Thorium (1 Viewer)

[Sand]

As a spin off from the REE thread in which China is trying to strangle the market there (which won't work - they aren't rare), the subject of thorium has come up. I have recently run across a great article on thorium research happening now. Awesome stuff - imagine a gasless engine capable of 330hp that doesn't run out of energy until it hits 300k miles. And it is being developed here - this is the kind of research that we need in the US.

Another article about safe nuclear energy. Unfortunately it looks like the anti-nuclear hysteria has won here and we've ceded our groundbreaking early work on this and China has taken the mantle. With all the talk about green energy I am not surprised, but chargrined that our current administration isn't pursuing this. Freakin' politics.

Thorium, though obviously radioactive, is much safer than uranium (not even close) and the US has the largest confirmed reserves in the world. Why aren't we throwing money at this? We could stop sending trillions and trillions of dollars overseas and make huge bank with the IP and manufacturing of the related technologies here. Huge ROI potential.

 

[bueno]

Because Thorium doesn't concentrate in economic quantities as easily as uranium.

 

[cosjobs]

Sounds good, but I hear the surrounding Lokium deposits make it really difficult.

 

[Sarnoff]

Thorium should be our future. It's irresponsible that we're not developing it full scale for our power needs.

 

[roadkill1292]

Very cool links, thanks for posting.

 

[NutterButter]

Thorium is where its at, but its always taken a backseat to uranium and its weapons capabilities.

 

[NCCommish]

Because Thorium doesn't concentrate in economic quantities as easily as uranium.

America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining.

Sounds like we might have a lot real handy.

 

[Kirby]

Sounds good, but I hear the surrounding Lokium deposits make it really difficult.

 

[roadkill1292]

What's pretty interesting about Laser Power Systems is that Stevens seems to have solved the science but is having trouble engineering the turbine to power the car. You'd think it would be the other way around. To my uneducated mind, he's pretty close to having a real breakthrough.

 

[NCCommish]

What's pretty interesting about Laser Power Systems is that Stevens seems to have solved the science but is having trouble engineering the turbine to power the car. You'd think it would be the other way around. To my uneducated mind, he's pretty close to having a real breakthrough.

Yeah I was surprised by that as well.

 

[FavreCo]

- imagine a gasless engine capable of 330hp that doesn't run out of energy until it hits 300k miles.

Why aren't we throwing money at this?

Why not? Here is your answer: Oil companies are imagining that scenario. What kind of profit is there in an engine that needs no fuel? This will never happen while you and I are breathing.

 

[roadkill1292]

- imagine a gasless engine capable of 330hp that doesn't run out of energy until it hits 300k miles.

Why aren't we throwing money at this?

Why not? Here is your answer: Oil companies are imagining that scenario. What kind of profit is there in an engine that needs no fuel? This will never happen while you and I are breathing.

Oil companies aren't the only ones with investment capital so I reject this kind of conspiracist logic. Besides, there's plenty of profit to be made. Let's say Google decided to throw one of its billions at this project and corner the thorium-fueled auto market. Even if the car lasts 30 years, there's a billion of them to be sold at $40,000 each. That's $40 trillion by my count and Google would bank a couple of dollars profit from $40 trillion in revenue.The answer to the question lies elsewhere. I don't know where.

 

[FavreCo]

- imagine a gasless engine capable of 330hp that doesn't run out of energy until it hits 300k miles.

Why aren't we throwing money at this?

Why not? Here is your answer: Oil companies are imagining that scenario. What kind of profit is there in an engine that needs no fuel? This will never happen while you and I are breathing.

Oil companies aren't the only ones with investment capital so I reject this kind of conspiracist logic. Besides, there's plenty of profit to be made. Let's say Google decided to throw one of its billions at this project and corner the thorium-fueled auto market. Even if the car lasts 30 years, there's a billion of them to be sold at $40,000 each. That's $40 trillion by my count and Google would bank a couple of dollars profit from $40 trillion in revenue.The answer to the question lies elsewhere. I don't know where.

Where'd ya pull this $40k out of? Your ###? Oh yeah, let me check my wallet for $40k too. Oh, there it is, your right. I've got 40k for a car just like everyone else. I will adjust my statement. China may get this done in our lifetimes but here? Forget about it.

