Added: 1 year ago
From: twit
Views: 7,513
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (29)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • Turning our back on fossil fuels means turning our backs on a bunch of nasty people who won¨t have it no matter what, even if they were to take the whole world to hell with them.

  • Would be great if anyone could do khanacademy style videos on nuclear tech.

  • Whole lotta shameless nuke stroking going on here in complete disregard of the massive historical record of coverups, meltdowns, near meltdowns, escaping radiation, full scale disasters laying waste to landscapes and livelihoods. Do you need a Fukushima in your backyard, Dr.Kiki, to wake up?

    Germany does not. They are fazing out nuclear.

  • @fctchk -- I guess you missed the discussion of the impressive safety record of nuclear power plants compared to other industrial processes? More deaths this year (2011) alone from coal and natural gas explosions or accidents than in 30 years of commercial nuclear power. The WHO and IAEA confirmed that only 50 died as a direct result of Chernobyl; zero deaths from TMI; zero deaths from Fukushima. Chernobyl is being repopulated with abundant fauna and flora. Germany will rue the day. Gazprom.

  • @osimnod Hi, I'm sorry to comment on your 3 month old comment, but if you think you should use a dishonest argument like only 50 died as a direct result of Chernobyl, then you are a fucking fucked up idiot. You don't need to propagate a filthy fucking horrible lie like that to promote the benefits of MSR's.

  • @heaviside1618 Should I be impressed that you can toss around the F-bomb or just pity you? I suspect the latter. As to Chernobyl, don't take my word for it, read for yourself or submit your own evidence to support your contention.

  • @heaviside1618 More people die from cancers caused by solar radiation than from reactors. Solar is way more deadly.

    Go nuclear!

  • it keeps bugging me that they keep saying burn the fuel. nuclear fuel shouldn't ever burn it fissions.

  • Kirk Sorenson is a very good spokesperson for Thorium nuclear technology. I also applaud Dr Kiki for having him on. It's a shame they only touched on the many benefits of the technology. In terms of the main obstacles in the Western world for adopting this technology the crucial ones are: 1) regulatory (especially the US NRC), 2) efficiency of electricity from natural gas. On the other side, China has huge incentives and advantages to develop all nuclear technologies. So, they will lead the way!

  • Edward Teller's last paper co-authored by Ralph Moirs called for the constuction of 17,000 gw of lftr's by the year 2100

  • Someone tell me why; if this technology is only half as good as Kirk Sorensen say's it is, why is the world not beating a path to his door???

  • @armstrongariz Because governments aren't particularly efficient at adapting new technologies after they's rewarded their friends with contracts.

  • Love this episode, thorium is the future!

  • Great video Dr Kiki. Kirk Sorenson is my hero.

  • Great show. Kirk: articulate, well-spoken as always. Dr Kiki: Great host and congrats on the new arrival!

    Wow imagine the earth core powered by Thorium. Nothing could be greener that that. Go Thorium!

  • It won't matter if this tech is the best thing since bread. Oil cartel runs the world and if they can lose power and control then no improved tech will be allowed.

  • It won't matter if this tech is the best thing since bread. Oil cartel runs the world and if they can lose power and control then no improved tech will be allowed.

  •  watch?feature=player_detailpag­e&v=2DVhUcld4oY#t=2043s

  • it is really great as comb : fusor and liquid thorium.

  • Kirk - you can put one in my backyard, basement, closet, or anywhere else you want. Please convince your employer to build one as soon as possible.

  • ==> Just to recap more benefits of TFMSR’s:

    * Affordable -- no high-pressure containment required; no thorium enrichment required; air cooled; no redundant cooling systems required; $10,000 annual fuel cost for 1GWe; .01 as much land area, and no buffer zone required

    * Plentiful Fuel -- thorium is abundant (400% more than uranium); high energy density -- one ton of thorium equivalent to 200 tons of uranium, and to 3,500,000 tons of coal.

  • @clemrod3

    well keep in mind, that "200 tons" of uranium is only if it's used in thermal spectrum reactors without a breeder blanket. In a fast reactor, however, Uranium has slightly more energy (reprocessing is harder with thorium uranium than uranium plutonium) than thorium.

  • ==> Just to recap more benefits of TFMSR’s:

    * Proven -- successful operation for over 5 years at Oak Ridge National Labs

    * Efficient -- continuous refueling; continuous waste processing; nearly 100% fuel consumption; nearly 50% thermal/electric conversion; competitive with coal and NatGas

  • ==> Just to recap the benefits of TFMSR’s and LFTR's:

    * Safe -- cannot melt down; passive SCRAM system operated by gravity -- no human intervention required; self-regulated cooling; load-following fission; burns nuclear plant waste and plutonium from weapons

    * Clean -- no CO2 emissions; no proliferation; .004 as much as non-LFTR mining waste; .001 as much as non-LFTR nuclear waste; 10-year storage for .00083 of the non-LFTR waste; 300 years for .00017 of the non-LFTR waste

  • KIKI. GREAT JOB ASKING GOOD QUESTIONS AND GREAT GUEST,

  • I would let you build one in my backyard.

  • im a fan of Kirk's stuff.

  • Fantastic show. Fascinating subject. Thumbs up. Thank you.

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more