钍元素反应堆？中国从钍元素中提取核能……ZT

China enters race to develop nuclear energy from thorium
中国从钍元素中提取核能

来一个有关外界评论中国核元素的，有一些专业术语，但只要认真看，都会明白的 2011-02-16评论

【原文地址】：http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviro ... ina-nuclear-thorium

【译文来源】：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 原创   转载请注明出处  

【译文地址】：http://www.ltaaa.com/?p=1656

Scientists and private firms in China have embarked on a major new push to develop liquid-fluoride thorium reactor technology
中国科学家和企业早已从事固态氟钍反应堆技术的开发。

Thorium pellets. 钍颗粒                  Photograph: Pallava Bagla/Corbis
名词注释：LFTR—–固态氟钍反应堆
Imagine how the nuclear energy debate might differ if the fuel was abundant and distributed across the world; if there was no real possibility of creating weapons-grade material as part of the process; if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years; and if the power stations were small and presented no risk of massive explosions.
假设蕴藏燃料丰富，却分散于世界各地，将会引发一场有关核能争议；假设该元素仅作为研发武器等级的一个重要部分，那么它将无法成为现实；假设这种核废弃物的有毒物质只保存几百年而不是上万年（意思是现在所提取的核能源所造成的污染可能残留的时间是几百年，是相对于过去所用的核燃料残存的时间是上万年而言的）；假设现在的发电站非常小，而目前又不会发生巨大的爆炸。
What you’re imagining could fairly soon be reality judging from a little-noticed development in China last month.
通过上个月在中国出现的这一不引人注意的发展，有谁会想到这个神话故事将会成为现实。
Two years ago, as part of the Manchester Report, a panel of experts assembled by the Guardian selected nuclear power based on thorium rather the uranium as one of the 10 most promising solutions to climate change.
两年前，在曼切斯特的一则报道上提到，一个由英国卫报组织的专家小组从钍元素而不是铀元素作为核能原料，这是10多种解决气候变化的方法之一。
Thorium – which is found in large quantities across much of the world – could be used to create nuclear energy in various ways. But the approach that impressed the Manchester Report panel so much was a currently obscure technology called the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR).
地球上的钍元素蕴藏量巨大，可以通过多种方式将它转换为核能源。但目前这种高深的技术被曼切斯特专家小组称之为固态氟钍反应堆（LFTR）。
I wrote at the time:
当时我是这么写到：
“This technology was developed by the US military in the 1950s and 1960s and was shown to have many benefits. For example, reactors of this type can be smaller than conventional uranium reactors, partly thanks to their low-pressure operation. Despite its early promise, research into liquid-fluoride thorium reactors was abandoned – the most likely reason being that the technology offered no potential for producing nuclear weapons.”
“上个世纪50—60年代美国就已经对该项技术进行开发，并证明了该项技术会给今后带来诸多益处。例如，这种反应堆相对于铀反应堆体积要小的多，而且使用较低的压力就能顺利进行操作。尽管早期曾答应进行固态氟钍反应堆的研究，但最终不得不放弃，究其原因是因为没有与生产核武器向匹配的成套技术可提供”。
There’s a big difference between a demonstrably good idea and a multimillion-dollar research and development programme, however, so it’s exciting to hear about a major new push to actually develop LFTR technology in China. Thorium-energy expert Kirk Sorensen recently blogged about the announcement of the new scheme at the Chinese National Academy of Sciences in late January. Technology journalist Andrew Orlowski followed up with a story claiming that a private company in China is aiming to build a prototype within five years that can produce electricity at for as little as 6.8p per kilowatt hour (much cheaper than the retail price of power in the UK today).
在理想主义与数百万美元的研发过程中出现了巨大的差异，然而，现在却听到令人振奋的消息就是中国在LFTR技术方面取得实质性进展。在一月份的时候，钍能源专家Kirk Sorensen曾在博客中提到，中国科学院已对该项新型技术发表声明。科技杂志记者Andrew Orlowski就此事进行追踪报道，中国的企业希望在5年内把该项目建成，从而在未来能提供至少每千瓦小时6.8匹的电量（要比目前英国供电零售商的价格要便宜很多）。
Despite not making a ripple in the wider press, there’s a chance this development could be very significant. If the advocates of LFTRs are proved correct – and their arguments are certainly very compelling – then the Chinese could be taking one of the first substantial steps in a new type of nuclear race. And the stakes are high: as Sorensen reports, the project “aims not only to develop the technology but to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation”. It will be very interesting to see what happens next.
尽管该项技术目前没有得到广泛推广，但是这项技术的发展前景广阔。假设LFTR技术的理论被证明是正确的，当然这会出现激辩的过程，之后中国在核能竞争领域将采取具有实质性意义的第一步。同时该项技术的费用也相当高昂：根据Sorensen的报告显示，该项工程的真正目的在于“不仅要在技术上进行开发，更重要的是要确保该项目知识产权得以贯彻实行”。非常期待这以技术得以实现。