Let me add that things are made to be disposable for a reason. That is to keep the economic engine running. Otherwise batteries would have evolved by now. There is no $ to be made in a car that can last 30 years.

One more thing. While $40k is a steal when you subtract fuel costs in a current vehicle, you won't be able to sell that to the masses because they can't afford the $40k to begin with. The low IQ masses look at today, not a 10+ year investment.

 

[Rayderr]

- imagine a gasless engine capable of 330hp that doesn't run out of energy until it hits 300k miles.

Why aren't we throwing money at this?

Why not? Here is your answer: Oil companies are imagining that scenario. What kind of profit is there in an engine that needs no fuel? This will never happen while you and I are breathing.

Oil companies aren't the only ones with investment capital so I reject this kind of conspiracist logic. Besides, there's plenty of profit to be made. Let's say Google decided to throw one of its billions at this project and corner the thorium-fueled auto market. Even if the car lasts 30 years, there's a billion of them to be sold at $40,000 each. That's $40 trillion by my count and Google would bank a couple of dollars profit from $40 trillion in revenue.The answer to the question lies elsewhere. I don't know where.

Where'd ya pull this $40k out of? Your ###? Oh yeah, let me check my wallet for $40k too. Oh, there it is, your right. I've got 40k for a car just like everyone else.

There's this thing called "car loans". Now you're probably going to say "But not everyone can afford a $40k loan." That may be a true, but a lot more will be able to if this technology existed. Money that was spent on gas can now be put towards a car payment.While I agree I don't think this technology is going to become available during our lifetimes, it has nothing to do with the big oil boogeyman.

 

[FavreCo]

While I agree I don't think this technology is going to become available during our lifetimes, it has nothing to do with the big oil boogeyman.

Sure it does. You are naive to think it doesn't. Ask yourself who buys patents up for fuel efficient vehicles. The auto industry. Are they a boogeyman too? Same goes for big oil. Anything that jeopardizes their profits will be stopped in its tracks.Oh, and it makes perfect business sense too. If someone came along and jeopardized your company and it's profits and you had an option to stop it, you would. You sure as hell wouldn't stand by and wait to disappear.

 

[roadkill1292]

- imagine a gasless engine capable of 330hp that doesn't run out of energy until it hits 300k miles.

Why aren't we throwing money at this?

Why not? Here is your answer: Oil companies are imagining that scenario. What kind of profit is there in an engine that needs no fuel? This will never happen while you and I are breathing.

Oil companies aren't the only ones with investment capital so I reject this kind of conspiracist logic. Besides, there's plenty of profit to be made. Let's say Google decided to throw one of its billions at this project and corner the thorium-fueled auto market. Even if the car lasts 30 years, there's a billion of them to be sold at $40,000 each. That's $40 trillion by my count and Google would bank a couple of dollars profit from $40 trillion in revenue.The answer to the question lies elsewhere. I don't know where.

Where'd ya pull this $40k out of? Your ###? Oh yeah, let me check my wallet for $40k too. Oh, there it is, your right. I've got 40k for a car just like everyone else. I will adjust my statement. China may get this done in our lifetimes but here? Forget about it.

Let me add that things are made to be disposable for a reason. That is to keep the economic engine running. Otherwise batteries would have evolved by now. There is no $ to be made in a car that can last 30 years.

I did indeed pull the number out of my ### but I could have used $30k or $20k or even $50k. The actual number isn't that important to the argument. I assumed a car like this would be a little more expensive but be worth it because of its longevity and fuel savings but use whatever number you want. There's plenty of money to be made. It takes a while to make a billion cars.If China gets it done, we'd better, too, or we're in deep trouble.

I reject the argument that things are made to be disposable for economic reasons.

 

[roadkill1292]

While I agree I don't think this technology is going to become available during our lifetimes, it has nothing to do with the big oil boogeyman.

Sure it does. You are naive to think it doesn't. Ask yourself who buys patents up for fuel efficient vehicles. The auto industry. Are they a boogeyman too? Same goes for big oil. Anything that jeopardizes their profits will be stopped in its tracks.Oh, and it makes perfect business sense too. If someone came along and jeopardized your company and it's profits and you had an option to stop it, you would. You sure as hell wouldn't stand by and wait to disappear.

