SuperFuel: Thorium, the Green Energy Source for the Future (MacSci)

I’m a nuclear fusion aficionado but wanted to see what the nonbelievers were banking on. My suspicions were concerned, there is a large contingent of people that believe nuclear fusion to be perpetually 30 years away. While thorium would certainly provide us with clean energy for hundreds of years following the exhaustion of fossil fuels, the human race will need to master nuclear fusion or have it be the end. To criticize the authors arguements, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Nuclear fission with uranium is simpler and was mastered first. It makes more sense that mankind went with the simpler alternative even though we knew thorium might be cleaner on paper. Going with simplicity for our power generating plants coupled with the need for weapons grade fissile material was a compromise with the strengths and drawbacks of thorium. The author of the book doesn’t seem to grasp that as uranium based fission won out the world could establish academic institutions, companies, government labs, an entire infrastructure established around nuclear fission. This mastery of uranium based nuclear fission and the institutions begotten in the effort will pave the way for further investigation into the development of molten salt thorium reactors going into the middle of the 21st century. We know plenty about uranium, these learnings can be applied to a technology that the author factually states is not without problems. There were some issues when the government was investigation thorium in the 50s and 60s. The kicker for me in reading this book was shrugging off nuclear fusion as being nigh impossible. The fact is thorium will just be buying us time to master nuclear fusion because without it our civilization is on the brink of extinction anyways. It is interesting that the author explains the private sector and foreign governments approach to thorium. It’s certainly not encouraging. Overall the book isn’t written that well. I was looking for an overall synthesis on the state of thorium and while I got that, the thorium field has not done enough to be written about in a style that the author embodies in this book. We don’t know enough about thorium and in the end, going with and continuing to operate standard uranium fission reactors is not a bad idea! Glad I read it but a bit frustrating.

The story of thorium as a planetary energy source is almost too incredible to be believed. To think that for almost seventy years we have known about a source of energy that would last longer than the Sun will shine and we haven't exploited it? One has to wonder why. In this book Rick Martin does a marvelous job telling the amazing and true story of the almost forgotten power of element 90: thorium. During the Manhattan Project thorium was passed over for consideration because it wasn't practical for nuclear weapons, but after the war researchers discovered how thorium and its fissile derivative uranium-233 would be the best fuel for clean and safe nuclear reactors--they just didn't know exactly what form those reactors would take. Then in the 1950s and 1960s at Oak Ridge National Lab, Dr. Alvin Weinberg and his team figured out the right way--a revolutionary new kind of reactor that used liquid fluoride salts rather than solid ceramic pellets as a nuclear fuel. No one could believe that such a machine could work, but Weinberg's team actually built and operated two of them very successfully. But the atomic energy establishment in the United States and around the world wanted a plutonium fast breeder reactor--a reactor totally different in every way from Weinberg's safe fluoride-salt reactor--and they convinced Nixon to make it national policy, which he did in 1971. Then they used that position of strength to cancel all of the research at Oak Ridge in thorium and fluoride salts and they got Weinberg fired as director. Without their leader and their political support, the Oak Ridge team dissolved and disbanded and the notion of a safe, clean, efficient thorium reactor was lost. Nuclear engineering students don't learn about it today. It's not taught in their schools. You can get an MS or PhD in nuclear engineering and never hear anything about Weinberg's work. I speak from first-hand experience! Read this book and you'll learn the incredible true story of how energy security and energy independence for the whole world is feasible, possible, and affordable through the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)!

Not quite finished but will be before the semester is over. Unlike other assigned reading, this story is addictive; unlike other nonfiction, I am dreading when I actually DO finish it. Only John Perkins can engage me with nonfiction like this Thorium ain't our grandfather's nuclear, tech that is over 70 years old. LFTR thorium reactions are slowed & manageable. But have no (destructive) military application. Plenty of data & factoids in here for us nerds but in a down-to-earth format that leaves one thinking, "Why *Don't* we use LFTR nuclear?!" Well. I want to explain, but can't rob you of this story. But in case you aren't sold yet, nuclear is obv a four-letter word, so to speak. Thorium's older brothers already ruined it. But that's Ok, more voters are turning 18 everyday & as shown in Nevada, we're reclaiming the future, despite old paradigm Fear! Thorium truly Is an alternative energy method that can save us

Great overview of nuclear energy and specifically the LFTR. Author weaves between technologies, people, businesses and history. The book was written in 2012 and sadly there has been no discernible progress since then. Any nuclear production system will require at least a decade with hundreds of millions in capitol and visionary leadership. Not to mention government approvals and support. In short, someone like an Elon Musk needs to get behind Thorium reactors. Talking about climate change won't move the needle and in fact probably turns off 50% of the world. Talk about why it's 10x better than anything else; clean, compact, affordable, safe, and reliable. I'd like to see a part 2

I really wanted to like this book, however after reading every word, all it does is cover what is on the excellent youtube videos that go for ninety minutes and starring Kirk Sorenson. After two hundred pages I was disappointed that it covered nothing that was not in the youtube videos. Now it is true that I watched the YouTube videos very closely, so I was reasonably well informed, I was hoping that the book would go further into technical matters relating to Thorium reactors, but no. An OK book to give to someone that has not seen the Youtube videos, but if you have seen the Youtube videos, save your money

Nuclear Power. To many these words signify a terrifying, ominous threat to our lives and planet. To others they signify our future. Experts continually say that nuclear energy is going to be the next best thing, that it will power the world. “We’re 20 years away from a technology that will efficiently and safely power our society”, though that claim has been made for the last twenty years. Can nuclear energy actually be the power source of our future? Enter Thorium, the element that will break down all misconceptions of what nuclear power can promise. What is Thorium? Richard Martin seeks to disclose the secrets behind Thorium’s shrouded history in his book “SuperFuel”, getting into it’s prospects for our society, and the reasons why the element has been the ignored child of the energy industry. Since the early 1900's, Thorium has had obvious advantages as a fuel source and a versatile element. According to Martin, Thorium was one of the first elements discovered to display radioactive attributes, and was initially the most studied of all which were radioactive. Simultaneously in history, Thorium was interestingly used in a popular toothpaste. Today, we are aware that Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium; an incredibly efficient fuel source, utilizing almost 90% of its stored energy; remarkably safe, meltdown is physically impossible, waste can’t be utilized in bombs or other weapons, and reactors work under STP, so there’s no need for intricate, complicated pressure systems; is cheaper and more cost-effective than modern reactors; and to top it all off, Thorium reactors can burn up old, dangerous radioactive waste. Martin spends a decent amount of time describing these drastically overwhelming attributes that set Thorium power apart from the rest, and it begs the obvious question; “Why are we not doing this??” Richard Martin does a great job answering this question. He delves deep into the history of Thorium, starting at its discovery of being radioactive by Madam Curie. He then accounts the development of nuclear technology and science throughout the early to mid 1900’s and through World War 2. People such as Hyman Rickover and Alvin Weinberg are discussed, and their impact on nuclear’s development explored. The influence the military had and has on the development for nuclear bombs and the threat of the Cold War is also seen as a factor in the lack of Thorium development. Now, as Martin writes, we are already so set in conventional nuclear power that we can’t just simply walk away for a new toy, even when it might be better, according to Paul Genoa. While examining the opposition, I feel that Martin fails to also recognize the power that the fossil fuel industry has on regulations and the energy market, as well as our political system. However, he does a fantastic job laying out the answer to “why not?”. Obviously, reading this book is going to take a lot of self-research to understand what Martin is talking about. As he says, Nuclear language is chock-full of acronyms, and at some times it can sound like scientific mumbo-jumbo. I encourage whoever has an interest in this book or whoever has read it to do some exploring themselves into what they are reading about, just to get some background for understanding. This book certainly might not seem as the most appealing to read, but I would recommend this to anyone who cares about their lives and our future. Richard Martin actually does a spectacular job keeping the material fresh and interesting, and offers incredible knowledge on the element that might save our planet. Whether it really does or not, that’s up to us.

The rest of the world is going to be using this cheap abundant and safe fuel. With the importance of a green energy source necessary to continued growth of the economy why is the country that developed the liquid thorium reactor giving other countries a head start in applying this technology. These reactors can also be used to create power from the nuclear waste of the uranium reactors which is a huge problem that will last thousands of years if not converted to usable power in a thorium reactor.

An interesting read, primarily focussed on the history of nuclear power development as it pertains to the discarding and suppression of Thorium MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) technology. The book only touches lightly on the physics and technology--if you want a deep dive on that, this isn't it. Martin takes the view that LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is essential for the future well-being of humanity, from economic, peace and climate perspectives. How we get there is an enigmatic riddle. Martin proposes a government program to jump start LFTRs by spending on research and by moving from over-regulation to incentive--only five years for licensing approval! He describes the leading private initiatives to develop LFTRs, most notably Flibe Energy, Kirk Sorenson's bid. He notes that Flibe has languished for a couple of years now, waiting for venture capital. He doesn't get into why that is so, so let me guess... A venture capitalist will take risks, but only calculated risks. What are the risks of investing in nuclear reactor technology? It takes over a decade and half a $ billion to (hopefully) get a license. Your effort will be doggedly attacked by anti-nuclear organizations, using lawfare to wear you out. The "Nuclearati" will oppose your efforts, seen as a threat to their dominance with the worn-out LWR technology. If all that is overcome, you still need U233 to start it up--controlled by the NRC. Would you invest? Sorenson's plan is to get DARPA to support the development, for sale to the military, an end run around the NRC and hopefully public opposition. It sounds to Martin like LFTR will not happen in the USA--it will probably happen in China first--then we will have the opportunity to buy it. "Like other advanced reactor designers, he [Gilleland] does not expect it to be built in the United States. That prospect disturbs him: `I'd love to see the U.S. get off its keister and start innovating again. But there just isn't the drive here that exists in China or India.'" (p203) Martin says our only hope is a public outcry for LFTR. For that, what's needed is a physical demonstration of a modern LFTR in commercial power production, showing its benefits clearly. Since that isn't happening in the USA, I suggest Sorenson needs to make a pact with some other (small) sovereign nation to host the development/demonstration, thus avoiding all the obstructions here. It is maddening to think of what was accomplished by America with Apollo or the Manhattan project, and to think that that will probably never happen again, with government support for the Nuclearati leading to "aggressive" 30-year plans for new solid fuel reactors.

What I don't like, but it doesn't matter: 1) Martin is a believer in man made global warming. He says there are no scientists of repute who deny it. This is utter nonsense and he knows it. I studied under Reid Bryson, the dean of American climatologists and he didn't believe in it. Mr. Martin lives in Boulder, CO so he needs to get out more. European scientists just blew a hole in global warming a mile wide and a million miles deep just in the last few days. Jan Esper, et al. just reported that Europe has been getting cooler for 2,000 years and proved it. No models, just deeply researched facts. 2) He's a lefty. Need proof: Martin writes that a past head of the Atomic Energy Commission was a "free market capitalist". Oh, dear me - not one of those. What I do like and that does matter: 1) Even though I don't believe in global warming I would join forces with Martin in a heart beat if thorium reactors proved to be a) safe in all respects; b) cost effective in all respects. Coal, petroleum and natural gas based fuels are dirty. They also pack a lot of energy in a small space only exceeded by nuclear elements and that is why the world uses them. I don't think people would miss fossil fuels if we came up with a safe, non-poluting alternative for many fossil fuel uses. 2) The important points are: We live on planet with abundant thorium. Thorium is a byproduct of rare earth mining and is virtually free. No rare earths, no windmills inter alia folks. Thorium if used as a nuclear fuel in a reactor has advantages that could make uranium reactors obsolete. We already built a thorium reactor in the US and it worked. Wind, solar etc. will never produce enough base load electricity Through bad decision making and errors thorium reactors were stopped and then forgotten Whether global warming is true or false, why not utilize thorium if it truly is a better fuel. 3) Where do we go from here: We have spent tens of billions of federal dollars on credits and subsidies for ethanol, wind, solar, geothermal, algae and so forth. We have spent virtually nothing on thorium. If you read as much about thorium as I have tried to do over the last few years, you arrive at a conclusion that thorium should be given every chance to succeed. So I recommend buying the book, reading it and then giving it to member of Congress. Tell the member there's no money in it for them, just helping the country and perhaps mankind. There has to be a few people in Washington DC who can see past being re-elected over and over again and lining their pockets while in office. Maybe we just need one advocate. Lastly, I want to thank Mr. Martin for his thorium article in "Wired" magazine. In addition, he probably won't make a whole lot of money on this book, but if thorium is the "Super Fuel" for our planet, and this book helps us get there then we owe a big debt of gratitude to Mr Martin and all others who are working to make thorium power a reality. I just bought an extra copy. After November 6th, I will have a new Congressman in the House. He gets the book. It's then up to him. Update: I just mailed my extra copy today 12/7/2012 to my new Congressman. He's an engineer so he should like the story. It's really up to our representatives in Washington DC and folks like Kirk Sorensen. I truly wish them all well.

