Selfsufficientish.com

Thorium supposedly is a better choice than Uranium-based reactors since it's more environment friendly, plus a whole lot more benefits. However since Uranium had more military benefits, Thorium got canned. Read this link here. Stumbled on it today and I find it interesting although the article seems to be laced with political motifs.

Hello there ,

cannot open the link , but it sounds like something out of star trek , borium , lithium , etc.
If it was a useable fuel the world would have jumped on it , I think , military or not .
Why is the link not opening ?

more info ,

regards ,

paul

Thorium reactors need the introduction of uranium or plutonium to achieve initial fission. Once fission begins, a proportion of the thorium is converted to uranium 233 to keep the reaction going. The handling and waste-disposal risks, although somewhat lessened, are of an identical nature - we're still talking uranium and it's still dangerous. This story is, I'm afraid, merely more paranoid pseudo-science akin to the "everlasting generator using magnetic current". Although one of the spin-offs from the development of standard reactors may well have been fissile material for the weapons programs, the truth is that the uranium and plutonium cycles are simply many times more efficient than the thorium cycle.

Many, many more people have lost their lives in the production of raw materials for the conventional power industry than for nuclear generation (but then nuclear hasn't been around for very long). Overall, though, nuclear power is statistically safer and cleaner - but the containment technologies let it down somewhat.

This is not an apology for nuclear power, by the way. I just happen to think that it's the only feasible way to go unless the human race matures very quickly and stops its excessive power consumption (flying pig, see?). I keep an optimistic eye open for developments in fusion technology, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

Mike