The first Thorium concept car was introduced by Cadillac two years ago. Auto companies want cars that will run on cheap fuels so they can sell boatloads of them. Oil companies are already transitioning into energy-of-any-kind companies because they know their product won't last, or at least be affordable, forever.Lastly, the Chinese don't care about any of that. They need cheap energy in ever increasing quantities. If the technology develops, they'll buy it or steal it and Ford and Exxon will be left sucking hind ###.

 

[Rayderr]

While I agree I don't think this technology is going to become available during our lifetimes, it has nothing to do with the big oil boogeyman.

Sure it does. You are naive to think it doesn't. Ask yourself who buys patents up for fuel efficient vehicles. The auto industry. Are they a boogeyman too? Same goes for big oil. Anything that jeopardizes their profits will be stopped in its tracks.Oh, and it makes perfect business sense too. If someone came along and jeopardized your company and it's profits and you had an option to stop it, you would. You sure as hell wouldn't stand by and wait to disappear.

So explain the Nissan Leaf then. How come Big Oil didn't send a hit squad over to Japan and blow up the plant, steal all the plans and kill everyone that worked on the project? Or at the very least, bribe everyone in congress to pass a law making non gasoline fueled cars illegal? Next year, Ford is coming out with an electric version of the Ford Focus. Why hasn't Big Oil stopped that?

 

[Saints-Man]

 

[FavreCo]

I did indeed pull the number out of my ### but I could have used $30k or $20k or even $50k. The actual number isn't that important to the argument. I assumed a car like this would be a little more expensive but be worth it because of its longevity and fuel savings but use whatever number you want. There's plenty of money to be made. It takes a while to make a billion cars.If China gets it done, we'd better, too, or we're in deep trouble.I reject the argument that things are made to be disposable for economic reasons.

Reject it all you want. Then look at it from a business model. If you were one of 3 companies and produced a superior product that outlived all the competition (we will use batteries), to the point where I only ever need to buy one, how long would your business be around when you don't need to produce the product anymore? Not very long. Hence disposable.

 

[Rayderr]

I did indeed pull the number out of my ### but I could have used $30k or $20k or even $50k. The actual number isn't that important to the argument. I assumed a car like this would be a little more expensive but be worth it because of its longevity and fuel savings but use whatever number you want. There's plenty of money to be made. It takes a while to make a billion cars.If China gets it done, we'd better, too, or we're in deep trouble.I reject the argument that things are made to be disposable for economic reasons.

Reject it all you want. Then look at it from a business model. If you were one of 3 companies and produced a superior product that outlived all the competition (we will use batteries), to the point where I only ever need to buy one, how long would your business be around when you don't need to produce the product anymore? Not very long. Hence disposable.

What percentage of new car buyers do you think are buying a new car because the old car is no longer operable?

 

[Joseph]

I did indeed pull the number out of my ### but I could have used $30k or $20k or even $50k. The actual number isn't that important to the argument. I assumed a car like this would be a little more expensive but be worth it because of its longevity and fuel savings but use whatever number you want. There's plenty of money to be made. It takes a while to make a billion cars.If China gets it done, we'd better, too, or we're in deep trouble.I reject the argument that things are made to be disposable for economic reasons.

Reject it all you want. Then look at it from a business model. If you were one of 3 companies and produced a superior product that outlived all the competition (we will use batteries), to the point where I only ever need to buy one, how long would your business be around when you don't need to produce the product anymore? Not very long. Hence disposable.

If you make a product that requires a substantial annual cost to keep fueled, while a competitor makes a comparable product that has no such cost, how long would your business remain around? If the technology can work for these products, they will be produced by someone. Also, just because the engine might not need additional fuel for 350k miles doesn't suddenly mean that the car will last for 30 years. Lots of other things go wrong on a car.

 

[roadkill1292]

I did indeed pull the number out of my ### but I could have used $30k or $20k or even $50k. The actual number isn't that important to the argument. I assumed a car like this would be a little more expensive but be worth it because of its longevity and fuel savings but use whatever number you want. There's plenty of money to be made. It takes a while to make a billion cars.If China gets it done, we'd better, too, or we're in deep trouble.I reject the argument that things are made to be disposable for economic reasons.

