Thorium: Fix The World
- Thread starter Projecto
- Start date
Skryter
Well-Known Member
Because most government's are at the moment, filled with complete idiots. Just look at the Australian and American Government for example, it's filled with a vast amount of politicians that don't know what there talking about. At least Obama is taking a right step in a direction of helping the economic crisis and education issues in america while dealing with the problems that previous president George Bush caused but, I've just went of topic, so reference to my first sentence....
RemOfShadows
Well-Known Member
wow, this is revolutionary, this needs to be shared everywhere...
also as skryter said the governments are filled with idiots, and not just only idiots, idiots who's only goal is to fill their pockets with as much money as possible, that's why they are not even looking at revolutionary projects like this that could actually save our planet, and stop a crisis.
also as skryter said the governments are filled with idiots, and not just only idiots, idiots who's only goal is to fill their pockets with as much money as possible, that's why they are not even looking at revolutionary projects like this that could actually save our planet, and stop a crisis.
Chumba_Wumpa
Active Member
I would also like to say there are idiot voters that gobble up anything on CNN and Fox and believe its true! Socialism, run!!!!
Skryter
Well-Known Member
True, politicians can be idiots, though I'd be careful with the whole "praise President Obama and thump President Bush" mindset. Sometime I would love to have a discussion about your views on what Obama has accomplished and what problems Bush has caused, but right now I don't want this to turn into that type of thread.
I mean I don't usually swallow political garbage but there is a portion of these 2 videos that slightly changes my perspective.
Skryter
Well-Known Member
The bit of my perspective that has changed has made me slightly less sceptical, although still heavily sceptical of certain politicians and it is also true that you have "to always take the words of politicians with a gain of salt", but I would like to believe in my own sense of ignorance that their words are true, even though I'm not from the United States.
RemOfShadows
Well-Known Member
True, politicians can be idiots, though I'd be careful with the whole "praise President Obama and thump President Bush" mindset. Sometime I would love to have a discussion about your views on what Obama has accomplished and what problems Bush has caused, but right now I don't want this to turn into that type of thread.
Exactly!! The technology has been around for AGES. Did you know the United States ran a Thorium MSR from 1965 to 1969 for 22000 hours? This isn't some new fangled, untested technology - it's an extensively tested energy source that has been proven to work. One frustrating reason Thorium MSR's have not been embraced as much as they should, is because this type of nuclear reactor doesn't produce weapons grade radioactive waste, such as plutonium. Way to go government.
But think about it; contrary to the government's belief, this is actually a good thing. Since some hooligan in his pajamas can't snag some Thorium blow up the universe, Thorium Reactors can be put practically anywhere without worry.
Fun Fact:
Furthermore, the power generated by one pound of Thorium is equivalent to the amount generated by 300 pounds of Uranium or 3.5 miliion pounds of coal. Now that's what I call efficient!
- Thorium is four times as abundant as Uranium, is less radioctive, which in turn means it's significantly easier to mine.
Take a look at how abundant Thorium is in the U.S.
Not only is it efficient, it's all over the place!!
Speaking of efficiency - a traditional Uranium Reactor uses up only a fraction of the Uranium in the process of generating energy (less than 3%), which is ridiculously inefficient. Because of this, lots of radioactive waste is produced, which will stick around for tens of thousands of years buried in your backyard.
Now compare this to Thorium, where 99% of the Thorium is used up. This, in turn, means that the radioactive waste produced from a Thorium MSR sticks around for only a few hundred years. Wow.
I could go on and on, but I'd love to hear what you guys think. Feel free to ask questions, comment, whatever!
i find it very insulting how the governments are telling us that they are searching for better and more sufficient power resources when stuff like this is already out there, that proves again, that nobody with power out there is really thinking about the well being of our planet and the well being of the inhabitants of the world, all they care is how to gain more power... and I'm not only talking about USA, it's governments all over the world that are doing this, and that is just sad...
Skryter
Well-Known Member
That's entirely true, it's also the fact that most governments ignore some of china's technological advancements because their run by a communist government.
RemOfShadows
Well-Known Member
the ignorance can drive one mad
oozinator
Well-Known Member
This is great tech!
But I fear that it'd be quickly branded as a "job killer". Undoubtedly, many jobs in the fossil fuel business and even alternative energy industry (solar, wind, geotherm, etc) would be lost in the transition. HOWEVER, this should not stop us from developing this fuel source.
