jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (5 posts)

Is Thorium, the new nuclear energy?

  1. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    With one ton of thorium, you have 200 tons of uranium. No more production of plutonium (dangerous part of the nuclear energy). It is stable. It has to be bombarded permanently with neutrons to be destabilized. As soon as we stop any any action, the transformative process stops. To summarize, it is safe, a new clean energy, and we can't use it military. Your opinions?

    1. Quilligrapher profile image86
      Quilligrapherposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Good evening, Max.  It has been awhile since last we spoke.

      While I have no opinion, some scientists disagree with the claims in your OP statement.

      "It may not be as resistant as touted and in some cases the risk of proliferation may be worse than other fuels," says Research Associate Stephen Ashley at the Department of Engineering, University of Cambridge. {1} He and his associates highlight the potential dangers of thorium fuel in the article Nuclear energy: Thorium fuel has risks published in the journal of Nature. {2} Ashley and his co-authors believe a simple modification in the thorium irradiation recipe can prevent the radioactive isotope’s formation. They say that if an element known as protactinium-233 is extracted from thorium early in the irradiation process, no uranium-232 will form. Instead, the separated protactinium-233 will decay into high purity uranium-233, which can be used in nuclear weapons.

      Cleaner energy? Perhaps, but there may still be a potential risk for military weaponry. Your opinion?
      {1} http://www.eprg.group.cam.ac.uk/stephen-ashley/
      {2} http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 2031a.html

  2. maxoxam41 profile image76
    maxoxam41posted 4 years ago

    Is this research and westerner opinion to oppose the possible Russian and Chinese monopoly over the construction of thorium nuclear plants? Competition is the real key word. Since most nuclear plants date from the 60's and are obsolete. A manufacturer proposing a new product on a rigged market (use our nuclear plants that are costly and dangerous, that has its lobby already) it always scares the monopoly and authority reigning. Therefore, it will fund willing searchers to contradict the idiot that I am (what do I know about nuclear fission after all?) and they will be right. They always did it. The problem is when I look back at history, Tchernobyl, Three mile island, Fukushima, I am willing to take their so-called risk.

  3. psycheskinner profile image81
    psycheskinnerposted 4 years ago

    How about you engage with the facts of the issue--i.e. why you think their are no real risks.

    1. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Thorium is less volatile and reactive than other nuclear materials, it does not meltdown in the same way, it's radiation is far easier to stop and thus it is inefficient for nuclear weapons, it can be used for such but it would be far less harmful that uranium.