Reject it all you want. Then look at it from a business model. If you were one of 3 companies and produced a superior product that outlived all the competition (we will use batteries), to the point where I only ever need to buy one, how long would your business be around when you don't need to produce the product anymore? Not very long. Hence disposable.

Nothing lasts forever. Turning a billion car global fleet over every 30 years will be very profitable. The company that builds this car will put all the others out of business if they don't jump into the game themselves. If there's fewer total profits generated by an industry, that is the nature of capitalism. There is no conspiracy among manufacturers of anything to prevent this from happening. If they can make a better product than their competitor and sell more of it, they will. The company that won't, dies.

 

[bueno]

Because Thorium doesn't concentrate in economic quantities as easily as uranium.

America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining.

Sounds like we might have a lot real handy.

Not that much really. Not as much as we would need for it to be "our future." Linky

 

[ODoyleRules]

I did indeed pull the number out of my ### but I could have used $30k or $20k or even $50k. The actual number isn't that important to the argument. I assumed a car like this would be a little more expensive but be worth it because of its longevity and fuel savings but use whatever number you want. There's plenty of money to be made. It takes a while to make a billion cars.If China gets it done, we'd better, too, or we're in deep trouble.I reject the argument that things are made to be disposable for economic reasons.

Reject it all you want. Then look at it from a business model. If you were one of 3 companies and produced a superior product that outlived all the competition (we will use batteries), to the point where I only ever need to buy one, how long would your business be around when you don't need to produce the product anymore? Not very long. Hence disposable.

This has to be shtick, right? No one in 2011 can possibly think this kind of conspiracy still exists.

 

[roadkill1292]

I did indeed pull the number out of my ### but I could have used $30k or $20k or even $50k. The actual number isn't that important to the argument. I assumed a car like this would be a little more expensive but be worth it because of its longevity and fuel savings but use whatever number you want. There's plenty of money to be made. It takes a while to make a billion cars.If China gets it done, we'd better, too, or we're in deep trouble.I reject the argument that things are made to be disposable for economic reasons.

Reject it all you want. Then look at it from a business model. If you were one of 3 companies and produced a superior product that outlived all the competition (we will use batteries), to the point where I only ever need to buy one, how long would your business be around when you don't need to produce the product anymore? Not very long. Hence disposable.

This has to be shtick, right? No one in 2011 can possibly think this kind of conspiracy still exists.

His belief in things that have been disproven time and again is positively lhucksian.

 

[roadkill1292]

Because Thorium doesn't concentrate in economic quantities as easily as uranium.

America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining.

Sounds like we might have a lot real handy.

Not that much really. Not as much as we would need for it to be "our future." Linky

That report confirms USGS and IAEA estimates of 2 million tons reasonally accessible globally. I don't know how much we'd need if we ramped up our usage for cars but 2 million tons sounds like a lot of fission. Isn't that four times the amount of uranium supplies?Another thought that occurred to me: if it's scalable enough to place under the hood of a car, could it not also be scalable enough to use for residential power generation?

 

[Fensalk]

Hollywood loves making films where gas-powered cars explode in flames after bumping into a curb. I can only imagine how big they would depict the explosions of thorium-powered cars.

 

[roadkill1292]

In the unlikely event that something like this would work and replace the internal combustion automobile, it's fun to speculate on the economic disruption that this would cause. American consumers and businesses spend close to a trillion dollars a year on oil at the pump -- where does that money flow instead if oil for transport becomes unnecessary? What industries are hurt, destroyed or helped by the extra cash in everyone's pocket?

For example, I think there's close to a million people employed in oil-related businesses and it would seem that a large percentage of them would be out of a job. Also, a big chunk of federal and state tax revenues will be gone.

How would our defense spending policies change if it wasn't necessary to maintain the minimum amount of stability needed in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing? Would we try to project even more power globally because it would be less expensive to do so? Or we would use the opportunity to scale back defense spending?

