and can be produced affordably it WILL become widely available. The reason we are not powered by wind and solar is not due to any conspiracy but the fact that they are fundamentally limited in their ability to meet demand by simple physics

      • Barton Paul Levenson

        WHAT simple physics? It’s easy to show that both solar and wind availability dwarf current power use. I’m not aware of any physics precluding their widespread use–and I AM a physicist.

        • Orlin Pettit

          Ah yes… there is plenty of energy in the wind and from the sun… the fly in the ointment is low energy density. Wringing energy from these sources isn’t cheap considering the amount of capital investment required. If it weren’t for taxpayers taking it in the shorts for these things they would go bust.

        • TJ

          Wind and solar have miserably failed to show “economic” feasibility”. It takes billion of govt. dollars to end up having solar companies go broke(like several this month). Economics must be a factor. This would be great but only f economically feasible in the open market.

        • Crlton

          If you are a physicist please tell the author, Steven Ashley, that Thorium has an atomic number, not atomic weight, of 90.

  32. kantent almty

    we’ve been dreaming of a new world transportation order and that is what this is. Let it this dream become a reality. I can’t wait to get mine.

  33. Doug Sanders

    It seems like the way to proceed is with a stationary powerplant first to prove the viability and reliabilty of the concept
    A car is by far the most difficult application and should be saved for last !

    • Greg Grant

      Imagine a home power version for each home or cluster of 4 or 5 homes. That would be awesome. I wonder if it produces much radioactive waste?

  34. Michael Ellebracht

    This is a very interesting concept. I wonder, rather than applying this technology to cars, would it not be a better fit, at least in the first stages, to be utilized it in mass transit vehicles. A bus or train, a machine that is under the control of a larger managed entity than an individual. Another good application along the same lines would be over the road trucks operated by large companies. Then there would be local power generation stations, not individual home units, rather larger centralized systems that are managed by professionals. The theme here is 2 fold, one reason is control by a responsible accountable entity, and the other is ways to fund the development. Let’s face it; money is needed to push this technology forward and its not going to come directly from the individual consumer

  35. Tony

    Remember “Stan Meyer”, anyone

  36. David F Pawlowski

    Whether you think the second “Back to the Future” movie was corny or not, it begs a long standing question. What would Detroit of today do with an opportunity to produce transportation that could run without the need for hydrocarbons? If nothing else I really hope that DARPA and the DOD take a page book from history and realize it has a lot of skin in the game in terms of needing to reduce cost and maintain the tempo of war without relying on vulnerable hydrocarbon carivans through enemy territory. DARPA and the DOD should review the history of its current Abrams main battle tank with its Chrysler turbine powered lineage and realize that if a thorium laser could power a TESLA type disc turbine system it could provide quiet stationary power plants as well as powerplants sized by companies like Williams International to move UAVs, Hummers, heavy transport, small water craft, and littoral submersibles with a game changing Revolution in Military Affairs. And what better than the DOD, DARPA, the DOE and the Big Two left in this country to help kiss foreign petroleum good bye. If the US doesn’t get it, the Chinese Red Army does.

  37. firemedic 2274

    The private sector needs to create this. Once it hits the streets, the public demand will take over.
    Unlike hydrogen based vehicles, it’s safe enough for the roads.

  38. Tom L

    If this is a good idea, I don’t think we will have to worry about conspiracies to keep it down. The buggy whip industry was not saved. The analog television industry was not saved. The manual typewriter industry perished, along with the slide rule makers. Good ideas eventually triumph.

  39. Jack Holmgreen

    If we all think big government or big corporations can stop progress we are forgetting that the government survives on a misinformed and complacent electorate and corporations are so big because we spend our money on their products every day. Without us there is no future for them. Without them, we are just fine. Who’s zoomin’ who?

