Thorium and How to solve our Energy Problems

Thorium and How to solve our Energy Problems

Thorium has the potential to replace our entire energy supply, including electricity, gasoline, and natural gas, either by using the Molten Salt reactor method or the Sub-critical method. The first has the potential to decrease electricity costs to well beyond tens times their current cost, while the sub-critical could potentially decrease electricity costs by 200 times it's current amount. Thorium is only mildly radioactive, producing Alpha Particles which can't get through the skin (low velocity protons), has no chance of a melt down, is 3-4 times more abundant than Uranium, does not require a fuel breeding process, can clean up nuclear waste, and is potentially over 200 times more powerful than current Uranium reactors.  Soil on average has about 6 parts per million of Thorium, or around 1 pound per every 166,666.66 pounds of other material, Thorium being 3 times as common as tin and about as common as lead, suggesting that if Thorium was already incredibly dangerous, we'd likely be dead.

The Molten Salt reactor method

The Sub-critical method is capable of reducing the cost of electricity to roughly 1/200th it's current amount.

Even if electricity was just 10 times cheaper, a multitude of things could be possible. Turning mercury into gold, which generally takes roughly 6-9 times the cost in Gold in electricity to do, could now become profitable. More practical things could include creating carbon fiber, who's cost is mostly in production. Nylon and rayon, which are relatively cheap in comparison, which carbon fiber is made from, are relatively cheap in comparison; it is the price of production where the difficulties lie. . If energy and manufacture costs were reduced, some of what could be alleviated by extremely cheap or nearly free energy, then it might be possible to mass produce carbon fiber as replaceable material for steel. Being around 1.5 grams per cubic centimeter, compared to 7.85 for iron, it is less than 1/5th the weight of steel or iron. If much of the furnishing and engine remained the same while most of the frame and other parts of the vehicle were replaced with carbon fiber, vehicles may realistically be 1/3 their initial weight with no other changes in performance. Carbon fiber, which is in many cases stronger than steel, would not only be safer due to it's higher strength but also due to the over-all lighter weight of the vehicle. While more expensive per pound that steel, currently at around 15 dollars per pound, if it was just 1/3 this then carbon fiber would be 5 dollar per pound, or less than a dollar per unit (since the density is lower) making it feasible for replacing steel. In 2004, the U.S. imported roughly 65% of it's energy supply; if we could get to just below 3 times greater efficiency in automobiles, not only could the U.S. reduce it's spending significantly but we could eliminate our dependence on foreign oil and lengthen the life of our own oil reserves, as well as not overstress them. Given the high price of global oil, local oil should be cheaper, decreasing the price Americans spend on oil even more so. Conversely, it may give the needed range and battery life desired of electric cars, as s lighter weight transfers to longer potential distances travel per charge and less stress that is required to transport the vehicle, meaning that the engine and battery life are tippled. By simply reducing the weight of the vehicle, much is improved; by having more strength and being lighter weight, safety is improved phenomenally.