Talk:Thorium Energy Alliance

Rationale
Rationale has been written based on wider perspective, and may require further polishing. Lack of rationale was cited as reason for speedy deletion earlier. References will be added in due course.  Tharikrish  22:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Response to critics
The copied/quoted text below alludes to ambiguity or opinion and perhaps overstated advantages for thorium. Is there a way to cite or reference Alex Cannara's rebuttal to IEER as a third party who adds notability to stated thorium advantages?  If there is evidence for where the accuracy is greatest, lets find it and use it.

"Despite all the favorable factors, and utilization in commercial reactors in the past,[22][23] interest in thorium diminished in the late 1980s due to various reasons. Critics of thorium claim that the advantages are over stated and it is unlikely to be a useful source of energy. [24]Many point the adverse economics and the availability of plentiful or sources of energy that will deter full commercialization of thorium based." energy.

Crodney Crodney (talk) 05:35, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I will have a look a look at the argument and counter arguments and have it included in this paragraph.  Tharikrish   13:07, 23 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Alex Cannara's and other rebuttals are summarized and referenced now.  Tharikrish   18:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Neutrality
Neutrality issue with the first section, last paragraph has been addressed by citing additional references to both views and summarizing of the main answers to criticisms about use of thorium. Please review this section and see whether neutrality has to be further strengthened.  Tharikrish  18:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I have read the paragraph with added answer to criticisms. Having both criticism and response, each with their citations, seems more neutral than criticism without a response.  I feel neutrality is restored and recommend removal of the POV tag. Crodney (talk) 19:25, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The neutrality problem is bringing up problems with Thorium reactors and use and then simply stating they have all been refuted by advocates. That is not neutral nor a fair reading of the literature.  The article is just about the TEA, so why not just state that there are issues that have been raised and here (citing references or Wikipedia link) are where discussion of these issues can be found.--I am One of Many (talk) 20:07, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Removed the lines pointing refutation, and edited to add "These and other issues regarding the use of thorium have been debated. Reference for arguments are retained. Article on Thorium-based nuclear power is referenced upfront."  Tharikrish   21:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


 * That is good enough for me to remove the POV tag.--I am One of Many (talk) 21:19, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

POV
"Most of the energy made is from fossil fuels and as it is common knowledge fossil fuels create a very large carbon footprint, which leads us to getting energy from nuclear power and reactors. But the most common nuclear reactor is uranium which causes a lot of global warming and as you can imagine carbon dioxide which doesn't help the reduction of carbon footprint; but thorium is a way safer and cleaner way to use nuclear power. Thorium is a safer, cleaner and more abundant alternative fuel; it produces about a thousand times less waste throughout the supply chain than uranium. So as you can imagine thorium had a considerably smaller carbon footprint that uranium."

Haha oh wow. I'm not that knowledgeable on the subject but this part needs to be rewritten. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.38.5.247 (talk) 22:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Such text should not be here or in any other Wikipedia page. Text deleted and POV flag removed.  Tharikrish   20:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)