Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor

[alexasmithy]

great video thanks

[shoppittsburghnow]

love the video really good

[chrispikeyp]

very interesting video thanks

[stiffyschlong]

Thorium is not totally safe. After the fuel is used 17% of the remaining fisile matter is radioactive and has to be stashed inside a mountain for 300 years. Far from being green.

We need to build more windmills and solar power and reduce electrical consumption, that's the way to go.

[RukifelthCreuz]

@stiffyschlong

wikipedia ---> Nirvana_fallacy

what you're suggesting is simply not feasible.

[roflex2]

Does anyone know at what point in this video he discussing india, I watched it all but can't remember at what point he covers it.

[DanielElyRankin]

Find the Petition for LFTRs on Whitehouse dot Gov!!

whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/pet­ition/provide-funding-liquid-f­luoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-r­esearch-and-development-energy­-independence/JkwTRBlv

[DanielElyRankin]

Find the Petition for LFTRs on Whitehouse dot Gov!!

[keeth1994]

Thank you for this video! i learnd so much and it really helped me to create my own power point show off :p

I hope the teacher grade it high :s

[gordonmcdowell]

I've created a VERY fast paced doc THORIUM REMIX 2011, on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors featuring Kirk Sorensen. It is free on YouTube, and Creative Commons licensed. If you are curious about LFTR please check it out.

[WenliangMa]

Hi, I have recently created a petition to fund Thorium research in the united states, I hope you will sign it if you agree. the website is at the Hi, I have recently created a petition to fund Thorium research in the united states, I hope you will sign it if you agree. the website is at the whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/pet­ition/fund-research-thorium-nu­clear-reactors/pgznKpKP

[DanielElyRankin]

@WenliangMa I cannot get to your petition at the moment, but please compare to mine at whitehouse.gov/petitions#!/pet­ition/provide-funding-liquid-f­luoride-thorium-reactor-lftr-r­esearch-and-development-energy­-independence/JkwTRBlv

and if its duplication (with less signatures) please delete yours and push this one.

If it has got more signatures than this one, I will have mine taken down.

Again, i cannot see yours at the moment to see which has more sigs

[Grannymuncher]

<3 google tech talks, you can always find something to listen to

[flowewritharoma]

thanks for posting quite astonishing video.

[bjggjb]

Sadly, this technology will never be developed. The anti-nuclear cretins now have FUKUSHIMA (in addition to Chernobyl) to freak out the ignorant masses whenever the subject of "nuclear" is broached. And so, we'll turn to COAL when the energy crunch hits.

Face it, we're headed for a new Dark Age... and there will be no Renaissance from it, ever. (Google "Olduvai Theory" and read about it.)

What else to say? (Except if you're planning to have kids, I wish I was there right now to slap your face.)

[OfficeThug]

We all need to face reality, wind, solar, and future thermoelectrics are great technologies but will never be efficient and energy-dense enough to supply the worlds demand for energy. We need a powerful clean, reliable, flexible, and plentiful source of energy that will support our future smart grids where solar and wind can't, with beneficial products and manageable wastes, and Thorium in LFTRs can fit that bill. The Oak Ridge prototype already proved the potential of LFTRs.

[theodorichen]

I continually give presentations on this technology in my PR and environmental studies classes and I always begin with "who has heard of thorium?" I am alway met with blank stares. This is the greatest technology that NO ONE has ever heard of. This has the potential to be the silver bullet in clean, relatively sustainable, energy production. Be an advocate for LFTR!

[jimbalio]

If you are capable of saying the following sentence: "Today I got my New, Clear glasses...they are bi-focals", then you are capable of correctly pronouncing the word "Nuclear". Failure to do so puts you dangerously close to being in the same league as The Idiot Bush. "New queue ler" ain't a word.

[ImMichaelTaylor]

@jimbalio "New queue ler" ain't a word.

I believe they pronounce it new-killer.

[aloisgault]

Google- you have the money, you need the power...........Why not start building your own? The speakers have the knowledge, you have many techs that could cross over. If you could put this in a standard 40' cargo module, or design it so it could fit in a series of them.......... What is the tons/Kw, $/Kw, cost of fuel/Kg, if the profit is right build them in a factory and ship them...........

