@RarelyEvil There aren't really any cons besides the fact that transfer to thorium-based reactors is costly. There is of course still radioactive waste, but it's much better - 83% becomes non-radioactive in 10 years and the other 17% in 300 years. Really though, compared to uranium thorium is all positives. Check out debatepedia for a quick run-down of the pros and cons.
I agree your proposal to drive electric vehicles, grow vertical gardens, and such. However, solar, wind, and geothermal only generate power in places where there is sun, wind, and geothermal vents. Now I think everyone should have some solar panels on their roof so supplement their energy needs and take some strain off the grid. But that's all these technologies are, supplements. I'm live in the NW, and it's cloudy most of the year, it's also not very windy either...
I'm actually interested in what your views are towards LFTR. Obviously there is going to be a fly in the ointment (as there is with everything) but since you're a physicist I'd like to hear some of your thoughts. I'm a chemist and have never worked in the field of nuclear energy, just researched it. I'm curious though, you say you almost got hired to run a LFTR? To my knowledge none have been constructed in the U.S.
@howlinman801 you watch but don't see, you hear but don't listen?... did you see this documentary? check from 13:45 to 14:15 aprox : A reactor was already built and worked for more than 6000 hours AT FULL POWER... then Nixon and lobyists friends decided that it will kill big oil and big carbon thermoelectric and step into some guys BIG PROFITS so they kill the project...
Why do I have the feeling that that asshat with the goggles at 16:36 probably has a cell phone in his pocket and an Apple laptop and iPad in his backpack?
That said, I'm a fan of nuclear power. LWR, breeder reactors, thorium, plutonium, uranium. Whatever. They all work well. And, yes, Indian Point is FAR past its prime. Close it and open a new one that will last another 50 years without hurting of killing anyone.
The more you know about thorium the more you think about what sort of monsters run our world. The monsters have blocked humanities progress at every turn. They have sold us out to fatten their bank accounts. Can anything be more disgusting?
With all due respect, (and as a matter of disclosure, I consider myself an evangelist in favor of Thorium Fuel-Cycle power), the editorial view-point of this production is sometimes muddled and ambiguous, and the message doesn't engage the emotions of the uninformed - and most often MIS-informed - public. If Thorium is to become the energy source that powers the world the public will have to be enlisted in way that's much more visceral, and a much less wonky. My humble $.03 IT CAN BE DONE!!!
I don't full understand the logic behind anti - nuclear reactor arguments. This is without question the best alternative available to solving the energy crises in the world while simultaneously addressing the carbon emissions problems we currently have with energy production from fossil fuels. Every Antinuke doesn't seem to have a thorough understanding of how these reactors operate, they simply abruptly dismiss these new technologies because of their current beliefs and understandings.
@howlinman801 The thing is, most of us have heard it all before. Like the opening lines of the doco we were promised never ending electricity back in the 60s. The Queen of England promised electricity "too cheap to meter", while back in reality a new term has been coined "fuel poverty". I don't believe there's a fuel crisis either, or that carbon emissions are causing problems. It's all spin by people with vested interests.
How could someone test an object to see if it had thorium in it? Is it the only thing that can change colors? What are these things called like thorium, animal, vegetable, or mineral?
Oh yeah, because Thorium doesn't make any waste at all, and you don't need uranium to start the reaction, and no-one will ever make a mistake again and we'll never have a power problem and this utopian vision will make everything better...oh wait, it never works like that does it.
I love how these people reacted not to fukushima's tragedy but to it's bad PR. It disgusts me.
@motherboard and also would this have been helpful in creating the nuclear plane? back before the first nuclear subs when the US and USSR were in the race for a nuclear bomber would it have made it possible? would it have required less shielding?if they used a thorium reactor could they have built the nuclear bomber?and wont this be obsolete if ITER or some other tocamac or other fusion reactor becomes a reality ?seem we should skip it and focus on fusion
@motherboardtv ok but what about mining , refinement and enrichment of thorium compared to uranium? is it more energy intense?more expensive or difficult? also why are there so few breeder reactors? and could a thorium breeder reactor work? of is the waste not useful for that? and what is the benefit, if any of a thorium fuelcell?has nasa used thorium before in fuelcells? you say it has benefits for space, so why is it better for a fuelcell?
Key phrase of this entire video is at point 22:13. Wake up, people. We must demand an end to the military industrial complex that is sucking us dry! Peace.
Why do alot of anti-nuclear environmentalists seem so fucking retarded? I hope the British Government pours tons of money into Thorium reactors, a source of energy like Thorium would certainly help alleviate energy costs for many here in the UK.
Isn't it strange that it was but for a mico-second that the fact that Thorium produces Nuclear waste was mentioned. In fact - this is about the fifth video , / lecture I've seen on Thorium and I was still confused as to what sort of waste is produced if any at all that. We are talking about radioactive waste that the only solution that can be do with it is to bury it? Not exactly Ideal, or sustainable . .
Sounds too good to be true. Nothing in this world is too god to be true. For one, there is the law of nature, saying that "you can't take your cake and eat it". No matter what, technology isn't compatible with nature, and with technological way of living, the Earth will be destroyed no matter what.
The most sane course is to stop technological growth and ge back to the old way of living, be one with nature. I hope one day a big solar flare will render every technology on the Earth useless...
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
This is just vaporware. Like Hydrogen fuel from water or cold fusion. "It will power the world! Thorium will save us!" Pure fantasy and BS. Thi is just like the Popular Science buullshit of the pipe smoking 50s, complete with smiling families and ridiculous modes of transportation.