Martin's survey on the current state of the non-existant thorium economy is a solid introduction to the subject. This is a well written and, as far as I know, well documented summary. The technical details are above my level of comprehension (we're talking particle physics here), but Martin makes it clear that something significant should be going on with thorium power generation and the sooner we start researching, developing and adopting thorium nuclear power generation, the better off we will be. Left unanswered are the looming questions of current day political realities. What is being done to make our leaders aware of the potential and promise of thorium? Why is so little primary research being conducted in the US where we invented the technology? Why are we abandoning a promising and proven technology to other nations when all of the people of the world will benefit when we stop burning hydrocarbon fuels and generate power from a nearly inexhaustible and inexpensive resource. That political reality is the one thing about thorium that I cannot understand. It probably deserves it's own book. "The Promise of Thorium - Why We Gave It All Away and Continued Ruining the Planet" or some such. And that begs the question of why Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Uranium aren't hedging their bets. Or are they?

I’m a nuclear fusion aficionado but wanted to see what the nonbelievers were banking on. My suspicions were concerned, there is a large contingent of people that believe nuclear fusion to be perpetually 30 years away. While thorium would certainly provide us with clean energy for hundreds of years following the exhaustion of fossil fuels, the human race will need to master nuclear fusion or have it be the end. To criticize the authors arguements, if it ain’t broke don’t fix it. Nuclear fission with uranium is simpler and was mastered first. It makes more sense that mankind went with the simpler alternative even though we knew thorium might be cleaner on paper. Going with simplicity for our power generating plants coupled with the need for weapons grade fissile material was a compromise with the strengths and drawbacks of thorium. The author of the book doesn’t seem to grasp that as uranium based fission won out the world could establish academic institutions, companies, government labs, an entire infrastructure established around nuclear fission. This mastery of uranium based nuclear fission and the institutions begotten in the effort will pave the way for further investigation into the development of molten salt thorium reactors going into the middle of the 21st century. We know plenty about uranium, these learnings can be applied to a technology that the author factually states is not without problems. There were some issues when the government was investigation thorium in the 50s and 60s. The kicker for me in reading this book was shrugging off nuclear fusion as being nigh impossible. The fact is thorium will just be buying us time to master nuclear fusion because without it our civilization is on the brink of extinction anyways. It is interesting that the author explains the private sector and foreign governments approach to thorium. It’s certainly not encouraging. Overall the book isn’t written that well. I was looking for an overall synthesis on the state of thorium and while I got that, the thorium field has not done enough to be written about in a style that the author embodies in this book. We don’t know enough about thorium and in the end, going with and continuing to operate standard uranium fission reactors is not a bad idea! Glad I read it but a bit frustrating.

The story of thorium as a planetary energy source is almost too incredible to be believed. To think that for almost seventy years we have known about a source of energy that would last longer than the Sun will shine and we haven't exploited it? One has to wonder why. In this book Rick Martin does a marvelous job telling the amazing and true story of the almost forgotten power of element 90: thorium. During the Manhattan Project thorium was passed over for consideration because it wasn't practical for nuclear weapons, but after the war researchers discovered how thorium and its fissile derivative uranium-233 would be the best fuel for clean and safe nuclear reactors--they just didn't know exactly what form those reactors would take. Then in the 1950s and 1960s at Oak Ridge National Lab, Dr. Alvin Weinberg and his team figured out the right way--a revolutionary new kind of reactor that used liquid fluoride salts rather than solid ceramic pellets as a nuclear fuel. No one could believe that such a machine could work, but Weinberg's team actually built and operated two of them very successfully. But the atomic energy establishment in the United States and around the world wanted a plutonium fast breeder reactor--a reactor totally different in every way from Weinberg's safe fluoride-salt reactor--and they convinced Nixon to make it national policy, which he did in 1971. Then they used that position of strength to cancel all of the research at Oak Ridge in thorium and fluoride salts and they got Weinberg fired as director. Without their leader and their political support, the Oak Ridge team dissolved and disbanded and the notion of a safe, clean, efficient thorium reactor was lost. Nuclear engineering students don't learn about it today. It's not taught in their schools. You can get an MS or PhD in nuclear engineering and never hear anything about Weinberg's work. I speak from first-hand experience! Read this book and you'll learn the incredible true story of how energy security and energy independence for the whole world is feasible, possible, and affordable through the liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR)!

Not quite finished but will be before the semester is over. Unlike other assigned reading, this story is addictive; unlike other nonfiction, I am dreading when I actually DO finish it. Only John Perkins can engage me with nonfiction like this Thorium ain't our grandfather's nuclear, tech that is over 70 years old. LFTR thorium reactions are slowed & manageable. But have no (destructive) military application. Plenty of data & factoids in here for us nerds but in a down-to-earth format that leaves one thinking, "Why *Don't* we use LFTR nuclear?!" Well. I want to explain, but can't rob you of this story. But in case you aren't sold yet, nuclear is obv a four-letter word, so to speak. Thorium's older brothers already ruined it. But that's Ok, more voters are turning 18 everyday & as shown in Nevada, we're reclaiming the future, despite old paradigm Fear! Thorium truly Is an alternative energy method that can save us

Great overview of nuclear energy and specifically the LFTR. Author weaves between technologies, people, businesses and history. The book was written in 2012 and sadly there has been no discernible progress since then. Any nuclear production system will require at least a decade with hundreds of millions in capitol and visionary leadership. Not to mention government approvals and support. In short, someone like an Elon Musk needs to get behind Thorium reactors. Talking about climate change won't move the needle and in fact probably turns off 50% of the world. Talk about why it's 10x better than anything else; clean, compact, affordable, safe, and reliable. I'd like to see a part 2

I really wanted to like this book, however after reading every word, all it does is cover what is on the excellent youtube videos that go for ninety minutes and starring Kirk Sorenson. After two hundred pages I was disappointed that it covered nothing that was not in the youtube videos. Now it is true that I watched the YouTube videos very closely, so I was reasonably well informed, I was hoping that the book would go further into technical matters relating to Thorium reactors, but no. An OK book to give to someone that has not seen the Youtube videos, but if you have seen the Youtube videos, save your money

Nuclear Power. To many these words signify a terrifying, ominous threat to our lives and planet. To others they signify our future. Experts continually say that nuclear energy is going to be the next best thing, that it will power the world. “We’re 20 years away from a technology that will efficiently and safely power our society”, though that claim has been made for the last twenty years. Can nuclear energy actually be the power source of our future? Enter Thorium, the element that will break down all misconceptions of what nuclear power can promise. What is Thorium? Richard Martin seeks to disclose the secrets behind Thorium’s shrouded history in his book “SuperFuel”, getting into it’s prospects for our society, and the reasons why the element has been the ignored child of the energy industry. Since the early 1900's, Thorium has had obvious advantages as a fuel source and a versatile element. According to Martin, Thorium was one of the first elements discovered to display radioactive attributes, and was initially the most studied of all which were radioactive. Simultaneously in history, Thorium was interestingly used in a popular toothpaste. Today, we are aware that Thorium is much more abundant than Uranium; an incredibly efficient fuel source, utilizing almost 90% of its stored energy; remarkably safe, meltdown is physically impossible, waste can’t be utilized in bombs or other weapons, and reactors work under STP, so there’s no need for intricate, complicated pressure systems; is cheaper and more cost-effective than modern reactors; and to top it all off, Thorium reactors can burn up old, dangerous radioactive waste. Martin spends a decent amount of time describing these drastically overwhelming attributes that set Thorium power apart from the rest, and it begs the obvious question; “Why are we not doing this??” Richard Martin does a great job answering this question. He delves deep into the history of Thorium, starting at its discovery of being radioactive by Madam Curie. He then accounts the development of nuclear technology and science throughout the early to mid 1900’s and through World War 2. People such as Hyman Rickover and Alvin Weinberg are discussed, and their impact on nuclear’s development explored. The influence the military had and has on the development for nuclear bombs and the threat of the Cold War is also seen as a factor in the lack of Thorium development. Now, as Martin writes, we are already so set in conventional nuclear power that we can’t just simply walk away for a new toy, even when it might be better, according to Paul Genoa. While examining the opposition, I feel that Martin fails to also recognize the power that the fossil fuel industry has on regulations and the energy market, as well as our political system. However, he does a fantastic job laying out the answer to “why not?”. Obviously, reading this book is going to take a lot of self-research to understand what Martin is talking about. As he says, Nuclear language is chock-full of acronyms, and at some times it can sound like scientific mumbo-jumbo. I encourage whoever has an interest in this book or whoever has read it to do some exploring themselves into what they are reading about, just to get some background for understanding. This book certainly might not seem as the most appealing to read, but I would recommend this to anyone who cares about their lives and our future. Richard Martin actually does a spectacular job keeping the material fresh and interesting, and offers incredible knowledge on the element that might save our planet. Whether it really does or not, that’s up to us.

The rest of the world is going to be using this cheap abundant and safe fuel. With the importance of a green energy source necessary to continued growth of the economy why is the country that developed the liquid thorium reactor giving other countries a head start in applying this technology. These reactors can also be used to create power from the nuclear waste of the uranium reactors which is a huge problem that will last thousands of years if not converted to usable power in a thorium reactor.

An interesting read, primarily focussed on the history of nuclear power development as it pertains to the discarding and suppression of Thorium MSR (Molten Salt Reactor) technology. The book only touches lightly on the physics and technology--if you want a deep dive on that, this isn't it. Martin takes the view that LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) is essential for the future well-being of humanity, from economic, peace and climate perspectives. How we get there is an enigmatic riddle. Martin proposes a government program to jump start LFTRs by spending on research and by moving from over-regulation to incentive--only five years for licensing approval! He describes the leading private initiatives to develop LFTRs, most notably Flibe Energy, Kirk Sorenson's bid. He notes that Flibe has languished for a couple of years now, waiting for venture capital. He doesn't get into why that is so, so let me guess... A venture capitalist will take risks, but only calculated risks. What are the risks of investing in nuclear reactor technology? It takes over a decade and half a $ billion to (hopefully) get a license. Your effort will be doggedly attacked by anti-nuclear organizations, using lawfare to wear you out. The "Nuclearati" will oppose your efforts, seen as a threat to their dominance with the worn-out LWR technology. If all that is overcome, you still need U233 to start it up--controlled by the NRC. Would you invest? Sorenson's plan is to get DARPA to support the development, for sale to the military, an end run around the NRC and hopefully public opposition. It sounds to Martin like LFTR will not happen in the USA--it will probably happen in China first--then we will have the opportunity to buy it. "Like other advanced reactor designers, he [Gilleland] does not expect it to be built in the United States. That prospect disturbs him: `I'd love to see the U.S. get off its keister and start innovating again. But there just isn't the drive here that exists in China or India.'" (p203) Martin says our only hope is a public outcry for LFTR. For that, what's needed is a physical demonstration of a modern LFTR in commercial power production, showing its benefits clearly. Since that isn't happening in the USA, I suggest Sorenson needs to make a pact with some other (small) sovereign nation to host the development/demonstration, thus avoiding all the obstructions here. It is maddening to think of what was accomplished by America with Apollo or the Manhattan project, and to think that that will probably never happen again, with government support for the Nuclearati leading to "aggressive" 30-year plans for new solid fuel reactors.

