LFTR Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor question to President Obama

[fireofenergy]

Thanks for supporting LFTR!

All those who oppose have been lulled into thinking that "it's baaaaad" just because it's nuclear, but it's not really their fault. When I was (as old as) 30, I hated it too because I couldn't (er, didn't want to) understand the fundamental differences between a light water reactor and a molten salt (or metal) reactor.

Media manipulation still has a strong foothold across the nations. Thus we have to be ardent in proclamation yet patient in explanation.

[catandpiddle]

good post. thank you!

[Dubious07]

u an idiot ... if just the persian gulf area had 50 sq mile of turbines we could power the whole planet in just one hour a day lol u stupid shit stop listening to bull shit ... check in to nicola tesla , steve mayer or any of the free energy enthusists of the planet !!!!!

[catandpiddle]

@Dubious07 You're the idiot, sport. Take a few English lessons before you post next time

 ...

[bjggjb]

I suspect the global elites are very aware of the potential of thorium nuclear power; and they will implement it AFTER the coming fossil fuel crunch (and resulting famine, pestilence and war) cause a 50%-to-90% dieoff of the world population. No need for investors then; governmental decree will suffice.

The perpetrators of the biggest holocaust in human history will be able to pass themselves off as saviors to a desperate and suffering world. The lust for power corrupts totally, and always will.

[BeaveHolio]

Get it funded by private industry.

[superbong69]

Sorry they are putting all the flouride in our water to make sure we don't think too much... They already have free energy and are suppressing the technology.. search magnetic motor...

[drright71]

Write every politician you can. Demand LFTR now!

[MooreEthen]

the UK has just announced a £100billion investment in new nuclear plants across the country, not having learned the lesson in japan. i have also recently read about the EMMA thorium reactor which is showing tremendous potential. with the population spiralling and most wars fought at the moment because of oil why isn't the UN US and Uk and for that matter every industrialised country not investing appropriately in this energy. renewables etc cannot maintain a spiraling population, sorry!.

[bjggjb]

@MooreEthen Don't you know, that COLD FUSION will save us! (That, and wind/solar helped along with a good healthy dose of conspiracy-suppressed Atlantean Crystal Power and Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Magick... or whatever else the anti-nuke crowd believes in.)

[constant137]

@hallezb:

as Kirk Sorensen observed in his blog (commenting a very funny video from Jon Stewart on "Energy Independence and the last 8 Presidents"), none of the Presidents, in their numerous speeches (about "energy sources to get us off foreign oil") ever pronounced "a certain word" (Kirk S. meant of course "Thorium").

I am curious to know if you got any comment from the White House, even a routine acknowledge from a staffer or so; or just silence.

[TheGoalSetter]

Preach it brother.

To answer your question about why thorium isn't pursued...it would destroy the revenues of too many influential people (coal, oil, current nuke, etc. execs would loose revenues...so they bribe politicians, media, etc. to oppress thorium).

[BeaveHolio]

@TheGoalSetter

You don't understand how competition works.

[fireofenergy]

The only part I didn't like is the "it is physically impossible (for RE)..."

Thorium has got to be the way as long as there is some supervision (to make sure that the chemical (as well as nuclear) part of the operation is carried out safely. Again, Yucca would be obsolete, and LFTR wastes halflifes down to safe level 1,000 X faster than conventional (LWR) wastes!

[kbs1138]

@fireofenergy a liquid fuel is impossible to meltdown since it's already a liquid and designed operate as a liquid. If power is shutdown and the liquid were to heat up, it would expand causing a loss of criticality (neutron density necessary to maintain reaction) and shut itself off, essential a self-stopping system. The of course assumes that you didn't have the simple system passive shut-off using a frozen plug of salt that was tested and used routinely in the 60's test reactor.

[fireofenergy]

As for solar. it needs to be "done" by competing companies that own the dirt, own a lobby, own ALL the equipment, including big rigs, mining and millions of robotic arms. They have to own the framing division, and of course, hire the installers... Only in this way could solar ever power billions of people at the Western standard. It would also take about 1/50th TOTAL EARTH's lands pace to do so!

LFTR is like 1,000,000 X that!

[fireofenergy]

Awesome! This video needs to be on TV!