Comments（评论）

【译文来源】：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 原创   转载请注明出处  

【译文地址】：http://www.ltaaa.com/?p=1656

• Pitthewelder
16 February 2011 8:24AM
Wonderful news, lets all hope that this particular form of energy production is both viable and quick to role out in small scale localised implementations. It would be good to have a wide variety of renewable and low impact solutions available before we completely bugger up the atmosphere and our food and water supplies.
非常棒的消息，这让我们所有人期待这一新的能源能够尽快出现，并能得以广泛应用。这样我们就有了更多可持续的，破坏力更小的替代能源，要比以前那些破坏大气层，污染食物和水源的物质要好得多。
Monkeybiz
16 February 2011 8:56AM
Yes. If it is smaller, it is less likely to be as expensive to build, run and decommission. I object bitterly to current NP systems, but I would be far more willing to accept that if this system can be developed, it stands a good chance of being a suitable intervening technology.
对，如果体积更小的话，那就意味着要花费更多的资金去建设，管理和拆除。我对目前的NP(网络处理器)系统是有点排斥，但如果今后它能改进的话，我还是可以接受的，要发展成为一个可行性的技术还是大有希望的。

•  EnviroCapitalist
16 February 2011 10:07AM
This is sort of good news. LFTR reactors can provide all the world’s electricity for hundreds of years, more economically, and more cleanly, than nuclear fusion. It is the only energy source that can do that and that is viable with today’s technology.
这真是个好消息。LFTR的电力系统能向世界供电上万年的时间，更经济，更清洁，这要比核聚变好的多。钍元素是目前唯一能被采用的资源，对于当今的技术而言是可行的。
It’s a shame this isn’t being developed closer to home. The Germans and Danes have taken the wind turbine market. The Germans and Chinese have taken the solar PV market. It seems we might lead with GigaWatts of Tidal and Wave Power, whilst the Chinese lead with TeraWatts of nuclear Thorium power.
很可惜它不能在离家园很近的地方建设。德国和丹麦人在风能方面占据了主要市场。德国和中国又在太阳能光伏市场上占据优势。好像我们只能应用潮汐能和波动能来发电，同时中国又掌握了利用钍核能来发电。
The feasibility of the thorium breeder is even more remote than that of the U-Pu breeder.
钍反应堆的远程控制要比铀反应堆的更容易操作。
Funny how it’s been demonstrated several times then. Initial designs call for a start up charge of U-233, and yes there isn’t enough to go around. But Pu-239 can also be used (which means U-233 and Pu-239 are NOT waste, but spent fuel).
真有意思，这个都实验了好多次了。起初的时候是使用铀-233，但因为缺乏原料而失败。后来改用 Pu(化学元素)-239（这就以为着U—233和Pu-239不会造成污染，但是缺乏原料）.
•  WingCommander
16 February 2011 10:22AM
Oops. Clicked on the picture thinking it was the food blog – learned something though!
唔…我点开了这个片，我还以为是有关食物的博客呢，不管如何，学到了些东西！
•  boringname
16 February 2011 10:26AM
” to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation”
China observing IP rights… Really?
“确保知识产权得以贯彻执行”
中国开始注重IP（知识产权）了，真的吗？
•  NickJ1
16 February 2011 10:45AM
Whatever the actual uses of Thorium – the statement:
if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years;
- makes no sense whatsoever – I still would not want to eat or be in contact many thousands of years later.
Or is the author conflating radioactivity with toxicity?
不管是否真的使用钍元素，在声明中提到：
如果废弃物的有毒物质会保存几百年而不是上万年；
这都是毫无意义的，对我来说，即便是过上万年后，我也不会去吃那些东西或接触它。
或者作者的意图是要说有毒物质的放射性问题？
•  duhjapan
16 February 2011 10:46AM
Rare earth elements are commonly found with Thorium deposits. Perhaps China is bent on maintaining its near monopoly in that market. Or perhaps it sees an opportunity to do something with the dirty by-products of extracting rare earths – Killing two birds with one isotope, so to speak.
稀有元素跟钍一样，通常都能在沉积物中找到。
可能中国只是想尽量保持在这一市场的垄断地位，又或者中国看到了什么商机，只是想通过提取某些稀有元素来干些坏事，比如说用同位素来杀两只鸟，所以才那样说的。
•  NoneTooClever
16 February 2011 10:59AM
As a non-nuclear scientist, I can only take others’ words as to whether this is viable or not.
