There are at least 6 companies pursuing Molten Salt Reactors Based on designs tested in the 1960s. Improvements in Technology over the past 50 years allow for even greater safety and efficiency. If we hope to significantly reduce our carbon emissions, we must not ignore this valuable source of carbon free energy.
Yes, liquid fluoride thorium reactors are a good idea, because there is no evidence that they show any more danger than any other type of nuclear energy. LFTR's are, on the whole, safe. They get a bad reputation from environmental lobbyists. But the truth is that they are a sound technology capable of providing good energy with very little risk.
Thorium is a really interesting new direction for energy policy, and one that is just recently being looked into and discovered. Thorium is still not completely looking into yet but I think we should fun research into seeing if this is a safe and viable form of nuclear energy for a country.
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors is a good idea. Thorium is plentiful and inexpensive. LTFR operates at atmospheric pressure, obviating the need for a large, expensive containment dome and having little danger of explosion. LFTRs are stable to rising temperatures since salt expands slowing the reaction. Could provide the world's energy needs carbon-free for a thousand years.
I have been reading about LFTRs for over a year now and searching to find valid reasons while this energy source should not be pursued. 3rd world and poor countries, struggling to advance their economies, will adopt the cheapest source of energy. As the population of the world increases and more countries advance the carbon emissions from industry will only increase unless a cheap, reliable and sustainable alternative is developed. Is LFTR are sure thing, no. Should thorium be explored at the exclusion of other technologies, no, but thorium is the only technology that shows promise for fully meeting our electrical generation needs. If thorium lives up to its billing, it will be inexpensive, reduce existing nuclear waste, reduce carbon emissions, operate 24 hours a day, operate on limited real estate, reduce the likelihood of nuclear proliferation and much more. Don't reject the technology because it is "nuclear". There are many times of nuclear power. Don't reject all of them because of a problem with one.
Liquid Fluoride is a good idea when it comes to producing clean and sustainable energy in the future to comes. It is much better than uranium and plutonium based power plants that have a lot more waste that is ecologically harmful to our environment for hundreds of years to come. On top of that, thorium cannot be used in mass weapons, so in that aspect it is very safe.
Climate change/global warming is real and is caused by fossil fuel usage. We can conserve, we can ride horses/walk, and we can wear lots of clothes to keep warm, or we can say to heck with it and go on burning fossils and wrecking our mountains, water, air, health and environment. The only viable option is to transition to other clean non-fossil forms of energy. Wind, solar, hydro, geo, waves, etc can help, but we must have a base load that runs all the time. The most likely for success is nuclear. Traditional uranium reactors like Fukushima, Chernobyl, Three Mile island, to name a few have proven unacceptable. New nucs like LFTR that uses safe technology are it seems to me the only answer.
Obtaining and burning coal and oil is the biggest killer in the world. Conventional nuclear reactors are pressure cookers waiting to go bang, with a payload of radiation waiting to escape into the atmosphere.
LFTR nuclear reactors work with no pressure, and use automatic fail-safe shut down, requiring no computer or human intervention. There is not even a risk of being ejected to the atmosphere. The liquid fuel can't meltdown it just drains out and solidifies. Full burning or it's fuel means very little residue requiring storage for tens of years instead of tens of thousands of years. It's a no brainer to anyone who's studied it.
The simplicity of the liquid fuel design will lead to very low costs for power. This creates the potential for displacing CO2-emitting coal and natural gas, through economics. Only energy cheaper than coal will dissuade 7 billion people and 250 nations from continuing to burn coal and natural gas. There's more in th book THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal.
Claims about this technology are simply not true. It will be decades before the LFTR could be a commercial power source. It may never have any impact on the climate. Highly corrosive salt is probably the main reason why no one currently has plans to build the LFTR, but a little investigation reveals many more flaws in the pro-LFTR argument.
Nuclear energy is simply not a good idea whatsoever and it most certainly needs to be scrapped. Nuclear energy has proven time and time again to not only be very unreliable, but incredibly dangerous and completely idiotic for society to rely on. It is time we transistion to other forms of energy.
Thorium based nuclear energy and liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTR) are not a good idea. Using any type of nuclear energy is a bad idea because of the toxic waste that it makes. If we want to have better energy resources, then we need to focus on renewable energy resources.
Anyone who knows anything about science knows that thorium reactors are bull. You can't get that much energy with our strongest lasers firing at the thorium, and getting that would be very expensive. You would a fool to buy into this pseudoscience hunk of lies. Hell, if the reasoning behind using thorium is because its dense, why not use gold? It WAY denser than thorium .
Although there has been a lot of publicity about Thorium reactors, they remain science fiction. Indeed, they are too good to be true. Proponents claim that they are safe, efficient, and they can run off of an abundant element. The only problem is that no one has created a working example yet.