Nuclear never will be green and sustainable. NOt in 5 10 or 100 years not ever! Science always say "You can just never take your cake and eat it"
@IntarwebUser If you are interested in the more technical aspect, you should watch Kirk Sorenson's ~hour long presentation on the subject... just search on youtube for "Kirk Sorensen @ MRU on LFTR - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors " or watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA or any of his longer presentations. All the "remixes" are edited down to strip away technical content
Count me in your struggle,i may be a simpla farmer in Egypt,but i get your point,if we could use such energy to desalinate sea water,we could turn the sahara in a food desert....
This is a shitty documentary. It's just 28 minutes of people talking about how great thorium is, there's no compelling narrative, or informative content here.
@radports I do not think of this as a scientific review documentary but more like a poster story that deserves to be told. I do not think Thorium is the sole solution to energy problems, there is still more than enough oil around to fuel cars for another 100 years but it does help to look beyond this
Ok, I live in Japan, I've been there for almost 5 years, and I really feel sorry for how this kind of imbeciles keep degrading the american stereotype.
1. The 20 000 people you heard of in the news died from the 10~15m f*king high TSUNAMI near Onagawa.
2. The meltdown was contained inside the central until they started throwing water from helicopters because the cooling system had been damaged. The water DID carry some radioactive material, but there was no NUCLEAR EXPLOSION!
3. The explosion was a chemical reaction between H2 (hydrogen) emanation from the roof with 02 (oxygen) in the air. THERE WAS NO TCHERNOBIL-LIKE BURN DOWN!
4. The amount of radioactive material released into the environment is only equivalent of 40 to 50%, so it IS serious, but it isn't nearly AS BAD as tchernobyl.
5. Over all, you will get more risks of cancer in like 10~20 years
I am 19 years old and, I am already worried about Earth's survival and how corrupt government is. Thorium will probably never be used because it would cost nothing for everyone to use, Governments would lose too much money. I pity how greedy they all are and wish we would all raise our voices so we could change that.
@DanielMatotek You're worried about Earth's survival? The Earth is a living organism that has multiple defense mechanism like Tsunami, Earthquake, Tornado, etc... The Earth will be find, but it might destroy us all to survive. WE must worry about the human race, not the Earth!
And then I'm like... "This video is garbage, I think Thorium is great stuff but tell me more about how Thorium works!" And then all those weed smoking dudes are like "Noooo man, we can save the world man! Every new technology has spawned exponentially new problems man! Just let me show you my Fukushima's mothers scream!"
@5THunderlord Because Fusion, unless a major breakthrough happens right now in the comming months, is still atleast 20 years away while LFTRs are only a couple of years away if we really focused on it, the important difference here is that this technology already exists and is cost-effective right off the bat (with quite a big window of improvement as well) whereas Fusion is still in development, and we need that power right NOW not in 20 years!
- in just one hour, the Sun produces more energy across the surface of the planet than is generated during the entire year from all existing methods!
- with the equivalent of no more land area than size of Texas on each of five continents, interconnected in largely the same way as we have for the Internet (or soon nanotech power cables), we would need no other energy source for Earth's power.
We would still need nuclear for space and backup, etc.
@utubesqueeze The loss in transmission cables are too great, and nano-something doesn't help: The laws of physics make limits to how small a diameter you can have.
RE (renewable energy) is simply too expensive.
Only energy from Thorium can deliver inexpensive energy in large quantities by using LFTRs, wich is a completely different type of nuclear reactor than todays light water reactor (LWR).
@utubesqueeze texas is huge, its the biggest state in america, 1x1 km solar power plants are huge, imagina texas, its just too much room, however roof mounting seems alot more practicle
@KiwiTomCrawford perhaps I wasn't clear, sorry, I meant the land equivalent of Texas. Of course, doing it via everyone's roof could produce similar results if the power was connected back into the grid.
Current Solar Technology grows less efficient with subsequent use and service. Also, the scale of the infrastructure you're talking about is astronomical. How in the world do you expect current governments to invest in solar arrays the size of texas? Additionally the nano tech power cables you're talking about are so expensive that they almost must be used with a consistent stream of energy. The sheer cost of this sort of infrastructure makes it unbelievably impractical.
@bth0mpson solar energy, even at a plant level, is already almost as cheap as conventional nuclear and will easily become cheaper (15-30 cents per kwh vs 11-15 cents per kwh). There are many competing technologies and materials. It is fast to innovate and disrupt because it can be purely market led, unlike nuclear. Total operational costs are miniscule compared even to cost of decommissioning conventional nuclear and unlike nuclear can benefit continually from new innovation on existing plants.
@bth0mpson you did not read my comment immediately below yours about land equivalence. The upfront costs of nuclear reactors and new development are enormous and far outweigh all other energy technologies. Why would you expect governments to invest in something MORE expensive that is far less proven? Household solar panels are less than $20k. The most expensive cutting edge solar power plants being developed are all less than half the cost of a *conventional* nuclear plant.
@bth0mpson finally, a significant portion of cabling already exists in the existing national grids and intercountry connections; additional cabling does not have to be done all upfront; where it does not exist, it would likely already be needed in future regardless of the power generation used. Intercontinental can re-use the closest point of interconnection, i.e. it is not about stringing submarine cables 2,000k+ across oceans. Solar is not exclusive to nuclear. But it will dominate in the end.
@utubesqueeze This still does not adress the problem of consistency -- solar and wind (even placed optimally) do not always run. Therefore these huge grids you're talking about really aren't practical. Either transmission line efficiency would have to be dramatically increased, or battery technology would have to take a leap into the future. Additionally, as you said below, *conventional* plants are clearly not what I am advocating for.
