Coal and natural gas cost around 5-7 cents per kilowatt hour. Thorium would cost 1.4 to 3 cents per kilowatt hour. No emissions.
aps.org
Much safer than conventional nuclear. Over 90% reduction in nuclear waste. Can even be used to re-process old waste into useful fissile material.
What's holding us back? Demand thorium now.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
aps.org
en.wikipedia.org
eea.europa.eu
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Bump for interest.
...
The only ones cheating you are the people telling you that clean energy has to cost 10x as much as it really should.
>What's holding us back?
So what IS holding us back? Even the notoriously biased Wikipedia seems not to have any serious problems with the tech.
>What's holding us back?
big oil and cant be used for nuclear weapon
Fear-mongering and infrastructure change. Blame the hippes for
>but MUH NUKES LOVE ALL NOW
It's more costly to change the infrastructure surrounding power dispersion and decomission existing plants. They can't be built everywhere since they require large (read: massive) amounts of cooling water to function. There are a lot of factors, mostly bullshit regulations.
Deploying an active LFTR would betray the truth to the world that our atomistic cosmogeny is incorrect, and that Luminiferous Aether + Electric Universe theories are correct.
>current year
>being an uneducated idiot
you really changed my views with those hot facts retard
Big oil, big coal, people making a lot of money off of solar subsidies, politicians who want to use "climate change" to scare people into doing things.
If it's as simple as "just start using thorium" then let's buy a plot of land somewhere remote, build the reactor, and start putting power into the grid to make money.
i'm no genius, but if someone isn't using something "so obviously easy" to make money, then it's probably not so simple.
>It's more costly to change the infrastructure surrounding power dispersion and decomission existing plants. They can't be built everywhere since they require large (read: massive) amounts of cooling water to function. There are a lot of factors, mostly bullshit regulations.
Molten salt reactors don't require much water at all. That's the older designs.
Found the corporate shill.
>then let's buy a plot of land somewhere remote, build the reactor, and start putting power into the grid to make money
>How to get thrown in prison in 3 simple steps!
Nuclear regulatory commission takes about 10 years to license new plants. Coal, wind, solar can get permits within months in most cases.
Time to demand the feds stop interfering with clean, cheap, abundant power.
>What's holding us back?
The same shit that's holding us back on sustainable fusion - we just haven't figured out a way to make it work on an industrial scale yet.
LFT reactors have been demonstrated on a small scale and under limited conditions - so has nuclear fusion - but that's a long, LONG way from being at a point where we could build plants and shit.
Bumping for interest
We don't have any of the infrastructure to refine Thorium, and no reactors to put it in. To convert or build new infrastructure would cost 1-2 trillion dollars.
It is gr8 it theroy, but it would cost more than we save.
i call it the "laziness margin" test. i've been reading about thorium as a viable option for more than fifteen years, and in that time i've never read of any start-up attempt to even investigate the viability of the tech.
well before solar or wind was really on the table - if nobody is willing to make a buck off of something, then there's a reason.
but - by all means - if you think you can do it, do it. if you're too lazy to try, do you really think someone else will get over that hump?
>The same shit that's holding us back on sustainable fusion - we just haven't figured out a way to make it work on an industrial scale yet.
We ran an experimental molten solt reactor for years in the 1960s. The Chinese and Indians are building thorium reactors right now.
We waste hundreds of billions worldwide on solar, which is never going to provide more than a tiny fraction of our energy in an economical way.
We could get thorium off the ground for a billion or two tops.
>aps.org
We know thorium is the solution, but no country has the money - 30 trillion dollars more or less - and time - 20 to 30 years - to invest in it while other energy sources are so widely available for the next 50 years at least.
Interesting, thanks for that link.
Those are all experimental reactors.
>We don't have any of the infrastructure to refine Thorium, and no reactors to put it in. To convert or build new infrastructure would cost 1-2 trillion dollars.
We've chosen not to develop those reactors. It's not that we can't, the Chinese are already doing it, and plan to have them online within a few years.
The $1-2 trillion number is off by orders of magnitude. Studies have generally estimated the capital cost of thorium plants to be LOWER than caol.
And we already have hundreds of years worth of thorium laying around as industrial waste.
Why haven't we taken advantage of Teslas discoveries and harness the limitless amount of energy from the atmosphere? (clean/free)
Don't forget Britain and the Soviet Union also ran research into the MSR, both concluding it's viability. In addition, Britain proposed a Molten Salt Fast Reactor. However a lack of budget allocation and Chernobyl curbed further development of the British and Soviet projects.
>i call it the "laziness margin" test
I call it the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. There have been dozens of companies that have attempted to build thorium plants, and the NRC makes it virtually impossible.
