I am much better informed now not only about LFTR, but also why current nuclear technology is so inefficient and expensive.
The explanation of rare earths and how China cornered the market explains why companies like Apple, Intel, etc now pay Chinese companies to produce finished goods instead of manufacturing them here in the US.
If we don't develop LFTR now in the US, in 10 years China will control the worlds energy market and we will be sitting in the dark wondering what happened.
Wow, wow, wow...I am thoroughly convinced and much better informationally armed.
You know the key to making this publicly acceptable though? Get rid of two words.
"Nuclear" and "Reactor"
If you take away the source of stigma, fear mongering becomes more difficult. Marketing is key. Besides, what people mean when they say "nuclear" is really not what this is, as was shown in the video. What other accurate term could we use that hasn't been so stigmatized as "nuclear"?
I just added the following tag to this video... yt:cc=on ...which supposedly enables captions by default. There's a lot of volunteer effort going into cleaning up non-English captions (which I greatly appreciate). I'd welcome any non-English feedback on how else to make this video more accessible. (Non-English feedback in English hopefully.) Yes, I know many language captions are still poor / Machine Translated.
@OperationCrossroad I do not know how if Elizabeth May has watched this or not. I've sent her copies. She sent a letter back citing proliferation concerns and thanking me for my persistence. But I first tried to get her to learn about LFTR in 2009, and I can't say she's ever consumed anything beyond CCNR anti-nuclear materials (which includes thorium... if it involves fission, they don't like it). Real shame for Canada, and for our Green Party.
Have you ever considered trying to contact Rick Mercer? You know: Rick Mercer, that CBC comedian guy from Newfoundland?
Rick Mercer is a pretty smart guy and he has the ear of Elizabeth May (and of a lot of people in the Green party). So, if Mercer understands how interesting LFTR (i.e.: it is nuclear energy done the right way), he might be able to help Liz May see the light.
It's a long shot for sure, but it may worth trying.
Sorry after the disaster with the THTR-300 in germany iam absolutly not convinced that Thorium reactors are an alternative? Whats the difference with this reactor? Why should it be any better?
@Steuben1978 "What is the difference with this reactor?" THTR-300 = pebble bed [solid fuel] core. LFTR = liquid fuel. In my video, which I'm sure you've TAKEN THE TIME TO WATCH, Kirk points out why solid fuel is not optimal for safety or efficiency. If you search for RALUCA TEAC3 you can hear a pitch for an new thoruim pebble bed reactor design. That might contain information more in line with your concerns of the German reactor.
Wow such a quick answer! Very cool! Since iam not a scientist its very hard to form a valid opinion about stuff like this. Unfortunatly nuclear power is dead in germany! Everybody including one Person in my family thinks solar and wind is the way to go! Which is ridicilous! The problem for people like me is, that you cant offer an acceptable Alternative. Maybe Thorium is that alternative!
Rich with contemporary function and classic chronograph styling, the Ritmo Mundo Men's Watch features a stainless steel case and a textured synthetic leather band. Set on the case is a stainless steel bezel with tachymeter information. This bezel surrounds an attractive two-tone dial that boasts subdials at the three, ...
For more details please copy the Amazon link below in your browser:
I'm fundraising a 2012 edition via KickStarter (dot-com). It WILL be made, funding or not. And it WILL be better than this 2011 edition. For a detailed argument WHY funding the sequel is worth your time (and money) please head to KickStarter and search for THORIUM. Thanks, -g
OK, i watched it all the way through, where do i print my certificate in armchair nuclear physicist? LOL. very intriguing. i'm probably not smart enough to rebut much of what i saw, so i kind of bought it hook, line and sinker? i don't see the downside? i don't understand why it's not moving forward? WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP???
@afdave7 I'm trying to fund a sequel for 2012. If you search THORIUM at Kickstarter (dot-com) you'll find it. That is obviously an indirect way of pushing this forward. There's a petition (we-the-people) in the works. Companies such as Flibe Energy are looking for funding, but that's for big investors... there's no mechanism yet by which non-investor types (such as myself) can contribute small amounts directly to R&D. Talking to friends about it is best most can do (but does a lot).
@Powd3r81 I'm pretty sure the thorium he was talking about in that case was located far too deep down in the earth to be mined, and thus cannot be "used up". The earth's crust is just 1% of the earth's volume, it's 5-10 km thick and the worlds deepest mineshaft is 3,9 km deep. That thorium is not going anywhere and even if we managed to deplete every deposit if thorium in the earth's crust I doubt that'd make a difference since it's only 1% of the entire earth's volume.
Don't want to sound dumb or anything. But is that liquid fluoride the same stuff they put in out toothpaste? Just sayin.... Has anyone researched the origins of fluoride? How it was originally used. What it does to the brain? etc etc.
@maximumcorruption Toothpaste uses Sodium floride.The LFTR that Kirk is speaking about will utilize a eutectic mixture of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride. I know there are other MSR types that use other salts such as the liquid-chloride, fast-spectrum reactors but the main one talked about here is the thermal spectrum of the LFTR.
@Hardwyre I like how you're thinking, "Let's quit using fossil fuels!" However, it would be quite dangerous, expensive, and inefficient to put nuclear reactors inside cars. Instead, we can use LFTR's extreme energy density to synthesize carbon neutral fuels like dimethyl ether, methanol, and ammonia to use in our cars with very little modification. Electric cars will also become more prevalent as battery technology improves.
How hard would it be to make a micro reactor to power a small housing development? Instead of building a massive reactor for an entire region, why not think on the micro scale?
Why don't we all inundate our representatives with questions about Thorium? We could all also inundate Bill Gates and others with info about it. China should not be allowed to be the only ones who pursue this.
Geothermal is extremely limited by where if can be effectively placed. Also, construction is difficult and maintenance is a pain in the ass since a large amount of your device is buried.
@Hardwyre I understand what you are saying, but that is no longer true.
The same technology that makes it feasible to drill for and harvest oil deep within the Earth can be used to dig down to the depths needed to reach effectively high temp.
As for a large amount of the hardware being underground, this is true only to the extent that the pipe that allows the steam to get to the surface is underground. The pipe may be a mile or more long, but the same could be said about any oil well.
LFTR energy sounds interesting, but this video feels very one-sided. There's still waste to deal with. Can he guarantee the freeze plug will never fail? Why does he feel it necessary to attack solar and wind power?
@RichSPK He is simply telling the truth about solar and wind power -- they are inefficient as technology now stands, and it doesn't look like they will improve any time soon.
Yes, this is one-sided, but then everything you've heard about solar and wind are too, much more so than nuclear power.
There is no guarantee that the plug won't fail, but it is a very simple fail-safe, while the current fail-safes are very complex and thus much more likely to fail.
@RichSPK: Radio decay in some atoms are fast (low half-life, high intensity), medium (moderate h-l and intensity), or slow (long h-l, low intensity). Actinides (heavy fuel materials and their decay chains) occupy all 3 classes, and are alpha emitters (considered 20x worse than beta for internal cell damage). Fission products are only fast or slow, so are either fast decaying (< ~300 yrs) or low intensity, none with hl from 30 to < 20,000 years, and are exclusively beta emitters. ...
... The actinides supply most heat (alphas are energetic), fission products don't need to cool before processing, so no pools of cooling rods. The FP waste of LFTR are processed continuously; the fuel stays in the reactor until it is "burned" up.
So, the wastes from LFTR are continuously extracted and processed in small quantities, don't contain actinides, and decay to near background levels within 300 yrs. Only 3% or so of wastes need to be extracted and stored longer.
@FashionOneAsia That problem has already been solved by crystalline zirconia-zirconium metal material the only problem is that it is so expensive that it can only be used as a coating material and not as a primary material. These materials are called amorphous metal alloys.
I love this video! Best remix yet. The only thing I wish is that Kirk would have debated with an energy professional who is a green- rather than the young girl who has 'intuitive' concerns. Keep on going FLIBE! I can't wait for an IPO.
