No not at all, I am , and should be annoyed with Science and apologists for it who push an agenda on a topic they have no clue about. "If you are really interested in" nice start to a sentence there, if I wasn't interested I wouldn't be commenting. I have a wide background to many things through life experience, studies and teaching. It is my job to know things so I can pass on an unbiased view to my students giving them an opportunity to see all facets of a topic so they can make up their own minds on what they believe is reality.

Lol, I realise we don't agree on much, it is interesting we agree here though, and even when we don't agree I still respect your right to an opinion and am willing to discuss it with you.

Quite frankly said, but you are actually right.

Fukushima is likely to be the last catastrophic event

This subject has interested me for a long time. There is a source of energy that has not been discussed and that is thorium based nuclear reactors. Thorium reactors have many of the advantages of uranium/ plutonium based technology, but with better safety and ulitimately lower cost. The greatest potential technology using thorium as fuel would be the LFTR (liquid fluoride thorium reactor). These plants could be small, de-centralized, cheap and safe. Thorium fuel reactors have few of the safety issues associated with the reactors presently used. It also has a very low chance for weapon proliferation. If you're interested in these you might just Google "LFTR". Here are some links too:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_...horium_reactor

http://energyfromthorium.com/

http://youtu.be/nYxlpeJEKmw

Thanks for sharing, Sounds cool. I'm always hoping posters notices my signature saying 'photosynthesis to hydrogen'

I have seen (think on NOVA) molten salts (used differently) in solar collectors to, hold the heat longest and generates electricity long into the night. Sadly the problem most feel is the cost of green tec too high but then they don't need to buy any f#!king fuel.! Anything to kill a mountain and have jobs to brake backs i guess?

One of the most important considerations of energy production is the cost per kilowatt. LFTR energy could be potentialy be lower than coal. It is much cleaner too. In addition, thorium is hyper-abundant. It also does not generate the waste products that uranium based reactors do. An LFTR could actually be used to generate power from old nuclear waste and render in practicaly inert in the process.

People seem to confuse nuclear with some sort of wild grass. Disasters like Fukushima are like any disaster. It is a collection of small issues that could have been prevented. You can't make more radioactive product easily. It is all here on the earth and has been keeping the earth warm for millions of years. It is the energy inside the earth that is, so far, keeping us alive. It is out in space, it is the energy that drives the sun even. You can't escape it by any easy means. Fukushima didn't release any more energy than was already on earth. The only major sad part is the Japanese culture is not good under disaster, well maybe tied with Katrina local government. Why can't people ask for help when they get in trouble? Hey, can we get some generators flown in by US helicopters? That was all that was needed to prevent most of the damage in Fukushima.

The point of the entire issue is people using energy. It is not greedy people who get rich by forcing energy on us. It is the people asking for energy. Sheeze! There is no free lunch. Burning fossil fuels, or using nuclear energy is all going to kill us. It will help kill the planet. Nuclear may be a less dangerous way to kill the planet is all.

I saw a bumber sticker in Texas a while ago. "If you don't own an oil well, you'd better get one!" How true. The joke was more of the fact that seemingly everyone here has an oil well. If I had one, I'd darn sure be pumping at $90 a barrel.

It has been a very long time since I have read such a simplistic and out of touch view of the issue of nuclear energy, not to mention a xenophobic view of Japanese culture. If it is energy that is already on the planet and it is no more dangerous either way then why use it in a bomb? Fact is nuclear is dangerous when it is not controlled, no amount of generators flown in by US helicopters was going to stop Fukushima once it started.

math > radio > tv > microchip > synthetic-diamond > K1-for-everyone ... "just sayin"

Here are some more very informative articles that just appeared in the media regarding thorium based nuclear power generation:

http://www.fool.com/investing/genera...isthorium.aspx

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/sc...cles.html?_r=0

Cool reading!!!

Yet the reason Fukushima failed is because the backup generator was damaged. This left only battery power until the coolant dropped. Tell me why then didn't the Japanese ask for any outside help? Why don't you believe the disaster could have been prevented. Do you feel it is Fate or something?

I used to live in Japan for a few years and I feel I do understand the way they think. Japan has a very single minded way of doing things. It is very ridged in it's views and actions. Don't expect to take Western ideas and beliefs and use it there. You may be tempted to use your own feelings of how they live and think but unless you lived there and had close interaction with them you can't understand.

My time in the US Navy taught me a bit about nuclear reactors. How many have you operated?

The action of burning billions of tons of fossil fuel is no more long term dangerous than nuclear. Every day people die from exposure to hydrocarbons like benzene, mercury, particulate matter. Just because you don't see your family being killed slowly doesn't mean it is OK. There have been many studies that prove those billions of tons of fossil fuel also release radioactive material.

We understand "statistics" and stereotypes! And I figure your dad was in the navy?

Now be fair jefro. . Not fair comparing apples and candy apples.

I have spent time in the navy also. The red headed step child section. /man/dod/jarhead.

As far as fossil fuels go. Yeah, they hurt. That does not mean that nuclear
then becomes the option. I don't know enough about what rudemeister is saying to comment
on that much, other than Breeder reactors were picked over thorium reactors
back in the early 70's. Yeah they knew about thorium then. I guess money
speaks louder than common sense then. Oh yeah. Even now.

The reason uranium was chosen over thorium for reactor technology is because you can make nuclear weapons from the uranium/plutonium process. Nuclear weapons are produced with either u235 or pu239. 99.3% of natural uranium in u238. Uranium is the seed material to produce plutonium in a reactor. All modern nuclear weapons use plutonium as the pit. You could actually use neptunium too, but you need more of it than uranium or plutonium. Also, the americium that makes your smoke detector work can also be used. But it is way too rare. Only .7% of natural uranium is u235. Only u235 can be used for weapons or to run a reactor. The simplest means of separating u235 from u238 is by inertial separation. This means you use a centrifuge spun at very high speed. The u238 is heavier than u235 and settles to the bottom with a chemical called uranium hexafluoride. But the thorium process transmutes thorium to u233 and u232. These isotopes sustain a fission reaction. Using these for weapons production is ridiculous because the difference in atomic weight make them very difficult to separate. Although u233 is fissile, it is so close in weight to u232 that they cannot be practically and economically separated. u232 gives off such intense gamma radiation that it would rip apart the molecules and properties of the materials required to make a weapon. It also has a short half life.

Thorium is much more abundant than uranium too. In a thorium reactor, you need to seed the start process with neutrons, but with an accelerator you could do that without needing pu239 or u235. The thorium process does not require the massive containment vessel that uranium reactors require. They would be small, safe and free of proliferation worries.

So the simple answer is, thorium was never pursued because you can't really weaponize the products.