The technoligy looks promising but as an investment idea it needs a lot of development.

Agreed. Lead times are very long in this industry. Thorium is one of several possible designs, but whereas uranium is widely available, thorium would require not just a concerted design effort, but a ramp up in mine production. It's basically a chicken/egg situation. Who will mine for thorium when no reactors exist to burn it, and who'll build those reactors until a steady supply of thorium is available?

There are several 4th generation designs that use uranium that I think have a better chance. Here's one of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pebble_bed_reactor

I think the future direction of nuclear power is towards smaller, more reliable reactors that can provide base power on local grids. We need to move away from concentrating power production in large vunerable plants like Fukushima to more local, smaller scale operations that pose less overall risk. An additional benefit to this approach is that you don't have the huge transmission losses you get from say, powering California with electricity produced in BC.

Two things stand in the way of this approach. The vested interests of the major power companies, and the well meaning but misguided resistance of the Green Movement.

The first can be overcome by government programs that allow accelerated cost recovery on existing capacity along with some form of credit to replace that with new capacity using 4th generation designs.

The second is more problematic. I have several friends involved in the anti-nuclear movement, including a member of Greenpeace. No amount of factual argument will move these people off their position, and they have a large enough political base to run serious interference, at least in Europe and North America.

Frankly, I've given up arguing with these people. Most are incapable of doing the simple math behind their proposals for alternate energy - all good proposals that should be pursued in conjunction with, not in the absence of, nuclear power. Renewable sources are a great idea, but I've yet to see a wind farm or solar plant that can run a steel mill, an oil refinery, or thousands of miles of electric railway. It simply cannot be done, but when you point this out, they quickly change the subject. Theirs is an ideological, not scientific approach, and arguing with that is a complete waste of time.

In the larger picture, we really have no choice but to pursue nuclear power. The alternative is the Malthusian outcome - war, mass starvation and disease that will kill tens of millions of people.

ebear