This is a newish form of dating and has been supposedly improved in the last few years. It’s also considered more accurate then radiocarbon dating. So what’s your thoughts on this dating method? Is it a good as they say is the accuracy really that accurate your thought??
TLDR:
- India has one of the world's largest reserves of Thorium along the sand beaches of east coast & minimal reserves of uranium.
- Therefore, India has been attempting to build Thorium fuelled reactors
- While Nehru had banned export of the mineral rich sands because of presence of rare earths, the bans were subsequently lifted in 2006, making it easier for sand mining companies to export the rare earths from sand except Thorium. Ban was lifted to coincide with Indo-US nuclear deal
- While technically there is ban on Thorium export by private companies, there is no accountability and as per Lok Sabha records between 2002 & 2012, 60 lakh crores worth Thorium has disappeared from the beaches.
- Indo-US nuclear deal meanwhile made us dependent on imported uranium to benefit US nuclear based corporates, while throttling Thorium fuelled development and at the same time, effectively bound us to non-proliferation treaty with the agreement that if we test any more nuclear weapons, we will lose all access to uranium. This at a time we are increasingly moving towards replacing coal based power with imported uranium based power.
- China built its first Thorium fuelled reactor in Sep 21.
A look into US universities focusing on India's vast resources of Thorium & attempt to use it for nuclear reactors & not depend on uranium:
>Thorium does have several advantages over Uranium as a nuclear power source. Thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than Uranium, and many Thorium deposits contain other mineral resources of value (rare earths elements in particular). Significant Thorium deposits exist in the United States, Brazil, India, and Australia; these countries all have estimates of Thorium resources of greater than 600 kt. [1] Additionally, all the Thorium that is mined can be used in a reactor, in comparison to less than 1% of natural Uranium that may be used. [2] Finally, Th-232 possesses a 14 billion year half-life, rendering it safer than Uranium and Plutonium. [2]
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/wolak1/
>The tropical beaches of India probably bring to mind sun-dappled palms, fiery fish curries and dreadlocked backpackers, but they also hold a surprising secret. Their sands are rich in thorium – often hailed as a cleaner, safer alternative to conventional nuclear fuels.
>
>**India has the world’s largest reserves of Thorium
I'm really interested into understanding for how long we can use nuclear as an energy surce with current (and innovative) technology, but to understand this i need to understand precisely how much of the fuel is availble to us on earth and i also need to differentiate between theoretical and practical. (Like i know about uranium from seawater, but that is not yet practical)
If someone can also provide an estimate on the time it will take to use all of the fuel, i'd gladly apreciate it.
Disclaimer: I am a high school student and knows virtually nothing about nuclear energy. This was meant to be a research project on a random element and I chose Uranium. I looked into nuclear energy and became really interested in one day, so I might be 100% wrong about anything.
So I know the gist of how nuclear reactors work. U-235 is easily split by a neutron, and that split produces more neutrons, which then splits more, etc etc.
I was going to write about comparing that to Thorium and how Thorium can also be used, but I don't understand its pros and cons.
I watched a video and it says how Thorium is good because it's more compatible with Molten Salt Reactors which can withstand higher temperature = lower pressure = safer.
I also read how it's more efficient? Because instead of U-238 absorbing the neutron and being useless, Thorium is fertile so it can become U-233 and become fissile.
But after more research I don't really understand why it's not used widely. Some say it's not efficient?
For those who are unsure of what I am talking about:
https://engineeredlabs.com/collections/front-page-collection/products/heritage-periodic-table-collectors-edition-85-elements
Would the thorium and uranium be detectable on a Geiger counter?
Seems like the Thorium could play a large role in the Uranium market soon.
The nuclear energy industry has recently unveiled tremendous new potential and expects many more positive changes. From nuclear batteries, to natrium salt reactors, to modular units, the high output and low to no carbon appeal of nuclear has again put uranium fueled solutions at the forefront of many energy discussions. Investors are also finding different ways to benefit from the nuclear renaissance and increased fuel demand......
full Read
So we've all seen charts and info graphics like this
https://imgur.com/a/MhO9NRQ
Source:https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx
And we all think that's bullish for Uranium, but what if I told you that you should look a little deeper into those construction numbers?