You see the science is well-established. There is no economic or scientific factor holding us back.
Call your elected officials and demand change.
>20 to 30 years
Why is China building them right now, shilly?
>other energy sources are so widely available for the next 50 years
Found the coal industry shill. We'd undercut them by 50% or more, so they pay people to shill against alternative energy.
Because we aren't within decades of achieving that. We have had successful, functioning reactors that are very similar to the ones being proposed:
Well. If you look at all costs (I mean getting rid of the nuclear power plant and cleaning the area) it is just extremely expensive. Sure, building and using that thing is cheap af but getting rid of it isn't
(((( (clean/free) )))))
> who'd want that??
sounds like oil and gas jews probably prevented serious tech development in the field and tried to meme it into being 'pie in the sky'
We're a century overdue you faggot
>pic related
I'm not necessarily advocating breaking down all of our existing plants. But new plants should be thorium, there's simply no question.
We're talking about completely clean energy at half the cost.
Show me a prototype of some kind and some financial data in peer-reviewed publications stating that the cost would be less then 3 cents/kilowatt hour, and I'll be on board.
The biggest problem is the half a metric fuckton of red tape to cut through and wading through the sea of bureaucracy and nuclear regulation isn't cheap. Hell you'd have to get the regulations of enrichment changed to even use Thorium.
I think it would be great once we got the plants working, but the level of partisan retardation and corrupt shilling on our legal system makes it a very distant possibility.
Yeah, if you build new reactors make them thorium. But it is still better not to build new reactors
Some developments in material sciences
Also there's so much damn red tape in the US around nuclear it's not worth it for people to invest. Trump seems like he wants to stick to coal.
>The biggest problem is the half a metric fuckton of red tape to cut through and wading through the sea of bureaucracy and nuclear regulation isn't cheap.
That's exactly the problem. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is intentionally holding us back from clean energy at half the cost.
Have you called your elected officials yet?
Why the fuck would we want to stop producing energy, given that energy production is a major driver of economic growth?
eea.europa.eu
>Also there's so much damn red tape in the US around nuclear it's not worth it for people to invest. Trump seems like he wants to stick to coal.
Then Trump is pushing dirtier energy at twice the cost. And we should demand change.
Those centrals ain't going to work, too much cost.
Source: my grandfather, a higher formal engineer in nuclear in France
You don't have to stop producing energy. In Germany the last nuclear power plant will be down in 2022 and we won't have a problem. 2015 it was 14% of our energy production
The narrative that every nuclear plant is another Chernobyl just waiting to happen
Maybe in your grandfathers time the cost would be too high.
If India and China have deemed it worth looking into, there must be something to it.
My grandfather isnt biological, he is still alive and still working
Because this sort of thing costs billions in investment. It's not something any pleb can get going with a startup.
Isnt my bilogical grandfather*
You're free to look at his patents, discoveries, and to look at the forces at work that stopped him adopting this technology that would have benefited all of humanity.
Thorium is a meme that needs to die.
Cost projections are bullshit. A thorium reactor has never been built at commercial scale, so D&E costs will go through the roof like they always do. Short of going China-tier and shitting out dozens of reactors with a standardized design, you'll never get close to those promised prices.
Thorium reactors are actually U233 reactors, which produce more worse waste per unit mass than U235 reactors, mainly due to making U232 as a side product.
The waste argument is a misnomer. Firstly the waste reduction is based on comparing a theoretical thorium plant to an existing uranium plant. A real thorium plant will produce more waste. Secondly, there are a variety of reactor types that have the same waste reduction potential as thorium, so it's not a unique benefit to the technology. Same for reprocessing. Thirdly building thorium reactors won't cause existing reactors to shut down, so in the grand scheme they still increase worldwide waste.
If you're serious about nuclear technology you'd want uranium salt reactors.
thorium is rare, much rarer than uranium which is possibly one of the most common radioactive element in this sun cycle of the universe
But there's already a large stockpile of it in the USA.
Ted Cruz said Iran can have Nuclear Power if they used Thorium reactors. Iran wouldn't hear anything of it. Thorium cant be used to make nuclear weapons. The traitor Obama didn't care.
I'll go ahead and rely on the peer-reviewed studies that all say thorium is less than half the cost of coal.
Source: Science
there is one essential reason why U235 is used in civil nuclear powerplants
and it's because it's helpful to the military activities (if you can enrich uranium ore for civil activities, you can do it more and use it for nukes; also, U235 powerplant reactors produce Pu239)
energy isn't a problem you dolt
the only problem humans ever had is the sheer number of humans, and that's it
if you limit that number virtually all of our problems go away over night.
that's the elephant in the room no one wants to acknowledge.
Imagine if all of society was like 100 million Europeans living in Europe. Everything else was empty.
