The forgotten military technology can provide the planet with energy for millions of years ahead. Why do not we use it?

The basis of not only prosperity, but also the existence of modern civilization is the available energy, the flow of which never stops in our homes, offices, factories, gadgets and vehicles.

Thanks to energy, we heat our homes, grow and conserve food, clean water, prepare food and travel.

Modern energy sources

Because of today's low prices for fuel and energy, it is difficult to realize that humanity is in the near future threatened by an energy crisis. We have already faced the problem of overpopulation, and by 2040 the number of people on the planet will grow by 20%, from 7.36 billion to 9 billion. Rapidly developing and densely populated countries will consume twice as much energy.

Fossil fuel can easily meet the needs of nine billion people, but it's not for long. The planet is not so great, and all known reserves can dry out for several centuries.

In addition, organic fuel significantly accelerates global warming, which has already reached a critical level.

Renewable energy sources, despite their wide popularity, are not reliable, especially if we take into account the amount of energy and fuel needed.

Nuclear power

Nuclear reactors, on the other hand, meet all our requirements: they are reliable, do not throw tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and, despite our fears, are one of the safest sources of energy on earth.

Forgotten Technology

During the Cold War, a new technology was invented - a liquid-salt reactor. The reactor on melts of salts refrains from the use of solid nuclear fuel and is based on liquid, which works with much greater efficiency and with a minimum amount of waste.

And in theory, liquid-salt reactors do not deteriorate like conventional nuclear reactors. This method is reliable, clean and profitable.

Radioactive waste

The reactor on melts of salts can process even radioactive waste, such as thorium, which in nature is much more than uranium. Thorium in a liquid-salt reactor will be converted into pure energy.

According to scientists, made in 1959, the thorium in the earth and the energy generated from it could be enough for mankind for billions of years.

And this is not just a theory. This technology is quite viable and has already been demonstrated once.

Prototypes

Scientists from the Manhattan Project built two working prototypes of a liquid-salt reactor in the 1950s and 1960s, respectively.

However, the reactors proved to be unsuitable for the creation of nuclear weapons, and the politically obsessed politicians and military blocked the financing of the project, despite the excellent energy potential.

The last working liquid-salt reactor was closed in 1969.

Today, some entrepreneurs, scientists and activists intend to restore and modernize the technology, and they work tirelessly to re-launch it, just like some interested states such as India and China.

China now spends more than $ 350 million a year to develop and launch its own version of this technology, which was known back in the Cold War era.

Arguments in favor of nuclear energy

Nuclear reactors allow you to get a huge amount of fuel with minimal harmful emissions into the atmosphere. Uranium can generate about 16,000 times more energy than coal. At the same time, nuclear energy is a million times cleaner.

To solve the problem of climate change, it is necessary to make decisions based on facts, and not on prejudices. Climate is important, how many greenhouse gases are emitted into the atmosphere, and not from where they come from - sources of renewable energy or nuclear reactors.

Nuclear energy can provide energy to entire regions and states, while its waste will seem trivial in comparison with waste produced by burning fossil fuels.

Economic benefit

For a moment, let's forget about the climate, because for the decisions taken at the political, world level, the economy is still more important than nature.

Despite the significant subsidies that nuclear power plants will receive from the state, technology is one of the most profitable.

In 2016, nuclear energy is cheaper than energy from those gas-fired power plants that are started up, if necessary, for example, to cope with a sudden peak in energy consumption.

Nuclear energy is also much cheaper than thermal energy, even if we do not take into account the hidden dangers of this obsolete technology (deaths and injuries in coal mining, air pollution, resulting in diseases, and global warming, which threatens not only humans but also nature).

This does not in any way mean that modern nuclear power plants and reactors are impeccable. However, they are perhaps the most beneficial and effective alternative to organic fuels.

Fear

Despite statistics and scientific data, the public is still extremely wary of nuclear energy.

Such tragic cases as the Chernobyl accident and the explosion in Fukushima, irrationally frighten people, despite the fact that they do not reflect the real state of things.

The fact is that the actual indicators for the safety of nuclear energy significantly exceed the indicators of gas, hydro and heat power.

The irrational fear in this case is somewhat similar to the fear of aircraft. Due to the fact that a plane crash happens so rarely and is so actively discussed, people are subconsciously afraid to fly, despite the fact that air transport is the safest to date. It's safer to fly by plane than to walk.

The same thing happens with nuclear energy.

Few people are aware of such accidents as San Bruno or the Banciao Dam. In the first case, an explosion at a gas power plant in California caused the death of eight people, and as a result of the collapse of the dam in China, 230,000 people died. This is a much larger number of deaths than as a result of accidents in Chernobyl and Fukushima.

And yet the public does not have a fear of hydropower or natural gas.

Nuclear energy consistently demonstrates that it is the safest and most effective technology to date. If liquid-salt reactors become a reality in the near future, then safety indicators will increase even more.

What is the delay?

If the thorium liquid-salt reactors are so good and profitable, why does the technology stand still?

The answer basically comes to the fact that the scientific part of the project is easier to complete than the engineering one. The development and safe start-up of reactors on salt melts is a long and laborious work, the completion of which depends on support and financing.

In addition, the melt of salts is dangerous for the health of those who work with it.

The melt contains beryllium, which regulates nuclear fission. This is a very dangerous element. If a material leak occurs, beryllium will turn into friable "snow," which workers can inhale. This leads to a risk of lung cancer.

The melt of salts also contains a lithium-element, which promotes the formation of a radioactive gas called tritium. Lithium is not as dangerous as beryllium, however, getting into the water, this heavy element makes it radioactive.

Despite all these potential hazards, good reactor design, proper safety protocols and protective equipment can minimize these and other risks.