Burnbing fossil fuels is not the only viable way to generate energy. If our numbers and activities didn't stop growing, energy generation would not be such a difficult subject.

And why hasn't a thorium system been used? In the report it was (rightly) said, anything that is run by a for profit company is doomed to greed.

@JackPedigo Plenty on TED talks to answer you but simply, a Thorium plant was built in the 50s but the rush for Atomic bombs and nuclear warheads determined that Uranium was chosen, Thorium is plentiful and cheaper than U238 but does not break down into Plutonium. I believe that in theory a kg of plutonium dropped into a big pool of water in the midst of New York could flatten much of the city.

@rogerbenham So now there is one side. What happened to the other side? If it's so great why isn't it being used? The old saying when something is too good be true, it probably isn't.

@JackPedigo I don't know about your sides. What you have to appreciate is that U238 was chosen for military purposes whilst Thoium was not for the same reason. To go to Thorium requires swallowing pride, spending investment and replacing Uranium reactors with Thorium. At least a meltdown Thorium reactor does not affect its surroundings.

@rogerbenham Again, if it is so superior why hasn't it been used? I try to follow this science but have not heard anything about thorium. I looked into thorium especially the disadvantages. [nuclear-power.com]

@JackPedigo I can only suggest TED talks on the internet, I have been aware of Thorium since 1980 and using gas mantle lamps. Get a box of boxes and you will see a radioactivity sign on it. I wrote to Atomic Energy Canada then about it.

@rogerbenham Okay, the big problem, for me, is more technology being used to allow more toxic (worse than Uranium) to inhabit the planet. It's like taking a pill for a serious malady instead of changing one's life style. It's the lazy mans way to avoid the inevitable.