Magnificent! Salim, I am sorry I did not see this sooner. The path to fusion is still unclear (although various "low budget" approaches show better promise than the "big science" projects, like the NIF). New research in LENR, apparently powered by the "weak" nuclear force may be an even better alternative, but it is "not ready for prime time" yet. We absolutely need a bridge- and it is clear to me that Thorium is the answer, and can get us from here to there. Thank you for your efforts to bring this to public view.
We need more people like Salim Zwein and Kirk Sorensen in our world. The problem we have is that there are probably 10 times more politicians that worry more about filling their own pockets and extremely rich people that believe in the top 1% income bracket are the privileged few. They don't realize that when it is gone for the masses it is also gone for them.
Wayne Fitzpatrick what you don't realize is that they probably have built for themselves an anti-matter generator the size of a flash drive for all we know...they not only restrict building thorium power plants...they restrict knowledge at its purest form...
Who is filling their pockets when nuclear is the most expensive method of supplying energy by far? See my comparative costs above, these are up to the minute figures, 2022, and as you will notice, nuclear is ahead of even fossil fuels including old coal, and many times the cost of renewables, which can be installed in weeks and not the 10 years it takes to build just one nuclear reactor, which also costs millions of tonnes of carbon in manufacturing the reactor - concrete and steel - as well as the CO2 emitted from the uranium mining, transportation, manufacture of fuel and disposal. The nuclear cult is so desperate now that renewables are far and away the best method and getting cheaper every year, that they pay liars to spread nonsense, which too many slow thinkers accept without once checking against easily found real facts. Stop ble3ating about the top 1%, only inadequates think that conspiracy theory is real. I understand they also eat babies, or so QANON morons believe. Get real.
The US spend 500 billion a year on Military and they can't invest $2 Billion to develop this technology. $2 Billion is like the budget for pencils at the pentagon.
What's worse is that development of LFTRS and other MSR would greatly increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil supplies. One of the less known possiblies of MSRs is in chemical processing, and one of the more promising places in that is using the high heat to create synthetic fuel from sea water. Even if we don't change over right away, which we wouldn't likely do because of economics, the navy have ships that create the fuel for aircraft and smaller ships from the very water the ships are sitting in.
Particularly tragic is all the people killed in coal "slag" and "slurry" disasters like the Buffalo Creek Disaster of the '70s and the Welsh disaster of the '60s which buried a school, killing all the children. Refinery fires have plagued both the oil and gas industries. The horrible safety record of fossil fuels is why I believe we need more reliance on nuclear in general, and thorium, in particular. Still. thank you for your good work in trying to popularize the LFTR movement...............
The 'accidnts' mentioned have nothing to do with generating, but are the result of human negligence, much like the nuclear industry which is run by arrogant, comfortably numb cultists.
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh.
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh.
Buddy, that's a bit rich... Fukushima was impacted by a tsunami much higher than what it was designed and expected to withstand. The Fukushima tragedy doesn't show that nuclear is unsafe, it reflects a need for bigger safe guards against nature. I don't disagree with safe, clean, cheap, abundant energy but it's a cop out to use Fukushima as an argument against nuclear
Look at all the leaks from all over the world happening all the time. It is unsafe and Dr.Weinburg knew this. We have the same GE design on over half 40 is it, of our nuclear power plants and they are over 30 yrs. old and were to be shut down years ago. They just get multiple extensions and keep running them. Also how many of ours are on fault lines?
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and dozens of other 'accidents' which have raised 'background radiation hugely and killed many thousands by direct radiation poisoning. It is estimated that the Chernobyl cloud that spread across Europe caused 10,000 cases of leukemia. Fukushima illustrates how nuclear proponents can't think logically and dismiss risks as something non technical people worry about. Their arrogance is the most dangerous part. Claiming no one could have anticipated the tsunami is rich, since major events like that are becoming commonplace as the climate becomes ever more unpredictable. Yet if a wind turbine is brought down the media crow about it for weeks! And if one bursts into flames, as all machines can at times, a massive fuss is made especially by the nimbies who object to seeing them. Lose one, erect a repacement. Simples.
And tsunamis are predicted to increase as the energy in the system grows, ice ,melting everywhere, but 20 times faster at the poles. An ice shelf the size of Britain and 1/2 miles thick will be crashing into the Southern Ocean in 2-5 years time. You think that won't send shock waves round the planet? Most nuclear reactors are on low lying coasts.
@@kokofan50 that's the end goal for the Indians too, the next generation of the thorium reactor is planned to be molten salt reactor, but they moved all nuclear facilities under the secrets act, so no one can file an RTI for information about the next stage, I don't know why they did that.
What could possibly go wrong with something run by India, a country with millions born on the streets, a caste system from a thousand years ago? They should stick to curry.
actually that story i got it from Kirk Sorensen. maybe he made it up to show how easily manageable the reactor was. In any case thank you for the insightful comment :)
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh. Who pays you to do this ridiculous hatchet job?
Considering that we are now in new charted territory for CO2 in the atmosphere and and sea level is rising; this is a much needed thing that should be redeveloped immediately. Time is running up. If power generation and industry account for over 50% of CO2 being emitted.
Most nuclear reactors are on low lying coasts. Do you think they know the sea level is rising? When Thwaites calves the ice shelf in 2-5 years time, many will be permanently flooded. Fukushima was just one, and alone is still spewing highly radioactive water into the sea becauase they haven't a clue what else to do to stop it exploding. Just wait for several hundred of the vile monstrosities around the world to be under water ...
well Diamond , I avoided going through that calculation, since there are many conflicting evaluations about it. and you can also see that solar, wind and hydroelectric do have an environmental footprint (from the mining to factory to use and recycling and mostly the land us)..so i kept it simple: the economic cost, although not conveying the full image of the real cost does reflect it to a certain degree.
You kept it simple to avoid the hard facts that show how expensive nuclear is, and how cheap renewables are, and getting cheaper every year. I have added some facts for you above, all verifiable, for 2022. Yes you bet there are many conflicting valuations, nuclear enthusiasts lie repeatedly about the costs, and confuse the dim they are real technical experts with cutting edge technology, when in reality they are flogging the dead horse of 1950s tech dreams, which dfepend on 18th century steam technology to create electricity wastefully [most of the energy goes either into the air as steam or straight into the sea as cooling water]. And ALL nuclear energy released from atoms is extra to the energy cycle of Earth and is thus adding to an already heating planet. Does the nuclear cult pay you for these lies or are you a paid up member? Like all religions, it relies on the faith of its followers, hard science factsdestroy its pathetic and desperate attempts to convince the hard of thinking. And I haven't once mentioned the disasters caused by complacent humans making basic mistakes, being so arrogant that they become careless. Not just the ones the media found out about like Three Mile Island, Cherdobyl and Fukushima, but the dozens of other 'accidents' in the US and the unknown numbers in Russia, which is bound to be massive as they are traditionally incompetent, witness their armed forces pathetic behaciour in Ukraine, with food rations 8 years past use by date and first aid kits from the 1980s. And all the nuclear ex-plosions plus all the nuclear energy have added to the global warming as they are outside the Earth's energy cycle fueled by the sun, and are thus adding to the problem, not a solution except to idiots or crooks.
Renewables carbon costs are minute compared to nuclear and you know it. Concrete and steet are high carbon emitters in manufacture. All wind turbines are recycled 100%. Nuke cultists are always economicazl with unpleasant facts when talking up nuclear, but never have an answer for it adding all the energy released to the Earth's energy cycle, from the first bombs, all the thosands of tests, the nuclear sumarines and all nuclear power. It is EXTRA to an already overheating system, and thus can't be considered an answer except by true believers, aka cult members. You lost the argument decades ago, 'atoms for peace' was only ever a PR exercise for the bombs.