It's clear that in the absence of practical fusion power generation, fission power is the ONLY viable solution to completely decarbonizing electricity generation. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun isn't always shining, battery tech isn't good enough yet to buffer supply/demand imbalance on the grid, and the grid is not good enough in most countries to shift power across the large distances required for storage methods like pumped hydro to be effective.
Yep, I'm a fission power bull for sure. Uranium yolo LETS GOOOOOOOOOO!
Except I'm not that bullish on Uranium. Do I think it has upside? Absolutely. Do I think it has ten years to achieve it? absolutely not.
Allow me to introduce you to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. Uranium's much more abundant, safer cousin that almost runs itself.
Thorium is the element with the atomic number 90 on the periodic table. Th^231 is fissile like some isotopes of Uranium, Plutonium, and Neptunium but that isotope is not extant in sufficient quantities to be worth enriching. Th^232 however, is vastly abundant and what is known as a 'Fertile' isotope. In exactly the same way U^238 can capture a neutron and become fissile Pu^239 , Th^232 can capture a neutron and become fissile U^233.
If you want to read more about the Thorium fuel cycle, here's a link to the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
Why is this a threat to the Uranium play though? That's the question I would be asking right about now. We clearly have successful reactors that are almost all Uranium fueled. Demand has to be up when they need to refuel right?
Most of the current reactors in operation around the world are close to End of Life. There is no technical limit on the life of a reactor. They are expensive to build and maintain though. As reactor tech advances and maintenance cost increases, these older plants become less and less attractive to run as a business. Some plants in the US are now applying for their second 20 year extensions for their operating licenses. Florida's Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 were recently approved extending their operating life to 80 years! Think about that. For comparision we went from the
... keep reading on reddit ➡I had a nuclear power related article on which I needed to answer some questions a few years ago on an exam. The article was quite interesting as it tackled the topic of green energy and in it they said that Thorium is a better alternative to Uranium and that the only reason Uranium was used was cause the byproduct was something which was beneficial in the construction of atomic bombs. They listed a ton of pros and basically no cons against Thorium and how it was in every way better than Uranium. I don't remember if the article mentioned whether or not the switch is actually happening so I guess that is my question, is it happening or are they still using Uranium?
I want to make an actual crystal that emits a relatively safe level of ionising electromagnetic radiation high frequency energy vibrations to the universe (as a play off all the ludicrous healing crystal bullshit pseudoscience out there).
Not all high frequency energy vibrations are good for you.
Any thoughts?
Disclaimer: Yes I don't have a big history of posts/anything on reddit in general, since I mostly look at posts on Reddit instead of writing or posting anything. But this is just a genuine question.
As the title asks, I'm curious as to why people aren't looking into companies that mine Thorium, and this was just a thought that came to my mind when I looked up some of the DD for stocks like $DNN and the other one which I forgot the ticker of. Since Thorium is supposedly a "safer" choice for nuclear energy, I'm surprised that when I tried to look up companies/stocks that are involved in dealing with Thorium, I only came across one (think it was Skyharbour $SYHBF), and it doesn't seem to be mentioned much.
A quick 4 minute video on why Thorium might be a better alternative to Uranium: (2) Why Thorium rocks -- Science Sundays - YouTube
Would be interested in knowing what others think about this! (Not that I would be able to buy any OTC stocks though rip)
TLDR:
- India has one of the world's largest reserves of Thorium along the sand beaches of east coast & minimal reserves of uranium.