What I don't like, but it doesn't matter: 1) Martin is a believer in man made global warming. He says there are no scientists of repute who deny it. This is utter nonsense and he knows it. I studied under Reid Bryson, the dean of American climatologists and he didn't believe in it. Mr. Martin lives in Boulder, CO so he needs to get out more. European scientists just blew a hole in global warming a mile wide and a million miles deep just in the last few days. Jan Esper, et al. just reported that Europe has been getting cooler for 2,000 years and proved it. No models, just deeply researched facts. 2) He's a lefty. Need proof: Martin writes that a past head of the Atomic Energy Commission was a "free market capitalist". Oh, dear me - not one of those. What I do like and that does matter: 1) Even though I don't believe in global warming I would join forces with Martin in a heart beat if thorium reactors proved to be a) safe in all respects; b) cost effective in all respects. Coal, petroleum and natural gas based fuels are dirty. They also pack a lot of energy in a small space only exceeded by nuclear elements and that is why the world uses them. I don't think people would miss fossil fuels if we came up with a safe, non-poluting alternative for many fossil fuel uses. 2) The important points are: We live on planet with abundant thorium. Thorium is a byproduct of rare earth mining and is virtually free. No rare earths, no windmills inter alia folks. Thorium if used as a nuclear fuel in a reactor has advantages that could make uranium reactors obsolete. We already built a thorium reactor in the US and it worked. Wind, solar etc. will never produce enough base load electricity Through bad decision making and errors thorium reactors were stopped and then forgotten Whether global warming is true or false, why not utilize thorium if it truly is a better fuel. 3) Where do we go from here: We have spent tens of billions of federal dollars on credits and subsidies for ethanol, wind, solar, geothermal, algae and so forth. We have spent virtually nothing on thorium. If you read as much about thorium as I have tried to do over the last few years, you arrive at a conclusion that thorium should be given every chance to succeed. So I recommend buying the book, reading it and then giving it to member of Congress. Tell the member there's no money in it for them, just helping the country and perhaps mankind. There has to be a few people in Washington DC who can see past being re-elected over and over again and lining their pockets while in office. Maybe we just need one advocate. Lastly, I want to thank Mr. Martin for his thorium article in "Wired" magazine. In addition, he probably won't make a whole lot of money on this book, but if thorium is the "Super Fuel" for our planet, and this book helps us get there then we owe a big debt of gratitude to Mr Martin and all others who are working to make thorium power a reality. I just bought an extra copy. After November 6th, I will have a new Congressman in the House. He gets the book. It's then up to him. Update: I just mailed my extra copy today 12/7/2012 to my new Congressman. He's an engineer so he should like the story. It's really up to our representatives in Washington DC and folks like Kirk Sorensen. I truly wish them all well.

Martin's survey on the current state of the non-existant thorium economy is a solid introduction to the subject. This is a well written and, as far as I know, well documented summary. The technical details are above my level of comprehension (we're talking particle physics here), but Martin makes it clear that something significant should be going on with thorium power generation and the sooner we start researching, developing and adopting thorium nuclear power generation, the better off we will be. Left unanswered are the looming questions of current day political realities. What is being done to make our leaders aware of the potential and promise of thorium? Why is so little primary research being conducted in the US where we invented the technology? Why are we abandoning a promising and proven technology to other nations when all of the people of the world will benefit when we stop burning hydrocarbon fuels and generate power from a nearly inexhaustible and inexpensive resource. That political reality is the one thing about thorium that I cannot understand. It probably deserves it's own book. "The Promise of Thorium - Why We Gave It All Away and Continued Ruining the Planet" or some such. And that begs the question of why Big Oil, Big Coal and Big Uranium aren't hedging their bets. Or are they?

The author, Richard Martin, writes for Wired magazine. He began writing about Thorium in 2009. The book appears to have been published in late spring of 2012. The central theme to the book could be stated as an anti-thesis of the better mousetrap bromide. He attempts to answer the frequent question-- If it so good, why aren't we doing it already? The answer is that the better mousetrap doesn't always get the crowd beating their way to your doorstep after all. Super Fuel is all about energy, our choices, and how they get made. Thorium has a better "burnup" than Uranium, which means it's a more efficient fuel. So, how did this not get recognized? But it did, and the explanation for why this energy wasn't adopted is not so easy to explain. It's not about ideology- but politics plays a big role. He goes after the left and the right in this book. For example, he says renewables just aren't good enough. That may make the left mad. Then he slams the military industrial complex, which could make the right mad. But there's plenty of blame to go around on both sides of the political divide. Just what exactly is Thorium anyway? It is only one of many radioactive elements just like Uranium. It just so happens that some of the finest minds of the world who combined for Manhattan Project seemed to like its potential as an energy source. But, it can't be used for a bomb. With the addition of a neutron, it can be transmuted into an artificial isotope of Uranium. For that reason, it is said to be fertile- it can be bred. In this way, it works really well as a "breeder", but not the same kind of "fast-breeder" that has failed in those other designs. It's a different kind of breeder- a thermal breeder. It works best with a molten-salt liquid-core, instead of the conventional water-cooled, solid-fueled core most often seen today. How the best minds of the world couldn't convince the government to take this route is a troubling phenomenon. It seems to come down to the nuclear arms race between the two superpowers of the time. The military needed a quick and dirty way to make submarines that could stay out at sea for very long periods. Hence, the nuclear powered submarine was born and the kind of reactor that filled the need was the water-cooled, solid-fueled type reactor. In short, this kind of reactor "got there firstest with the mostest." The rivalry between science and the military were personified in two people-- Alvin Weinberg, the innovative scientist, and Admiral Rickover, the father of the atomic sub. The author tells much of the story through these two men. Weinberg loses out because he is seen as a malcontent, who associated with the likes of Ralph Nader. On the other hand, Rickover gave the government, and the military, what it wanted. The rest, as they say, is history. But now we have the situation as it stands today. The nuclear sub paved the way for conventional water-cooled, solid-fueled reactors. The molten-salt reactor concept was almost lost forever, as it was forgotten about. The eminent generation of nuclear scientists who worked on the Manhattan Project eventually passed away. There was nobody left to continue their work, but notes and books of what they did some forty years before was still available. Now there's Kirk Sorensen and others who have stepped up to the plate and are trying to redress what has gone wrong. The story is brought up to date to the present time with the present cast of innovator and dreamers. How to go forward? Martin lays out a way. It is not impossible, but history has shown that the better mousetrap is not always the one that is the most popular at the moment. The warning given by the Thorium advocates is that the we must do it, or allow leadership in energy to pass on to others who will develop Thorium energy instead. The dreamers still believe in America. America was once a place where great things could happen. It remains to be seen if it is still that kind of country.

This is a great book on the history of nuclear power, thorium, and the key characters who played a role in where we are today. It gives a good introduction to the benefits of LFTRs while leaving you with a hunger to learn more. My only complaints are that the author tended to show a little disfavor towards the private sector and was in the belief that the government needed to step in to solve this issue, and that his beliefs in global warming are little "pushy". These complaints are not enough to warrant this book four stars tho, and I would recommend this book to anyone interested in the possible solution to are energy needs.

The technology benefits and long term promise of thorium nuclear power generation are so obvious and so achievable it's hard to imagine that we haven't already begun a forceful and we'll focused move in that direction. Unfortunately, nuclear has become "the other N word" and the people in position to make it happen won't touch it, at least not in the currently techno-phobic political environment in which we now live. Sadly our current national leadership came to power after this book was written. It's an outstandingly well written book that should be required reading for everyone who cares about and can influence the future of long term energy production in this country and this world. I'm sure I'll never see those results but my granddaughters must.

Thank goodness for this book. Very informative. A wonderful read. I can't imagine how an other single concept could spark so much hope for humanity and the planet. I must add that the father of today's light water nuclear reactors endorses THORIUM! Vastly superior, infinitely safer, thousands of times more efficient. I'm betting my life. I vest it in THORIUM. Not "just" an idle concept but an actual WORKING nuclear reactor mothballed by the Nixon administration. Let us resurrect Thor to save the world. If not for us but for our children and our grand children's future. I'm happy for them. Are you?

Good writing, good argument, good history. Worth reading for anyone interested in nuclear power. I also found it a bit hard to accept that this great opportunity was lost, and that the reputation of nuclear energy was so harmed by adopting military reactor technology for civilian power. If we had started with Thorium on day one, we would have no energy problems now. Don't worry, other nations are adopting it, and, in the future, we will be able to buy it from them. So, it's actually a bit depressing. But, there is always hope.

Global warming is much more dire than billed. If you ever get a scientist cornered who knows about the subject, ask him/her this question. "How will this movie end? Assuming we do nothing about CO2 emissions." He or she may not want to answer. The real answer is too negative, and God knows we all want to come across as an "optomist" these days. This book gives you the answer to how we might curb global warming. I say "Might" because we are very late in the game. The book tells you about someone, Dr. Alvin Weinberg, who was early in the game, but not listened to. The book is a great history and discussion of the best nuclear reactor technology out there - Thorium molten salt reactors. Weinberg built one. It was deemed highly successful by Washington, then they shut it down. Find out why - Read Super Fuel.

I wanted to understand 1) why we have this new technology and 2) why isn't anyone funding it; the author covered both of these topics very well and with great brevity.

An attempt to open the door to 'the other nuclear fuel' --- uranium isn't the only option, and Martin convincingly demonstrates that it isn't the best one. Thorium, element 90 on the periodic table, is superior in every way to uranium for the purpose of making electricity (but not for making bombs). The really impressive part of this book, though, is the history of how we have come to ignore thorium, which the news media still ignore to our detriment. You can't make war with thorium!! --- but with thorium you can make a whole lot of clean, safe, cheap, no-carbon energy. Enough with windmills and solar panels and coal and oil and every other source of electric power! Once people find out about thorium, and what it can do, even fusion power (yet unproven) will be left in the laboratory where it belongs. Read this book and weep, when you learn what we in America once had the monopoly on, but forfeited. And understand why we misjudged it, that's the important part.

Reading this book makes you really wonder why our politicians cannot unstuff their head from their fourth point of contact to actually do something to move the country forward for the future. Richard Martin makes the compelling case for running thorium in nuclear reactors to generate our electricity. Thorium is cleaner, greener, safer, and cheaper, yet all the politicians want to do is give us "freebies" that aren't, using other people's money, only to buy your vote for the next election cycle.

Please read this book. You may not agree with everything Martin writes (I don't). You may even want to scream at him (I did a couple of times). But this book is a very good opener for a discussion on an important subject that few are familar with. Equally important, if the proponents of the liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs) are essentially right this technology offers an important contribution (not a panacea) to solving the energy crisis and aleviating global warming. This is not exactly a balanced book. Richard Martin is advocating for the thorium-based technology and makes no bones about it. At the same time, he does not ignore the problems of this technology (although to my taste he minimizes some of them, about which more below), and he makes a reasonable effort to be fair to competing views. The historical chapters are illuminating. If you have wondered how we ended up burning increasing amounts of fossil fuel sixty-odd years after we were hyperbolically promised "electricity too cheap to meter", Martin will show you. The technical chapters are good considering that this is a book for the general public and more detail is available in the blogosphere. The last chapters, which discuss present business activity and future prospects, are up-to-date and present a convincing case for allocating resources to the (re)development of this technology. Success is by no means guaranteed, but at this point I would rather see a couple of billions going into LFTRs than into fusion or (heavens) into "clean" coal. Now here are things I'm not so crazy about (but you should read the book anyway!). First off, I think Martin does not fully acknowledge the fact that thorium technology, while much "greener" than the uranium/plutonium technology, still generates a lot of fission nuclear waste. It is true that most of these radioactive isotopes are relatively short-lived and will be essentially gone in a few centuries. However, there is still the danger, in an untested design, of an uncontrolled release into the environment. Especially in a high-temperature reactor, some volatile species (xenon, iodine, volatile fluorides of tin and antimony etc.) may be released accidentally if there is a gaseous leak (the author does mention repeatedly how the gaseous Xe-135 isotope will be separated and removed). This brings me to another de-emphasized issue: potential corrosion of metals in contact with hot liquid salts, if any oxygen finds its way in. There may be good technical solutions to this but I didn't see them mentioned in this book and I sure hope the issue is not being pushed under the rug. For these and related reasons I would call LFTR "greenish" at best, not "green" as the cover would have it. I think Martin appreciates - but I hope the various fire-breathing investors he interviewed do too - that after Fukushima there is little chance for this technology to take off without the buy-in of the environmental community and the wider public. That's why all relevant issues have to be addressed squarely and without PR legerdemain, and in any development plan the safety of the public and the workers has to be - and to be shown to be - truly "Job 1". This is why I object to two ideas that Martin seems to find appealing: (1) small stand-alone reactors, and (2) giving one man (following the model of General Groves in the Manhattan project) absolute authority over the project. The first idea will make inspection more difficult and will increase the chances that skilled personell for performing emergency operations will not be available at all times. (Banks of many modular reactors sharing a site should be OK however.) The second idea was workable in time of war, but is inconsistent with democracy and will cause deep suspicions toward the project. People who care should also watch against the established nuclear industry trying to "greenwash" themselves by sprinkling a little thorium into their conventional fuel rods. There is much more to say about this book. It is well and persuasively written but not so well edited, and it's not hard to find factual mistakes: potassium has 3 natural isotopes, not one (p.36); most but not all materials expand when heated (p.73); the boiling point of the fluoride salts used by Weinberg must have been way above 680 degrees F (p.129); and the 1960s were obviously Weinberg's, not Weinberger's heyday (p.132). A nuclear engineer would probably have his/her own list. So, this is not the "perfect" thorium book. But read it anyway. It is well worth a few TV-less evenings.

