• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Thorium Nuclear Energy

C

cloudslicer

New member
Joined
Nov 27, 2011
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Spring2011Conference

I've only done some light reading on this but it appears to be a mature workable technology and has advantages over Uranium based reactors.

Given the lack of real alternatives I don't see why Thorium shouldn't be seriously considered. The "pulp fiction" alternatives of wind and solar don't come near to meeting the energy requirements of a modern 21st century
economy. Natural Gas and Coal are both plentiful but I think that we must move beyond chemical energy to meet our energy needs if we are to meet the growing demand curve going forward.
 
Last edited:

In a recent thread that we all dove into it came to light that the reason it wasn't focused on for it's many uses and benefits was because the WWII and our drive for nuclear-based weapons technology.

Which can't be done with thorium.

But many of us support it's usage, as well - frustrating when politicians interfere with things that should be left alone.
 
I definitely see molten salt reactors making a comeback. Now that we're not as concerned with reactors that can make weapons grade uranium and plutonium as a byproduct, molten salt reactors have some big advantages over traditional reactors. I don't see the technology really taking off though unless people get over their fear of nuclear energy.
 
_________________________________________________________________________________________


i agree.
 
Thorium reactors have good potential as an energy source. However, like all nuclear technology, it has massive capital requires and requires serious government investment and subsidies. I'd consider it worth researching such technology, but it lacks the market driven capabilities of solar.
 

Lacks the market driven capabilities?

I think it's just the opposite - it's just an ignored source. If the goverment's willing to throw out millions to 'green electricity' companies then surely they could boot this alternate source.

as also was pointed out: Thorium - apparently - is relatively abundant, in the way, but not used for much of anything - it's toxic trash because there's nothing to do with it right now.
 

In order to build 2 new nuclear powerplants, Obama had to guarantee 8.2 billion dollars in loans to make it happen. The whole Solyndra debacle was only 535 million by comparison. Thorium or any nuclear power won't happen without massive government involvement. Thorium is definitely good technology and I would personally consider it worth the cost. However, the amount of state support needed does pose something of a barrier. Solar by comparison, is much more workable as a market system. Commercial entities are willing to absorb R&D, production and financing.

The sensible option would be focus on solar while simultaneously developing practical thorium reactors. Once solar can handle peak power, thorium plants can be added to replace fossil fuels for night-time use.
 
Well - I disagree that solar is workable. However much I'd love to be on solar - no one's offering it and personal home-based systems are highly expensive. The government's been supporting solar and it's gone no where.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - I disagree that solar is workable. However much I'd love to be on solar - no one's offering it and personal home-based systems are highly expensive. The government's been supporting solar and it's gone no where.
Click to expand...

No offense, but try doing a little research. Solar panels have dropped in price by 50% in the last two years because the price for silicon dramatically dropped. Here is a graph showing you the extremely high growth of the panel market. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SolarCellProduction-E.PNG U.S. government has had pretty much zero impact. China is the driving force for panel pricing and growth at the moment.

If you scroll down a bit, you can see a graph showing the subsidies for each type of energy. http://www.window.state.tx.us/specialrpt/energy/subsidies/ While Solar has fairly high subsidies (although its less today than in 2006), nuclear subsidies are even bigger. Ethanol of course gets the highest subsidies despite its lack of worth.
 

I agree with thorium reactors. However, let's not put all our eggs in one basket. A reasonable energy plan will include nuclear, as well as solar and wind.
 
Aunt Spiker said:
Well - I disagree that solar is workable. However much I'd love to be on solar - no one's offering it and personal home-based systems are highly expensive. The government's been supporting solar and it's gone no where.
Click to expand...

I paid $300 for an 80 watt solar panel that will let me camp free for weeks at a time (if there is some sort of water nearby otherwise I will get real stinky!!)

But China is leading the way with Thorium

Safe nuclear does exist, and China is leading the way with thorium - Telegraph
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…