It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama could kill fossil fuels overnight with a nuclear dash for thorium

page: 2
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 08:50 AM
"This would take the risk of nuclear weapons being built out of the equation, as it is nigh on impossible to use Thorium in a weapon because of its high output of Gamma rays."

this worries me, lol.

gamma ray bombs would be deadlier than neutron bombs or the same thing.

thorium sounds great, never heard of it before.

well. the usa should be jumping on this. anyone who can get some up and running could make some bucks, put the carbon tax crap to rest and the coal miners just mine different stuff.

create tons of jobs, leave the ME, watch them drown in oil.

great thread

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:00 AM
reply to post by fooks

On the possability of Gamma Ray bombs. This is from the Guardian in 2003.

American military scientists are developing a weapon which kills by delivering an enormous burst of high-energy gamma rays, it is claimed today. The bomb, which produces little fallout, blurs the distinction between conventional and nuclear weapons, and experts have already warned it could spark a new arms race.

The science behind the gamma ray bomb is still in its infancy, and technical problems mean it could be decades before the devices are developed. But the Pentagon is taking the project seriously.

The device would not produce energy by triggering a nuclear fission or fusion reaction, like current nuclear weapons. Instead it would rely on the gamma rays produced when the high-energy nuclei of some radioactive elements decay.

I don't know how far advanced this is or if it is still on the table. But i suppose knowing the Pentagon, it probabley is.

However I do not see how lesser devloped nations could develop weapons from Thorium reactors Gamma rays if the U.S. is so far off.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Peruvianmonk]

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:02 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

Interesting. It appears that alternative nuclear fuel's are being considered right at this moment in the U.S..

Keep us posted on any new devlopments.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:02 AM

Is there any real risk of meltdown?

To be fair, there is only an extremely small risk of a meltdown at an existing western nuclear plant.

But no, the type of reactor that utilizes Thorium to this extent, called a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor (LFTR or lifter) actually has a fluid fuel. The fuel itself, is molten, so it can't really have an accident like a melt down. If it gets too hot, the reaction automatically slows itself down.

From your avatar and quotes you appear to be a strong supporter of conventional Nuclear power.

Long story. Over time I've become a supporter of (almost) anything nuclear, including current technology and future technology.

The avatar refers to the fact that.... 1% of the energy in the material mined is used up with current technology. The "waste" still has 99% of the energy within it, but requires a special kind of reactor to 'burn' it up. i.e. Nuclear waste has the energy content of 30 trillion dollars worth of oil.

I find the dangers of western nuclear power overblown, hence the signature.

Do you work in the industry?

Nope. Never met anyone in real life who worked in the industry either.

Have you heard of any other cleaner/efficient ideas than Uranium, Plutonium reactors, other than Thorium and the Cold Fusion solution?

No, Thorium is about the best you can get. There's also another type of reactor that uses Uranium and/or Plutonium. It has most of the advantages of Thorium, as well as some additional advantages, and disadvantages.

It seems like something that only a crazed conspiracy theorist would come up with. A source of carbon-free energy that holds the potential to provide base load power for the planet for thousands of years hence, and which could be built along the existing transmission grid and even be housed within retrofitted coal-fired power stations. A process that could eat existing nuclear waste instead of needing to store it in highly secure vaults such as Yucca Mountain for hundreds of millennia. A technology that enjoyed large investments in R&D by government, only to have the funding zeroed for political reasons when close to large-scale demonstration — and then the scientists involved told not to publicise this fact. Well that, in caricature, is the basic story of Integral Fast Reactor (IFR) nuclear power.

[edit on 31/8/2010 by C0bzz]

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:09 AM
As always it is a money thing to put these kind of developements on hold.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:14 AM
I've been saying that for years, If they helped Iran adjust their plants to use Thorium, we wouldn't have this predicament.I actually made a paper about it and why the third pillar of the NPT wouldn't be a problem if we used Thorium..
Russia and India are specialized in Thorium plants, Russia uses it to burn plutonium and old nukes, in India and Brazil Thorium is in abundance.
Green nuclear energy proliferation free, what more do you want?

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:16 AM
reply to post by C0bzz

about your last quote,

i can almost look past some of the other crap our gov does but this

really pisses me off.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 09:19 AM
reply to post by C0bzz
I like your signature.

How do the numbers stack up if you include all the coal, oil and gas disasters since the start-up of the reactor at Shippingport in 1957? I bet it is even more impressive!

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 10:04 AM
Here's some info on the possability of a Thorium reactor meltdown and any military use which could be derived from the reactor.

Regarding meltdown in a thorium reactor, Rubbia writes, “Both the EA and MF can be effectively protected against military diversions and exhibit an extreme robustness against any conceivable accident, always with benign consequences. In particular the [beta]-decay heat is comparable in both cases and such that it can be passively dissipated in the environment, thus eliminating the risks of “melt-down”.