[TheShockmister]

His honest answer is NO, because then people will be free from our TYRANNY, we can't have that now can we!.

[bigstiggerNo1]

They're funding ITER for a start. And the Combined Lazer Beam Fusion device research too. I would be asking why they are spending billions on fusion and restricting the scope of the fusion projects to sub ingnition of overunity power. Whereas Russia and Italy are in joint colabouration to build a compact type toroildal device that achieves sellf sustaining fusion power!

It seems lead or nickle can be used just like Thorium as a fuel for the ASDR fission reactors, with even less polution.

[brickandfanal]

@hallezb CANDU, have you ever hear about it. Candu=Canadian Deuterium Uranium reactor. It can burn many different nuclear fuel; MOX( mix oxide of Uranium an Plutonium), depleted Uranium up to 0.5% (natural Uranium is 0.7%) and even Thorium without modification. The only reason it dosen't burn Thorium right now, is because there is no significant production of the Thorium metal, so price are high at $1700/Kg. But price should go down if volume was there ($50/Kg). And Candu is very safe up to now.

[Butmunch666]

Ok people, anyone who says this is just a glorious steam reactor should wake up to the reality. So far almost every mainstream way of producing power except solar or some chemical reactions is based on the electric dynamo.

So our society bassically produces all of it's electricity in the same way, spin a big metal thing inside a big magnet thing.

Sad but true, so almost all our electricity is being produced by a different version of a steam enging.

[sbergman27]

@Butmunch666 In fact, the only reasonable way to do a solar power plant is solar-thermal. PV get's all the press, despite dismal efficiency. Aside from people who put PVs on their roofs as a fashion statement, *real* solar is also a steam or other Carnot Cycle engine.

A well designed combined cycle steam engine can achieve ~50%-60% thermal efficiency. I know of nothing that can match that.

User "Tazru333" was talking out his ass. His real purpose was to make a mindless antinuclear statement.

[78923451]

This is still not as clean as hydrogen gas for fuel. radiation waste is not acceptable.

[Landrar]

@78923451 OUTSTANDING! Now, mind telling us how you are going to get all that hydrogen? True enough, it is the most abundant element of mass in the whole universe (which really isn't that much since only 4% of the Universe is made up of normal matter), but that doesn't mean it is easy to acquire.

All estimates to date say that to produce enough hydrogen just to power cars in the U.S. alone would require nuclear reactors. I'm interested in your solution to this.

[78923451]

@Landrar Thats easy Solar just like at my house. I produce enough to power my hydrogen "burning car" ( a small modification to a current production Propane powered car), and power the house. It's 50 year old technology. So my question is how much are the oil companies paying you to spread your lies.

[Landrar]

@78923451 I'm gonna have to go ahead and call you a liar. The average home needs ~285 square feet of solar panels just to power the house, plus the battery banks and inverters. You are also making hydrogen for a car? I think not. Btw, to those who are interested, this set up costs over $40,000 USD. Even if you pay 250/mo for power, it would take you over 13 years to break even. Solar is the future...but not until we can make it more efficient.

[78923451]

@Landrar Try 800 sq. ft., let's see a a new car $40k, or my system guess I got my priorities all backwards. Anyway modifying the car was easy the "battery system has been eliminated because the evening generators run on the hydrogen I make during the day. Heat my water and central heater with it. Oh yeah AND when burning hydrogen the byproduct is water & oxygen, all the things you and bosses DON"T want. This isn't brain surgery, like I said this is old technology.

[Landrar]

@78923451 800 sq. ft. isn't 40,000. It would be closer to $120,000. How many people can afford that? What you suggest would require millions, in the US alone, to go without power because they couldn't afford it. Stop being an ass. Until our abilities to collect, and more importantly, store the energy improve greatly, solar power is a pipe dream. YAY you have enough money to do it, but not everyone does. Try looking past your nose. Oh, and I still don't believe you.

[78923451]

@Landrar I guess I'm a better shopper than you. Your numbers are WAY off. So tell how much are they paying you to debunk me. Your working for the wrong party.

[78923451]

@Landrar Didn't pay even half of that amount. And like I said it 50 year old technology and it 's not brain surgery. So..... why don't you tell the good folks here who you REALLY work for.

