• LemmyHead@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    6 months ago

    The problem with these arguments and the focus of debated is that they are based on nuclear energy from uranium, not thorium. Thorium is ubiquitous in nature, power centers are much easier to set up and can be small and the waste, while initially (a bit) more radioactive than uranium waste, loses it’s radiation level much faster

    • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      Where are the thorium reactor ? We currently have none. Are we allowed to throw speculative energy source in the debate ?

      • LemmyHead@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        6 months ago

        Already India and chine have had working ones for many years. It’s not speculative and I recommend you to research the tech. It’s unfortunately not very present in western nuclear energy debates. Could be a political reason but that’s just a dirty guess

        • BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          6 months ago

          I thought all thorium based reactor were still at the research stage. I made a quick search to see if there was any in actual use but couldn’t find a source. If you have one please send it I’m really interested.

          If they are still at the research stage then I’ll wait until one is built at scale to decide whether they are a better alternative.

    • Arlaerion@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      6 months ago

      The abundance of uranium and thorium is of the same magnitude. The thing is economics. Uranium is cheap, and as long it is, we use the sources we have. As the peice of uranium rises other sources get economical including sea water extraction which is effectively renewable.