Why making energy from dirt might save the world | Rusty Towell | TEDxACU
Вставка
- Опубліковано 4 чер 2024
- In his talk, Rusty discusses the availability of energy as the critical ingredient for raising the standard of living around the world, providing a crash course in understanding how Thorium, found in the dirt we walk on every day, might be humanity’s final energy solution.
From an early age, Rusty Towell was curious about how things worked. That curiosity led him to earn a degree in Engineering Physics, serve in the U.S. Navy as an instructor at the Naval Nuclear Power School, return to school for a Ph.D. in Nuclear Physics, and work for over 25 years with “atom smashers” at national laboratories around the country.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
Great talk Rusty! I really liked how you used the big cube and the cans to help people understand the energy density of thorium in a LFTR.
Hiya Kirk Sorensen! How goes your work? Is the reactor operational?
+Kirk Sorensen Hi Kirk i really am 100% behind you with LFTR, GO GO Thorium.
Keep up the good work, im spreading the word where ever i can. Together we can save the world.
+RobLikes
Canada's Terrestiral Energy Inc. also has a Molten Salt Reactor in
(LFTR is an MSR) in the works.
In fact, do to differences in regulators' rules, TEI may get their IMSR running BEFORE USA's NRC permits FLiBe's LFTR, although - just like with Sputnik satellite - NRC may "see the error of their [Fuel Rod reactor bias] ways" eg, after TEI's IMSR starts to clock-up safe running hours.
If I were FLiBe Energy, I'd go North (into Canada), just to save $$ getting LFTR approved, like the [Bill Gates Foundation supported] co. that moved to China decided to do.
While I consider Kirk Sorensen deserving of (& overdue for) a Nobel Prize for getting the word out here, about MSR's & LFTR, I don't know if playing NRC's unfair game is worth the extra cost.
Do we have time to drag our feet on a cheap energy machine like LFTR, etc.? I don't think so...
IVI Grupp
"see the error of their [Fuel Rod reactor bias] ways" One can only hope man, unfortunately
like most big business. It all comes back to money, greed and power.
No we have no time to drag our feet.. not with the way climate change is moving along so fast. We really need this asap!! It would solve alot of the worlds problems.
Here is a quick reality check for Kirk Sorensen and Rusty Towell:
How many nuclear engineers does Flibe (Kirk Sorensen's company) employ? (zero)
How much capital has Flibe raised over the last 7 years or since its creation? (zero)
How many nuclear-related patents does Flibe hold? (zero)
How much nuclear-related research has Flibe conducted since its creation? (zero)
How many molten salt reactors have ever been built? (one 8MW experimental reactor, in 1964, operated-not continuously between 1965-1969; cost of decommissioning 45 years later: $130 million).
How many thorium/uranium-233 cycle reactors have ever been built and operated? (zero)
How much is thorium worth on the international market nowadays? (less than its extraction cost)
How many renowned nuclear scientists have ever stated that the thorium/uranium-233 cycle was economically or technologically viable? (zero)
How much is the ORNL investing in thorium/uranium-233 cycle research nowadays? (zero)
How much is the ORNL investing in molten salt reactor research nowadays? (zero)
How much does electricity from nuclear cost in the US, vs wind or solar WITH STORAGE? $0.16 / kWh for nuclear, vs $0.08 per kWh for wind or solar WITH STORAGE.
How much did Toshiba just lose because of its US nuclear branch?
As of February 2017, $6 billion. This has wiped out 75% of its stock valuation.
Rusty, That was a great talk. I have been seeing more information on LFTR's and I can see that here is a safe source of energy for the world. Keep up the great research work.
Westinghouse produced the first modern AC power generator and distribution system. His AC generator was designed by Telsa.
He also should tell people that with those reactors they can crack the carbonic acid from the oceans to lower the acidity of the oceans and remove co2 from it as well and make carbon neutral fuel to.
Very well put together. Perfect for the layman.
In other words for people unversed enough to be deceived.
Great talk Rusty. We absolutely need to start building these as quickly as possible. We need a Kennedy style "Moon Race" equivalent for Thorium.
go hydro cold fusion splitting water in oxygen and hydrogen also plenty of water every where
Nah. Liquid metal technology exists and has been deployed and is cheaper than dirt for fuel source for the forseeable future since it uses actual waste.
@@Vorcetex that would create alot of extra moisture in the atmosphere. wouldn't that affect weather
Great talk. I appreciate your mention of looking at the whole life cycle of energy production including building the parts that produce the energy. I'm curious now about the life cycle of the parts of a LFTR. Maybe a topic for a follow up video. Sodium Fluoride, is hazardous and can't be allowed to leak. Would it be 100.0% recycled in the LFTR plant's process?
ONE OF THE BEST EXPLANATIONS YOU'RE GOING TO FIND ON THE BENEFITS OF THORIUM AND HOW IT WORKS. WELL DONE.
Blow away. Excellent presentation. Thank you.
The main thing is that the status quo energy money and the human desire to control their fellow person are formidable obstacles to achieve this cheap liberating solution to humanity's energy needs.
I like your presentation. I hope the world can get their priorities straight asap just like you. A few good initiatives world-wide I hear to build a few of these. India I hear is developing this tech. I would love this to be a solution to our energy needs until fusion (maybe) comes and finally brings an end to worrying about all future energy needs.
