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.
....as today's thorium-power proponents point out, that idea never took hold primarily because thorium-fueled reactors don't provide the opportunity to make and collect materials that can be used to build nuclear bombs. It made no sense to Cold War-era policymakers to devote resources to developing thorium-based technology, given that plutonium, especially 239Pu, an ideal and much-needed bomb material at that time, could be readily produced in nuclear reactors fueled by uranium (which consists of roughly 99.3% 238U). So thorium never made it into mainstream nuclear technology and has never been commercialized even though it is more abundant, potentially less expensive to process, and boasts other key advantages relative to uranium....
In addition to the nonproliferation argument, thorium advocates quickly rattle off a slew of other reasons to push forward with thorium-based power. For example, the element is roughly four times more abundant than uranium and accessible via mining techniques that are simpler and less costly than the ones used to extract uranium. According to James Hendrick, a recently retired U.S. Geological Survey scientist who spoke at the Washington meeting, estimates of U.S. reserves of the metal are on the order of 300,000 metric tons —about 20% of the world's supply—much of which is found in Idaho's Lemhi Pass.
Not only is thorium more plentiful than uranium, it also does not need to undergo a costly and complex enrichment process to render it usable in a nuclear reactor. Uranium needs to be enriched because the desirable fissile isotope 235U comprises just 0.7% of the total material. Thorium exists in nature almost entirely as 232Th....
Proponents also point out that although waste products from thorium usage are radioactive, radiotoxicity persists for just tens of years rather than thousands of years as uranium waste does. They also stress that, unlike coal- and natural-gas-fired power plants, thorium-fueled power plants would not emit greenhouse gases such as CO2 and could generate power almost continuously, unlike solar- and wind-driven systems.... Chem Eng. News
Why can't they build a massive pipe past our atmosphere into space and just pump carbon dioxide out into space?
....Plant photosynthetic activity can reduce the Co2 within the plant canopy to between 200 and 250 ppm... I observed a 50 ppm drop in within a tomato plant canopy just a few minutes after direct sunlight at dawn[/v] entered a green house (Harper et al 1979) ... photosynthesis can be halted when CO2 concentration approaches 200 ppm... (Morgan 2003) Carbon dioxide is heavier than air and does not easily mix into the greenhouse atmosphere by diffusion... Source
Plant Stomata react more accurately to CO2 concentration, as has been determined in experiments. (More CO2 means fewer stomata, as plants exchange CO2 more efficiently) Historical collections of leaves can be used to determine past CO2 levels. In most cases, researchers are bound by the modern paradigm, and get confused by the low stomata counts of the past. Stomata cannot measure very high CO2, but only indicate high C)2. Higher CO2 levels over 325ppm are underestimated. When reading stomata research, you need to filter out the ruling paradigm when the problematical ice-core data is used to calibrate the stomata, when it should be the reverse.
Rapid atmospheric changes are well known from past reconstructions:
Carbon dioxide emissions must decrease to nearly zero by 2040 if global warming by the end of this century is to be held to 2 °C. But we may well miss that target. A pilot plant started up last fall at Squamish, British Columbia, is testing a backup plan: sucking carbon dioxide directly out of the air.