• 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!

China Now Beating US in Thorium Powerplant Development

PoS

PoS

Minister of Love
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 24, 2014
Messages
33,801
Reaction score
26,560
Location
Oceania
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
It is fact that nuclear power is statistically the safest form of energy there is out there, and yet because of ecomaniacs and climate jihadists, the US and the West is moving away from such a promising technology. But guess what, China isn't- and its massive investments into the new Gen 4 powerplants (which are immune from meltdowns and produced no greenhouse gasses) will catapult it ahead of the America in the future.

China's Thorium Research Surpasses US Nuclear Technology

In total, China has 34 nuclear plants, says the World Nuclear Association, and 20 more are under construction. By 2020, nuclear energy will make up 58,000 megawatts of the country’s energy mix. By 2030, it is expected to be 150,000 megawatts of third-generation reactors.

The US still relies on second-generation light-water, solid-fuel reactors that operate, on average, at more than 90 percent capacity.
Click to expand...

China blazes trail for 'clean' nuclear power from thorium - Telegraph

He estimates that China has enough thorium to power its electricity needs for "20,000 years". So does the world. The radioactive mineral is scattered across Britain. The Americans have buried tonnes of it, a hazardous by-product of rare earth metal mining.


China is already building 26 conventional reactors by 2015, with a further 51 planned, and 120 in the pipeline, but these have all the known drawbacks, and rely on imported uranium.


The beauty of thorium is that you cannot have a Fukushima disaster. Professor Robert Cywinksi from Huddersfield University, who anchor's the UK's thorium research network ThorEA, said the metal must be bombarded with neutrons to drive the process. "There is no chain reaction. Fission dies the moment you switch off the photon beam," he said.
Click to expand...

America needs to wake up, are we going to listen to the know-nothing doomsayers of the IPCC who proclaim green energy (costly and inefficient even when compared to oil based fuels) or do we re-invest in an energy source that can meet all future energy demands without costly sacrifices in productivity and lifestyle?

Read up on the truth, because the answer isnt renewable energy, its nuclear.
 
PoS said:
It is fact that nuclear power is statistically the safest form of energy there is out there, and yet because of ecomaniacs and climate jihadists, the US and the West is moving away from such a promising technology. But guess what, China isn't- and its massive investments into the new Gen 4 powerplants (which are immune from meltdowns and produced no greenhouse gasses) will catapult it ahead of the America in the future.

China's Thorium Research Surpasses US Nuclear Technology



China blazes trail for 'clean' nuclear power from thorium - Telegraph



America needs to wake up, are we going to listen to the know-nothing doomsayers of the IPCC who proclaim green energy (costly and inefficient even when compared to oil based fuels) or do we re-invest in an energy source that can meet all future energy demands without costly sacrifices in productivity and lifestyle?

Read up on the truth, because the answer isnt renewable energy, its nuclear.
Click to expand...

I've never understood why some people treat energy generation as an all or nothing endeavor. More likely the answer will be a combination of thorium nuclear reactors, green energy sources like wind, solar, and hydroelectric, supplemented by more traditional fossil fuels. Not all energy generation methods are well suited for every particular geographic location and circumstance, and considerations will have to be made based on practicality.
 
PoS said:
It is fact that nuclear power is statistically the safest form of energy there is out there, and yet because of ecomaniacs and climate jihadists, the US and the West is moving away from such a promising technology. But guess what, China isn't- and its massive investments into the new Gen 4 powerplants (which are immune from meltdowns and produced no greenhouse gasses) will catapult it ahead of the America in the future.

China's Thorium Research Surpasses US Nuclear Technology



China blazes trail for 'clean' nuclear power from thorium - Telegraph



America needs to wake up, are we going to listen to the know-nothing doomsayers of the IPCC who proclaim green energy (costly and inefficient even when compared to oil based fuels) or do we re-invest in an energy source that can meet all future energy demands without costly sacrifices in productivity and lifestyle?

Read up on the truth, because the answer isnt renewable energy, its nuclear.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of people are not against nuclear power because of climate change and greenhouse gases as nuclear produces very little to none of it, but rather because they think another Chernobyl or Fukushima is always imminent or they have a problem with the waste. They are idiotic, but that is why people oppose them, at least be honest.