You'd get my vote to develop this asap.
congratulations Rusty. I have watch loads of these videos and you are the first to say the reason they chose the other reactors was to make bombs. Everyone else bar none has skirted around that. Well done that man. :)
He should also include Fuel for nuclear batteries for NASA can be harvested from the waste stream of LFTR's, Also Neodymium can be harvested for magnets.
NASA😆👏👏👏👏👍
best simple examples and explanation of Thorium uses for most people can understand.
How much energy and chemicals does it take to process the thorium out of that quantity of soil, and to simply mine that much soil in the first place? Then, if it is true that that amount of soil can provide energy for a person for their entire life, we have 7 billion people on the earth, 7 billion cubic yards of soil is a staggering amount.
Yea, but we already dig quite a bit more for other nonrenewable resources. Why not stop those digs and dig this smaller amount instead?
Electricity is the sole energy source we need every day. It's only achieved by 2 ways, either by electromagnetic induction process or by photoelectric process. We need to find the third way soon and the one who finds it first, is gonna be the richest and the most famous person ever!!
Great talk, all of you that have watched this should share this on social media. We can change the world!
It is exceedingly sad that this technology, the Liquid Floride Thorium Reactor (LFTR), which was understood and developed in Government Labs to the point of being able to begin building power plants, was dropped in the US in 1969. It produces far less radioactive waste than our current reactors, produces no byproducts useful for the production of Nuclear weapons, uses a reactor design that safe even if everyone running it wanders away, cost far less per energy therm to produce than any other source of energy, requires no more security than any other type of power plant. The main expendable is Thorium which is in plentiful supply in every country in the world. The cost of this energy is affordable even for the poorest person in extreme poverty. This type of nuclear plant would be safe for any country, even Iran, to own and operate. The short-sighted reason for dropping the technology at the time was the nuclear arms race. LFTR provided insignificant military weapons potential, only enormous economic and ecological advantages.
With LFTR made available to the world, nuclear reactors with weapons potential would not be needed for power and nuclear proliferation could have been stopped. Better yet, Russian control over uranium supplies would be worth almost nothing except for weapons because Thorium is plentiful in common dirt. Need for Uranium would plummet and other sources, not controlled by the Russians, could easily meet any defense need.
We need crash programs to make LFTR available to the world, eliminating fuels producing Carbon Dioxide, also upsetting the Russian and Arab strangle-holds over sources of oil, gas, and coal. Thinking strategically this would weaken a lot of the bad nation-states as well as serve humanitarian and ecological imperatives.
Why have we sat doing nothing for 50 years?
All comes to political & money!
we can always depend on the government to do the wrong thing. I doubt this will ever change.
You could start a business with this to provide alternative power at a low cost, drive out competitors such as the inefficient fossil/renewable fuels with your super low prices and humanitarian vision
I REALLY want to be on Kirk and Rusty's team... Can I put a single neighborhood unit in my backyard? Thanks for all you do to put the Thorium and LFTR info out there.
Dr Nikola Tesla thought of this problem more than 100 years ago.
They wanted free energy, he died, they didn’t want him making free energy🔍
I’ve found the most slept on TED talk
I'm in school, so I will be sure to share with the class to peak more interest.
The visuals are outstanding.
Can somebody please explain the cons!! Why is it that nobody is investing in this. There has to be a reason.
People are afraid of nuclear, especially people who want green energy. 🤔
This talk has a fantastic point, and I fully believe that it should be more thoroughly explored now. That said, the presentation has several issues with misleading comparisons and similar issues.
when?
I think the biggest obstacle you face is the "Too good to be true" viewpoint, so may I make a suggestion that you have one of those well presented TV-debate style debates hosted at a top University with perhaps a scientist who is anti-Thorium (are there any?) and perhaps a political advisor in the energy business - someone with gravitas.
Your ideas need to be publicly tested and debated in order to gain traction, credibility and visibility. I think you might do well to get some decent PR guru involved and use social media to do something viral?
Good luck
Simon Early Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd, those 2 flockers are against thorium
GeneralNeutronic Now now, ad hominem etc...
Well, get them all prepped up and debate in a prestigious university curated by a head of department and stick it on YT. PLenty of ego-chasing Physics heads eager to get their mugs on the telly, so shouldn't be a problem. Just not California Uni Berkley!
+Simon Early China is now doing a 10 year plan started in March 2014 to develop and implement a working LFTR plant. Possibly others are now waiting to see if their plant is successful.
+Simon Early Sounds like a great way to have a big argument and confuse the shit out of people, forever poisoning the well.
+Simon Early
There has been a lot of public debate on Thorium in the last decade or so. It's not on mainstream TV but it is on social media, there are facebook groups, and there are many youtube videos.
China has already committed to building MSRs. It's in the development stage, just not in the US so much.
All I can say is; fantastic! Many thanks Rusty for the presentation. I sincerely hope that the people of the Earth wake up and take back life as free-thinking fantastic individuals - and not in the constant slavery of economic princes. If we want to be afraid of this Earth, this type of intelligence should also apply. All the economic princes who now rule the world should spend all their money and influence on cleaning up the earth, its air and water. *It is the combination that constitutes the real breakthrough*
Rusty Towell
What a name
Great conversation! I hope people are listening! You need to share with college students because they are the future!
They told us we were the future 40 years ago and I'm sure well before that. If it can't be used to kill or control, it's banned/buried.