- Therefore, India has been attempting to build Thorium fuelled reactors
- While Nehru had banned export of the mineral rich sands because of presence of rare earths, the bans were subsequently lifted in 2006, making it easier for sand mining companies to export the rare earths from sand except Thorium. Ban was lifted to coincide with Indo-US nuclear deal
- While technically there is ban on Thorium export by private companies, there is no accountability and as per Lok Sabha records between 2002 & 2012, 60 lakh crores worth Thorium has disappeared from the beaches.
- Indo-US nuclear deal meanwhile made us dependent on imported uranium to benefit US nuclear based corporates, while throttling Thorium fuelled development and at the same time, effectively bound us to non-proliferation treaty with the agreement that if we test any more nuclear weapons, we will lose all access to uranium. This at a time we are increasingly moving towards replacing coal based power with imported uranium based power.
- China built its first Thorium fuelled reactor in Sep 21.
A look into US universities focusing on India's vast resources of Thorium & attempt to use it for nuclear reactors & not depend on uranium:
>Thorium does have several advantages over Uranium as a nuclear power source. Thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than Uranium, and many Thorium deposits contain other mineral resources of value (rare earths elements in particular). Significant Thorium deposits exist in the United States, Brazil, India, and Australia; these countries all have estimates of Thorium resources of greater than 600 kt. [1] Additionally, all the Thorium that is mined can be used in a reactor, in comparison to less than 1% of natural Uranium that may be used. [2] Finally, Th-232 possesses a 14 billion year half-life, rendering it safer than Uranium and Plutonium. [2]
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/wolak1/
>The tropical beaches of India probably bring to mind sun-dappled palms, fiery fish curries and dreadlocked backpackers, but they also hold a surprising secret. Their sands are rich in thorium – often hailed as a cleaner, safer alternative to conventional nuclear fuels.
>
>**India has the world’s largest reserves of Thorium
TLDR:
- India has one of the world's largest reserves of Thorium along the sand beaches of east coast & minimal reserves of uranium.
- Therefore, India has been attempting to build Thorium fuelled reactors
- While Nehru had banned export of the mineral rich sands because of presence of rare earths, the bans were subsequently lifted in 2006, making it easier for sand mining companies to export the rare earths from sand except Thorium. Ban was lifted to coincide with Indo-US nuclear deal
- While technically there is ban on Thorium export by private companies, there is no accountability and as per Lok Sabha records between 2002 & 2012, 60 lakh crores worth Thorium has disappeared from the beaches.
- Indo-US nuclear deal meanwhile made us dependent on imported uranium to benefit US nuclear based corporates, while throttling Thorium fuelled development and at the same time, effectively bound us to non-proliferation treaty with the agreement that if we test any more nuclear weapons, we will lose all access to uranium. This at a time we are increasingly moving towards replacing coal based power with imported uranium based power.
- China built its first Thorium fuelled reactor in Sep 21.
A look into US universities focusing on India's vast resources of Thorium & attempt to use it for nuclear reactors & not depend on uranium:
>Thorium does have several advantages over Uranium as a nuclear power source. Thorium is three times more abundant in the Earth's crust than Uranium, and many Thorium deposits contain other mineral resources of value (rare earths elements in particular). Significant Thorium deposits exist in the United States, Brazil, India, and Australia; these countries all have estimates of Thorium resources of greater than 600 kt. [1] Additionally, all the Thorium that is mined can be used in a reactor, in comparison to less than 1% of natural Uranium that may be used. [2] Finally, Th-232 possesses a 14 billion year half-life, rendering it safer than Uranium and Plutonium. [2]
http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2018/ph241/wolak1/
>The tropical beaches of India probably bring to mind sun-dappled palms, fiery fish curries and dreadlocked backpackers, but they also hold a surprising secret. Their sands are rich in thorium – often hailed as a cleaner, safer alternative to conventional nuclear fuels.
>
>**India has the world’s largest reserves of Thorium
So we've all seen charts and info graphics like this
https://imgur.com/a/MhO9NRQ
Source:https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx
And we all think that's bullish for Uranium, but what if I told you that you should look a little deeper into those construction numbers?