  40. Eric Barkley

    Read more about Thorium power, a Thorium–fueled MSR, molten-salt reactor, in the July issue of Popular Science, pg 60-61. This issue is a keeper because it has gathered info on the future energy needs of the world. I want one of these lasers for my home & the unit purposed for the car is large enough to power several homes, being each home requires approximately 20kw, & having 10 grams of Thorium to power it for about one year. This would eliminate the power loss on the power grids, when every home is on their own fuel-cell or in this case, turbine generating plant. So how much does 10 grams of Thorium cost? $600 or less a year plus the delivery & installation fees, I hope, so everyone can afford one. What maintenance is required on the turbine disks, the ceramic bearings, the heat transfer medium, the Thorium chamber & will this maintenance be a DIY project? And will muslims be trusted with their own power source?

  41. Brian C.

    I hate to be a wet blanket but: no real system is shown, no data is shown, no papers are published and the last time I checked alpha emission is a nuclear process which does not involve electrons. This is just another scam.

  42. David

    This sounds good on paper, but, like flying cars, would be a terrible idea in practice. Numerous questions come to mind – what happens when someone cracks open the fuel casing and decides to dump the thorium into, say, a water reservoir, or some Walmart meat department employee with a grudge tosses some powderized thorium into a pile of ground beef before putting it into those styrofoam trays? What about waste? Over time, this stuff will start getting everywhere. No thanks. The only place I want nuclear fuel is inside a well-guarded reactor core, a space vehicle, or a storage facility.

    • Doug

      This stuff, as you call it’ is to be found in most soils where crops are grown already. Leave your worry beads alone!

  43. Joe Marfice

    “The thorium laser does not produce a beam of coherent light like conventional lasers, but instead merely heats up and gives off energy.”

    Nonsense. Please don’t write about science terms you don’t understand. A laser that doesn’t produce Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation is, by definition, not a LASER.

    BTW, that energy it gives off? Yeah, it’s light. Infrared light.

    I’m not sure what wavelength the thorium laser is lasing at, but I guarantee there’s coherent light being emitted.

    • frank

      He say it didn’t give off ‘coherent’ light?

      “The thorium laser does not produce a beam of coherent light…”

      He didn’t say it din’t give off light.

  44. Pete

    Wondering what prevented the nuclear sub fleets from having Thorium reactors. . . The success of which would have validated the technology for heavy haul maritime use. The cascading effect would have at least emergency power plant installations by Power utilities.

    The cost of bringing fossil fuel to market (especially deep oil) is near a tipping point ecologically, economically, politically and rationally.

    • Guy Noir

      You can read about it by beginning at the Wikipedia for “Thorium Fuel Cycle”, but my understanding is the molten salt reactors of decades ago (yes, this has already undergone “proof of technology concept”, and operating reactors have already run using Thorium) has technical problems which, while able to be fixed, were costly to fix (the state of Colorado stopped one for just about these exact reasons). Also, as others have mentioned during the 1950′s and 1960′s, an argument could be made that a reactor which DID NOT produce weapons materials was less preferable to the Uranium and Plutonium reactors which can be designed to produce usable materials in a weapons program.

  45. Russell

    If you are going to post a science article, please at least put in some science research. As Joe said, it isn’t a laser without coherent light. Following links to his website and searching around produce no results of any substance, and no published papers. Publishing through the internet and media instead of proper peer review is a sure sign of pseudoscience.

    While accelerator-driven sub-critical thorium reactors are being researched, the scale and power required by the real systems are far beyond what you could put in a car.

    It would be easier to critique if you gave more details, discussed the relevant science that is being claimed as the background, and perhaps showed some diagrams. Evidence of a working model would help as well.

    • Guy Noir

      Go to this website:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

      .. which is the Wikipedia article on the Thorium Fuel Cycle. This has explanations and links to other quite “Science-Filled” sites relating to the use of the material Thorium in reactors. The questions here regarding whether this can be used in a car or not are important, but the most important issues still seem to be whether this type of fuel cycle is going to get fundamental support, or is going to be falsely thought of as a “dangerous nuclear project”. Since lack of danger is the nature of these projects, and certainly SOME care is needed, a balance will need to be struck to allow people to be comfortable with this very good idea, but also to allow caution and care to be used in developing these reactors. The public power source aspect of this is much more important now than the automobile aspect is, that is because public power does not need the technology to propagate so far out into so many millions of places. Public power could be implemented in simply a thousand or so places and produce a very positive effect. Automobiles are not replaced wholesale, but rather change incrementally, and gradually. I’d be surprised if even one percent of autos ten years from now were this type of vehicle.

