Jump to content

Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium


Casper

Recommended Posts

The article needs more information. I'm skeptical of any "wonder fuel" if we've known about it for years and haven't used it. There's some reason or another why... and it's usually political or economical.

The article left much to be desired on the "downsides" of Thorium.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article needs more information. I'm skeptical of any "wonder fuel" if we've known about it for years and haven't used it. There's some reason or another why... and it's usually political or economical.

The article left much to be desired on the "downsides" of Thorium.

Find a president that hasn't had money invested in oil, and I think you'll find your answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A bit expensive to get progress, but it could easily replace the electrical power grid we now use. Even better, we could sell or give them to other countries without worry of somebody building a nuclear weapon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A rumor that I remember from back in the 1980s, was that a thorium-fluoride reactor was built and operated overseas. The information about that vanished. They aren't very big, you could fit one in a big garage with a tall ceiling. Yes, that means the setup is simple and just about anyone could build one.

I knew a fair amount about them back then, and was honestly trying to figure out how to downsize one and fit it in the back of a van. No can do...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Overnight? Most certainly not, with all the testing and building the day will still be far away, and what about the cars, you can't just throw Thorium in a tank and go.

What worries me is this:

"'They were really going after the weapons,' said Professor Egil Lillestol, a world authority on the thorium fuel-cycle at CERN. 'It is almost impossible make nuclear weapons out of thorium because it is too difficult to handle. It wouldn’t be worth trying.' It emits too many high gamma rays." Paragraph 9

If it is so safe and clean, how could you have "network of pint-sized 600MW reactors that are lodged underground" (paragraph 14) in a safe manner? I would be interested in reading up on it, maybe seeing some papers on it. I doubt the energy made from using the depleted uranium in the reactors outweighs the risks of transport and portioning for the smaller reactors. They would much rather use the thorium it was designed for and not waste a reactor and less efficient fuel, that is what this is about, efficiency. That appears to me like the journalist embellishing facts rather than a scientist saying a possibility, that is why he included the unnecessary NASA quote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...