Thorium

From the last priuschat discussion on Thorium, I said:

It is however, accepted science; the technology is still a bit up in the air.

 

The previous generation of engine on one of the helicopter models that I work on had a Magnesium-Thorium alloy compressor case.

 

Thorium has some benefits over uranium, and some countries, especially India, which has lots of thorium and not much uranium, are building thorium reactors. However, the overblown claims in the Forbes article are reminiscent of the claims made for nuclear power in the 1950's and 1960's, when we were told nuclear power would be entirely safe, and would be "too cheap to meter." It is possible that thorium might end up supplanting uranium for nuclear power plants. But it is no panacea. It might be somewhat safer than uranium, but will likely bring with it its own problems. And it might be cheaper, but is not likely to be a lot cheaper. Any kind of nuclear power plant costs a LOT to build and has a limited service life, after which the plant itself is too radioactive to operate or decommission safely.

So: Improvement? Maybe. Holy grail? No way.

I suspect that Forbes has been a big booster of nuclear power all along. And now that a lot of people no longer trust nuclear power plants, and nobody wants one in their back yard, Forbes is just picking the latest thing in nuclear plant design and doing its best to present it as "the solution," in order to revive the nuclear industry.

 

thats not a lot of years what about uranium?

 

Google and Wikipedia are your friends. There's nothing cold fusion-y about thorium: it works, it's hard to weaponize, it creates less waste than uranium fuel cycles, and contributes zilch to global warming. The Earth holds enough easily recoverable thorium to meet all energy needs for thousands of years. But since it would cost a few pennies more than coal we'll burn all of that first, killing a few million people more and wrecking our climate before turning to anything else.

 

At what growth rate?

And do you have a better estimate for available thorium than the one listed above?

 

its stil radioactive right?
and not only thorium buth instead of ... and next to.

anyway how many people will dy from cancer because of this

 

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_cheap_to_meter"]Too cheap to meter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It's not a myth of nuclear fission, it's a myth of nuclear fusion. An oft-repeated mistaken reference from 1954. The only people who even mention "too cheap to meter" are opponents of nuclear power.

You don't know that at all. From what I've read it's safer than uranium in the critical ways.

I'd suggest a dramatic improvement. More stable process, less dangerous waste, less material for weapon production.

But no, it's a not a Holy Grail because, like fusion, it still depends on a limited fuel supply.

Given the propaganda war over uranium fission it's not surprising that they'd be pushing a superior alternative to uranium fission.

The big problem for nuclear power is the same one as renewable energy. People keep insisting that energy has to be cheap, instead of working backwards from safe.

 

I thought you weren't really big on science...?

 

Can Thorium power a car? Gas, Battery power, thorium. A Thrius?