The US government has funded several studies for the development of molten salt reactors. I feel the development of thorium reactors should be a Manhattan Project-class effort. The development of thorium-fueled reactors should proceed with all possible speed. We need cheap, clean, reliable power and we need it NOW. China acquired the plans from the molten-salt reactor developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the sixties. They are developing thorium technology as we speak. They have a 2-megawatt prototype that underwent tests in September, China plans to build its first commercial thorium reactor. Measuring only 10 feet (3 meters) tall and 8 feet (2.5 m) wide, the researchers claim it will be capable of generating 100 megawatts of electricity, enough to provide power for 100,000 people. The United States should have finished developing this technology 50 years ago but scrapped it in favor of reactors that could produce isotopes that could be used in bombs. We wasted a half-century of clean, pollution-free, and safe nuclear energy.
Great presentation and clear on topic. The Chinese are onto this one. As we know, capitalism operates by "owning" things, and whilst the fuel source, thorium, is cheap and abundant owning the LFTR reactor IP atm is the key and that's where the Chinese are investing. Salim was spot re US military skewing this technology, Nixon canned it 1974, and ironically it may be the US that pays more dearly in the future because of it.
Nixon was one, Carter was another, and Bill Clinton killed the reactor plan that three weeks before the Chernobyl meltdown proved that its fast neutron breeder reactor was meltdown immune. The Sierra Club and "Friends of the Earth" may be held responsible for all the deaths that dirty coal has caused because it hasn't been replaced by vastly safer, claeaner nuclear.
Albert Rogers Do you know that the farming ban on places in England were just this year finally lifted due to Chernobyl and over 5 million died? The sealife has been dying out in the Pacific since Fukushima and cancers even in our pets are at epidemic porportions? I am not condoning coal use but nuclear is a lie. www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems
From what I understand it's because both are destroyed in the process of the reaction. In thorium reactors a neutron source (likely spent Uranium fuel) is used to breed thorium into plutonium that's reacted to create energy, and the Plutonium reaction makes less uranium than was used. So, it's a very neat cycle that just needs a little bit of thorium and uranium to top off the tank.
You could if you separate out the pa233 which gives you U-233. This u-333 you create...shits itself. if you let it sit it will transmutate isotopes that would mess up the bomb. so to use a U-233 bomb one would have to generate enough of the U-233 and then build the bomb using it right away. much simpler to build it the old fashioned way. www.google.com/search?q=thorium+cycle&safe=off&tbm=isch&imgil=qkl20BZqFf7eDM%253A%253BD89g5hO5D3ty6M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fenergyfromthorium.com%25252F2011%25252F01%25252F30%25252Fchina-initiates-tmsr%25252F&source=iu&usg=__vO8cwrx0FBt6Y_2L71uiyIvz88U%3D&sa=X&ei=5E_cU5mPDKWdigKR_oFY&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAw&biw=1024&bih=648#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=qkl20BZqFf7eDM%253A%3BD89g5hO5D3ty6M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fenergyfromthorium.com%252Fimages%252FthoriumCycleNielsen.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fenergyfromthorium.com%252F2011%252F01%252F30%252Fchina-initiates-tmsr%252F%3B1166%3B739 Of course if you want to create terror just write the words nuclear bomb on a barrel and place it on a corner in downtown New York with nothing inside but maybe some uranium ore.
Hiroshima was bombed with a very simple weapon of nearly pure U-235, produced by isotopic "enrichment". The Trinity test, and the Nagasaki bomb, used Pu-239 (plutonium) generated in a short exposure reactor, about three months, and chemically separated from the uranium. The trouble is that Pu-240, which spontaneously fissions and emits neutrons, is created by neutron capture. So it needed a more complicated design, simultaneously assembling a critical mass of Pu-239 fast enough that the unstable Pu-240 would not set it off and blow it apart too soon. The trouble, or advantage, of thorium-generated fissile U-233 is that its isotopic contaminant U-232 can spoil the fast fission reaction at even smaller concentrations than the Pu-240 problem.
Thanks guys :-) Following you answers I've learned that a bomb made out of U233 produces too much gamma (U232 series), which cannot be easily concealed and can be easily detected, even from satellites. Thorium can be used to make bombs, countries might have the resources to make it, but it is very difficult.
A couple of points. I think we should just be clear - nuclear power already *is* safe. MSRs and Gen IV reactors will be safer still, but the nuclear tech we're using today is already just about the safest form of energy going. Only wind is safer (unless you're a bird), but only just, and unlike wind, nuclear energy actually has the potential to meet global energy demand fast enough to be relevant to a global climate change mitigation strategy. Nuclear weapons proliferation isn't a byproduct of commercial nuclear power - it's the result of a political choice to make nuclear weapons. There are lots of nations that have nuclear power that that haven't made that choice. Conversely, every nation that has nuclear weapons produced them before they had commercial nuclear power. Nuclear waste isn't really a problem either. All the nuclear waste humanity has ever generated could fit in a single large warehouse. Moreover, nuclear 'waste' consists almost entirely of unused fuel. Of the part of it that isn't fuel, much of the what remains consists of elements and isotopes that have valuable application in medicine and industry. Only the very small fraction left over will require a disposal strategy, but that is easily manageable given the fact that the stuff we're talking about is a small, solid, concentrated mass. Public fear of nuclear power is rooted in ignorance. We shouldn't count that against nuclear power, we should view it as an something to address through education.
Like you know anything about nuclear waste. All the nuclear waste the US has ever produced could fit inside a single wal-mart with plenty of room to spare, and almost all of what we call "waste" is actually fissionable fuel. The resulting fission by-products remain radioactive at levels that require it to be handled with some care for 300 years or so. That can be achieved easily by vitrifying and burying it.
No, you missed the point. Thorium byproducts can be considered (politically) safe after 300 years because fuel in an MSR inherently reprocessed. Waste from SFRs can also be reprocessed and, the slightly different decay chains notwithstanding, the half-life of the resulting fission by-products will be reduced accordingly.
Good presentation. I would stress for renewable energy to be viable, one would need BATTERIES!! The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine - they are intermittent at best and consume A LOT of land/sea area as you mentioned. LFTR is the best option. Unfortunately for the U.S., politics and science illiterate people were in charge at the time. Just think if Alvin Weinberg's MSRE were well-funded back then and they followed through.
I would stress that you need to educate yoiurself and get up to date. As well as many new battery materials and methods already in use, there are also alternatives such as gravity storage, flywheel storage, gas and liquid compression storage and chemical storage. Oh dea, you don't think you're the first t msay that ridiculous nonsense about wind not blowing etc? Think no one noticed before? The sun rises regularly and predictably every day or all life would die. Coincidentally most human need for energy is in the hours of daylight. People with PV p[anels on their roofs have free energy and sell the surplus to the grid, making upowards of £2,000 a year. Wind actually does blow all the time once you get a distance above ground level, try climbing a hill and see if it's windy, likewise it is always blowing at sea, and the old sailing ships rarely were bothered by no wind when sailing round the world. Turbines are situated nortmally on farmland, with crops betwen them, ditto large scale solar. You,of course, are American, and you have a lot of problems caused by stupidity and lies. Scientific illiteracy is common, and my post above dispels most of the lies nuclear pushes to the illiterate.
I don't like the click bait caption we don't need to save the world even if the global warming predictions are true the planet has been plenty warm before what we need power for is to save the modern culture which I think is worth saving.
google Santa susana field laboratory it was a liquid sodium reactor that melted down near los angelos ca in the late 50's, the reactor had no sufficient containment structure and radioactive gases were released. it is still being cleaned up... the accident was covered up for decades. molten metal reactors still need containment structures and the circulation pumps gaskets and lubrication are points of failure. Molten salt reactors need new breakthroughs in material science and design. There are great obstacles to their development that have not been overcome as of yet...