After all, many jobs were lost in tech transitions before. Imagine all the candlemakers that had to change careers because of the lightbulb or the end of the entire horse-drawn transport industry with the invention of the affordable automobile.
Surely we have to see that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If only fossil fuel lobbyists didn't have so much sway and long-term promises didn't die with the end of political terms...
But I fear that it'd be quickly branded as a "job killer". Undoubtedly, many jobs in the fossil fuel business and even alternative energy industry (solar, wind, geotherm, etc) would be lost in the transition. HOWEVER, this should not stop us from developing this fuel source.
After all, many jobs were lost in tech transitions before. Imagine all the candlemakers that had to change careers because of the lightbulb or the end of the entire horse-drawn transport industry with the invention of the affordable automobile.
Surely we have to see that the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. If only fossil fuel lobbyists didn't have so much sway and long-term promises didn't die with the end of political terms...
GreenEarth
Well-Known Member
Meh...
I will address some things first before I start talking about the reactor itself.
Many things are presented incorrectly, are oversimplified or are just left out.
Let's break this shit down!
( I'll fix any spelling errors later )
1. The Video
So Kirk Sorensen talks for about ten minutes about a very complicated topic. He talks in generals and does a lot of summarizing. Ok that's cool I understand sometimes you aren't given enough time to make a proper presentation. There is however glaring problems with this video, he does not, AT ALL, discuss disadvantage (of which there are many) of thorium reactors and he does propose solutions to these disadvantages. This leads me to believe this presentation is more of a persuasive essay rather than an essay that is trying to inform me (addressing all sides of a topic). So turns out it's not "basically most of the important info compounded in one easy to understand video". This video left me with more questions than he addressed.
Also to quickly address his statement about making liquid fuels for machinery, and this completely blew my mind (in a bad way).
So he suggests using energy from the reactor to make ammonia, methanol and dimethyl ether using carbon from the air. First things first, ammonia does not have carbon in it's structure so I'm not sure what he was talking about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia). You make these liquid fuels, and then you burn them. This releases the carbon right back to the atmosphere!! (the carbon you spent so much energy getting back!) This method is technically carbon neutral, but is completely retarded as in no way helps the global warming situation, you might delay it a bit (not really, as people will still be burning fossil fuels)
Here is the combustion reaction for methanol !
2CH3OH(ℓ) (methanol) + 3O2(g) (oxygen) −> 2CO2(g) (carbon dioxide) + 4H2O(g) (water vapor)
And for dimethyl ether.
CH3OCH3 (dimethyl ether) + 3O2 (oxygen) --> 2CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 3H2O (water avpor)
Notice the carbon dioxide goes right back to the atmosphere! Why not use the energy from the thorium reactor for carbon sequestration and actually help reverse global warming? I guess he was trying to address the worry that replacing all those internal combustion engines to electric would be a complete fucking pain in the ass by saying we would be able to create liquid fuels, but sooner or later you will have to start using mostly electric if you are serious about reversing global warming.
Anyway moving on.
2. The Government
So I see a lot of government hate in this thread, I don't blame you.
stand-up and say that it succinctly and efficiently summarizes some of my views.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1lZMTCqf8
However, thorium reactors don't exist because of serious engineering challenges and they remain unproven on a commerical scale.
The government has in fact, every bit of motivation to decrease the fossil fuel burden. Have you noticed how huge our military is? When you run out of oil, your army stops. I'm sure our government's asses are on fire trying to reduce the amount of oil used for citizens so more of it can go to the military. And funding for thorium is apparently not lacking, I'm not sure if you guys are mixing that up with fusion reactors (for which funding is very low). I've asked professors at my university who are involved in thorium reactor reasearch and they tell me research funding is adequate, the problem is simply engineering I will explain in detail in section 4.
As stated before by oozinator, there is also a fear of losing jobs, and jobs is a hot election topic.
This video also reminds me a bit of the Joint-Strike Fighter program or most military programs. It seems the presentor is trying to present a winning technology to attract investors, by
1. overestimating what it can do
2. underestimating cost
this is of course to be expected.