[theodorichen]

@aloisgault They are considering building a small LFTR as we speak. Hopefuly google paves the way for this tech. It seems that the DOE is more concerned with biz as usual. Same goes for the NRC. It's stupid how slow change happens in this country, despite the rational in support of it.

[artyfarty3]

wow , i'm blown away ! very impressive ! thanks for this most enlightening lecture .

and a special thanks to Google Tech Talk for uploading this for every one :) Thank You :)

P.S. in light of what is happening in Japan right now I think we all should make the effort to make this vid. go viral - so pass it on to all your friends ! :) the world needs GOOD solutions to the global energy problems , and I think we are on to a winner with this one :)

[HornSpiel]

This technology is amazing. How do make this a national priority?

In his talk (2009) he assumes that we will have Yucca Mountain for storing the Nuclear waste. Now that that project has been cancelled, the thorium reactor is even more advantageous.

[HornSpiel]

This technology is amazing. How do make this a national priority?

In his talk 2009 he assumes that we will have Yucca Mountain for storing the Nuclear waste. Now that that project has been cancelled, the thorium reactor is even more advantageous.

[JasonDamisch]

I would think that in light of what has happened in Japan recently, that this would be a serious proposal on the table in that country.

[cavemanboborj]

The sound quality was very poor I had to turn the volume way up. But conceptually, heck yeah.

[starmanskye]

HeY! Isn't LFTR something that should be seriously looked at for helping resolve the Fukushima nuclear-complex crisis? Granted there's substantial contamination & continuing instability -- seems seperating the spent-fuel bundles for secure cool-down storage will be essential, but why not burn the damn stuff which can be done in a thorium Integral Breeder Reactor? USE the potential energy in the spent-fuel while greatly reducing the volume of unstable actinides. Sell it as efficient clean-up.

[flettie22]

I'm inspired to become a LFTR evangelist!

[sailRichard]

"Therefore, 1,250 MW of solar generating capacity with 3.5 hours of full-load storage is able to displace over 1,000 MW of conventional capacity in the 3,000-MW Nevada Power market."

"In August in Nevada the sunshine peaks about 1 pm, but the load peaks about 5 pm, which is exactly what a solar thermal plant with heat storage will do, continuing to produce power until midnight with 3.5 hour storage. "

source NREL

[sailRichard]

NREL

"In fact, a detailed load shape analysis for Nevada Power indicates that as little as 3.5 hours of solar energy storage at a specific capacity could displace almost equivalent amounts of conventional capacity in that market. In the Nevada triangle 24 square miles.. solar enterprise zones. 1,250 MW of solar capacity, which would occupy 7.8 square miles, using 3.5 hours of storage, would be able to meet one-third of Nevada Power’s energy needs reliably."

[sailRichard]

Solar thermal (CSP) with heat storage in the southwest, like Arizona with it's 285 GW potential, Texas at 127 GW, and even places as far north as Oregon, which has 12 GW potential.

With central power tower type CSP plants, capacity factors up to 70%, assuming about 4 hours of heat storage. An area 41.5 x 41.5 miles could replace all power now generated by coal in the U.S. - nearly 500,000 GWh

When they are up and running, no fuel, no mining or refining or fuel processing ever. 0 waste

[sailRichard]

Not doing so will likely mean not reaching the goal of keeping global average temp rise from going over 2 C since pre-industrial times. The consensus is that 2 C warming is probably the threshhold between dangerous global warming and really really dangerous global warming.

On our current path we are probably headed for 4 C in this century. And it doesn't stop at some kind of artificial event horizon in the year 2100.

[sailRichard]

So build the prototype LTFR, and continue building out renewable energy at the same time. In terms of fighting global warming, the more done in the early years, the easier and less costly it will be in a few decades. Front load the effort at mitigation. Don't wait ten years for LFTRs to become commercialized and scaled up. We need all clean energy tools, continue expanding what is already shovel ready and scaling up, solar and wind.

[sailRichard]

I like the video. However I could have done without the biased comments near the end (about 1:14), concerning people getting killed building windmills or solar. This is a strawman argument. People can be killed in any kind of construction, including building nuclear power plants. It is not relevant. Thousands of people have gotten cancer from Chernobyl, and are still getting cancer from it. There were unbelieveable mutations in children born after it.