Esrikk Smith Liquid sodium was used in this reactor as a COOLANT, not as fissile material i.e.fuel, and would therefore appear to be completey irrelevant to a discussion of a reactor design based on thorium. Would you care to comment?
After studying the feasibility of using thorium, nuclear scientists Ralph W. Moir and Edward Teller suggested that thorium nuclear research should be restarted after a three-decade shutdown and that a small prototype plant should be built.[4][5][6] Research and development of thorium-based nuclear reactors, primarily the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), a molten salt reactor (MSR) design, has been or is now being done in India, China, Norway, the United States, Israel and Russia
Is there a good reason we don't let Iran build a few of these so we can see what the problems are. It seems full fill Iran's Stated intention of creating a nuclear power source with weapon grade uranium eliminated from the equation,
Is there a good talk "against" thorium reactors? I would really see arguments against it. Also why is everybody talking about how "dense" it is. So what? There are several elements that are far denser than thorium. Also why does it matter if you need to use 1l or 5l of thorium for the same amount of energy?
Solar and wind power are rather tenuous. The power we are trying to harness is spread out over large areas. The density of thorium (and other forms of nuclear power) mean that you can build a power plant on a relatively small piece of land. This means less disruption of wildlife. The high density of thorium power means that the few grams of thorium that might be found in any random cubic meter of the Earth's crust have the energy equivalent of about 30 cubic meters of coal that might be found only in certain geologic deposits where that material is concentrated. The fact that thorium is available as a waste product from mining operations whose purpose is to extract rare earth elements means that no additional disruption of the landscape needs to happen to support a thorium power industry. (Contrast this to the conventional uranium power industry. The element is more rare, and the useful form of it, the fissile isotope, is only a very small fraction of the natural uranium deposits. This means that large mining operations and enrichment facilities are needed to support the industry.) Cure for what ails the planet (Equal sharing of natural wealth): gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2013/11/are-corporations-evil-or-are-we.html
I don't know of any videos but you can go to the Wikipedia article on Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors and read the section "Disadvantages". en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages
The reason for stopping the Thorium project back in the 60s is because of US policy on the middle east oil, and its strategic allies there, they hit 2 birds in 1 stone and in the process they killed world development for better energy source.
The one thing in your talk I take issue with is that you said fossil fuels were "safe". I agree with you that thorium is the right path...but I disagree that fossil fuels have been "safe". You admitted that, even with uranium, nuclear statistically has the lowest casualty rate, thus far, which shows how deadly fossil fuels can be. 4,000+ Chinese coal miners die every year. More people died in the Deepwater Horizon disaster alone than have died for nuclear energy in a decade.
8:46 *the reactor was so cute the guys at oakrage turned it off*. what is the point of this anecdote. why did they turn off the thorium reactor over the weekend. what was it supposed to demonstrate. a nuclear reactor can't be turned off?
The problem with a ceramic, oxide fueled reactor -- by the way, this fellow oversimplifies -- is that iodine and xenon get trapped in the ceramic pellets. Where do they come from? Well, the problem is isotope 135 of xenon, some of it a direct fission product, but most of it a decay product of iodine 135. The problem is, that it captures neutrons at a prodigious rate, to become the harmless gas xenon 136. Shut down a ceramic fueled reactor, a regular LWR, and you have a lot of 135-I. After a while, that means a *_lot_* of 135-Xe, which if you try to start up the reactor, you have to lift up the control rods so they're doing almost nothing. _Then_, as the 135-Xe captures lots of neutrons, you have to put the control rods back in. If you're not quick enough, you might have a runaway reactor. This does not happen with the molten salt case, because at the reactor temperatures, even the iodine is a gas, and you bubble it off at the surface and let it quietly decay away from the neutrons.
@@ngeneshki Not only that, I believe they just let the chemical plug at the bottom of the reactor dissolve so the molten salt would simply drain into the lower chamber, i.e. demonstrating that the reactor was indeed 100% incapable of meltdown.
It's all from the mindset of the 1950s, using steam tech from the 18th century. PV converts sunlight directly into electricity with no loss. It's taking over a bigger and bigger share of the energy market, so much so that it is now subsidising costly nuclear as well as fossil fuels. See my post at the top, data from 2022.
It doesn't, strictly speaking, replace uranium. The fissile product IS uranium, isotope 233. The other breeder reactor makes fissile plutonium from the thermally non-fissile isotope 238 of uranium. He's too kind about solar-sourced "renewables", they're not just too expensive. There just isn't enough of the solar resource itself.
Matthew Fluty i think he meant that there isnt enough "sunlight" as a resource for us to harness and use it and fuel all or needs. We have no way to store the energy gained so we are dependent on the weather conditions and environment.
I install p.v systems for a living, and we have plenty of power from the sun but storage is a pain, but there's a few techniques such As grid tied systems, I love the idea of thorium cause of its energy density and availability
there is absolutely enough solar radiation to power the world. Problems that remain are the price and the rarity of the ressources for solar panels. And by replacing uranium by thorium he means that the material that you mine out of the ground will be thorium, not uranium.
There are hundreds of different nuclear reactor designs, all of which have their pros and cons. Thorium is just another of these designs. All of them have their advocates who claim theirs is the best and want attention and funding. Thorium and Uranium both have advantages and disadvantages. It will take a long time for regulators and the nuclear energy industry to decide if Thorium is worth pursuing on a large scale.
And all the designs have the one major disadvantage, apart from the horrendous cost, they all add energy to an already heating planet, which is then trapped by greenhouse gases along with sunlight. Atom splitting only impresses the challenged, who are either unaware it costs a hundred times what renewables cost [and still getting cheaper] or they would be asking to only be sold nuclear generated electricity, and pay the $1,000 + a month it costs. Renewable supporters get cheaper electricity, but what they pay includes subsidising nuclear and fossil fuels because they are all rolled into one for charging purposes. If my 100% renewable energy were charged properly my monthly bill would be less than £30 [$37]. In an honest market, who would choose nuclear but the very rich?
Wrong! The reactors at Fukuskima were shut down because of the earthquake. The explosion was caused by combusion of hydrogen that had built up inside the containment building due to the irradiation of the water in the used fuel cooling pools. If the containment building were properly ventillated then there would have been no explosion. That said, a ventillated conainment is not really containment.
Thorium reactors are a great idea. BUT, all that clean and safe power would still be produced and sold by the same corrupt power companies that are producing and selling us power now. Yes, ending pollution is good, but please don't believe that that's the only thing wrong with current electricity production.
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh. High price to pay for an idea of safe which is not born out by facts.
If the government won't develop these then get private companies to do so. Branson and Musk and anyone else that has the money to do so should start building these and making money off electricity.
Investors can be very hesitant to spend on something with no immediate benefits, also anti nuclear activists work hard against. Furthermore there are strict regulations on it.
Cheap abundant energy will cause all kinds of new problems. For one populations world wide will increase at a massive rate. This combined with the destruction of arable land due to mismanagement of modern agriculture and Monsanto's destruction of natural food seeds will cause famines the likes of which the human species has never seen.
any electrical generating plant that is not solar, wind, or hydroelectric runs by making steam to turn turbines and generators - so, as with fossil fuels, all nuclear power plants will unavoidably generate waste heat, which must be dumped to atmosphere and ocean - the heating of water is probably more efficient with nuclear designs, but it's still feeding into the same old heat-engine generation system. Now, somebody find a way to convert gamma-ray or neutron flux directly to electric current, and that will really help things.