  46. Auntiegrav

    Why is it that these grand new scientists are either too smart for their own good, or just plain incompetent. The complaint is that there is no high speed turbine or generator for this reactor to run. There are plenty of high speed devices used on jet engines for starter/generators, and the turbine doesn’t have to be perfect if the fuel is practically free. So you use 9 grams of Thorium over 300,000 miles instead of 8 grams…big deal. If you have a working reactor, the energy can be utilized.
    If you can’t figure these problems out, I will.
    Gas turbine cars, buses, and yes, even tractors have been built. All you are doing is coming up with a different fuel source.

  47. james

    just about as likely as cold fusion.

  48. Heatmizer

    Wait a minute folks – this laser is heating/flashing a turbine that drives a generator. That’s a Rankine Cycle which is typically about 15% efficient in a variable/transient process. Great big power plants get ~30% efficiency out of them but they run at a nice steady condition. So, your 250 kW will net out to about 37kw on average which is still a fair amount of power. However, remember that the Rankine system will need a condenser to reject the heat it cannot convert and a feedpump to drive that fluid. Also, the fluid will be under a considerable amount of pressure during operation so, in-vehicle, you won’t want it to be flammable. Water won’t work either as you won’t want it to freeze when things are sitting outside during winter. Yea, the Stanley steamer overcame some of these issues but it still got knocked aside by the gasoline crowd. I doubt the 500 lbs quoted above includes the various bits of the Rankine cycle system. 37kW is, by the way, about what it takes to drive a car down the road. You’ll need more power to get it off the starting line so don’t forget the hybrid batteries/etc. necessary to store the power up for that first take-off. I’ll bet that’s not in the 500 lbs either.

    Still, this seems like a wonderful idea for stationary power but I need to know more.

  49. Rick

    Something sounds too good to be true. If the energy density of the thorium is so low to be that safe, then how will converting it to heat (and the efficiency loss involved in that) give you enough concentrated power in approximately three cubic feet to drive a 1500 lb automobile?

  50. scott galloway

    holy stimulated fission, was there anything in this article other than that thorium is a radioactive potential fission power source that insinuated thorium actually contributed nuclear energy to the picture no so what is going on? are we so hungry for new power sources that we imagine a visible frequency laser that stimulated a element (thorium) known to emit energy efficiently like in a gas mantle, was made to donate nuclear energy after the fact. simple question, did thorium gas mantles get more radioactive ie stimulated fission? no, and neither will laser stimulated thorium targets that radiate heat upon laser heating. efficient radiator you can bet your last boltzman’s constant flash card.
    simply put there are a lot of electrons keeping your fantasy from stimulating nuclear fission.
    now how about using x-ray or gamma ray lasers, now you can get past the shells of the electon cloud.
    anyway thorium post fissile is kinda radioactive, enough so to deter weapon makers,
    wouldnt it be nice if a thorium reactor could be designed to output in boosting phase conjugate laser beams with a little split off to heat that water, then when not needed shut off or down till later, even better, design the reactor to also serve as the waste storage vessel even though there is a known 100 year fission daughter signature, and put that isotope mix to work even if we have to line up 100 in a row and run a phase conjugate beam thru 100 beam pumping cooling reactor cores designed for the 100 year repurpose storage/job. if its in cars there will be a lot to store dont let a million cooling reactor cores slow down your imagination.
    this idea he has is great, its art in physics., nowhere did he say the thorium nuclear energy would even ge involved yet yee all jumped on the bandwagon of design/function analysis, good work, that is what art is supposed to do, as good physicists our job is to turn ideas into reality when beneficial
    to the cause, whatever that may be.
    this is good fun. build what you want, do not constrain your designs, performance is key, this is the road to the future. When before have we had more tools to measure and design our future progress. The Galaxy awaits.
    we will be the master of the nuclei, and then we will tame our waste as well.