[heisenfeis]

there is enough thorium in one place in Sweden i think to power the country in 13000 years ;D

[Richbund]

The bottom line is there is still waste from a thorium reactor... That's like saying instead of killing you with a 45 cal bullet, we'll kill you with a 22 cal bullet... you can die from the by products of a thorium reactor.

The answer is simply fusion derived energy, we should be pouring trillions into hot and cold fusion research, particularly cold fusion research...

Nuclear fission, oil, and coal are all fossil fuels that produce dangerous waste, fusion produces no dangerous waste

[halo07guy2]

@Richbund The Thorium reactor produces many times less waste than a conventional reactor, and the waste itself doesn't need to be contained for nearly as long. And that is not taking into account the percentage of that waste that would be used for other purposes.

The problem with fusion is maintaining a reaction. We can start one, but it basically fizzles out as soon as it starts.

[Richbund]

@halo07guy2 Thank you for your information on Thorium. It is definitely a better answer than enriched uranium.

By the way, why do you think the fusion reaction fizzles out?

Thanks, Rich

[halo07guy2]

@Richbund Fusion reactions need a high-pressure environment to exist, as far as we have been able to tell. We've been able to make fusion bombs by using a nuclear weapon to create that pressure, but the problem is creating that kind of pressure without a reactor and maintaining it.

With a star's mass, it isn't hard to maintain that pressure during fusion. But on earth, it's extremely difficult to maintain one during the fusion process as the reaction causes it to expand, decreasing pressure.

[Richbund]

@halo07guy2 ergo the Tokomak... and of course you are referring to "hot fusion"

Since Fleischmann & Pons, I wrote it off as fraud and bad science (coldfusion). Since then reputable physicists have revisited this experiment with interesting results, notably helium and tritium and measurable heat. What do you think of this youtube entry?: "The Answer to all our energy "problems": Cold Fusion" Is this guy full of crap, or is what he suggests a real option? Thanks for your time and info, Rich

[halo07guy2]

@Richbund He's full of crap. Not just on Nuclear Power, but on most everything else. He has his own website devoted entirely to psudoscience and conspiracy theories, including the NWO, JFK, and UFOs, as well as HAARP and antigravity.

[Richbund]

@halo07guy2 Thanks again for taking the time to reply to my questions. I had only viewed the one video on"The answer to all our energy problems" etc... followed links to his site, and sure enough, he talks the talk, but he definitely does not walk the walk. People have to be critical of just about everything they read and watch. I guess Mark Twain was right about that "believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you read" Thanks again and best regards, Rich

[halo07guy2]

@Richbund Your welcome. Honestly, I wish there were more people like you on youtube. If we could actually have discussions without it turning into an all out brawl, it'd be very nice.

[Richbund]

@halo07guy2 It's a pleasure to exchange ideas with someone with the background and education in the subject. More can be learned by discussing instead of brawling... I honestly wish this guy was a genius and his proposal a true one. What a different world we'd live in. Not to say that perhaps future technology will give us the means to attain cold/hot fusion to the benefit of the world. Otherwise, it's Ockham's razor... Cheers,

Rich

[Richbund]

The bottom line is there is still waste from a thorium reactor... That's like saying instead of killing you with a 45 cal bullet, we'll kill you with a 22 cal bullet... you can die from the by product of thorium fission....

The answer is simply fusion derived energy, we should be pouring trillions into hot and cold fusion research, particularly cold fusion research...

Nuclear fission, oil, and coal are all fossil fuels that produce dangerous waste, fusion produces no dangerous waste

[IM12356]

Very impressive presentation for layman like me.

[armstrongariz]

What a shame that this video is presented in such an uninspired format. Kirk Sorensen is a natural inspirational highly motivated speaker. This subject, dear to his heart, is stunning in it's potential for what LFTR reactors could do for the world's search for clean energy. I need someone to tell me why the world (and yes I know that China is leading the way) is not beating a path to his door.

[monkeyfink]

Important advantage of thorium at 27 mins 30 seconds - what happens if you pull the plug on external power - the whole thing just shuts down naturally. Lessons for Japan and the world over. China are definitely onto something going this way.

[exenrontexas]

I wonder why the smart Japanese did not use Thorium instead of the uranium/plutonium? Could be because the US wanted them to produce more weapon material?