Actually, concentrated solar just heats water, either directly or indirectly, too. Also, in PV cells most the sun light they collect, 80% or more, is turned into waste heat.
well it can use congeneration to heat buildings and devices, also MSR reactors don't use water as the tranfer fluid to the turbine, the best reactor design soo far I've seen a LFTR reactor run by Flibe Energy.
MrYoshio14 excellent, a new industry that possibly will render coal obsolete (sorry coal miners - become thorium miners instead) -- nice, it looks to be sufficiently mature to put into use soon, and save us from so much global warming. Thanks for the additional engineering input, I learn again
Here are relative costs: coal = .01, gas = .04, oil = .05, solar = .35. Battery technology has changed very little in the last 40 years altho there has been a break through announced just last month that will reduce battery costs significantly: cleantechnica.com/2016/02/26/new-energy-storage-solution-could-hit-magic-54-mark/
Renewable + STORAGE trumps nuclear and ALL sources on price & reliability. Nuclear subsidies kill it's economics. "30 year lifespan" of solar panels - that's just their warranty, they can go on for 60+ years possibly 100.
Show me a modern industrial country that has replaced fossil fuels with renewables + storage. Doesn't exist and it won't. Nuclear receives pennies in subsidies compared to renewables despite the propaganda you have read.
politicans need money. why? because everyone needs money. the middle eastern oil producing nations have money. they have so much money that their children can afford to spend 50k to 60k to 100k a night playing table games at the various casinos on the french riveria. they have so much money that you and i can't begin to relate to it. the point is, they give some of their money to politicians. in return the politicians, especially our politicians in the US either stop development of alternative or clean energy sources, or they slow it down by throwing up so many roadblocks that nobody can move forward with serious development.
When he was about to say how thorium did not make it into market. He should have shown that photo-diagram where there was an enrichment plant. hahaha and he could have just said.. "Well, remember this? This is the reason why. This plant here - make produces uranium.. and it also produces nuclear weapon". trololol
Many whom support this project-(or others like it), seem to believe that a Thor-(thorium) deity will save humanity with LFTR Tech. Well you can join some cult following and listen to typical sermon of some priest in the Tech-church of Thor-(thorium); I’ll stick with science and engineering. Don’t get me wrong; I’m an American and believe in the core values of the constitution and encourage the freedom of religion and It’s practice. In my opinion; someone who attends the Thor-(thorium) tech-church and listens to the typical sermon about thorium would be perfectly safe; however I don’t recommend that anyone should drink the LFTR kool-aid they regularly serve.
You're an idiot. You present no argument. All you do is talk about worshiping Thor, who has nothing to do with this, and "don't drink the koolaid!!!!1!1!!!1!2!!2!!!"
gconol Yes absolutely we have, but the time changes are NOW, and what we have .TMR. is the now solution, it is clean, and with it we can re use the spent uranium, and make it a lot less radio active. We have just crack the egg that we have been living in, and the lite from it we use only to see our self.
gconol There were a lot of smart people designing wind-powered transportation in the 18th century, but there was and still is no solution to how you get a ship to move when the air is still. Nor can a full rigged ship do more than three knots in a Force 3 breeze. That's why wind "turbines" are no cure for the Climate Change that is probably going to exterminate polar bears, and a lot more species. Chemical energy uses the binding forces of the atom's electrons. Nuclear energy comes from the "strong force" that holds the nucleus together. The nucleus of a uranium atom has 92 protons packed into an unimaginably tiny volume and their mutual electric repulsion is overcome by that force, posessed by themselves and the electrically neutral 143 neutrons in the U-235 case. The energy involved per atom in nuclear fission is vastly more than in chemical reactions. Nuclear is the only resource that was not known to the equally smart people of the Industrial Revolution.
Albert Rogers There is no denying in the power density of nuclear energy. The problem is safety. Accidents with reactors may not happen everyday (once every 20years), but when they do the consequences are immense. They still don't even know how to dispose of the waste other than burying or dumping them at sea. Between the 1960's to the late 1980's, there are over 28,000 barrels of radioactive wastes in the ocean some of which have already corroded and spilled its contents. That is a significant amount of extremely hazardous materials underwater !! When the gov't banned dumping barrels in the ocean, the nuclear industry built pipes that allows them to release nuclear waste into the deep ocean circumventing the law. This is the reality of nuclear power. They keep praising how nuclear power is safe and is the future, but they don't tell us what they've been doing behind the curtains. Yes, I know they keep saying that Thorium is safer but that looks great on paper. Everything looks good on paper until it's put to practice. Using nuclear just to boil water is insanity. There has got to be a better way.
Excellent talk, I enjoyed the comparison of energy sources. However I believe it was naval veterans being familiar with uranium that doomed the LFTR under Nixon: high wage jobs = political popularity.
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh.
Magnificent! Salim, I am sorry I did not see this sooner.
The path to fusion is still unclear (although various "low budget" approaches show better promise than the "big science" projects, like the NIF).
New research in LENR, apparently powered by the "weak" nuclear force may be an even better alternative, but it is "not ready for prime time" yet.
We absolutely need a bridge- and it is clear to me that Thorium is the answer, and can get us from here to there. Thank you for your efforts to bring this to public view.
We need more people like Salim Zwein and Kirk Sorensen in our world. The problem we have is that there are probably 10 times more politicians that worry more about filling their own pockets and extremely rich people that believe in the top 1% income bracket are the privileged few. They don't realize that when it is gone for the masses it is also gone for them.
Wayne Fitzpatrick what you don't realize is that they probably have built for themselves an anti-matter generator the size of a flash drive for all we know...they not only restrict building thorium power plants...they restrict knowledge at its purest form...
W. Fitz.
And people like Srikumar Banerjee
Who is filling their pockets when nuclear is the most expensive method of supplying energy by far? See my comparative costs above, these are up to the minute figures, 2022, and as you will notice, nuclear is ahead of even fossil fuels including old coal, and many times the cost of renewables, which can be installed in weeks and not the 10 years it takes to build just one nuclear reactor, which also costs millions of tonnes of carbon in manufacturing the reactor - concrete and steel - as well as the CO2 emitted from the uranium mining, transportation, manufacture of fuel and disposal. The nuclear cult is so desperate now that renewables are far and away the best method and getting cheaper every year, that they pay liars to spread nonsense, which too many slow thinkers accept without once checking against easily found real facts. Stop ble3ating about the top 1%, only inadequates think that conspiracy theory is real. I understand they also eat babies, or so QANON morons believe. Get real.
The US spend 500 billion a year on Military and they can't invest $2 Billion to develop this technology. $2 Billion is like the budget for pencils at the pentagon.
What's worse is that development of LFTRS and other MSR would greatly increase our national security by reducing our dependence on foreign oil supplies. One of the less known possiblies of MSRs is in chemical processing, and one of the more promising places in that is using the high heat to create synthetic fuel from sea water. Even if we don't change over right away, which we wouldn't likely do because of economics, the navy have ships that create the fuel for aircraft and smaller ships from the very water the ships are sitting in.
They can but they don`t want. Unfortunately. :(
Matthew Holden BUT USA SUCKS UNTIL TRUMP MAKES IT GREAT AGAIN.
You mean, until Trump ends its existence.
Albert Rogers
Bro 😂😂😂😂
Particularly tragic is all the people killed in coal "slag" and "slurry" disasters like the Buffalo Creek Disaster of the '70s and the Welsh disaster of the '60s which buried a school, killing all the children. Refinery fires have plagued both the oil and gas industries.
The horrible safety record of fossil fuels is why I believe we need more reliance on nuclear in general, and thorium, in particular. Still. thank you for your good work in trying to popularize the LFTR movement...............
The 'accidnts' mentioned have nothing to do with generating, but are the result of human negligence, much like the nuclear industry which is run by arrogant, comfortably numb cultists.
