Saw this on another forum:

Joachim Rubbia and others have researched using thorium in a nuclear process called an Energy Amplifier.

It is impossible for it to run away uncontrollably, its waste has such a short half life that it is safe after only 30 years of storage, it can take highly radioactive waste and waste with a long half life and convert it to waste that it is safe after only 30 years of storage. It runs on easy to get and plentiful thorium and cannot produce any products that could be used to make a nuclear weapon. Currently no country is using this technology.

Coal is subsidised. If the government was really concerned about global warming it would remove these subsudies.

My opinion on renewables is that we should be using them and saving up the fossil fuels because they are always available in a national emergency or war. Is another country saving up fossil fuels?

Then checked out the Wiki article, which suggested this process had merit, but is far too expensive, so I googled and found this:

Conclusions

The Energy Amplifier is certainly a promising prospect for nuclear power as it potentially solves the major problems of both long-term fuel supply and long-lived radioactive isotopes. However, the proliferation problem does not appear to be solved as it should be a simple matter to re-engineer the neutron beam to breed Plutonium for nuclear weapons. There also appears to be significant technical problems remaining, but these seem to be possible to overcome given a substantial one-time investment. 15 years after the original paper by Rubbia, the Energy Amplifier seems to have caught the eye of Aker Solutions and perhaps they can raise the money required for this novel reactor technology.

http://large.stanfor...h241/engelsen2/

I don't have sufficient knowledge to assess these different energy claims, e.g. shale gas, wind farms, etc., but I know that some TV posters are quite knowledgeable. So what's the story, guys? Is Rubbia's Energy Amplifier the answer to our energy needs and a safe form of nuclear power?

I am no expert....

However.. I doubt there is enough Uranium in the world to solve the worlds energy needs.

A safe Nuclear option is a worthwhile achievement, but not the solution for long term world energy needs.

I don't have sufficient knowledge to assess these different energy claims, e.g. shale gas, wind farms, etc., but I know that some TV posters are quite knowledgeable. So what's the story, guys? Is Rubbia's Energy Amplifier the answer to our energy needs and a safe form of nuclear power?

in short (i studied the bloody subject):

-a strong majority of experts agreed to disagree on "thorium".

-there's uranium galore for present technology nuclear power to last for centuries.

-the technoloy of "fast breeder" exists but is not used because it is too dangerous. if the latter problem could be solved uranium mines would become superfluous as soon as enough fast breeders are online.

-a multinational/multi-billion dollar research project "nuclear fusion" is going on in southern France. if successful energy demands can be fulfilled for milleniae to come. this also applies to "fast breeders".

note: even if one of the above projects is successful it does not solve the problem that one of the fossile fuels, namely crude oil, is not available in infinite quantities and until today cannot be substituted.