Thorium reactors can breed uranium-233, which can theoretically be used for nuclear weapons. However, denaturing thorium with its isotope, ionium, eliminates the proliferation threat.

I wish U.K. companies and or the Government would encourage the development of these 'wonder' reactors.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:29 AM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

Am I the only who thought this and pictured Obama playing WoW fighting over rich thorium points with some sort of horde character?

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 11:32 AM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

Thank you my good sir. I shall spread the word.

In the mean time, you should too.

[edit on 31-8-2010 by Gorman91]

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:03 PM
But what will all the motorhead sports people do to power their race toys?

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:08 PM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

The problem is that Thorium 232, the plentiful stuff, is not fissile. You have to breed it into Uranium 233. Any reactor would need seed Uranium to generate the process. You use either Uranium 233, U 235, or Plutonium 239 as a driver to emit "slow" neutrons to produce U-233, which can be seperated from the remaining non-fissile Th-232 and used as fuel for a reactor.
There has already been a commercial power generating station usig thorium - the Fort St Vrain generating plant in Colorado. It was shut down early because of a host of problems. See,

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:09 PM
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

Sorry, double post

[edit on 31-8-2010 by 4nsicphd]

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:26 PM
I really dont get it? All the pieces of the puzzle for making the WORLDS standard of living increase, dramatically, are there. Everyone who could make a difference has their head way to far up their ass to open the damn box!


[edit on 31-8-2010 by MessOnTheFED!]

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:44 PM
Great post. Never heard of this before. Will do some research after work tonight.

If it's true that it eats radioactive waste, why aren't the environmentalists pushing for its use? Oh, right, because they are all on the global warming bandwagon and every other issue just gets cast aside.

1 tonne versus millions on tonnes of coal? It's very, very easy to see why this has barely even seen the light of day.

Look at how hard the oil companies have worked to make sure that alternative power sources for cars never see the light of day, and look at how hard power utility interests have worked (for more than 100 years) to ensure that no other alternative source of free or cheap energy ever gets widely adopted (right back to Nikola Tesla). I'd LOVE to have a Telsa Coil.

It's time to throw EVERY lobbyist out of politics, right now. The first politician who TRULY gets rid of lobbying would have my vote for President, if I were in the USA. However, we also need to get rid of lobbying here in Canada too.

It's time that special interests got the hell out of politics and let politicians get back to working for the people, not for corporations.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:45 PM
The problem in the US will be mining enough Thorium.
The anti mining treehuggers are in the process of closing mines around the country.
Suction dredge mining. Underground and open pit gold mining is just about completely closed down in Calif and the attorney general Jerry Brown(ex governor moonbeam) is going after the last mines with phony environmental law suits.

They have already closed down the biggest rare earth mine in the world.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 12:56 PM
Some of us have been saying for some time now that thorium is the short/medium term solution to our energy needs - not a replacement for fossil fuels necessarily but a safer and more acceptable (to the public) alternative to current nuclear.

But thorim doesn't produce weapon's grade plutonium ...... ah, some might have a problem with that!

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:03 PM

Originally posted by babybunnies

If it's true that it eats radioactive waste, why aren't the environmentalists pushing for its use? Oh, right, because they are all on the global warming bandwagon and every other issue just gets cast aside.

1 tonne versus millions on tonnes of coal? It's very, very easy to see why this has barely even seen the light of day.

Don’t you get it?

Their primary method of protecting the environment is blocking human progress.

If the standard of living increases, then we will multiply faster/less of us die, and they don’t want that.

They want everyone back in caves, fighting off the wolves.

An organism naturally gravitates to the richest source energy, unless something prevents it from doing so. The environmental lobby has been the No 1 force behind that blocking of rich new energy supplies.

They create a situation by wanting us to do something to prevent something. When we try to do that something, then they come at us with everything they got to try to prevent us from doing what they wanted us to do.

The effect that has is dragging everything down in the muck, and nothing gets done, while energy prices skyrocket, as industry and the population get crushed under the cost.

That is exactly what the environmentalists want.

posted on Aug, 31 2010 @ 01:16 PM

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

Sadly people needs to understand that while Obama can support clean energy and can talk his hart out of getting off "fossil fuels" for the time been the reality is that is not going to happen

WASHINGTON – Sens. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) and Harry Reid (D-Nev.) today introduced the Thorium Energy Security Act of 2010 to accelerate the use of thorium-based nuclear fuel in existing and future U.S. reactors.

Their legislation establishes a regulatory framework and a development program to facilitate the introduction of thorium-based nuclear fuel in nuclear power plants across the nation. The U.S. relies on foreign sources for about 90 percent of its uranium fuel needs. However, the most-recent U.S. Geological Survey’s Thorium Mineral Commodity report confirms the United States has the largest thorium deposits in the world.

On March 3rd 2010 the bill was referred to " Committee on Energy and Natural Resources."

Ant that is where it is STUCK

Great info here

top topics

<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in