Thorium Power Plants Could Solve The World's Energy Problems

page: 4
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 28 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   


Thorium Power Plants Could Solve The World's Energy Problems


If there is one conspiracy theory that holds its water, it is that the energy industry is not going to allow any cheap, abundant supply other than those they can control, to be set loose on the market. Moreover, those governments of the industrialized world only understand the ramifications of setting humanity free of these energy barons based on what they have been feeding back into the democracies since the mid 1950s: If free or cheap and abundant energy supplies were to suddenly displace conventional sources like oil, coal and natural gas, the result would be economic catastrophe.

Similarly, when the banks warned the US government of riots and martial law if they were allowed to fail, both political parties bellied-up to what we now call the 'bail out'.

So, thorium or cold fusion or tapping Tesla's energy bank in the upper atmosphere may all be possible, but they will not be allowed to be realized. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow.




posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
BOSTON (AP) — Massachusetts' only nuclear power plant wants permission to operate another 20 years, but as a decision nears, some high ranking officials say a record-long federal review of the request spanning more than six years hasn't been long enough.We do believe that the plant is being operated safely, we believe that it has the appropriate level of security, and the staff believes that the review that has been conducted shows that the plant can operate safely for an additional 20 years
power plant development



posted on Jun, 1 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   
reply to post by Figher Master FIN
 


and GE reactors like those in Fukushima are way worse.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Thorium does sound like a decent option, hope they invest some time into this project



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Great news!


Norway Begin Testing Thorium in Nuclear Reactors


Thor Energy will team up with the Norwegian government and Westinghouse of the US to begin a four year test which will determine whether or not thorium is a viable alternative to uranium. The test will occur at the government controlled nuclear reactor in Halden.



posted on Dec, 14 2012 @ 10:46 PM
link   
I'm expecting the ITER plant to produce good results; but that's fusion. Thorium nuclear reactors sounds like a great way to keep us running until we can get good fusion systems going.



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Can they PLEASE, NOT f' this up...
This entire civilisation is a total screw up...

All we do is bickering and ranting one another..
"Go to your room and stay there untill you realize
whats important"...


0-14 considderd kids here
14-18 young adults
18 and up, Your an adult. Responsible for your own choices

These turds in power behaves like 4year olds...



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 02:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by redoubt

If there is one conspiracy theory that holds its water, it is that the energy industry is not going to allow any cheap, abundant supply other than those they can control, to be set loose on the market. Moreover, those governments of the industrialized world only understand the ramifications of setting humanity free of these energy barons based on what they have been feeding back into the democracies since the mid 1950s: If free or cheap and abundant energy supplies were to suddenly displace conventional sources like oil, coal and natural gas, the result would be economic catastrophe.


Hardly. All that matters is "cheap". US natural gas has gotten much cheaper than it was a few years ago, and there is no conspiracy to suppress it, and its economic benefits have been positive.

After all, wind is free and yet wind power is not free. Why? Has any evil conspiratorial sorts been suppressing windpower? No.

Absolutely nothing in energy generation or use ever happens "suddenly". Even if ETs gave us some plans for a magic free-energy fusion reactor, it would still take at least 30 to 50 years to change over. Who is going to build them? Who is going to build the factories to make them? Who will do the testing? Who will learn about safety? How much do they cost, and how much does that compare to continuing with existing generating plants? Who will fund the capital?


So, thorium or cold fusion or tapping Tesla's energy bank in the upper atmosphere may all be possible, but they will not be allowed to be realized. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow.


Well, the second two are either non-existent or nonsensical, and thorium doesn't solve any immediate existing problem. The commercial issues with pursuing nuclear reactors don't change one bit from uranium to thorium, other than increasing the regulatory scrutiny and having less experience manufacturing fuel.

We aren't churning out lots of small modular reactors based on well-tested and known technology now. If there's not much demand for that now, who would buy something which is tested much less well?

Any supposed shortage of uranium plays no part in the barriers to adopting nuclear fission generation and won't for at least 100 to 200 years.

When you grow up and recognize the actual forces in the real world and the practical barriers to success you may see why things are as they are.
edit on 17-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)
edit on 17-12-2012 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 17 2012 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by redoubt

If there is one conspiracy theory that holds its water, it is that the energy industry is not going to allow any cheap, abundant supply other than those they can control, to be set loose on the market. Moreover, those governments of the industrialized world only understand the ramifications of setting humanity free of these energy barons based on what they have been feeding back into the democracies since the mid 1950s: If free or cheap and abundant energy supplies were to suddenly displace conventional sources like oil, coal and natural gas, the result would be economic catastrophe.