Thank you so much
thank you Shannonmelanie :)
thank you Ivan :)
thank you Tony. Actually we can do it, we need the funding :)
Bravo Salim; perfect flow of info that leads to a great conclusion. Yalla do the reactor urself , u can make it !!!!
thank you..and you are right about that. i just simplified as much as I could and wanted to add a pinch of drama ;)
You simplified because that how your mind works, all nuclear cultists simplify the dangers while promising free, and every year the cost escalates.
start a kick starter campaign :D
great explanation of LWR problems and thorium advantages
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh.
How exciting! I'm definitely sharing this video with everyone I know!
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh.
Buddy, that's a bit rich... Fukushima was impacted by a tsunami much higher than what it was designed and expected to withstand. The Fukushima tragedy doesn't show that nuclear is unsafe, it reflects a need for bigger safe guards against nature.
I don't disagree with safe, clean, cheap, abundant energy but it's a cop out to use Fukushima as an argument against nuclear
"The Fukushima tragedy doesn't show that nuclear is unsafe"
Icarus - what an appropriate name for such a viewpoint!
Point out the lie. douchebag.
Look at all the leaks from all over the world happening all the time. It is unsafe and Dr.Weinburg knew this. We have the same GE design on over half 40 is it, of our nuclear power plants and they are over 30 yrs. old and were to be shut down years ago. They just get multiple extensions and keep running them. Also how many of ours are on fault lines?
Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, and dozens of other 'accidents' which have raised 'background radiation hugely and killed many thousands by direct radiation poisoning. It is estimated that the Chernobyl cloud that spread across Europe caused 10,000 cases of leukemia. Fukushima illustrates how nuclear proponents can't think logically and dismiss risks as something non technical people worry about. Their arrogance is the most dangerous part. Claiming no one could have anticipated the tsunami is rich, since major events like that are becoming commonplace as the climate becomes ever more unpredictable. Yet if a wind turbine is brought down the media crow about it for weeks! And if one bursts into flames, as all machines can at times, a massive fuss is made especially by the nimbies who object to seeing them. Lose one, erect a repacement. Simples.
And tsunamis are predicted to increase as the energy in the system grows, ice ,melting everywhere, but 20 times faster at the poles. An ice shelf the size of Britain and 1/2 miles thick will be crashing into the Southern Ocean in 2-5 years time. You think that won't send shock waves round the planet? Most nuclear reactors are on low lying coasts.
Very interesting Salim: Simple, constructive and straight to the point. Bravo!
Big like :)
Kalpakkam Nuclear plant already uses thoruim, the tech was developed by Bhaba atomic research centre(BARC) in Mumbai
That's using solid fuel in a light water reactor. That being talked about in the video is liquid fuel in a molten salt reactor.
@@kokofan50 that's the end goal for the Indians too, the next generation of the thorium reactor is planned to be molten salt reactor, but they moved all nuclear facilities under the secrets act, so no one can file an RTI for information about the next stage, I don't know why they did that.
What could possibly go wrong with something run by India, a country with millions born on the streets, a caste system from a thousand years ago? They should stick to curry.
this sounds just to good to be true
actually that story i got it from Kirk Sorensen. maybe he made it up to show how easily manageable the reactor was. In any case thank you for the insightful comment :)
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh.
Who pays you to do this ridiculous hatchet job?
Considering that we are now in new charted territory for CO2 in the atmosphere and and sea level is rising; this is a much needed thing that should be redeveloped immediately. Time is running up. If power generation and industry account for over 50% of CO2 being emitted.
Most nuclear reactors are on low lying coasts. Do you think they know the sea level is rising? When Thwaites calves the ice shelf in 2-5 years time, many will be permanently flooded. Fukushima was just one, and alone is still spewing highly radioactive water into the sea becauase they haven't a clue what else to do to stop it exploding. Just wait for several hundred of the vile monstrosities around the world to be under water ...
his description of what happened at Fukushima was quite a BS, not to say that the picture he showed wasn't a Fukushima Daiichi plant...
I BELIEVE!!!!!!!!
well Diamond , I avoided going through that calculation, since there are many conflicting evaluations about it. and you can also see that solar, wind and hydroelectric do have an environmental footprint (from the mining to factory to use and recycling and mostly the land us)..so i kept it simple: the economic cost, although not conveying the full image of the real cost does reflect it to a certain degree.
You kept it simple to avoid the hard facts that show how expensive nuclear is, and how cheap renewables are, and getting cheaper every year. I have added some facts for you above, all verifiable, for 2022. Yes you bet there are many conflicting valuations, nuclear enthusiasts lie repeatedly about the costs, and confuse the dim they are real technical experts with cutting edge technology, when in reality they are flogging the dead horse of 1950s tech dreams, which dfepend on 18th century steam technology to create electricity wastefully [most of the energy goes either into the air as steam or straight into the sea as cooling water]. And ALL nuclear energy released from atoms is extra to the energy cycle of Earth and is thus adding to an already heating planet. Does the nuclear cult pay you for these lies or are you a paid up member? Like all religions, it relies on the faith of its followers, hard science factsdestroy its pathetic and desperate attempts to convince the hard of thinking.
And I haven't once mentioned the disasters caused by complacent humans making basic mistakes, being so arrogant that they become careless. Not just the ones the media found out about like Three Mile Island, Cherdobyl and Fukushima, but the dozens of other 'accidents' in the US and the unknown numbers in Russia, which is bound to be massive as they are traditionally incompetent, witness their armed forces pathetic behaciour in Ukraine, with food rations 8 years past use by date and first aid kits from the 1980s.
And all the nuclear ex-plosions plus all the nuclear energy have added to the global warming as they are outside the Earth's energy cycle fueled by the sun, and are thus adding to the problem, not a solution except to idiots or crooks.
Renewables carbon costs are minute compared to nuclear and you know it. Concrete and steet are high carbon emitters in manufacture. All wind turbines are recycled 100%. Nuke cultists are always economicazl with unpleasant facts when talking up nuclear, but never have an answer for it adding all the energy released to the Earth's energy cycle, from the first bombs, all the thosands of tests, the nuclear sumarines and all nuclear power. It is EXTRA to an already overheating system, and thus can't be considered an answer except by true believers, aka cult members. You lost the argument decades ago, 'atoms for peace' was only ever a PR exercise for the bombs.
Tough crowd, man!
waqqashanafi Arabs are hard as fuck. Almost as hard as slavs.
The US government has funded several studies for the development of molten salt reactors. I feel the development of thorium reactors should be a Manhattan Project-class effort. The development of thorium-fueled reactors should proceed with all possible speed. We need cheap, clean, reliable power and we need it NOW.
China acquired the plans from the molten-salt reactor developed at Oak Ridge National Laboratories in the sixties. They are developing thorium technology as we speak. They have a 2-megawatt prototype that underwent tests in September, China plans to build its first commercial thorium reactor. Measuring only 10 feet (3 meters) tall and 8 feet (2.5 m) wide, the researchers claim it will be capable of generating 100 megawatts of electricity, enough to provide power for 100,000 people.
The United States should have finished developing this technology 50 years ago but scrapped it in favor of reactors that could produce isotopes that could be used in bombs. We wasted a half-century of clean, pollution-free, and safe nuclear energy.
Thank you MAro. :) it has been a long time
I like the message. I posted it on thorium forum.
At 00:05 you can see 'chocolate' as one of the things listed as part of the things you need. I agree
this was good..i like it
Superstore, goddamnit.
Great presentation and clear on topic. The Chinese are onto this one. As we know, capitalism operates by "owning" things, and whilst the fuel source, thorium, is cheap and abundant owning the LFTR reactor IP atm is the key and that's where the Chinese are investing. Salim was spot re US military skewing this technology, Nixon canned it 1974, and ironically it may be the US that pays more dearly in the future because of it.