[Landrar]

@78923451 you paid more than half of that. I couldn't find a single place with a system at 270sq.ft for less than 19k. What you claimed is almost 4 times that amount. You do the math.

[78923451]

@Landrar Like I said your a bad shopper.

[Landrar]

@78923451 Oh, and to your lame attempt to discredit what I say: Thorium reactors would destroy the oil industry. They would make electric cars much more feasible would lower the cost of power to every family in the US. These aren't lies. They can be checked and verified, if you care to do the work that is. A simple fact is the sun doesn't shine all the time. Yes, its a great alternative when you live in the desert, but what about an area like Seattle? Use some sense.

[78923451]

@Landrar But I'd REALLY like YOU to address the question about handling the waste from YOUR reactor. If your doing it like the other nuclear reactors, they produce 90,000 gallons of "hot water (ie radioactive for 100,000 years) which gets stored in 55 gallon drums which have an expected life span of 35years(youknow before they leak), then store them in Yucca mountain which is concrete which has a life expectancy of 35-75years, then it HAS to be 'clean' up again, THAT IS RIDICULOUS!!!!!

[Landrar]

@78923451 You mean the waste that dissipates in 300 years? These aren't light water reactors so stop trying to compare them to them. BTW Thorium Reactors are 50 year old technology too. The only reason we didn't build them to begin with is because governments wanted the waste from light water uranium reactors to build nuclear bombs. These reactors will burn those old bombs and the waste left over from standard reactors.

And gvie up on the ZOMG YOU WORK FOR OIL. Its making you look lame.

[78923451]

@Landrar Okay so what about the waste? It's still radioactive? THAT'S THE PROBLEM!!!!!

[78923451]

@Landrar Okay enlighten me what are these and how much radioactive Coolant/ water that HAS TO be replaced does this type reactor produce SPECIFCALLY say gallons per kilo/watt. Can you answer that sparky??? You are trying to be specific right????

[Landrar]

@78923451 The waste from a Throrium reactor is roughly 3% of a similar sized light water uranium reactor. Most of their waste stays contained within the reactor and burned up as time goes on.

And stop trying to preach to me about how current nuclear reactors work. I spent 5 years of my life living on board a nuclear powered submarine (USS Michigan SSBN 727) I know how they work.

As for coolant, it uses molten salt and is a closed loop system. Nothing to replace.

[78923451]

@Landrar No, no, no let's talk about the inner "heavy hot" water not the outer lite water. and don't the subs just "DUMP their "hot water as needed. I mean why not you don't care about how much you irradiate the ocean right, because after all who would know. Government does pay well, just as long as you don't care. Right?

[Landrar]

@78923451 What year are you living in? Inner heavy hot water? The US has never used a heavy water design in its Naval ships. Gen II and III reactors use light water. The water that leaves could be slightly radioactive, but not more so than is already found in nature. Unburned fuel is cleaned out before it could become a hazard. The government pays well? Excuse me while I pick my lung up from laughing. 24k/yr is good?

[78923451]

@Landrar So you by pass the inner cooling jacket and just run one "main" coolant jacket? That would make sense to cut production and running costs but you know what they REALLY are doing so enlighten me and the folks here. How Specifically do you cool AND exchange your coolant water? Inquiring minds want to know. Or this that national security. If it is, and it shouldn't be, it's self answering.

[Landrar]

@78923451 The information is not classified, but for some odd reason they do treat it as such. If you want to know the specifics feel free to send a request to the DoD. I have signed non disclosure agreements about the design and I'm not about to break that on youtube for your amusement. Ask them, they'll probably tell you.

Past that, you don't really trust what I say, so look it up yourself. It's easy enough to find. I'm through playing teacher with you, especially since you don't listen.

[78923451]

@Landrar well, I don't need to cross that line, I just would like to see the "right" thing done. If your human, you do know what I am talking about.

[78923451]

@Landrar UNBURNED FUEL!!!!!! WHA!!!! We ARE talking about nuclear waste/ energy. YES????