Thorium molten salt reactors are the future of *nuclear* power generation. Also, we will likely always need some form of nuclear power.
However, it is extremely difficult to disrupt the quasi-government market of nuclear energy. This is clearly demonstrated in not having any new production idea or technology for it in the last 50 years!
Solar energy generation and smart electric grids, in the meantime, are rapidly improving every day and prime for serious disruption. This is our main future.
In a liquid fluoride thorium reactor beryllium serves as solvent for the fissile and fertile material fluoride salts, as well as moderator and coolant. In the US, Brush Wellman Inc. is the main producer of beryllium. Most beryllium is used for military applications. It killed some early workers in nuclear weapons design, such as Herbert L. Anderson.
Not a documentary, but a wishywashy liberal pamphlet. I was hoping for specific, credible evidence on how Thorium reactors are better than the typical Light Water Reactors (I am an engineer). Tell me how the half-naked protester wailing for the victims of recent nuclear disasters is germane?! C'mon people... I'd support you if you didn't TRY to sound like modern hippies. Give hard reasons why this is better and lobby for it, or you'll be just as pathetic as an Occupy Wall Streeter.
Its really not that hard to type liquid fluoride thorium reactor into google. Without at least a basic knowledge of nuclear physics it would be hard to provide this proof. A more technical video on the subject would be David LeBlanc's Googletechtalk lecture.
@millinghill Why don't you try looking it up for yourself like everyone else. All the original MRSE papers from Oak Ridge are freely available on Kirk Sorensen's website. This is science, if you're skeptical all it takes is for you to take the time to see for yourself. No one here can do that for you.
Why exactly is Thorium better than uranium and plutonium? Radiation can still be released in case of accidents. Although the amount of nuclear waste is far smaller, there still is nuclear waste.
@MrFillCollins According to the mini-documentary, it sounds like thorium produces far less reactive waste and that plutonium is a far less a byproduct of thorium's reactions, thereby lessening the worry that a nuclear powered North Korea or Iran is a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran. As well, nuclear is already safer than all currently deployed grid power, except for solar, per KWh. A far safer nuclear solution would slice the danger of a relatively safe technology even further.
@MrFillCollins i'd would argue what accident? because from what i understood, in traditional plant, accident bound to happened, the ppl working in light water plant constantly have to make sure the the the uranium fuel doesnt overheat, if fail (like fukushima), the temperature will be too high and and become incontrolable, meltdown happen and then all the water vaporize to make radioactive cloud that could travel 1000 of miles. The problem is from the concept itself, not technicality.
@MrFillCollins the LIFTA concept have none of those problem.. instead of constantly suppressed the temperature of the plant, the LIFTA system must be constantly fed the fuel to keep going, if that doesn't happen, it just slow down the process, if then somehow the reactor get overheat, there passive system that will drain the liquid, and if that is also fail to happen, the liquid will just become solid, no meltdown, no explosion, no fallout, no radioactive cloud.
@boseiyong Lack of radioactive cloud is due to very frequent fuel reprocessing. There is no Xenon build-up, xenon bing a main source of fallout (it's a gas that decays into solid radioisotopes, some of which are nasty). Solid fuel in contrast is too expensive to reprocess, so it's typically left in a reactor until it's "spent", after which it's stored in cooling pools.
The Thorium Dream 21 Century!
AdrielAviles 3 days ago
Very Cool!,
Will there be mass producable design of this reactor anytime soon?
Could a private company buy / lease one for it's electric power needs?
ufoengines 3 days ago
I know this is a pro-thorium documentary, but I still want to hear the downsides.
RarelyEvil 4 days ago
Comment removed
22ness0hayden 4 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
@RarelyEvil There aren't really any cons besides the fact that transfer to thorium-based reactors is costly. There is of course still radioactive waste, but it's much better - 83% becomes non-radioactive in 10 years and the other 17% in 300 years. Really though, compared to uranium thorium is all positives. Check out debatepedia for a quick run-down of the pros and cons.
teh1337meister 3 days ago
@rstevewarmorycom
I agree your proposal to drive electric vehicles, grow vertical gardens, and such. However, solar, wind, and geothermal only generate power in places where there is sun, wind, and geothermal vents. Now I think everyone should have some solar panels on their roof so supplement their energy needs and take some strain off the grid. But that's all these technologies are, supplements. I'm live in the NW, and it's cloudy most of the year, it's also not very windy either...
howlinman801 1 week ago
@rstevewarmorycom
I'm actually interested in what your views are towards LFTR. Obviously there is going to be a fly in the ointment (as there is with everything) but since you're a physicist I'd like to hear some of your thoughts. I'm a chemist and have never worked in the field of nuclear energy, just researched it. I'm curious though, you say you almost got hired to run a LFTR? To my knowledge none have been constructed in the U.S.
howlinman801 1 week ago
@howlinman801 you watch but don't see, you hear but don't listen?... did you see this documentary? check from 13:45 to 14:15 aprox : A reactor was already built and worked for more than 6000 hours AT FULL POWER... then Nixon and lobyists friends decided that it will kill big oil and big carbon thermoelectric and step into some guys BIG PROFITS so they kill the project...
RDELAPLAZA 6 days ago
Why do I have the feeling that that asshat with the goggles at 16:36 probably has a cell phone in his pocket and an Apple laptop and iPad in his backpack?