HOW CAN WE SUPPORT YOUR EFFORTS THX GOD BLESS ANGELA
The grid itself adds 15 c/kwh due to wind and solar. If the grid is simplified with only nuclear/coal/combined power (low cost base load power at
J
H
Mlin
I support this calculation, in Germany the price for 1 kw/h is 25 cents but there is no night tarif it is 25 24/7 here in belgium with 60% of our electricity produced by nucliar power it is 18cents daytime and around 11 cents at night 8 hours a day, but what makes renewables so expensif is not only the price of the production proces even more important is distribution, calculating is important to put things in perspectif but here in europe there is a lot of biased information about energy, what i have experienced is this with nuclear we exported electricity towns and city's gained profits from investments made in the nucliar industrie, electricity was cheap and plentiful, now we are investing for 20 years in renewables we import electricity it is subsidized energy bils go up and becous it is politcal biased we get more and more fake news, it has become difficult to find the right information about it
Perhaps the best presentation on Nuclear energy solutions I have seen to date. But first we have to complete the transition to smart metering! Why? Because we still need a ways and means of paying for public road construction, maintenance etc. by means of excise tax.
Meanwhile we need to provide more efficient ways and means of getting road asphalt to where it is needed. As an example, most roads are constructed using high concentrations of Bitumen! The Alaskan Highway is an early prime example. So now we know why many of the new pipelines are XL, i.e., Xtra larger diameter..... so they can be used to transport both bitumen and diluent!
Ok, but that is an entirely different issue. Let's concentrate on reducing the majority of our energy waste first.
and we don't have in production now why?
backyard reactors for each neighborhood
off the grid ...what am I missing?
+Glen Gibellina Depends on the specific reactor design but for the one he is proposing (LFTRs) I believe the main problem is the containment of the salts. High valence, floride salts are very corrosive at high temperatures. It's hard to find a good containment material that it wont eat through over time.
Actually, and I'm not a materials science expert I believe that issue is fairly well understood and managed with materials like Hastelloy-N. I'm sure there is room for research and improvement, but concerns about materials and corrosion don't seem to be any significant part of the reason this hasn't happened. I'd say the prime culprit is the regulatory environment around nuclear. Regulatory uncertainty keeps investment away and the open-ended expense process to gain regulatory approval from an NRC totally geared to a fundamentally different technology is an insurmountable barrier to entry without serious investment. I'd say that is the chicken/egg problem of getting to LFTR. Eventually hopefully something/someone will find a way to break that logjam.
its because you cant make weapons from thorium i believe.
33,000,000 gallons of oil to power city of Abilene for 1 year at a cost of $45,000,000 versus thorium at less than a dollar per day.... There’s your answer: Greed, my friend. Greed. That is why we are not using this beneficial, efficient, cost effective source of energy. For the power hungry greedy robber barons of the world the equation to operate by is human life < $ + power.
Government control, why would they let you have free energy?
What a great talk. I could listen to him talk about this for hours. He is right about the renewable energy debacle. Wind power is the most expensive power on the planet. Spain practically train wrecked their economy with it. Germany has energy poverty because they tried running off of wind and solar.
Rubbish....you have no clue. I've been running solar off grid for the last 30 years in Spain. NO GRID connection whatsoever.
@@charleswhitehead7441 Yes, but remember the solar product's life cycle caused toxicities elsewhere. We cannot continue to do that large scale.
Isn't molten salt corrosive? Doesn't it mean radioactive parts could be exposed causing increased chances of radiation leakage?
Maybe the US government looked into this and have decided not to use it because replace reactor parts in middle sea wouldn't be achieveable.
the russians are working with msr reactors the latest model is for a few years already connected to the grid, the vessels are made of anti corrosive metals, corrosion is not a factor, only when you talk about hydrogen, the benefit from molten salt reactors is it does not slow down the splitting reaction from the uranium fuel, so you do not need to refine it so much and also you get several times more consumtion of the fuel becous with water reactors it is only 1% that is actualy used in the proces, becous of the political and publick vieuws the nucliar sector had backdraws wich resulted in les research and it bares to mind that a country like russia with al its economical problems has the upper hand on this one, in russia they are close to have a molten salt reactor for commercial use maybe it could run partly on thorium but it is doubtful, but it can run on nuclear fuel and recyled nuclear waste
excellent
Cool! Still like the idea of a gas cooled high temp. Thorium Reactor that use Free Piston Stirling Engines instead of a steam turbine. But that is just me I suppose. Hey did this old digital computer patent 3190554 that computes with air. Might be useful in the Nuclear Power Industry.
Really like your talk. First time hearing about Thorium but it sounds cool (only 17 years old), if it is true (not that I am saying it is false but it is TOO GREAT TO BE REAL) I believe it will save a lot of humans :)
Yip
Thorium kick ass!
His voice is very similar to Alan Alda's.
I think it was Popular Science that ran a story about Thorium reactors back in the seventies or early eighties. I believe the main problem they figured, was that they didn't think the valves and pumps etc would not last long in that environment.
give the POWER to the People. swap-able Thorium generator for EV and HOME Refuel once every Hundred Years.
Where is Dr. Rusty Towell now in 2020?
Is there also a method to use outhouse to make Biogas?