Saying that, it seems to me that it is following the same model as other ‘wonder fuels’ i.e. hailed as a solution by a few journalists and scientists and dismissed as pure pie-in-the-sky nonsense by anyone with an interest in energy economics.
Remember the ‘hydrogen economy’?
作为一个无核论的科学家，我只能通过其他的方式来说这项研究是否可行。好像对我来说，这些所谓的“超级燃料”都在遵循同一种模式，例如，被某些记者或者科学家鼓吹和视为一种清洁能源，同时还有一些利用能源经济谋取利益的人在胡编乱造。
是否还记得“氢原子经济”？
•  Geologybob
16 February 2011 11:07AM
Interesting stuff. One does wonder though, if the technology is fairly well known and was tested in the USA in the 60′s and India more recently, why it hasnt taken off?
I’d be surprised if its lack of weapons grade by-products would be the reason, as the US and Russia have both built many reactors for such things as ship propulsion and the like. They surely cant require every reactor they build to produce *****nium. I’d guess there are other reasons.
与利益相关的东西。人们总是希望看到，如果这项技术真像大家所说的那样神的话，那么上个世纪60年代和最近印度进行的核试验来看，为什么说它还没有起步？
我觉得最主要的原因就是在武器等级方面才没有进行生产。像美国和俄罗斯这两个国家早就建造了无数反应堆，诸如什么推进器之类的东西。他们也非常确信并不是每个反应堆都能产出钚元素的。我猜想肯定还有其他意愿。
•  alfredooo
16 February 2011 11:08AM
“if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years.”
Sorry but I don’t get it, there is still a hazard waste issue, whatever way you look at it, in fact it might even be worse, as a consequence of using a fuel that is “abundant and distributed across the world.”
More reactors equals more nuclear waste, so sorry, “say no to nuclear” is the only sentiment i feel on this.
“如果废弃物的有毒物质会保存几百年而不是上万年”。
不好意思，我还是不明白，这还是涉及到有毒物质污染的问题，如论你用什么方式来看待它，事实上它都可能会变得更糟，就像先前所提到的“废弃和散落在世界每个角落”一样，使用后的燃料都会造成不良的后果。
有多少反应堆，就会造成多少的核废弃物，如果说“无核化”，我个人觉得这只是从感情上来理解而已。
•  NotAJackoFan
16 February 2011 11:17AM
Great news, unless that is large multi-national conglomerates can’t make money on it, in which case it will buried somewhere with hydrogen fusion.
非常好的消息，除非世界各国都聚集到一块来挣的话就不可能赚到钱的，就像氢原子巨变那样，早就埋在什么地方了。
•  Hantheman88
16 February 2011 11:25AM
I mainly know about Thorium from World of Warcraft…
      我主要想知道钍元素是从“魔兽世界”（游戏名称）来的吗
•  maximus09
16 February 2011 11:32AM
lets hope that they can accomplish this even if it will be for future generations. But in 200 years time we probably will have to overcome energy, production, food & water crysis for humanity to survive anyway so maybe we wont need it by then, or maybe we will all be dead!
我们只希望他们能尽快实现这一目标，也是为了我们的下一代。但是近200百多年来，人类克服了能源危机，生产危机，食品匮乏和水源枯竭的重重危机，也学到最后我们也不需要它，或者到那时候我们都死了。
•  peccadillo
16 February 2011 11:32AM
I’d take this story more seriously if the author hadn’t cited Andrew Orlowski as a source. He writes a lot of climate change denial nonsense on The Register, which gets echoed on Nigel Lawson’s so-called “educational charity” web site.
如果作者还没引用Andrew Orlowski的原文的话，我也会认真对待这个新闻的。他在文中提到了很多那些因为忽视而造成气候变化的原因，在Nigel Lawson的一个叫“慈善教育”的网站可以看到。
•  peterford
16 February 2011 11:47AM
So when do we go from Thorium to Thulium and Thallium?
This is just one solution to the problem; there may be many overs, though they haven’t been discarvard.
所以我就开始从钍元素到铥元素再到铊元素？
这明显就是从一个问题扩展到另一个问题，可能会造成更多的问题，只是他们目前还没有发现而已。
•  kundabuffer
16 February 2011 12:01PM
More reactors equals more nuclear waste, so sorry, “say no to nuclear” is the only sentiment i feel on this.
So lets just keep on burning those fossil fuels.
Given a choice between 2 evils, go for the lesser one. Nuclear waste is certainly the lesser of these 2 evils, unless you have a plan which involves renewable energy providing the power needs for the planet.
“不好意思，我还是不明白，这还是涉及到有毒物质污染的问题；如果说无核化”，我个人觉得这只是从感情上来理解而已。”
你的意思就是让我们继续使用化石燃料。
有两个坏的选择给你选，你肯定会选那个相对要好一点的。核污染当然是相对较好的那一个，除非你自己能搞出一套可替代的能源方式出来供整个世界的人使用。