3. Saving the World
Where to start? You certainly wont solve global warming with an addition of one factor, in this case thorium reactors (even if they are a miracle power source, I will explain why they aren't). The only thing that might come close to this is a really efficent fusion reactor that is widely available, combustion engines would have to be turned to electric and some sort of carbon sequestration would need to happen. Humans have done some amazing things and in the process we have thrown the planet out of balance. We take up a lot of land, we have destroyed many forests, we create a lot of waste, use a lot of water, and change a lot of things. All these fators, and many more need to be addressed to "fix" global warming.
Let me give you an example, overfishing of sharks. Sharks are badasses. They keep populations of smaller fish in check by eating their punk asses. Now when humans make a huge deal about eating cartilage (shark fin soup, shit is apparently tasteless) they greatly decrease shark populations. This means the smaller fish populations skyrocket, eating all the phytoplankton. And what organisms are responsible for half of the oxygen produced on earth? You guessed it, phytoplankton.
I will address some things first before I start talking about the reactor itself.
Many things are presented incorrectly, are oversimplified or are just left out.
Let's break this shit down!
1. The Video
So Kirk Sorensen talks for about ten minutes about a very complicated topic. He talks in generals and does a lot of summarizing. Ok that's cool I understand sometimes you aren't given enough time to make a proper presentation. There is however glaring problems with this video, he does not, AT ALL, discuss disadvantage (of which there are many) of thorium reactors and he does propose solutions to these disadvantages. This leads me to believe this presentation is more of a persuasive essay rather than an essay that is trying to inform me (addressing all sides of a topic). So turns out it's not "basically most of the important info compounded in one easy to understand video". This video left me with more questions than he addressed.
Also to quickly address his statement about making liquid fuels for machinery, and this completely blew my mind (in a bad way).
So he suggests using energy from the reactor to make ammonia, methanol and dimethyl ether using carbon from the air. First things first, ammonia does not have carbon in it's structure so I'm not sure what he was talking about (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ammonia). You make these liquid fuels, and then you burn them. This releases the carbon right back to the atmosphere!! (the carbon you spent so much energy getting back!) This method is technically carbon neutral, but is completely retarded as in no way helps the global warming situation, you might delay it a bit (not really, as people will still be burning fossil fuels)
Here is the combustion reaction for methanol !
2CH3OH(ℓ) (methanol) + 3O2(g) (oxygen) −> 2CO2(g) (carbon dioxide) + 4H2O(g) (water vapor)
And for dimethyl ether.
CH3OCH3 (dimethyl ether) + 3O2 (oxygen) --> 2CO2 (carbon dioxide) + 3H2O (water avpor)
Notice the carbon dioxide goes right back to the atmosphere! Why not use the energy from the thorium reactor for carbon sequestration and actually help reverse global warming? I guess he was trying to address the worry that replacing all those internal combustion engines to electric would be a complete fucking pain in the ass by saying we would be able to create liquid fuels, but sooner or later you will have to start using mostly electric if you are serious about reversing global warming.
Anyway moving on.
2. The Government
So I see a lot of government hate in this thread, I don't blame you.
I could go on for endless pages discussing all the problems our (The United States) government has. To save space however I will show you an excerpt of a George Carlin
stand-up and say that it succinctly and efficiently summarizes some of my views.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1lZMTCqf8
However, thorium reactors don't exist because of serious engineering challenges and they remain unproven on a commerical scale.
The government has in fact, every bit of motivation to decrease the fossil fuel burden. Have you noticed how huge our military is? When you run out of oil, your army stops. I'm sure our government's asses are on fire trying to reduce the amount of oil used for citizens so more of it can go to the military. And funding for thorium is apparently not lacking, I'm not sure if you guys are mixing that up with fusion reactors (for which funding is very low). I've asked professors at my university who are involved in thorium reactor reasearch and they tell me research funding is adequate, the problem is simply engineering I will explain in detail in section 4.
As stated before by oozinator, there is also a fear of losing jobs, and jobs is a hot election topic.
Can you imagine how many jobs would be rendered usless if there was a miracle energy source? A lot, I'm sure I don't have to explain myself here.
This video also reminds me a bit of the Joint-Strike Fighter program or most military programs. It seems the presentor is trying to present a winning technology to attract investors, by
1. overestimating what it can do
2. underestimating cost
this is of course to be expected.