[halo07guy2]

@exenrontexas Likely because Uranium reactors are a proven technology, whereas Thorium is only just now entering the commercial scene. Plus, you have to remember that the reactor itself is a US design from the Cold War, so it makes sense that any nuclear waste produced would go towards the development of nuclear weapons. However, with the Cold War over...

[exenrontexas]

@halo07guy2 You are misinformed. Oak Ridge national nuclear lab had a working Thorium reactor in the forties long before the Cold war. Thorium reactors are proven technologies. Since we are winding DOWN the nuclear threat from our enemies, there is plenty and in fact an excess of plutonium and uranium that needs to be disposed of at grreat expense. Thorium reactors are much safer. The Japan reactors were designed and made by GE.

[halo07guy2]

@exenrontexas That's what I meant. And the Cold War lasted form 1945 to 1991. THe Thorium reactor itself is a late 50's early 60's design. I know Thorium as a technollogy isn't new. But it hasn't seens 40+ years of devlopment whereas Uranium has, and it hasn't yet entered the commercal market yet. It needs to catch up.

What I'm thinking is that waste from the Japanese reactors was shipped to the US to produce weapons during the Cold War. Makes sense.

[exenrontexas]

@halo07guy2 I regret that I did not express myself better. I believe that since there is little or not need for uranium and plutonium these days and since it is more expensive, less stable and less abundant than Thorium that the solution to most nuclear energy problems is Thorium and that the reasons against Thorium are corporate and politicial.

[intboom]

People won't build this because the money the government gets from selling depleted uranium bullets makes a massive profit.

[MrMaveri]

Interesting how he mentioned India as being the most likely candidate for thorium reactors - 2011 is the date given for India to fire up it's first thorium reactor!

Shame that in Australia they refuse to look at just about anything except for dirty coal :-(

[jb678901]

@MrMaveri Unfortunately, India's approach (using solid based fuels) loses many of the key benefits Mr. Sorensen explains under a LFTR program.

[lordmetroid]

@MrMaveri It is not Australia's, USA bombs or economically black mails anyone who doesn't want to depend on the US dollar for their energy needs.

[rag5206]

@MrMaveri Yes Oz calls itself The Clever Country but we R dumb we closed Rocket Range at Woomera & sold the equipment to India which now launch Satelilttes 4 other countries & makes big $. We closed our aircraft building down we sell our Farmland to foreigners we sold our national icons brands Vegemite,Stubbies,Speedo,Yakka & the profits go overseas. Now they want to sell our electricity and water resources off to foreigners.

[SkyyCaptainn]

Great presentation. Some form of nuclear power is the only solution if we want to free our civilization from dependance on fossil fuels and still have cheap plentiful and reliable flow of energy.

[dsmedsker]

@bdhcarbon The US has the greatest stores of Thorium on the planet, we are the OPEC of the new energy economy, just too much corruption and egomania in the way of the conversion.

[bmecher]

I worked in Yucca Mountain. It is being tested to contain the waste for at least 4,000 years. (until judicial edict increased that to 10000 years) I understand it is the last remaining candidate of 8 initial sites. It is finite, Yucca Mountain is on a block of rock that has remained intact for 4,000 years, and it is only so large...... The Facility is marked by the nearby test craters........ The facility was cancelled by presidential edict by Obama.......

[captinseperoth]

@bmecher

let the scientist run the country for 2 sessions..

[jesusisalive2]

"...without ammonium fertilizer 5 out of 6 people on the earth would be dead since our modern agriculture is based on it..." . Organic farming is vastly superior to 'industrialized agriculture' primarily due to its soil enriching capabilities. Dumping synthetic fertilizer on soil ruins it. I could go on...suffice it to say, there are FAR more useful things to do with this technology - Mr. Sorensen should not dispense misinformation about a topic for which he is quite obviously unqualified.

[dharmastipulate]

Free energy has been here all along ,But there are very powerfull forces that want to supress the technology,Find a motor that needs no fuel or input at LT-MAGNET-MOTORdotCOM ,Be a part of the energy revolution!

[bdhcarbon]

This guy is a very good speaker.

USA better get on the Thorium wagon before others like India own it all...

[TrailersForthePeople]

Thorium nuclear reactor is an amazing piece of technology. Safer, cheaper. Let's make it work.

[biped19]

Once we overthrow this fascist / banking / illegitimate government, end the wars and kick out most of the illegals, we should immediately build 100 of these reactors nation wide in a massive public works project that would also entail replacing bridges, highways, mass transit, etc. This would, along with ending the FED, would lead to economic recovery.

