[skifreeK]

Locally, thorium has been coming up in energy conversations. I see by a search of the site that it's only been mentioned once and then once again as part of a quote of that post.

This region of western Colorado has always been energy rich. Natural gas is the current hydrocarbon crop of choice, though with the drilling techniques developed to get at our gas, all sorts of other gas around the country came into play and the rigs took off for those parts. Still, we're producing more than will fit in existing pipelines.

Oil Shale was a "big play" back in the '80's right up to the moment when Exxon literally flipped the switch and turned off the lights. It's still around and two term limited county commissioners are banging the shale oil drum. Besides not yet having a proven, economical tech process to get it out of the rock it's bound in, it appears it will take an enormous amount of water and electricity as part of any process tried so far.

Before that, this was a major uranium production region. The streets of Grand Junction were literally paved with mill tailings, or at least backfilled with them...as were thousands of house foundations, sidewalks, fill areas, etc. The 1980's saw a major mill tailing removal project at the cost of many millions of dollars. If you've ever been to Moab, you most likely saw the heap of mill tailings along the Colorado River there as well.

Currently, a new nuke plant is planned for eastern Utah. That brings us to thorium. Apparently, President Nixon picked a fork in the nuclear road back in '72-'73 and the rest is the history of nuclear power. Thorium based reactors were part of the discussion back then, but fell by the wayside on the path not taken.

Now, people are starting to talk about thorium again as a more viable and much less dangerous, less toxic form of generating electricity from splitting atoms.

Is a thorium based reactor system a viable component for our energy mix going forward? Should we be putting R&D money into it? Or, are there killer realities somewhere along the road between concept and completion which mean it's just another energy fuel fool's errand that we best pass by as Nixon did back in '72?

A primer from a guy who is biased in favor of thorium, but interesting none-the-less, imho.

http://thoriummsr.com/video/youtube/

[rsireland3]

Thorium will hasten the zombie apocalypse.
_________________

[skifreeK]

[chemman]

There has been much more recent discussion concerning the use of Thorium as a nuclear fuel. Some of the thought involves consumption of some of the worlds plutonium supply. It is hard to view that as a bad thing.

If you would like to do some light reading on the subject here are some links to interesting pieces from the IAEA:


Thorium Fuel Cycle - Potential Benefits and Challenges

Thorium Fuel Utilization: Options and Trends

Potential of Thorium Based Fuel Cycles to Constrain Plutonium and Reduce Long Lived Waste Toxicity
_________________
Il n'y a que moi qui a toujours raison.
BF's French lady.

http://cleardarksky.com/c/LkDllnObCokey.html

[ghostofcarl]

fuckwhits here can't even google the periodic table

[skifreeK]

[skifreeK]

[slamdance]

[chemman]

[Baaahb]

Darn. I thought this was about comic book heroes.
_________________
Other vegetables have a hard time competing with potatoes.

[skifreeK]

[chemman]

[Jim]

But what effect does it have on Superman?
_________________
You know it's a good day when you wake up in the morning.

[skifreeK]

[skifreeK]