[Landrar]

@78923451 Look, you think I'm trying to say that thorium reactors are perfect. They aren't They certainly have draw backs, but unless our ability to efficiently store energy takes a massive leap forward, then solar power is going to remain in the wish we could category. When parts of this country go for a week or more of cloudy days, how could you even possibly begin to suggest solar? Great for the desert, not so much for the rest.

[78923451]

@Landrar HUGE DRAWBACKS

[78923451]

@Landrar Have you seen how much desert there is in say California between say Barstow to Vegas. There is enough potential solar energy there to power the entire state and if you use 22-35% TO RUN HYDROGEN GENERATORS WE COULD completely replace piped natural gas with CLEAN HYDROGEN. But what was I thinking We have the technology and the ability but the gasoline companies are paying to stop this.

[Landrar]

@78923451 No, environmentalists are paying to stop it. They have a huge problem with the huge amount of land areas that solar farms take up. Yes I have been to the Mojave Desert. Drove Hwy 58 from Bakersfield to Barstow and 40 from Barstow to Needles. Also done 15 from San Diego to Vegas and beyond.

At least point to a relevant source such as a CSP. But I digress, that's nice for the Southwest...now what about the rest of the country?

[78923451]

@Landrar well if we can send/ spend the money to aquaduct our water for example all the way from the Colorado river and northern lakes like Mono instead of having solar/hydrogen powered desalinization plants along the coast of California, I know that we could power ALL of the US of A using just a fraction of the cailifornia desert alone for solar power. It's really plain to see that is exactly what the "gov/ BIG BUS" doesn't want us to do.

[Landrar]

@78923451 Also, try reading up on

A. How power is moved around the country.

B. The amount of energy loss as per the laws of thermodynamics

C. Why solar plants would fail miserable because of A + B on a nationwide scale.

D. Peak energy times and why our ability to store energy is limiting the use of solar.

ect.

Get through all of that.

[78923451]

@Landrar If every household would run solar/hydrogen generators like me , there wouldn't be an issue "how power is move around the country. Of course this is the nightmare the utilities companies face.

[soulsanctuarymusic1]

@78923451 you are actually a moron!

[78923451]

@soulsanctuarymusic1 Thank you, opinions vary.

[btester1]

Everything the UN said about climate change is flawed.

They don't want it because it goes against the oil companies.

[EdwardWLynn]

Why?

BP gave Obama a ton of money.

Goldman Sachs gave Obama a ton of money.

No one promoting LFTR's gave Obama a ton of money.

[1freedomfighter11]

coldfusion or LENR. Its now a proven fact they are seeing excess energy as well. Google DoD positive analysis of coldfusion or Dr Mosier-Boss of the US navy cold fusion

[StephenRolfer]

Great job - pithy, to the point, direct, no diatribe or demonizing.

[JoFergusons]

I've chosen to treat the Thorium issue as a "Tipping Point" in history on my new Blog, and would appreciate Comments from you if you're fascinated by the Science and Politics of Thorium, or any of the other factors that went into it's early demise...and possible resurgence!

If you know of any other interesting, controversial, or speculative Tipping Points, feel free to submit them to Reddit: /r/TippingPoints/

[marksda]

LFTR power could be consistent rain or shine, distributable at local level, and scalable for the growth and prosperity of humanity.

We might treat the surface of the Earth as a garden, and create larger societies underground, underwater, and in space.

We could leave a small a footprint on Earth as we multiply.

While solar may soon be a viable source of power, LFTR can be done cheaply this decade.

LFTR should allow humanity to walk lightly on Earth. It may improve our chances for survival.

[fireofenergy]

Its 10,000 sq mi of mirrors for solar thermal OR the MSR (lftr). Period. The solar option would NOT destroy the little bit of deserts but would create far more jobs. Solar thermal ALONE can support 10 x population forever (with replacement mirrors). Lftr can support 100 x for cheaper (if it wasn't for asinine people blocking it just they block solar on the vast and cheap scale it should be on by now! Hint, "they" want us to be energy starved !!!

[Darkwizzrobe]

Good video I too believe LFTR and/or IFR have the potential to power our future needs for thousands of years.

[azezel2311]

I like the lftr. It will lift us until fusion is perfected. Then fusion will lift us to the other planets until we build warp drivers that will allow us to go to the stars.

