Why not THORIUM ? one ton of thorium can produce as much energy as 3,500,000 tons of coal.

page: 2
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 06:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
a reply to: symptomoftheuniverse

Another promising source of energy is off-shore wind.

energy.gov...

At least we seem to be looking into that one ..

"The U.S. Department of Energy's Wind Program funds research nationwide to develop and deploy offshore wind technologies that can capture wind resources off the coasts of the United States and convert that wind into electricity.

... Data on the technical resource potential suggest more than 4,000,000 megawatts (MW) of capacity could be accessed in state and federal waters along the coasts of the United States and the Great Lakes. While not all of this resource potential will realistically be developed, the magnitude (approximately four times the combined generating capacity of all U.S. electric power plants) represents a substantial opportunity to generate electricity near coastal populations."

----

From BBC Thorium article:

"Questions are being raised, though, about the advisability of pinning the world’s energy ambitions on another nuclear dream. Environmentalists often allege that if renewable power had commanded a fraction as much research funding as nuclear, it would already be much cheaper and more common.

Dr Nils Bohmer, a nuclear physicist working for a Norwegian environmental NGO, Bellona, said developing thorium was a costly distraction from the need to cut emissions immediately to stave off the prospect of dangerous climate change.

"The advantages of thorium are purely theoretical," he told BBC News.

"The technology development is decades in the future. Instead I think we should focus on developing renewable technology - for example offshore wind technology - which I think has a huge potential to develop.”

www.bbc.com...



A number of people, Governments and Companies have deeply vested interests in the status quo is the reply to that




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:00 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: nOraKat



It seems like there is a deliberate effort to keep the world using fossil fuels, with the development of new energy technologies moving at a snails pace.

Yea I'd say so. I think you've answered your own question.

That said, there are projects and according to wikipedia, India expects to have a thorium fast breeder reactor online by 2016 that uses plutonium to generate neutrons.


Thorium is only capable of use as a thermal breeder reactor.

You can't breed Plutonium from a Thorium reactor and the uranium bred from a Thorium reactor is so badly contaminated by dangerous Uranium 232 that you cannot use the Uranium waste for nuclear weapons either.

One has to bombard Thorium with Protons to obtain a nuclear reaction and because of this to stop the reaction one merely stops the Proton beam. If you cool it with molten lead then as soon as the proton beam is cut, the lead cools and solidifies around it producing an instant safe radiation shield.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:01 AM
link   
a reply to: Oannes

"Why not Zero-point energy?"

As someone else already mentioned "They" want us to use up all our other fossil fuels before "They" move us along to Thorium reactors. Same with utilising Zero point energy fields i imagine. Then there is the simple fact that as far as i know there is no way to tap the zero point field yet in any meaningful manner.
edit on 21-4-2014 by andy06shake because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: Oannes

"Why not Zero-point energy?"

As someone else already mentioned "They" want us to use up all our other fossil fuels before "They" move us along to Thorium reactors.


No, there's no "They" other than the dollar/euro/greed/money conspiracy. Gas and coal is a much better inve$tment.

There's no large-scale engineering practice with thorium reactors. Since nobody other than dictatorships can even get safe, modern, 4th generation conventional PWR's built, who the heck will spend enormous money to build something expensive which has so far unforseen construction and failure modes. Even modern, responsible, sober and rational Germany is going backwards to the 19th century and shutting off their nukes and building coal (!!!!), with a bit of feel good greenwashing with a solar & wind program.
edit on 21-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)




Environmentalists often allege that if renewable power had commanded a fraction as much research funding as nuclear, it would already be much cheaper and more common.


This is a nice, commonly held, and reassuring sentiment, but it is unfortunately not true. There's enough research on the basic physics to know what the energy density of the source is, and it is unfortunately much too low to be cheap.

No amount of research is going to change the extractable energy density of sunlight.
edit on 21-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 21-4-2014 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

"No, there's no "They" other than the dollar/euro/greed/money conspiracy."

Buddy add all of the above together and that's your "They" right there!



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 04:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat
Now - year 2014, still, monster diesel trucks roaring past me on the highways, people driving monster-sized pickup trucks and SUV's for no apparent reason. I guess they think they're cool ... like rebels.


You wouldn't happen to drive a Prius would you? You know, one of those electric cars with 500 pounds of lithium that was strip mined from mountains in China then trucked via diesel trucks to a refining plant, then trucked via diesel trucks to a battery manufacturing plant, then trucked via a diesel truck to a Toyota assembly plant, then shipped across the Pacific on a barge that burns diesel, only to be shipped to your local dealership by a diesel truck.

Just you you can smugly prattle about people that drive diesel trucks


Yea, you're really environmentally friendly




Or be like me and drive one of the greenest vehicles on Earth, an old Jeep


Jeeps are Green

...every time you buy a car new car you’re basically buying a million different parts from a million different places around the planet. Scale that up on the order of tens of millions of automobiles, and maybe you see what I’m saying, and I haven’t even touched the actual manufacturing processes, which have been cleaned up quite a bit.



(Sure it's an opinion piece, but the authors argument makes vastly more sense than yours)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: nOraKat

hmm i've been reading up on thorium and it might not seem to be all that it is promised to be:
www.beyondnuclear.org...
www.nuclearpledge.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...
edit on 25-4-2014 by MeteoraXV because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 01:28 PM
link   
a reply to: MeteoraXV

The Beyond Nuclear article was rather poorly thought out. I googled responses to the 2nd one, I don't know how valid they are.
pche-sts.blogspot.com.au...

lftrsuk.blogspot.com.au...

If you search you might be able to find more discussion about 3rd article.
edit on 25/4/14 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 04:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: MeteoraXV

originally posted by: nOraKat

hmm i've been reading up on thorium and it might not seem to be all that it is promised to be:
www.beyondnuclear.org...
www.nuclearpledge.com...
www.popularmechanics.com...


Pfft Typical hippy bull crap.

Sorry but there is no "perfect" energy sources.

Wind/solar dont give as the energy needed.
Uranium is to usnatble
Fossil fuels are dirty and running out.

Thorium to me still seems the best of a bad lot. In fact way better still than the others. At least until fusion is cracked.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
I seriously doubt if anybody is in the energy generation industry to create more material for atomic bombs. I'm sure they have plenty of that material by now, and have also probably heard that all-out nuclear war is generally pretty bad for business as it tends to reduce your consumer base to approximately zero.

Me, I'm a fan of isotopic Nickel-3. Small scale and decentralization is the way to go.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 05:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Wind/solar dont give as the energy needed.
Uranium is to usnatble
Fossil fuels are dirty and running out.

Population reduction is the best solution for our long-term energy needs.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Blue Shift

Great Idea hope you will do the honours of going first?

Only fair the ones who support it are the first to die. Lead by example.



posted on Apr, 25 2014 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Great Idea hope you will do the honours of going first?
Only fair the ones who support it are the first to die. Lead by example.

Thanks for the encouragement. But I'll be gone soon enough, as will we all. The key is reducing the birth rate, which surprisingly doesn't involve killing anyone, unless you can't tell the difference between potential/imaginary people and real people.



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:44 AM
link   
cue the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement...alex jones did a funny interview with the head guy of the movement lol



posted on Apr, 26 2014 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: C0bzz
i see thanks





top topics
 
10
<< 1   >>

log in

join