  51. MPGo

    Very cool idea, but …

    Rather than place all of the expense into a car, why not create a Thorium Laser Unit to power and heat a home? Excess electricity could go into an electric car’s battery system for storage.

    Of course, the utility companies might not be fond of the technology. Nor the oil companies.

  52. H Shaw

    Clearly a load of nonsense. Have a look at the PowerPoint presentation at this link . The presentation appears to have been aimed at potential investors or community business development organizations. The “technical discussions” are rife with misspellings, misstatements, and flat out fantasy.

  53. Mr. Palomar

    Ooops. I registered for http://laserturbinepower.com, but it’s a non-site; you just get a single dead page that says welcome to the registered area. Anyone know with any certainty whether I just hosed myself? Beyond the obvious, that is.

    Also, the LPS site has been hacked; it’s a page from a different domain. I’m sure nobody here would know anything about that.

    Yeah, where would the energy come from to power the “laser”. Case closed. Can’t believe I missed that for even one second…

    • david parsons

      The obvious answer (to me, at least) is that there will be battery storage, at least in the mobile application. A battery will be used to start and power the vehicle (and all of its’ accessories) for a few miles. Until the thorium engine heats up to optimum temperature, and begins to generate energy. Also, the battery will be needed to fire up and operate the laser, the one that you can’t see (snort). I can see how this “engine” will work, with the exception of using steam to rotate the turbine. Does that mean that there will be a requirement for endless “fillups” of suitable fluids? Water seems so, disposable. Don’t you lose a lot of the water because it gets broken down, and one part of the formula is expended thru the conversion to steam? I obviously know little about this branch of science (basic?!). Then will we use orange coolant, or green coolant, or some other exotic, expensive fluid so that we don’t exchange gas dollars for water dollars?

  54. baha

    je n’ai pas de site web
    mais je suis interessé par votre voiture a thorium j’achete 1000 exemplaire pour des voitures populaire
    merci

  55. rich

    okay. lets say that it works, and it is all that we hope for -a proof of concept vehicle would go a long way toward peer acceptance-

    the problem is the US Congress is in the back pocket of the oil and auto industry…. such a marvel vehicle would bring the existing corpocracy to its knees….

    it will be opposed, blocked, and die in committee..

  56. Mike Falkoff

    While the article was inarticulate, in trying to give it a plausible meaning I read it as suggesting that thorium would be illuminated with a (short pulse) laser to create cascades of electrons (thorium is good at electron emission) and that these would, with suitable capture and storage circuitry, power an electric motor. An alternative reading was that the laser would be a thorium laser, emitting IR light to create the electron bursts. Even interlineating these specifics (of which I am in fact technically ignorant) I found the article absolutely uninformative, and believe the company should have waited a year before saying anything rather than promulgating such blather.

  57. Luke John

    1. If you’re looking for nice compact turbines, check out the units proposed for the Jaguar XC 75

    2. Before we get the thorium unit small enough to fit into an average auto what about building one say the size of a standard shipping container. One of these could supply a certain number of homes or a big factory. They could be placed in pairs underground vaults every few sq miles in urban areas. Every 10 years or whatever, you merely pull the old one out and put a new one in. They would be completely sealed and self-contained. Basically just a big, Thorium-powered battery.

    This would also create a sort of cellular power-grid and remove the need for ugly transmission lines. With no chance of melt-down and no weaponizing potential we;d have a very green, reliable energy source.

  58. David Dawes

    LASER = Light Amplification through Stimulated Emission of Radiation. This sort of thorium laser emits the light directly from the nucleus rather than from the electrons as in other lasers, so that’s unusual. The light emitted is not coherent, but lasers and coherent are not synonyms, there are plenty of “uncoherent” lasers. PhysOrg had a nice bit on thorium lasers that I found less opaque: http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-05-gamma-ray-laser-emit-nuclear.html
    What I don’t follow is where the energy comes from. Light output from a laser is less than (or at best equal to) the energy spent pumping up the light source. The mention of a few grams power a vehicle for thousands of miles sounds like a nuclear fuel cycle and it’s not clear to me that a thorium laser uses nuclear energy at all.

