What if there was a source of energy that:

-produced nearly no waste

-was safe

-was cheap

-was inexhaustible

-was proven through science and already built and tested

Well there is!

This short video explains a lot. I definitely encourage you to look more into this. We can demand this as a nation, and as a world. Please keep your mind open, as "nuclear" does not necessarily mean "bad". This type of nuclear power would be free of the hazard of meltdowns,and not have the potential to make nuclear weapons. Also, wind and solar may be green, but look at the land use required for such technologies. When coupled with the energy required to make the steel for power transmission, the energy to build the power lines, and the energy loss through the power lines (which can be 50% loss or more), is it really that green? I think small Thorium reactors located locally would decrease the need for power lines, energy losses, and make the power grid overall more robust.

Without further ado, here's the video. Please forgive the sort of distracting editing, it has a ton of great information.

How much metal/plastic/rubber/petroleum products/etc. does each plant require? Where do the raw materials come from? The energy/equipment to extract those raw materials? How are they processed? Where does the waste wind up? How about all of the machinery required to build it? All of the components needed to build those machines? All of the energy needed to power that machinery? Where does the thorium come from? Where is it refined? How about all of the energy to extract/refine it? Where does that waste go? Etc, etc, etc, etc.

What about the study in Nature that claims that it is possible to make nuclear weapons from it? Even if it's harder than traditional methods, that's a radically different statement than claiming it's impossible to create nuclear weapons using thorium.

There is no "truly green" (read: sustainable/ecologically neutral) industrial technology. By definition, it's an oxymoron.

Looks like another industrial mining project
I am not sold.
If it really has that much use to make nuclear weapons, I wonder why it is pushed as the opposite, and who is really funding it.

A few good points, SnozzleBerry.

I misspoke, and will change the title of the thread. It should say "A more green power source". Yes, I realize that the materials must come from other industrial processes. Ultimately, a system run primarily off a power source like this would mean a clean source of energy, and at low cost. Coupled with good recycling practices, I think this could pave the way for a much more harmonic society.

The projected cost of energy from thorium plants is much lower than any other practices. In developing countries, the only feasible candidate for power production is oil or coal. Wind and solar are much too expensive. So, the only hope for the poor nations is cheap energy, and Thorium would under-cut even fossil fuels. This is another reason why I see it as more green.

While there is a possibility for the production of nuclear weapon material, it is at least much more difficult compared to traditional nuclear reactors. I think (this is opinion, of course, but very well could be backed up with proper risk-assessment) that the risk of nuclear weapons being made is worth the venture. Around 85% of the energy produced in the U.S. is from fossil fuels. It is simply not feasible to replace that energy with wind, or solar. The price is too high, the land use is too great, these power sources are too intermittent and these energy sources would likely use much more industrial processes and resources than Thorium power plants.

I think, also, that countries with strong economies, and good cheap energy are much less likely to pursue nuclear weapons in the first place. Countries that are out of poverty are much less likely to be aggressive, in general. So hopefully the issue of nuclear weapons would be a moot point, once the world has transitioned to Thorium power.

So, in short, I agree. There is no truly green power source for humans to use, but this seems like the best we have at the moment. And yes, the two statements about nuclear weapons are drastically different. At the moment, production of uranium by thorium has yet to be done. So, at least this whole idea certainly deserves looking into.

Here's a longer video that goes into the history of nuclear energy, and why thorium never got off the ground. Towards the end it gets more into the theory of operation, and the economic and environmental impacts.

In the second video I posted he talks about how one small mine could produce enough energy for the whole U.S.. That one mine is nothing special either. There are tons of places like it all over the world. So, the mining would be far less intrusive than either uranium, or fossil fuels.

Think about how small of an amount of matter that is. One person can hold enough thorium in one hand to handle all of the energy they use in their life! Try that with fossil fuels!

The thing to remember, too, is that already industrialized nations would not use this for nuclear bomb material. There would be no point. There would be no money behind that, especially since the nuclear treaties in place don't allow for an increase in weapons.

There may still be some risks, but there is no reward without risk.

ahh, good to know that this would not create another large scale mining industry. We have enough of that already.

Thats rele awesome idk why I haven't ventured into this part of the forum, i usually just check active topics rele sounds like a good start to replacing our dependence on fossil fuels.