 

[Rayderr]

In the unlikely event that something like this would work and replace the internal combustion automobile, it's fun to speculate on the economic disruption that this would cause. American consumers and businesses spend close to a trillion dollars a year on oil at the pump -- where does that money flow instead if oil for transport becomes unnecessary? What industries are hurt, destroyed or helped by the extra cash in everyone's pocket?For example, I think there's close to a million people employed in oil-related businesses and it would seem that a large percentage of them would be out of a job. Also, a big chunk of federal and state tax revenues will be gone. How would our defense spending policies change if it wasn't necessary to maintain the minimum amount of stability needed in the Middle East to keep the oil flowing? Would we try to project even more power globally because it would be less expensive to do so? Or we would use the opportunity to scale back defense spending?

A phase out of gasoline engines would take a very long time. IIRC, the phase out of leaded gasoline took 10 years, and it was much easier to convert cars from leaded to unleaded than it probably would be to convert gasoline engines to Thorium. So given the amount of time it would take to phase out gasoline, it should give all the appropriate sectors time to adjust accordingly. And even if we do nix gasoline altogether, chances are, lots of parts in the rest of the world will still be in gasoline (leaded gasoline can still be found in many countries) in which case we just start exporting.

 

[Sarnoff]

In the unlikely event that something like this would work and replace the internal combustion automobile, it's fun to speculate on the economic disruption that this would cause.

Chaos. When we stopped pegging the dollar to gold, basically we switched over to pegging it to oil. Dollars are how most of your other nations around the world buy their oil. That's why it's the international reserve currency. Break the need for all these other nations to hoard dollars to buy oil, and they won't have much need for their dollars anymore. They'd all come flooding back to the US of A and we'd have sudden and massive inflation.

 

[roadkill1292]

Two responses. Two very different outlooks.

Like Rayderr, internally I think we gradually adjust. Lots of people in related industries lose their jobs but some of those will be absorbed by other sectors which will find business improved as consumers have more discretionary cash to burn. Still, it will bring pain in the short haul.

Geo-politically, the ramifications could be as huge as Sarnoff predicts. Certain national economies will crash and burn. Nations in serious economic trouble have a tendency to lash out.

None of this disruption will be enough to squelch affordable technology that will replace oil, however.

 

[glumpy]

I did indeed pull the number out of my ### but I could have used $30k or $20k or even $50k. The actual number isn't that important to the argument. I assumed a car like this would be a little more expensive but be worth it because of its longevity and fuel savings but use whatever number you want. There's plenty of money to be made. It takes a while to make a billion cars.If China gets it done, we'd better, too, or we're in deep trouble.I reject the argument that things are made to be disposable for economic reasons.

Reject it all you want. Then look at it from a business model. If you were one of 3 companies and produced a superior product that outlived all the competition (we will use batteries), to the point where I only ever need to buy one, how long would your business be around when you don't need to produce the product anymore? Not very long. Hence disposable.

This has to be shtick, right? No one in 2011 can possibly think this kind of conspiracy still exists.

 

[Sand]

And India begins to build the first of a kind thorium plant.

Sometimes I wonder why we have the DOE at all. Complete, abject failure of a department.

 

[joffer]

Because Thorium doesn't concentrate in economic quantities as easily as uranium.

America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining.

Sounds like we might have a lot real handy.

according to this, we have 3200 metric tons buried in Nevada ETA: got to 8:20

 

[General Malaise]

As a spin off from the REE thread in which China is trying to strangle the market there (which won't work - they aren't rare)....

They control 97% of the world's REE market. What do you mean it won't work? Mining REE is a hideously dirty affair. Yes, the world is RUSHING to produce REE in other countries, but it's not an easy mining process. It pollutes surrounding areas, is incredibly labor/capital intensive and requires (in some cases) thousands of steps to refine and process. China has a strong leg up here.

 

[roadkill1292]

As a spin off from the REE thread in which China is trying to strangle the market there (which won't work - they aren't rare)....

They control 97% of the world's REE market. What do you mean it won't work? Mining REE is a hideously dirty affair. Yes, the world is RUSHING to produce REE in other countries, but it's not an easy mining process. It pollutes surrounding areas, is incredibly labor/capital intensive and requires (in some cases) thousands of steps to refine and process. China has a strong leg up here.