[Suqatish]

Might as well give it up, it doesn't matter how great thorium is. It's not profitable. It will never become a fuel.

[soylentgreenb]

@Suqatish Cheap energy is very profitable if you're the business of making things.

[Suqatish]

@soylentgreenb

Yeah, like somebody is going to try and take money from big oil. They'd be killed. You know that's the truth.

[soylentgreenb]

@Suqatish No, it's nonsense. It's probably born out of conspiracy theories about physically impossible 100 MPG carburetors and free energy devices with a bit of historical revisionism/omission for good measure(e.g. yes, electric vehicles were once dominant; but they were richman's toys using non-rechargeable lead batteries and electricity was amazingly expensive at the time).

[Suqatish]

@soylentgreenb

What's nonsense is big oil declaring war and killing hundreds of thousands over a dictators stance on petrocurrancy. But I'm sure you suppose that is some off-the-wall conspiracy also, right?

Big oil will secure profits from any threats. Domestic or abroad. Period. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.

[soylentgreenb]

@Suqatish A lot of electricity used to be generated by oil, and now it isn't. Much of heating used to be done with oil and now it's gas and heat pumps(there is less overlap between oil and gas companies than you think)..Iraq is about securing access to oil, it is not about petrodollars and it is not to the benefit of "big oil". Oil is a very inelastic commodity and it is not in the interest of "big oil" to expand supply. Just a decade ago oil was $20/bbl, why did "they" let it happen?

[bigpchamber]

China is now burning twice as much coal as the US (and rising) producing billions of tons of CO2. Their cost of generating electricity is 3 cents a kwh. The only thing that can stop them is a cheaper way to produce electricity. It seem like LFTR might have a chance.

It would also be impossible to have a cartel controlling thorium (since it is everywhere). A great step toward world peace.

[zzyckx]

Great presentation!

[urfriendme]

does anyone know where i can find the pp slides used in this video. need them for a research project. appreciate help. thanks!

[maticoff]

THANK YOU GOOGLE!!!!!!!!

[tim22ism]

Heaven help us allThe neocfons are muddying the waters

[xxytf94g]

Folks here's an opportunity to publicize LFTR:

Please search for citizentube then search for thorium and vote thumbs up on the first video that appears. Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor technology will bring cheap clean energy to the world. The technology is real but needs to be brought to President Obama's attention.

Thanks!

[heavyweather]

@xxytf94g

Cheap in terms off "to cheap to meter"?

LOL

Another nuclear pipedream.

It is going to work but it aint cheap...

[sbergman27]

@heavyweather : There is no fundamental reason why energy from reactions involving atomic nuclei need be expensive. There are political, social, and practical reasons that the current commercial approach is expensive. And it will cost money to bring any better approach to a state of being commercially competitive. But electricity doesn't *have* to cost much, overall, to produce. Fuel is still the #1 cost for fossil fuel plants. In 2010, the bar is still set quite low.

[heavyweather]

@sbergman27

Politics and social issues are equally fundamental issues....

I know that some people ignore that.

We don`t need fuel. We got wind and sun.

Have a look at the kitegen and Crystalsol.

[deimos47ca]

Suggest it to Mythbusters... not as bad/crazy as it sounds.

Why not? They already work with explosives and various other exotic and dangerous technologies. Ofcourse it wont be a fullscale production unit, but ....

lets just build it and see what happens...

[wildchildplasma]

If everything worked without end of the world as we know it problems then burocrates and their gigalomanic military friends would be out of a job and we'd all be off to space.

This product will never work because it's to scalable,useful and doesn't cost trillions plus amazing degrees of scientific research to achieve.

The most time consuming and costly solutions supplemented with millions of useless concepts and inventions will be the reality.

[josephboyle]

Could you explain the "5 times more energy' statement at 13:16? This makes no sense in any interpretation I have tried so far.

[madlarkin]

@josephboyle Basically what he is saying is, as an isotope in a reactor, Thorium has less absorption. You get a lot more energy, for less fuel due to the fact that the fission it's self is much easier. Plutonium and Uranium have a sizable absorption range, which means wasted fuel and effort.