In the 1950s and 1960s they have successfully designed and tested a prototype reactor using molten nuclear fuel, plutonium or uranium, held in tantalum cups and cooled by liquid sodium. The question is, why not use this technological breakthrough that solves the accidental melting of fuel rods because the fuel being used is already molten anyway? Pressurized helium or liquid flouride salts can be used as coolants connected to a heat exchanger to run a turbine engine driven generator.
@turbolazer1 I wouldn't invest in the mines, the money will be in the licencing of parts of the technology. When an energy source is just discovered the problems are not around finding the stuff its extracting it.
Check out the Free Piston Stirling Cycle Engine design that Sunpower uses in it's Biowatt electric generator. Might work well with a Molton Reactror that would be small enought to put in your basement. Just like Ike said in the nifty fifties! I like Ike.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Well, "obviously a better option" is widely disputed. The fact that it is 1/3 as expensive is not really relevant (with nuclear fuel just being a negligible factor in operating costs). There are many more factual issues in the video (like stating that Thorium has only one isotope - which is wrong, there are 6 isotopes of Th) - but the biggest issue are the huge challenges with molten salt being highly corrosive. SRE is a good lesson what uncertainties to deal with when getting into unchartered
@FashionOneAsia Thorium has one stable isotope. You mine it. That's the isotope you find. As compared to Uranium, where the most useful isotope is a rare one. No one is claiming molten salt isn't corrosive. What is being claimed is that is a manageable problem. Your name isn't Kevin Meyerson is it? Somehow he manages to keep popping up, posting comments that don't really advance the conversation and only cause confusion. Good to have a hobby.
@FashionOneAsia The corrosive issue was figured out in the 60's. Nickle based alloys almost completely remedy this issue. This reactor ran for 4 years during that time (with the project being shut down due to politics), why do you think that in 2012 we would be unable to figure this out?
Thank you for putting up these videos, and remixes of the longer presentations into formats that appeal to a range of potentially interested people. I really hope this technology takes flight in the coming years; if only for the selfish desire to see us all propelled into a new age of enlightenment (I can dream!) :)
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
The speakers in this video conveniently forgot to mention the disasterous Sodium Reactor Experiment in Simi Valley CA which experienced an extensive meltdown in 1959. The highly corrosive nature of molten salt presents unprecedented engineering challenges that may far outweigh its benefits. Also, cost of reactor fuel is really not the driving factor in operating a nuclear plant, so if you spent $100/kg for Uranium instead of $30 for Thorium is really not relevant ...
@FashionOneAsia Did you just try to say that a accident that happened 53 years ago is an excuse for not continuing what is obviously a better option that using uranium?
@FashionOneAsia sodium is not a salt, it is an element, and Kirk is very clear in the movie that he is not for sodium cooled reactors. Sodium chloride is a salt! Big difference. Salt doesn't explode when exposed to air or water like sodium does.
@FashionOneAsia Please do some research before making mis-informed comments. The corrosive issue was figured out in the 60's. It is 2012, the same alloys still exist as well as a lot of new ones. If we can't figure it out now, something is wrong other than the corrosive issue.
Questions - does the electromagnetic field produced by the total amount of thorium in our planet significant enough to affect the total magnetic field of the planet?
If so, doesn't the consumption of thorium in the long run be bad for the magnetic field of the planet, hence risking destruction caused by solar winds?
@Soulgage I'm not an expert on that so will field it until an expert chimes in: I can't imagine the quantity we'd consume (from the very top of the Earth's crust) would harldy matter compared to the quantity between top of crust and mantle. Google: Kim Johnson Thorium ...for more about that aspect of thorium (& uranium), if you haven't already watched Kim's presentation.
As much as I appreciate this guy promoting LFTR with all the obvious benefits, I think his little rant about the health effects and even 'health benefits' of radiation (see 1:26:00) flies in the face of highly researched and very well established science. It has been both established experimentally (e.g. lab mice exposed to X-rays) and epidemiologically (e.g. higher cancer rate near Chernobyl) that raditiation is damaging, even in small doses. Hell, there's even a unit for this: Sievert
@Baarsian In addition, the theory of hormesis that he mentions, although valid with many other compounds, does not apply to radiation. There's a strong consensus on this. He should simply focus on what he knows best: LFTR.
@Baarsian there are a number of radiation studies that validate the hormesis model, especially cases of nuclear workers exposed to plutonium and uranium that should have had much higher rates of cancer and in fact had less cancer than normal. Google hormesis radiation study there's a few out there but they don't validate LNTH so there's not as much money out there to fund them
@Baarsian I do think the question of low-level radiation exposure is worth looking into... more so than when I was editing and decided to include this tangent. Please Google: NOBEL PRIZE LIED RADIATION ...for what I've read since releasing this video. Of course if NLT is wrong, that does NOT automatically make Hormesis correct. Kirk cites books in DVD version I had to cut to get under 2 hours for YouTube.
watching film second time. I always hated those stupid solar panels(oh lets put those panels everywhere) , now i hate it more ! Thank you for this film!!
@pand2aren Solar panels are excellent on small-scale installations like rooftop panels for a home. Mine for instance has a 7.2kW system, which feeds back into the grid, and the power company sends me a cheque instead of a bill. But having said that, the space used by the panels to collect enough sunlight to generate that power is substantial, and obviously poses some problems when thinking in terms of industrial-scale power generation.
Folks I [BLOCKED] @stathamajf as he has not watched the video. I accused him 2x of not watching it. Then 10 minutes later he responded "Okay, watched it, now I'm even less convinced." It is of course a 2 hour video. For all I know it was anti-nuke troll Kevin Meyerson.
If you come and troll the video content... ok at least you are debating VIDEO CONTENT. If you haven't watched the video and you're just spouting random anti-nuke arguments, THEN YOU ARE SPAMMING.
@gordonmcdowell You're not really interested in discussion if you're willing to block people. You're interested in getting people to agree with you with the threat of being silence otherwise.
@BoredInfidel "People" = Kevin Meyerson, commenting without having watched the video. After ADMITTING he had not, 10 minutes later he claimed he'd watched it and started trolling again. Do you see the mathematical PROBLEM i have with that?
Check out his twitter account. Who wants that noise?
MANY critical comments here & intelligent debate about why this is/not a viable solution.
Video is CC licensed, YouTube editor enabled. Edit a rebuttal video and exert 100% control over it.
@stathamajf I agree that we should put effort into improving alternative energy sources. My disagreement was with Fukushima as a argument against Nuclear power, as Nuclear power is safe if maintained correctly. I think by the time we go futher into space Nuclear will be long gone.
@littleheadspin Perhaps, however I maintain disagreement with your point. Fukushima was preventable, but that's the entire point. People screw things up, and solar etc has a lot lower cost from those screw-ups.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I'm sorry but I simply cannot support any form of nuclear power. It seems pointless to me, there is more then enough potential for 'renewable' sources. Why the hell should we try and generate power from something so dangerous in this case?
I hoped the Fukushima events might make people think.
@littleheadspin And of course there'll never be another bad build, right?
There'll never be mistakes, never be unforseen disasters, we'll all build highly dangerous reactors and nothing will eveer, ever, ever go wrong with them.
Nuclear technology is too risky for domestic power sources. I certainly think it should be developed, it's got good uses in space programs and such of the future. But for anything where an accident will lead to huge problems...not worth it, other options
@stathamajf I never said that. Nuclear meltdown occurs very rarely and when it does, it's always down to poor maintenance and design flaws. The current available alternatives are just not reliable nor acceptable for the foreseeable future.
@littleheadspin My point is that it doesn;t matter how rare it is, if it's possible for it to happen, then sooner or later it will happen. If a solar panel breaks then it gets fixed, if a wind trubine breaks it might hurt those below it.
If a nuclear power plant breaks...well I think you know the next bit.
The alternatives are perfectly workable if we'd just put some more effort into them rather then pushing oil and coal and gas. And they don't explode and leave fallout.
Well that's certainly never happened before, are you new to the internets? ;)
Well in that case would you also agree that developments in nuclear power will likely be incredibly useful in the future for space programs and such where fallout and explosions are a lot less of a collateral risk?