Hardly. All that matters is "cheap". US natural gas has gotten much cheaper than it was a few years ago, and there is no conspiracy to suppress it, and its economic benefits have been positive.


Indeed. I like it when someone lays it out so clearly, and shows that "suppression" is the notion for the paranoid and mentally infirm.


Even if ETs gave us some plans for a magic free-energy fusion reactor, it would still take at least 30 to 50 years to change over. Who is going to build them? Who is going to build the factories to make them? Who will do the testing? Who will learn about safety? How much do they cost, and how much does that compare to continuing with existing generating plants? Who will fund the capital?


Right on. For the latter part, I would wager that venture capitalists would cough up a rather significant amount of money, to build an "extraterrestronium" reactor demonstrator. But going from 0 to 60, in energy production... Doubtful at nest.




So, thorium or cold fusion or tapping Tesla's energy bank in the upper atmosphere may all be possible, but they will not be allowed to be realized. Not yesterday, not today, not tomorrow.


Well, the second two are either non-existent or nonsensical


Yep. Tesla energy bank? Retarded.


and thorium doesn't solve any immediate existing problem


Except that by and large, Thorium fuel mix is not suited as the material for the fission bomb. That's very important.


The commercial issues with pursuing nuclear reactors don't change one bit from uranium to thorium, other than increasing the regulatory scrutiny and having less experience manufacturing fuel.


I don't see how manufacturing Thorium fuel is more complicated or difficult than running centrifuges on Uranium fluoride.


We aren't churning out lots of small modular reactors based on well-tested and known technology now.


I understand that after Chernobyl that may be the case...



posted on Feb, 16 2013 @ 05:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by mbkennel
...and thorium doesn't solve any immediate existing problem.


Oh, I think it does eliminate the greatest part of probably the worst problem that nuclear reactors face, barring Chernobyl and Fukushima bad PR: the question of waste. At least, the liquid fueled reactors like LFTR can.

They do two things that solid fueled reactors don't: they can use all their fuel, rather than just the small sliver that solids use before their fuel has to be processed, or as we do it today, dumped. Secondly, they can take all the old spent fuel lying in those pools which can be converted to liquid fluorides and burn them for fuel as well.



posted on Jun, 21 2013 @ 08:39 PM
link   
It seems that alpha-emitting radioisotopes derived from the thorium fuel cycle are promising agents in the fight against cancer, HIV, and other diseases.



8th International Symposium on Targeted Alpha-Therapy Summary


Modern liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) could make this critical TAT source material more readily available for drug development, clinical trials, and eventually for treating many thousands of cancer patients. In fact, each utility-scale LFTR power plant will produce enough long-lived source material annually to treat thousands of new patients a year for thousands of years.



posted on Jun, 22 2013 @ 08:06 AM
link   
Most of the supposed advantages of "Thorium" come from higher fuel utilization and reprocessing. These are mostly due to reactor design itself and the specific reprocessing system used. Let me reiterate, the reactor design coupled with the type of fuel and reprocessing are the enablers. Thorium is just one aspect of that. Thorium for example, can be mixed with Plutonium to form a specific type of MOX fuel, which generally doesn't have significant benefits over regular MOX fuel (U-238 mixed with Plutonium). Hence why it isn't used. Uranium, when used in used in fast breeders with reprocessing have almost all the advantages of LFTR.

The only thing specific about Thorium compared to Uranium, is that a breeder reactor can be created without using fast neutrons, which has some implications regarding safety and perhaps economics.

Most discussion about "Thorium" is really about Thorium being used in a specific type of reactor known as LFTR. My opinion - always use precise terminology when discussing this topic to be correct.


The commercial issues with pursuing nuclear reactors don't change one bit from uranium to thorium, other than increasing the regulatory scrutiny and having less experience manufacturing fuel.

There are plenty of indications that LFTR could be cheaper than conventional light water reactor technology. Also since LFTR solves the non-"immediate issues" of nuclear power, like waste, then it would likely get more public support and government subsidies. LFTR also needs many billions of development cost, which introduces its own commercial issues in itself. The commercial issues are completely different.
edit on 22/6/13 by C0bzz because: (no reason given)



  exclusive video


top topics
 
23
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join