The Thorium Conspiracy

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:16 AM
link   

Nuclear power is found throughout the world, and the vast majority of nuclear reactors run on uranium. Uranium has several drawbacks, and disasters such as the meltdowns at Fukushima and Chernobyl stand as powerful examples of the potentially catastrophic risks posed by nuclear power. But, according to numerous sources, there's an alternative to uranium. Though thorium isn't perfect, it's more plentiful and arguably safer than uranium. So why aren't we using it?




The video explains the shady forces and powerful interests that shaped our current nuclear technology ever since the World War II. Since nuclear science was from its start intimately connected to governments and military, its no surprise that these factors had a great influence on the direction it would take. A direction of uranium light water reactors and plutonium fast reactors was chosen, that is far better at producting bombs than electricity. But this direction is not the only possible one.

What could have been if nuclear technologies were developed in more peaceful times, from "clean slate", free of such military interests? A solution tailored for energy production, safety and sustainability instead of nuclear bombs presents itself - the thorium molten salt reactors. An energy solution to save mankind?




posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 10:50 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 

It may have been easier to not go the Thorium route and not just because of the nuclear weapons potential of the Uranium route. This is what I've heard, although I'm not an expert.

It seems to me if we really care about AGW we'd put more money into Thorium nuclear reactor research. I've read we were putting more money into fusion research 30+ years ago.

Google Tech Talk, May 26, 2009. Presented by Robert Hargraves:
edit on 29-1-2013 by jonnywhite because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 11:40 AM
link   
reply to post by Maslo
 

Quite simply,Thorium cannot be enriched to produce an element such as plutonium for nuclear weapons manufacture.
Nuclear power stations have always been designed with the purpose of providing plutonium for nuclear weapons.
Whilst the mainstream view is that nuclear reactors produce plutonium as a by product,I would suggest that this is the primary intention,after all,just how efficient are nuclear plants at generating electricity compared to hydro and wind power?



posted on Jan, 29 2013 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by jonnywhite
 


Well if we wont, the Chinese will.





 
4

log in

join