Interesting reading.billhill said:
markrmau said:Fascinating posts smurf, but I don't understand. If thorium is so good, the electricity market would have picked it up and we would be building thorium plants.
Mofra said:current rate of uranium useage we would have approx 53 years left of uranium before we suffer severe shortages.
53 years and nuclear supplies only one fifth of world electricity. So we could all go nuclear for 10 years...Mofra said:I was reading an interesting article (don't get scared kennas - it was in a mag that leans left) that was talking up the use of thorium, as at the current rate of uranium useage we would have approx 53 years left of uranium before we suffer severe shortages.
Thorium is roughly 3 times as abundant so the problem is delayed.
The article also stated that 94% of current nuclear waste could be reprocessed back into fuels for reactors, and would be better termed as wasted.
http://thoriumenergy.blogspot.com/2009/01/or-immediate-release-thorium-for.html
Seems there's some serious interest in this in Finland.
So why isn't thorium been looked at by governments as a viable alternative?
What are the downsides to it? Aside from the fact that there are no plants using it at the moment
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?