Question: could this be scaled down to the size of say an internal combustion engine? I think this is what we need for running automobiles, like if my understanding is correct, one M&M of thoruim could run a automobile for its entire life. Even better if the lftr was transfable, then you could just get a new chassis and transfer the reactor into that and never have to buy an power train again. My only concern would be where and how big would the storage of the waste be? This is quite interesting considering the way the world is fighting over resources for energy, especially oil. Any rebuttals or comments would be great. Thanks
Great Talk#1
Good luck
Let's talk to
Taylor Wilson now
This is the umpteenth video I saw about Thorium. Anyone know where we are with this technology?
My question too. Like if it's good and cheap why isn't it being used
Is it possible for Ted organisations to ensure the description cites all speakers commercial or employer / employee interests in the industry being advocated. For example, does the speaker receive income or have a financial interest in a company?
You don't have to use pv panels for solar. Already in the USA there are solar electric plants that use parabolic mirrors to superheat salts to a molten state that then heat water to steam for a conventional turbine/generator system. The molten salts can be stored for use when the sun isn't shining. In spain they do a similar thing with heliostats focused on a tower. These are not test projects they are working now.
and are getting bankrupt at the time you wrotte that comment they needed to shut down a whole lot of those towers, i havent heard about it since it is possible they are al down now, they 2 years back where talking about the biggest bankrupcy after the second world war in spain
Really Great Talk! My question is WHY is our Big Tech and Government not using this??????????? VOTE THEM OUT!!!!!
How do you heat thorium long enough and consistently enough at such a high temp to produce this energy?
those temeratures develop in the fission proces
This talk made me really sad.. It made me realize that the reason we might fail in our fight against global problems is not that we are not smart enough or have the technology, its that we are just too damn greedy. This is just one of the great ideas that could potentially bring a lot of good to the world. The thing is that if people with money don't see profit in it, they won't invest in it, and so it is hard for a project like that to start. On the other hand, if they do see profit in it, they buy it, invest in it and when its working, they just charge the same for the energy as before, not helping the world much, just grabbing more money for themselves. I felt like governments would step up to the task, but it seems that they are fundamentally the same, and the public just doesn't seem to care enough to really do something fast enough..
I don't know.. i might just have a bad day and things aren't that grim, but i got a really bad feeling about this
That's not the case. When there is a clear value proposition, such as producing a product or good (like energy) for the market, there is always a will to do so because in that value proposition lies profit. The issue is government regulation around anything with the scary word "nuclear" in it. The energy market is mostly run by highly regulated entities and the government never has the benefit of a profit motive, so there needs to be a political will in order for there to be a change.
We pay les for energy then in the past for food and so on,have more free time, there wil always be the competition element in the energy industrie, as long as things do not get regulated by the state like here in europe for example it wil work out ok,i just can say nuclear is much cheaper then renewables, we see this here upon our energy bil and in germany the air is not getting cleaner, and greener becous of forest cuttings to find the coals they need to burn when the sun and or the wind is not there
I think you are absolutely correct that's why we need a revolution. We need to change our form of government to one that that's people powered.
LFTR, because it's time to advance the human race!
The Human race is over. Humans dont like change. In other words, they dont like to be advanced. Ha.
I think there is a large group of people in the world who constantly want to stop this project from being implemented
thanks for youre work. i only miss out one importand thing, and in more of these talks, Thorium molted salt reactor is slowburning and low pressure, witch is The Risk of an nucleal fast breeder plant.
i think the time has come for distributed energy production. maintaining a power grid is expensive.
Go Go Thorium.
The US does have PV cell production without environmental concern. Bismuth 213 can be made in a linear accelerator. It has a half life of 45mins so any source will be difficult to leverage. Ac can be used to make Bi213 or used directly with a HL of 10 days making it more feasible. PV has 0 nuclear waste to deal with. Thorium (nuclear in general) is not the answer.
Sorry, PV cell in the US still produce toxic waste. The difference is that in the US companies aren't allowed to dump the toxic waste out the back do orbit instead have to ship it off to a especial sit made for toxic waste.
These reactors could be built more than small enough to fit inside a hospital, and the reactors could pull double duty by powering the hospital and producing power for the hospital. Even if you didn't want to go that far, there wouldn't a reactor all that far away from all but the most remote hospitals. Also, the tiny amount of the rest of the byproducts would have all decayed within 300 years.
www.greenbiz.com/blog/2014/10/08/dark-side-solar-waste-concerns-abound
Coal and NG produce 10 times more hazardous waste than solar, and the key with solar is like you agree yourself don't dump the waste (namely Cadmium, fertilizers pollute this more-so). Also some types of solar production produces less or even potentially none in the future. With nuclear, waste has to be dumped somewhere, just recently a barrel exploded at a dump site and it will cost billions just to clean that up, it's not as trivial as a chemical spill, and chemicals are processed, reformed and recycled.
I don't care if halflife is 1000 years or even 100, it's over 1 generation long and will displace a community or area for the rest of their lives. Proponents don't see the forest for the trees just as you, in that the really exciting and only selling point of new nuclear, U233 (yes, thorium) is that it can reduce greatly CURRENT waste, eg use waste as a fuel. This should be the driving factor but is no where close to being so. LFTR has not been done before, solid thorium/U233 and liquid fluoride have been done separately and it's projected a LFTR would function fine, but it is a caveat that creates false advertising on proponents sides, along with other points with questionable feasibility.
Again, nuclear is not the answer, and shouldn't be for medical either as there are alternatives now and being developed to be safer and more effective.