You could burn coal for energy for those 100 million and 10 000 years would need to pass before you run out of it or do the same damage as we're currently doing.
The number of us is the only issue that ever was.
>Cost projections are bullshit
Bald assertion in direct contradictio to peer-reviewed science.
>A thorium reactor has never been built at commercial scale, so D&E costs will go through the roof like they always do
We had several comparable designs run for years without issue. In the 1950s and 1960s.
>Short of going China-tier and shitting out dozens of reactors with a standardized design, you'll never get close to those promised prices.
That's exactly what we need to do. But even if you double the costs, it's still the same as coal, and 100% clean.
>Thorium reactors are actually U233 reactors, which produce more worse waste per unit mass than U235 reactors
Blatantly false. Worst case estimates are 90% reduction in waste, some proposals in India estimate 99.9% reduction in waste. Read a book.
> Firstly the waste reduction is based on comparing a theoretical thorium plant to an existing uranium plant
No, it's based on the chemistry of the reaction.
>Secondly, there are a variety of reactor types that have the same waste reduction potential as thorium, so it's not a unique benefit to the technology
Yes, 4th generation uranium plants would be better than 1st generation. Not a knock on thorium, though.
There's several times as much thorium as uranium.
en.wikipedia.org
why does usa think they can mandate who can get nukes or not?
Energy is directly related to GDP growth. You Satanic depopulationist. Did Soros pay you to say that?
No, Mr Rabbit did.
if there was only one nation on this planet EUROPA filled with only one kind of people EUROPEANS, and everyone else was dead(say some great genocide happens and only 100 mil europeans survive, this would terrify the survives so much that they wouldn't even think of fighting for the next 2 millennia), then GDP growth is entirely meaningless, as well as population growth because there's no one to compete against. No one can beat you at anything because they are all dead.
because they developed it, all those non-white countries that have nukes only made them directly because USA or RUSSIA assisted them in doing so. If whites hadn't given nukes to anyone, no one would fucking have them because they are incapable of making them by themselves
I like it!
Well we missed the boat on that when we fought the Nazis. Not happening now.
>(((GDP growth)))
ENFORCE BIOGEOGRAPHIC QUARANTINE
DEPOPULATE AND REENCHANT THE EARTH
THE AGE OF HEROES WILL RETURN
>germany
>won't have a problem
Wew lad, that's some head-in-the-sand-tier gymnastics
Look at the ethnicity of the man who killed the project at Oak Ridge and you have your answer. Also, look into Zalman Shapiro for additional redpills.
gotta get it to work and work easily and cheaply first.
molten salt reactors are probably the safest reactors in the world; the molten salt does amazing wonders in containing leaks
Thorium MSR power plants will only stay radioactive for a few hundred years. And thorium produces 100 times less nuclear waste than a conventional pressurised water reactor.
Found the dumbass boomer
I used to google that
Apparently back when atomic age started, they had two options. Uranium or Thorium
They went with Uranium so they get nukes on the side
Look for politicians with lots invested in green energy related companies
Look at the ethnicity of the men who designed the MSR. Notice something?
Hell yes this is my thread! If only we could get someone to foot the bill for prototype LFTR reactors, we could prove them once and for all and change the world forever. The drastic decrease in the price of electricity would make so many fantastic things possible that simply aren't viable right nowndue to energy concerns, like large scale vertical farming and simpler production and distribution of domestic goods. Everything starts with energy. If we want the world to move forward then we NEED energy first and foremost.
20billion USD just to build a TEST reactor. Probably 50billion more to make a commercial one. That's a serious initial investment even assuming we get everything right the first try.
man I love Kurzgesagt!
I even got their poster
Hippies, mostly.
They also require a LOT more maintenance. The Navy used a few of these. That molten sodium works great but destroys everything it touches pretty fast.
Are you fucking retarded. This is you right now.
>I know you're trying to grow a farm man but your problem isn't irrigation. It's trying to grow shit in the first place. Quit advancing фam. I promise it'll solve all your problems.
t. plutonium baron
no, I assure you, you're the retarded one.
The only motivation you would have to grow your farm past the optimal size is because you're competing with other farmers and their farms.
But if you kill other farmers and burn their farms, you won't have to compete with anyone so you have literally ZERO reason to grow your farm more than what's the optimal size of it in the environment. What does optimal mean? The size that doesn't ruin the environment. The size that doesn't run out of the fossil fuels by 2100 etc... You could literally assure survival of the human kind for the next 3 thousand years like this. Number is the only issue we have.
The non-nuclear side uses steam turbines to produce electricity just like natural gas, coal and traditional uranium fueled reactors. The cooling water use has little to do wit the type of fuel used.
((((((((((((((( )))))))))))))))