@stathamajf I don't understand how you could have watched this documentary and still take your position. Solar and Wind simply can't keep up with the world's energy demand as the population continues to grow. If we don't embrace radical breakthroughs, we'll keep picking up with slack with fossil fuels until the climate is trashed. Forget everything you know about Nuclear, LFTR is a game changer.
@therealericmeyer Because have information from more then just this video perhaps? Maybe I think with my brain?
Stop spouting propaganda, I;m not feeble minded.
a) There's more energy available from current renewable sources then we're ever going to use, by orders of magnitude
b) LFTR is nice on paper, in reality things aren't so neat and it still blows up when someone screws the pooch. Murphies Law my friend, add human nature to the mix and nuclear is a seriously bad idea.
@stathamajf IT DOES NOT BLOW UP. IT CANNOT BLOW UP. This is why they stopped researching it because we were in the Cold War. Nuclear warheads were being produced, and Thorium reactors CANNOT PROVIDE THE FUEL TO MAKE THEM.
@Zeus0Moose You're trying to act as if this is current technology, it isn't. I'm not arguing this any further, indeed I wouldn't have biothered at all if I'd realised how much of this was wishful thinking. Of course it's perfect, it's still theory.
@motim92 Links bust, but assuming the source is legit it's still better.
The deaths are only the start, then comes the damage due to fallout, the sickness and mutation. Huge areas made unlivable for decades and clouds of fallout that drift for miles to completely foreign areas.
It is simply not worth the risk. Not for terrestrial power generation. Not when we have other options.
If the energy of Fukushimna had been generated by Biomass there were around 10000 death. With the LNT-Hypothese you would calculate around 100-1000 death in 30-40 years, the problem is, that there could be hormesis...
If the energy of Fukushimna had been generated by Biomass there were around 10000 death. With the LNT-Hypothese you would calculate around 100-1000 death in 30-40 years, the problem is, that there could be hormesis...
@stathamajf How far did you watch into the video? There's some pretty compelling arguments against the effectiveness of solar&wind. (Bill Gates has lots to say on the subject if you want to look beyond my own video.) And Fukushima is examined in contrast to North American nuclear deployment/operation. Everyone's thinking about nuclear power post-Fukushima, but I don't think we're all coming to the same conclusions.
@gordonmcdowell Look, let's be clear on this. The world is not perfect, things do not always go right. So I think creating anything that can go nuclear when things go wrong is a bad idea.
Sure it won't happen much, but the risk is simply too high to be worth it.
The technology is great, until someone messes something up, or something unforeseen goes wrong, then;
@stathamajf No. This does not risk "nuclear mushroom cloud". I do not believe you have watched the video. If you have not watched the video, please refrain from commenting.
@gordonmcdowell You assume watching means I have to agree with you. It doesn;t work that way, which is my exact point.
On paper the tech is great, and I have no problem with much of it. I still prefer solar etc, but not enough to get iffy.
But off paper is a different story, you seem to believe that every single facility will be perfect, and all the staff will be too. And nothing will ever go wrong. That's fantasy, plain and simple. Nuclear is too risky given other clean options.
@gordonmcdowell Okay, watched it, now I'm even less convinced.
This is future tech, not proven, not well tested. and it sounds far too good to be true even if we can get it operational this century.
And say we do, it's still producing nuclear waste, it's still a serious problem if a containment breach or disaster occurs and it still requires the same transport networks and inefficiencies that we have now. Why do people try to rejig a system when starting over is better?
@stathamajf In 10 years, most of the waste is safe and able to be put back into the market for re-use. The rest is only there for hundreds of years as opposed to the thousands of years in current reactors. And "too good to be true"? That's just a cop-out. All that we know of thorium and all the tests done in the 20th century point to it as being highly viable as a fuel. You act like this is a traditional reactor, and it is not.
@Zeus0Moose You act like you have any facts on the matter. This is at least 50 years from usage, and currently highly theoretical. And it already looks to be nothing like as good as you're saying, the half life you quote is utter b*llsh*t especially.
This is going to hit too late to be any good even if it is as good as is said, by the time it appears we'll either have made it irrelevent or we'll be long since screwed.
@gordonmcdowell Not to mention that you're still producing a massive amount of radiation in basic operation that again is a big problem if something ever goes wrong.
@stathamajf LFTRs cannot melt down. This was what happened at Fukushima. LFTRs do not have nearly as much radioactive waste. You only need 1 ton of thorium for 1 GW, compared with 250 tons of Uranium for 1 GW. So if something DID go wrong and there was a leak, the aftermath would be far, far, far less devastating. No where near Fukushima, which was leagues less severe than the disaster at Chernobyl.
You can put a small amount of the thorium that would be used in these in your pocket. It's safe.
@Zeus0Moose Oh please, when you're ready to talk about actual real world technologies for solving the current energy problems, then I'll discuss them. This is sky pie, nothing more.
@stathamajf Solar is a joke. Wind is a joke. THAT'S pie in the sky. They cannot sustain a society due to poor efficiency. You show poor foresight. The later we research it, the later it is put into effect.
Thorium has a half life of over 14 billion years, with Alpha particle radiation. Such a slow decay rate means it is much safer to handle than other nuclear fuels. To add, Alpha radiation is nearly harmless from the exterior. This is a fact.
@gordonmcdowell Also if 'huge fires' didn't tip you off that my consequences for the last two were purposefully tongue in cheek to lighten the tone and save space...well then I'm unsure how you talk to people.
In an ideal world thorium reactors would be fantastic but the world isn't ideal and there are government and corporate interests to consider. De-centralized power generation (rooftop solar, wind and battery) should be encouraged as well because it returns some control back into the hands of the people. I'd rather make my own power. Also your lights will be on when there are grid failures and storms. I think thorium reactors would be great but I wouldn't push it at the expense of solar/wind/hydro
@howboutthisname I do share your concerns that somehow it might be possible to screw this up due to mismanagement, just as TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi was. But nuclear is not uniquely susceptible... accidents happen all the time with petroleum & fossil fuels and certainly lead to far more deaths (in total & per kWH). LFTR is inherently more stable... so human error is less likely to lead to trouble.
"Bill Gates on Energy Innovation" he is interviewed by renewable supporter...
@gordonmcdowell I think Howboutthisname was referring more to the reluctance of those controlling the fossil fuel power paradigms to allow Thorium to be developed or used. Myself, I can totally see the AEC, EPA, DHS et al. hauling anyone who talks about it to Gitmo in the near future. Of course between now and then we have a chance to guarantee the place overflowing if they try that ;)
@howboutthisname ...or at least interviewer presses solar & wind's potential. Gates says (essentially) these renewable sources don't scale. What looks good when you start deploying doesn't work when you're trying to cover beyond 20% of the load, because of intermittent nature. Interviewer asks about personal generation and electric cars for home storage. Gates jokes yeah, we should farm our own food too. But we don't. Too much hassle. Personal solar may work for you of course.
Kirk Sorensen and all the rest of the Thorium pioneers will eventually be regarded as heroes in the history books for bringing this back into the nuclear debate and giving cheap and abundant energy to the whole world.
NOT based on epedemiological data, hmmm based on some model, hmmm
Yeah the securitazation market was also based on some off reality model, wasn´t it? How about testing reality against your model and THEN deceide how safe it realy is?
@RegioLunar It is the current LNTH that is not based on epidemiological evidence. Actual epidemiological evidence from communities or workers exposed to increased background radiation supports the Hormesis hypothesis.
@TheAntiMalthusian Instead of just claiming this maybe you´ll reveal your secret source and i´ll dig up some source from France where at cadarash they found out it´s not so nice being exposed to low level ionizing radiation all the time.
Also i`d bet they mix up background radiation with artificial sources. This kind of cheating is typical for IAA or military "studies".
BTW a simple look at belorussia´d suffice to show how dangerous it is but go on: sources?
@RegioLunar For sources you can email Kirk about the facts in this movie. Or you can look on the wikipedia page for "Radiation Hormesis." Or you can google "radiation hormesis statistics." Since I can't post links here I have PM'd you two links to studies to get you started.