A journey into the world of Thorium with a conclusion containing a solution to our climate- energy crisis.

Lots of information on the energy source that we should have been using for the last 50 years. The reasons for not using this inexpensive, non polluting energy source is the power and money of the oil companies and the oil producers and the politicians that they pay off. Oil is obsolete and no longer needed. Martin lays the blame on republican party when all the Arab money has been going to the democrats. Other than that, fabulous! Highly recommend.

Richard Martin tells what it is with all the nuclear reactors and how they would be safer with Thorium. All we can do is hope the powers to be will wake up to the safety of Thorium. As yet there has been no automotive applications of it so that is a future project.

This is a good book written from a journalists perspective on the history of the re-discovery of a long-forgotten about safe, cleaner & emissions free nuclear power source. Highly recommended to anyone interested in understanding one of the tools for solving our global emissions issues & moving towards a green energy future.

This book inspired me to be an avid promoter of next generation thorium nuclear reactors. I feel I have hope for an energy technology that can provide abundant, low cost electricity without polluting the atmosphere, contributing to global warming, or taking up vast amounts of land (as solar and wind farms do). Though I enjoyed Richard Martin's book, I wish he would write a short brochure, similar to his piece in Wired Magazine about thorium nuclear reactors, that I could distribute to people who do not want to invest the time to read an entire book.

I've looked at every available video clip on Youtube - this was my first foray into the reading part of the Thorium story. I will now go deeper into the subject but this was a good summary of what I've learnt so far and the final chapter pointed me in the directions that I should look. Personally I feel sad that we were cheated out of a better future when the fast plutonium breeder was chosen over the Thorium LFTR. I remember the events quite well but only now do I understand how little I understood at the time. We never had the internet. If only ....... it may have been so different. Sad.

Thorium is definitely the GREEN nuclear future. And it will take care of the piled up stock of spent nuclear waste...amazing! :-) A must read for the future world of green energy! A must read for serious politicians world wide. I hope the book will be translated to many languages, including mine Swedish. /Bengt

Thorium will revolutionize the world. The USA is falling behind in the sciences. Trump is cutting money for pure sciences and research. Dangerous in this world. Should be a top priority for us. Lots of Chinese scientists are going home. Uncoersed. Better prospects.

In a way my mind rebels against giving this book by Richard Martin a four star rating. This book has some solid strengths. It is pretty well written and understandable for the general reader. And the book does provide a good introduction to Thorium nuclear power. Neutrons from nuclear reactions can turn Thorium into the Uranium 233 isotope which can easily be used in chain nuclear reactions to produce heat for electricity generation and the desalinization of water. Mr. Martin discusses the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor and how this device can produce a steady supply of energy safely. He provides a description of this reactor and how it works. He also is very good in his presentation of the history of nuclear energy including the backgrounds and personalities of such lead developers as Hyman Rickover and Alvin Weinberg. Mr. Martin demonstrates that the uranium reactors, or reactors not using thorium, were given priority in development mainly because they could be easily used to propel nuclear submarines. Thorium is an element that is much more prevalent on the earth's surface than uranium. I most definitely agree thorium nuclear power should be developed. And good books on thorium power should be written. However there are some deficiencies. Mr. Martin uncritically assumes the truth of the global warming hoax. I will not go into the details of this fallacy here except to recommend Ian Wishart's book

Wow... who would have ever thought that Thorium was do-able? Nobody seems to know that we already had a Thorium reactor running a long time ago. This is a great history of hidden science. If we want to break the link between nuclear weapons and nuclear power then Thorium would go a long way to making weapons less likely. :-)

I was introduced to Thorium via a video called the Thorium Remix 2011 and was hooked from then on, while the talks and information in that video were excellent SuperFuel provides some execellent background on Nuclear power and the history that led us to use the far inferior uranium as a power source. The book also provides a worthwhile examination of why "green" power sources like solar and wind will never provide mankind with all its power needs and overall makes a strong case for LFTR reactors as the only source of energy that will sustain us all in the centuries to come. If you want to learn about nuclear and clean safe energy for the future this book is an excellent place to start.

Interesting story about the politics that denied the thorium powered reactor an even chance to compete against uranium reactors. Would have liked more technical detail, particularly about the claims that fission products are less noxious that those of conventional reactors.

Abundant safe energy - the world needs more knowledge and some is contained in this great book. With electricity we had the AC versus DC battles Today we have the uranium versus thorium battles Aqueous Homogeneous nuclear fission - world wakeup

This book captures the issues and arguments pro and con regarding nuclear energy. He makes a definitive, comprehensive case for use of Thorium in a molten salt reactor. He establishes how utilization of Thorium in a molten salt reactor is safe, less expensive, and not easily used for a nuclear weapon. One would hope our political leaders will read it and get the message.

This book gave me the scientific and policy primer I wanted on thorium, I now feel competent to talk about it with others. And I will, because the book also makes a compelling case why it is the best hope for getting past fossil fuels.

Fantastic book! Delivers a complete and easy to understand overview of a truly revolutionary power source that could save our declining society! I have always been a 100% believer in Nuclear power, the simple math leaves no other rational position if we humans want to continue to exist and live high tech lives, but this book details a 21st century improvement on Nuclear power that can give us a bright future without the downsides of 20th century PWR reactors. Great book! I'm tempted to buy a copy for all 100 senators and mail it to them but I know it wouldn't make it to their desks sadly.

Great book. Pretty depressing at several points. I was really excited to read about thorium but dang...what a depressing past and future this amazing energy source has.

This was the first book that brought me into the world of Molten Salt Reactors, and the possibility of using Thorium as a fuel instead of the usual U-235. Alvin Weinberg definitely should have been given more credit for his work and research

Eye opening and sobering,.this.book.explains how unused technology from the Manhattan Project has the potential to transform our energy production landscape , yet history, politics and the status quo prevent it from.happening. very well researched.and compelling. All the public should read it and write to.their politicians

Very informative of a not so known development in nuclear reactor technology. Got a little carried away with fantastic futures with reactors all over the place and in populated areas an such witch is not likely to happen. Beside from that it gives a very compelling argument

Good intro into the subject. I just wish a few decision-makers around the world had the insight to understand this fuel cycle.

The book is 2012 but still actual. It is outstanding. It is a must read book for everyone concerned with climate change. If you are green you are for thorium. Tells the whole history in detais.

Superfuel is the story of an element, an energy source, and a man that have been overshadowed in history by all the usual suspects: bureacracy, inattention, expediency and ego. A more thorough and careful assessment of available technologies in the 50s and 60s would have made our energy situation far different today. Martin tells this story deftly, with just the right amount of scientific explanation for an interested lay reader or a knowledgeable energy connoisseur. He maintains a highly readable dialogue with the reader as the explores the fascinating history and possibilities of thorium.

Nice summary of the Thorium option. A bit too optimistic, and omits, or washes over, some of the problems associated with the technology, but a great learning tool.

Excellent motivator for a person wanting to think about thorium as a source of nuclear power.

Very interesting historical perspective and compelling case for thorium reactors as THE energy solution. However, lack of government initiative combined with fear by the public of anything nuclear, probably means China and India will beat the Western nations to the goal

Good summary of the history and issues surrounding Thorium power. The god Thor in his elemental form could be the saviour of civilization!

Great book that explains the advantages of thorium as a nuclear fuel.

This book should be read by all, especially high school science classes (physics and chemistry); we need to get the word out!...safe, green, healthy electrical energy is possible. We don't need to wait for fusion!

Very interesting topic ...Hardly new a lick about Thorium. Good read.

Excellent research and story. More people should read this information!

The Thoirum Molten Salt Reactor was invented, tested, and proven over a quarter century at Oak Ridge before it lost funding during the Nixon Administration. Richard Martin traces that history and makes a compelling argument for the resumption of research on the technology. It is a technology that solves every problem and answers every question you can ask about clean, safe, abundant and affordable energy. No other technology now in existence, or likely to come into existence in the foreseeable future, or, perhaps, ever, fits that description. Read this important book and learn what the future of energy can and should look like. Robert Orr Jr

Excellent informative book. Good factual information

Well worth the time it took to read

Very easy to read. Also a great starter book for someone just getting interested in energy futures.

Richard Martin makes a compelling and plausible solution to our long term energy needs as a civilization. The core technologies have been proven, and while material science challenges remain, they are achievable. This is a must read book for anyone who is interested in Clean or Green Tech.

Great book on the missed opportunity of liquid fueled Thorium reactors. It is a shame that more is not being done to fully research this type of reactor.

A good historical treatment of thorium in the atomic age and why we are essentially ignoring it today. Not so much a technical discussion of thorium though.

A worthy read for any who care about energy and our future with it. Slanted to thorium of course but with that in mind the author presents a balanced approach to the topic of nuclear power and its fuels.

My takeaway from Superfuel is that the nuclear industry seems to be ready to retire. It makes sense when you think about the amount of time we've had nuclear power plants. The first generation of workers is long gone to Florida, and now the second generation, who started working in the industry in the mid 1970s, are all counting the days until they can start collecting a pension. Add to that a regulatory system that (maybe justifiably) won't allow for any innovation and you get a good picture of nuclear power in the United States. Having grown up somewhat close to Three Mile Island I've always been fascinated with nuclear power. Over the years I've learned that it is an industry that has stagnated to the point of not even being able to recycle fuel to get more than a few percent of the total stored energy, not due to lack of ability, but because of Presidential decree. Scientists and engineers are bridled by politicians, not by their ability. However I believe the industry welcomes this strong regulation, not because they enjoy paperwork, but because they wish to keep the bar of entry extremely high. They have a nice little business and hope to keep it for as long as they possibly can, despite the problems that come with aging plants. A "little bit" of spilled tritium in a river is much easier to blow off in the press than trying to explain why your shiny new reactor isn't producing as much power as anticipated to the shareholders. This book is written in the Wired Magazine style: facts are there, but twisted a bit for the storyline. Not exactly yellow journalism, but clearly slanted editorial content. Of course, the title basically tells you that you shouldn't expect a fair balanced report either. Sill, to get a good idea of why we are where we are in the nuclear age, you could do worse than reading Superfuel.

Both interesting and excellent. A must-read for anybody interested in energy.

This book is a required reading for anyone interested in see a better future for humankind. Nuclear energy can and will take a different road and thorium will be leading the way. Mr. Martin does a wonderful job telling us about the rich potential of thorium and the story behind this outstanding nuclear technology.

Bought this book as a gift from a relative's Christmas wish list. He is very pleased with the book.

Very good book, extremely well written, and provides a good, fact-based insight into the history and future of Thorium-based energy. Recommended!

It's sad to think that as a country the USA could be simply ignoring one of their greatest achievements while China and Asia take the technology they developed and power their economic ascendency with it. Well written and worth the read.

Not everything that the author says is true or scientifically accepted, but this book is very well written and is a good tool to get people involved in the thorium solution as a viable fuel for nuclear reactors. On my view, the best part is the one that tries to give an explanation on why was uranium instead of thorium chosen to be the primary fuel in the industry.

Very compelling narration on Thorium and LFTR and why these are the options that must be pushed to the front of public consciousness for our energy future. Clearly covers the who, what, why, when, where of the reasons we have not yet seen this technology surge forward to solve the energy and environmental needs of humanity.

Here is what we should do but I don't think that our leaders will resist the temptations of the fossil fuel industry handouts and fear the continual lies about nuclear power that come from the environmentalists.

