• 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!

Why isn't the U.S. developing Thorium based nuclear power?

Cassandra

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2009
Messages
2,337
Reaction score
953
Location
Oregon
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
There should be an intensive effort to develop this form of power!

It is so tragic that the U.S. chose to pursue uranium based technology instead of thorium. Why- it appears that the original decision was based on the fact that the D.O.D. wanted plutonium for bomb making.

Thorium is far, far safer and could, as far as I can see, solve the problem of CO2 emissions. One ton of thorium could potentially generate as much power as 3,500,000 tons of coal. Thorium is plentiful. These reactors create little waste , they do not melt down, the waste is radioactive for far fewer years than the current nuclear power plants.

The U.S. will in all likelihood be left behind on this technology.
 
There should be an intensive effort to develop this form of power!

It is so tragic that the U.S. chose to pursue uranium based technology instead of thorium. Why- it appears that the original decision was based on the fact that the D.O.D. wanted plutonium for bomb making.

Thorium is far, far safer and could, as far as I can see, solve the problem of CO2 emissions. One ton of thorium could potentially generate as much power as 3,500,000 tons of coal. Thorium is plentiful. These reactors create little waste , they do not melt down, the waste is radioactive for far fewer years than the current nuclear power plants.

The U.S. will in all likelihood be left behind on this technology.

Well for one thing there was an agreement between the deciders (The Opposite of the Little People) that we would keep the nuclear we had but would go no more down that road.

Course now that the plants are getting near retirement, and given the global warming problem, and given what the Japanese and Germans decided about nuclear who knows what we do.

We should be deciding, but we have a lot of other big problems that we are ignoring or handling badly because we decided to do stupid **** with our time and energy, for instance knee capping our President or even better taking him out of Washington, so dont be holding your breath now...
 
There should be an intensive effort to develop this form of power!

It is so tragic that the U.S. chose to pursue uranium based technology instead of thorium. Why- it appears that the original decision was based on the fact that the D.O.D. wanted plutonium for bomb making.

Thorium is far, far safer and could, as far as I can see, solve the problem of CO2 emissions. One ton of thorium could potentially generate as much power as 3,500,000 tons of coal. Thorium is plentiful. These reactors create little waste , they do not melt down, the waste is radioactive for far fewer years than the current nuclear power plants.

The U.S. will in all likelihood be left behind on this technology.

It's a pet peeve of mine, also.

The likely answer to "why" is that you can't easily weaponize thorium, and until sometime in the 80's, they felt like that was more important than the power generation aspect.

Also, the broad anti-nuclear position is so fixated on radiation and meltdowns they can't see thorium as a potential solution to anything. For them, nuclear = bad.

In hindsight, if we had doled out thorium reactors to developing countries throughout the Cold War instead of weapons we would be in a much better position today.
 
It's a pet peeve of mine, also.

The likely answer to "why" is that you can't easily weaponize thorium, and until sometime in the 80's, they felt like that was more important than the power generation aspect.

Also, the broad anti-nuclear position is so fixated on radiation and meltdowns they can't see thorium as a potential solution to anything. For them, nuclear = bad.

In hindsight, if we had doled out thorium reactors to developing countries throughout the Cold War instead of weapons we would be in a much better position today.

No kidding! It was a lost opportunity that few people seem to be aware of.
Every time I hear someone say that wind and solar cannot deliver us from a carbon dependent economy, I want to scream - there is a solution. The path not taken!
 
Well for one thing there was an agreement between the deciders (The Opposite of the Little People) that we would keep the nuclear we had but would go no more down that road.

Course now that the plants are getting near retirement, and given the global warming problem, and given what the Japanese and Germans decided about nuclear who knows what we do.

We should be deciding, but we have a lot of other big problems that we are ignoring or handling badly because we decided to do stupid **** with our time and energy, for instance knee capping our President or even better taking him out of Washington, so dont be holding your breath now...

Good post except for the very end. I'm all for R&D on LFTR reactors. And so is China and India, who is actively pursuing them.
 
No kidding! It was a lost opportunity that few people seem to be aware of.
Every time I hear someone say that wind and solar cannot deliver us from a carbon dependent economy, I want to scream - there is a solution. The path not taken!

Current nuclear fusion reactors, the ITER tokamak in France and the Wendelstein X-7 stellerator in Germany are currently producing plasma in magnetic fields and could be on line late next decade.

Your Thorium reactor, a safer fission reactor, would be a good transition from dirty fossil to fusion, along with cleaner fossil, wind and solar.

Thorium reactors in spacecraft would be interesting. But the future for the younger generations will be fusion .
 
Good post except for the very end. I'm all for R&D on LFTR reactors. And so is China and India, who is actively pursuing them.

I never said if I am for or against, so WTF

You know I like you, we are going to be friends one day, but understand this post was great only so long as it was praising me.... then it went so very wrong.

:2wave:
 
Good post except for the very end. I'm all for R&D on LFTR reactors. And so is China and India, who is actively pursuing them.

India says Thorium reactors will account for 30% of its energy needs by 2050. China is working with Canada. The pros seem to outweigh the cons, especially the 1,000 year supply of Th-232, zero risk of meltdown, the alternate path not taken because of weaponization; I'll be back to this thread tomorrow; tired;

China and India are also two of the seven founding Nations working on the ITER tokamak, along with S. Korea, Russia, the EU, Japan and the USA. Germany went its own way with the W X-7. It was Russian technology that first invented the tokamak 51 years ago. I wish I was a teenager all over again with such exciting potential .
 