•  EGriff
16 February 2011 12:10PM
In comments on articles on renewable energy I often see people advocating Thorium as an alternative to renewable/wind power (as a variant on the ‘we should use nuclear’ theme).
I’d just like to say, even with the news in this article, Thorium power must be decades off – and as for general nuclear, in the UK maximum likely new nuclear in the next decade is 3 pwer stations delivering 9.6 GW.
So we’d better still keep on with wind, tide and solar to replace our aging generating plant & move toward energy security.
从很多评论中可以看出，人们都在提倡使用钍元素来替代风能（‘使用核能’就是我们的主张）。
我只想说，即使在文中提到钍核能在是十年后才能使用，或者作为常规核能使用，英国竟在未来十年内建成三个新的核电站，总供电两将达96亿瓦特。
所以现在我们最好还是使用风能，潮汐能和太阳能替代老式的发电厂和确保能源安全。
•  DavidLePage
16 February 2011 12:21PM
Successful nuclear technology will not help us address growing holes in biodiversity, or overfishing, or desertification, or excess nitrogen-fixing, or threats to freshwater supplies… nor will renewable energy technology, for that matter.
The climate change crisis is not a technological problem … it is a problem of politics, economics and societies. Most fundamentally, it is a crisis of our ability to care for each and for our environment. All discussions of technology should be rooted in that insight.
有一点不得不提的，就是这一技术的成功与否，都不会有助于我们解决日益增长的生物多样化，过度捕捞，修复臭氧层，还会给整个供水系统带来巨大威胁，也不会带来可更新的能源技术。
气候变化不是技术带来的问题，而是政治，经济和社会带来的。其中最重要的就是，会给我们彼此相互帮助和环境带来严重影响。所有的技术性讨论应该基这一点才对。
•  Polymorph
16 February 2011 12:38PM
DavidLePage
so, to condense your thoughts;
forget thorium breeders and just stop breeding, please….
所以，你需要冷静一下。
忘掉钍反应堆，让它停止工作。
•  ConBuster
16 February 2011 12:40PM
Unfortunately we live in a world where viable is not enough, a thing has to have profit potential. It’s not enough that something might enhance all our lives, make things safer and more efficient, it has to be able to make a small elite very rich into the bargain or the powers that be are not interested.
很不幸，我们生活在一个技术可行性不足的世界，每做一件事都要考虑是否可带来潜在的利益。还没有任何事物足以提高我们的生活环境，没有任何东西是绝对安全，有效的，除非能使一小部分精英富有，又或者当权者对眼前利益视而不见。