100% renewable energy will always be preferable to relying on nuclear for forever. I support nuclear power but if it can eventually be replaced entirely why not?
 
PoS said:
It is fact that nuclear power is statistically the safest form of energy there is out there, and yet because of ecomaniacs and climate jihadists, the US and the West is moving away from such a promising technology. But guess what, China isn't- and its massive investments into the new Gen 4 powerplants (which are immune from meltdowns and produced no greenhouse gasses) will catapult it ahead of the America in the future.

China's Thorium Research Surpasses US Nuclear Technology



China blazes trail for 'clean' nuclear power from thorium - Telegraph



America needs to wake up, are we going to listen to the know-nothing doomsayers of the IPCC who proclaim green energy (costly and inefficient even when compared to oil based fuels) or do we re-invest in an energy source that can meet all future energy demands without costly sacrifices in productivity and lifestyle?

Read up on the truth, because the answer isnt renewable energy, its nuclear.
Click to expand...

Considering our green renewable industry won’t even call hydro electric renewable, I hardly think they are going to budge on nuclear no matter how safe it is. We have created a “Green-Industrial Complex” complete with lobbyists, political cronies, and all American graft.

IMO, I could see self contained, automated de centralized submarine sized nuclear reactors spread out in neighborhoods. I do share anti nuclear people’s issue with the lack of viable storage of nuclear materials. They need to find a way to make energy while fully depleting it.

I am also skeptical of Chinese scientific claims. Until someone perfects a thorium reactor, there is no technology to steal to base a design on. China does not build from scratch.
 
Nuclear power is absurdly dangerous and absurdly expensive in the long haul. Nuclear power is the only energy source that can cause horrible cancer deaths on the other side of earth now and 1,000 years from now.

How many thorium reactors has China built? Oh, that's right, none.

Looking to China to be environmentalism leader of the world is ridiculous. China isn't building nuclear reactors for environmental concerns.
 
Carjosse said:
The vast majority of people are not against nuclear power because of climate change and greenhouse gases as nuclear produces very little to none of it, but rather because they think another Chernobyl or Fukushima is always imminent or they have a problem with the waste. They are idiotic, but that is why people oppose them, at least be honest.

100% renewable energy will always be preferable to relying on nuclear for forever. I support nuclear power but if it can eventually be replaced entirely why not?
Click to expand...

Summary of that message: Drinking radioactive water and eating radioactive food never hurt anyone. Every person should start every day with a chest X-ray. Nuclear power wouldn't cost so much if they didn't waste so much money on pointless radiation shielding.

Only idiots think nuclear power plants need containment domes. Those are really expensive. The water should be taking in and released directly in and out of the ocean. There is no reason not to just dump nuclear waste into the ocean and rivers to stop wasting pointless storage money.
 
PoS said:
Read up on the truth, because the answer isnt renewable energy, its nuclear.
Click to expand...

You had me up to where you made it an either-or equation.
There's a role for both renewables AND thorium nuclear.
 
Everything I've read about thorium power generation looks pretty positive. It seems like a great supplement for a largely renewable grid, and might get us off fossil fuels more quickly.
 
Carjosse said:
The vast majority of people are not against nuclear power because of climate change and greenhouse gases as nuclear produces very little to none of it, but rather because they think another Chernobyl or Fukushima is always imminent or they have a problem with the waste. They are idiotic, but that is why people oppose them, at least be honest.

100% renewable energy will always be preferable to relying on nuclear for forever. I support nuclear power but if it can eventually be replaced entirely why not?
Click to expand...

Read up on Thorium nuclear reactors because as the article just said, a Fukushima or Chernobyl accident, or any other kind of meltdown accident, is impossible with the Thorium fuel cycle.
This isn't your grandfather's nuclear power.
 
chuckiechan said:
I am also skeptical of Chinese scientific claims. Until someone perfects a thorium reactor, there is no technology to steal to base a design on. China does not build from scratch.
Click to expand...

Working thorium reactors are in operation in China, India, the UK and the USA right now. Thorium designs were first developed at the outset of the Cold War. This is a mature technology and becoming more so every day.