That said, I'm a fan of nuclear power. LWR, breeder reactors, thorium, plutonium, uranium. Whatever. They all work well. And, yes, Indian Point is FAR past its prime. Close it and open a new one that will last another 50 years without hurting of killing anyone.
matchesburn 1 week ago
Thorium is the new fire.
If we make this happen, the coal industry is as good as dead.
OperationCrossroad 1 week ago
There is a solar warrior, anti-thorium troll trying to be the loudest in the comments
BlindPlague 1 week ago
watch?feature=player_embedded&v=P9M__yYbsZ4#! <-----More information on LFT Reactors
Just1Spark 1 week ago
wow, lots of comments from nuclear scientists it seems... Best to do more research, not just this one video...
Thomwiththeweather 1 week ago
Doesn't thorium just absorb neutrons in a process that will eventually create
uranium 233, leading you back to the same problem you originally started with?
NiamOfAsuras 2 weeks ago
The more you know about thorium the more you think about what sort of monsters run our world. The monsters have blocked humanities progress at every turn. They have sold us out to fatten their bank accounts. Can anything be more disgusting?
RamsesReturns 2 weeks ago
@RamsesReturns And so do you want these same people
to get fatter giving you thorium power? Make no mistake,
that IS what you'll get going that way!!
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
The propaganda about thorium can be traced directly to an
effort by GE reactor division to delay its demise for just a
little longer and to hell with the rest of us. Ask what they're
not telling you about thorium, look up the old data and see!
rstevewarmorycom 2 weeks ago
Believing that people would use thorium or any quick fix
as a stepping stone to renewables is forgetting the first
oil crisis and how little people learned then, and how it
allowed them to put off changing their ways one more time.
rstevewarmorycom 2 weeks ago
Anybody who believes this propaganda that is being hyped
about thorium had better look carefully at the things these
people are NOT telling you. Ask them the exact nature of the
waste from thorium, how easy it is to make bombs from it,
and why the reactors required would cost us vast amounts
of our remaining petro-energy and how we would be back
where we started in 50 years when we run out of thorium.
rstevewarmorycom 2 weeks ago
@rstevewarmorycom
Thorium 232 is only 600 times more common in the earth crust than Uranium 235...
There are a lot of nuclear bombs with Uranium 233. Sure?
And why should a LFTR require petro-energy? 1 kg Th232 is equal to 3000 Tons of Coal.
motim92 1 week ago
@motim92 Sure, but at the expected rate required it
would only last 50 years, and then we'd be stuck once
again. So do you think the folks who ignored the 1970's
gas crisis when oil got cheap again wouldn't go back to
sleep using thorium? And a reactor complex requires
buttloads of concrete and earth-moving to build it, nearly
a half billion barrels per unit to produce, energy that would
be better spent on a PERMANENT solution, and which we'll
never HAVE again for anything else.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
With all due respect, (and as a matter of disclosure, I consider myself an evangelist in favor of Thorium Fuel-Cycle power), the editorial view-point of this production is sometimes muddled and ambiguous, and the message doesn't engage the emotions of the uninformed - and most often MIS-informed - public. If Thorium is to become the energy source that powers the world the public will have to be enlisted in way that's much more visceral, and a much less wonky. My humble $.03 IT CAN BE DONE!!!
jimbalio 2 weeks ago
@jimbalio Do the math, it can't. Ask the people who do.
Ask the DOE, ask Amory Lovins. A quick fix that delays
the problem will only make us even shorter on supplies
when we run out of thorium than we are now. A quick fix
is an immature approach to a much more serious problem.
If America tries that, America will undoubtedly die of shortage
in 50 years, if not on the way there. Of course this species
seems like it wants to die, so maybe that's for the best.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
@jimbalio On the other hand, IF you DO want to survive,
if you DO want a permanent solution to one kind of shortage
followed by another till death, then bite the bullet and learn how!
STOP driving, live close to your work, make small personal
battery vehicles, install solar, vote for wind, tear up your lawn
and grow vegetables and raise chickens, tear out every other
suburban house and garden that land, grow vertical gardens
in city buildings, and give up some freedom for safety.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
$5 million, yea i could help design a machine for this.
A1234567890J1 2 weeks ago
..HEY THAT's AL FRANKEN!..
theCLEANDoctor 2 weeks ago
Why don't companies design house hold models of these and sell them regardless of the counties issues with it?
A1234567890J1 2 weeks ago
@A1234567890J1 Because lots of people would be dead.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
I don't full understand the logic behind anti - nuclear reactor arguments. This is without question the best alternative available to solving the energy crises in the world while simultaneously addressing the carbon emissions problems we currently have with energy production from fossil fuels. Every Antinuke doesn't seem to have a thorough understanding of how these reactors operate, they simply abruptly dismiss these new technologies because of their current beliefs and understandings.
howlinman801 3 weeks ago 2
@howlinman801 I know precisely how they operate,
I'm a physicist who once almost got hired to run one.
The things you obviously don't know about thorium
is enough to fill several books. You'd better read up
on what its opponents say before you consider
yourself "informed", otherwise your NOT informed,
you're just hopping on another desperate bandwagon
to scare these nasty spooks away for just a little longer,
delaying the problem to a time your children will be
REALLY SCREWED!!
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
@howlinman801 The thing is, most of us have heard it all before. Like the opening lines of the doco we were promised never ending electricity back in the 60s. The Queen of England promised electricity "too cheap to meter", while back in reality a new term has been coined "fuel poverty". I don't believe there's a fuel crisis either, or that carbon emissions are causing problems. It's all spin by people with vested interests.
