Great stuff Julian.

Why indeed are we not doing everything possible to explore this technology?

Knowing you as I do as a most balanced writer, who would have presented the reasons if there were any. You haven’t given us any reasons, just hypotheses. So the mind truly boggles as to why thorium has apparently slipped under the radar.

Sounds too good to be true. So what is the catch?

I am most interested to see what other respondents come up with by way of countenancing this very promising-sounding technology.

It is a pity we do not review energy objectively with some clear statisticall comparisons of the differenet energy forms

I am concerned at the cost and environmental polution caused be many of the so called alternative forms of energy eg wind farms. These subsidised tokens are unable to produce the amount of energy the world requires.

We need to be realistic and start revewing those forms of energy source that are able to produce the quantitiy of energy required.

This is a serious issue and deserves some more serious figures to consider.

Well done Rob

Quite an interesting read- an abundant inexpensive and less volatile nuclear power source would indeed be a promising source if what you say is true- next would be a read on the properties of thorium to double check this.

Having said that, it would still not be as safe as PV- to which the radioactive source of energy is millions of miles away and is an exposure risk regardless of whether we use it or not.

Thorium is not actually a “fuel” because it is not fissile and therefore cannot be used to start or sustain a nuclear chain reaction. A fissile material, such as uranium 235 (U235) or plutonium 239 (which is made in reactors from uranium 238), is required to kick start the reaction. The enriched uranium fuel or plutonium fuel also maintains the chain reaction until enough of the thorium target material has been converted into fissile uranium 233 (U233) to take over much or most of the job. An advantage of thorium is that it absorbs slow neutrons relatively efficiently (compared to uranium 238) to produce fissile uranium 233.

Proponents claim that thorium fuel significantly reduces the volume, weight and long term radiotoxicity of spent fuel. Using thorium in a nuclear reactor creates radioactive waste that proponents claim would only have to be isolated from the environment for 500 years, as opposed to the irradiated uraniumonly fuel that remains dangerous for hundreds of thousands of years. This claim is wrong. The fission of thorium creates long lived fission products like technetium 99 (half life over 200,000 years). While the mix of fission products is somewhat different than with uranium fuel, the same range of fission products is created. With or without reprocessing, these fission products have to be disposed of in a geologic repository. Thorium may be abundant and possess certain technical advantages, but it does not mean that it is economical. Compared to uranium, thorium fuel cycle is likely to be even more costly. In a once‐through mode, it will need both uranium enrichment (or plutonium separation) and thorium target rod production. In a breeder configuration, it will need reprocessing, which is costly.

Finally, the use of thorium also creates waste at the front end of the fuel cycle. The radioactivity associated with these is expected to be considerably less than that associated with a comparable amount of uranium milling. However, mine wastes will pose long term hazards, as in the case of uranium mining. There are also often hazardous non radioactive metals in both thorium and uranium mill tailings.

Given that the complexity and relative expense of the thorium reactors, and the hysterical nature of the anti nuclear movement, the fact that the reactors were intrinsically safe would be unlikely to attract any less protest or obstruction.

However, given that there is tremendous research being done by China and India (who has the largest deposits) and whom is building a huge nuclear fleet of power stations intends to have about 30% of these powered by thorium by 2050.

Australia, however, will thanks to the greens, still be burning coal.

more research has been done into nuclear energy than into any other form of energy. more money has been expended on the development of the nuclear industry than on any other energy-producing industry. more havoc has been wrought by the nuclear industry than any other energy-source industry. if as much research and funding for research, and for development, had been put into (say) solar energy, solar energy would be the most efficient, cleanest and well-used form of energy world-over. the nuclear industry attracted all the research and monies for r&d because of its pre-eminent war-giving capacity, its 'tech-fix' profile, and its being at the top of the agenda of the defence industry (viz warmongers). when did you last read about a solar-energy installation meltdown? a windfarm meltdown? nuclear power is even more harmful in its 'domestic' uses and has been the cause of more deaths, lingering illnesses and ravages than any other form of energy, including the coal-industry - which in its time has been bad enough. nobody talks about 'safe' nuclear power because it isn't.