So you don't have to be skeptical of the Chinese, you just have to do some more research on the subject.
Thorium is safe and viable.
The only reason it was shelved was because at the time, we were forced to choose ONE design, Thorium or Uranium, and the latter had weapons potential in addition to power generation, so a Sophie's Choice was made.
 
chuckiechan said:
Considering our green renewable industry won’t even call hydro electric renewable, I hardly think they are going to budge on nuclear no matter how safe it is. We have created a “Green-Industrial Complex” complete with lobbyists, political cronies, and all American graft.

IMO, I could see self contained, automated de centralized submarine sized nuclear reactors spread out in neighborhoods. I do share anti nuclear people’s issue with the lack of viable storage of nuclear materials. They need to find a way to make energy while fully depleting it.

I am also skeptical of Chinese scientific claims. Until someone perfects a thorium reactor, there is no technology to steal to base a design on. China does not build from scratch.
Click to expand...

Submarine size nuclear reactors spread around neighborhoods? Wow. A terrorist's - domestic or foreign - or just a wacked out utility worker's - dream-come-true. With what he could carry in the trunk of a car he could eliminate Las Vegas by contaminating Lake Mead radioactively.

I gather you think "submarine size reactors" would be cheap too. The fuel and waste could be delivered and picked up by UPS, right? They are terrorist proof?

Why not a natural gas turbine in every neighborhood? What do you have against natural gas?
 
Is China beating us in dilithium crystal reactor research too? :lol:
 
joko104 said:
Submarine size nuclear reactors spread around neighborhoods? Wow. A terrorist's - domestic or foreign - or just a wacked out utility worker's - dream-come-true. With what he could carry in the trunk of a car he could eliminate Las Vegas by contaminating Lake Mead radioactively.

I gather you think "submarine size reactors" would be cheap too. The fuel and waste could be delivered and picked up by UPS, right? They are terrorist proof?

Why not a natural gas turbine in every neighborhood? What do you have against natural gas?
Click to expand...
While I think there could be a role for small nuclear reactors as replacement heat sources for coal plants,
a more viable approach, would be large remote reactors, that make both electricity and create carbon neutral natural gas.
the man made natural gas is shipped in the existing natural gas grid, and used to run the old coal plants
as peaking plant to pick up the slack from wind and solar.
You would be moving the energy from the nuclear plant around in a form that does not loose much energy in transport.
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
You had me up to where you made it an either-or equation.
There's a role for both renewables AND thorium nuclear.
Click to expand...

Sorry but renewable energy isnt very efficient right now. We're close to the physical limits of battery storage technology, so unless there is a breakthrough in that area then dont expect green energy to be our primary source of power. We ought to focus our research into nuclear and fusion tech.
 
PoS said:
Sorry but renewable energy isnt very efficient right now. We're close to the physical limits of battery storage technology, so unless there is a breakthrough in that area then dont expect green energy to be our primary source of power. We ought to focus our research into nuclear and fusion tech.
Click to expand...

Primary??
I said that there is a role for renewables and nuclear both. I didn't say that renewables were necessarily the primary source of power. And battery storage tech is a moveable number and will continue to be.
Saying that we've reached the limit and therefore: batteries not practical sounds a lot like scientists who doubted we could break the sound barrier with human pilots.

The PRIVATE SECTOR is leading the way in renewables, and will continue to do so, and any extra help needed is deserved by them just as much as any other platform, certainly more than fusion, which no matter what we do, always seems to be "another twenty years away."

There's room in the portfolio for oil, gas, hydro, wind, solar, thorium, and maybe even still a bit of coal because it is not possible to just switch coal off like a light bulb.

PS: My father was a nuclear physicist and even he used to laugh when asked about fusion power. "Very soon!!! Maybe twenty years from now - that's what they said forty years ago, and today it is STILL twenty years away", and then he'd take a long pull off his cigar..."And twenty years from now it will STILL be twenty years away."

That was in 1986.
 
Last edited:
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Primary??
I said that there is a role for renewables and nuclear both. I didn't say that renewables were necessarily the primary source of power. And battery storage tech is a moveable number and will continue to be.
Saying that we've reached the limit and therefore: batteries not practical sounds a lot like scientists who doubted we could break the sound barrier with human pilots.

The PRIVATE SECTOR is leading the way in renewables, and will continue to do so, and any extra help needed is deserved by them just as much as any other platform, certainly more than fusion, which no matter what we do, always seems to be "another twenty years away."

