And that is why we don't use throium

Which is soo fucking stupid

@The Lemon Yeah, I don't buy that thorium can't meltdown. I call BS on that claim.

No cos it produces 1-2 neutrons per fission reaction

thorium can melt... but nuclear meltdown?

So it can't escalate like uranium can

and thorium can be used to make bombs

Because uranium releases 2-3 per fission reaction

The bi products can

Thorium can't

wiki says u cant make bombs from thorium

yup, calling bullshit

@McBacoon Wiki says that as a "possible benefit" meaning theoretical

"Proponents also cite the lack of weaponization potential as an advantage of thorium"

yup, claling bullshit on that

u need uranium-235 for weapons

Thorium has 233

u cant weaponize that

thorium myths: https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html

Asgard’s fire (The Economist) This article is pretty good in general. But, it has to be on the wall of shame due to this quote: "Thorium, though, is hard to turn into a bomb; not impossible, but sufficiently uninviting a prospect that America axed thorium research in the 1970s. " The MSR program shutdown had nothing to do with MSR’s ability to make weapons. Sigh.

Pascal-Emmanuel Gobry, "This energy source could solve all of our problems — so why is no one talking about it?" Woah this is a really good yarn. Again, hits most misconceptions but even makes up some new ones. Best quote: "If these systems fail, the reactor starts going into meltdown. Thorium, being a lighter element, doesn’t have that problem." Haha! Being a lighter element has nothing to do with it. Having low-pressure coolant is what gives the MSR its safety advantage, dude. SFR, LFR, FHR, etc. are other reactors that can do this with or without Thorium. Crikey!

People have been talking about thorium for a long time but ironically it has not become a thing. wonder why

it's so safe, so cost-effective, etc. why are we still using nuclear?

your bullshit detector should be going off

you could almost say the same thing about why arent we switching from coal to nuclear?

we have nuclear all over though

but not enough

%

it could be more

it's best to have a variety of energy sources

sure, but having no CO2 emitting energy sources is even better?

are there any commercial thorium fission power plants?

idk

not an expert on this sibject

pretty sure there's not

ask @The Lemon

last I knew there were no commercial thorium fission power plants so big difference between that and having coal and nuclear fission

there would be more nuclear fission power plants if it wasn't for government preventing it

how is it exactly that they are trying to prevent them?

coal lobbying?

and France is actually a pretty good example of nuclear plants