[josephboyle]

Pu-239 under some conditions might be as poor as 60-something% fissions per absorption, but there's no way that number translates into five times the energy.

[madlarkin]

Well. The program was put aside to serve private ends within the government. Thorium promises to fulfill the energy needs of billions for an indefinite period of time, and has a wonderfully low half life. What are you going to do with thorium otherwise? Fertilize your yard with it?

[deimos47ca]

Thanks for presentations Mr Sorenson,

Piping (under radiation in both 1 and 2 fluid) to heat exchangers also using Hastelloy-N? Brittleness from damage + high temperature?

What to use for piping insulator? What for radiation shielding? Would pumps/seals have same problem with LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4 as in liquid sodium reactors? Can use convection - flow rate?

Corrosive HF problem:

salt Helium blanket sufficient?

Has Hastelloy-N + Titanium been extensively verified for corrosion performance?

[deimos47ca]

I am incredibly pissed off nobody has at least built research/prototype reactors. Who cares if you waste $100 mil, or even $900 mil.

Although already demonstrated, if there are insurmountable problems, the materials and chemistry research alone would pay for itself.

Too few people have heard of it. And it sound WAY TOO GOOD to be true.

Its 2009, and we're still building more "old idea" sodium liquid metal, critical water, and high temp gas research reactors for megre benefits.

Build LFTR!

[slowcooker100]

Scientists at Oak Ridge built an LFTR and ran it in complete safety for at least five years. By me that is proof of principle. See feature in Wired magazine.

[mtech]

@deimos47ca

Lets suggest it to Mythbusters maybe they can build it =)

[brookwoodt]

A group in France has built a reactor to research burning tru waste. The Russians are doing things but I think only with a solid fueled concept.

The Chinese have shown some interest. They are conserving thorium left over from mining.

The Indians will get to using their plentiful thorium eventually but the political decisions they've made have slowed them down.

It will happen eventually but sadly the nuclear status quo in the U.S., Japan, Europe, etc. will stand in the way as long as it can.

[shanguelei]

Seems I usually get things right, but I cannot understand what i did last night.

[slowcooker100]

According to other sources, Oak Ridge built a LFTR and operated it with complete safety for five years (or perhaps seven -- it's been a while since I read the source material. But see story in Wired Magazine this month.

[brookwoodt]

There's a lot of back and forth about renewables vs. thorium. Renewables are less energy dense and take lots of land resources. Renewables could still win if some breakthrough electrical storage products come to market. The downside to thorium is that there appears to be no motivation to devote needed resources to make it happen. India is doing it but very slowly and awkwardly in my view. Otherwise thorium and the LFTR approach is a total winner.

[PrometheanRunGood]

@brookwoodt Well really India isn't the horse to bet on, China is more likely the one that will get there. They have funds and they have will.

[chupachoad]

Got the volume turned up to eleventy and still can't hear him. Is there another version with better audio out there?

[Danish2oo9]

wtf 1:22:08 how the fuk is that possible to upload

[jasbcor]

Google has special privileges on youtube, that's how.

[trakout]

newsflash, google owns youtube.

[Skipberkes]

God damnit. I am never going to catch up on all these tech talks. If I do 3 a day for 2 years starting now at the rate its increasing... No? ;_;

[boerenkool]

Thanks for the presentation. It would be nice if the audio & visual quality were a bit better, but it's good to see these ideas promoted articulately.

[idarusskie]

"politicaldeadduck"

Where does most of the world's uranium exposure come from? One major source that is overlooked is burning coal. Coal has tons of uranium in it that is released every year by burning coal. When you buy solar panels that are make in china, the silicone that is made there is made using coal fired electricity. So, using your logic, solar power releases more uranium into the atmosphere then the nuclear industry and will increase cancer deaths.

[PoliticalDeadDuck]

there is no such thing as safe nuclear energy ,i applaud the concept ,but science clearly states that the use of nuclear energy raises cancer world wide ,i hope and pay i am wrong but because i have followed this debate for 25 years i have never seen anything good from nuclear uses ,sorry

[loizzzz]

Thorium reactors provide clean energy safely AND solve the nuclear waste problem - I like that!

[Bballashotfalla]

Turn off your mic!!!!!!!!!!!

[win7guy1]

OMFG

1 hour long

[techfixer16888]

Could we harvest light antimatter for energy ?