Good bump, if for no other reason than to be reminded why FavreCo is one of the Top 10 Most Entertaining Posters here.

 

[Joe Summer]

Sure, but can it generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity that I need?

 

[Rayderr]

Sure, but can it generate the 1.21 gigawatts of electricity that I need?

1.21 gigawatts?! 1.21 gigawatts?! Great Scott!

 

[Charlie Frown]

Two responses. Two very different outlooks.Like Rayderr, internally I think we gradually adjust. Lots of people in related industries lose their jobs but some of those will be absorbed by other sectors which will find business improved as consumers have more discretionary cash to burn. Still, it will bring pain in the short haul.Geo-politically, the ramifications could be as huge as Sarnoff predicts. Certain national economies will crash and burn. Nations in serious economic trouble have a tendency to lash out. None of this disruption will be enough to squelch affordable technology that will replace oil, however.

I would be curious to see what the ratio is for (non gas)petroleum products vs gas produced. We make an awful lot of other stuff besides gasoline out of oil. The impact may not be as bad as we would think. Sure some jobs would disappear but I would think that they would be replaced by new jobs created from the new tech that would come about as a result of the changes from switching to thorium.I think it will happen just not in our lifetimes.

 

[Apes with Guns]

how much does it cost to get a sword made out of thorium? because i'd totally go on a quest for that!

 

[roadkill1292]

Two responses. Two very different outlooks.

Like Rayderr, internally I think we gradually adjust. Lots of people in related industries lose their jobs but some of those will be absorbed by other sectors which will find business improved as consumers have more discretionary cash to burn. Still, it will bring pain in the short haul.

Geo-politically, the ramifications could be as huge as Sarnoff predicts. Certain national economies will crash and burn. Nations in serious economic trouble have a tendency to lash out.

None of this disruption will be enough to squelch affordable technology that will replace oil, however.

I would be curious to see what the ratio is for (non gas)petroleum products vs gas produced. We make an awful lot of other stuff besides gasoline out of oil. The impact may not be as bad as we would think. Sure some jobs would disappear but I would think that they would be replaced by new jobs created from the new tech that would come about as a result of the changes from switching to thorium.

I think it will happen just not in our lifetimes.

Thoughtful post. Made me think that the other stuff we make out of petroleum is a more important reason for conserving the supply than is fuel for transportation. If we find alternative energy, electric car/roadway technology is advancing rapidly enough that we'll be able to make the transition efficiently. But we need oil for all that other stuff.But Charlie, we'll live to see it.

 

[NCCommish]

Two responses. Two very different outlooks.

Like Rayderr, internally I think we gradually adjust. Lots of people in related industries lose their jobs but some of those will be absorbed by other sectors which will find business improved as consumers have more discretionary cash to burn. Still, it will bring pain in the short haul.

Geo-politically, the ramifications could be as huge as Sarnoff predicts. Certain national economies will crash and burn. Nations in serious economic trouble have a tendency to lash out.

None of this disruption will be enough to squelch affordable technology that will replace oil, however.

I would be curious to see what the ratio is for (non gas)petroleum products vs gas produced. We make an awful lot of other stuff besides gasoline out of oil. The impact may not be as bad as we would think. Sure some jobs would disappear but I would think that they would be replaced by new jobs created from the new tech that would come about as a result of the changes from switching to thorium.

I think it will happen just not in our lifetimes.

Thoughtful post. Made me think that the other stuff we make out of petroleum is a more important reason for conserving the supply than is fuel for transportation. If we find alternative energy, electric car/roadway technology is advancing rapidly enough that we'll be able to make the transition efficiently. But we need oil for all that other stuff.But Charlie, we'll live to see it.

Actually there is very little we use oil for that a bio replacement isn't available for. Hemp can be used to produce plastics for example.

 

[Charlie Frown]

Two responses. Two very different outlooks.

Like Rayderr, internally I think we gradually adjust. Lots of people in related industries lose their jobs but some of those will be absorbed by other sectors which will find business improved as consumers have more discretionary cash to burn. Still, it will bring pain in the short haul.

