" The World we live in"

[oldfella]

Thorium could be used to fuel nuclear reactors, just like uranium. And as proponents of the underdog fuel will happily tell you, thorium is more abundant in nature than uranium, is not fissile on its own (which means reactions can be stopped when necessary), produces waste products that are less radioactive, and generates more energy per ton.

So why on earth are we using uranium? As you may recall, research into the mechanization of nuclear reactions was initially driven not by the desire to make energy, but by the desire to make bombs. The $2-billion Manhattan Project that produced the atomic bomb sparked a worldwide surge in nuclear research, most of it funded by governments embroiled in the Cold War. And here we come to it: Thorium reactors do not produce plutonium, which is what you need,

"TO MAKE WEAPONS'"

[gregorach]

I believe there are also a number of as-yet-unsolved engineering difficulties associated with making a viable thorium reactor. Also, whilst thorium reactors don't produce plutonium, they do produce a number of other short-lived, very highly radioactive isotopes which present quite serious containment and disposal problems. (Thorium proponents gloss over this minor detail.)

None of which is to say that these issues couldn't be solved if we were willing to put as much effort in as we did for nuclear weapons research... But I am sceptical that thorium is all its fans claim it is, and I will remain that way until I actually see it working at a commercial scale.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Purification is a problem with thorium. Not an insurmountable one, but expensive nonetheless. Uranium technology is well established, which means that there is a tendencey to stick with it. It might be more profitable in the short term to have a go at the stockpile of plutonium that (most) people have decided is no longer required. But I've no doubt thoriulm reactors will come.

[MKG]

"Thorium is not fissile on its own ..." is the key. I did some homework on this one some time ago. Here you go ...

http://www.selfsufficientish.com/forum/ ... um#p195655

Mike

[oldfella]

Although my knowledge is extremely limited on the subject, I can hardly believe that if the world Scientists cannot overcome the problems you outline, and the choice had not been whether to use a medium that had a dual purpose, ie Weapons and nuclear power, or a medium that could only used for one purpose, then our Power Stations would have using Thorium based Nuclear Power.

But as I say,that's the world we live in.

Eddy

[oldjerry]

Personally,I'm not so concerned about the source of power but more the scale of it's generation.Coal,gas,nuclear,wind,whatever,large scale production means state control,and you just have to take what you're given.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

Although my knowledge is extremely limited on the subject, I can hardly believe that if the world Scientists cannot overcome the problems you outline, and the choice had not been whether to use a medium that had a dual purpose, ie Weapons and nuclear power, or a medium that could only used for one purpose, then our Power Stations would have using Thorium based Nuclear Power.

But as I say,that's the world we live in.

Eddy

I have a feeling that research scale reactors burning thorium have been built in the past. I'm pretty sure the problem is more one of set-up costs, engineering and chemistry than anything else. The thorium as Mike says is not itself directly the fuel: it is converted from thorium-232 to uranium-233 (via an intermediate called protactinium-233) which then fissions to give the heat. U-233 could - in principle - be used in a bomb (and, again, I'm not sure that it hasn't been tried), but plutonium is a much "better" nuclear explosive, so there may well be something in what you say. Still, necessity is the mother of invention and I'm sure that these problems will be overcome.