China enters race to develop nuclear energy from thorium
中国从钍元素中提取核能

来一个有关外界评论中国核元素的，有一些专业术语，但只要认真看，都会明白的 2011-02-16评论

【原文地址】：http://www.guardian.co.uk/enviro ... ina-nuclear-thorium

【译文来源】：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 原创   转载请注明出处  

【译文地址】：http://www.ltaaa.com/?p=1656

Scientists and private firms in China have embarked on a major new push to develop liquid-fluoride thorium reactor technology
中国科学家和企业早已从事固态氟钍反应堆技术的开发。

Thorium pellets. 钍颗粒                  Photograph: Pallava Bagla/Corbis
名词注释：LFTR—–固态氟钍反应堆
Imagine how the nuclear energy debate might differ if the fuel was abundant and distributed across the world; if there was no real possibility of creating weapons-grade material as part of the process; if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years; and if the power stations were small and presented no risk of massive explosions.
假设蕴藏燃料丰富，却分散于世界各地，将会引发一场有关核能争议；假设该元素仅作为研发武器等级的一个重要部分，那么它将无法成为现实；假设这种核废弃物的有毒物质只保存几百年而不是上万年（意思是现在所提取的核能源所造成的污染可能残留的时间是几百年，是相对于过去所用的核燃料残存的时间是上万年而言的）；假设现在的发电站非常小，而目前又不会发生巨大的爆炸。
What you’re imagining could fairly soon be reality judging from a little-noticed development in China last month.
通过上个月在中国出现的这一不引人注意的发展，有谁会想到这个神话故事将会成为现实。
Two years ago, as part of the Manchester Report, a panel of experts assembled by the Guardian selected nuclear power based on thorium rather the uranium as one of the 10 most promising solutions to climate change.
两年前，在曼切斯特的一则报道上提到，一个由英国卫报组织的专家小组从钍元素而不是铀元素作为核能原料，这是10多种解决气候变化的方法之一。
Thorium – which is found in large quantities across much of the world – could be used to create nuclear energy in various ways. But the approach that impressed the Manchester Report panel so much was a currently obscure technology called the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR).
地球上的钍元素蕴藏量巨大，可以通过多种方式将它转换为核能源。但目前这种高深的技术被曼切斯特专家小组称之为固态氟钍反应堆（LFTR）。
I wrote at the time:
当时我是这么写到：
“This technology was developed by the US military in the 1950s and 1960s and was shown to have many benefits. For example, reactors of this type can be smaller than conventional uranium reactors, partly thanks to their low-pressure operation. Despite its early promise, research into liquid-fluoride thorium reactors was abandoned – the most likely reason being that the technology offered no potential for producing nuclear weapons.”
“上个世纪50—60年代美国就已经对该项技术进行开发，并证明了该项技术会给今后带来诸多益处。例如，这种反应堆相对于铀反应堆体积要小的多，而且使用较低的压力就能顺利进行操作。尽管早期曾答应进行固态氟钍反应堆的研究，但最终不得不放弃，究其原因是因为没有与生产核武器向匹配的成套技术可提供”。
There’s a big difference between a demonstrably good idea and a multimillion-dollar research and development programme, however, so it’s exciting to hear about a major new push to actually develop LFTR technology in China. Thorium-energy expert Kirk Sorensen recently blogged about the announcement of the new scheme at the Chinese National Academy of Sciences in late January. Technology journalist Andrew Orlowski followed up with a story claiming that a private company in China is aiming to build a prototype within five years that can produce electricity at for as little as 6.8p per kilowatt hour (much cheaper than the retail price of power in the UK today).
在理想主义与数百万美元的研发过程中出现了巨大的差异，然而，现在却听到令人振奋的消息就是中国在LFTR技术方面取得实质性进展。在一月份的时候，钍能源专家Kirk Sorensen曾在博客中提到，中国科学院已对该项新型技术发表声明。科技杂志记者Andrew Orlowski就此事进行追踪报道，中国的企业希望在5年内把该项目建成，从而在未来能提供至少每千瓦小时6.8匹的电量（要比目前英国供电零售商的价格要便宜很多）。
Despite not making a ripple in the wider press, there’s a chance this development could be very significant. If the advocates of LFTRs are proved correct – and their arguments are certainly very compelling – then the Chinese could be taking one of the first substantial steps in a new type of nuclear race. And the stakes are high: as Sorensen reports, the project “aims not only to develop the technology but to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation”. It will be very interesting to see what happens next.
尽管该项技术目前没有得到广泛推广，但是这项技术的发展前景广阔。假设LFTR技术的理论被证明是正确的，当然这会出现激辩的过程，之后中国在核能竞争领域将采取具有实质性意义的第一步。同时该项技术的费用也相当高昂：根据Sorensen的报告显示，该项工程的真正目的在于“不仅要在技术上进行开发，更重要的是要确保该项目知识产权得以贯彻实行”。非常期待这以技术得以实现。