Charles Hansen 1/10 as much as coal is still way too much waste. Even light water reactors that are .5% efficient only produce a few thousand tons of waste each year, and a lot of that is spent fuel rods, which can be reprocessed or burnt as is by a molten salt reactor. Furthermore, an MSR like LFTR would much more efficient and produce even less waste.
Sorry, you don't get to argue something might happen in the future and then argue that even proven science isn't a solution just because it hasn't be done together even though there is nothing to stop it from working.
Complete decay means that the element has decayed about 10 half lifes, so something that completely decays in 300 years only has a half life of 30. Even in just 150 years more than 96% of it would decay away. Also, heavy metal contamination can take hundreds if not thousands of years.
+kokofan50 sorry, you don't get the difference between chemical waste and nuclear waste. MSR (and U233) still has 100 year + nuclear waste, in addition to some of the transuranics of normal nuclear. Solar has 0 nuclear waste, and the waste it does have can be fully reused (just don't dump it). And again, sorry, but LFTR isn't proven yet, there hasn't been a prototype built. Conversely perovskite solar has been built and tested, and is undergoing further engineering to make it commercially ready, no cadmium in that, alternatives to the lead used are also being made with tin or transition metals. U233 has very high gamma output so will likely need heavy lead shielding itself, moreso than U235 or Pu.
And why argue solar anyways when wind is now less than coal? Offshore won't affect birds, and that is the main environmental concern to wind. So, nuclear really has no place today, that is what I was trying to point out. Why trade barrels of nuclear waste for paintcans when alternatively you can have none.
Charles Hansen I understand the difference very clearly. MSRs have none of the long lived transuranic waste, and the byproducts like Pu238 are extremely valuable. Also, what is with you and the 100 year thing? We are more than capable of sequestering a few dozen kg of unusable byproducts for 150 years.
LFTRs have had all the math and science done. The only thing that hasn't been done is building a reactor. LFTRs live in a very well understood area of science, nor is it trying to do radically new.
Wind is still more expensive. Wind gets large government subsidies, so people are still paying for it just at the back end. Even if renewables were less expensive, they still has other problems like reliability.
Nuclear is the only clean, safe, cheap, and reliable source of power.
If this idea is so good, why don't we start deploying and stop arguing. Then we prove from there!
Coming soon, less than 10 years. Look up Thorcon Power or Terrestrial Energy.
He left out one (more) Happy Fact about Molten Salt Reactors:
MSRs (like LFTR) will be Smaller, with reactor cores so small as to be transportable by Rail, Truck & (cf ThorCon Power's MSR factory... to be built in Indonesia?) Barge; order one, build your small structure, that will house it to MSR-maker's spec's & install it.
Since their core pressures are low, NO Cooling Tower is needed.
Very small MSRs can be built that produce 700 deg C process heat (May it Never Power more Destructive Fracking!), eg, for desalination (ie, ONE MSR powers electricity generation AND a desal'n plant), etc.
(By contrast, today's high-pressure reactors produce only ~300 deg heat.)
Another item which might have been listed was the the fact that these reactors have a great negative feedback loop creating equilibrium in the system. When heat is removed from the reactor while generating more electricity or running chemical distillation systems, the radioactive material contracts increasing fission as the density of the targets increase and more thermal energy is created. When the thermal energy removal is decreased, the radioactive material expands reducing target strikes and the reaction cools.
Yes the negative feedback along with the low pressure system promises thorium to be the safest form of energy imaginable besides fusion. One we can do now, one we can do "20 years from now!" More like 100!
Robert Weekes
Although fusion may be free of radioactive waste, it may not actually be so super safe...
The plasma needs to be superheated by lasers to some 2million °C and contained in an electromagnetic suspension system... I think there are plenty of inherent instabilities in that type of system... but that is only one proposed prototype of a fusion reactor. Also, it is worth noting that such a high energy reaction will likely release gamma rays and a few neutrons.
The MSR
-already has been prototyped and tested
-can breed fissile fuel
-has a much higher theoretical efficiency
-can consume transuranics = could technically extract energy from solid fuel reactor nuclear waste (although it would need to be "ground down")
-is small scale and compact
@@Diddmund You forgot to list the main advantage of the MSR over fusion: it's a far less complicated mechanism from any engineering standpoint and doesn't require substantial input energies just to maintain containment and initiate a reaction.
@@LordZontar Yes of course, you need to start the reaction and maintain it somehow!
But I made an error: a fusion reactor needs to sustain 100 million °C or more, since the reaction doesn't happen inside the high gravity and pressure of a star's plasma.
One downside of both fusion reactors and MSR's, however, is the degredation and irradiation of reactor cores.
An MSR might need to have the whole reactor core assembly replaced every 5-10 years. This is due to higher operation temperature than LWR combined with salts that may react over time with the reactor components and a constant neutron bombardment.
The problem of a fusion reactor core is the incredible heat combined with neutron bombardment and gamma radiation. One can also imagine that even a miniscule lapse in plasma containment could have some seriously damaging consequences to the core components.
Over all, the maintainance and technical challenges of an MSR seem much more surmountable. There are other nuclear reactor designs that are far better than classical LWRs. Fast breeder reactors can breed fuel, burn transuranics and some designs have less technical challenges than an MSR, though existing (or decommissioned) prototypes have a lower passive safety margin than an MSR... still often better than LWR.