3. Saving the World
Where to start? You certainly wont solve global warming with an addition of one factor, in this case thorium reactors (even if they are a miracle power source, I will explain why they aren't). The only thing that might come close to this is a really efficent fusion reactor that is widely available, combustion engines would have to be turned to electric and some sort of carbon sequestration would need to happen. Humans have done some amazing things and in the process we have thrown the planet out of balance. We take up a lot of land, we have destroyed many forests, we create a lot of waste, use a lot of water, and change a lot of things. All these fators, and many more need to be addressed to "fix" global warming.
Let me give you an example, overfishing of sharks. Sharks are badasses. They keep populations of smaller fish in check by eating their punk asses. Now when humans make a huge deal about eating cartilage (shark fin soup, shit is apparently tasteless) they greatly decrease shark populations. This means the smaller fish populations skyrocket, eating all the phytoplankton. And what organisms are responsible for half of the oxygen produced on earth? You guessed it, phytoplankton.
GreenEarth
Well-Known Member
4. Thorium Reactors
Let's start off with
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...nd-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/
I guess they are trying to balance being the number one carbon emiiting country.
Now let me quickly discuss list some disadvantages of MSR's
- molten salt is incredibly corrosive to metals. I've read that you would have to replace the containment core every ten years, and one source said every 1000 hours. You'd also have to replace pipes and other containment areas.
- molten salts like to leak, a lot
- hasn't been proven to work in the real world, a lot of the knowledge is old like OP said, 60 years, most of it is on paper. A lot of people that were involved with the project are dead and we need to start over.
- the metals involved with making the reactor are expensive, maintenance will be a pain in the ass
- berylium compounds are incredibly poisonous
These disadvantages are important, and I'm surprised they are RARELY addressed when I read about thorium reactors online, I guess people have a tendency to only looks at the positives.
I just noticed I'm basically copying what my sources are saying, read these, the first one was the most informative
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n45l0/why_dont_we_have_liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactors/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages
if you lurk the /sci/ board on 4chan there is usually a thread about thorium reactors going
To summarize, this field is not as cut and dry like the video presents. We have miles to go before we can be sure that this is a miracle power source. And the same thing can be said for fusion reactors, theoretically they are BETTER than thorium reactors, but alas, knowledge about both reactors is mostly on paper and we can't say they will solve anything, or if they will be commercially viable.
5. Conclusion
All this excitment on the internet for thorium reactors reminds me of the time I discovered the possibility of fusion reactors. I had only heard of thermonuclear weapons and thought the idea of harnessing the sun was the most badass thing ever, and was suprised it wasn't like a major goal of human beings (to research this promising technology). I was however dissapointed at the lack of attention and funding it got. It would definitely be expensive and incredibly challenging ( keeping the fusion reaction is apparently really hard because the plasma touches the reactor wall and loses temperature ). Also when you harness the power of the sun, you can expect your reaction chamber to be damaged, materials will get expensive.
All this enthusiam seems to be a response to the advantages being presented and the disadvantages being left out. When I first read that we literally had an unlimited supply of fusion fuel (deuterium) and that the fusion reaction is incredibly energetic I almost fell out of my chair. Why weren't we developing this? This could save the world! Imagine cheap, almost free, energy for everyone! Alas it took me a bit of reading to realize that the situation was not that simple. Political forces, engineering challenges, cost, and motivation are always factors when talking about major change.
Enthusiasm is of course good, it just needs to be directed correctly like the dude on reddit said, people need to make sure to investigate all sides of an issue. I look forward to the future development of fusion and thorium reactors. I will do my best to spread the word.
One last thing, to the people who think they have escaped the effects of global warming by being born early, that is a dangerous attitude, especially if you plan to have children. With only a slight increase in temperature moisture in the ground is "sucked" out and with more evaporation of bodies of water percipitation have increased. This means dry places become dryer and wet places wetter, deserts will grow larger, wet place will flood (and have). Food will be harder to grow, prices will rise. Don't even get me started on the damage our oceans have already and will sustain. The carbon dioxide we spew out has dissolved into the water and has resulted in an acidification effect, killing many fish and resulting in desert wastelands where corals used to thrive (also has to do with the increase in ocean temperature). This has implications on foods supplies and the planets oxygen supply. These are serious issues, they are happening now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_global_warming
Let's start off with
Not really, they do not have a working reactor. They basically just announced this year that they were starting research, no biggie.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...nd-China-is-leading-the-way-with-thorium.html
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/
I guess they are trying to balance being the number one carbon emiiting country.