22ness0hayden 4 days ago in playlist Favorite videos
How could someone test an object to see if it had thorium in it? Is it the only thing that can change colors? What are these things called like thorium, animal, vegetable, or mineral?
Licmycat 3 weeks ago
The scream of Fukushima's mothers 16:55
fuckin lol
Lowendrach 1 month ago
Oh yeah, because Thorium doesn't make any waste at all, and you don't need uranium to start the reaction, and no-one will ever make a mistake again and we'll never have a power problem and this utopian vision will make everything better...oh wait, it never works like that does it.
I love how these people reacted not to fukushima's tragedy but to it's bad PR. It disgusts me.
stathamajf 1 month ago
Flybe is the name of an airline in the UK. DUH
FranTxis 1 month ago
I love the feel good about American speech at 19:00. Doesn't he know other countries like India are already doing this lol
22ness0hayden 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@motherboard and also would this have been helpful in creating the nuclear plane? back before the first nuclear subs when the US and USSR were in the race for a nuclear bomber would it have made it possible? would it have required less shielding?if they used a thorium reactor could they have built the nuclear bomber?and wont this be obsolete if ITER or some other tocamac or other fusion reactor becomes a reality ?seem we should skip it and focus on fusion
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@motherboardtv ok but what about mining , refinement and enrichment of thorium compared to uranium? is it more energy intense?more expensive or difficult? also why are there so few breeder reactors? and could a thorium breeder reactor work? of is the waste not useful for that? and what is the benefit, if any of a thorium fuelcell?has nasa used thorium before in fuelcells? you say it has benefits for space, so why is it better for a fuelcell?
bulletproof2353 1 month ago
This is bullshit.
Bobjove 1 month ago
You have NO idea yet what the unintended
consequences of thorium might be. Don't let the boy geniuses lead you
down the garden path again, please. They never know what they don't
know they don't know.
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
First they killed the deer and wondered
why the wolves started attacking their herds, so they killed the wolves, and
so on and so on, and this is just another one of those rash foolish steps
into unintended consequences. Don't do this, go for solar and wind and
hot rock geothermal (which is probably cheaper) and tidal, and insulation
and windows, and solar water heaters, and photovoltaics and solar
concentrator thermal generation. all you can do is burn your hand if you're
stupid.
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
I WAS a geek boy
genius far too long already in my life, and I'm tired of unnecessarily
overly-complex technological answers to problems that are actually
more personal, social and political. And the food, my god, the food,
if you let them make your fertilizers for you that can only grow genetically
stupid versions of the real food plants, ones with less nutrition, and
if you let them degrade the soil till the water table collapses, you won't
even have to worry about energy.
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
Do we want to
wake up and have to go through this whole learning curve
all over again when the thorium runs out in 500-1000 years?
Do we want to remain the serfs of the rich and have to pay
for energy that should be ours just for living on the planet?
We have the chance to end ANY dependency on limited
expendibles virtually forever, do you really want to give
that up again just for the quick fix promised by the geek boys
just so you don't have to learn anything?
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
Sure, it could work, if the capitalist greed doesn't compel
them to run the reactors on the cheap, lying and dirty.
These people can fuck up a sunny day with their greed
and you want to trust them about this stuff once again??
It could be cheap, but not cheaper than learning to make
and control our own energy at home. Do we really want a
solution to everything that just lets people remain stupid
and stay degraded mindless consumers?
rstevewarmorycom 1 month ago
So they're naked against nukes while wearing raincoats and underpants? Really well thought out there lady.
Poppaneedsanap 1 month ago
Key phrase of this entire video is at point 22:13. Wake up, people. We must demand an end to the military industrial complex that is sucking us dry! Peace.
sufisis 1 month ago
@sufisis correction: make that at point 22:07.
sufisis 1 month ago
Why do alot of anti-nuclear environmentalists seem so fucking retarded? I hope the British Government pours tons of money into Thorium reactors, a source of energy like Thorium would certainly help alleviate energy costs for many here in the UK.
newhank21 1 month ago
I love this guy's jokes, like at 14:40. Funny dude ;)
sufisis 1 month ago
"literally explode" - stupid fuck.
molokofreak 1 month ago
Isn't it strange that it was but for a mico-second that the fact that Thorium produces Nuclear waste was mentioned. In fact - this is about the fifth video , / lecture I've seen on Thorium and I was still confused as to what sort of waste is produced if any at all that. We are talking about radioactive waste that the only solution that can be do with it is to bury it? Not exactly Ideal, or sustainable . .
benzlikeawillow 1 month ago
@benzlikeawillow yes, but it's much less waste and it doesn't last nearly as long (compared to uranium)
ApertureScience27 1 month ago
@benzlikeawillow It produces bomb material like
crazy, which they think is a GOOD thing because
it's easier to store it in BOMBS!
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
Sounds too good to be true. Nothing in this world is too god to be true. For one, there is the law of nature, saying that "you can't take your cake and eat it". No matter what, technology isn't compatible with nature, and with technological way of living, the Earth will be destroyed no matter what.
The most sane course is to stop technological growth and ge back to the old way of living, be one with nature. I hope one day a big solar flare will render every technology on the Earth useless...
stiffyschlong 1 month ago
@stiffyschlong you're being sarcastic, right? If not, you're an idiot.
ApertureScience27 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
This is just vaporware. Like Hydrogen fuel from water or cold fusion. "It will power the world! Thorium will save us!" Pure fantasy and BS. Thi is just like the Popular Science buullshit of the pipe smoking 50s, complete with smiling families and ridiculous modes of transportation.
