TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Thorium Instead Of Uranium: Solution To Our Energy Woes?

76 pointsby johndcookover 14 years ago

9 comments

DanielBMarkhamover 14 years ago
I'm a big fan of Thorium, but I'm also a big fan of nuclear in general. It just makes sense.<p>In fact, this is a lot like the issue of not building any oil refineries in the United States since the 1970s. While I'm sure there are good reasons for our lack of needed nuke plants, at the end of the day it looks like the system has let us all down.<p>I hate to sound like old cranky guy again, but frack, if you really wanted to get off oil you could do the math for how many nuke plants you'd need -- it'd be a lot! But it wouldn't be impossible, and we've known all of this for decades. It's just very frustrating. Things like the thorium ideas just make things worse because we can't even solve our problems using the old technology, much less the new stuff. It's almost like rubbing salt in the wound to see such potential and realize how improbable it will be to see the light of day (in a massive production sense). I find the state of our energy policy completely incredible, but the tech continues to look better with each passing year. Sigh.
评论 #1765653 未加载
评论 #1765145 未加载
评论 #1764783 未加载
评论 #1765302 未加载
grandinjover 14 years ago
This is a classic case of a solution to a problem that does not exist.<p>Firstly, Uranium is practically an insignificant cost of a nuclear power station. The price would have to go up by a factor of a 100 before it made a difference.<p>Secondly, the supplies of uranium are currently limited because the demand is limited. The moment the price shifts up by even a little, supply will grow because several other mining locations will become profitable.
评论 #1765272 未加载
评论 #1763975 未加载
评论 #1764751 未加载
GiraffeNecktieover 14 years ago
The short answer is that there are many entrenched interests who are not keen on the idea: Uranium mines, nuclear industry, weapons manufacturers, not to mention the oil, gas and coal lobbies, even the alternative energy suppliers like solar. Thorium would rain on all their parades.
评论 #1763969 未加载
评论 #1764882 未加载
评论 #1763883 未加载
muhfuhkuhover 14 years ago
I thought all of the arguments against nuclear were overwhelmingly about NIMBY (not in my backyard). People just look at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and think "hell no."<p>Maybe after the BP spill, we'll think a little more about nuclear.
ngvrndover 14 years ago
I've read somewhere that one problem with Thorium is it can easily be converted to a fissionable isotope (of Uranium?) which <i>can</i> be used to build bombs. So there's that.
评论 #1763784 未加载
评论 #1763834 未加载
评论 #1763907 未加载
whyenotover 14 years ago
I'm all for thorium and nuclear energy, BUT only if we in the US stop with the NIMBY-ing and find a permanent storage location for nuclear waste.
评论 #1765790 未加载
johndcookover 14 years ago
The post doesn't give a definite answer to the question in the title, but it is interesting.
评论 #1763922 未加载
ericdover 14 years ago
Wouldn't getting over our fear of reprocessing Uranium make this a non-issue? That seems the simplest and most straightforward path... Just have to figure out a way to lock down the resulting plutonium.
magamiakoover 14 years ago
If you need lots of thorium you can usually find a ton of it Winterspring or the Burning Steppes!
评论 #1763888 未加载