Along with "Beyond Oil" by Kenneth Deffeyes, Martin's book on Thorium is the most important book that I have read this decade. The topic is well researched and the book is well written. If we want to ease the impending oil shock, energy policy makers need to read this book now. QED (a high school physics teacher)

It makes a very clear point. Politics and vested interests stand in the way of thorium. And thorium is here already. The nations that act first will become the saudi arabia of the thorium age.

I've never been at the time more disappointed in our country and yet so hopeful for our future. Thorium is the a bomb of the new century

Thorium should be the infinite clean source of energy for the future. Sadly, I fear the US will not be on the leading edge of this. India has recognized the value of Thorium but has not embraced LFTR technology. I would recommend this book to any technically minded layperson.

I am a newcomer to the currently fashionable enthusiasm about power from Thorium rather than Uranium. So I bought Martin's "Super-Fuel" for enlightenment. I found it was written like a term-paper "compare and contrast" account of the personalities and values of Weinberg (who invented both the Thorium liquid Fluoride reactor and the Uranium light water reactor), and Admiral Rickover, who insisted on a Uranium fuel cycle. Weinberg by way of contrast wanted to develop both. O.K., so there were differences of opinion between the two men. The conflict might even be listed as a main cause of our current commitment to Uranium fueled light water reactors. But the issue is what we should do today, and why the Thorium reactor is so superior. (Besides being more abundant, Thorium does not produce (much) Plutonium in the waste stream.) But I was left with an unfulfilled hunger for the technical details about the comparative merits of these two families of reactors. I did not get what I was hoping for from this book.

I really enjoyed reading this book. Great facts and history was presented well. I recommend everyone read this book. This is a very important and current topic.

This a great read based just in the entertainment value of the history of nuclear science. The book's moral, economic and humanitarian imperative for clean power is a valuable bonus. I recommend it for anyone with kids that hold out a hope for there safe and sane future.

Clearly the future of global energy - everyone should read this book!!

hopefully thorium is the solution to the climate chances. If it get a chance and the needed funding.

I expected a little bit more technology oriented. I could understand some kind of history which I did not know. regards

I read it twice, to get the information out of it. Just wish we knew how much a liquid Thorium reactor would cost.

For those interested in the scientific and technological considerations of various nuclear reactor designs and nuclear fuels, the relevant Wikipedia articles are much more informative than this book. SUPER FUEL is nothing more than an overlong, overwrought expose (from the point of view of a left-of-center, global warming hysteric) of the alleged history of bureaucratic infighting the development of nuclear power with the usual mix of exaggerated heroes and villains: Alvin Weinberg, good; Hyman Rickover spawn of Satan; Thorium good, Uranium bad; liquid core reactors good, solid core reactors bad; molten salt cooled reactors good, light water reactors bad, with little explanation of supposedly why the bad is bad and the good is good. Richard Martin attempts to make a case for the future of the US economy as well as "civilization as we know it" being dependent on urgently perfecting, building and exporting the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor, a variant of the Thorium fueled Molten Salt Reactor tested at Oak Ridge National Laboratory under Alvin Weinberg in the 1960s and supposedly proven to be both economically viable and practical in nuclear engineering terms. Martin claims that the Thorium MSR has always been obviously superior in a dozen ways to the uranium fueled, solid core, light water reactors that comprise the overwhelming majority of existing nuclear power plants, but that because Admiral Hyman Rickover decided that light water reactors were best suited for propulsion plants for submarines and aircraft carriers and because the light water reactor is a good source of plutonium for nuclear bomb fuel, Rickover and the Pentagon used their influence to suppress alternative reactor designs for commercial electric power generation, especially those that relied on the Thorium fuel cycle, at least in the US. The book would have been much more informative and useful if Martin had approached the competing nuclear reactor designs and fuel cycles dispassionately and provided details of the pluses and minuses of each technology rather than insisting from the get go that Thorium fueled reactors as the unquestioned panacea to global warming, nuclear weapons proliferation and fuel scarcity. Even if you buy his assertion that the military-industrial complex ignored a very promising reactor design and fuel in the US in the 1950s and 1960s, he fails to explain why such compelling technology was not tried out in foreign countries like the France or Germany. Martin admits to no difficulties with Thorium reactor designs, no trade offs versus the predominant uranium light water designs - something I find not at all credible.

I looked forward to SuperFuel as an accessible exploration of molten salt breeder reactor technology and history, a comparison-and-contrast between the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) and conventional reactors, a survey of current and past attempts at using thorium in power plants, a summary of the thorium/uranium fuel cycle, and an assessment of the barriers to adoption of LFTR and recommendations for action and change. Unfortunately, the book itself mirrors the history of its subject: SuperFuel has a very promising start, abruptly transitions to an extended disappointing and unproductive era until rediscovering its value at the end. Does it succeed or fail? The answer is complex. SuperFuel is essentially an extended work of advocacy journalism, and suffers from many of the problems common to that genre - oversimplification, excessive hyperbole, demonization of the status quo and one's perceived opponents, and selective inclusion and omission of evidence to suit the author's preordained conclusion. These are all forgivable sins to some degree but in SuperFuel Martin has taken what could have been a compelling tale of an exciting technology rediscovered and an inspiring manifesto for energy independence into an intensely negative, repetitive, and error-filled rant against uranium, conventional reactors, and anyone associated with them. The book is fraught with numerous technical and historical errors which calls into question how much of the technology and history Martin actually understands, thereby rendering much of what he presents as fact suspect. Entirely too much of the book is dedicated to a putative feud between Adm. Rickover and Alvin Weinberg. It would have been helpful to see matters from Rickover's perspective as the architect of the nuclear navy rather than as the cardboard villain Martin presents. Ham-fisted and inaccurate characterization is not only directed at personalities such as Rickover. Martin saves more than enough ire for the current generation of nuclear technologists, managers, and regulators and dishes it out liberally. Some criticism is warranted but again, there's little room in the narrative for nuance, historical perspective, or complexity. More thoughtful consideration could illuminate; we get more dim cardboard villains instead. Possibly more significant are errors of omission. SuperFuel repeatedly claims the LFTR concept is more economical than conventional reactors for its projected modularity and simplicity of construction, barely admitting that this advantage is shared with small modular reactors (SMRs) of conventional design. The complexity of current reactors is damned for "requir[ing] a complicated network of pipes, valves, and other plumbing that can fail, corrode, or fall prey to operator error." though it is hard to see how this exact criticism is not just as applicable to LFTR with its corrosive fuel salt and its (conveniently unspecified) radiochemical processing plant which relies on incredibly toxic hydrofluoric acid (HF) which is so strong it can dissolve glass. The most significant omission is that of the Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) project since IFR addressed many of the same problems as LFTR is intended to solve but has the advantage of being demonstrated in the past two decades, and like Weinberg's Molten Salt Reactor Experiment, was canceled after very successful operation. It's clear Martin knew of IFR since he mentions the project's cancellation, though not by name. Taken in total, it's difficult to see these as mere oversights since mention of any of them might challenge the notion that LFTR is the One True Way to clean, sustainable, abundant power. Martin also has a tendency to make and repeat bold assertions without evidence. Many of his arguments about LFTR's safety and economics hinge on comparing operating power plants against what effectively amounts to "vaporware" which is hardly fair or useful. Is LFTR really safer than a conventional LWR? We can only guess; in some areas yes, in some areas no, in most areas we won't know until we can analyze a completed LFTR design submitted for NRC certification. If history is any guide, most problems won't be found until we build ten and run them for a decade. Either way, bold and definitive claims of safety are premature. I found myself asking "Really?" after each of Martin's baseless assertions with increasing frequency until I just wanted to give up. This is especially unfortunate since Martin's writing begins to shine near the end when he stops foaming and gets around to making concrete, positive recommendations. Most of his recommendations are sensible and pragmatic; it's a pity it takes so much work to get to them. Rather than getting a clear picture of the strengths and weaknesses of LFTR and a fair comparison with competing technologies, we get hand-waving, well-poisoning, and cherry-picking. LFTR and thorium hold great promise but the intense bias in SuperFuel clouds the issue and actively alienates anyone not already convinced of LFTR's superiority, especially those in a position to do more than provide venture capital or agitate on-line. The flaw here is not with LFTR and the thorium-uranium fuel cycle, it's trusting Martin to act as an effective advocate. In short, SuperFuel is for true-believers and evangelistas with a tolerance for convenient error and intolerance for dissent, the sort of people who believe those who disagree with them can only be stupid or evil. If you're not already convinced that LFTR is the end-all-be-all power source, SuperFuel has too many obvious rhetorical and technical flaws to sway you; if you're already convinced, SuperFuel will under the best circumstances make you cringe, under the worst, provide you with enough weak talking points and errors to make you insufferable. Or perhaps more insufferable.

I've been a great fan of Kirk Sorensen and his efforts to publicize molten salt reactors. There is great potential to improve the world in this technology. Mr. Martin has assembled in this book some good information about the history of the LFTR reactor concept and its tradeoffs. All of this is available on the energyfromthorium.com website, without the hyperbole nor the political attacks on Republicans. He also spins an adventure tale out of the decision to shut down the MSR program, when the truth is that it was a short-sighted and not an evil decision. Save yourself the cost of the book and view the documents and videos on the website for a clearer picture.

For some reason nuclear energy makes people go nutty - "crazy Eddie" is an appropriate term. Even hard-headed physicists - usually towards retirement - suddenly go glassy-eyed at the prospect of infinite energy too cheap to meter, and start spinning wonderful fantasies of paradises in the desert. They ignore complications arising from economics, politics, finance and even physics itself. They loose all perspective in the service of a magnificent obsession driven by the gigantic number that pops out of mc^2 and become positively religious in their zeal. So when you hear someone like Sorenson and his acolytes, and when Wired reporter Richard Martin starts singing from the same hymn sheet, one just has to ask: have these guys just gone nuts? Have they just lost it like so many before them? Encouragingly Martin seems to be self-concious about this question and faces it in the very first chapter. "It sounds like I believe that thorium is a panacea", he writes. "And many in the industry will dismiss this book as a piece of misguided hype." The book's principle purpose, therefore, is to answer the question "So why aren't we using it now?" To this end the book does a respectable job of reviewing the history of Thorium reactors. After briefly laying out the landscape he describes the evolution of the PWR in use today, how Alvin Weinberg helped create it, discovered the potential of the molten salt Thorium-fuelled breeder reactor in the 1960's, and was headed off at the pass by the evil troll Milton Shaw just as he was about to enter the promised land. The troll, incidentally, in defence of the fast breeder programme then in full swing, and not, Martin asserts, because the military wanted fast breeders to make plutonium - just dirty sordid politics and vested interests defending their pork. It makes a good story and the narration is compelling, but what is less well addressed is the rest of the world. From the 40's to the 60's there was a flowering of everything nuclear and everybody tried everything; from gas cooled to CANDU to pebble bed to molten lithium, there are thousands of ways to cook up a nuclear reaction and in the end it all comes down to practicality. But on the nuts and bolts of the physics and engineering Martin is more vague. One is left with the uneasy feeling that there must be more to this story. Martin does proceed to talk about the rest of the world, but only in the modern era: how China and India are grasping for the prize, and how the US risks loosing the race in a technology the US itself created. At this point Martin does himself a disservice: in the last two chapters he really does begin to wax evangelical - Chapter 9 is brazenly entitled "The Business Crusade" - and not even being a member of the "nuclearati" I was still rolling my eyes. Yes we get it, an MSR programme would require political commitment and lots of money. So again, has Martin gone nuts? Well the interesting thing about _this_ story is that all the papers are there and readily accessible. Weinberg really did build and successfully operate a molten salt reactor. ORNL really did perform a detailed design study for a commercial 1GWe reactor and you can read all about it in ORNL-4541 and references therein. And when you go looking for that glossed over detail, that absurd assumption or glaring issue 'to be resolved', it does't jump out at you. There are technical challenges to be sure, such as tritium management and metal plate-out and moderator lifetimes but none that seem particularly formidable and many that have resolved themselves in the past 40 years. And if you read WASH-1222, the Shaw report that spelled the doom of Weinberg's MSR programme, it really does seem to be a bit of a whitewash and some of the conclusions unwarranted. So I would recommend Martin's book to anyone interested in the history of nuclear power and possible roads not taken - it is thought-provoking and raises a definite "hmmm". But I think he has done only half the job: now he needs to write volume 2, and take a much harder look at some of the criticisms of MSR designs and how they are to be resolved. The ORNL-4541 reference design for example (targeted by Shaw's report but which Martin doesn't even mention in his book) calls for the replacement of a 272 tonne graphite core every 4 years, which Shaw rightly concludes would pose a "difficult maintenance problem" - I don't know about you, but the prospect of a 272 tonne chunk of carbon dangling in the air, toasty from 4 years in a reactor core, does not fill me with joy. But read the book, and if you are one of the "nuclearati", definitely read the reports as well, helpfully collated on the energyfromthorium website.