No kidding! It was a lost opportunity that few people seem to be aware of.
Every time I hear someone say that wind and solar cannot deliver us from a carbon dependent economy, I want to scream - there is a solution. The path not taken!

Australia has 18.7% of the world's Thorium reserves in 2007 but it appears that the Thorium reserves in India may be upwards of 2/3 of the world's total.

13 nations are working alone and together on R and D for the LFTR, MSR. 62 plants up and running in India by 2025. Great thread .
 
I never said if I am for or against, so WTF

You know I like you, we are going to be friends one day, but understand this post was great only so long as it was praising me.... then it went so very wrong.

:2wave:

I'm here to speak my mind. Anything that happens beyond that, happens.
 
Current nuclear fusion reactors, the ITER tokamak in France and the Wendelstein X-7 stellerator in Germany are currently producing plasma in magnetic fields and could be on line late next decade.

Your Thorium reactor, a safer fission reactor, would be a good transition from dirty fossil to fusion, along with cleaner fossil, wind and solar.

Thorium reactors in spacecraft would be interesting. But the future for the younger generations will be fusion .

My impression is that its a bit like V.H.S. vs BETA- whichever technology succeeds in developing the technology first, will dominate. Meanwhile, the U.S. is NOT allocating resources for this development and China will develop and dominate the field in all likelihood.

https://www.wired.com/2011/02/china-thorium-power/

“If we miss the boat on this, how can we possibly compete in the world economy?” Kennedy asked. “What else do we have left to export?”
According to thorium advocates, the United States could find itself 20 years from now importing technology originally developed nearly four decades ago at one of America’s premier national R&D facilities. The alarmist version of China’s next-gen nuclear strategy come down to this: If you like foreign-oil dependency, you’re going to love foreign-nuclear dependency."
 
My impression is that its a bit like V.H.S. vs BETA- whichever technology succeeds in developing the technology first, will dominate. Meanwhile, the U.S. is NOT allocating resources for this development and China will develop and dominate the field in all likelihood.

https://www.wired.com/2011/02/china-thorium-power/

“If we miss the boat on this, how can we possibly compete in the world economy?” Kennedy asked. “What else do we have left to export?”
According to thorium advocates, the United States could find itself 20 years from now importing technology originally developed nearly four decades ago at one of America’s premier national R&D facilities. The alarmist version of China’s next-gen nuclear strategy come down to this: If you like foreign-oil dependency, you’re going to love foreign-nuclear dependency."

Being a retired Chemistry/Physics teacher, (8 years), I'm only just catching up with all of the engineering fields.

Btw, my Dad's side of the family is from LA in ME. My wife loves VT, ME, and NH. We're going back next year in late June, before it gets crazy in July. Met Sen. Collins' brother once in Spurwink.

My first cousins take care of us. Popham beach is one of my favorites, along with Cape Elizabeth. One of these years we're going to car drive the Appalachian trail starting in Northeast Alabama all the way to your Mount Katahdin.

I'm still looking at this Th-232/U-233 reaction. There are some dangers, but they have been overcome. Start up costs are the excuse to not proceed. I actualy see India surpassing China. I'm impressed with Canada also.

The world will leave the USA and Russia behind with both regimes sinking in the quick sand of ignorance and arrogance ...
 
My impression is that its a bit like V.H.S. vs BETA- whichever technology succeeds in developing the technology first, will dominate. Meanwhile, the U.S. is NOT allocating resources for this development and China will develop and dominate the field in all likelihood.

https://www.wired.com/2011/02/china-thorium-power/

“If we miss the boat on this, how can we possibly compete in the world economy?” Kennedy asked. “What else do we have left to export?”
According to thorium advocates, the United States could find itself 20 years from now importing technology originally developed nearly four decades ago at one of America’s premier national R&D facilities. The alarmist version of China’s next-gen nuclear strategy come down to this: If you like foreign-oil dependency, you’re going to love foreign-nuclear dependency."

One thing driving the U.S. policy here is probably the domestic fossil fuel industry, which is currently building out capacity (pipelines) to get their products to the coasts so they can export it, especially to the 3rd world. We wouldn't want to hurt their business model by lessening demand due the availability of alternative energy sources, now would we?
:roll:
 
Also, I am reading that one strategy is to retrofit existing nuclear power plants with an interim technology:

"The reactor design that Lightbridge created is known as seed-and-blanket. Its core consists of a seed of enriched uranium rods surrounded by a blanket of rods made of thorium oxide mixed with uranium oxide. This yields a safer, longer-lived reaction than uranium rods alone. It also produces less waste, and the little bit it does leave behind is unsuitable for use in weapons.

https://www.wired.com/2009/12/ff_new_nukes/

"CEO Seth Grae thinks it’s better business to convert existing reactors than it is to build new ones. “We’re just trying to replace leaded fuel with unleaded,” he says. “You don’t have to replace engines or build new gas stations.” Grae is speaking from Abu Dhabi, where he has multimillion-dollar contracts to advise the United Arab Emirates on its plans for nuclear power. In August 2009, Lightbridge signed a deal with the French firm Areva, the world’s largest nuclear power producer, to investigate alternative nuclear fuel assemblies."


I realize that the Trump admin. is unlikely to support any technology that will put a squeeze on petroleum and coal jobs but I wonder how it is that many environmentalists reject the promise of safe nuclear technology- or just don't know a thing about it?
 
Back
Top Bottom