Why aren't we doing this yet?
[yt]P9M__yYbsZ4[/yt]
Short answer: because government took over the development of nuclear power so they could also make nuclear bombs, which you can make out of uranium but not thorium, and this crowded out private efforts.
Finally, it seems in the last year or so (after the Fukushima disaster), the issue is getting more and more attention, so maybe SOMETHING will be done now. Almost none of the issues with uranium power are there with thorium power (the waste being one, but it can be re-enriched much more safely).
Or a better question:
Where are the environmentalists?
I honestly don't think they know what to do. Remember these people are NOT free thinkers; they're dogmatists and followers. (If they weren't, they'd have been behind nuclear power--the safest, cleanest form of energy we have--long ago!) They've been so indoctrinated that fission=bad, that when they run across a form of nuclear energy that doesn't even have the slight risks that uranium power has, they just don't know how to deal with it.
It isn't impossible to make nuclear explosives out of thorium, it's just significantly harder (which is why governments prefer uranium and plutonium, which ar somewhat easier, although far from trivial).
Here in Canada we've got a government-owned corporation called Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. that produces CANDU reactors. These are designed for use with natural uranium fuel, but can be adapted readily to use thorium fuel, as well as mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, which can include repurposed weapons-grade uranium and plutonium, allowing stockpiles of the stuff to be destroyed for useful purposes.
One of the more irritating problems with nuclear power is that the safest way to build a nuclear power complex is to put the fuel reprocessing plant right next to the reactor complex, so that the spent fuel can we reworked without shipping it long distances outside of the security envelope of the nuclear complex. "Environmentalists" HATE the idea of putting all the hazardous stuff together where you can maintain security and containment as a single system.
Quote from: MrBogosity on January 08, 2012, 10:25:45 AM
I honestly don't think they know what to do. Remember these people are NOT free thinkers; they're dogmatists and followers. (If they weren't, they'd have been behind nuclear power--the safest, cleanest form of energy we have--long ago!) They've been so indoctrinated that fission=bad, that when they run across a form of nuclear energy that doesn't even have the slight risks that uranium power has, they just don't know how to deal with it.
Yes, it is as you say, as always Master Shane. ;)
Quote from: evensgrey on January 08, 2012, 10:23:54 PMOne of the more irritating problems with nuclear power is that the safest way to build a nuclear power complex is to put the fuel reprocessing plant right next to the reactor complex, so that the spent fuel can we reworked without shipping it long distances outside of the security envelope of the nuclear complex. "Environmentalists" HATE the idea of putting all the hazardous stuff together where you can maintain security and containment as a single system.
I'm not sure why they'd have a problem-this setup is pretty reasonable.
then again, this is the crowd who you can get to sign petitions banning dihydrogen monoxide. let that sink in.
Quote from: Ibrahim90 on January 11, 2012, 12:18:15 AM
I'm not sure why they'd have a problem-this setup is pretty reasonable.
then again, this is the crowd who you can get to sign petitions banning dihydrogen monoxide. let that sink in.
To be fair, it can cause suffocation if inhaled in large quantities.
Quote from: Gumba Masta on January 11, 2012, 07:19:41 AM
To be fair, it can cause suffocation if inhaled in large quantities.
well, if we were to list every single way it can kill you, we'd all be dead from a lack of it, since we'd all avoid even drinking it. :P
Sacrifices have to be made.