Nuscale has also proven with their SMR that a modified LWR design can also have a very good passive safety system and a negative feedback loop that reduces reactivity over time in case of shutdown.
The Lady in India is ....GREEN!
if you dont mind the smog
Sooooo, maybe a Thorium microreactor waterheater?
If I had to choose between a MSR or a classic reactor I'd go with the MSR tech any day, but the classic power plant generation model ist out of date:
In 1-2 years roof top solar will be cheaper then the cost of power grid transmission. At this point is will make more sense to store your own solar generated power in your basement (Li-ion battery) then buying it off the grid, even if the source is a PV plant or a wind mill.
Even if the MSR is 100x cheaper then a classic nuclear reactor you still have to factor in long time waste storage.
Any chemicals left over from PV production can be stored and recycled at a much lower cost.
You can power your own home with enough solar panels and batteries (if you're rich enough) but you can't power a city or industries, it can't be done.
if the grid is provided with electricity out of renewables,though i heard solar parks are 2 x cheaper then private solar panels, al these price motivations... here in belgium our electricity gets more and more expensif by ways of renewables, throug subsidies, distribution that has even more price increases then the electricty itself, and this in times when inflation is almost flat!if you see al our other powerplants based on fossil fuels are to a great extend reduced in a 15 year timeframe, but are old nucliar plants keep our electricity prices from going to the roof, and to sum it up, the nucliar industrie needs to pay a green tax, so thats how i see al those arguments for declining renewables prices
Why Thorium technology is not being research with the emphasis of the "Moon Project" is beyond common sense.
People like the "fake stuff".
Yeah let’s use the actual earth for energy! Good idea!
We could also use the heat from the LFTR directly to produce Hidrogen in a Iodine-Sulfur Cycle, this way we can produce Red Hidrogen and Red Ammonia, way easier to transport than elemental H2, and just build regasification plants where the demand is high, like metalurgic industries, ports, airports, and refueling stations for vehicles 🤔
i have three tic tacs... will that work
skullcam that’s hilarious! 🤣
1) Can existing nuclear power plants that use uranium as a fuel source be converted over to thorium fuel? That would cut down costs as well to use existing infrastructure.
2) What was not mentioned is how efficient is mining thorium? If 3 M&Ms equivalent volume of thorium can be obtained from 1 cubic meter of soil, is the cost of mining it similar to mining diamonds/other rare earth metals? How much energy is consumed in the mining process?
3) What is the cost and energy expense of refining the ore to extract the thorium?
4) Are the energy expenses and cost to mine and refine thorium cheaper than the alternatives?
i only can answer 234 3 m&ms are the average rate in wich they occur, to mine them corporations wil look at thorium deposits with a much higher ratio, in these proces of energy production the fuel costs are a tiny factor,development and construction are the biggest costs followed by shut down proces of the plant, maitainence costs, and storage of the waiste products, then there are the fuels costs, i cannot realy answer the first question, but i think rebuilding is not a realistick aproach especialy if the powerplant is running for several years already, besides thorium has not had the necesarry investments to realy know if it works, molten salt reactors are rare, i have had talks with experts and they thought it was not feasable for thorium at the moment
Jezus christ!!!! my god that would be the cheapest energy you could imagine!!! This is awesome!!!!
And there lies the reason it is not done yet. The government sees no money to be had. Very sad.
the funny thing is this isn't new this was made back around WWII the reason we didn't use it was because it didn't make uranium for bombs
not to mention the main attraction. plutonium.
@@sailbiker1 ssmf v9co
the funny thing is is that that was in his presentation too........listen up kiddo
Wonderful presentation! We will build upon this with free thinking people, get off of oil!
I think you can see how to make it on Avasva . This is just an advice ;)
A penny a day is the problem. Even if they mark it up 300% like oil and other resources, you get what... 3 cents? That's the problem.
As JP Morgan said to Tesla...that's fine, but where do we put the meter?
Power production is a profit based industry...and to keep profits high they must maintain the image of expenditure and eventually, control the sources of power.
From a science stand point this is a great concept, from a profit driven stand point, it's going to need some creative financial maneuvering. to insure the public doesn't balk at the massive increase in profits.
You put the meter exactly where my meter is. It's not like Joe average would be allowed to have enriched uranium to breed thorium.
Absolutely correct. Outrageous profits will not be had with LIFTER technologies; Dam General Electric and Bechtel.
its not the fuel that will be costly but the cost of designing, building and integrating a utility grade power plant- this is attractive though as the cost of the fuel source should not be a driver of the cost of the electricity generated
@@scstevemclark you are right but those reactors work for several decades say around sixty years
IT',S ALL POLITICS AND U AND ONLY U CAN CHANGE IT
Clean, abundant, safe - nuclear power.
Wow I had no idea Thorium was so abundant.
Could not see the slides, editing of this presentation, when speaker is talking to the slide, show the slid and not the entire stage with tiny presenter
How difficult is it to extract those 3 M&Ms of Thorium from the 3 cubic meters of dirt? How much energy does it take?
+hxly z Thorium is a also ran, from mining other elements. We have it laying around in 55 gallon drums in shipping containers. We have tailings piles from mining elements for your cell phone, that have chewed up, on the surface thorium. So how much? Not a lot, they have it laying on the beach like gold in India.
