When was the last time you heard someone on cable news talk about liquid fluoride thorium reactors? Answer: Probably never. When have you ever heard “liquid fluoride thorium” come out of Al Gore’s mouth? Or your friendly liberal environmentalist? Again, probably never.
Kirk Sorensen has talked about the subject at length. He’s a smart guy. Look him up… Someone has been kind enough to break it all down for our “green” friends in five minutes.
In short, the United States has a nuclear fuel that is not only efficient, but it’s here in abundance. And yet, we haven’t seriously explored it. There are many reasons for that, but what is of utmost concern are the implications for America if it ever decides to take its energy policy seriously.
Read on, and you will see why Al Gore and his political allies are all intellectually bankrupt buffoons:
People come to me and say: “Is nuclear energy safe?” And I say to them: “Which one? There are thousands of ways to do nuclear energy.” Is a car safe? Well, which one?
Thorium is a naturally occurring nuclear fuel that is four times more common than uranium. It’s so energy-dense that you can hold a lifetime supply of thorium energy in the palm of your hand. We can use thorium about 200 times more efficiently than using uranium now. … [Thorium can reduce waste generated by uranium by factors of hundreds and by factors of millions over fossil fuels.] We’re still going to need liquid fuels for vehicles and machinery, but we can generate these liquid fuels from the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, much like nature does. … We can [make] fuels like methanol, ammonia, dimethyl ether, which could be a direct replacement for diesel fuel. Imagine carbon neutral gasoline and diesel, sustainable and self produced.
You can see that uranium 235 is like on par with silver and platinum. Can you imagine burning platinum for energy? And that’s what we’re doing with our nuclear energy sources today. We’re burning this extremely rare stuff and we’re not burning thorium.
Some people are kind of environmentalists and they say, “Listen, nuclear power is not sustainable. We’re going to run out of uranium.” Okay, I will yield that point to you if we’re talking about today’s nuclear technology. In 2007 we used 5 billion tons of coals, 31 billion barrels of oil and 5 trillion cubic meters of natural gas — along with 65,000 tons of uranium to produce the world’s energy.
So I have a friend who is trying to start a rare earth mine in Missouri. “Jim, how much thorium do you think you’ll be pulling up a year?” He goes, “I think about 5,000 tons.”
5,000 tons of thorium would supply the planet with all of its energy for a year. And he goes: “There are like a gazillion other places on earth that are just like my mine.” …
Every time mankind has been able to access a new source of energy it has led to profound societal implications. Human beings had slaves for thousands of thousands of years, and when we learned how to make carbon our slave instead of other human beings, we started to learn how to be civilized people. Thorium has a million times the energy density of a cabon-hydrogen bond. What could that mean for human civilization? Because we’re not going to run out of this stuff. We will never run out. It is simply too common.
BOOM. That is the sound of in intellectual nuke exploding over the heads of every environmentalist who ever insinuated life would just be better if you just used a clothesline instead of a dryer, walked to work (although Americans could use a lot more walking) and generally just lived like it was 1800.
Are thorium reactors a silver bullet? That’s the wrong question. The question is: “Can human ingenuity and our entrepreneurial spirits utilize earth’s resources in new ways, which exceed our collective energy needs while still allowing us to be good stewards of the environment?” The answer: Yes.
Liberal environmentalists usually see humans as the problem. Listen to ten of them speak on television and it’s a good bet that nine of them will display a weird self loathing that says, “I wish we would all just die because that’s what we deserve.” They accuse conservatives of being “anti-science” when, as usual, it is a classic case of projection. Or, at best, any love they have for science is rooted in its ability to control the individual (e.g., you will buy the light bulbs mandated under regulation 456-77, and you will install this “smart meter” that will give us the ability to veto your in-home energy use).
The conservative loves science because of its ability to free individuals to lead the life they desire. Do you want to sleep with the lights on? Go for it. Want to start a business that is open 24 hours a day? I hope so, because this thorium reactor will lower energy costs enough so you’ll have extra cash in your pocket to invest in any way you see fit. Whether your desire energy independence because you want build a thorium-powered rocket ship to take you to the stars, or whether you want to use the country’s new-found technology to make you even more of a pathetic slouch, it’s your call. You should be in control of your life, and energy independence will put you more firmly behind the wheel of the car.
Don’t let anyone ever say we’re “running out of resources.” We’re not. Humans will continue to find new ways to utilize resources as technology advances, just like it always has. Once upon a time there was a liberal politician who cursed Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb; I heard the candle maker profession was hit hard. Once upon a time there was a liberal politician who cursed “Big Oil” for putting those poor whalers out of work. Once upon a time there was a liberal politician who cursed the industrial revolution for “stealing” jobs from the local blacksmith. And recently, President Obama blamed high unemployment on ATMs.
The point is, my generation was spoon fed Captain Planet mind-gruel by our cartoons, movies and teachers. It’s allowed millions of individuals to buy into public policy proposals that are not in their self interest. To reverse engineer the damage, conservatives need to listen to scientific advice of guys like Kirk Sorensen. If they do, they might be able to craft energy policies that relate to young people. If they do not, discredited clowns like Al Gore will continue to win them over.