Why thorium nuclear power shouldn't be written off | Environment | guardian.co.uk

I posted a brief paragraph a while ago about thorium after skimming through an article in the Ecologist.

Here's Labour Peer Byrony Worthington arguing in favour of investing in an untested technology, presumably so we can avoid investing in other renewables such as solar and wind.

Haven't read this yet - but hope to sometime today. [Have read it and there is little of substance in this article; not surprising, it was written by an MP]

To explain my previous comments - I was really reacting against the simple minded unsupported beliefs of climate change deniers, rather than the considered science based opinions of, say, some environmentalists who happen to be pro-nuclear.

They latch onto any old piece of nonsense, and though thorium is beginning to be taken seriously, I would doubt that it is the magic bullet for energy that so many claim.

But for the moment I will reserve judgement...it's not like my opinion really counts in this debate or anything. I'll wait for the scientists and the engineers to make their judgements.

But i still think we should be investing in sure fire technology like solar and wind way before we go off on speculative stuff like this, which might take decades before we get any benefit. And decades is just too slow I'm afraid. We need it now.