Nixon was one, Carter was another, and Bill Clinton killed the reactor plan that three weeks before the Chernobyl meltdown proved that its fast neutron breeder reactor was meltdown immune.
The Sierra Club and "Friends of the Earth" may be held responsible for all the deaths that dirty coal has caused because it hasn't been replaced by vastly safer, claeaner nuclear.
Albert Rogers Do you know that the farming ban on places in England were just this year finally lifted due to Chernobyl and over 5 million died? The sealife has been dying out in the Pacific since Fukushima and cancers even in our pets are at epidemic porportions? I am not condoning coal use but nuclear is a lie. www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems
Why can't Thorium be used for production of Uranium and Plutonium for WMD?
From what I understand it's because both are destroyed in the process of the reaction. In thorium reactors a neutron source (likely spent Uranium fuel) is used to breed thorium into plutonium that's reacted to create energy, and the Plutonium reaction makes less uranium than was used. So, it's a very neat cycle that just needs a little bit of thorium and uranium to top off the tank.
You could if you separate out the pa233 which gives you U-233. This u-333 you create...shits itself. if you let it sit it will transmutate isotopes that would mess up the bomb. so to use a U-233 bomb one would have to generate enough of the U-233 and then build the bomb using it right away. much simpler to build it the old fashioned way.
www.google.com/search?q=thorium+cycle&safe=off&tbm=isch&imgil=qkl20BZqFf7eDM%253A%253BD89g5hO5D3ty6M%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fenergyfromthorium.com%25252F2011%25252F01%25252F30%25252Fchina-initiates-tmsr%25252F&source=iu&usg=__vO8cwrx0FBt6Y_2L71uiyIvz88U%3D&sa=X&ei=5E_cU5mPDKWdigKR_oFY&ved=0CDEQ9QEwAw&biw=1024&bih=648#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=qkl20BZqFf7eDM%253A%3BD89g5hO5D3ty6M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fenergyfromthorium.com%252Fimages%252FthoriumCycleNielsen.gif%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fenergyfromthorium.com%252F2011%252F01%252F30%252Fchina-initiates-tmsr%252F%3B1166%3B739
Of course if you want to create terror just write the words nuclear bomb on a barrel and place it on a corner in downtown New York with nothing inside but maybe some uranium ore.
Hiroshima was bombed with a very simple weapon of nearly pure U-235, produced by isotopic "enrichment". The Trinity test, and the Nagasaki bomb, used Pu-239 (plutonium) generated in a short exposure reactor, about three months, and chemically separated from the uranium. The trouble is that Pu-240, which spontaneously fissions and emits neutrons, is created by neutron capture.
So it needed a more complicated design, simultaneously assembling a critical mass of Pu-239 fast enough that the unstable Pu-240 would not set it off and blow it apart too soon.
The trouble, or advantage, of thorium-generated fissile U-233 is that its isotopic contaminant U-232 can spoil the fast fission reaction at even smaller concentrations than the Pu-240 problem.
Thanks guys :-)
Following you answers I've learned that a bomb made out of U233 produces too much gamma (U232 series), which cannot be easily concealed and can be easily detected, even from satellites. Thorium can be used to make bombs, countries might have the resources to make it, but it is very difficult.
i needed to simplify the presentation to a point because i was squeezed in time. and they wanted me to avoid all the technical wording.
He's my physics teacher
Vegan Tiger me too
Vegan Tiger
Noice;-D
A couple of points. I think we should just be clear - nuclear power already *is* safe. MSRs and Gen IV reactors will be safer still, but the nuclear tech we're using today is already just about the safest form of energy going. Only wind is safer (unless you're a bird), but only just, and unlike wind, nuclear energy actually has the potential to meet global energy demand fast enough to be relevant to a global climate change mitigation strategy. Nuclear weapons proliferation isn't a byproduct of commercial nuclear power - it's the result of a political choice to make nuclear weapons. There are lots of nations that have nuclear power that that haven't made that choice. Conversely, every nation that has nuclear weapons produced them before they had commercial nuclear power. Nuclear waste isn't really a problem either. All the nuclear waste humanity has ever generated could fit in a single large warehouse. Moreover, nuclear 'waste' consists almost entirely of unused fuel. Of the part of it that isn't fuel, much of the what remains consists of elements and isotopes that have valuable application in medicine and industry. Only the very small fraction left over will require a disposal strategy, but that is easily manageable given the fact that the stuff we're talking about is a small, solid, concentrated mass. Public fear of nuclear power is rooted in ignorance. We shouldn't count that against nuclear power, we should view it as an something to address through education.
Nuclear power may be 'safe', but nuclear waste cannot be held 'safely' for 10,000 years.
Like you know anything about nuclear waste. All the nuclear waste the US has ever produced could fit inside a single wal-mart with plenty of room to spare, and almost all of what we call "waste" is actually fissionable fuel. The resulting fission by-products remain radioactive at levels that require it to be handled with some care for 300 years or so. That can be achieved easily by vitrifying and burying it.
You missed the point dipshit. Thorium 'waste' is safe after 300 years.
No, you missed the point. Thorium byproducts can be considered (politically) safe after 300 years because fuel in an MSR inherently reprocessed. Waste from SFRs can also be reprocessed and, the slightly different decay chains notwithstanding, the half-life of the resulting fission by-products will be reduced accordingly.
What is your take on Fukushima and other disasters? How is that "safe"?
Can I build one in my backyard? and order the parts online?
We were told in the 60s, by the same nuclear enthusiasts, that we would all be driving nuclear powered cars and planes by 2020. Duh.
Good presentation. I would stress for renewable energy to be viable, one would need BATTERIES!! The wind doesn't always blow and the sun doesn't always shine - they are intermittent at best and consume A LOT of land/sea area as you mentioned. LFTR is the best option. Unfortunately for the U.S., politics and science illiterate people were in charge at the time. Just think if Alvin Weinberg's MSRE were well-funded back then and they followed through.
I would stress that you need to educate yoiurself and get up to date. As well as many new battery materials and methods already in use, there are also alternatives such as gravity storage, flywheel storage, gas and liquid compression storage and chemical storage. Oh dea, you don't think you're the first t msay that ridiculous nonsense about wind not blowing etc? Think no one noticed before? The sun rises regularly and predictably every day or all life would die. Coincidentally most human need for energy is in the hours of daylight. People with PV p[anels on their roofs have free energy and sell the surplus to the grid, making upowards of £2,000 a year. Wind actually does blow all the time once you get a distance above ground level, try climbing a hill and see if it's windy, likewise it is always blowing at sea, and the old sailing ships rarely were bothered by no wind when sailing round the world.
Turbines are situated nortmally on farmland, with crops betwen them, ditto large scale solar. You,of course, are American, and you have a lot of problems caused by stupidity and lies. Scientific illiteracy is common, and my post above dispels most of the lies nuclear pushes to the illiterate.
I don't like the click bait caption we don't need to save the world even if the global warming predictions are true the planet has been plenty warm before what we need power for is to save the modern culture which I think is worth saving.
salim is my physics teacher at school
Apparently, from what I've read, there are possible specific disadvantages to thorium. Why doesn't this video address these issues?
He didn't calculate the unintended costs of fossil fuels. Environmental costs, healthcare costs, etc.
google Santa susana field laboratory it was a liquid sodium reactor that melted down near los angelos ca in the late 50's, the reactor had no sufficient containment structure and radioactive gases were released. it is still being cleaned up... the accident was covered up for decades. molten metal reactors still need containment structures and the circulation pumps gaskets and lubrication are points of failure. Molten salt reactors need new breakthroughs in material science and design. There are great obstacles to their development that have not been overcome as of yet...
