[ExI] Could Thorium solve our energy problem?

[Brent Neal]

On 9 Jul, 2010, at 12:00, Max More wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying, Brent.
> 
>> The OECD reserve number, according to their notes, is an estimate of the amount of thorium in ores that are potentially accessible via mining.
> 
> With the caveat that I haven't looked up how exactly the OECD figures (educated guesses, really) what is "potentially accessible", I would note that similar numbers for oil reserves have consistently underestimated what could be extracted. Those making the calculations have failed to fully allow for new technologies and techniques.
> 
> Perhaps the OECD has done a better job, but it's more likely that they are underestimating the potential to a much *larger* degree, since (compared to oil for many decades) there has been little demand for thorium. If we were to start using much more thorium, I would bet (literally) that those reserve numbers would expand greatly.
> 
> Besides, thorium can be well worth using for decades, especially if you don't require that it replace practically *all* other energy sources. It doesn't have to be a perfect and permanent solution to be worth adopting.
> 



You're still missing the point, though. Even if you triple the number, you're still up against a power law.

And if you heard me say that it wasn't worth it, that certainly wasn't what I intended to convey. I'm very much in favor of MSRs using the thorium cycle. Just not to the exclusion of everything else. :)

B

--
Brent Neal, Ph.D.
http://brentn.freeshell.org
<brentn at freeshell.org>