Thorium Reactors: All it Takes is a Little Push

The Blind Eternities forum

Posted on Oct. 28, 2014, 7:01 p.m. by Femme_Fatale

I want everyone here to watch this playlist:

"Th" Thorium Documentary by Gordon Mcdowell

Then after you've done that ... do a little searching on the videos that were used in that documentary. Just a little warning, the videos are long. Think of watching 7 movies back to back.

Kirk Sorensen on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

Jiang Mianheng - Why Nuclear Power in China?

I know there is a lot of university students here. I would like to ask of you to present these videos to your chemistry professors, to your physics professors and to whatever professors are interested in the environmental movements.

The only way this will be realized, is if people start to hear of it. At the moment, no one knows of it, but once the word gets out, action can take place.

As for me, there is a little celebratory event that happens here at UBC. It is celebrating the birth of the idea of economic footprint, and it is apparently a major event that happens. Now people are encouraged to submit propositions as to how this is presented, and I am going to put forward a simple suggestion to show this video.

Discover this knew idea, present it to others, and then discuss it. Once again, the only way this idea will take hold is if people learn of it.

Femme_Fatale says... #2

October 28, 2014 7:01 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #3

I really need to go back to school...anyways making a comment to remind myself to watch these when i feel better.

October 28, 2014 7:13 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #4

Mate this has been around for ages. The only reason they're not used is because the big oil companies funded the research in plutonium and uraniam reactors.

October 28, 2014 7:14 p.m.

Caligula says... #5

An explanation on the Thorium fuel cycle

Anything to be rid of our ridiculous oil based economy, I support.

This little tidbit sums up the problem,

A 2011 MIT study concluded that, although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle, with current or near term light-water reactor designs there is also little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur. As such they conclude there is little chance of thorium cycles replacing conventional uranium cycles in the current nuclear power market, despite the potential benefits

much like Telsa's ideas, It's too cheap for the government.

October 28, 2014 7:16 p.m.

Caligula says... #6

Well. Not that it's too cheap, it's that they can't make nearly as much money.

October 28, 2014 7:17 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #7

Aaaaaand this is why i hate humanity...if that quote is correct at least

October 28, 2014 7:18 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #9

The reason why Thorium wasn't used is because the people didn't know the chemical properties of Thorium. They knew Uranium, they had used Uranium in weaponry. That is why they went with Uranium.

I encourage you to at least watch the videos.

October 28, 2014 7:21 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #10

The US loves its oil dependency anyway. Entire country propped up on a black currency. Due to the power that these companies have the government is NEVER going to incentivise anything else, because there are large grants, payments, and 'gifts' made by oil companies to ensure steady business. It's not me being cynical, it's just the way things work. That's ok.

Also - don't be trying to strengthen China's infrastructure. Their economy has already surpassed the USs recently and things are likey particularly grim in that regard. The West needs every chance it can get.

October 28, 2014 7:21 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #11

Right, but if the money that was spent to make that massive solar power plant in (texas?) was used to build a thorium reactor, we would have a much MUCH less environmental problem today.

You have to consider that environmentalism is as much as a political and economical investment because of the common peoples perception of it being good as the economic prospect of fossil fuels. There are political organizations that silence those who go against their environmental beliefs, just because environmentalism is a profitable venture.

The power and money is there, it is just being directed in the wrong places.

October 28, 2014 7:27 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #12

Femme_Fatale - Actually thorium based materials had previously been tested in weaponry sometime in the '50s.

We also need to remember that pragmatically - we know uranium, and we like uranium. Switching is a risky and expensive business. This is besides the fact that most individuals dislike the idea of nuclear power and therefore would not support a government that wanted to spend potentially billions of dollars in screwing around with that as an energy source.

I don't think the people do necessarily support environmentalism. We are talking about a country where something like 35% of the population don't believe in climate change, and of the remaining 65% that do believe in it, only 30% say they care about it. That's like 1 in 5 people. God bless the USA

October 28, 2014 7:33 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #13

Yet someone got a ton of people to buy into the failure of a project known as "solar freakin roadways" it takes hype and commercialism. American's will buy anything with enough hype...

October 28, 2014 7:38 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #14

Even Barak Obama stated that one of his goals was to make sure that Nuclear power was the main power source. In fact, all USA presidents have said this.

Canada is screwed though.

But instead of dismissing the idea, spread it about. It doesn't take long to e-mail your professors or other students about this does it?

October 28, 2014 7:42 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #15

The other problem we have is that nuclear fuel doesn't actually solve the energy crisis, like at all...... we'd be moving from one non-renewable source to another non-renewable source. Sure it's a cleaner source of energy, but it doesn't carry the advantage of lasting a potentially infinite amount of time, unlike solar energy. One of the problems is excessive energy demand. By switching from fossil to nuclear we do nothing to tackle the root of the problem. There was some statistic going around a while back that basically said that if we did switch fully from fossil fuels to uranium reactors we'd only have enough uranium to last for somewhere in the region of 40 years. I'll have to go and research this though because I haven't checked the sources on that one.

