Very intense. Very cool!

Energy still remains one of the most awkward issues covered in America, IMO, because it is so often taken into other narratives or meta narratives. "Jobs v environment" is a common framing. Yet that amount of reduction strips away a great deal of validity, and inherent complexity. Things just aren't that easy.

I'm dropping back to see how the discussion is progressing

Energy may be somewhat sidelined as a topic in the presidential election, but the amount of money being put out by the fossil fuel industry to do PR work is quite significant.

I believe that the initial interest in skirting Thorium reactors in the climate of the WW2 era arena was indeed the shift to the use of Plutonium which was realized to be more effective in weapons production. That being said, the idea that Thorium reactors are unable to produce weapons grade fissile materials is misunderstood. According to a Princeton University paper on thorium ("Breeder") reactors that was published a few years ago, the excess fuel produced by these reactors can be processed on site and separate the proctactinium-233, leaving behind uranium-233 which would be returned to the reactor. This uranium-233 is easier to make bombs with than plutonium. Proponents of thorium reactors would argue that, while this is technically possible, it is highly unlikely. The equipment and expertise it would take to divert this process stream and effective procure this fissile uranium-233 would, as they argue, be more trouble than just simply refining their own materials independently. Finally, thorium reactors still need something like plutonium or uranium to start the reaction. One of the proposed benefits of this model is that the thorium-232 used in these reactors is not fissile to begin with. While that is nice for handling and overall safety, it does not eliminate the fissile materials altogether.

One of the issues that seems prevalent in energy discussion in the US is a sort of fantasy-like approach to energy. There isn't going to be "a solution" that solves everything. Or, a another article posited recently, "energy is the key to the recovery" - no, actually it isn't. It is a vital part of the economy, of course. But the US' economic issues are not going to go away simply because there are more jobs or revenue from (whatever industry). The other elephant in the room is that global energy demand trumps basically all other energy-related motivations (in terms of how things are functioning, right now). The main drivers of energy discussion in the US are what makes profit, not energy security or energy sustainability. And that motive won't change simply by creating more energy.

I've heard about that. surely there must be some major barrier that has kept us from developing Thorium reactors. It seems strange that we would be leaving a perfectly reasonable energy source on the table.

Given the amount of energy needed and the speed of global warming, we need a game-changing technology. One likely potential is thorium based nuclear reactors...http://learni.st/users/7708/boards/3331-new-clear-energy-thorium