[stratochief]

No; antimatter is only produced on earth through particle accelerators, which consume gobs more energy than the antimatter contains.

[friend2all5]

On an all too human level I wish that there had been at least one good close-up of the presenter sometime during the talk (he was wearing a very nice suit and is young enough to still look presentable in a close-up).

Long camera angles and gentle diffuse lightning may improve (slightly) the appearance of presenters belonging to the pioneering nuclear generation.

[mtamsky]

Search youtube for other thorium tech talks:

• Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Prob (yes, don't search for 'Problem', you won't find it)

• The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted to be

[starguy9]

Glad I understand fission now. Too bad I won't go to college and benefit humanity. Anyway excellent informative speech.

[IainMcClatchie]

Fordi,

The sulfur-iodine cycle wants heat at 850 C or hotter. The Aircraft Reactor Experiment ran at 877 C, which is the hottest anyone's ever run a reactor.

Waste heat from the turbines will come out at... whatever you choose. Take it out at 50 C and you can air-cool the reactor. Take it out at 70 C and you can drive multiple-effect desalination, at 4% less electrical power output. But you can't drive sulfur-iodine with waste heat.

[telewebservices]

dependent on thorium or independence by sources like the sun?

i prefer independence

nice lecture for history you got there

[friend2all5]

LFTR reactors and the Sun are both nuclear reactors but do differ in scale.

Why make the choice an either or choice?

Why not develop solar energy and LFTR nuclear technology in parallel and reduce technical risk to the nation?

[jasbcor]

There's no hope in solar, it's a waste of money. Do the research, or better yet, do your own math and discover the pitiful amounts of energy gathered at enormous sums of money. There's no risk mitigation in that duel path, there's only more risk exposure.

[soylentgreenb]

No, you prefer collectivism and dependence.

Weather and seasonal variations are correlated over areas much larger than a continent. Wind and solar are not distributed sources of energy, they're incredibly centralized as the entire installed wind and solar of a country reacts in unison to the weather as if it were one huge power plant.

There's nothing on the horizon that could allow you to build the required transmission and storage; most of your energy will come from scarce natural gas.

[telewebservices]

Absolutely not

Concentrated light can yield around 2 MW per acre a day,Algae can yield up to 200 Ton per acre of fuel,

Under these circumstances there is no need for nuclear energy,but for a global solution, Further more i would say that our society can be much more energy efficient and to be needing much less energy,

This is where i would invest, If a big volcano blows/whatever we won't have sun for few weeks-a year, there's where the oil and gas /coal comes in as backup, Nuclear isn't needed.

[soylentgreenb]

I presume you mean 2 MWh/(day*acre), since MW/(day*acre) is a nonsensical unit.

At great expense, sure. But those 2 MWh aren't when and where people need them.

Even the 24 hours of storage needed for baseload solar in perfect weather is exceedingly costly.

I don't live in the Sahara desert and neither does 99% of the rest of the world. I live in Sweden.

We actually have weather here(Most days are overcast). We also have seasons(solar is almost totally useless for 6 months of the year)

[soylentgreenb]

In order for Sweden, or indeed most countries, to make good use of solar you need a giant "spider-webs" of HVDC crossing the entire continent to deal with weather. You need to massively overbuild solar capacity and provide months of storage to deal with seasonal variation.

This continent-wide Rube Goldberg machine will never be built, nor can it be built. Coal and gas won't be back-up, they will be the mainstay with fickle flows of wind and solar providing a little help whenever they can.

[soylentgreenb]

By definition you cannot come close to the cost of coal and gas since you propose using coal and gas generators as back-up which means you pay for those in addition to solar.

Absent a miracle you cannot even come within the correct order of magnitude.

Within the next 50 or so years the power-consumption of the world will grow by approximately a factor of 10. Will it be coal or nuclear?

[telewebservices]

Sorry, I did mean around 2 MW per day, In kw/h units this means 83KW/h per acre, A grid from south Asia through the middle east into Africa can easily cover the electricity of the whole area at least 12 hours a day,

The rest can come at night through wind and geothermal, Algae fuel can also be supplied as home electricity and home heating, So we are covered from all directions, There are new technologies to pass energy through distance without losing much power.