Now let me quickly discuss list some disadvantages of MSR's
- molten salt is incredibly corrosive to metals. I've read that you would have to replace the containment core every ten years, and one source said every 1000 hours. You'd also have to replace pipes and other containment areas.
- molten salts like to leak, a lot
- hasn't been proven to work in the real world, a lot of the knowledge is old like OP said, 60 years, most of it is on paper. A lot of people that were involved with the project are dead and we need to start over.
- the metals involved with making the reactor are expensive, maintenance will be a pain in the ass
- berylium compounds are incredibly poisonous
These disadvantages are important, and I'm surprised they are RARELY addressed when I read about thorium reactors online, I guess people have a tendency to only looks at the positives.
I just noticed I'm basically copying what my sources are saying, read these, the first one was the most informative
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n45l0/why_dont_we_have_liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactors/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/23/thorium-nuclear-uranium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages
if you lurk the /sci/ board on 4chan there is usually a thread about thorium reactors going
To summarize, this field is not as cut and dry like the video presents. We have miles to go before we can be sure that this is a miracle power source. And the same thing can be said for fusion reactors, theoretically they are BETTER than thorium reactors, but alas, knowledge about both reactors is mostly on paper and we can't say they will solve anything, or if they will be commercially viable.
5. Conclusion
All this excitment on the internet for thorium reactors reminds me of the time I discovered the possibility of fusion reactors. I had only heard of thermonuclear weapons and thought the idea of harnessing the sun was the most badass thing ever, and was suprised it wasn't like a major goal of human beings (to research this promising technology). I was however dissapointed at the lack of attention and funding it got. It would definitely be expensive and incredibly challenging ( keeping the fusion reaction is apparently really hard because the plasma touches the reactor wall and loses temperature ). Also when you harness the power of the sun, you can expect your reaction chamber to be damaged, materials will get expensive.
All this enthusiam seems to be a response to the advantages being presented and the disadvantages being left out. When I first read that we literally had an unlimited supply of fusion fuel (deuterium) and that the fusion reaction is incredibly energetic I almost fell out of my chair. Why weren't we developing this? This could save the world! Imagine cheap, almost free, energy for everyone! Alas it took me a bit of reading to realize that the situation was not that simple. Political forces, engineering challenges, cost, and motivation are always factors when talking about major change.
Enthusiasm is of course good, it just needs to be directed correctly like the dude on reddit said, people need to make sure to investigate all sides of an issue. I look forward to the future development of fusion and thorium reactors. I will do my best to spread the word.
One last thing, to the people who think they have escaped the effects of global warming by being born early, that is a dangerous attitude, especially if you plan to have children. With only a slight increase in temperature moisture in the ground is "sucked" out and with more evaporation of bodies of water percipitation have increased. This means dry places become dryer and wet places wetter, deserts will grow larger, wet place will flood (and have). Food will be harder to grow, prices will rise. Don't even get me started on the damage our oceans have already and will sustain. The carbon dioxide we spew out has dissolved into the water and has resulted in an acidification effect, killing many fish and resulting in desert wastelands where corals used to thrive (also has to do with the increase in ocean temperature). This has implications on foods supplies and the planets oxygen supply. These are serious issues, they are happening now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_effects_of_global_warming
bbgunshot
Well-Known Member
That was a very interesting and insightful video. As I've said before, new and better energy ideas are great. But if we continually simplify things we only put more people out of jobs. And the fact that oil and gas is so dominate in our worlds economy it would be unfathomable that companies would give up even the smallest margin of money for such a thing.
Economics.
Economics.
GreenEarth
Well-Known Member
You bring up some very valid points GreenEarth, though I don't really have the attention span to fully address everything you said - I'll certainly make an effort. I'm glad you brought to light the unmentioned downsides, it's disturbing to see how much is hidden in order to lure you in..
Regarding the whole situation with the liquid fuels - Although part of that seems pretty counter-intuitive, if you think about it, it sort of makes sense. If thorium reactors are implemented, that takes at least some coal power plants etc. off the grid, significantly decreasing our carbon footprint. Even so, automobiles and the like would not be making the switch over to thorium based power, and would still require some sort of combustible fuel. The aforementioned processes/fuels might be a way to produce fuel without having to rely on external sources to meet the demand of the general populace, and perhaps even the military.