Superfuel was an interesting read. There is a lot of informative background information on the past and present of nuclear power and related subjects. Still, in all seriousness, I have to caution against staking too much on any of its conclusions. Here are some things I feel compelled to set straight: p 16: "Way back in the 1970s, I took a course at Yale called 'The Physics of Energy.' The first assignment was to calculate how big a solar plant, in an ideal sun-drenched location like the American Southwest, would be required to supply 90 percent of U.S. electricity demand at the time. I'll spare you the calculations, but the answer was 'roughly the size of the state of Arizona.'" First, why would Martin spare us the calculations, when it's basic arithmetic? Are we just supposed to take his word for it? I will not spare the calculations, and they go like this: —US electric generation (1985) (TWh): 2700 TWh (from BP statistical review of world energy (2015)) (about 7.4 TWh per day) —average insolation for Arizona (NREL map (they have a whole set of maps, including separate ones for PV and concentrated solar)): about 6.5 kWh/sq meter per day. (This is an average, so the capacity factor is already taken into account.) Let's suppose PV system efficiency is 10%. (These days I think we can do much better, but in the 1970s Martin could be excused for using a more pessimistic figure—although, as an engineering student, he should have expected efficiency would improve by now, as it has.) —Our net available solar energy should be 0.65 kWh/sq meter per day. —Area required is 7.4 X 10^12/0.65 X 10^3 = 11.4 X 10^9 sq meters = 11400 sq kilometers. —Area of Arizona is: 295234. —So a good estimate is that 3.9% of the land area of Arizona could provide 100% of the electricity demand of Arizona in 1985. For 90% in the 1970s, I don't have exact figures, but a decent estimate might be 3.0–3.5% of the land area. Martin is off by a factor of about 30X. Note that this is for electricity alone, not total energy. Actually, about a third of Arizona's area could supply the total global energy need, if you used energy at the present rate, but all as electricity, and if you could get the electricity to where it was needed with no loss. I have been encountering these outlandish estimates of the land needed for solar energy every since the 1970s, when I first started noticing the issue. For whatever reason, they never go away. Just before that, Martin says: "The IEA has projected that new nuclear power plants will produce electricity for approximately $72 per megawatt-hour…Electricity from onshore wind farms will cost up to $94 per megawatt-hour." —So? This is a big difference? Martin doesn't say what year those IEA numbers are for, but if the numbers were accurate at the time, they have probably tipped well in favor of wind by now, considering the rate at which wind power is expanding. So much for Robert Bryce's "unassailable numbers." BTW I doubt if N2N refers to baseload power alone, as Martin puts it; I expect that the idea is for natural gas to serve a "peaking role," filling in for the fact that nuclear cannot quickly be ramped up to follow sudden increases in demand. Also on p 16: "…the local utility in Austin, Texas…announced in early 2009…that it would spend $180 million dollars on a 30-megawatt solar plant. Officials said that the new sun farm would run at an average of 23 percent of capacity, producing power at a construction cost of $6000 per kilowatt of capacity. Thus, Austin Energy has agreed to build a solar plant that will operate about one-fourth as often as a nuclear plant and cost about 25 percent more on a per-kilowatt basis," Bryce scoffed. —As with the wind example, 25% more is not very significant, and the difference has probably been more than reversed by now, as fast as things are evolving. IAC it's not said whether that cost includes storage. If so, then it's wrong to say the solar plant operates one fourth as often as the nuclear plant. With the storage, it's probably actually more reliable than the nuclear plant; and the difference could be significant: When a nuke plant goes offline, it takes a huge amount of electricity off the grid, usually a gigawatt or more, and for a period not known in advance. The solar plant, by contrast, will at least be generating something pretty much from sunrise to sunset, every day, with rare failures; and if there is a failure, it'll be small, taking out only a small part of the generation. Furthermore, $6000 is not realistic for solar these days on a peak kilowatt basis; I believe the BOS (balance of system) cost is more like $1500, and that probably includes storage. Bryce implies that solar is 4X the cost of nuclear per kWh, and that's just not anywhere near true, unless you're talking about some special situation (Greenland, maybe?) p 65: "Despite a few notorious accidents (Three Mile Island, Fukushima-Daiichi) and one genuine disaster (Chernobyl), the overall safety record of nuclear power is quite good." —Sorry, I can't just let that pass. Three Mile Island and Fukushima are not genuine disasters?! I'm pretty sure the utilities, which lost billions and lots of credibility, would acknowledge them as *huge* disasters. I'm not sure, but some may even have gone to jail over Fukushima. And of course, it's always quickly said that, well, after all, no one actually died at Fukushima from the radiation, though thousands were killed by the earthquake and tsunami. A lack of deaths directly from radiation might be true, even when cancer risks are accounted for, although that might be hard to prove. (And BTW cancer is not the only health risk from radiation, but let's not go too far afield right now.) Let's just suppose that's true. There was a mass evacuation, and thousands, probably many thousands, suffered terrible hardship from that. Do you really think no one died due to the evacuation? But what if there was no evacuation? Might there not have been deaths from radiation? *You can't have it both ways.* There's tremendous uncertainty with nuclear risks. That's what makes it so terrifying when you're in the middle of an event like that. If things did not go as badly as some feared, does that mean their fears were irrational? BTW there have been numerous other serious accidents: "One survey found that 63 nuclear accidents (defined as incidents that that resulted in either death or more than $50000 of property damage) have occurred worldwide from 1947 to 2007. The study documented that nuclear plants ranked first in economic costs among all energy accidents, accounting for 41 percent of energy accident related property damage from 1907 to 2007 (or $16.6 billion)." [7 billion of that was for Chernobyl.] —The Dirty Energy Dilemma (p 35), (citing Benjamin Sovacool, "The costs of failure: A preliminary assessment of major energy accidents, 1907 to 2007," Energy Policy 36, no. 5 (May 2008), 1802–1820) Saying that no one has been killed (excluding the special case of Chernobyl, of course) due to nuclear power involved a little sleight of hand. For example, the book *The truth about Chernobyl* mentions, in a long list of various nuclear accidents, a 1986 event at Webbers Falls, Oklahoma, where a tank, containing radioactive gas at a uranium enrichment plant, exploded, killing one person and injuring eight. That has to be considered part of the safety record of nuclear power, if that enriched uranium was partly or totally for power plants. Things like that can easily slip through the net of the discussion, because they are from radiation. In Japan, in 1999, there was a criticality accident at the Tokai fuel fabrication facility, Hundreds of people were exposed to radiation, and two eventually died from it. Deaths in uranium mining also should be counted, whether due to health effects of radiation, or directly from accidents. Again, the figures may be small compared to coal, but surely not zero. One more nit that should be corrected, though it's not that important, is on page 84: "…powered by electrical [sic] motors…submarines had changed little since World War I. —Submarines, are, of course, still powered by electric motors. (There have been experiments with magneto- hydrodynamic drives and the like, but AFAIK nothing like that has been put into use.) A fair position on thorium molten-salt reactors IMO is that there should be development work on them—after all, there are likely to be situations someday where they are indispensable, where they may be the only good option. (Outposts in the outer Solar System come to mind.) It may also be a good idea to shift toward smaller, standardized designs. But it took something like 50 years of experience for LWR nuclear power to develop into a fairly mature industry, with its 90% up-time and predictable costs. Some new-generation advocates seem to think they can just short-circuit that previous learning curve, and in a decade or two they can be cranking out LFTRs on assembly lines, and bury them in the ground unattended for the next 30 or 40 years. I think that's a fantasy, at least without a much longer timeline. LFTRs may be very useful eventually, but I wouldn't rely on them too much just yet.

What would we do if we could find a fuel that was abundant, clean, and safe? Unfortunately it seems we would shun its use for decades, largely so we could build nuclear submarines and increase our stockpile of nuclear weapons. The silvery-white metal thorium is number 90 on the periodic table of elements, two positions from its more famous cousin uranium. Of all the known energy sources on Earth, thorium is the most abundant, most readily available, cleanest, and safest element. Richard Martin tells the intriguing story of how thorium has been discounted as a nuclear fuel in favor of uranium and how it can become a green energy source for the future. After President Dwight D. Eisenhower delivered his "Atoms for Peace" speech to the UN General Assembly on December 8, 1953, the United States launched the "Atoms for Peace" program intended to educate the American Public to the risks and opportunities of a nuclear future. The Oak Ridge National Laboratory, originally established to produce plutonium for the first nuclear bomb, turned its attention to peaceful uses of atomic energy. Oak Ridge research on a thorium-based liquid core nuclear power plant, useful for generating electric power, is described in an obscure 945-page long engineering book published in 1958. Thorium is about four times as abundant as uranium; the United States has about 440,000 tons of thorium reserves. Used properly, thorium is much safer and far cleaner than uranium. Thorium decays so slowly it can almost be considered stable; it's not fissile (able to sustain a nuclear chain reaction on its own), but it is fertile, meaning that it can be converted into a fissile isotope of uranium, U-233. The thorium fuel cycle results in a smaller amount of nuclear waste and less hazardous waste than do today's uranium-fueled reactors. Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs) can act as breeders, producing as much fuel as they consume. Because a LFTR is inherently stable and the liquid fuels can be readily drained from the reactor core, a meltdown is physically impossible. Martin summarizes: "Thorium could provide a clean and effectively limitless source of power while allaying all public concerns--weapons proliferation, radioactive pollution, toxic waste, and fuel that is both costly and complicated to process." The story unfolds in these chapters: + The Lost Book of Thorium Power--describing recent attention to the original thorium reactor work of the Oak Ridge Lab, + The Thunder Element--describing thorium's various characteristics, + The Only Safe Reactor--detailing the operation, dangers, use, and costs of various reactor design options, + Rickover and Weinberg--describing the tension between atoms for war and atoms for peace that resulted in the development of nuclear submarines and nuclear weapons. First as research director and then as overall director of the Oak Ridge labs, Alvin Weinberg advocated development of a molten salt reactor fueled by thorium. Admiral Hyman Rickover favored conventional solid-core uranium-based light water reactors, which as a by-product produced plutonium that can be refined for nuclear weapons. Martin laments: "Uranium's victory was a triumph of military uses of science and technology over humanistic ones, of the Pentagon over the scientific community, bureaucracy over individual initiative, technological stasis over inspiration and innovation." + The Birth of Nuclear power--The nuclear submarine Nautilus was launched in 1954. In less than a decade Rickover built and launched ten nuclear subs, carrying the nuclear showdown to the most remote waters of the world. Yet the design for a Molten Salt Reactor fueled by thorium has remained dormant since 1959. The nuclear power industry would base their designs on the uranium-fueled reactors developed to power nuclear submarines and produce plutonium. + The End of Nuclear Power-- Funding cuts to the Oak Ridge laboratory in 1957 eventually ended their promising research and experimentation with thorium-fueled reactors. The dangers of uranium-fueled reactors went on to make international headlines. The Three Mile Island accident was a partial meltdown which occurred on March 28, 1979. On April 26, 1986 an explosion and fire at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power plant released large quantities of radioactive particles into the atmosphere which then spread over much of western USSR and Europe. The Fukushima Nuclear Power plant, damaged by an earthquake and tsunami on March 11, 2011, lost coolant, melted down, and released radioactive materials. The plant is not yet secured. No reactor ordered after 1973 was ever brought into operation the US. + The Asian Nuclear Power Race--India is the only country in the world with a detailed, funded, government-approved plan to base its nuclear power industry on thorium-fueled reactors. India plans to build as many as 62 (needlessly complex) nuclear reactors by 2025, and most of those reactors will be running on thorium. At a Shanghai scientific conference in February 2011 China officially announced that it will begin a program to develop a thorium-fueled molten salt reactor. The People's Republic of China plans to develop and control intellectual property with regard to thorium for its own benefit. Thorium ore is a byproduct of mining rare earth elements. Supplies of this ore are accumulating in China which now controls 97 percent of the rare earth market. In the United States the thorium ore must be disposed of as toxic waste. + Nuclear' s Next Generation--The Generation IV International Forum is a collaboration of a dozen governments studying and recommending designs for advanced nuclear reactors. One of the six designs they are now considering is a thorium-fueled molten salt reactor. + The Business Crusade--Several business ventures around the world recognize the potential of thorium-based reactors. These ventures require funding approaching billions of dollars and time frames of many years, and they are often hampered by government regulations. Viable developments will probably require government partnering with private industry to sustain the substantial long-term effort required. + What We Must Do--Public perception of Nuclear energy options must shift, the public must perceive an accurate and objective assessment of the relative safety of nuclear energy when compared to alternatives, limited government support is necessary, and the transformation must draw on the competitive advantages of the United States. Government subsidies need to be shifted from supporting fossil fuels to supporting thorium LFTR development. Martin is no Pollyanna, and he recognizes that thorium is no panacea. He does describe objections to the use of thorium. These include market barriers, difficulties with waste management and nuclear proliferation, and the traditionalist argument that "if it is so good it would already be in use". Martin is a science journalist and good storyteller. The book is written at an intermediate technical level. If you stayed awake during high school chemistry class you will be able to follow the technical details. In any case you will enjoy the many stories of misfortune, short sightedness, and folly that have conspired to prevent thorium from being used as a clean, safe, reliable, and abundant fuel. A total energy solution will prevent global warming, reduce toxic waste and pollution, reduce energy costs, preserve our wilderness areas, increase safety, and disentangle our economy and foreign policy from oil. Perhaps thorium can become an important part of that energy solution. I am writing to my congressman and senators to ask their support for thorium-based energy solutions. I encourage you to do the same.

