A wholehearted YES.
The first thorium reactor built at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, operated critical for roughly 15000 hours from 1965 to 1969.
In 1973, however, the U.S. government shut down all thorium-related nuclear research―which had by then been ongoing for approximately twenty years at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The reasons were that uranium breeder reactors were more efficient, the research was proven, and byproducts could be used to make nuclear weapons.
Nixon wanted more nuclear bombs, a terrible mistake.
Think that if the research had been allowed to progress, with modern technology and modern materials we could be in a position today to make most fossil fuels obsolete.
As an alternative with such benefits as to make-up for its slightly greater expense than fossil fuels, we SHOULD be able to agree on this. Unfortunately, there are ideology driven environmentalists who fly into a rage at the idea. Not to mention the people who panic at the idea of power source that brings atoms near them.
There are also people who aren't aware of progress in the field which eliminated the problems such as meltdowns decades ago. This is a problem in another way too, making sure that the right technology is implemented.
Of course, while it is possibly beneficial to reduce the sources of carbon dioxide when cost effective to do so, there remains the carbon dioxide already released. It might be a good idea to have a means of sequestering it should we wish to. This is why I favor:
Iron fertilization
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_fertil...
(Short version: iron is not very soluble in ocean water and is commonly a deficient nutrient there. Adding iron causes microscopic plants to multiply. The plants absorb carbon and a significant number sink, sequestering the carbon on the ocean floor. Nor is this just theory. Every part has been observed as natural processes or as experimental results. The overall method has been observed both ways.
Amazingly a number of people are all exited about an alleged recent experimental result that left oxygen depleted zones. It was as if they'd never heard of eutrophication:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eutrophicat...
Just add the iron more diffusely and you'll get results in line with the over a decades worth of more positive observed experimental AND natural results. Since this is an imitation of a natural process, either the "dead zones" are an avoidable abnormality or not significant to the environment. Take your pick.)
A method that would be cheap, easy and quick.
Yeah, but try telling the Democrats and liberals whom they instruct on what to believe that, and then of course there are the legitimate safety concerns that everyone has issue with such as nuclear waste, ground water, the rare, but does happen, meltdown, and the maybe not so rare in near future attack that causes a meltdown.
It looks like Atomic Energy of Canada working with China has perfected nuclear power.
http://www.the-weinberg-foundation.org/2...
YES!!! Thorium has the possibility of being safe, with very little waste product.
I like it that there's renewed interest in atomic power research. If you consider construction times and the cost of building prototypes though, new reactor designs aren't going to be available soon enough to be much help in preventing serious global warming.
anti nuclear power politicians get too much money form the coal companies to make make more nuclear power in the USA
If the news story I saw was true
Nuclear energy would certainly go a long way towards solving the greenhouse gas problems. What do you do with the spent fuel rods? We could only be trading one major problem for another. It would buy us more time, but what do you do with the spent fuel rods?
part of the solution. you still need to fly airplanes.
The need for research and development on advanced nuclear
