tallman Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Not wanting to hijack the other thtread(s) I'll ask this question again. I threw it out 2 energy threads ago w/no response. I know just a little about this concept. My question is, in today's energy dependent world, why isn't the USA leading the way instead of China? Are we doing anything? thorium reactor " Thorium is as common as lead. America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining. Norway has so much that Oslo is planning a post-oil era where thorium might drive the country’s next great phase of wealth. Even Britain has seams in Wales and in the granite cliffs of Cornwall. Almost all the mineral is usable as fuel, compared to 0.7pc of uranium. There is enough to power civilization for thousands of years." Clean, safe, plentiful... Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 I'm facinated! I don't know where I was when you posted this previously, but this is exciting. I think part of the problem in this country is that a/ no one, generally speaking, knows about this technology and b/ there is as of yet no political will to drive this forward. Thanks for opening the discussion. I hope it will get at least as much interest and participation as Francois Dumas statement on $8 gas has. Link to comment
Traveler1 Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 There has been quite a bit of US experimental work related to using Thorium. However, material for bombs is not a by-product and that is probably the only reason the work never went commercial. I doubt anyone will be able to commercialize this technology without involving US companies. However, it won't be easy to get private (or government) investment to build plants in the US given the anti-nuclear lobby. Germany's green movement has shown that the political hurdle is higher than the technical one. Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 My question is, in today's energy dependent world, why isn't the USA leading the way instead of China? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_reactor#Disadvantages_as_nuclear_fuel Link to comment
DaveTheAffable Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 My question is, in today's energy dependent world, why isn't the USA leading the way instead of China? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_reactor#Disadvantages_as_nuclear_fuel What a valuable link! I have given the whole theorem on Thorium some fairly serious thought, but this paragraph alone gives me pause... Another challenge associated with a once-through thorium fuel cycle is the comparatively long interval over which 232 Th breeds to 233 U. The half-life of 233 Pa is about 27 days, which is an order of magnitude longer than the half-life of 239 Np. As a result, substantial 233 Pa develops in thorium-based fuels. 233 Pa is a significant neutron absorber, and although it eventually breeds into fissile 235 U, this requires two more neutron absorptions, which degrades neutron economy and increases the likelihood of transuranic production. If it weren't for that... Link to comment
tallman Posted January 18, 2012 Author Share Posted January 18, 2012 Mitch, I'm aware of that, thanks for linking. But, so what? India is moving to produce 1/3 of electricity from Thorium w/in 35 years. There are small scale reactors being implemented. Yes, all nuclear type power has related risks. But, compared to; oil spills, oil Wars, carbon footprints, having political policy dictated by Big Oily, the environmental impact (potential earthquakes) from oil processes, the environmental cost of maintaining our "business as usual" approach to energy production, I'm willing, as apparently much of the world is, to spend some $$ on this. Link to comment
Joe Frickin' Friday Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 Mitch, I'm aware of that, thanks for linking. But, so what? Only wanted to point out that it's not pure awesomeness. I would guess the biggest reason we aren't seeing more development of thorium reactor technology is the same reason that we haven't seen any new nuclear power plants, of any kind, being built in this country for the past several decades: the regulatory expense and environmental opposition make it unprofitable. Those are hurdles that don't really exist in places like India and China. Until such time as we become truly desperate for more power (like India and China), we're going to be stuck with the technology we've got: coal and old-school nukes, with a touch of hydroelectric, wind, and solar. Link to comment
Ken H. Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 My question is, in today's energy dependent world, why isn't the USA leading the way instead of China? Are we doing anything? For the same reason shallow geothermal for example is getting no where in North America - the need for greed. In a capitalist model what is or isn’t explored, developed, created isn’t driven by if it’s clean, safe, or plentiful, it’s driven by whether or not a profit can be made off of it. China is leading in alternative energy development and (also in particular Germany) because profit is not the only factor in their decision making. China has a thirst for oil-based energy now (and Canada in particular is trying to cash in on that) but I have no doubt that they are thinking and working long term to the day when they can tell us to !@#$ off. Link to comment
ESokoloff Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Interesting video albeit perhaps biased. Sponsers site. Link to comment
tallman Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 Ed, Thank you. That video covers the impressions I had when first learning about this. Freedom from foreign oil dependency. Much smaller environmental impacts. Less costly infrastructure. Safer. A new vehicle fuel, a new source of natural gas, all w/out the huge planetary impacts and infrastructure we see now. I can't see why, other than PAC/lobby by Beeg Oyl and current nuclear investors, why the USA isn't jumping into this like so many other parts of the world are. Again, thanks for the links. Link to comment
Paul Mihalka Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 "other than PAC/lobby by Beeg Oyl and current nuclear investors" I would love to comment on this, but it would get VERY political... Link to comment
tallman Posted February 2, 2012 Author Share Posted February 2, 2012 "other than PAC/lobby by Beeg Oyl and current nuclear investors" I would love to comment on this, but it would get VERY political... a GREED . My comment was merely one of an economic nature. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.