Geo-politically, the ramifications could be as huge as Sarnoff predicts. Certain national economies will crash and burn. Nations in serious economic trouble have a tendency to lash out.

None of this disruption will be enough to squelch affordable technology that will replace oil, however.

I would be curious to see what the ratio is for (non gas)petroleum products vs gas produced. We make an awful lot of other stuff besides gasoline out of oil. The impact may not be as bad as we would think. Sure some jobs would disappear but I would think that they would be replaced by new jobs created from the new tech that would come about as a result of the changes from switching to thorium.

I think it will happen just not in our lifetimes.

Thoughtful post. Made me think that the other stuff we make out of petroleum is a more important reason for conserving the supply than is fuel for transportation. If we find alternative energy, electric car/roadway technology is advancing rapidly enough that we'll be able to make the transition efficiently. But we need oil for all that other stuff.But Charlie, we'll live to see it.

Actually there is very little we use oil for that a bio replacement isn't available for. Hemp can be used to produce plastics for example.

True. After looking into it, looks like just over 40% of a barrel of crude goes towards gasoline. Less than I would have thought.

 

[bueno]

Because Thorium doesn't concentrate in economic quantities as easily as uranium.

America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining.

Sounds like we might have a lot real handy.

Not that much really. Not as much as we would need for it to be "our future." Linky

That report confirms USGS and IAEA estimates of 2 million tons reasonally accessible globally. I don't know how much we'd need if we ramped up our usage for cars but 2 million tons sounds like a lot of fission. Isn't that four times the amount of uranium supplies?Another thought that occurred to me: if it's scalable enough to place under the hood of a car, could it not also be scalable enough to use for residential power generation?

Recoverable resources of uranium are about 5.4 million metric tons. As to thorium, the report says the world has 1.2 million metric tons of reserves. Reserve base includes those reserves plus material that is either marginally economic or non-economic. However, thorium reserves are mainly a by-product of other forms of mining. That is, an increase in demand (and/or price) of thorium may not result in accelerated mining of those reserves, no more than an increase in price/demand of indium would be incentive for zinc miners to increase production. (Most indium reserves are a by-product of zinc mining) The economics simply don't work.Add to that - if all nuclear plants today were run on fission, known reserves of thorium are sufficient for about ten years of energy production.

 

[Drunken Cowboy]

Two responses. Two very different outlooks.

Like Rayderr, internally I think we gradually adjust. Lots of people in related industries lose their jobs but some of those will be absorbed by other sectors which will find business improved as consumers have more discretionary cash to burn. Still, it will bring pain in the short haul.

Geo-politically, the ramifications could be as huge as Sarnoff predicts. Certain national economies will crash and burn. Nations in serious economic trouble have a tendency to lash out.

None of this disruption will be enough to squelch affordable technology that will replace oil, however.

I would be curious to see what the ratio is for (non gas)petroleum products vs gas produced. We make an awful lot of other stuff besides gasoline out of oil. The impact may not be as bad as we would think. Sure some jobs would disappear but I would think that they would be replaced by new jobs created from the new tech that would come about as a result of the changes from switching to thorium.

I think it will happen just not in our lifetimes.

Thoughtful post. Made me think that the other stuff we make out of petroleum is a more important reason for conserving the supply than is fuel for transportation. If we find alternative energy, electric car/roadway technology is advancing rapidly enough that we'll be able to make the transition efficiently. But we need oil for all that other stuff.But Charlie, we'll live to see it.

Actually there is very little we use oil for that a bio replacement isn't available for. Hemp can be used to produce plastics for example.

Hemp being illegal is the single stupidest thing about our government. It is also so emblematic of many of our other problems.

 

[grateful zed]

Two responses. Two very different outlooks.

Like Rayderr, internally I think we gradually adjust. Lots of people in related industries lose their jobs but some of those will be absorbed by other sectors which will find business improved as consumers have more discretionary cash to burn. Still, it will bring pain in the short haul.

Geo-politically, the ramifications could be as huge as Sarnoff predicts. Certain national economies will crash and burn. Nations in serious economic trouble have a tendency to lash out.

None of this disruption will be enough to squelch affordable technology that will replace oil, however.

