Thorium: the wonder fuel that wasn't

If you click on the front page of that site you'll see these guys are anti nuclear in general, and pro what they call geo-engineering.

I don't know all the little corners of the thorium argument well enough to call them liars, but I do know things I've heard from the other side differ strong enough, that I can determine one side or the other is lying.

"Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists" sounds anti-nuke to me.

Interesting link--thx muchly!

Isn't one of your favorite sites "SkepticalScience.com"? Are those guys what you would think of as Skeptics?

Hey, I'm not dissing you. I agree with Zip here. That was an interesting article, I just might disagree with him in that I'm waiting to hear the counter-argument.

Isn't one of your favorite sites "SkepticalScience.com"? Are those guys what you would think of as Skeptics?

No, it's not one of my favourite sites. It's one of my favourite sites for counter arguments to global warming skeptics, because the facts are all enumerated, fact checked and easy to reference. Which is why that is their motto: "Getting Skeptical About Global Warming "



I didn't realize you put forth an argument to counter.



So, you admit to little knowledge on the subject, but you are able to use your 'Spider Sense' to know when people are lying and that's the full force of argument you are going to bring here?

Since I've been paying attention to Nuclear Reactors in general for about 20 years, and Thorium as a fuel for around 10; I'm guessing Zip has more fission knowledge in his little finger than us both. I wish you the best of luck!

Not only didn't I do it, I didn't claim to do it. I claimed I was waiting to hear the counter.

The two sides here in the thorium argument are beyond scholarly disagreement. One side is making claims that if true means the other side is lying. It doesn't take spider sense to see that, just common sense.

Woefully ignorant I'm afraid--which is why I liked the article so much. it's the first one that explained the challenges of the thorium reactors. I'm a thermodynamics guy.

To show my lack of knowledge on this matter but also the fact I can get some really good info (maybe) would someone who worked at Oak Ridge nuclear plant as a nuclear engineer have relevant info on this?

For me the article comes up doubled for the first 5 or so paragraph's. It is do to something on my end not the link it's self.

Indeed! That would be a great person to learn from. He might not know about Thorium vs Uranium in detail, but would know far more than a hack like me.

Woefully ignorant I'm afraid--which is why I liked the article so much. it's the first one that explained the challenges of the thorium reactors. I'm a thermodynamics guy.

It's one of the few articles I've read that didn't have a bright future for Thorium. Too expensive, too many waste products . . . not hopeful. If you wanted to create weapons grade Uranium, it looks like the way to go.

Most of the information I've read said the exact opposite - that Thorium reactors didn't produce weapons, and that the by-products were relatively stable compared to Uranium waste.

As an aside - I took a Chemical Thermodynamics course that the Prof said the only excuse to not show up for an exam was 3 bullet holes, because one student robbed a convenience store the night before an exam and still wrote the exam with 2 bullet holes in him.

Well next call to my uncle I'll ask him about it if I remember.

Short answer it's more expensive than uranium, would need a whole new set of reactors
to run it, and the by-products are seriously not funny.

Until we run out of uranium, not really economically feasible.

Here's a little gem from the "About Us" link of your website Doc.



So what was your point again? That it wasn't anti-nuclear, because they called themselves "Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists"; was that it?