> It's a misleading, but technically accurate marketing point for breeders That's the point, it's not technically accurate. A breeder makes more fissile mater

> It's a misleading, but technically accurate marketing point for breeders That's the point, it's not technically accurate. A breeder makes more fissile material than it consumes. Fissile material is the fuel in light water reactors, but breeders use a different, more abundant fuel. I know that, you know that, and we both know that we both know that. But inaccuracies like this lead to the likes of Helen Caldicott dismissing the whole technology with a sneer such as "a breeder that magically makes more fuel than it consumes". > trace amounts of uranium, it's nowhere near 13 ppm It's about 13ppm uranium and thorium, in fact about 10ppm thorium and 2-4ppm uranium. And while energyfromthorium doesn't state these numbers explicitly, it clearly uses them in the energy density calculations. > does not mean each every and every chunk of earth contains exactly that distribution So "burning the rocks" will never work, because there are a few rocks that don't burn? It works even better, because some rocks burn better, e.g. Conway Granites at 56ppm thorium.