+hxly z There's literally stock piles refined thorium sitting in waste areas because nothing can be used with it currently. link below you can see the stockpiles thorium that is treated as waste being buried because it is slightly radioactive just sitting there doing nothing; when it could be used and reduced to much smaller amounts of waste with an even shorter half life of radioactive toxicity.
+rRobert Smith
We've heard that USA is shooting itself in the foot about mining the rare earth mineral you refer to.
The result: Only China has 'em in quantity (due to the Thorium that is found with them, in the mining stage of extraction), & the Chinese put big tariffs on exports of Rare Earths, which - in practice - means more incentive to "Built it in China."
USA is again slow in doing what it needs to do, ie, to enable rare earths to be mined & stockpiled (as Defense electronics also uses them, inside) on-shore.
+IVI Grupp Oh well, in 20 years when we are buying electric buses and 4th generation thorium reactors from china we will look back on this moment and wonder.
much les then extracting rare earths out of ore and separate each individual rare earth metal, becous without big amount of rare earths there are no renewables possible, needs to be sayd that the rare earths market is taken over almost entirely by china where the waiste is piled up on heaps outside, the mining of renewables is not only giving lots of free radiation it is also the most poluting mining proces known, rare earths are widespread but only seldom available in a density that makes it commercial possible to mine them, thorium are available throughout the earths crust as 3 m&ms in one square meter, for them to be mined A they extract them from ore as a by product in an economical way B they find a thorium deposit that contains wel over the 3 m&ms ratio, when honestly calculated these costs are already in the price, but with those things like thorium uranium and so on, they are dirt cheap, the true costs are the development and the construction of the power plant, maintainence is a lesser factor actualy the fuel costs are not important, also the shut down proces is a serious price factor even much more then the often debated proces of storing the waiste,
There are many people in the Philippines who are so poor that electricity will not help. They need clean water, tuition money, and food. That's it for now. Power will be needed later on.
Um, without electrical power, you're not going to get clean water. You also won't get money or food, because a country without electrical power is a country condemned to permanent poverty.
a gravity harness (underwater wheel) uses no fuel and can produce all the electricity you need on demand and totally free
The problem is not everyone has access to deep water currents or even water for that matter.
Liquid fuel molten salt reactors win over solid fuel reactors of ANY type...
1) Able to use 95+% of embodied energy in the fuel, as opposed to the 0.5% to 0.7% attainable in solid fuel designs before fuel must be removed and “reprocessed”, a messy and expensive operation. Fuel reprocessing in a LFTR is continuous, and done onsite, and while reactor operates.
2) Meltdown is not a problem, it is the NORMAL OPERATING STATE of the fuel.
3) Operates at near atmospheric pressure, no HUGE AND EXPENSIVE pressure vessel required
4) (and this is the big one)... would ACTUALLY be able to obviate the need for most fossil fuel resource use... which is why Holifield assisted in steering the US away from Liquid fuel power generation, and toward solid fuel that would require continuous use of LARGE amounts of fossil fuel energy for uranium mining, processing, plant construction and maintenance, and fuel reprocessing or storage.
MSR would have actually given us the “safe and cheap” nuclear power we were promised, and rather than fight the whole idea of nuclear, it was much better for existing energy monopolies to steer us from behind the scenes, toward a version of nuclear that would only “compete with coal,” on it’s best day, while always presenting the horrifying risk of “meltdown”...
For an interesting bit of history, and set of interpretations of the actions and motives of some of the prime players involved... see the GALT series by American Intelligence Media.
trying to learn something here but can't stop cracking up about his name....geeeeesh hee hee
unfortunately there are so many big industries who would pay billions to keep this from happening.
Anaconda Oil?
Part of the problem is it's VERY expensive to string transmission line. It's also why in the U.S. the infrastructure for power is so fragile. And more to the point , the Tennessee Valley - it didn't get electrified until the 1940's. And 1 gram for a lifetime - until of course the oligarchs figure out how to distort the cost of that 1 gram so that we pay by the kWH used.
And the biggest nuclear user is the United States Navy - all submarines and carriers are nuclear. And pretty safe - at reactor life end they just take it out, swap in a new one and off they go.
What about fusion is it better
yes but how long wil it take before someone can build a tokamak that has lets say a better then 10 times more energy out then you put in to it, thorium there has been so little money invested in it that it is not 100% sure it actualy works, with a few billion poored in to it things could go very fast and in ten years or so they could have a market solution for it
Hydropower wasnt even mentioned in the renewables... My favorite
Hydro usually involves building dams = old and inefficient, destructive to the environment.
Rethink your love of hydro.
But hydro does have the advantage of being the only one with storage capacity so it is quite useful to maintain our existing facilities because it's near impossible to expand much like nuclear can.
Valid argument i think Thorium may help
POWER TO THA POOOOOOOOP
I use to joke about putting a reactor in my trunk, but as electric vehicles become mainstream, nuclear reactors certainly have their place. thorium needs a better look.
..And whilst I'm here, got a couple of questions - maybe ones to incorporate in your talks?
1. How easy would it be to retro-fit one of these reactors into an EXISTING coal fired (for example) power station? Basically it's just making steam right? Could you bolt one of these onto the side of the building and switch the pipes to the turbines over?
2. How much will it cost to resurrect the 1965 test facility? If you got that working, you'd be mobbed by the worlds press! Cant keep that quiet, not with Internet etc!
Couldn't you propose doing 2.) to 1.) ?
