Nuclear Physicist EXPLAINS - What are Thorium Reactors?

[Robert W]

It would be to everybody's advantage to understand Thorium. Questions? It it a fuel? Is it dangerous? Is it the solution to the energy needs of the planet?

Here is the expert. Do not be fooled because she is a woman. She is a nuclear physicist. So we are going to learn from a true expert.

Can we not ruin this by angry claims? I want this to be for information. And lord knows when it comes to nuclear energy, we need true information.
She has an accent. So I chose to read what she says. You can rewind and do it again if you do not understand her very well. The link will include CC so you can read her words.

 

[Moonglow]

Can you not explain it in yer own words Bob?

 

[Moonglow]

Thorium (chemical symbol Th) is a naturally occurring radioactive metal found at trace levels in soil, rocks, water, plants and animals. Thorium is solid under normal conditions. There are natural and man-made forms of thorium, all of which are radioactive.Feb 15, 2023

Radionuclide Basics: Thorium | US EPA​

 

[toobfreak]

Can you not explain it in yer own words Bob?

How about thorium being the most abundant actinide on earth, an f-block transition metal?

 

[Moonglow]

How about thorium being the most abundant actinide on earth, an f-block transition metal?

If that is what yous wanna dood.

 

[Robert W]

Can you not explain it in yer own words Bob?

Given plenty of time I can do that. But why not watch a true expert?

 

[Kruska]

Can you not explain it in yer own words Bob?

What he meant to say is, that the mysterious leaks and explosions of dozens of nuclear reactors around the world are far cheaper to achieve - than via screwing up on nuclear energy and thus generating CO2 - in order to make our planet become this;

 

[Muhammed]

What he meant to say is, that the mysterious leaks and explosions of dozens of nuclear reactors around the world are far cheaper to achieve - than via screwing up on nuclear energy and thus generating CO2 - in order to make our planet become this;

View attachment 838461

I see that you are unaware that CO2 fights desertification.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

Here is the expert. Do not be fooled because she is a woman. She is a nuclear physicist. So we are going to learn from a true expert.

Like "nuclear engineer" Sam Brinton?

 

[Robert W]

Like "nuclear engineer" Sam Brinton?

View attachment 838691

You want this topic derailed. Why?

 

[Carl in Michigan]

I'm not detailing it.

You want this topic derailed. Why?

You said we should listen to her BECAUSE SHES A NUCLEAR ENGINEER. I'm giving you another "nuclear engineer"

The point is, that doesn't make her credible

 

[Moonglow]

Given plenty of time I can do that. But why not watch a true expert?

They take to long.

 

[Robert W]

They take to long.

If they take too long, why ask me. I take much longer than the experts.

 

[Robert W]

I'm not detailing it.


You said we should listen to her BECAUSE SHES A NUCLEAR ENGINEER. I'm giving you another "nuclear engineer"

The point is, that doesn't make her credible

Nor yours.

 

[Kruska]

I see that you are unaware that CO2 fights desertification.

Unlike you, I am not into this CO2 fossil-hysteria and number/stats games.

Fact is that whilst rivers and lakes are drying out resulting in a large increase of desertification - others are filled to the rim due to an increase of torrential rains. Thus causing huge floods and factual damage to the existing environment. If as e.g. in China sufficient ground and river-water can be supplied, (that is why e.g. China and India got into their border dispute) vegetation naturally takes hold aka "LU", independent of CO2 levels.

Model simulations which prescribe LU, attribute almost all of the trend in satellite-derived greening to CO2 fertilization, while satellite-derived models that do not account for CO2, explicitly find either climate or LU as the dominate factor. Neither approach explicitly accounts for rapid ecosystem change (break points) in their proportioning of the relative contributions of each driver.

It's a pure guessing game - that is politically driven in regards to finding/elaborating desired conclusions.

Fact is that CO2 has considerably increased in the past 50 years and is therefore determined as public enemy #1 - by exactly those who rejected nuclear energy - whilst fantasying about alternative energy replacing it and additionally at the same time fantasying to replace fossil based energy as well.

Logically as a result of a totally failed energy concept, initiated by Greens, CO2 considerably increased in the past 50 years. In order to continue a failed energy concept - the promotion of EV's are now the new fuckup addition in an already totally failed energy concept.

 

[Robert W]

Unlike you, I am not into this CO2 fossil-hysteria and number/stats games.

Fact is that whilst rivers and lakes are drying out resulting in a large increase of desertification - others are filled to the rim due to an increase of torrential rains. Thus causing huge floods and factual damage to the existing environment. If as e.g. in China sufficient ground and river-water can be supplied, (that is why e.g. China and India got into their border dispute) vegetation naturally takes hold aka "LU", independent of CO2 levels.

Model simulations which prescribe LU, attribute almost all of the trend in satellite-derived greening to CO2 fertilization, while satellite-derived models that do not account for CO2, explicitly find either climate or LU as the dominate factor. Neither approach explicitly accounts for rapid ecosystem change (break points) in their proportioning of the relative contributions of each driver.

It's a pure guessing game - that is politically driven in regards to finding/elaborating desired conclusions.

Fact is that CO2 has considerably increased in the past 50 years and is therefore determined as public enemy #1 - by exactly those who rejected nuclear energy - whilst fantasying about alternative energy replacing it and additionally at the same time fantasying to replace fossil based energy as well.

Logically as a result of a totally failed energy concept, initiated by Greens, CO2 considerably increased in the past 50 years. In order to continue a failed energy concept - the promotion of EV's are now the new fuckup addition in an already totally failed energy concept.

That study is old and no longer valid.

https://www.axios.com/2023/05/19/study-lake-water-levels-drop

 

[KissMy]

How about thorium being the most abundant actinide on earth, an f-block transition metal?

So Hillary didn't give Russia all our nuclear fuel?

 

[KissMy]

If it were more efficient, it wouldn't be the most expensive energy source as it has been for over 70 years.

And if you believe Thorium will save the day.... "The reasons were that uranium-fuelled reactors were more efficient, the research into uranium was proven and thorium's breeding ratio was thought insufficient to produce enough fuel to support development of a commercial nuclear industry."

 

[elektra]

If we run out of uranium or never develop fusion reactors, thorium might become a fuel. Until then it is a waste of money.