It was a headline in Dutch papers today, though the news itself is not that recent. Still, I thought it was very good news and wanted to share. 
Thorium-based nuclear power (as opposed to uranium based) may provide Earths population with cheap, clean and plentiful power in just two decades.
A report by the British government says that:
As debunkings go, this one isn’t strong enough to rain on my parade. I’m still hopeful.
Fusion power is only 10 years away perpetually, so we’ll never reach that sooner than we’ll never reach the 20 years perpetually away for thorium.
Yeah the thorium thing is old news. I remember back in my college days they were saying how it was the perfect solution to everything. I’ll believe it when I see it.
We were talking about thorium sixty years ago, so I’m not holding my breath. 
Apparently, last year’s Japan nuclear disaster has revived the interest in Thorium again. The Dutch paper said that China will invest about 300 million dollars and 140 scientists in research; Japan, India and Norway will also invest in research. So it may be nearer then it was.
My company’s actively working on it.
[Bender]
I’m 29% thorium!
[/Bender]
Actually, Revtim, the best estimates for fusion are that it’s about 50 years away, and that’s assuming a favorable funding environment.
On the topic of thorium reactors, though, most of their advantages over uranium reactors are on points that don’t really make much difference. Sure, there’s more thorium than uranium in the world, but the cost of fuel is a nearly negligible component of the cost of nuclear power, anyway. And thorium reactors can indeed be made quite safe, but uranium reactors can be made similarly safe, as evidenced by events like Fukushima (which fared better than any of the non-nuclear power plants hit by the tsunami). Thorium and uranium are both perfectly safe to hold in your hand, and both quite dangerous to ingest, since they’re both alpha emitters.
All that said, if thorium reactors are what it takes to overcome public paranoia against nuclear power, then I’m all for them.
I think Chronos hit on the important part.
Nobody has bothered to do it mainly because IMO the advantages aren’t worth the investment risks for investors.
I’ve always had the impression that its not so much a throrium reactor would be harder in any significant technological way than a uranium one more than nobody has ever bothered to try it.
Its just different enough that there is always some small chance there could be some gotcha that got overlooked and who want to risk investing probably a few billion in a new reactor design that could be an investment disaster? And, even if it worked fine, the investors won’t be laughing all the way to the bank. Maybe make a little money with the chance you’ll loose a bunch. Most investors don’t care for that kind of bet.
Now, OTOH I think America and some other countries have been quite remiss in not funding a test one or two over all these years. They do have some advantages and we know sooner or later they could well be needed. But stuff like this takes time. With a pretty modest expenditure over the past 2 to 4 decades or so we could know how they work and what some of the unknown gotchas were or weren’t. And barring an Apollo level effort, we aren’t going to make up for that lost time.
I can see the interest o0f Norway and India-both have massive deposits of thorium.
I think, at present, thorium’s main use is in making mantles for Coleman gas lamps.
WOW!
What would you say? A real possibility for the near future, or just on a horizon that is ever moving away from us?
I am not in a position to speculate.
Yep, home thorium reactors. We can use them to power our personal helicopters, ground-effect vehicles and automatic gourmet kitchens.
Oh, wait, this is a January 1953 Popular Mechanics. My bad.
However, unlike uranium, which is only found in suitable quantities for extraction and processing into a suitable fuel for reactors, thorium can be found virtually all over the world and so is preferable for nations which do not have natural reserves of high purity [SUP]238[/SUP]U, which is why India and China are both interested in the technology. Given the current imbalance of power and resulting political conflict that is largely due to the irregular distribution of petroleum, developing an energy source that allows nations to be essentially independent of one another for a basic resource should be of serious consideration in selecting to develop new technologies for future use.
Although the LTFR design does have some distinct advantages over current uranium-powered light water reactors (LWR), it is incorrect to say that they cannot suffer a meltdown or catastrophic release of radioactivity. Certain design features make them less prone to failure, but the use of a molten salt coolant is technically challenging from both a materials standpoint and ensuring containment from the environment where the salt could react energetically with atmospheric vapor and ground water. It is also incorrect to say that there is no weapon-grade material proliferation risk; it is more correct to say that a reactor designed to breed material suitable for manufacturing a fission weapon would be very evident to even cursory inspection as it would require continuous separation of weaponizable materials as compared to conventional reactors where the separation process occurs off-line.
The major advantages of the LFTR design are that it minimizes the fuel processing/preparation cycle and associated wastes, operates in a low pressure regime, and consumes most of the “waste products” it produces with a much reduced resulting end waste processing and disposal compared to current once-through cycles or proposed reprocessing technology. As uranium has been so cheap in the past (as Chronos has noted) and the worldwide nuclear industry is very conservative in considering new technologies given the regulatory hurdles and expensive of proving out a completely new-type design, there has been little impetus by established companies such as Westinghouse Electric and General Electric to develop thorium-based reactors.
In short, while the thorium reactor has some desirable characteristics and should be considered as part of a comprehensive long term plan to reduce global energy dependence on carbon-based natural fuels, it is not the end-all be-all of energy production. The Gas-Cooled Fast Reactor, PRISM, hybrid fission-fusion, and of course, supplementary renewable sources such as solar, geothermal, tidal, and wind power should all be considered on the basis of their respective technical merits and environmental and sociopolitical impact. Short of a simple, cost-effective, and passively fail-safe aneutronic fusion power generation source, there is no one ideal energy generating source that will satisfy the future energy needs of global civilization.
Stranger
In other news, the Thorin powered reactor remains stalled at the design stage.
Thorium deposits are contaminated with high concentrations of rare earths, which makes safe mining environmentally undesirable. Due to the thorium. As much as I think nuclear reactors are not a good deal, the US government should have done some experimental ones over the years.
As for fusion reactors, I have one in my backyard. It only works during daylight hours, but I do have a few cheap photovoltaic cells to harvest enough energy to charge batteries.
If the US government builds as much PV solar collectors as it invests in fusion, we could save tons of money on AC
I believe you mean there is a fusion reactor 93 million miles away from which you extract power in your back yard. I suspect even the most safety conscious would agree that 93 million miles is NIMBY.
wait… Fukishima fared WELL?
Yeah, the one that has a free fuel supply for the next 3 to 5 billion years that would require a monopoly on all the Earth’s surface to control. Heck, in certain climes, it is even cold fusion.
