4 ms·

Does he at least consider Thorium as a nuclear power source?

beat 12y ago
If thorium was all it's cracked up to be by its proponents, it would already be a major power source. Thorium reactor technology dates back to the 1960s, but there still aren't any commercial thorium reactors, although hundreds of other reactors have been built since then. The lack of market drive to thorium - not just in the tree-hugging US, but in less sensitive places like China - is a dead giveaway that either a: it's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be, b: it's not economical relative to other reactor designs, or c: it's not nearly as safe as claimed. I think c can be ruled out, based on common sense and the fact that China doesn't care so much about safety. That leads to either a, or b, or some combination of the two. At any rate, the hard reality of the invisible hand tells me that thorium isn't so awesome after all, or we'd see thorium reactors in commercial use by now.
- rjsw 12y ago
  Current reactors weren't developed by the invisible hand, they were developed as part of the effort to make bombs.
  - beat 12y ago
    That just suggests that nuclear power is inherently uneconomical! It also doesn't make sense, because there are many nations that have nuclear reactors, but don't have or want nuclear weapons - Japan, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain come to mind offhand. Think the implications through, in a serious manner. If thorium is cheap and safe, why isn't it being used at all today? This is the question thorium advocates never ask (and will downvote you for asking, as per my example here), and it infuriates me! I don't have an answer for this question. Thorium looks good, on paper. What I do have is observation, and observed facts do not match the written theory. Science says you should question the theory.
    - rjsw 12y ago
      The countries without military nuclear programmes still made use of knowledge and technology that was developed in military programmes elsewhere. As with the bomb itself, just knowing that it can work will save a lot of time. Your list of countries doesn't look very "clean" to me.
gdubs 12y ago
He briefly mentions it and enumerates its potential benefits.

beat 12y ago

If thorium was all it's cracked up to be by its proponents, it would already be a major power source. Thorium reactor technology dates back to the 1960s, but there still aren't any commercial thorium reactors, although hundreds of other reactors have been built since then. The lack of market drive to thorium - not just in the tree-hugging US, but in less sensitive places like China - is a dead giveaway that either a: it's not nearly as easy as it's made out to be, b: it's not economical relative to other reactor designs, or c: it's not nearly as safe as claimed. I think c can be ruled out, based on common sense and the fact that China doesn't care so much about safety. That leads to either a, or b, or some combination of the two. At any rate, the hard reality of the invisible hand tells me that thorium isn't so awesome after all, or we'd see thorium reactors in commercial use by now.

rjsw 12y ago
Current reactors weren't developed by the invisible hand, they were developed as part of the effort to make bombs.
- beat 12y ago
  That just suggests that nuclear power is inherently uneconomical! It also doesn't make sense, because there are many nations that have nuclear reactors, but don't have or want nuclear weapons - Japan, Sweden, Belgium, and Spain come to mind offhand. Think the implications through, in a serious manner. If thorium is cheap and safe, why isn't it being used at all today? This is the question thorium advocates never ask (and will downvote you for asking, as per my example here), and it infuriates me! I don't have an answer for this question. Thorium looks good, on paper. What I do have is observation, and observed facts do not match the written theory. Science says you should question the theory.
  - rjsw 12y ago
    The countries without military nuclear programmes still made use of knowledge and technology that was developed in military programmes elsewhere. As with the bomb itself, just knowing that it can work will save a lot of time. Your list of countries doesn't look very "clean" to me.

gdubs 12y ago

He briefly mentions it and enumerates its potential benefits.