Hydraulic vehicles goes 80mpg

[telewebservices]

Just few more words, 83kw/h isn't a right figure as solar is only avail maximum 8-12 hours a day meaning peak can be 200kw/h and low at 10-50 kw/h

and i think nuclear power plants can be useful for back up, as - not producing any waste unless there is an emergency.

[soylentgreenb]

"Sorry, I did mean around 2 MW per day, In kw/h units..."

Those are nonsense units.

A joule is unit for energy. A watt is a joule per second, a unit of power. A watt per second is a joule per second square, it's some kind of acceleration of power consumption.

1 kWh = kJ/s * h = 3600 kJ/s * s = 3.6 MJ. Energy.

"A grid from south Asia through the middle east into Africa can easily cover the electricity of the whole area at least ..."

As I said. Dependence and collectivism.

[soylentgreenb]

HVDC is nothing new; been around for decades. Even at the short distance electricity is transmited now you're paying more for transmission than you are for generation.

They haul coal by railroad at great expense because it's cheaper than building electricity lines to the mine mouth.

Solar has a capacity factor of 20%; but you're paying for those lines 100% of the time, even when you're not using them.

[telewebservices]

To be honest if thorium doesn't posses a threat i would say alright, but it does, i don't see how algae oil can posses such a threat, if they won't play with GM,

As for what i know, a yard of 30 sqr meter would actually be enough for me to produce all my energy and fuel for a year, so again why nuclear, why not just freedom?

[idarusskie]

show where anyone has grown 200 tons of algae per arce. Show where anyone has recovered 200ton of oil from algae.

Why would you take a billion dollar nuke plant that is up 90% and use it as backup for a system that is ready at best 20% and also costs a billion dollars if not more.

I believe you missed the point where he said this type of reactor burns the nuke waste from other reactors until you only have about 300 years dangerous levels of reactivity. what better use of spent fuel?

[telewebservices]

I'll tell you what, this technology is just great if we have to move to another planet or things get real tough in our solar system, for now its futile period , "Read my lips"

[telewebservices]

Ok so by your point this technology can make the nuclear waste degenerate at a faster rate reducing the risk down to 300 years out of dozens of years of nuclear waste accumulated, its not going to really make much a difference, so yes i approve use it to clear the waste responsibly or for backup/emergency/ whatever but its not the real pure without risk solution i and others are looking for.

[idarusskie]

300 year 1/2 life is nothing compared with the 1/2 life of spent fuel from light water reactors. so, yes it makes a big difference.

Can you say a person can build a container to last 100,000 years? ............Maybe.

Can you say a person can build a container to last 300 years.? .................Of course, you can.

[jasbcor]

To be fair to the light water water reactor design, the waste products it produces are very small as well if you consider the mixed elements separately. Most of it is just U238. After 100 years more than 75% of the radioactivity is gone from those rods.  Yes, its a bit of problem, but its not that bad and yes, the containers can easily be made to last 1000's of years.

[idarusskie]

I am afraid you do not have any energy source, even solar, that does not pollute this world. Making solar cells is very dirty. Further they do not last 80 years and is there 90% of the time like a nuke plant.

Why would you spend billions of dollars on a light water reactor to back up an energy source that is only there 20% of the time? The thing is the rate payer will pay for both. This type of reactor promises to be cheaper then coal.

[telewebservices]

Solar cells are indeed not the proper solar solution, Concentrating light beams is much more efficient and cost effective, Again i was mentioning bio fuel from algae as major source of energy, which is true and possible and good for energy storing also.

[telewebservices]

No, Once again, I prefer to see 200 tons of ethanol per acre a year in the deserts and 2 MW of electricity per acre a day from concentrating sun light, which is possible with reducing humanity power consumption to at least 33% it is today - something we can achieve within 5-10 years from now.

[jasbcor]

If that were possible, I would still argue why do you want to continue to produce energy that requires combustion and thus more pollution for everyone to breathe?

[telewebservices]

nah, bio fuels can recycle co2, also ethanol process produces the terrible pollution water in its burning process, the rest would be co2 that is recycled in the growing farms.

[Fordi]

Just finished watching. That was an excellent talk. Kind of preaching to the choir with me, but very convincing nonetheless.

A side note on your last Q&A: From Dr. Hargraves' talk, waste heat, not electricity, would be used to split water via the sulfur - iodine cycle, and it need not affect the reactor's electrical efficiency at all.

[Fordi]

What is with all the noise?!