Nuclear never will be green and sustainable. NOt in 5 10 or 100 years not ever! Science always say "You can just never take your cake and eat it"
stiffyschlong 2 months ago
@stiffyschlong you are just so wrong
lolzipop4 1 month ago
who in the hell disliked this, what a bunch of fools
manfries 2 months ago in playlist Favorite videos 4
Too much, "This could save the world!" and not enough technical information.
IntarwebUser 2 months ago 12
@IntarwebUser That's what they don't WANT to tell you.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
@IntarwebUser If you are interested in the more technical aspect, you should watch Kirk Sorenson's ~hour long presentation on the subject... just search on youtube for "Kirk Sorensen @ MRU on LFTR - Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors " or watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA or any of his longer presentations. All the "remixes" are edited down to strip away technical content
akaMouse 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Count me in your struggle,i may be a simpla farmer in Egypt,but i get your point,if we could use such energy to desalinate sea water,we could turn the sahara in a food desert....
maxhassouna 2 months ago
Thorium = WIN. Fucking do it faggots.
xXDEICIDE216Xx 2 months ago
Let's get on with it!
happylambs 2 months ago
What a bizarre documentary. Who champions an industry with a bunch of amateur enthusiasts? Not a single physicist interviewed.
thestatusneo 2 months ago
@thestatusneo Seems like the guy who invented the LWR knew what the fuck he was talking about.
Reijerkolle 2 months ago
@thestatusneo the engineer who worked for nasa is an amateur?
Shinkajo 2 months ago
@thestatusneo Actually, a bunch of physicists were interviewed. Kirk is one of them, for example.
rramosbaez 1 month ago
This is a shitty documentary. It's just 28 minutes of people talking about how great thorium is, there's no compelling narrative, or informative content here.
radports 2 months ago
@radports I do not think of this as a scientific review documentary but more like a poster story that deserves to be told. I do not think Thorium is the sole solution to energy problems, there is still more than enough oil around to fuel cars for another 100 years but it does help to look beyond this
Campagnevoorvrijheid 2 months ago
@Campagnevoorvrijheid A good documentary is both entertaining and informative. This is neither.
radports 2 months ago
Geo thermal tech + volcanoes ?
twistedbass15 2 months ago
The scream of Fukushimas mothers...? LOL
boner2008 2 months ago 49
@boner2008 wot a tard
HolyGfunnies 1 month ago
@boner2008 Green energy will never be taken seriously as long as people like her and the guy with the hat are the spokes people
standauffish 1 month ago
@boner2008 I happen to live in Tokyo Japan and all I can say... That shit be funny
picasso566 1 week ago
17:00
Ok, I live in Japan, I've been there for almost 5 years, and I really feel sorry for how this kind of imbeciles keep degrading the american stereotype.
1. The 20 000 people you heard of in the news died from the 10~15m f*king high TSUNAMI near Onagawa.
2. The meltdown was contained inside the central until they started throwing water from helicopters because the cooling system had been damaged. The water DID carry some radioactive material, but there was no NUCLEAR EXPLOSION!
MiniGeek31337 2 months ago
@MiniGeek31337
3. The explosion was a chemical reaction between H2 (hydrogen) emanation from the roof with 02 (oxygen) in the air. THERE WAS NO TCHERNOBIL-LIKE BURN DOWN!
4. The amount of radioactive material released into the environment is only equivalent of 40 to 50%, so it IS serious, but it isn't nearly AS BAD as tchernobyl.
5. Over all, you will get more risks of cancer in like 10~20 years
MiniGeek31337 2 months ago
@MiniGeek31337
(*40 50% of Tchernobyl)
...
Am I the only one? Really, tell me, what do you think about it?
MiniGeek31337 2 months ago
@MiniGeek31337 And that's why 2 counties are still
not inhabited??
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
I am 19 years old and, I am already worried about Earth's survival and how corrupt government is. Thorium will probably never be used because it would cost nothing for everyone to use, Governments would lose too much money. I pity how greedy they all are and wish we would all raise our voices so we could change that.
DanielMatotek 2 months ago 2
@DanielMatotek my thoughts exactly. unless someone can figure out a way to make millions off this stuff, it will never happen.
DFredleinPortfolio 2 months ago
@DanielMatotek You're worried about Earth's survival? The Earth is a living organism that has multiple defense mechanism like Tsunami, Earthquake, Tornado, etc... The Earth will be find, but it might destroy us all to survive. WE must worry about the human race, not the Earth!
d4j0k3rQc 2 months ago
@DanielMatotek You don't get it. The rich ARE the
government. they WANT thorium so they can charge
you for it and get lots RICHER. What they DON'T want
is solar/wind/tidal/conservation, because their wealth
would shrink rapidly!
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
How come intelligent Ameicans have to be irritating geeks? A country full of cliches
moateman 2 months ago
Lie at 7:12. You can't make nuclear weapons out of 232Th but you can out of 233Th
RaistlinerejaM 2 months ago
decided to skip to 17:00, i'm mad!
LindenNolet1 2 months ago 2
@LindenNolet1 thank you.