  59. Uzza

    I find it disturbing that nobody have run the numbers of the claimed 1 gram of thorium equals 7500 gallons of gasoline.

    I guess I have to do the numbers for everyone then.

    A gallon of gasoline is equal to 115400 BTU, which is equal to ~0.02 Barrel of oil equivalents (BOE). 7500 gallons of gasoline is thus equal to 150 BOE.

    One kg of fissile material is roughly equal to 13500 BOE in fission energy.
    Thorium can be transformed to fissile U-233 by absorbing a neutron, and NOT from being “super heated”.
    The only other way for it to change is to decay, in which it releases an alpha particle at 4.083 MeV, becoming Radium-228 in the process . And since thorium has a half life of 14 billion years, that not very often.
    Anyway, a kg of thorium transformed to U-233 and fissioned releases the same amount of energy as 13500 BOE.
    That means 1 gram of thorium is equal to 13.5 BOE if transformed to U-233 and fissioned.

    I don’t know about everyone else, but from the math I learned 13.5 does not equal 150.
    The only things more energy dense than fission is fusion and then matter antimatter annihilation, and the energy densities they claim is on the same order of magnitude as fusion.
    Either the energy comes from pixie dust, or they have made the biggest breakthrough of the millennium.

  60. Bob

    Government and industry does not want LFTR reactors. All the money is made on current reactors by selling the fuel, not from selling the reactors themselves. If industry went to the safe and effective alternative, Liquid Fuel Thorium Reactors (LFTR), no money would be made on selling the fuel to these reactors. Always follow the money and you will get your answer.

  61. Sabrina

    Is this a real vehicle they made?

    • Matthew Van Dusen

      Nope. Still working on a prototype.

  62. John

    It is hard for me to imagine a compact stream turbine to place into a personal vehicle, and stream is dangerous and corrosive. What about developing a hydraulic motor/engine. Can you picture 10,000 of these vehicles bumper to bumper waiting to cross the Tappan Zee Bridge?

  63. Ambidexter

    Well, I wouldn’t bother worrying about this unless the Regime gives them another $500,000,000+ like Solyndra. Then we know it’s a boondoggle!!

    -Ambi

  64. Dave Snavely

    Develop a small, cheap power plant for Isolated homes on Native American reservations.

    • f

      good idea but why not everywhere else?

  65. Ed Wolcott

    They are combining two undeveloped technolgies. Why not use a thorium heat source with a piston type steam or other vaporized fluid engine, where the technical problems are mostly solved?

  66. Tyrone

    The whole Thorium Laser business is a complete and utter Scientific Fraud. Easily verifiable if Txchnologist bothered to do any actual reporting, rather than simply uncritically print press releases. Try doing an investigation on “Dr.” Charles Stevens too, while you are at it.

  67. Doug

    I read somewhere that Stan Myer mysteriously died after his protype hydrogen vehicle was presented to the public after significant publicity and review. His technology seemed to have vanished soon after as well. Does anyone have an update?

  68. Jubal Harshaw

    A sealed system vehicle power plant, to date, is not on the right side of the laws of thermodynamics: no way to get a reasonable delta T. Both Hughes and Lear discovered that they needed to use the entire vehicle chassis to lose the excess heat. That said, a thorium-laser system would be just the ticket for a small power plant if you could sink the down side of the heat curve. And don’t forget Robert Heinlein’s Rocket Ship Galileo, where the author postulated a thorium-heated jet of vaporized zinc. That the shielding would be less than the more active fissile materials is a boon. Would make ‘nuclear powered rockets’ a viable alternative to chemical bombs. Just have to do something about the exhaust. Perhaps just heating the air, much like a pulse jet or ram jet….