Surely Google or Apple would fork out $100Mn for the rights/patents?
Simon Early in order to do 2, you would have to make it legal first. there are several pro thorium organizations that would have already built them if it was legal to do so. unfortunately, existing power companies with the power to build them dont like nuclear because they dont make enough money. we have to deregulate the market so that people who truly care can compete and change the markets.
Alex Blascyk There's your focus then - pressure/lobby those in power to change the law. I'm sure there's some country where it's legal? What about Azerbaijan or Chad for example? If Iran is indeed seeking peaceful energy, why aren't they looking at this? They dont give a shít about nuclear proliferation deals! Whoever develops this commercially will transform not just their own economy but the make up of the world
Simon Early agreed and BTW, China is actually working on a LFTR.
@@SimonEarly azerbajan has oil in abundance,but if they are smart...Chad seems like to poor, Iran has a deal with russia they should have build nuclear plants that worked they are there i suppose but they don't work, for the corrupt goverment they are happy russia supports them and forget about the nuclear deal they have with russia, but iran has money and they are no idiots either, indeed if one country achieves such a feat like thorium al others have no choise then to follow
The oil companies and pharmaceutical companies are really gonna like this idea...
If I build a working MSR in my garage I would probably be seen as terrorist building a nuke.....
zactly, and be raided and killed by homeland defense by the next morning.
It freaks me out that I have dug up enough dirt for gardening in my life to procure enough Thorium for my family and then lots more.
if LFTR technology process is practical & ready, why don't we see it?
Because they haven't figured out if it's practical or possible and it's certainly not ready. Trans Atomic power was going down a similar road and finally realized they couldn't close the fuel cycle in the thermal spectrum, which was the premise of their entire design. LFTR is trying to do the same thing.
However, great progress is being made in Molten salt reactor technology even breeders, but in the fast spectrum.
so, to obtain thorium all we have to do is find 3 M&M's in a big scoop of dirt?
Can nuclear reactors be reused for this?
But is it a breeding reactors and couldn't you use u238 too?
Yes, but the Lftr is a thermal spectrum breeder reactor. You can only breed U-238 in a fast spectrum reactor, this is one of thorium's key advantages in the thermal spectrum.
@@josskersch3428 Correct, but no one knows if this is really possible but we know a fast spectrum breeder does work.
@@chapter4travels On the contrary, Alvin Weinberg demonstrated it was quite possible at Oak Ridge back in the late 1960s. But a thermal-spectrum thorium breeder is a poor source for bomb fuel, which was one reason why Nixon canceled it.
less than a penny a day? that'll be the day!
What we need to talk about is ending power plants entirely in favor of point-of-need production methods and shared distribution, instead of capital exploitation for profit.
Maybe it could be done with body motion such as walking and compressing a bladder in a shoe are a slide magnet could be.
then we go into the micro production, higher production costs and so on and before we know it energy is restricted and produced in a inefficient way, also the distribution about it, i am sorry to say but nucliar is cheap clean and has lots of possiblity's for improvement, in urianium reactors, thorium and even fusion
At 16:47 (costs) Rusty completely accidentally forgot to provide a price quote to provide (i.e. supply & install) one in your 1-gigawatt size. Price please. I wonder what the wear & tear is on the turbine, piping & any other components in contact with the Sodium fluoride diluant / thermal transfer fluid. Sodium chloride is a bit corrosive of iron and fluorine is a tad more acidic than chlorine. Otherwise, seems like the solution to the current giant problem of all Life on Earth to me. Let's get the show on the road.
Good point! I wondered about the set-up price as well. He talked about the energy/product life cycle for wind and solar, but did not go into it for the Thorium reactor. It must be a lot, but I am sure we could work on bringing it down. Somebody else's post suggested that maybe we could reuse the current nuclear power plant set-ups and just transition them to a Thorium set-up, but I don't know if any of the parts would be useful for this type of set-up since it is done very differently. It is a thought though. We could always use more upcycling of old things.
Stainless steel is what is used in the piping, not iron.
@@angelagero9481 Factor in the price of replacing wind/solar three times to meet the lifespan of a typical nuclear reactor and you have your answer.
Rusty this is an excellent presentation of the facts. Thank you. These reactors are extremely cost effective due not only to the abundance of Thorium, but also due to LFTR safety & inherent simplicity. Why have governments blocked the path to obtain this clean, cheap, abundant energy? Because such decisions are made by those who control governments, & surprise, surprise, voters do not have a say! Ask yourself who truly controls the media & the disinformation about the so-called energy crisis? There is a crisis, but it's a crisis of perception and critical thinking skills. That's because banks control the energy sector & investments within it. Banks also control governments owing to the debt owed to banks by governments. What is the best way to create debt? Answer: Create fear, confusion and conflict. Voters could change all that too, but voters are kept ignorant. Here's proof: Have you ever heard of the "military industrial banking complex"; "weather warfare technology" or "implosion technology"? If you can't say yes to all three, you are still ASLEEP. Get conscious of the truth & stop believing 'terrifying' bullshit pumped into your head by globally controlled governments & the media. Labeling 'climate deniers' as such (for e.g.) screams how ignorant one is. Remember: global warming historically PRECEDES a rise in carbon dioxide levels. If one says otherwise, then one would be denying the historical evidence, yet many do. So, get conscious of the truth, stop being 'terrified' & start thinking rationally.