It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
PLUS-quoted All Star Minerals has registered a licence to explore for thorium, the ‘safe’ nuclear power source, in Sweden.
Young argues thorium, which resembles uranium but is virtually useless for military applications and remains radioactive for much less longer, is beginning to win recognition for its properties. In Norway, with some of the world's largest thorium deposits, Bergen Energy has applied to build a thorium-based power plant and others are under consideration.
Originally posted by NGC2736
There needs to be a push for this now. At all levels. The US seems on the verge of war with Iran over a nuclear program, yet if this alternative were used, it seems there would be no question of misuse.
I know some people jump right in to the end of a thread, but I suggest a careful reading of this thread. Here's a chance to push for something that could change our future. And building/paying for such reactors would certainly be cheaper than a war with Iran.
07. dec 2009
Danes have changed their negative views on adopting nuclear power
A majority of Danes are now in favour of nuclear power being used by world leaders to help reduce CO2 emissions according to the latest Gallup poll from Berlingske Tidende.
The Young Conservatives have gone a step further and said they want nuclear power introduced in Denmark as soon as possible.
•There is no danger of a melt-down like the Chernobyl reactor
•It produces minimal radioactive waste
•It is not suitable for the production of weapon grade materials
•The energy contained in one kilogram of Thorium equals that of four thousand tons coal
•The global Thorium reserves could cover the world’s energy needs for thousands of years
Originally posted by Hellmutt
A majority of Danes are now in favor of nuclear power. Their only concerns about it are the risks of a possible meltdown and the spread of nuclear weapons.
an old post from "porky" contains lots of technical info, in particular outlining drawbacks.
. Your first point makes no sense.....just because the reactor uses thorium does not exempt it from the possibility of power surges, fuel element overheating, etc.... (i.e., meltdown).
2. What is the definition of minimal radioactive waste? waste is waste, and it is still a problem for thousands of years....
One disadvantage is that the thorium cycle produces more fission gas per fission, although experience has shown that thorium dioxide is superior to uranium dioxide in retaining these gases.
The decay chain of 228Th produces strong gamma and alpha emitters. All handling of such material must be done under remote conditions with containment. (this was taken from another website).
Originally posted by wycky
It sounds good, but would rather see more research go into solar, that way the energy companies don't have a grip on us like they do now.
Originally posted by Murcielago
Originally posted by porky1981
waste is waste, and it is still a problem for thousands of years....
I wouldn't say thousands of years...
Once wee have a cheap and very safe and reliable way of getting off earth, we can just send big containers full of waste into our sun...and problem solved.
Its not feasable today, because a rocket couldn't hold much...plus it wouldn't be good if it blew up on launch.
But I doubt we would have to store the waste on earth for more then 100 years...I would assume by then access to space would be extremely cheap, safe, easy, and virtually common place.