In this timely but meandering book, Richard Martin presents a good case for reviving nuclear power by replacing uranium-based technology with one based on more plentiful and proliferation-resistant thorium. He explains that we are saddled with uranium-based nuclear power because of choices made half a century ago. Even then, some experts made the case for a safer thorium-based technology, one that produces far less high-level waste and is much more difficult to turn into bombs. Now the enormous inertia of existing uranium-based nuclear power plants and nuclear weapons manufacture prevents the nuclear industry from seriously considering alternatives. Martin also calls attention to the Asian nuclear power race, largely unknown in the United States. Unfortunately, Martin's argument is presented in a very discursive way, jumping from nuclear science to personal stories to political commentary. Explanations on particular topics are scattered through the book, giving the reader the impression that he is seeing the same ideas repeated at random intervals. The author's argument becomes shrill when he links the choice of nuclear power technologies to the decline of the United States. A good editor could have made this a more powerful book.

I've read a few publications on nuclear energy: What is a LFTR, Nuclear 2.0, etc. What this books does and the others do not is provide a historical narrative on thorium, in particular, the "Why not?" and "Where Is It Now" story of LFTRs. For the most part, the history is engaging, but I started to zone out midway through the book when it came to nuclear scientists in turn-of-the-century Europe and the Roman Empire. I thought much of the narrative wasn't particularly relevant to the greater topic at hand. Additionally, I would have enjoyed an appendix including some data at the end just because this book is more soft science than hard science. Richard Martin is the first person to report on the thorium topic in the mainstream media (at least in the 21st century). It's important that some form of literature is available to get people started on the subject. The general public needs to know the truth about thorium, but using quantitative truth can hurt that. As a non-scientist, I appreciated the reduced amount of jargon because it made this book more accessible. Overall, engaging and enlightening.

When I picked up this book I expected it to be a bland explanation of getting power from thorium instead of Uranium. But instead of a physics lesson, which I could have waded through, I got a welcome surprise. Martin is quite eloquent when he writes, this isn't so much a rattling off of virtues of making nuclear power out of thorium, although he does do so quite a bit. I find it to be a condemnation of stagnated government policymaking and conformity. A call to arms to demand that which humanity needs to usher in a new era of productivity and peace. These are not things that he says outright in the book, but it's the message I got out of it. The book is enlightening to say the least. Here is a source of energy that could bring about the change in life that is necessary to get the American Dream back on track, and the third world into a clean industrial revolution. While the book may come off as biased, I believe that such a tone is unavoidable and indeed necessary if the passion of the author and the view of a brighter future is to be communicated effectively. The tone may preach, but it's a tone that none the less is needed in our current world. For anyone who thinks we need to take action, this is an enjoyable call to arms and you should read it. Anyone who doesn't believe climate change is real should not, you will disagree I'm sure.

I'd been interested in these technologies especially since a 2005 article in Scientific American. However most of the material I'd found on the Web or referenced was out of date or technical and limited to very specific topics. This book is up-to-date and fills in many of the holes about the topic. He does treat [some or all?] of the arguments against it by going through the history of the concept and the implementations of it and similar ideas----and shows [at least to his mind] that the arguments against it don't stand-up due to poor implementations in other countries and neglect/antagonism in the U.S.. I wish the politicians would read this book and that if the arguments/science in the book has flaws that respected scientists would publish those arguments. Probably the most important person to weigh in would be the Secretary of Energy but political pressure may prevent that or a fully honest response.

I'm a proponent of nuclear power as a reliable and safe source of carbon free energy as a corner stone of our nation's power supply system. So I was very interested to read an in depth discussion on a hopefully safer source of nuclear energy than Uranium. To me it seems that Martian did a fine job of expressing his views expounding on the benefits of Thorium as that source. My issue with this book comes in on how chapters 4-6 and some of 7 were written. Martin went on a long journey through the history of Nuclear power in these chapters, was a history lesson useful over all, yes. But the majority of the book really was not focused on Thorium power it was a history lesson. I love history lessons, but that was not what I was expecting in Superfuel. I felt he could have used these pages to focus more on thorium, there was certainly plenty to talk about and I was left wanting to hear more about what is currently developing in the field. I would recommend this book, I just can't say it's as good as it could have been.

`Super Fuel, Thorium, The Green Energy Source for the Future', will leave you shaking your head at the nuclear industry. Okay, I can understand how momentum in any industry works. Things are moving along smoothly, with no serious problems occurring, when along comes something that `might' be a better idea than the product currently being produced. This new `product' is looked into, and sure enough, it does appear to be an improvement over the status quo, and there are even a few successful experiments seeming to verify that it is not only better, but safer as well. It would appear in the nuclear industry's case however, that momentum won out over common sense. I'll let Richard Martin's book tell the rest of the story, but be prepared as warned earlier, to be left shaking your head. Fans (like me) of Admiral Hyman G Rickover will be more than a little surprised at his impact on this outcome, but only a little. Martin has compiled an interesting book, clearly well researched and brought forth in a way that even the layman will understand what happened, or rather - didn't. I'm still shaking my head and after reading this, you will be too. [...]

Martin is a talented writer and presents a compelling narrative of the fall and would be rise of thorium derived nuclear power. From the heady days of the Manhattan Project to the rise of the military industrial complex, the book weaves an interesting tale of personality and science. It is here that the book is strongest, making its best case that the development of thorium based molten salt reactors, sidelined at perhaps its most promising point, might have radically altered the landscape and prospects of nuclear power, if not the energy landscape altogether. From there, however, the book suffers somewhat from cult believer syndrome. Not that I don't find myself ultimately believing in the promise of thorium power (I do), but Martin paints the nonbelievers with a broad brush as the unbelieving establishment. And certainly, established interests and politics make the rise of thorium power in the United States an unlikely feat. But I feel too that Martin spends too little time on both the scientific pitfalls of bringing thorium based molten salt reactors to market as well as the leading alternatives in next generation MK IV reactor technology. Both Terrapower's travelling wave reactor and pebble bed designs are mentioned, but I would very much have wanted to hear more about what those proponents have to say about thorium based molten salt designs. As a layperson (which I assume most readers will be), the finer points of nuclear power generation and waste disposal are a little beyond me, but what I do know is that people with a lot more knowledge on the matter have chosen to put significant time and resources towards those designs. Specifically in the case of Bill Gates and Nathan Myhrvold, here are two incredibly smart men who are certainly not part of the nuclear establishment. If thorium based molten salt technology is clearly so superior, how did it not garner their attention? Lastly, I think Martin errs by attempting to tie American exceptionalism and the specter of a falling empire to a promising nuclear technology. Overblown hyperbole aside, the realities of nuclear industry would seem to negate this scenario anyhow. Likely the first commercial molten salt thorium reactor will be built outside of the United States. What seems almost as likely, however, is that it will be the handiwork of a multinational corporation (or even American startup) certain to include American scientists and be based at least partly on American research. And unlike iphones or computers which require substantial supply chains, production and operation could easily be duplicated in short order on our shores. Technological innovation isn't a zero sum game. Quibbles notwithstanding and when taken with a grain of salt, Superfuel is an interesting introduction to yet another promising future of technological possibility.

Alvin Weinberg application of molten salt reactors (LFTRs) during his work at Oak Ridge come back to life in the pages of this very impressive and well written book. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors are proven science from the 60's & 70's, but because of politics Alvin's dream of an inexhaustible energy source that will not destroy the system and balances on earth to sustain life, fell to the budget axe. As President of one of the oldest grassroots environmental organizations in the country, called The Pure Water Committee of Western Maryland, Inc., I have known about the fluoride problem both at Oak Ridge and at the phosphate fertilizer mining operations. Now I understand the thorium problem as well with rare earth mining operations. In a nut shell, both are regulatory in nature. Fluoride is this countries protected pollutant, while thorium's nuclear classification was overstated, which has forced rare earth mining in this country to a stand still. China has benefited from the thorium regulatory nightmare in the U.S. by systematically stealing our intellectual property on most of our manufacturing & high tech products, due to their rare earth monopoly. Fluoride and thorium have been consider to be industrial waste byproducts for a very long time. I find it fascinating that if both of these waste byproducts are used properly in a closed system reactor that they become the real answer to our future energy needs!!!

Definitely well done and a must read. But read the last chapter with a healthy amount of salt where the author puts a decidedly left of center spin on his analysis. While he skips over the fact that it's largely due to getting rid of the onerous labor contract with unsustainable pensions that GM is now making money ...he credits Keynes and the tax payer bailout. After a great part of the book describes what a Libertarian would call crony capitalism, he calls for more government intervention and suggests we should copy Chinese mercantilism. There are some areas where government needs to be involved and control of uranium and other fissile materials is one of them. Clearly though the problem here is that government is too involved in controlling harmless thorium and other rare earth materials. Research and innovation are stopped. Sure money is needed but it would come if it came from government with even more of the same constraints. This doesn't need a Manhattan Project. And governments are broke thanks to your friend Keynes. The key is focus on taking this research and commercial development out of government hands.

This book should be required reading for ANYBODY who has an even passing interest in the current global warming issues and energy policy. One demerit for the amount of repetitious "filler" that Martin put in to inflate this into enough pages for a "book". That said, read this one now.

Reviewers here claim Martin understates LFTR radioactive waste and accidental release problems. Under normal operation of LFTR, the entire energy needs of your lifetime yield literally a handful of nuclear waste. That is minuscule compared with the same produced by fossil fuel, and it's small even compared with the life-cycle of solar and wind (turbines and panels do not grow on trees). As far as accidents are concerned, compare this: during normal operation, fossil-fueled air pollution kills 3x the number of Chernobyl-deaths every week.

A book that all interested in our energy, pollution and nuclear proliferation, should read. Learn that thorium is the fuel passed by all interested in nuclear bombs passed up in the 40's and 50's that has just now been rediscovered but seems to be resisted by the government, large corporations in the uranium nuclear business and the military. A fuel with all the benefits of uranium nuclear but none of the problems. Interesting from a historical standpoint.