Comments（评论）

【译文来源】：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.com 原创   转载请注明出处  

【译文地址】：http://www.ltaaa.com/?p=1656

• Pitthewelder
16 February 2011 8:24AM
Wonderful news, lets all hope that this particular form of energy production is both viable and quick to role out in small scale localised implementations. It would be good to have a wide variety of renewable and low impact solutions available before we completely bugger up the atmosphere and our food and water supplies.
非常棒的消息，这让我们所有人期待这一新的能源能够尽快出现，并能得以广泛应用。这样我们就有了更多可持续的，破坏力更小的替代能源，要比以前那些破坏大气层，污染食物和水源的物质要好得多。
Monkeybiz
16 February 2011 8:56AM
Yes. If it is smaller, it is less likely to be as expensive to build, run and decommission. I object bitterly to current NP systems, but I would be far more willing to accept that if this system can be developed, it stands a good chance of being a suitable intervening technology.
对，如果体积更小的话，那就意味着要花费更多的资金去建设，管理和拆除。我对目前的NP(网络处理器)系统是有点排斥，但如果今后它能改进的话，我还是可以接受的，要发展成为一个可行性的技术还是大有希望的。

•  EnviroCapitalist
16 February 2011 10:07AM
This is sort of good news. LFTR reactors can provide all the world’s electricity for hundreds of years, more economically, and more cleanly, than nuclear fusion. It is the only energy source that can do that and that is viable with today’s technology.
这真是个好消息。LFTR的电力系统能向世界供电上万年的时间，更经济，更清洁，这要比核聚变好的多。钍元素是目前唯一能被采用的资源，对于当今的技术而言是可行的。
It’s a shame this isn’t being developed closer to home. The Germans and Danes have taken the wind turbine market. The Germans and Chinese have taken the solar PV market. It seems we might lead with GigaWatts of Tidal and Wave Power, whilst the Chinese lead with TeraWatts of nuclear Thorium power.
很可惜它不能在离家园很近的地方建设。德国和丹麦人在风能方面占据了主要市场。德国和中国又在太阳能光伏市场上占据优势。好像我们只能应用潮汐能和波动能来发电，同时中国又掌握了利用钍核能来发电。
The feasibility of the thorium breeder is even more remote than that of the U-Pu breeder.
钍反应堆的远程控制要比铀反应堆的更容易操作。
Funny how it’s been demonstrated several times then. Initial designs call for a start up charge of U-233, and yes there isn’t enough to go around. But Pu-239 can also be used (which means U-233 and Pu-239 are NOT waste, but spent fuel).
真有意思，这个都实验了好多次了。起初的时候是使用铀-233，但因为缺乏原料而失败。后来改用 Pu(化学元素)-239（这就以为着U—233和Pu-239不会造成污染，但是缺乏原料）.
•  WingCommander
16 February 2011 10:22AM
Oops. Clicked on the picture thinking it was the food blog – learned something though!
唔…我点开了这个片，我还以为是有关食物的博客呢，不管如何，学到了些东西！
•  boringname
16 February 2011 10:26AM
” to secure intellectual property rights to its implementation”
China observing IP rights… Really?
“确保知识产权得以贯彻执行”
中国开始注重IP（知识产权）了，真的吗？
•  NickJ1
16 February 2011 10:45AM
Whatever the actual uses of Thorium – the statement:
if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years;
- makes no sense whatsoever – I still would not want to eat or be in contact many thousands of years later.
Or is the author conflating radioactivity with toxicity?
不管是否真的使用钍元素，在声明中提到：
如果废弃物的有毒物质会保存几百年而不是上万年；
这都是毫无意义的，对我来说，即便是过上万年后，我也不会去吃那些东西或接触它。
或者作者的意图是要说有毒物质的放射性问题？
•  duhjapan
16 February 2011 10:46AM
Rare earth elements are commonly found with Thorium deposits. Perhaps China is bent on maintaining its near monopoly in that market. Or perhaps it sees an opportunity to do something with the dirty by-products of extracting rare earths – Killing two birds with one isotope, so to speak.
稀有元素跟钍一样，通常都能在沉积物中找到。
可能中国只是想尽量保持在这一市场的垄断地位，又或者中国看到了什么商机，只是想通过提取某些稀有元素来干些坏事，比如说用同位素来杀两只鸟，所以才那样说的。
•  NoneTooClever
16 February 2011 10:59AM
As a non-nuclear scientist, I can only take others’ words as to whether this is viable or not.