It's clear that in the absence of practical fusion power generation, fission power is the ONLY viable solution to completely decarbonizing electricity generation. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun isn't always shining, battery tech isn't good enough yet to buffer supply/demand imbalance on the grid, and the grid is not good enough in most countries to shift power across the large distances required for storage methods like pumped hydro to be effective.
Yep, I'm a fission power bull for sure. Uranium yolo LETS GOOOOOOOOOO!
Except I'm not that bullish on Uranium. Do I think it has upside? Absolutely. Do I think it has ten years to achieve it? absolutely not.
Allow me to introduce you to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. Uranium's much more abundant, safer cousin that almost runs itself.
Thorium is the element with the atomic number 90 on the periodic table. Th^231 is fissile like some isotopes of Uranium, Plutonium, and Neptunium but that isotope is not extant in sufficient quantities to be worth enriching. Th^232 however, is vastly abundant and what is known as a 'Fertile' isotope. In exactly the same way U^238 can capture a neutron and become fissile Pu^239 , Th^232 can capture a neutron and become fissile U^233.
If you want to read more about the Thorium fuel cycle, here's a link to the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
Why is this a threat to the Uranium play though? That's the question I would be asking right about now. We clearly have successful reactors that are almost all Uranium fueled. Demand has to be up when they need to refuel right?
Most of the current reactors in operation around the world are close to End of Life. There is no technical limit on the life of a reactor. They are expensive to build and maintain though. As reactor tech advances and maintenance cost increases, these older plants become less and less attractive to run as a business. Some plants in the US are now applying for their second 20 year extensions for their operating licenses. Florida's Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 were recently approved extending their operating life to 80 years! Think about that. For comparision we went from th
... keep reading on reddit ➡https://www.wionews.com/world/thorium-instead-of-uranium-china-set-to-begin-first-trials-of-a-waterless-nuclear-reactor-409748
Author: u/Duke_Shambles(Karma: 48999, Created: Nov-2015).
The Uranium Bear Case. It's Thorium. on r/vitards
So we've all seen charts and info graphics like this
https://imgur.com/a/MhO9NRQ
Source:https://pris.iaea.org/PRIS/WorldStatistics/UnderConstructionReactorsByCountry.aspx
And we all think that's bullish for Uranium, but what if I told you that you should look a little deeper into those construction numbers?
It's clear that in the absence of practical fusion power generation, fission power is the ONLY viable solution to completely decarbonizing electricity generation. The wind doesn't always blow, the sun isn't always shining, battery tech isn't good enough yet to buffer supply/demand imbalance on the grid, and the grid is not good enough in most countries to shift power across the large distances required for storage methods like pumped hydro to be effective.
Yep, I'm a fission power bull for sure. Uranium yolo LETS GOOOOOOOOOO!
Except I'm not that bullish on Uranium. Do I think it has upside? Absolutely. Do I think it has ten years to achieve it? absolutely not.
Allow me to introduce you to Thorium Molten Salt Reactors. Uranium's much more abundant, safer cousin that almost runs itself.
Thorium is the element with the atomic number 90 on the periodic table. Th^231 is fissile like some isotopes of Uranium, Plutonium, and Neptunium but that isotope is not extant in sufficient quantities to be worth enriching. Th^232 however, is vastly abundant and what is known as a 'Fertile' isotope. In exactly the same way U^238 can capture a neutron and become fissile Pu^239 , Th^232 can capture a neutron and become fissile U^233.
If you want to read more about the Thorium fuel cycle, here's a link to the wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
Why is this a threat to the Uranium play though? That's the question I would be asking right about now. We clearly have successful reactors that are almost all Uranium fueled. Demand has to be up when they need to refuel right?
Most of the current reactors in operation around the world are close to End of Life. There is no technical limit on the life of a reactor. They are expensive to build and maintain though. As reactor tech advances and maintenance cost increases, these older plants become less and less attractive to run as a business. Some plants in the US are now applying for their seco
... keep reading on reddit ➡