@RegioLunar: Ummm, are you aware that it is the Académie des sciences -- Académie nationale de Médecine wrote a report in 2005 stating "rejected LNT as a scientific model of carcinogenic risk for doses below 100 mSv." [quote from wikipedia] (citeseerx(.)ist(.)psu(.)edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.126.1681&rep=rep1&type=pdf). They consider "LNT model is only useful for regulatory purposes as it simplifies the administrative task".
@puncheex "The model is simple to apply" The only reason they use it.
If the clean up crews in Chernobyl had been examined thoroughly one would have gathered real world data on radiation exposure. But the IAEA idiots just keep ruminating shit as real world data´d ruin nuclear energies reputation forever.
But unfortunately we have another chance provided by usage of dirty bombs. The impact of PGU 14/B API munitions creates clouds of uranium dust while the impact site becomes toxic
@RegioLunar: The IAEA doesn't have anything to do with this. I didn't mention them in what I wrote; you seem to have a burr. I can't even be sure of the meaning of your sentence, apart from the vitriol. DU is hardly an appropriate study for hormesis; it might just as well be tungsten for all the radioactivity it exhibits.
Of course it´s not. Otherwise everybody´d understand how lethal it is.
But go on make up some other bogus "explanation" for the "gulf war syndrom". Has nothing to do with being exposed to uranium dust. It´s completely harmless because the military says so.
@RegioLunar: Oh, sure, DU's a metallic poison, just like arsenic. As a radioactive source it's about as good as soil; in fact, average soil has over two metric tons of DU in it per acre-foot. I make no explanation for GWS; I'm not a doctor, but I note that if it were the cause, why don't atomic workers, particularly miners, suffer from it? And I know you have no better argument for it. I don't listen to military; I listen to science. Get with it.
Maybe because the ore is less concentrated as a DU dirty bomb? And miners DO suffer from typical illnesses acompanied with ionizing radiation namely cancer?
Thanks for posting. and btw @regiolunar if you hear a loud popping noise it is your head being released from between your buttocks. Todays lunacy often becomes tomorrows answer and solution. Depends on plasticity of minds often determined by ego appetite. POP
"Ecologists" in Spain: they hear nuclear, stop listening, start complaining. We don't have modern centrals, garbage accelerators, and this reactors are unlikely to be built here. Of course, for "mother nature's" sake we have to mantain 40 year old centrals. Yay "ecologism"
2 fantastic hours of my life, I feel like I want to leave my current job in I.T and try to change the world now by pushing thorium in australia and educating the people I know about this.
Comment removed
marinqf 1 day ago
This vid sucks. It just a random string of clips
erikvanvelzen 3 days ago
@erikvanvelzen do you not know what a remix is?
Doopdon 1 day ago
I am much better informed now not only about LFTR, but also why current nuclear technology is so inefficient and expensive.
The explanation of rare earths and how China cornered the market explains why companies like Apple, Intel, etc now pay Chinese companies to produce finished goods instead of manufacturing them here in the US.
If we don't develop LFTR now in the US, in 10 years China will control the worlds energy market and we will be sitting in the dark wondering what happened.
CannibusGod 5 days ago
Wow, wow, wow...I am thoroughly convinced and much better informationally armed.
You know the key to making this publicly acceptable though? Get rid of two words.
"Nuclear" and "Reactor"
If you take away the source of stigma, fear mongering becomes more difficult. Marketing is key. Besides, what people mean when they say "nuclear" is really not what this is, as was shown in the video. What other accurate term could we use that hasn't been so stigmatized as "nuclear"?
madadivad1986 5 days ago
I just added the following tag to this video... yt:cc=on ...which supposedly enables captions by default. There's a lot of volunteer effort going into cleaning up non-English captions (which I greatly appreciate). I'd welcome any non-English feedback on how else to make this video more accessible. (Non-English feedback in English hopefully.) Yes, I know many language captions are still poor / Machine Translated.
gordonmcdowell 5 days ago
So why is there not a working reactor? Cheaply power 1 google data center and the rest will be history.
webcabbie 6 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
すごい動画発見しましたー(..)ﾉ
絶対みんなも見た方がいいよ!!!
「あむき」で検索してみて☆
世の中にはこんなことで悩んでる人もいるんですネッ！！
みんなも一度は見て欲しいー！
okjnu02 6 days ago
I mined heaps of Thorium in world of warcraft, I never thought of throwing neutrons at them though.
This is a really good idea and someone with enough capital should get behind it and make it happen.
loloolololololol 1 week ago
Why not use Nicola Tesla's design, and give the world unlimited free energy for ever?
nandedattebayo 1 week ago
@nandedattebayo Because there is no money in free energy.
1993gandy 1 week ago
@1993gandy Aah yes ofcourse...
nandedattebayo 1 week ago
Comment removed
OfficeThug 6 days ago
@nandedattebayo No such thing as free energy.
Besides, even if there was such a thing, nuclear power would still be cheaper.
OfficeThug 6 days ago
It's really unfortunate that Elizabeth May just doesn't get it.
OperationCrossroad 1 week ago 3
@OperationCrossroad I do not know how if Elizabeth May has watched this or not. I've sent her copies. She sent a letter back citing proliferation concerns and thanking me for my persistence. But I first tried to get her to learn about LFTR in 2009, and I can't say she's ever consumed anything beyond CCNR anti-nuclear materials (which includes thorium... if it involves fission, they don't like it). Real shame for Canada, and for our Green Party.
gordonmcdowell 1 week ago 3
@gordonmcdowell
Have you ever considered trying to contact Rick Mercer? You know: Rick Mercer, that CBC comedian guy from Newfoundland?
Rick Mercer is a pretty smart guy and he has the ear of Elizabeth May (and of a lot of people in the Green party). So, if Mercer understands how interesting LFTR (i.e.: it is nuclear energy done the right way), he might be able to help Liz May see the light.
It's a long shot for sure, but it may worth trying.
Cheers.
OperationCrossroad 1 week ago 2
@OperationCrossroad Rick Mercer. Good idea. Will put him on the "harass them until the get a court order" list.
gordonmcdowell 1 week ago 3
That was a long 5 minutes.
KenMacMillan 1 week ago
Comment removed
blackey5000 1 week ago
Sorry after the disaster with the THTR-300 in germany iam absolutly not convinced that Thorium reactors are an alternative? Whats the difference with this reactor? Why should it be any better?
Steuben1978 1 week ago
@Steuben1978 "What is the difference with this reactor?" THTR-300 = pebble bed [solid fuel] core. LFTR = liquid fuel. In my video, which I'm sure you've TAKEN THE TIME TO WATCH, Kirk points out why solid fuel is not optimal for safety or efficiency. If you search for RALUCA TEAC3 you can hear a pitch for an new thoruim pebble bed reactor design. That might contain information more in line with your concerns of the German reactor.
gordonmcdowell 1 week ago 7
@gordonmcdowell
Wow such a quick answer! Very cool! Since iam not a scientist its very hard to form a valid opinion about stuff like this. Unfortunatly nuclear power is dead in germany! Everybody including one Person in my family thinks solar and wind is the way to go! Which is ridicilous! The problem for people like me is, that you cant offer an acceptable Alternative. Maybe Thorium is that alternative!
Steuben1978 1 week ago
probably the most insightful documentary i have watched this year.
then33k4 1 week ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
DISCOUNT tiny.cc\7775c
Product Description
Ritmo Mundo Mens 232
Rich with contemporary function and classic chronograph styling, the Ritmo Mundo Men's Watch features a stainless steel case and a textured synthetic leather band. Set on the case is a stainless steel bezel with tachymeter information. This bezel surrounds an attractive two-tone dial that boasts subdials at the three, ...