However the point is - the answer to the global energy crisis is not to go and find a new non-renewable source. It's to try and find more sustainable practices. The problem isn't with our technology, it's with us.

October 28, 2014 7:43 p.m.

Bellock86 says... #16

Sadly VampireArmy is right. The US is so controlled by commercialism it's sad.

October 28, 2014 7:44 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #17

Yeah I just found somewhere that present supplies of uranium, used at the current rate should last around 90 years (on world nuclear website, which given the name of the site and the aim should be optimistic, not pessimistic). We can therefore assume that if we did go fully nuclear it would last far less.

I don't mind nuclear power on principle - but I think it's just a deflection from what we really need to be doing.

October 28, 2014 7:47 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #18

ChiefBell, that is where you are wrong.

1: Thorum is abundant everywhere, 4x more so than Uranium.

2: The use of Thorium as a liquid salt means that you can actively harvest the waste products and use them for other uses. Xenon is used by NASA for example. The CURRENT 17,000 tonnes of waste product of Nuclear Power can actually be re-used in these Nuclear plants.

Once again, watch the videos :D

October 28, 2014 8:05 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #19

3: Our current goal ISN'T to get renewable resources off the ground but to devalue the fossil fuel industries. Only then can you get Solar, Wind, Hydro and Geothermal off of the ground. The only way to do that is through this new form of Nuclear energy, as it can actually be done, we already know how to do it from these scientists. We don't know how to make the renewable resources reliable, so until then, we have to use Nuclear to discredit fossil fuels.

October 28, 2014 8:09 p.m.

ChiefBell says... #20

i will watch tomorrow but its like 12:30 here in the UK.

And that point about not knowing how to make renewable sources reliable is about rubbish. Northern european countries have been relying on renewable energy on a commercial basis for many years, as the main provider of their energy needs.

October 28, 2014 8:24 p.m.

I mean, I'll certainly distribute the material to the people I know who may be interested, but you're severely discounting the impact of money in the cycle. Big Energy is a big force. Without trying to turn T/O into a battlefield over politics, one of the biggest problems with the US political system is the extent to which it's monetized. Take the Koch brothers, for example. They can pour millions into the coffers of those conservatives who would maintain corporate political and economic power. Their interests are entrenched because they can afford to buy power.

Until we see truly impactful campaign finance reform in addition to precedent-setting movements in city-on-a-hill communities, we aren't going to get very far.

October 28, 2014 8:35 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #22

In about space though? An average nuclear power plant takes up about the size of a large building. Wind and solar plants take up a huge amount of space. Solar isn't that reliable because we don't have reliable batteries, same goes for wind. Tidal is very location specific, so it only applies to various spaces.


Haven't been able to find any other graph ...

October 28, 2014 8:40 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #23

I understand the push it needs requires politcal power and monetary power Epochalyptik, but you can only achieve those if this gets advertised and known correct?

I think I'll stop preaching the contents of the video now, I'm not doing much from it. I'll just try and convince people to at least watch it and distribute it. That's the easy part.

October 28, 2014 8:43 p.m.

Jay says... #24

Epoch if you need a new career you should consider transcending mortality and becoming Admin of Earth.

October 28, 2014 8:49 p.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #25

That would be the most depressing job in the world. Think of all the stuff you'd have to fix. In essence, he'd become God.

October 28, 2014 8:55 p.m.

Jay says... #26

HE HAS ALL THE ANSWERS

October 28, 2014 8:59 p.m.

VampireArmy says... #27

It wouldn't be the first time someone called him God i think.

October 28, 2014 9:13 p.m.

enpc says... #28

@Femme_Fatale: Just with your statement about all the renewables (and I know this a few days late to the game) - we do technically have a way to store the power, but that opens a whole new can of worms. As you mentioned, a big issue is Peak demand, which can occur at like 6pm. Usually solar (which is one of he more reliables) is no good at this time. So what you use is hydro electric power stored via gravitational potential energy. Problem is as much as people want renewable, they don't want dams everywhere.

The other big issue (which has been mentioned) is that money drives the market, not environmental friendlyness. That and fear. The second you mention nuclear power these days, the first thing that a lot of people respond with is "but what about Fukushima?!".

Global nuclear power is a nice pipedream, but at the moment thats all it is. because hey, why spend money when you can make it, even at the expense of the planet?

November 3, 2014 1:29 a.m.

Femme_Fatale says... #29

I know very well that the main reason why people fear nuclear power is because of West Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima, enpc; but here is the kicker, these wouldn't have happened with Thorium reactors.

November 3, 2014 1:35 a.m.

enpc says... #30

Its a wonderful catch 22 isn't it :P

This is the joy of it, the politicians are the ones who make the calls. they are also the ones who are under the control of the average folk who scare easy. Its one hell of a cycle.

November 3, 2014 6:03 a.m.

ChiefBell says... #31

Europe's been sitting happy (nodding at Scandinavian countries, France, and Germany in particular) with mostly renewable and nuclear power for years now. Unfortunately the UK and the US are pretty bad at adopting these approaches.

November 3, 2014 7:29 a.m.

This discussion has been closed