  69. mr awesome

    well I believe this is a very good idea and I am trying to be optimistic about this because if it works then we would have solved a major problem in the U.S. and around the globe. but I will see an end to many or if not all oil production based company s.

  70. paul maddox

    i am an old redneck born in the swamps of georgia. we had kerosene lamps and a mule and wagon. as a child i read jules verne, and wondered in amazement at his thoughts of undersea and space travel.
    my point is that with all your education and expertise, none of you seem to realize that most of what was scientific fact 100 years ago is no longer true.
    we are the smartest, most inventive people on the planet, and we are stupid enough to say its not possible??? someone will make this work.
    this should be the new mission of nasa. if we cant solve our problems here on earth, are we going to export them to other planets?

  71. Mr. Skeptic

    This story has been debunked all over the internet by reliable experts. And if you look at aspects of it, it is fairly obvious. Output 250KW – that is enough to power a small town.

    Thorium based reactors are a reality but they will never be small and they will required the same level of shielding as a traditional reactor. They require priming using highly radioactive isotopes and also a byproduct of the fission reaction is another highly radioactive U233 isotope. This must be removed from the reactor and is a very dangerous isotope. It emits high levels of gamma radiation and can also be used to create nuclear weapons.

    Several countries are currently constructing thorium based commercial reactors.

  72. Aaron Hank

    I wonder how my alternative concept compares to your nuclear car. Continue your work and I wish you good luck.
    My idea,however, is a lot less ambitious,but it is more easily adapted to today’s world.My idea is a new type of TEG,ThermoElectric Generator. It can provide “on board” power for electric vehicles of any size and vehicles using my TEG will be cheaper to make than the gasoline & diesel vehicles that we have today.To recharge my TEG, just put “gas” in the tank,Gas stations are everywhere. Furthermore, with my idea you don’t need to invest a lot of money in electric recharging stations.
    Fuel mileage figures using my TEG,although they are estimated, should be very high, 150 to 250 mpg for cars, 20 to 60 mpg for tractor trailer trucks up to 100000 pounds GVWR. Vehicle performance will equal or exceed current performance levels. Pollution will range from low to zero.
    Oil based fuels are not the only choice for my idea, but they are,at least, in my opinion, currently, the best choice…My invention will not hurt oil companies. It will help them succeed even more…

  73. Richard

    That car is killer! Thorium is also used for rocket fuel too. http://www.vanadiumsite.com/thorium

  74. Nelly

    A beautiful car.

  75. David S. Witt

    How can I be invloved in this up and coming technology. It sound exciting and rewarding.

  76. s

    If the limitation was in miniaturization of the steam generator, this breakthrough would be rushed into larger scale use long before cars were even considered.

  77. David E

    I fail to see what all the fuss is about. The Batmobile had a nuclear fission-powered turbine engine way back in the 1960s (obviously the flaming exhaust was just for effect), and even earlier Ford showed us a prototype, the Nucleon, in which the radioactive fuel was located in a separate pod from the passenger compartment.

  78. Mike

    Using water/steam as the working fluid for nuclear-powered systems is fundamentally unsound from a fail-safe engineering standpoint. Nuclear power, in failure conditions, will readily heat non-circulating working-fluid above 2200 degrees F, and we all know what happens to a water molecule then. *Boom* Let’s commit ourselves to building nuclear power exploitation with fail-safe characteristics.

    There needs to be materials science research to synthesize working fluids that exhibit both good performance as well as good safety characteristics even in catastrophic failure scenarios (e.g. exposed to idiots, earthquakes, military airstrikes, bolides, righteous politicians). Rankine’s best option in 1860 was water, but we can show that we’ve come a long way.

  79. WellHello

    I noticed another article called “Move over electric car, the electric airplane is coming!”. I think it would be revolutionary to make a throium-powered aircraft. In particular for America and our gas guzzling fighters and refueling planes. This would revolutionize air travel, and other uses for the military. I have always been in support for thorium and I’m happy with the coverage it has been getting lately. If everything was powered on thorium it could completely cut our dependence on foreign or domestic oil, and could make America or any country which decided to fully implement Thorium an economic powerhouse. Even in powering everyday homes, this would remove the risk of a catastrophic nuclear meltdown while being able to power a single persons entire life on a marble-sized piece of thorium. (Which as stated above is as common as lead).