For more details please copy the Amazon link below in your browser:
tiny.cc\7775c
disesaliq7 1 week ago
Wow this is extremely profound.
poetsguide 2 weeks ago
Please tell us what to do to get involved and progress this effort!!!
afdave7 2 weeks ago
I'm fundraising a 2012 edition via KickStarter (dot-com). It WILL be made, funding or not. And it WILL be better than this 2011 edition. For a detailed argument WHY funding the sequel is worth your time (and money) please head to KickStarter and search for THORIUM. Thanks, -g
gordonmcdowell 2 weeks ago 3
OK, i watched it all the way through, where do i print my certificate in armchair nuclear physicist? LOL. very intriguing. i'm probably not smart enough to rebut much of what i saw, so i kind of bought it hook, line and sinker? i don't see the downside? i don't understand why it's not moving forward? WHAT CAN I DO TO HELP???
afdave7 2 weeks ago 2
@afdave7 I'm trying to fund a sequel for 2012. If you search THORIUM at Kickstarter (dot-com) you'll find it. That is obviously an indirect way of pushing this forward. There's a petition (we-the-people) in the works. Companies such as Flibe Energy are looking for funding, but that's for big investors... there's no mechanism yet by which non-investor types (such as myself) can contribute small amounts directly to R&D. Talking to friends about it is best most can do (but does a lot).
gordonmcdowell 2 weeks ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
so basically.. thorium protects the earth from solar winds.. so we should use it up in reactors to provide us energy.. yeah that part got me
Powd3r81 2 weeks ago
so basically.. thorium protects the earth from solar winds.. so we should use it up in reactors to provide us energy.. yeah that part got me
Powd3r81 2 weeks ago
@Powd3r81 I'm pretty sure the thorium he was talking about in that case was located far too deep down in the earth to be mined, and thus cannot be "used up". The earth's crust is just 1% of the earth's volume, it's 5-10 km thick and the worlds deepest mineshaft is 3,9 km deep. That thorium is not going anywhere and even if we managed to deplete every deposit if thorium in the earth's crust I doubt that'd make a difference since it's only 1% of the entire earth's volume.
L42Y80N35 2 weeks ago
@Powd3r81 It would literally take us thousands of years to use up all known thorium reserves to power the planet in this reactor.
johnberrynix 2 weeks ago
Klasse Video, ersklassig recherchiert... Toll wie man so etwas außerhalb Deuschland diskutiert. Thumbs up!
blcv26 2 weeks ago
Long live Thorium, until which time Earth technology evolves beyond Thorium Reactors.
akirafactor 3 weeks ago 3
Comment removed
akirafactor 3 weeks ago
Don't want to sound dumb or anything. But is that liquid fluoride the same stuff they put in out toothpaste? Just sayin.... Has anyone researched the origins of fluoride? How it was originally used. What it does to the brain? etc etc.
maximumcorruption 3 weeks ago
@maximumcorruption Toothpaste uses Sodium floride.The LFTR that Kirk is speaking about will utilize a eutectic mixture of lithium fluoride and beryllium fluoride. I know there are other MSR types that use other salts such as the liquid-chloride, fast-spectrum reactors but the main one talked about here is the thermal spectrum of the LFTR.
Darkwizzrobe 3 weeks ago
@maximumcorruption NO ONE has researched the origins of fluoride. Note to self... research the origins of fluoride. Thanks!
gordonmcdowell 2 weeks ago
Imagine if a car ran on a micro thorium reactor.
Hardwyre 3 weeks ago
@Hardwyre I like how you're thinking, "Let's quit using fossil fuels!" However, it would be quite dangerous, expensive, and inefficient to put nuclear reactors inside cars. Instead, we can use LFTR's extreme energy density to synthesize carbon neutral fuels like dimethyl ether, methanol, and ammonia to use in our cars with very little modification. Electric cars will also become more prevalent as battery technology improves.
therealericmeyer 3 weeks ago
How hard would it be to make a micro reactor to power a small housing development? Instead of building a massive reactor for an entire region, why not think on the micro scale?
Hardwyre 3 weeks ago
Why don't we all inundate our representatives with questions about Thorium? We could all also inundate Bill Gates and others with info about it. China should not be allowed to be the only ones who pursue this.
pfewell 3 weeks ago
I can tell this guy worked for NASA, the redundancy in this vid is astounding at least 5X redundancy
raypsi 3 weeks ago
@raypsi Proving the same point in 5 different ways is always better than just the one ;)
MiracleBlueOfficial 3 weeks ago
Wind, solar, tides ... they all suffer from the efficiency problem.
But what about geothermal ?
No one seems to talk about it.
MrCroky123 3 weeks ago
@MrCroky123
Geothermal is extremely limited by where if can be effectively placed. Also, construction is difficult and maintenance is a pain in the ass since a large amount of your device is buried.
Hardwyre 3 weeks ago
@Hardwyre I understand what you are saying, but that is no longer true.
The same technology that makes it feasible to drill for and harvest oil deep within the Earth can be used to dig down to the depths needed to reach effectively high temp.
As for a large amount of the hardware being underground, this is true only to the extent that the pipe that allows the steam to get to the surface is underground. The pipe may be a mile or more long, but the same could be said about any oil well.
Meredith34567 3 weeks ago
LFTR energy sounds interesting, but this video feels very one-sided. There's still waste to deal with. Can he guarantee the freeze plug will never fail? Why does he feel it necessary to attack solar and wind power?
RichSPK 1 month ago
@RichSPK The reason Solar and Wind aren't being considered is mostly due to efficiency levels.
Kerioscha 4 weeks ago
@RichSPK If the freeze plug fails, the fission stops. There would be no hazard, just a lot of guys getting chewed out over lost profits.
johnberrynix 3 weeks ago
@RichSPK He is simply telling the truth about solar and wind power -- they are inefficient as technology now stands, and it doesn't look like they will improve any time soon.
Yes, this is one-sided, but then everything you've heard about solar and wind are too, much more so than nuclear power.
There is no guarantee that the plug won't fail, but it is a very simple fail-safe, while the current fail-safes are very complex and thus much more likely to fail.
Meredith34567 3 weeks ago
@RichSPK: Radio decay in some atoms are fast (low half-life, high intensity), medium (moderate h-l and intensity), or slow (long h-l, low intensity). Actinides (heavy fuel materials and their decay chains) occupy all 3 classes, and are alpha emitters (considered 20x worse than beta for internal cell damage). Fission products are only fast or slow, so are either fast decaying (< ~300 yrs) or low intensity, none with hl from 30 to < 20,000 years, and are exclusively beta emitters. ...
puncheex 5 days ago
... The actinides supply most heat (alphas are energetic), fission products don't need to cool before processing, so no pools of cooling rods. The FP waste of LFTR are processed continuously; the fuel stays in the reactor until it is "burned" up.
So, the wastes from LFTR are continuously extracted and processed in small quantities, don't contain actinides, and decay to near background levels within 300 yrs. Only 3% or so of wastes need to be extracted and stored longer.
puncheex 5 days ago
This is huge. More people need to know about this.
luketheduke0 1 month ago 2
Great video!
CharlySander44 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FashionOneAsia That problem has already been solved by crystalline zirconia-zirconium metal material the only problem is that it is so expensive that it can only be used as a coating material and not as a primary material. These materials are called amorphous metal alloys.
darthvader5300 8 minutes ago
darthvader5300 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
i just randomly clicked on this video and read some of the comments, YOUR ALL FUCKING NERDS!
MjBuddahHMH 1 month ago
Ignorant eco idiots and the establishment are keeping us from our greatest achievements.
1965ace 1 month ago in playlist Favorite videos 2
I love this video! Best remix yet. The only thing I wish is that Kirk would have debated with an energy professional who is a green- rather than the young girl who has 'intuitive' concerns. Keep on going FLIBE! I can't wait for an IPO.
Jaxamundo 1 month ago 4
In the 1950s and 1960s they have successfully designed and tested a prototype reactor using molten nuclear fuel, plutonium or uranium, held in tantalum cups and cooled by liquid sodium. The question is, why not use this technological breakthrough that solves the accidental melting of fuel rods because the fuel being used is already molten anyway? Pressurized helium or liquid flouride salts can be used as coolants connected to a heat exchanger to run a turbine engine driven generator.
darthvader5300 1 month ago
seems cool, maybe i'll go invest in some thorium mines
turbolazer1 1 month ago
@turbolazer1 I wouldn't invest in the mines, the money will be in the licencing of parts of the technology. When an energy source is just discovered the problems are not around finding the stuff its extracting it.