I will be short on this review - sadly, this book partially failed my expectations of a truly scientific read on the use of Thorium as a future nuclear fuel. The author pours it on thick with the global warming hype, "Outside of the right wing of the Republican Party, hardly anyone today questions the worldwide scientific consensus...". At that paragraph, the book makes it hard for a reader to focus solely on proven science - besides, all you need to do is go to Google and type in "1000 international scientists against global warming" to know this is not settled science. Regardless, wade through the needless expounding on carbon emissions and humans killing a planet, and you will find a truly remarkable piece of scientific and historical work. Martin does what all novelists need to do to make a truly good point - start with the very beginning of the subject and build the background so that everyone understand how we have gotten where we are. He has done an excellent job of uncovering the preeminent scientists that discovered the forked road of Uranium or Thorium. Further, he clearly explains how the Uranium path was chosen through the lenses of Rickover vs Weinberg. A part of me figuratively bled for Weinberg as he struggled to keep the MSR technology alive, despite all that was against him. All in all, I would have given this book 5 stars had Martin held back on his climate change credentials in such an in-your-face manner. However, I will not penalize it with a 1 star solely on that basis.

The content of this book is of paramount importance at both national and global level. I have not read anything else in the last 20 years with higher or further-reaching implications. For all the doom-sayer works that have been sold in their millions, here is the answer on a plate. Safe, clean, efficient, sustainable, cheap energy for all nations, and achievable right now. What this means to the planet is mind-bending and, for once, in the most positive of ways. Environmental sustainability. Long-term global economic equality and stability (particularly for the poorest nations). The eradication of international warring over fossil fuel reserves, even, to name just three major issues we face. From the point of view of the survival of humanity, if this book is not regarded in future as one of the most important ever written, then we will have failed as a collective global society. Both the publisher and author are deserving of much, much more than a five star online review from some bloke called Steve Basnett. If thorium is not the ultimate answer to our energy requirements from a universal perspective, then it is at very least the bridge to it.

I am a complete believer that nuclear power will inevitable be the fuel of the future. Thorium, when used in a liquid fuelled reactor(LFTR), has so many benefits over uranium that it is sure to be the way forward. My only criticism of Ritchard Martin's book is his belief that CO2 is dangerously effecting the world's climate. He promotes this as a reason why we should go nuclear. While this may win converts, I believe this is a case of him promoting the right thing, but for the wrong reason. A read of "The Chilling Stars" book, with a follow up of the scientific papers referred to, would show that there is good reason to believe that CO2 has already done as much as it is possible for it to do, due to its logarithmic scale of warming. Henrick Svensmark's Cloud/Cosmic ray hypothesis of global temperature changes being ruled by modulation of the Sun's magnetic field is more compelling (The fluctuation of the Sun's magnetic output being related to the orbital gravitational pull of the major planets).

I enjoyed this book. I had already done a little research about thorium. Mr. Martin took his study to a compelling last chapter, WHAT WE MUST DO. Chapter 10, quote, "Economic decline is no more foreordained by God than global climate change. And the ideology of unfettered capitalism should not prevent us from thinking and acting strategically about the future of energy and U.S economic competitiveness" Please read this book.

How many times have better technologies lost out because of vested interests, personalities, and bad timing? Thorium versus uranium is like the Betamax versus VHS format war writ large. Rick Martin's deeply researched and sharply presented tale of what might have become our energy future packs a punch while maintaining intellectual honesty. For example, his nuanced explanation of the role U.S. military interests played (pp 129-142) is the type of even-handed myth-busting that is sorely missing from the current crop of polemical diatribes that try to pass for non-fiction these days. The author does a splendid job developing the characters behind the rise and fall of nuclear power. The talents and flaws of these very human individuals, like Rickover and Weinberg, not only add spice to the narrative, but also help explain why we ended up with nuclear plant meltdowns and bombs. This book should be required reading for U.S. policy makers and university students. Anyone who cares about energy, climate change, and sustainability, should also read this book and take the author's recommendations very seriously. Superfuel should fire up our demand for thorium, before it's too late.

The book was enjoyable and worthwhile to read as an introduction to Thorium, though I did not like the way it was written. This book is written as more of an argumentative essay than an objective scientific analysis. The author quashes all energy alternatives instead of truthfully mentioning their benefits. The author does not seem to have a solid scientific background and is biased. I would only recommend this book to informed readers.

Great book. Makes me realize how due to personalities and politics, we end up sometimes going with the second best options. This book has a mix of Science and History. Both things that are fascinating. Enjoyable book.

I was excited to learn about the advantages of thorium over uranium, but the book failed to give a concise argument. The author confuses thorium with fast reactors and liquid fuel reactors and does not clearly state why these technologies cannot be applied to uranium. He also claims that thorium is proliferation resistant, but U-233 is just as weapons usable as Pu-239 according to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Overall, the author does not have a strong understanding of nuclear physics and it is apparent when reading the book. I do not recommend this book to anyone.

Well, it's an interesting book. I like to think that the nuclear industry may offer a technology that doesn't create the issues with waste, the incredible expense, and other problems. However, Physicians for Social Responsibility has a report on thorium reactors that suggests otherwise. One issue is that thorium still requires uranium as a trigger. Also, other nations like India have been trying to develop thorium reactors without much success. I just heard the author on Colorado public radio, and I noticed he was repeating the industry's narrative about the Fukushima accident not being so bad, especially when compared to the problems caused by coal

I've been opposed to nuclear power for many years (since the 1970s). My opposition was due to: • the risk of catastrophic incidents at production sites, • the scope for nuclear fuels to be enriched by maverick states or terrorists wanting to create nuclear weapons, and • the need to store ever increasing quantities of highly toxic nuclear waste for centuries to come. Recently someone asked if I'd heard of thorium and, as I hadn't, I decided to check it and started by reading this well-written and very readable book by Richard Martin. Thorium is a radioactive element which is apparently far more abundant than uranium, lends itself to sustainable nuclear power generation, is very difficult to enrich for destructive purposes, is intrinsically safe (in Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors), and can actually use stockpiled nuclear waste as a nuclear fuel, producing far smaller quantities of less toxic waste in the process. It is also a waste product in the mining of rare earth metals. It's become clear to me that my long-standing reservations about nuclear power were out of date and misplaced. My ideological preconceptions regarding the threats and risks of old nuclear technology had closed my mind to considering the opportunities and benefits of new nuclear technology. I would urge all long-term opponents of nuclear power to revisit the subject by reading this book and, if time permits, Nuclear 2.0 by Mark Lynas and Thorium Energy Cheaper than Coal by Robert Hargraves. I'm now convinced that new nuclear technology has a crucial role to play in dealing with climate change. In fact, I can't see how any strategy to address climate change will stand any chance of success without it. "Old nuclear" has rightly been talked down for a long time, but "new nuclear" is something very different and needs talking up. It isn't the current nuclear model updated, it's a different model altogether - different reactors with different fuels. A safer, cleaner, sustainable model capable of generating home-produced power at a fraction of the cost by burning fossil fuels - as I understand it, so cheaply that the huge capital costs can be recovered by the investors whilst still significantly reducing energy costs for the consumer. I also understand that, with thorium, the nuclear generating process can produce hydrogen - a far more practical fuel for motor vehicles than electricity. Cheaper power, energy security, reduced carbon emissions, sustainability, safer reactors, less toxic waste, no risk of enrichment - plus a fuel source for motor transport. It ticks all the boxes.

Growing up in the 1950's was to be surrounded by stories about a future in which every home had its own nuclear reactor: small, quiet, clean, inexhaustible: a far cry from the intermittency of noisy wind or water turbines and glittery solar panels feeding banks of lead-acid batteries, and not involving huge engineering of forests or shoreline. The thorium power system has the potential to fulfil the visions of my childhood: the fuel is abundant and the LFTR reactor technology with which it is associated uses the fuel very efficiently. Any rational person has to ask why it's not the front runner in our decarbonising energy supply. I expected this book to provide a balanced overview of the technology, to explain why only visionary countries like India and China are engaging in research towards using thorium, and to provide strong suggestions of what needs to be done. What I got for my ten pounds was basically the story of the people who have over the years been involved in thorium-232 as an energy source. this is of course very much the idiom of modern science writing, an attempt to make science and technology seem more human. But compared with, for example, David Mackay's "Sustainable Energy without the Hot Air" it's lightweight. Well written, yes, but short of the substance to construct an industry changing case. Make no mistake, promoting thorium technology as an important decarboniser in the USA and Europe is a hard struggle against two vested interests. The opponents of any nuclear power are in one corner, though these days the number is shrinking as even the big environmental organisations see the enormity of the gaps in future energy provision solely from renewables, and the adverse environmental consequences of this path. More important is the existing uranium based nuclear power industry, strongly bolstered by the connections with weapons. It is this second story which needs muck-raking exposure, the influence and manipulation entailed in keeping uranium going. And thorium badly needs strong political and industrial champions.

Just about to finish this book, First thing, it's a good read and very well written covering quite a technical field he explains some quite complex systems in a way the lay person can understand. Also his history lesson is telling but he doesn't labour the points in a negative way, it really was a different world back in the 50's and 60's. The Military Industrial complex was really taking hold and this drove nuclear power. The politics shown are all too real and you get to understand how huge interests can kill a new technology, wether the USA can be changed to take a lead in this new technology remains to be seen. Read the book, there is an alternative,but who will benefit? I have no idea.

If you care about global warming and sustainability read this book. This is the captivating story of radioactivity and nuclear power (from nuclear bombs to electric power generation) since WWII's Manhattan Project to the present day. It describes how and why the modern world ended up with the potentially dangerous (accidents like Chernobyl or terrorism) uranium based nuclear power generation, and advocates the development of the MUCH safer thorium fission process by western governments. Thorium fission provides the 100 year bridge between a fossil fuel economy and a nuclear fusion one (a Star Trek utopia...?) - forget wind turbines, solar power, wave power, biofuels etc. these don't have the umphf for present day energy consumption let alone the future. The first two sections give an introduction to radioactivity science/engineering and the political/historical story. The last section although interesting is biased towards a USA political movement, but thorium fission is relevant to the whole world.

I first heard of nuclear reactors based on thorium some years ago and having worked for a company called Atomic Power Construction in the late 1960's on helical boilers I was was immediately interested and wanting to learn more was prompted to buy this book by a reference in a work of fiction I was reading. I have now read it and will probably do more reading on the subject in the future. From what I have understood from the book I am surprised that we have not yet started to build the first power stations of this type bearing in mind the advantage of the relatively short half life of the waste products. I would recommend this book to anyone who wants to learn more about the subject and a possible better way ahead in generating energy.

The background to why uranium prevails over the more abundant and safer thorium as a nuclear reactor fuel.

The book is kind of broad, history, physics, chemistry, politics, economics etc. Claiming these liquid reactors are the future is can only be done with proper consideration of the alternative energy sources that might arise, and there are plenty that can compete. So did I learn that thorium is a useful element? Yes sure, but can I argue with a straight face that it can compete properly? Not really.

Having just read Super Fuel by Richard Martin I can now understand how nuclear technology ignored the logical choice of radioactive elements, Thorium, after WWII and developed Uranium as the primary choice for electrical energy generation. The book

Sick of nuclear? there have always been alternatives. But no investors, read this true story.My energy company pays me for the solar power my panels produce. when will Europe follow Scandinavia Norway leads the way Greenpeace wont act.

Good

Very informative read with the way the chapters are presented there is some dupllcated facts ,this however does keep the main facts clear as one reads through .So yes if you want some sobering facts then read!

This book is excellent. It goes through all the history of nuclear fuel and why we are currently stuck with Uranium reactors, with their very long term radioactive waste products. All interested in the environment and the need for green energy should read it. Our politicians, particularly those with an energy portfolio, should not fail to read it, and then act on it!

1. Read this book 2. Start lobbying for LiFTeRs asap. 3. Persist until we have them in quantity. 4. Relax in a safe nuclear future. Which should also be globally cool!

More a biography of the main proponents than a serious presentation of the scientific facts.

A world changing book that could help everyone on the planet to have a happier life. Do buy please read this book and then give it to a friend. It is easy to read and gives hope for the future.

Excellent

Interesting book, prompt delivery

Reading the book, you can see why uranium was used for fueling early reactors, but author expalins clearly why Thorium should have been chosen and should be developed further for the good of us all for the future. It's a shame it won't happen due to self interested politicians favouring and oil based economy. Madness.

A detailed analysis of the benefits of Thorium and the challenges it faces to fully integrate into society. Perhaps a little too optermistic when considering the little developments for its use so far, but certainly a prospect to look forward to - a must read for any investor looking for a new project in an under invested market

I work in the energy industry, and found this an excellent introduction to Thorium's potential, let's hope we (in all countries) miss this opportunity. I am now starting to read a lot of other books on this subject by Vaclav Smil and others.