The problem with these arguments and the focus of debates 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

Edit:typo

[–] BlueMagma@sh.itjust.works 8 points 5 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] intoverflow@feddit.de 6 points 5 months ago

ILL THROW FUSION!!!!!

[–] LemmyHead@lemmy.ml 3 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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 2 points 5 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 2 points 5 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LemmyHead@lemmy.ml 1 points 5 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

Uranium is a much scarcer source compared to thorium. Uranium can also be used to create nuclear weapons, that's why other countries have difficulties using the tech because foreign powers are afraid of these consequences