Antinuclear

While in general I think that all future sources of energy need to involve ambient (renewable energy) from the system that we live in, the use of “fuels” (nuclear, natural gas, biomass to some extent) can serve as practical bridges to this ambient energy future; nuclear fire electricity is part of this bridge.

However, I think there are 2 practical problems in the US that effectively thwart a thorium reactor future.

1) Currently the timescale to go from permit to actual turning ON line any nuclear power plant is about 15 years (I think currently there are only 2 recently (2012) approved plans coming on line in Georgia and that will take likely another 8–10 years) – meaning that this really isn’t a “bridge fuel” (especially compared to fracked natural gas – which is being rapidly depleted)

2) The whole US nuclear infrastructure is based on handling Uranium. Thorium has much more stringent handling requirements and I just don’t think the US will ramp up an infrastructure to deal with this. Its probably not even wise to do so as those investments are better made in renewable energy and/or carbon capture and storage projects (like the one in Michigan) http://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_is_researching_Thorium_energy?_tpcectx=qa_overview