TomAnkcorn 1 month ago
Check out the Free Piston Stirling Cycle Engine design that Sunpower uses in it's Biowatt electric generator. Might work well with a Molton Reactror that would be small enought to put in your basement. Just like Ike said in the nifty fifties! I like Ike.
ufoengines 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Well, "obviously a better option" is widely disputed. The fact that it is 1/3 as expensive is not really relevant (with nuclear fuel just being a negligible factor in operating costs). There are many more factual issues in the video (like stating that Thorium has only one isotope - which is wrong, there are 6 isotopes of Th) - but the biggest issue are the huge challenges with molten salt being highly corrosive. SRE is a good lesson what uncertainties to deal with when getting into unchartered
FashionOneAsia 1 month ago
@FashionOneAsia Thorium has one stable isotope. You mine it. That's the isotope you find. As compared to Uranium, where the most useful isotope is a rare one. No one is claiming molten salt isn't corrosive. What is being claimed is that is a manageable problem. Your name isn't Kevin Meyerson is it? Somehow he manages to keep popping up, posting comments that don't really advance the conversation and only cause confusion. Good to have a hobby.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago 23
Comment removed
darthvader5300 1 month ago
@FashionOneAsia The corrosive issue was figured out in the 60's. Nickle based alloys almost completely remedy this issue. This reactor ran for 4 years during that time (with the project being shut down due to politics), why do you think that in 2012 we would be unable to figure this out?
johnberrynix 3 weeks ago
@FashionOneAsia "molten salt being highly corrosive" to WHAT are they corrosive? Not to Hastalloy-N, or Graphite, SiC, high Molybdenum alloys, etc.
Water is highly corrosive to sugar. That is not an argument against glass bottles.
yt2845 2 weeks ago 6
go to 10:40 it says:
in focus
not out of focus
maybe you need glasses
try squinting
try 3d glases
oops
what was that????
isrsan 1 month ago
Thank you for putting up these videos, and remixes of the longer presentations into formats that appeal to a range of potentially interested people. I really hope this technology takes flight in the coming years; if only for the selfish desire to see us all propelled into a new age of enlightenment (I can dream!) :)
ster0302 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
The speakers in this video conveniently forgot to mention the disasterous Sodium Reactor Experiment in Simi Valley CA which experienced an extensive meltdown in 1959. The highly corrosive nature of molten salt presents unprecedented engineering challenges that may far outweigh its benefits. Also, cost of reactor fuel is really not the driving factor in operating a nuclear plant, so if you spent $100/kg for Uranium instead of $30 for Thorium is really not relevant ...
FashionOneAsia 1 month ago
@FashionOneAsia 59:29 Kirk talks about fast breeders and why he's not a fan of sodium. Why do people comment on a video they haven't watched?
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago 17
@gordonmcdowell
The reason people make those comments: They think it makes them seem smart.
Especially ironic, huh...
Honesty4Peace 3 weeks ago
@FashionOneAsia Did you just try to say that a accident that happened 53 years ago is an excuse for not continuing what is obviously a better option that using uranium?
Sumzja 1 month ago
@FashionOneAsia sodium is not a salt, it is an element, and Kirk is very clear in the movie that he is not for sodium cooled reactors. Sodium chloride is a salt! Big difference. Salt doesn't explode when exposed to air or water like sodium does.
TheAntiMalthusian 1 month ago
@FashionOneAsia Please do some research before making mis-informed comments. The corrosive issue was figured out in the 60's. It is 2012, the same alloys still exist as well as a lot of new ones. If we can't figure it out now, something is wrong other than the corrosive issue.
johnberrynix 3 weeks ago
icanhascheezburger even
jaxxrr 1 month ago
why the hell is icanhascheesburger mentioned ??
jaxxrr 1 month ago
Questions - does the electromagnetic field produced by the total amount of thorium in our planet significant enough to affect the total magnetic field of the planet?
If so, doesn't the consumption of thorium in the long run be bad for the magnetic field of the planet, hence risking destruction caused by solar winds?
Soulgage 1 month ago
@Soulgage I'm not an expert on that so will field it until an expert chimes in: I can't imagine the quantity we'd consume (from the very top of the Earth's crust) would harldy matter compared to the quantity between top of crust and mantle. Google: Kim Johnson Thorium ...for more about that aspect of thorium (& uranium), if you haven't already watched Kim's presentation.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago
@Soulgage no the electro-magnetic field is generated from the molten metal in the core of the earth, not the thorium in the crust.
TheAntiMalthusian 1 month ago
As much as I appreciate this guy promoting LFTR with all the obvious benefits, I think his little rant about the health effects and even 'health benefits' of radiation (see 1:26:00) flies in the face of highly researched and very well established science. It has been both established experimentally (e.g. lab mice exposed to X-rays) and epidemiologically (e.g. higher cancer rate near Chernobyl) that raditiation is damaging, even in small doses. Hell, there's even a unit for this: Sievert
Baarsian 1 month ago
@Baarsian In addition, the theory of hormesis that he mentions, although valid with many other compounds, does not apply to radiation. There's a strong consensus on this. He should simply focus on what he knows best: LFTR.
Baarsian 1 month ago
@Baarsian there are a number of radiation studies that validate the hormesis model, especially cases of nuclear workers exposed to plutonium and uranium that should have had much higher rates of cancer and in fact had less cancer than normal. Google hormesis radiation study there's a few out there but they don't validate LNTH so there's not as much money out there to fund them
TheAntiMalthusian 1 month ago 2
@Baarsian I do think the question of low-level radiation exposure is worth looking into... more so than when I was editing and decided to include this tangent. Please Google: NOBEL PRIZE LIED RADIATION ...for what I've read since releasing this video. Of course if NLT is wrong, that does NOT automatically make Hormesis correct. Kirk cites books in DVD version I had to cut to get under 2 hours for YouTube.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago
@stathamajf is a troll. Nobody could be that ignorant.
yt2845 1 month ago
watching film second time. I always hated those stupid solar panels(oh lets put those panels everywhere) , now i hate it more ! Thank you for this film!!
pand2aren 1 month ago
@pand2aren Solar panels are excellent on small-scale installations like rooftop panels for a home. Mine for instance has a 7.2kW system, which feeds back into the grid, and the power company sends me a cheque instead of a bill. But having said that, the space used by the panels to collect enough sunlight to generate that power is substantial, and obviously poses some problems when thinking in terms of industrial-scale power generation.
Solar has its place, as does thorium ;)
MiracleBlueOfficial 3 weeks ago
Folks I [BLOCKED] @stathamajf as he has not watched the video. I accused him 2x of not watching it. Then 10 minutes later he responded "Okay, watched it, now I'm even less convinced." It is of course a 2 hour video. For all I know it was anti-nuke troll Kevin Meyerson.
If you come and troll the video content... ok at least you are debating VIDEO CONTENT. If you haven't watched the video and you're just spouting random anti-nuke arguments, THEN YOU ARE SPAMMING.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago 20
@gordonmcdowell You're not really interested in discussion if you're willing to block people. You're interested in getting people to agree with you with the threat of being silence otherwise.
BoredInfidel 1 month ago
@BoredInfidel "People" = Kevin Meyerson, commenting without having watched the video. After ADMITTING he had not, 10 minutes later he claimed he'd watched it and started trolling again. Do you see the mathematical PROBLEM i have with that?
Check out his twitter account. Who wants that noise?
MANY critical comments here & intelligent debate about why this is/not a viable solution.
Video is CC licensed, YouTube editor enabled. Edit a rebuttal video and exert 100% control over it.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago 3
@stathamajf I agree that we should put effort into improving alternative energy sources. My disagreement was with Fukushima as a argument against Nuclear power, as Nuclear power is safe if maintained correctly. I think by the time we go futher into space Nuclear will be long gone.
littleheadspin 1 month ago
@littleheadspin Perhaps, however I maintain disagreement with your point. Fukushima was preventable, but that's the entire point. People screw things up, and solar etc has a lot lower cost from those screw-ups.
stathamajf 1 month ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I'm sorry but I simply cannot support any form of nuclear power. It seems pointless to me, there is more then enough potential for 'renewable' sources. Why the hell should we try and generate power from something so dangerous in this case?