GERMANGINGERTRAINING 2 months ago
I like thorium, but this is a poorly made documentary. The TED talk is so much better. Search "TEDxYYC - Kirk Sorensen" on youtube.
lizardsfeet 2 months ago
@lizardsfeet Happy to see I'm not the only one ^^
MiniGeek31337 2 months ago
There have already been thorium nuclear reactors (THTR-300, in Germany), but they have gone bankrupt because it's too expensive to keep operating.
claus11212 2 months ago
And then I'm like... "This video is garbage, I think Thorium is great stuff but tell me more about how Thorium works!" And then all those weed smoking dudes are like "Noooo man, we can save the world man! Every new technology has spawned exponentially new problems man! Just let me show you my Fukushima's mothers scream!"
x4r 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@5THunderlord Because Fusion, unless a major breakthrough happens right now in the comming months, is still atleast 20 years away while LFTRs are only a couple of years away if we really focused on it, the important difference here is that this technology already exists and is cost-effective right off the bat (with quite a big window of improvement as well) whereas Fusion is still in development, and we need that power right NOW not in 20 years!
thorsbitch 3 months ago
Maybe skip thorium and leap ahead to nucleair fusion?
5THunderlord 3 months ago
Comment removed
thorsbitch 3 months ago
@5THunderlord Ain't there, won't be for decades.
sorry bud.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
Solar energy's *current* potential:
- in just one hour, the Sun produces more energy across the surface of the planet than is generated during the entire year from all existing methods!
- with the equivalent of no more land area than size of Texas on each of five continents, interconnected in largely the same way as we have for the Internet (or soon nanotech power cables), we would need no other energy source for Earth's power.
We would still need nuclear for space and backup, etc.
utubesqueeze 3 months ago
@utubesqueeze The loss in transmission cables are too great, and nano-something doesn't help: The laws of physics make limits to how small a diameter you can have.
RE (renewable energy) is simply too expensive.
Only energy from Thorium can deliver inexpensive energy in large quantities by using LFTRs, wich is a completely different type of nuclear reactor than todays light water reactor (LWR).
larstheu 3 months ago
@utubesqueeze texas is huge, its the biggest state in america, 1x1 km solar power plants are huge, imagina texas, its just too much room, however roof mounting seems alot more practicle
KiwiTomCrawford 3 months ago
@KiwiTomCrawford perhaps I wasn't clear, sorry, I meant the land equivalent of Texas. Of course, doing it via everyone's roof could produce similar results if the power was connected back into the grid.
utubesqueeze 3 months ago
@utubesqueeze
Current Solar Technology grows less efficient with subsequent use and service. Also, the scale of the infrastructure you're talking about is astronomical. How in the world do you expect current governments to invest in solar arrays the size of texas? Additionally the nano tech power cables you're talking about are so expensive that they almost must be used with a consistent stream of energy. The sheer cost of this sort of infrastructure makes it unbelievably impractical.
bth0mpson 3 months ago
@bth0mpson solar energy, even at a plant level, is already almost as cheap as conventional nuclear and will easily become cheaper (15-30 cents per kwh vs 11-15 cents per kwh). There are many competing technologies and materials. It is fast to innovate and disrupt because it can be purely market led, unlike nuclear. Total operational costs are miniscule compared even to cost of decommissioning conventional nuclear and unlike nuclear can benefit continually from new innovation on existing plants.
utubesqueeze 3 months ago
@bth0mpson you did not read my comment immediately below yours about land equivalence. The upfront costs of nuclear reactors and new development are enormous and far outweigh all other energy technologies. Why would you expect governments to invest in something MORE expensive that is far less proven? Household solar panels are less than $20k. The most expensive cutting edge solar power plants being developed are all less than half the cost of a *conventional* nuclear plant.
utubesqueeze 3 months ago
@bth0mpson finally, a significant portion of cabling already exists in the existing national grids and intercountry connections; additional cabling does not have to be done all upfront; where it does not exist, it would likely already be needed in future regardless of the power generation used. Intercontinental can re-use the closest point of interconnection, i.e. it is not about stringing submarine cables 2,000k+ across oceans. Solar is not exclusive to nuclear. But it will dominate in the end.
utubesqueeze 3 months ago
@utubesqueeze This still does not adress the problem of consistency -- solar and wind (even placed optimally) do not always run. Therefore these huge grids you're talking about really aren't practical. Either transmission line efficiency would have to be dramatically increased, or battery technology would have to take a leap into the future. Additionally, as you said below, *conventional* plants are clearly not what I am advocating for.
bth0mpson 3 months ago 2
@bth0mpson Consistency is now being provided in
two ways, diversification of supply across multiple
time zones and regions, and by solar thermal storing
heat all night in salt vats to use till morning. Every
analyst of solar has said that the notion of consistency
of supply for solar is a myth. The combo of solar, wind,
and hot salt storage and pumped water storage and
pressurized ground storage more than makes up for any
inconsistency. Add that to electric vehicle storage your done
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
@bth0mpson Where do you get such lies, make them up?
Or are you PAID to say them? It doesn't take Texas it
takes one third of the roofs of buildings and houses. And
there's no need for "nanotech", are you daft?
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
@utubesqueeze Correction. In one MINUTE the solar
energy hitting the earth is greater than the ENTIRE energy
production of humanity! An area the size of Rhode Island
can produce enough to power the entire WORLD! AND the
are of the world's roofs is three times that size!!! Wake UP!!
This is 20.000 times more than the entire energy budget of
the world right now. By the way, geothermal is of similar scale.
The wind can do 25% and could do a lot more, but it might
change the climate.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
Thorium molten salt reactors are the future of *nuclear* power generation. Also, we will likely always need some form of nuclear power.
However, it is extremely difficult to disrupt the quasi-government market of nuclear energy. This is clearly demonstrated in not having any new production idea or technology for it in the last 50 years!
