The Baroness Defends Thorium!

Lady Worthington rises to the defense of the thorium option in the pages of the Ecologist, where so recently it was attacked by Eifion Rees.

The Ecologist: Response: don’t dismiss the potential of thorium nuclear power

To successfully reduce the risk of climate change we need to commericalise affordable, safe, flexible, long-lasting, low carbon sources of energy. We do not know yet if LFTRs fit the bill but they look extremely promising. It would be irresponsible to dismiss them out of hand before finding out. If the UK is serious about pursuing nuclear power, and it appears that it is, then we must include the pursuit of thorium power in this endeavour. On paper it looks like it may just save us.

Thank you Lady Worthington!

July 4 UPDATE: Now the article has been posted on the Guardian as well!

My rebuttal of the original article.

Comments

comments


5 Replies to "The Baroness Defends Thorium!"

  • Jim L.
    July 1, 2011 (10:44 am)
    Reply

    The full response is well worth reading! The Lady Worthington is an apt student, Dr. Sorensen!! Perhaps her voice can open up some opponents to rational discussion.

  • Citizen
    July 4, 2011 (2:57 pm)
    Reply

    Cheap solar cells made out of plastics… A new innovation from British researchers…
    Information Exchange..: Plastic Solar Cells – A new innovation…

  • Kirk Sorensen
    July 4, 2011 (3:26 pm)
    Reply

    The entire value proposition of solar panels seemed to be based on the notion that land is worthless and that energy storage and grid balancing are someone else's problem. Even 100% efficient, free solar cells don't fix either one of these problems.

  • uvdiv
    July 4, 2011 (4:12 pm)
    Reply

    Thought you should be aware of this new anti-LFTR article going around — ~23 pages long, written by a claimed PhD engineer, and full of ludicrous nonsense.
    http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-m

    I highlighted some of its biggest howlers on my blog, e.g. the part where he crticizes using molten salt as a working fluid in a gas turbine (?), the part where he claims thorium reactors are limited by world U-235 supply, the part where he says Th-232's long half life makes it hazardous and thus a disadvantage of thorium fuel, and others. It's pretty awful stuff, I hope no one wastes too much energy on it.

  • Paul C from Austin
    July 7, 2011 (12:56 am)
    Reply

    A very good, measured, reasoned response from Lady Worthington- she makes an elegant and eloquent advocate for LFTR.

    Interesting- seeing the paths some take, like yourself Kirk, to promote something greater, something different- the places and people that cross paths that would never have occurred otherwise- the road "less traveled by, and that has made all the difference." Along with some other blogs I follow, even if vicariously, I take great satisfaction in watching your journey;-)

    Keep up the good work!


Leave a Reply