  80. Scott Morgan

    Looking at so many of these comments from individuals naysaying things, only engineers and scientists–people who have actually gone to the trouble to understand physics, should be allowed to contribute. Most others only get in the way of solutions. Sunlight has more inherent radiation than this stuff. I remember some journalist writing a story condemning nuclear power after the Three-Mile Island incident: she said she went to the library and studied the subject for a couple weeks, and that she knew enough at that point to be a “subject matter expert.” What arrogance.
    If you don’t know what you’re talking about, keep your opinions to yourself.

  81. jay

    Yup…. Sunlight is a form of radiation… A very dangerous one. It powers all life on this planet.

  82. fireofenergy

    Thorium is not (really) radioactive. However, in order to use it as a replacement for uranium, it must first be bombarded by neutrons. It turns into protactinium, and then to 233u (or something like that. During this process, fission of thorium becomes VERY radioactive, needing very thick lead shielding. Afterwards, a very small percentage of “normal nuclear waste” is spit out. Thus the molten salt thorium reactor (or LFTR) is HIGHLY advantageous over the inherently dangerous water reactors.

    Being that 8 grams would power a car for 300,000 miles, I would have to conclude that it IS nuclear powered! I have no clue as to how thorium simply being a “doping” material for a laser could ever (also) be the power for such a laser… unless from the ADS concept (from which my search on it brought me here!)
    Accelerated Driven System…
    A proton laser, presumable as little as 16mA of current, directed at lead, will cause a neutron stream which is required to fission thorium (or a start up from enriched uranium)
    http://www-pub.iaea.org/mtcd/publications/pdf/te_1450_web.pdf
    But how to avoid all those radioactive steps (as needed in the LFTR concept) stumps me. Is it possible? Only a physicist could know for sure.

  83. Kabel

    Why are people attacking the premise of thorium based nuclear reactors? If people would just do some real research, meaning more than 5 minutes on google, they would discover that thorium based nuclear reactors were being looking at prior to Word War II, but because of the need for weaponized material nations researching nuclear power opted for the use of a more energetic fuel, ie. Uranium. Thorium based reactors are not only much much safer, but are incredibly smaller due to the fact that they require much less shielding compaired to current Uranium or Plutonium based reactors.

    The United States even started building a prototype Thorium based reactor in the 1960′s, but the program was cancelled almost as soon as it was started with most information remaining classified. India, Russia and China are all working on Thorium based reactors as well.

    Here is a video of Kirk Soresen discussing Thorium based reactors:

    http://redux.com/stream/item/2176977/Kirk-Sorensen-Thorium?ref=Y2hhbm5lbC01Ni1zaGFyZXNxdWV1ZS10eXBlcy1pbWFnZSx2aWRlbw

  84. Kevin

    Thorium nuclear reactors are real, but the crap that Charles Stevens talks about is pure fraud.
    1. As others in the comments mentioned – a laser USES power, not generates it. More important – why would you use a laser to vaporize water when heat direct from the thorium reaction could be used to boil it – like normal nuclear reactors.
    2. Using a Tesla Turbine is laughable. Yes, there is such a device, but a practical one has never been built because the efficiency and power is so low compared with CONVENTIONAL turbines (or piston-type steam engines). Other than “sounding technical”, this would be an abysmally bad engineering choice.
    3. Google MaxFeLaser. Pure Gibberish / Technobabble.
    4. A good way for an author to vet the plausibility is to A) see working or semi-working prototypes (there are none…only the ramblings of a crazy fraudster). and B) check into the background / history of the inventor. OMG – a few minutes on google and you KNOW WITH CERTAINTLY this is a fraudster. Before founding Laser Power Systems, Mr Stevens founded Helyxzio, a biotech scam. Steven’s claimed to be “one of the world’s experts on genertic sequencing”…yeah right.

    see: http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/08/thorium-scam-widely-linked-hits.html
    and: http://knol.google.com/k/charles-stevens/thorium-th-based-maxfelaser/3mqmszsyvr2c2/13#
    and: http://www.linkedin.com/in/laserturbinepower

    Shame on you Steven Ashley. Are YOU the real Steven Ashley who writes for Scientific American, or are you another pseudonym for Charles Stevens ?