Saying that, it seems to me that it is following the same model as other ‘wonder fuels’ i.e. hailed as a solution by a few journalists and scientists and dismissed as pure pie-in-the-sky nonsense by anyone with an interest in energy economics.
Remember the ‘hydrogen economy’?
作为一个无核论的科学家，我只能通过其他的方式来说这项研究是否可行。好像对我来说，这些所谓的“超级燃料”都在遵循同一种模式，例如，被某些记者或者科学家鼓吹和视为一种清洁能源，同时还有一些利用能源经济谋取利益的人在胡编乱造。
是否还记得“氢原子经济”？
•  Geologybob
16 February 2011 11:07AM
Interesting stuff. One does wonder though, if the technology is fairly well known and was tested in the USA in the 60′s and India more recently, why it hasnt taken off?
I’d be surprised if its lack of weapons grade by-products would be the reason, as the US and Russia have both built many reactors for such things as ship propulsion and the like. They surely cant require every reactor they build to produce *****nium. I’d guess there are other reasons.
与利益相关的东西。人们总是希望看到，如果这项技术真像大家所说的那样神的话，那么上个世纪60年代和最近印度进行的核试验来看，为什么说它还没有起步？
我觉得最主要的原因就是在武器等级方面才没有进行生产。像美国和俄罗斯这两个国家早就建造了无数反应堆，诸如什么推进器之类的东西。他们也非常确信并不是每个反应堆都能产出钚元素的。我猜想肯定还有其他意愿。
•  alfredooo
16 February 2011 11:08AM
“if the waste remained toxic for hundreds rather than thousands of years.”
Sorry but I don’t get it, there is still a hazard waste issue, whatever way you look at it, in fact it might even be worse, as a consequence of using a fuel that is “abundant and distributed across the world.”
More reactors equals more nuclear waste, so sorry, “say no to nuclear” is the only sentiment i feel on this.
“如果废弃物的有毒物质会保存几百年而不是上万年”。
不好意思，我还是不明白，这还是涉及到有毒物质污染的问题，如论你用什么方式来看待它，事实上它都可能会变得更糟，就像先前所提到的“废弃和散落在世界每个角落”一样，使用后的燃料都会造成不良的后果。
有多少反应堆，就会造成多少的核废弃物，如果说“无核化”，我个人觉得这只是从感情上来理解而已。
•  NotAJackoFan
16 February 2011 11:17AM
Great news, unless that is large multi-national conglomerates can’t make money on it, in which case it will buried somewhere with hydrogen fusion.
非常好的消息，除非世界各国都聚集到一块来挣的话就不可能赚到钱的，就像氢原子巨变那样，早就埋在什么地方了。
•  Hantheman88
16 February 2011 11:25AM
I mainly know about Thorium from World of Warcraft…
      我主要想知道钍元素是从“魔兽世界”（游戏名称）来的吗
•  maximus09
16 February 2011 11:32AM
lets hope that they can accomplish this even if it will be for future generations. But in 200 years time we probably will have to overcome energy, production, food & water crysis for humanity to survive anyway so maybe we wont need it by then, or maybe we will all be dead!
我们只希望他们能尽快实现这一目标，也是为了我们的下一代。但是近200百多年来，人类克服了能源危机，生产危机，食品匮乏和水源枯竭的重重危机，也学到最后我们也不需要它，或者到那时候我们都死了。
•  peccadillo
16 February 2011 11:32AM
I’d take this story more seriously if the author hadn’t cited Andrew Orlowski as a source. He writes a lot of climate change denial nonsense on The Register, which gets echoed on Nigel Lawson’s so-called “educational charity” web site.
如果作者还没引用Andrew Orlowski的原文的话，我也会认真对待这个新闻的。他在文中提到了很多那些因为忽视而造成气候变化的原因，在Nigel Lawson的一个叫“慈善教育”的网站可以看到。
•  peterford
16 February 2011 11:47AM
So when do we go from Thorium to Thulium and Thallium?
This is just one solution to the problem; there may be many overs, though they haven’t been discarvard.
所以我就开始从钍元素到铥元素再到铊元素？
这明显就是从一个问题扩展到另一个问题，可能会造成更多的问题，只是他们目前还没有发现而已。
•  kundabuffer
16 February 2011 12:01PM
More reactors equals more nuclear waste, so sorry, “say no to nuclear” is the only sentiment i feel on this.
So lets just keep on burning those fossil fuels.
Given a choice between 2 evils, go for the lesser one. Nuclear waste is certainly the lesser of these 2 evils, unless you have a plan which involves renewable energy providing the power needs for the planet.
“不好意思，我还是不明白，这还是涉及到有毒物质污染的问题；如果说无核化”，我个人觉得这只是从感情上来理解而已。”
你的意思就是让我们继续使用化石燃料。
有两个坏的选择给你选，你肯定会选那个相对要好一点的。核污染当然是相对较好的那一个，除非你自己能搞出一套可替代的能源方式出来供整个世界的人使用。