I hoped the Fukushima events might make people think.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf Fukushima was a badly built power plant. It failed because of this reason, not because it was a nuclear reactor.
littleheadspin 1 month ago
@littleheadspin And of course there'll never be another bad build, right?
There'll never be mistakes, never be unforseen disasters, we'll all build highly dangerous reactors and nothing will eveer, ever, ever go wrong with them.
Nuclear technology is too risky for domestic power sources. I certainly think it should be developed, it's got good uses in space programs and such of the future. But for anything where an accident will lead to huge problems...not worth it, other options
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf I never said that. Nuclear meltdown occurs very rarely and when it does, it's always down to poor maintenance and design flaws. The current available alternatives are just not reliable nor acceptable for the foreseeable future.
littleheadspin 1 month ago
@littleheadspin My point is that it doesn;t matter how rare it is, if it's possible for it to happen, then sooner or later it will happen. If a solar panel breaks then it gets fixed, if a wind trubine breaks it might hurt those below it.
If a nuclear power plant breaks...well I think you know the next bit.
The alternatives are perfectly workable if we'd just put some more effort into them rather then pushing oil and coal and gas. And they don't explode and leave fallout.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf I completely agree!
littleheadspin 1 month ago
@littleheadspin ...huh?
Well that's certainly never happened before, are you new to the internets? ;)
Well in that case would you also agree that developments in nuclear power will likely be incredibly useful in the future for space programs and such where fallout and explosions are a lot less of a collateral risk?
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf I don't understand how you could have watched this documentary and still take your position. Solar and Wind simply can't keep up with the world's energy demand as the population continues to grow. If we don't embrace radical breakthroughs, we'll keep picking up with slack with fossil fuels until the climate is trashed. Forget everything you know about Nuclear, LFTR is a game changer.
therealericmeyer 1 month ago
@therealericmeyer Because have information from more then just this video perhaps? Maybe I think with my brain?
Stop spouting propaganda, I;m not feeble minded.
a) There's more energy available from current renewable sources then we're ever going to use, by orders of magnitude
b) LFTR is nice on paper, in reality things aren't so neat and it still blows up when someone screws the pooch. Murphies Law my friend, add human nature to the mix and nuclear is a seriously bad idea.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf IT DOES NOT BLOW UP. IT CANNOT BLOW UP. This is why they stopped researching it because we were in the Cold War. Nuclear warheads were being produced, and Thorium reactors CANNOT PROVIDE THE FUEL TO MAKE THEM.
Zeus0Moose 1 month ago
@Zeus0Moose You're trying to act as if this is current technology, it isn't. I'm not arguing this any further, indeed I wouldn't have biothered at all if I'd realised how much of this was wishful thinking. Of course it's perfect, it's still theory.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf are the alternatives better?
nextbigfuture . com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html
Yea Biomass has 12 death per TWh. Do you realy mean, that is better?
motim92 1 month ago
@motim92 Links bust, but assuming the source is legit it's still better.
The deaths are only the start, then comes the damage due to fallout, the sickness and mutation. Huge areas made unlivable for decades and clouds of fallout that drift for miles to completely foreign areas.
It is simply not worth the risk. Not for terrestrial power generation. Not when we have other options.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf
If the energy of Fukushimna had been generated by Biomass there were around 10000 death. With the LNT-Hypothese you would calculate around 100-1000 death in 30-40 years, the problem is, that there could be hormesis...
(delete the cabs in the link)
motim92 1 month ago
Comment removed
stathamajf 1 month ago
@motim92 You have an interesting view of statistics.
I did that, the blog wouldn;t go straight to the page, however I managed to find the right bit and frankly I was unimpressed.
stathamajf 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@stathamajf
If the energy of Fukushimna had been generated by Biomass there were around 10000 death. With the LNT-Hypothese you would calculate around 100-1000 death in 30-40 years, the problem is, that there could be hormesis...
(delete the cabs in the link)
motim92 1 month ago
@stathamajf How far did you watch into the video? There's some pretty compelling arguments against the effectiveness of solar&wind. (Bill Gates has lots to say on the subject if you want to look beyond my own video.) And Fukushima is examined in contrast to North American nuclear deployment/operation. Everyone's thinking about nuclear power post-Fukushima, but I don't think we're all coming to the same conclusions.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago
@gordonmcdowell Look, let's be clear on this. The world is not perfect, things do not always go right. So I think creating anything that can go nuclear when things go wrong is a bad idea.
Sure it won't happen much, but the risk is simply too high to be worth it.
The technology is great, until someone messes something up, or something unforeseen goes wrong, then;
solar-property damage
wind-maybe personal damage
oil-huge fires
nuclear-mushroom cloud
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf No. This does not risk "nuclear mushroom cloud". I do not believe you have watched the video. If you have not watched the video, please refrain from commenting.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago
@gordonmcdowell You assume watching means I have to agree with you. It doesn;t work that way, which is my exact point.
On paper the tech is great, and I have no problem with much of it. I still prefer solar etc, but not enough to get iffy.
But off paper is a different story, you seem to believe that every single facility will be perfect, and all the staff will be too. And nothing will ever go wrong. That's fantasy, plain and simple. Nuclear is too risky given other clean options.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf I do not believe you watched the video.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago
@gordonmcdowell Okay, watched it, now I'm even less convinced.
This is future tech, not proven, not well tested. and it sounds far too good to be true even if we can get it operational this century.
And say we do, it's still producing nuclear waste, it's still a serious problem if a containment breach or disaster occurs and it still requires the same transport networks and inefficiencies that we have now. Why do people try to rejig a system when starting over is better?
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf In 10 years, most of the waste is safe and able to be put back into the market for re-use. The rest is only there for hundreds of years as opposed to the thousands of years in current reactors. And "too good to be true"? That's just a cop-out. All that we know of thorium and all the tests done in the 20th century point to it as being highly viable as a fuel. You act like this is a traditional reactor, and it is not.
Zeus0Moose 1 month ago
@Zeus0Moose You act like you have any facts on the matter. This is at least 50 years from usage, and currently highly theoretical. And it already looks to be nothing like as good as you're saying, the half life you quote is utter b*llsh*t especially.
This is going to hit too late to be any good even if it is as good as is said, by the time it appears we'll either have made it irrelevent or we'll be long since screwed.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@gordonmcdowell Not to mention that you're still producing a massive amount of radiation in basic operation that again is a big problem if something ever goes wrong.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf LFTRs cannot melt down. This was what happened at Fukushima. LFTRs do not have nearly as much radioactive waste. You only need 1 ton of thorium for 1 GW, compared with 250 tons of Uranium for 1 GW. So if something DID go wrong and there was a leak, the aftermath would be far, far, far less devastating. No where near Fukushima, which was leagues less severe than the disaster at Chernobyl.
You can put a small amount of the thorium that would be used in these in your pocket. It's safe.
Zeus0Moose 1 month ago
@Zeus0Moose Oh please, when you're ready to talk about actual real world technologies for solving the current energy problems, then I'll discuss them. This is sky pie, nothing more.
stathamajf 1 month ago
@stathamajf Solar is a joke. Wind is a joke. THAT'S pie in the sky. They cannot sustain a society due to poor efficiency. You show poor foresight. The later we research it, the later it is put into effect.
Thorium has a half life of over 14 billion years, with Alpha particle radiation. Such a slow decay rate means it is much safer to handle than other nuclear fuels. To add, Alpha radiation is nearly harmless from the exterior. This is a fact.
Zeus0Moose 1 month ago
@gordonmcdowell Also if 'huge fires' didn't tip you off that my consequences for the last two were purposefully tongue in cheek to lighten the tone and save space...well then I'm unsure how you talk to people.
stathamajf 1 month ago
LOL @ 1:01:25 "He won't return my calls..." "Don't feel bad."
This is an excellent video.