Solar energy generation and smart electric grids, in the meantime, are rapidly improving every day and prime for serious disruption. This is our main future.
utubesqueeze 3 months ago
treating it like a cult
rory12349 3 months ago
In a liquid fluoride thorium reactor beryllium serves as solvent for the fissile and fertile material fluoride salts, as well as moderator and coolant. In the US, Brush Wellman Inc. is the main producer of beryllium. Most beryllium is used for military applications. It killed some early workers in nuclear weapons design, such as Herbert L. Anderson.
LuMagazine 3 months ago
Interesting.
SaganAppreciationSoc 3 months ago
I don't want to say 30 years from now that it could have happened.
gohikenh 3 months ago
Not a documentary, but a wishywashy liberal pamphlet. I was hoping for specific, credible evidence on how Thorium reactors are better than the typical Light Water Reactors (I am an engineer). Tell me how the half-naked protester wailing for the victims of recent nuclear disasters is germane?! C'mon people... I'd support you if you didn't TRY to sound like modern hippies. Give hard reasons why this is better and lobby for it, or you'll be just as pathetic as an Occupy Wall Streeter.
millinghill 3 months ago
@millinghill
Its really not that hard to type liquid fluoride thorium reactor into google. Without at least a basic knowledge of nuclear physics it would be hard to provide this proof. A more technical video on the subject would be David LeBlanc's Googletechtalk lecture.
n00bsk00lbus 3 months ago
@millinghill Why don't you try looking it up for yourself like everyone else. All the original MRSE papers from Oak Ridge are freely available on Kirk Sorensen's website. This is science, if you're skeptical all it takes is for you to take the time to see for yourself. No one here can do that for you.
Spacedog79 3 months ago
@millinghill
Take at look at Thorium Remix 2011: thoriumremix.comSLASH2011SLASH, where SLASH=/. The >2 hour video is good.
Don't blame the thorium people for a video about the people and not technology.
Usually jounalists doesn't tell about technical stuff - they tell about people, feelings, conflicts and thing like that.
larstheu 3 months ago 15
Seize the future! We may not get a second chance...
Alectr0n 3 months ago
16:57
pccalhoun 3 months ago
After watching this I still don't know how thorium is good for nuclear power. More science please!
sniperpj21 3 months ago
@sniperpj21 Just do a youtube search for "Liquid fluoride thorium reactors"
You will find a whole bunch of videos explaining the technology in a fair amount of detail.
Merecir 3 months ago
John Kutsch reminds me very much of Phillip Seymour Hoffman. Great documentary, btw.
chaayse 3 months ago
Great work; show me a petition, please.
everclarity0 3 months ago
The thorium community needs better PR people.
allgoodpeople 3 months ago
@allgoodpeople
I think you mean better lobbyists. Lets face it, the only reason we are still with LWR is because of the lobbying of GE and other corps.
TheAtheistPaladin 3 months ago
@allgoodpeople No, they just need better
mathematicians to count the costs, and to
realize that solar, wind and geothermal
is WAAAAY cheaper than any nuclear scheme.
Noble Prize winning physicist, head of LLNL,
and head of the DOE Stephen Chu says that if
the land used for most nuclear reactor reservations
was used instead for solar PV, the same power
could be produced as that reactor would produce!
YouTube has a video of it.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
17:02 . . . lulz
allgoodpeople 3 months ago
Why exactly is Thorium better than uranium and plutonium? Radiation can still be released in case of accidents. Although the amount of nuclear waste is far smaller, there still is nuclear waste.
MrFillCollins 3 months ago
@MrFillCollins According to the mini-documentary, it sounds like thorium produces far less reactive waste and that plutonium is a far less a byproduct of thorium's reactions, thereby lessening the worry that a nuclear powered North Korea or Iran is a nuclear armed North Korea or Iran. As well, nuclear is already safer than all currently deployed grid power, except for solar, per KWh. A far safer nuclear solution would slice the danger of a relatively safe technology even further.
everclarity0 3 months ago
@everclarity0 Since thorium produces U-233 this
is puzzling, because it's the easiest of all isotopes
to build bombs with. It's easier to handle as waste,
but other things it produces, even if in smaller
quantities are MUCH MUCH worse!!! Do the research!
GE is trying to re-sell you on reactors, to stay in the
reactor biz, nothing more.
rstevewarmorycom 1 week ago
@MrFillCollins i'd would argue what accident? because from what i understood, in traditional plant, accident bound to happened, the ppl working in light water plant constantly have to make sure the the the uranium fuel doesnt overheat, if fail (like fukushima), the temperature will be too high and and become incontrolable, meltdown happen and then all the water vaporize to make radioactive cloud that could travel 1000 of miles. The problem is from the concept itself, not technicality.
boseiyong 3 months ago
Comment removed
OfficeThug 3 months ago
@MrFillCollins the LIFTA concept have none of those problem.. instead of constantly suppressed the temperature of the plant, the LIFTA system must be constantly fed the fuel to keep going, if that doesn't happen, it just slow down the process, if then somehow the reactor get overheat, there passive system that will drain the liquid, and if that is also fail to happen, the liquid will just become solid, no meltdown, no explosion, no fallout, no radioactive cloud.
boseiyong 3 months ago
@boseiyong Lack of radioactive cloud is due to very frequent fuel reprocessing. There is no Xenon build-up, xenon bing a main source of fallout (it's a gas that decays into solid radioisotopes, some of which are nasty). Solid fuel in contrast is too expensive to reprocess, so it's typically left in a reactor until it's "spent", after which it's stored in cooling pools.
OfficeThug 3 months ago
Really interesting take on it. Nice work. You'll get better SEO if you add captions.
gordonmcdowell 4 months ago