[Fordi]

Mmmm... not really.

LFTR is far more feasible than fusion; while fusion has the promise of high output per unit fuel mass, it also carries the good old electromagnetic ramp problem.

Ever have to shoot a golf ball into a hole at the top of a hill? That's more or less what you're dealing with in fusion, at an atomic scale. Only gravity's really good enough to overcome that, and once we've got mastery of gravity, I'll agree happily with the warp drives.

[azezel2311]

Lftr is a mid term solution to the energy problem. Fusion is the long term solution. Lftr expands and extends the uranium fuel cycle out a few generations. If you want to go with a simple solution then go with facism. However, if you are a person and part of the human family then the only solution is development. Don't say it can't be done. After all for about 100 years people said the same thing about the light bulb.

[Fordi]

"Lftr expands and extends the uranium fuel cycle out a few generations. "

Funny, but that sounds wrong. You know, since LFTR doesn't use uranium as a fuel, nor does it involve the use of U-235 at all.

There's an intermediate step involving uranium-233, but you're essentially burning thorium.

[Fordi]

I'm not saying you're wrong, mind you - fusion, once perfected, is a permanent solution to the energy problem. LFTR, by contrast, will merely extend our energy capacity out to something like a few thousand generations.

There's 6000 times as much usable thorium in the world as there is minable U-235, and a LFTR will burn 100% of it at high efficiency, rather than the paltry 1% that an LWR does. At our current consumption rates, the world's supply of thorium-233 will last about 20,000 years.

[Darkwizzrobe]

@azezel2311 by few generations you mean a few tens of thousands of years?

[lajaunie]

LFTR is not projected to use the Rankine cycle (steam) for energy conversion. It will use a Brayton cycle (gas turbine) due to the aforementioned high operating temperatures. This will result in substantially higher thermodynamic efficiencies over standard reactor designs, another plus for the LFTR concept.

Of all the latest reactor designs proposed, LFTR appears to have the most advantages, especially with regards to life cycle costs due to its power density and fuel reprocessing capability.

[tazru333]

It is still an Atomic Steam Engine.

We still do not know how to use nuclear energy safely, and there are too many energy conversions to be efficient, most of the real energy is wasted.

[XM525754]

@tazru333 You obviously have no idea what you are babbling about.

First ALL thermal plants, including thermal-solar are steam engines - so what?

There are no more energy conversions in nuclear than there are with any other thermal generator.

There is markedly LESS energy waste with nuclear than there is with any other type of generation.

[hallezb]

Too many energy conversions? I don't quite understand.

Nevertheless, this reactor is a totally different way of fissioning nuclear fuel. You see, the reactors used today only use 1% of the 5% enriched U235 because xenon 135 poisons the fuel and gobbles neutrons. This means less neutrons are able to transmutate the radioactinide products and we wind up with a lot more nuclear waste than in a reactor that can bubble away Xenon since the fuel is liquid. 98% of the fuel is converted to energy.

[migkillertwo]

@hallezb

This is an old comment, but I think he meant phase changes when he talked about energy conversions. Boiling water reactors boil steam, which itself boils water in a heat exchanger to turn a turbine. This is extremely inefficient. Boiling water twice wastes energy.

LFTR negates this because, from the core to the turbine, there are no phase transitions. Molten salt goes to a heat exchanger which heats gas, or gas is bubbled through the core and turns a brayton turbine.

[hallezb]

Safety? Again because the reactor operates at such high temperature ~800C in order to melt the salt, if someone drills a hole in the reactor, the salt will come out, cool and plug the hole. If all power is lost, say due to a bomb, a freeze plug made by running a blower over a section of pipe will melt, and the fuel will flow to a sub-critical arrangement of containers beneath the reactor.

If built, this reactor will probably be the safest of any which will allow for mass exploitation.

[Fordi]

Additionally, if someone were to breach the reactor chamber, what would freeze to plug any cracks would be the blanket - which is far less radioactive than the core. The low solubility of LiF and ThF4 in water means it's not even much of an environmental hazard.

[78923451]

@hallezb No reactor is safe, and the life span of only 35 years after which it becomes a permanent storage facility for the waste it has produced. which eventually has to be rebuilt and maintained, costs alone makes nonviable.