***** youre correct. These are just engineering challenges and will need much needed funding..
Esrikk Smith Liquid sodium was used in this reactor as a COOLANT, not as fissile material i.e.fuel, and would therefore appear to be completey irrelevant to a discussion of a reactor design based on thorium. Would you care to comment?
After studying the feasibility of using thorium, nuclear scientists Ralph W. Moir and Edward Teller suggested that thorium nuclear research should be restarted after a three-decade shutdown and that a small prototype plant should be built.[4][5][6] Research and development of thorium-based nuclear reactors, primarily the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR), a molten salt reactor (MSR) design, has been or is now being done in India, China, Norway, the United States, Israel and Russia
Is there a good reason we don't let Iran build a few of these so we can see what the problems are. It seems full fill Iran's Stated intention of creating a nuclear power source with weapon grade uranium eliminated from the equation,
So it's 2016 now.
Any thorium reactors going yet?
Kalpakkam power plant in india.
+SHAATALE ; Thank you & I hope that it works GREAT, as a model to the world.
no, it uses uranium 238
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prototype_Fast_Breeder_Reactor
None - nada. But the internet scam continues.
china is pretty serious about it, indians are interested in it but have not started doing anything yet,.
Is there a good talk "against" thorium reactors? I would really see arguments against it. Also why is everybody talking about how "dense" it is. So what? There are several elements that are far denser than thorium. Also why does it matter if you need to use 1l or 5l of thorium for the same amount of energy?
It influences the size of the reactor and hence costs and everything else.
Solar and wind power are rather tenuous. The power we are trying to harness is spread out over large areas. The density of thorium (and other forms of nuclear power) mean that you can build a power plant on a relatively small piece of land. This means less disruption of wildlife.
The high density of thorium power means that the few grams of thorium that might be found in any random cubic meter of the Earth's crust have the energy equivalent of about 30 cubic meters of coal that might be found only in certain geologic deposits where that material is concentrated.
The fact that thorium is available as a waste product from mining operations whose purpose is to extract rare earth elements means that no additional disruption of the landscape needs to happen to support a thorium power industry. (Contrast this to the conventional uranium power industry. The element is more rare, and the useful form of it, the fissile isotope, is only a very small fraction of the natural uranium deposits. This means that large mining operations and enrichment facilities are needed to support the industry.)
Cure for what ails the planet (Equal sharing of natural wealth):
gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2013/11/are-corporations-evil-or-are-we.html
I don't know of any videos but you can go to the Wikipedia article on Liquid Floride Thorium Reactors and read the section "Disadvantages".
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages
Salon or G has gotten cheaper but now there’s more problems like led poisoning
There is even Thorium on the moon.
Source: TEDx Talks.
The reason for stopping the Thorium project back in the 60s is because of US policy on the middle east oil, and its strategic allies there, they hit 2 birds in 1 stone and in the process they killed world development for better energy source.
The day will come when human kind will wish they could warm the climate.
The one thing in your talk I take issue with is that you said fossil fuels were "safe". I agree with you that thorium is the right path...but I disagree that fossil fuels have been "safe". You admitted that, even with uranium, nuclear statistically has the lowest casualty rate, thus far, which shows how deadly fossil fuels can be. 4,000+ Chinese coal miners die every year. More people died in the Deepwater Horizon disaster alone than have died for nuclear energy in a decade.
That's not a picture of Fukushima!
Radioactive "waste" is still giving off energy, and the energy should be used, but isn't.
Boom!
amazing and then why??? not harnessing it
It was the path not taken (not good for bombs) - great for civilian use !!
8:46 *the reactor was so cute the guys at oakrage turned it off*. what is the point of this anecdote. why did they turn off the thorium reactor over the weekend. what was it supposed to demonstrate. a nuclear reactor can't be turned off?
The problem with a ceramic, oxide fueled reactor -- by the way, this fellow oversimplifies -- is that iodine and xenon get trapped in the ceramic pellets. Where do they come from? Well, the problem is isotope 135 of xenon, some of it a direct fission product, but most of it a decay product of iodine 135. The problem is, that it captures neutrons at a prodigious rate, to become the harmless gas xenon 136. Shut down a ceramic fueled reactor, a regular LWR, and you have a lot of 135-I. After a while, that means a *_lot_* of 135-Xe, which if you try to start up the reactor, you have to lift up the control rods so they're doing almost nothing. _Then_, as the 135-Xe captures lots of neutrons, you have to put the control rods back in. If you're not quick enough, you might have a runaway reactor.
This does not happen with the molten salt case, because at the reactor temperatures, even the iodine is a gas, and you bubble it off at the surface and let it quietly decay away from the neutrons.
@@ngeneshki Not only that, I believe they just let the chemical plug at the bottom of the reactor dissolve so the molten salt would simply drain into the lower chamber, i.e. demonstrating that the reactor was indeed 100% incapable of meltdown.
As the man said "this is old technology",
Now we have "Neutrino" reactors just around the corner.
It's all from the mindset of the 1950s, using steam tech from the 18th century. PV converts sunlight directly into electricity with no loss. It's taking over a bigger and bigger share of the energy market, so much so that it is now subsidising costly nuclear as well as fossil fuels. See my post at the top, data from 2022.
It doesn't, strictly speaking, replace uranium. The fissile product IS uranium, isotope 233. The other breeder reactor makes fissile plutonium from the thermally non-fissile isotope 238 of uranium.
He's too kind about solar-sourced "renewables", they're not just too expensive. There just isn't enough of the solar resource itself.
What do u mean by your solar comment?
Matthew Fluty i think he meant that there isnt enough "sunlight" as a resource for us to harness and use it and fuel all or needs. We have no way to store the energy gained so we are dependent on the weather conditions and environment.
I install p.v systems for a living, and we have plenty of power from the sun but storage is a pain, but there's a few techniques such As grid tied systems, I love the idea of thorium cause of its energy density and availability
there is absolutely enough solar radiation to power the world. Problems that remain are the price and the rarity of the ressources for solar panels. And by replacing uranium by thorium he means that the material that you mine out of the ground will be thorium, not uranium.
Yeah, and the fact that the nuclear material is liquid means you'll rarely have a meltdown
There are hundreds of different nuclear reactor designs, all of which have their pros and cons. Thorium is just another of these designs. All of them have their advocates who claim theirs is the best and want attention and funding.
Thorium and Uranium both have advantages and disadvantages. It will take a long time for regulators and the nuclear energy industry to decide if Thorium is worth pursuing on a large scale.
And all the designs have the one major disadvantage, apart from the horrendous cost, they all add energy to an already heating planet, which is then trapped by greenhouse gases along with sunlight. Atom splitting only impresses the challenged, who are either unaware it costs a hundred times what renewables cost [and still getting cheaper] or they would be asking to only be sold nuclear generated electricity, and pay the $1,000 + a month it costs. Renewable supporters get cheaper electricity, but what they pay includes subsidising nuclear and fossil fuels because they are all rolled into one for charging purposes. If my 100% renewable energy were charged properly my monthly bill would be less than £30 [$37]. In an honest market, who would choose nuclear but the very rich?
Wrong!
The reactors at Fukuskima were shut down because of the earthquake.
The explosion was caused by combusion of hydrogen that had built up inside the containment building due to the irradiation of the water in the used fuel cooling pools.
If the containment building were properly ventillated then there would have been no explosion.
That said, a ventillated conainment is not really containment.
Thorium reactors are a great idea. BUT, all that clean and safe power would still be produced and sold by the same corrupt power companies that are producing and selling us power now. Yes, ending pollution is good, but please don't believe that that's the only thing wrong with current electricity production.
