17 replies to this topic

[shrooma]

as an alternative to fossil fuels, should we be building thorium reactors and phasing out uranium reactors?

[shrooma]

http://en.m.wikipedi...rium_fuel_cycle
.
with thorium being a safer, more environmentally freindly fuel than uranium, why hasn't worldwide construction of thorium reactors taken off?

[and then]

Not sure about the issues elsewhere but in the US it takes many years to get permission for construction of a reactor.  People have an irrational fear of radiation and despite evidence to the contrary they make it extremely difficult to use.  But I agree that this source makes MUCH more sense - especially from a proliferation stand point.  The choice of Uranium instead pretty much proves the real intent of a nation wanting to start up with nuclear power.  They want to leave the option open to increase their status or leverage by the implied threat of nuclear weapons potential.  Eventually I think it will mean the end of our current civilization.

[third_eye]

the ones that wants it don't have the money, the ones that have the money don't wants it now because they're still making money with what they have and is using now without risking much more money

[shrooma]

and then, on 27 February 2013 - 11:54 AM, said:

this source makes MUCH more sense - especially from a proliferation stand point.  The choice of Uranium instead pretty much proves the real intent of a nation wanting to start up with nuclear power.

.
to me, the non-proliferation point is its key factor. removing the threat of the construction of a 'dirty bomb' should be used as a major selling point, but as you rightly point out, people have an irrational fear of the word 'nuclear'.
india is making strides in thorium technology, and more or less proves they're in it for the energy, not the armaments, something iran should've noted if they want the rest of the world to take them seriously!

[shrooma]

third_eye, on 27 February 2013 - 11:55 AM, said:

the ones that wants it don't have the money, the ones that have the money don't wants it now because they're still making money with what they have and is using now without risking much more money

.
proof, if ever needed, that thinking with our wallets is a b-a-d idea.....

[third_eye]

shrooma, on 27 February 2013 - 12:10 PM, said:

.
proof, if ever needed, that thinking with our wallets is a b-a-d idea.....

says you, they are apparently more than a little proud of themselves

[Frank Merton]

I suppose if we must we must, and this is better than what we have now.

[shrooma]

third_eye, on 27 February 2013 - 12:13 PM, said:

says you, they are apparently more than a little proud of themselves

-
maybe they should take marcellus wallace's advice when it comes to pride....
:-)

[shrooma]

Frank Merton, on 27 February 2013 - 01:02 PM, said:

I suppose if we must we must, and this is better than what we have now.

.
it's more abundant than uranium, cheaper, more energy efficient, less hazardous to humans, not as damaging to the environment, and incredibly difficult to make into weapons. I can't understand why we started using uranium in the first place, and certainly not why we haven't scrapped it in favour of thorium. these decisions are made by politicians, not industrialists, so it would be interesting to learn their motivations. pressure needs to be put on them to change, they are supposed to represent us after all.....

[third_eye]

uranium enrichment creates a lot of by products essential to some of the economic empires today

these leeches now exists beyond the control of humans, the numbers makes the choices, the 'heads' or 'leaders' are mere figureheads, easily replaceable, the system structure remains unchanged at the core, who even remembers 'sweat shops' I wonder

[Frank Merton]

shrooma, on 27 February 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

.
it's more abundant than uranium, cheaper, more energy efficient, less hazardous to humans, not as damaging to the environment, and incredibly difficult to make into weapons. I can't understand why we started using uranium in the first place, and certainly not why we haven't scrapped it in favour of thorium. these decisions are made by politicians, not industrialists, so it would be interesting to learn their motivations. pressure needs to be put on them to change, they are supposed to represent us after all.....

OK, I'm persuaded.  I wish my opinion mattered.

[ExpandMyMind]

shrooma, on 27 February 2013 - 01:19 PM, said:

.
it's more abundant than uranium, cheaper, more energy efficient, less hazardous to humans, not as damaging to the environment, and incredibly difficult to make into weapons. I can't understand why we started using uranium in the first place, and certainly not why we haven't scrapped it in favour of thorium. these decisions are made by politicians, not industrialists, so it would be interesting to learn their motivations. pressure needs to be put on them to change, they are supposed to represent us after all.....

It's also harder to find, and you can't create medical isotopes from it. Though, if more adopt the Indian approach, it will become easier to find and mine as it becomes more profitable to do so.

[shrooma]

Frank Merton, on 27 February 2013 - 04:07 PM, said:

OK, I'm persuaded.  I wish my opinion mattered.

.
everybody's opinion should matter in a democracy frank!
I think nothing's being done because not many people have heard of it, i've never been approached by anyone campaigning on its behalf, and i'm a regular at protests.
I think awareness is an issue, as with most things, but there's very little in the media about it, and information of any kind is scarce at best, unfortunately!

[Frank Merton]

Where I live is not exactly a democracy, and I do have some influence here and there but not on energy matters.  Vietnam seems determined to go the imported LNG route, having used all the available hydroelectric sites, and not succeeding in finding significant other resources.  As a way to break from oil and coal I guess it's the best of several distasteful choices.