•  EGriff
16 February 2011 12:10PM
In comments on articles on renewable energy I often see people advocating Thorium as an alternative to renewable/wind power (as a variant on the ‘we should use nuclear’ theme).
I’d just like to say, even with the news in this article, Thorium power must be decades off – and as for general nuclear, in the UK maximum likely new nuclear in the next decade is 3 pwer stations delivering 9.6 GW.
So we’d better still keep on with wind, tide and solar to replace our aging generating plant & move toward energy security.
从很多评论中可以看出，人们都在提倡使用钍元素来替代风能（‘使用核能’就是我们的主张）。
我只想说，即使在文中提到钍核能在是十年后才能使用，或者作为常规核能使用，英国竟在未来十年内建成三个新的核电站，总供电两将达96亿瓦特。
所以现在我们最好还是使用风能，潮汐能和太阳能替代老式的发电厂和确保能源安全。
•  DavidLePage
16 February 2011 12:21PM
Successful nuclear technology will not help us address growing holes in biodiversity, or overfishing, or desertification, or excess nitrogen-fixing, or threats to freshwater supplies… nor will renewable energy technology, for that matter.
The climate change crisis is not a technological problem … it is a problem of politics, economics and societies. Most fundamentally, it is a crisis of our ability to care for each and for our environment. All discussions of technology should be rooted in that insight.
有一点不得不提的，就是这一技术的成功与否，都不会有助于我们解决日益增长的生物多样化，过度捕捞，修复臭氧层，还会给整个供水系统带来巨大威胁，也不会带来可更新的能源技术。
气候变化不是技术带来的问题，而是政治，经济和社会带来的。其中最重要的就是，会给我们彼此相互帮助和环境带来严重影响。所有的技术性讨论应该基这一点才对。
•  Polymorph
16 February 2011 12:38PM
DavidLePage
so, to condense your thoughts;
forget thorium breeders and just stop breeding, please….
所以，你需要冷静一下。
忘掉钍反应堆，让它停止工作。
•  ConBuster
16 February 2011 12:40PM
Unfortunately we live in a world where viable is not enough, a thing has to have profit potential. It’s not enough that something might enhance all our lives, make things safer and more efficient, it has to be able to make a small elite very rich into the bargain or the powers that be are not interested.
很不幸，我们生活在一个技术可行性不足的世界，每做一件事都要考虑是否可带来潜在的利益。还没有任何事物足以提高我们的生活环境，没有任何东西是绝对安全，有效的，除非能使一小部分精英富有，又或者当权者对眼前利益视而不见。