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh. High price to pay for an idea of safe which is not born out by facts.
If the government won't develop these then get private companies to do so. Branson and Musk and anyone else that has the money to do so should start building these and making money off electricity.
Build one and prove your theory.
If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is...
we'll see hopefully
There's something that he is not telling us. If all the benefits are there, why are we not using it.
Investors can be very hesitant to spend on something with no immediate benefits, also anti nuclear activists work hard against.
Furthermore there are strict regulations on it.
+John Nguyen We are already! :-) ....google kalpakam nuclear plant in India
Go Go Thorium :)
He sounds like he's doing a Christopher Walken impression
The god of Thunder will save us. Lol.
Cheap abundant energy will cause all kinds of new problems.
For one populations world wide will increase at a massive rate. This combined with the destruction of arable land due to mismanagement of modern agriculture and Monsanto's destruction of natural food seeds will cause famines the likes of which the human species has never seen.
any electrical generating plant that is not solar, wind, or hydroelectric runs by making steam to turn turbines and generators - so, as with fossil fuels, all nuclear power plants will unavoidably generate waste heat, which must be dumped to atmosphere and ocean - the heating of water is probably more efficient with nuclear designs, but it's still feeding into the same old heat-engine generation system. Now, somebody find a way to convert gamma-ray or neutron flux directly to electric current, and that will really help things.
Actually, concentrated solar just heats water, either directly or indirectly, too. Also, in PV cells most the sun light they collect, 80% or more, is turned into waste heat.
#rekt by knowledge
well it can use congeneration to heat buildings and devices, also MSR reactors don't use water as the tranfer fluid to the turbine, the best reactor design soo far I've seen a LFTR reactor run by Flibe Energy.
MrYoshio14 excellent, a new industry that possibly will render coal obsolete (sorry coal miners - become thorium miners instead) -- nice, it looks to be sufficiently mature to put into use soon, and save us from so much global warming. Thanks for the additional engineering input, I learn again
use alternative energy to make and store Hydrogen. Run 350MW dynamos in series.
+Robert Galletta It's expensive and our storage methods aren't so good.
no it isn't
Wind and solar are very expensive compared to fossil fuels -- that's a known fact.
Here are relative costs: coal = .01, gas = .04, oil = .05, solar = .35. Battery technology has changed very little in the last 40 years altho there has been a break through announced just last month that will reduce battery costs significantly: cleantechnica.com/2016/02/26/new-energy-storage-solution-could-hit-magic-54-mark/
hydrogen electrolysis can be affordable using an Aluminum Barium alloy combined with a current. it is 1 tenth the cost. the tech is out there
Why is he not speaking in Arabic? What is the point of doing this in Beirut if they don't do it in the local language?
Renewable + STORAGE trumps nuclear and ALL sources on price & reliability. Nuclear subsidies kill it's economics. "30 year lifespan" of solar panels - that's just their warranty, they can go on for 60+ years possibly 100.
Show me a modern industrial country that has replaced fossil fuels with renewables + storage. Doesn't exist and it won't. Nuclear receives pennies in subsidies compared to renewables despite the propaganda you have read.
politicans need money. why? because everyone needs money. the middle eastern oil producing nations have money. they have so much money that their children can afford to spend 50k to 60k to 100k a night playing table games at the various casinos on the french riveria. they have so much money that you and i can't begin to relate to it. the point is, they give some of their money to politicians. in return the politicians, especially our politicians in the US either stop development of alternative or clean energy sources, or they slow it down by throwing up so many roadblocks that nobody can move forward with serious development.
The IFR Breeder 2 reactor was safe and could reuse fuel to make it super safe. Dust it off and let’s go.
Also, its probably not smart to build a nuclear plant near a fault in the first place :P
When he was about to say how thorium did not make it into market. He should have shown that photo-diagram where there was an enrichment plant. hahaha and he could have just said.. "Well, remember this? This is the reason why. This plant here - make produces uranium.. and it also produces nuclear weapon". trololol
lol that is the most simplified illustration iv seen.
In short it will not be Yehova or Allah that will save the world it will be Mighty Thor;)!!!
india made a plant
+Sibaram Mohanty care to share. I am interested.
Sibaram Mohanty
👌✌❤
Lek l sir
Many whom support this project-(or others like it), seem to believe that a Thor-(thorium) deity will save humanity with LFTR Tech. Well you can join some cult following and listen to typical sermon of some priest in the Tech-church of Thor-(thorium); I’ll stick with science and engineering. Don’t get me wrong; I’m an American and believe in the core values of the constitution and encourage the freedom of religion and It’s practice. In my opinion; someone who attends the Thor-(thorium) tech-church and listens to the typical sermon about thorium would be perfectly safe; however I don’t recommend that anyone should drink the LFTR kool-aid they regularly serve.
You're an idiot. You present no argument. All you do is talk about worshiping Thor, who has nothing to do with this, and "don't drink the koolaid!!!!1!1!!!1!2!!2!!!"
This guy is not qualified to talk on public platforms
all these advance physics and technical bullshit about nuclear power just to BOIL water ........ HAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHA And what do ....you..... have in mind !!
Open your eyes, for ones, and let your mine go free
Louis Barbisan There's a lot of smart people out there. I find it hard to believe that nuclear is the only viable solution ....
gconol Yes absolutely we have, but the time changes are NOW, and what we have .TMR. is the now solution,
it is clean, and with it we can re use the spent uranium, and make it a lot less radio active.
We have just crack the egg that we have been living in, and the lite from it we use only to see our self.
gconol There were a lot of smart people designing wind-powered transportation in the 18th century, but there was and still is no solution to how you get a ship to move when the air is still. Nor can a full rigged ship do more than three knots in a Force 3 breeze.
That's why wind "turbines" are no cure for the Climate Change that is probably going to exterminate polar bears, and a lot more species.
Chemical energy uses the binding forces of the atom's electrons. Nuclear energy comes from the "strong force" that holds the nucleus together. The nucleus of a uranium atom has 92 protons packed into an unimaginably tiny volume and their mutual electric repulsion is overcome by that force, posessed by themselves and the electrically neutral 143 neutrons in the U-235 case.
The energy involved per atom in nuclear fission is vastly more than in chemical reactions.
Nuclear is the only resource that was not known to the equally smart people of the Industrial Revolution.
Albert Rogers There is no denying in the power density of nuclear energy. The problem is safety. Accidents with reactors may not happen everyday (once every 20years), but when they do the consequences are immense. They still don't even know how to dispose of the waste other than burying or dumping them at sea.
Between the 1960's to the late 1980's, there are over 28,000 barrels of radioactive wastes in the ocean some of which have already corroded and spilled its contents. That is a significant amount of extremely hazardous materials underwater !! When the gov't banned dumping barrels in the ocean, the nuclear industry built pipes that allows them to release nuclear waste into the deep ocean circumventing the law. This is the reality of nuclear power.
They keep praising how nuclear power is safe and is the future, but they don't tell us what they've been doing behind the curtains. Yes, I know they keep saying that Thorium is safer but that looks great on paper. Everything looks good on paper until it's put to practice.
Using nuclear just to boil water is insanity. There has got to be a better way.
Excellent talk, I enjoyed the comparison of energy sources. However I believe it was naval veterans being familiar with uranium that doomed the LFTR under Nixon: high wage jobs = political popularity.
The cost of generating solar power ranges from £29.35 to £35.23 per megawatt hour (MWh), the WNISR said, while onshore wind power comes in at £23.65 - £45.66 per MWh. Nuclear energy costs between £91.32 and £154.10 per Mwh.
amazing and then why??? not harnessing it
abhay sharma India build world's first thorium reactor near chennai.
Akshay Parkad is it functional