Just one major point I'd like to make, is that I fear you misinterpreted my oversimplification and use of hyperbole as my actual beliefs. I have a tendency to speak in extremes, but they don't always reflect my rational viewpoint. I by no means expect thorium to "fix" global warming, or to "save the world." I never meant those phrases to be interpreted literally, my apologies. I completely understand that there's never going to be some miracle power source cure-all for the world's ills, there are too many moving parts, and the world just doesn't work that way. I also very much comprehend global warming and its ills - I by no means meant to belittle the drastic effects mankind can/will have on the environment.
I've got to go study up some Psych right now, but I'd definitely like to continue this discussion (preferably when I'm not running off 5 hours of sleep
Yeah I didn't mean to target anyone on this thread, I'm mostly responding to the huge explosion of thorium threads on the /sci/ board, literally every other thread was about these reactors. I get kind of preachy when it comes to these kinds of subjects as my username might suggest.
Replacing oil with synthetic fuels would be a right step in the right direction, it's just the way that concept is presented in popular media gives me the impression we are kicking the can down the road, idk maybe it's just me.
Anyway good luck on your test !
Aetherrack
Well-Known Member
-ahem-
While not (yet) a viable option for the average US household ($45,018/annum, 2003 [I couldn't find a more recent number]), hydrogen-based homes are perfectly workable here in Canada ($74,700/annum, 2009). My family lives in a less-than-net-zero house based entirely off of hydrogen, we actually make money off of extra power that we produce and sell to the grid. While we use solar energy as our primary power source (geothermal, wind, and water-table-based tidal energy are a few others), it's actually quite easy to make a logical jump to grid-based Thorium-source power. I'll outline the system for you.
Photovoltaic panels produce ~1,000 GJ/yr (the household uses ~900 GJ/yr). Additional PV panels are available via shutter mechanisms that prevent degradation of the panels when not in use to ensure longer lifetime (these are rarely needed, usually 4-5 days/year).
Electricity is directly used to power/heat the household (electrically heated water provides in-floor-heating).
Extra electricity is used to power an electrolytic converter to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen and oxygen are stored until needed in several tanks (preferable to batteries for several reasons, not the least of which is price) under high pressure.
At night or on overcast days, the stored hydrogen and oxygen is burned to provide electricity and heating where needed.
Excess hydrogen is used in both my brother's and my own vehicles, which are hydrogen-fuel based.
Excess electricity is used in the rest of the family's vehicles, which are electric-based.
Each spring, when the solar power begins to increase again, excess hydrogen and oxygen is burned, and the electricity produced is sold to the grid.
The money earned from selling back to the grid pays the water bills - effectively the only utility bill we can't efficiently negate.
While not (yet) a viable option for the average US household ($45,018/annum, 2003 [I couldn't find a more recent number]), hydrogen-based homes are perfectly workable here in Canada ($74,700/annum, 2009). My family lives in a less-than-net-zero house based entirely off of hydrogen, we actually make money off of extra power that we produce and sell to the grid. While we use solar energy as our primary power source (geothermal, wind, and water-table-based tidal energy are a few others), it's actually quite easy to make a logical jump to grid-based Thorium-source power. I'll outline the system for you.
Photovoltaic panels produce ~1,000 GJ/yr (the household uses ~900 GJ/yr). Additional PV panels are available via shutter mechanisms that prevent degradation of the panels when not in use to ensure longer lifetime (these are rarely needed, usually 4-5 days/year).
Electricity is directly used to power/heat the household (electrically heated water provides in-floor-heating).
Extra electricity is used to power an electrolytic converter to break water down into hydrogen and oxygen.
Hydrogen and oxygen are stored until needed in several tanks (preferable to batteries for several reasons, not the least of which is price) under high pressure.
At night or on overcast days, the stored hydrogen and oxygen is burned to provide electricity and heating where needed.
Excess hydrogen is used in both my brother's and my own vehicles, which are hydrogen-fuel based.
Excess electricity is used in the rest of the family's vehicles, which are electric-based.
Each spring, when the solar power begins to increase again, excess hydrogen and oxygen is burned, and the electricity produced is sold to the grid.
The money earned from selling back to the grid pays the water bills - effectively the only utility bill we can't efficiently negate.