<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jul 9, 2010, at 9:59 PM, Brent Neal wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; font-size: medium; "><blockquote type="cite">That 4.3 million figure is just plain nuts.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote>Undoubtedly. But I'm willing to bet, based on oil (the example Max gave earlier) and other mineral resources, that the actual number for energy-return-feasibly recoverable thorium is less than 10x that number.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote><br></div><div>You say reserves could be 10 times your original figure, that's better but its still ridiculously too small and I'd say the same if you made it 100 times larger; but even if we use your new figure about availability and then correct for your vast underestimate of the amount of energy inherent in Thorium we find that the total amount of energy that element could supply is 10,000 times larger than your original estimate. </div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><div><br></div><div> </div><br></body></html>