I am about to buy a book called “Aim High” on Kindle and I read the book summary:
Aim High proposes using thorium energy to address environmental problems. Mankind’s fossil fuel burning releases CO2 into the atmosphere, contributing to global warming and deadly air pollution. Natural resources are rapidly being depleted by world population growth. Safe, inexpensive energy from the liquid fluoride thorium reactor can stop much global warming and raise prosperity of humanity to adopt US and OECD lifestyles, which include lower, sustainable birth rates. Thorium fuel is transformed to uranium-233 which fissions, producing heat and electric power at a cost less than that from coal power plants–the only way to dissuade developing nations from burning coal. Thorium produces less than 1% of the long-lived radioactive waste of today’s nuclear power plants. Existing nuclear power plant waste can be consumed. One ton of plentiful thorium costing $300,000 provides 1 GW-year of electric energy, enough for a city. A 5-year NASA-style shoot-the-moon project can complete technology development of this inexpensive, safe, clean power.
As any reader here knows, I am pretty much up on the thorium LFTR power plant subject.
One passage (in bold) in this summary caught my attention and made me ask the question in the post title.
One way to make a Liberal squirm is to catch him/her in a conundrum between their encouragement of the downtrodden and their fervent desire into not have any more CO2 enter the atmosphere. Since they believe that any development of third world countries is fraught with increases to global. this makes some sense. Continue reading