[78923451]

@hallezb that didn't work at 3 mile accident, so why the lies?

[hallezb]

On one last note, tazru, I would be very interested in hearing any solutions you think are better than a Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor.

Its easy to criticize and make statements but much more difficult to present real solutions.

[friend2all5]

@hallezb - I would like to congratulate you on your fine LFTR presentation and your Citizen Tube question post for President Obama that garnered 198 up votes. As a result of your efforts there is a real non-zero chance that we may see a Presidential comment on LFTR on Monday Feb 1st.

Overall, Very nicely done hallezb!

There is a wonderful LFTR discussion forum (Energy From Thorium Discussion) and I hope you will join in and contribute to the commercialization of LFTR.

-Bob Steinhaus

[hallezb]

Thanks Bob! I'm glad it got this far too. I honestly didn't expect such a good placement and the video even got posted on Kirk Sorensen's Energy From Thorium forum! Our group, the UC Nuclear Renaissance is going to push for realization of this technology.

With Obama's approval of nuclear, now is the best time to make LFTR happen!

-Bryan

[Darkwizzrobe]

@hallezb The Integral Fast Reactor is really the only competition for the LFTR and I think LFTR is has a better case for it because of not really needed to stop the reactor to reprocess the fuel like the IFR would require. Not to mention thorium doesn't produce suitable nuclear weapon material

[Fordi]

Also, risk of fire. Using sodium in metal form always worries me. Better to use a stable salt than a coolant that runs the risk of detonating if its containment is breached.

[fuckystoat]

@hallezb suck on this one........try using LESS power

[Fordi]

Ah, wrong on multiple counts.

1) The design is that of a pure heat engine, using a Brayton cycle turbine.

2) There are two energy conversions: heat->kinetic and kinetic->electric, with a projected overall efficiency of 60%

3) Nuclear energy is on so much higher an order of magnitude than anything else that we could run it at 10% efficiency and still power your entire life with just enough fuel to fill the volume of a golf ball.

[Fordi]

4) We have been running nuclear energy safely in our intrinsically unsafe LWR reactors for 60 years now, using little best practices and multiple levels of failsafe.

5) We've been running LWRs safely in battlefield situations on carriers and subs.

6) LFTR's design is intrinsically safer: the hotter it gets, the less reactive is the fuel, and if anything at all fails, it naturally drains off into a safe configuration.

[tazru333]

I do happen to know the science involved with LFTR, I also happen to know that many other safer alternatives exist.

ECD Ovonics might be a place for people to look to see some of what else can be done.

Over forty years ago I was touring the Fermi Plant in Michigan and even then could see that we were wasting most of the energy released in the nuclear reactions. Since only waste heat is utilized I have called then Atomic Steam Engines ever since.

Believe whatever you want.

[Fordi]

Solar and storage, and you consider that to be "viable", eh?

Don't mind me if I don't take you seriously: if you think that solar can be an answer to the world's energy problems, you simply can't do math.

[Fordi]

I'll explain.

San Francisco, as an example, gets about 0.18 kW / m^2 in sunlight on average over the course of 1 year.

To get the equivalent output of a GW plant, assuming 100% conversion of sunlight into electricity, in that area, you would need approximately 1,300 acres of solar panels - and about 200 MAh (megampere hours) worth of storage to smooth the output. Additionally, this dramatically inefficient use of space would never be able to load follow.

Solar is not a grid technology.

[kbs1138]

@tazru333 ECD Ovonics => solar films or to use your game, "a very inefficient way to convert the energy from large fusion reactor into electricity" , you can believe what you want, still doesn't make you fantasies reality.

[etiennemarcus]

@tazru333 Wrong. It uses no water. Since temperatures are higher, electricity is generated via hot air turbines, which are much more efficient than steam, cost less, and are simpler to mantain.

[kbs1138]

@tazru333 that's incorrect. it doesn't use pressurized water/steam cycle. and that's exactly the point, it operates at atmospheric pressure so no need for the expensive massive containment structure and no risk of explosion or meltdown. The design is able to use almost twice as efficient gas turbine to create electricity.