There's room in the portfolio for oil, gas, hydro, wind, solar, thorium, and maybe even still a bit of coal because it is not possible to just switch coal off like a light bulb.

PS: My father was a nuclear physicist and even he used to laugh when asked about fusion power. "Very soon!!! Maybe twenty years from now - that's what they said forty years ago, and today it is STILL twenty years away", and then he'd take a long pull off his cigar..."And twenty years from now it will STILL be twenty years away."

That was in 1986.
Click to expand...
The poor density and poor duty cycle of the renewable s is the issue.
Batteries also have very low power density,
 
Checkerboard Strangler said:
Saying that we've reached the limit and therefore: batteries not practical sounds a lot like scientists who doubted we could break the sound barrier with human pilots.
Click to expand...

Youre not getting it. We're very close to the theoretical limits of our battery technology. There's only so much we can do in that field. Lithium is already the lightest element that is useful for batteries, and we've pretty much maxed out the tech. As Ive said, we need a breakthrough in a completely new tech to make renewable energy viable.

Read more here: When will the limitations of the battery be surmounted? While the computing power of devices grows exponentially, battery capacity does not. When will this change? - Quora

PS: My father was a nuclear physicist and even he used to laugh when asked about fusion power. "Very soon!!! Maybe twenty years from now - that's what they said fifty years ago, and today it is STILL twenty years away", and then he'd take a long pull off his cigar..."And twenty years from now it will STILL be twenty years away."
Click to expand...
I agree. Fusion at this stage is still a pipe dream, but we have to keep working on it.
 
joko104 said:
Submarine size nuclear reactors spread around neighborhoods? Wow. A terrorist's - domestic or foreign - or just a wacked out utility worker's - dream-come-true. With what he could carry in the trunk of a car he could eliminate Las Vegas by contaminating Lake Mead radioactively.

I gather you think "submarine size reactors" would be cheap too. The fuel and waste could be delivered and picked up by UPS, right? They are terrorist proof?

Why not a natural gas turbine in every neighborhood? What do you have against natural gas?
Click to expand...

In a perfect socialist world...
 
chuckiechan said:
Considering our green renewable industry won’t even call hydro electric renewable, I hardly think they are going to budge on nuclear no matter how safe it is. We have created a “Green-Industrial Complex” complete with lobbyists, political cronies, and all American graft.

IMO, I could see self contained, automated de centralized submarine sized nuclear reactors spread out in neighborhoods. I do share anti nuclear people’s issue with the lack of viable storage of nuclear materials. They need to find a way to make energy while fully depleting it.

I am also skeptical of Chinese scientific claims. Until someone perfects a thorium reactor, there is no technology to steal to base a design on. China does not build from scratch.
Click to expand...

I want one for my garage! I’ll put it between my atomic car and my atomic lawn mower!
 
We're gonna pretend that opposition to nuclear power is purely a liberal thing?
 
Deuce said:
We're gonna pretend that opposition to nuclear power is purely a liberal thing?
Click to expand...

Can you point out any of the opposition who isnt a progressive?
 
I dont agree with this writer's cc premise, but I am with him when it comes to the safety of Thorium powerplants.

Why thorium is a safer nuclear option | The Daily Star

Thorium is a non-fissile, “fertile”, slightly radioactive element. Being non-fissile, it cannot be split to create a nuclear chain reaction, so it must be bred through nuclear reactors to produce fissile uranium.

Thorium enjoys several advantages over uranium. First, the risk of nuclear proliferation of thorium is less than that of uranium. This comes mostly from the fact that plutonium, an essential ingredient of nuclear weapons, is not produced in thorium reactors. Thorium fuel cycle would also minimise toxicity and decay heat problems associated with current reactors.

Secondly, in the event of a runaway chain reaction, uranium-based reactors have the potential to become supercritical and get out of control, thereby causing a catastrophic accident. Since thorium reactors would operate sub-critically, runaway chain reactions that cause nuclear meltdowns would not occur.

Thorium has other advantages too. The inventory of radioactive waste produced by thorium would be much less than uranium. A thorium reactor burns nearly all of its fuel. As a result, it will produce less waste.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom