The Thorium Problem

I haven't seen pol talk about thorium in quite a while. I figure new fags need a lesson.

youtube.com/watch?v=tyqYP6f66Mw&ab_channel=gordonmcdowell

Attached: Thorium Problem.jpg (1280x720, 56K)

Other urls found in this thread:

whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html
twitter.com/AnonBabble

It is over.
whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html

Interesting. At no point in that article does he say it's bad.

Nice link. Thorium is an awesome fuel, but definitely not perfect and there are a lot of false rumors about it.

Just came here to say I miss space elevator threads

Just stop. Power companies are rational, profit seeking entities. If they could make Thorium Salt reactors work and provide power at a lower cost (to them) they would be doing it. The tech is not new, and there is no conspiracy of incompetence preventing this technology from being deployed. The fact is it has been examined and passed over for good reason.

watch the video

that's because Jow Forums has become smarter and not falling for Mason conspiracies.

why would the masons push thorium?

Wow, I sure wish this video hadn't been edited by a fucking schizophrenic so I could actually learn something.

Nuclear anything as an energy source is perfectly valid & fine in theory.
In practice, left up to lazy ass humans & corner-cutting-for-increased-profit corporations, it fucking disastrous. Humanity is simply nowhere near responsible enough to safely handle nuclear.

Haven't had any problems here in america, except three-mile island, as far as I know.

Solar, wind, water, geothermal and nuclear ought to be our only sources of energy.

this video explains why solar is poopoo

>Thorium is good as an energy source, but govs can't use the radioactive waste to create nuclear weapons
>OP still wonders why there are no Thorium reactors
Let me guess you think nuclear weapons are fake

Attached: MuhPeaceTreaty.webm (1280x720, 514K)

thor isn't the problem odin is.

the reason they dont build thorium reactors is they're expensive as shit

The reason is we already have regular nuclear reactors. Switching to thorium would require reworking the electrical infrastructure, which is expensive. Also politicians can be pro-nuclear and still get votes, apparently. Libshits are retarded about it, go figure.

if its so easy I ma waiting for a rich autist to do it in his backyard

Attached: images7SYHJYN8.jpg (237x213, 10K)

Also because because they couldnt figure out how to weaponize thorium in the 30's and e0's

wtf does it have to do with liberalism ? the only politics that have to do with energy production is where it happens , obviously people in sunny places in a country want solar or whatever other local production wheres people from places where theres power stations want the power stations to stay.

i was a nuclearfag most of my life but in recent years i switched to thinking we should mostly invest in grid energy storage and solar\wind\hydro\tides

all these techs are also much more scaleable and offer a better return if you consider all overheads and expenses long term . the main bottleneck is lack of access to cheap,efficient and reliable storage .

Attached: efficiency_chart.png (4190x2456, 640K)

Solar and wind operate at a severe loss. The only reason that market can even exist is extreme tax subsidiaries. Not to mention they can only operate efficiently (I use that term lightly) in very specific locations. That tech is a dead end.

>wtf does it have to do with liberalism ?
liberals oppose nuclear because they are retarded

liberals do not oppose nuclear , nuclear power has nothing to do with liberty .

energy sector is all about the nuclear special interest groups vs fossil special interest groups vs other special interest groups

it's why i hate the commie shit going on here with a state owned electric company and want all such companies other then the military industry privatized .

>liberals do not oppose nuclear
they overwhelmingly do, you lying kike

explain to me the connection between liberalism and opposition to nuclear energy .
i'd get if you said environmentalists oppose it due to pollution but fucking liberals ?

We need a "final solution" to the "thorium problem".

Attached: hitloli.png (454x720, 147K)

I think it's just because they believe whatever the media/popular culture says.

Attached: fuck if I know.png (507x860, 81K)

Environmental protection is a cornerstone of modern progressive liberal ideology. Get with the times.

>Environmental protection is a cornerstone of modern progressive liberal ideology. Get with the times.

Attached: Bird vs Wind Turbine.webm (950x534, 2.79M)

LFTR has issues with corrosion and how it generates electricity. Also, if the vat containing the liquid ever got exposed or leaked, it would create a massive fire.

Also we don’t have the proven reliability and production yet to say it’s viable for the world, but there are teams around the world and gov funded projects working on that.

what a dumb fucking bird
thats darwinism for you my senpai

Attached: 1542644632397.jpg (853x1280, 245K)

It’s an engineering challenge that has made it economically infeasible. If it were economically feasible and cheaper than uranium reactors, China, India, Korea and Japan would have long built these reactors commercially.

>China, India
been working on getting them for years, or so I heard

No. The reason is that thorium decay leads to the production of the hardest gamma release known in a radioactive process. The photon is so high energy, it can easily penetrate conventional shielding, and will destroy electronics and human operators alike.

You can moderate the reaction and force it down another decay path, which does not release this photon, but then you end up with weapons grade uranium. In a breeder reactor.

And they were more expensive than conventional reactors.

>I haven't seen pol talk about thorium in quite a while
I saw a thorium thread yesterday. I think it was around this same time too.

Nuclear energy is dangerous for the environment, it must be stopped!
It's just muh environment retards eating propaganda, and liberal now really means left not in the classical liberal sense. That's what is meant by liberals hate nuclear.

In this way it’s exactly like Fusion, which Germany is banking heavily on with research. Only difference is we have actually produced net energy with it. Problem comes are all the trade offs and scale. We still haven’t gotten close on that yet.

We should be doing more modern PWC until we figure either out, but leftists who say it produces dangerous byproducts see no irony in them blocking it when they also saying the entire world is on the brink of destruction with fossil fuels. What would you rather have? Smaller destruction or bigger destruction?

No one said it wasn't hypocritical or a stupid assertion. That's just progressive liberalism in a nutshell.