  85. John

    I wish I understood how the details of this power system worked so that I could go to New Mexico sometime this week and tell Obama about striking a deal with India on a part of their Thorium reserves. I just want a general understanding to begin with. So in the article it talks about a reactor laser that diffuses the thorium or does it talk about the laser being generated by the thorium somehow? I know I confuse terms, but can the thorium just be placed in a small reactor whose heat can be transfered to an aluminum engine, with a car-starting unit that controls the half life decay (i.e. a laser of a material that is more dense than Th)? Is the car-starting unit the reactor itself? How can I make an accelerator unit for this engine that can control the heat needed to increase the rpm and make me go faster? Would the accelerator unit on this vehicle be the same one on a steam engine? Are these dumb questions? Can I make a small reactor? I understood a laser being generated by the Th which does not make any sense to me. I want it to though, so that I can have this vehicle.

  86. space_diver

    I have only one remark.
    The way thorium produces real energy, in the amounts proposed, is by nuclear fission.
    This is done by breeding U-233 which fissions into transuranic’s. Which leads to hard gamma/neutron radiation.
    Unless this is a unmanned car, heavy lead or concrete shielding is needed.
    So i think it is safe to say.
    Don’t invest in it unless you want to lose your money!

  87. Montemalone

    “The idea has energized the small but active thorium community”

    physicist humor?

  88. Steve S

    I’d think there’d be major security concerns with having millions of cars running on thorium. Terrorists could easily extract the thorium from cars and build dirty bombs. Thorium is an alpha emitter, meaning it won’t penetrate the skin but if you breathe it in it will damage mucosa and the lining of your lungs.

  89. Allen

    I dont understand why so many of you guys think this violates conservation of energy…

    The laser can make more ‘heat’ than the energy that is put into it because the thorium undergoes fission.

    Almost all elements can either undergo fission or fusion, the notable exception being iron.

    Anything heaver than iron can generate energy via fission, and anything lighter than iron can generate energy via fusion.
    (Hence iron being a star-killer)

    When the thorium undergoes fission, it loses mass and generates energy due to E=MC^2.

    Now do i beleive that we will actually have the technology to use thorium for fission anytime soon? Maybe so, maybe not… but thats really a question of how much energy do we have to put in inorder to release the energy that is contained within thorium… certainly the fission process would increase the total heat of the system to beyond just the heat that was introduced, but inorder to be practical it would have to be a serious increase in heat, as harnessing heat energy into kinetic energy for a vehicles use will never be 100% efficient either.

  90. David M

    – Concept at the 2009 Chicago Auto Show? Not found.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Auto_Show#2009

    http://www.motortrend.com/auto_shows/coverage/chicago/112_2009_chicago_auto_show_p1/viewall.html

    — Portfolio page for Loren Kulesus, CGI artist, along with his mock Converse shoes and CGI fish face . . . and just-for-fun Caddy model? Check.

    http://www.coroflot.com/lorenipsum/world-thorium-fuel-vehicle/1

  91. David L

    Unfortunately, the ignorance of people will prevent this from ever becoming a reality. Even though a thin layer of aluminum foil will block all radioactivity,it still involves ‘nuclear’ technology. Unless some marketeers come up with a politically correct substitute for the word ‘nuclear’, then the ignorant masses will claim these cars are all little hiroshima-sized bombs just waiting to go off.

What do you think?

Your comment needs to be approved by the site owner before it will appear. Thank you for your patience. If you have any questions, please read GE's Blogging Policy.