RandomGuy0987 1 month ago
GREEN IS NEW RED.
sebek23b 1 month ago
thx for the video
tostrong4you 1 month ago
22 viewers have high stakes in the fossil fuel industry.
Don'tforgetme: Yeah, the intro is 5-minutes long. Couldn't ask for a better overview of the movie.
MyBrotherMan 1 month ago 5
In an ideal world thorium reactors would be fantastic but the world isn't ideal and there are government and corporate interests to consider. De-centralized power generation (rooftop solar, wind and battery) should be encouraged as well because it returns some control back into the hands of the people. I'd rather make my own power. Also your lights will be on when there are grid failures and storms. I think thorium reactors would be great but I wouldn't push it at the expense of solar/wind/hydro
howboutthisname 1 month ago
@howboutthisname I do share your concerns that somehow it might be possible to screw this up due to mismanagement, just as TEPCO's Fukushima Daiichi was. But nuclear is not uniquely susceptible... accidents happen all the time with petroleum & fossil fuels and certainly lead to far more deaths (in total & per kWH). LFTR is inherently more stable... so human error is less likely to lead to trouble.
"Bill Gates on Energy Innovation" he is interviewed by renewable supporter...
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago
@gordonmcdowell I think Howboutthisname was referring more to the reluctance of those controlling the fossil fuel power paradigms to allow Thorium to be developed or used. Myself, I can totally see the AEC, EPA, DHS et al. hauling anyone who talks about it to Gitmo in the near future. Of course between now and then we have a chance to guarantee the place overflowing if they try that ;)
MyBrotherMan 1 month ago
@howboutthisname ...or at least interviewer presses solar & wind's potential. Gates says (essentially) these renewable sources don't scale. What looks good when you start deploying doesn't work when you're trying to cover beyond 20% of the load, because of intermittent nature. Interviewer asks about personal generation and electric cars for home storage. Gates jokes yeah, we should farm our own food too. But we don't. Too much hassle. Personal solar may work for you of course.
gordonmcdowell 1 month ago
anyone else laugh a bit at the bit about the guy being impaled by a control rod?
MrCythos 1 month ago
seeing this made a sad..
ridderopaard 1 month ago
Guess I'm gona go to china when I graduate.
FireBIaze 1 month ago
Kirk Sorensen and all the rest of the Thorium pioneers will eventually be regarded as heroes in the history books for bringing this back into the nuclear debate and giving cheap and abundant energy to the whole world.
TheAntiMalthusian 1 month ago
01:25:35
And that´s how you deny reality.
NOT based on epedemiological data, hmmm based on some model, hmmm
Yeah the securitazation market was also based on some off reality model, wasn´t it? How about testing reality against your model and THEN deceide how safe it realy is?
RegioLunar 1 month ago
@RegioLunar It is the current LNTH that is not based on epidemiological evidence. Actual epidemiological evidence from communities or workers exposed to increased background radiation supports the Hormesis hypothesis.
TheAntiMalthusian 1 month ago
@TheAntiMalthusian Instead of just claiming this maybe you´ll reveal your secret source and i´ll dig up some source from France where at cadarash they found out it´s not so nice being exposed to low level ionizing radiation all the time.
Also i`d bet they mix up background radiation with artificial sources. This kind of cheating is typical for IAA or military "studies".
BTW a simple look at belorussia´d suffice to show how dangerous it is but go on: sources?
RegioLunar 1 month ago
@RegioLunar For sources you can email Kirk about the facts in this movie. Or you can look on the wikipedia page for "Radiation Hormesis." Or you can google "radiation hormesis statistics." Since I can't post links here I have PM'd you two links to studies to get you started.
TheAntiMalthusian 1 month ago
@RegioLunar: Ummm, are you aware that it is the Académie des sciences -- Académie nationale de Médecine wrote a report in 2005 stating "rejected LNT as a scientific model of carcinogenic risk for doses below 100 mSv." [quote from wikipedia] (citeseerx(.)ist(.)psu(.)edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.126.1681&rep=rep1&type=pdf). They consider "LNT model is only useful for regulatory purposes as it simplifies the administrative task".
puncheex 5 days ago
@puncheex "The model is simple to apply" The only reason they use it.
If the clean up crews in Chernobyl had been examined thoroughly one would have gathered real world data on radiation exposure. But the IAEA idiots just keep ruminating shit as real world data´d ruin nuclear energies reputation forever.
But unfortunately we have another chance provided by usage of dirty bombs. The impact of PGU 14/B API munitions creates clouds of uranium dust while the impact site becomes toxic
RegioLunar 5 days ago
@RegioLunar: The IAEA doesn't have anything to do with this. I didn't mention them in what I wrote; you seem to have a burr. I can't even be sure of the meaning of your sentence, apart from the vitriol. DU is hardly an appropriate study for hormesis; it might just as well be tungsten for all the radioactivity it exhibits.
puncheex 4 days ago
Comment removed
RegioLunar 2 days ago
@puncheex DU is hardly appropriate?
Of course it´s not. Otherwise everybody´d understand how lethal it is.
But go on make up some other bogus "explanation" for the "gulf war syndrom". Has nothing to do with being exposed to uranium dust. It´s completely harmless because the military says so.
RegioLunar 2 days ago
@RegioLunar: Oh, sure, DU's a metallic poison, just like arsenic. As a radioactive source it's about as good as soil; in fact, average soil has over two metric tons of DU in it per acre-foot. I make no explanation for GWS; I'm not a doctor, but I note that if it were the cause, why don't atomic workers, particularly miners, suffer from it? And I know you have no better argument for it. I don't listen to military; I listen to science. Get with it.
puncheex 2 days ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@puncheex "why don't atomic workers, particularly miners,"
Maybe because the ore is less concentrated as a DU dirty bomb? And miners DO suffer from typical illnesses acompanied with ionizing radiation namely cancer?
RegioLunar 2 days ago
Anyhow IF IAA and US military wouldn´t censor heavily what horrible consequences nuclear tech allready has general populus´d be entirely against it.
So uranium is harmless? yeah go to Falludja and understand HOW "harmless" it is.
I think there´re many intelligent ppl around this forum but as a matter of job interests they deny real world data.
Common "godzilla"? This is clearly ridiculing the most horrible thing perpetrated by US military action heralding this new century....
RegioLunar 1 month ago
Kirk made my day
MrJimmoes 2 months ago
なるほどすごく勉強になりました
AREROMONSTER 2 months ago
Thanks for posting. and btw @regiolunar if you hear a loud popping noise it is your head being released from between your buttocks. Todays lunacy often becomes tomorrows answer and solution. Depends on plasticity of minds often determined by ego appetite. POP
spectralmunchkin 2 months ago
@spectralmunchkin Maybe you should come over here and try disassembling a nuclear reactor.
RegioLunar 1 month ago
Totally changed my views on nuclear energy! Best 2 hour documentary in a long time!
EugeMyster 2 months ago 3
Get OPRAH on bored, get her out of retirement NOW !!
billmandell1 2 months ago
cool bin so geil
PamulaErlenelj204 2 months ago
it's NU CLEAR energy. what the fuck is NU CUE LAR???
blgdinger3 2 months ago
Is the UK goverment looking in to this? IT SHOULD!
happylambs 2 months ago
@happylambs NO? You should
watch?v=QEbjYr8rubA&
RegioLunar 2 months ago
Please like the video, add it to your favorites to push it.
It is so great, that more people must see it.
(And like this commend, so that everxbody read and do it)
motim92 2 months ago 30
"Ecologists" in Spain: they hear nuclear, stop listening, start complaining. We don't have modern centrals, garbage accelerators, and this reactors are unlikely to be built here. Of course, for "mother nature's" sake we have to mantain 40 year old centrals. Yay "ecologism"
CriminalMacabre 2 months ago
@CriminalMacabre Your username says it all..
RegioLunar 2 months ago
Comment removed
JillAngie3 2 months ago
2 fantastic hours of my life, I feel like I want to leave my current job in I.T and try to change the world now by pushing thorium in australia and educating the people I know about this.
starvis89 2 months ago 4