I would be curious to see what the ratio is for (non gas)petroleum products vs gas produced. We make an awful lot of other stuff besides gasoline out of oil. The impact may not be as bad as we would think. Sure some jobs would disappear but I would think that they would be replaced by new jobs created from the new tech that would come about as a result of the changes from switching to thorium.

I think it will happen just not in our lifetimes.

Thoughtful post. Made me think that the other stuff we make out of petroleum is a more important reason for conserving the supply than is fuel for transportation. If we find alternative energy, electric car/roadway technology is advancing rapidly enough that we'll be able to make the transition efficiently. But we need oil for all that other stuff.But Charlie, we'll live to see it.

Actually there is very little we use oil for that a bio replacement isn't available for. Hemp can be used to produce plastics for example.

Hemp being illegal is the single stupidest thing about our government. It is also so emblematic of many of our other problems.

 

[bueno]

Two responses. Two very different outlooks.

Like Rayderr, internally I think we gradually adjust. Lots of people in related industries lose their jobs but some of those will be absorbed by other sectors which will find business improved as consumers have more discretionary cash to burn. Still, it will bring pain in the short haul.

Geo-politically, the ramifications could be as huge as Sarnoff predicts. Certain national economies will crash and burn. Nations in serious economic trouble have a tendency to lash out.

None of this disruption will be enough to squelch affordable technology that will replace oil, however.

I would be curious to see what the ratio is for (non gas)petroleum products vs gas produced. We make an awful lot of other stuff besides gasoline out of oil. The impact may not be as bad as we would think. Sure some jobs would disappear but I would think that they would be replaced by new jobs created from the new tech that would come about as a result of the changes from switching to thorium.

I think it will happen just not in our lifetimes.

Thoughtful post. Made me think that the other stuff we make out of petroleum is a more important reason for conserving the supply than is fuel for transportation. If we find alternative energy, electric car/roadway technology is advancing rapidly enough that we'll be able to make the transition efficiently. But we need oil for all that other stuff.But Charlie, we'll live to see it.

Actually there is very little we use oil for that a bio replacement isn't available for. Hemp can be used to produce plastics for example.

Hemp being illegal is the single stupidest thing about our government. It is also so emblematic of many of our other problems.

As long as pot is illegal, hemp will be illegal. Now pot being illegal may be stupid, but prohibiting buying alcohol on Sunday is stupider.

 

[General Malaise]

Because Thorium doesn't concentrate in economic quantities as easily as uranium.

America has buried tons as a by-product of rare earth metals mining.

Sounds like we might have a lot real handy.

Not that much really. Not as much as we would need for it to be "our future." Linky

That report confirms USGS and IAEA estimates of 2 million tons reasonally accessible globally. I don't know how much we'd need if we ramped up our usage for cars but 2 million tons sounds like a lot of fission. Isn't that four times the amount of uranium supplies?Another thought that occurred to me: if it's scalable enough to place under the hood of a car, could it not also be scalable enough to use for residential power generation?

Recoverable resources of uranium are about 5.4 million metric tons. As to thorium, the report says the world has 1.2 million metric tons of reserves. Reserve base includes those reserves plus material that is either marginally economic or non-economic. However, thorium reserves are mainly a by-product of other forms of mining. That is, an increase in demand (and/or price) of thorium may not result in accelerated mining of those reserves, no more than an increase in price/demand of indium would be incentive for zinc miners to increase production. (Most indium reserves are a by-product of zinc mining) The economics simply don't work.Add to that - if all nuclear plants today were run on fission, known reserves of thorium are sufficient for about ten years of energy production.

Though I'm confused....fission isn't the driver of all nuclear power plants in operation today?

Good stuff about mining thorium. We traffic in metals like indium, gallium, germanium, rhenium, etc....all by-products. When demand increases, so does the price and it can do so in a hurry. Like you said, there are no indium mines. The other thing is you have to PROCESS and REFINE these elements. This is a labor intensive, highly skilled, big money stakes business. Finding these sorts of elements is not like panning for gold.

 

[Sand]

Interesting

on thorium energy generation. Proven, demonstrated, and doable. Now we just have to have the will (or private investment) to capture this technology in the US.