Energy From Thorium: A Nuclear Waste Burning Liquid Salt Thorium Reactor
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 сен 2024
- Kirk Sorensen's Tech Talk, delivered at Google on July 20, 2009.
Successfully developing a liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) would essentially solve our planets energy problems for thousands of years, because it would allow us to fully utilize the energy in natural thorium, which makes up 0.0012% of the Earths crust. Most of the research and development work for this technology was done by Oak Ridge National Labs back in the 50s and 60s. They were working to a different set of overall objectives, nevertheless, there are many lessons to be gleaned from their work that can help us to avoid pitfalls and develop LFTR into a high-performance, high-reliability power supply.
Very compelling indeed. Maybe Kirk could encourage Australian development into domesticating it's reactor technology with this liquid Thorium cycle. Since we've only used Nuclear for medical and industrial purposes we have the opportunity to start from scratch without compromising our non-extant Nuclear power plants.
Thanks for the presentation. It would be nice if the audio & visual quality were a bit better, but it's good to see these ideas promoted articulately.
This technology is amazing. How do make this a national priority?
In his talk (2009) he assumes that we will have Yucca Mountain for storing the Nuclear waste. Now that that project has been cancelled, the thorium reactor is even more advantageous.
Absolutely spot on. We need this.
This technology is amazing. How do make this a national priority?
In his talk 2009 he assumes that we will have Yucca Mountain for storing the Nuclear waste. Now that that project has been cancelled, the thorium reactor is even more advantageous.
@Richbund The Thorium reactor produces many times less waste than a conventional reactor, and the waste itself doesn't need to be contained for nearly as long. And that is not taking into account the percentage of that waste that would be used for other purposes.
The problem with fusion is maintaining a reaction. We can start one, but it basically fizzles out as soon as it starts.
Yes. Fission essentially returns its energy profit from a basically passive process: just gather together enough material in a densely packed space and let the chain reactions flow. You can't get too much simpler than that in engineering terms. A fusion reactor requires a great deal of complexity and input energy just to get a reaction going and for a disappointing return. I can see fusion power for spacecraft propulsion but seriously doubt it can ever be made practical for industrial electricity or heat generation here on Earth.
Please post a video with better resolution. 240p is not good enough for the slides.
Totally agree, 240p was low res even in 2009! A re-upload would be great!
thanks for posting quite astonishing video.
We spend $9 billion dollars for three new navy destroyers and there is no real support for innovative thorium nuclear reactor research.
Affordable clean electricity is critical to our national security.
Let's build the best thorium reactor possible now.
Well said!! Sustainable clean energy research should be top priority for our country and the world!
that's not even that much to spend & we got something for it. compare to the 10's of billions spent on 4 PWRs (Summer Units 2 and 3 and Vogtle Units 3 & 4) with so far nothing to show. both Summer Units have been canceled & the Vogtle Units are so delayed an over budget that there is a real chance they will be canceled.
@halo07guy2 Thanks again for taking the time to reply to my questions. I had only viewed the one video on"The answer to all our energy problems" etc... followed links to his site, and sure enough, he talks the talk, but he definitely does not walk the walk. People have to be critical of just about everything they read and watch. I guess Mark Twain was right about that "believe nothing you hear, and only half of what you read" Thanks again and best regards, Rich
Thorium's relative abundance to Uranium is about 4 to 1, but relative to U-235 is about 400 to 1.then there is the cost of extracting the isotope..
They make U-235 in the process of running the reactor. It would need some "seed" U235 to get the process starting, but after that they would be good to go.
@halo07guy2 It's a pleasure to exchange ideas with someone with the background and education in the subject. More can be learned by discussing instead of brawling... I honestly wish this guy was a genius and his proposal a true one. What a different world we'd live in. Not to say that perhaps future technology will give us the means to attain cold/hot fusion to the benefit of the world. Otherwise, it's Ockham's razor... Cheers,
Rich
Search youtube for other thorium tech talks:
• Aim High: Using Thorium Energy to Address Environmental Prob (yes, don't search for 'Problem', you won't find it)
• The Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor: What Fusion Wanted to be
Is there a two or three page fact sheet I could find to send to congressmen, senators and the like to let them know what we are missing out not taking advantage of this technology we developed and ignored? Thanks.
I am aware of this, I am just curious what point in the video it is as it is a long video, thanks.
@exenrontexas That's what I meant. And the Cold War lasted form 1945 to 1991. THe Thorium reactor itself is a late 50's early 60's design. I know Thorium as a technollogy isn't new. But it hasn't seens 40+ years of devlopment whereas Uranium has, and it hasn't yet entered the commercal market yet. It needs to catch up.
What I'm thinking is that waste from the Japanese reactors was shipped to the US to produce weapons during the Cold War. Makes sense.
@Richbund Your welcome. Honestly, I wish there were more people like you on youtube. If we could actually have discussions without it turning into an all out brawl, it'd be very nice.
We all need to face reality, wind, solar, and future thermoelectrics are great technologies but will never be efficient and energy-dense enough to supply the worlds demand for energy. We need a powerful clean, reliable, flexible, and plentiful source of energy that will support our future smart grids where solar and wind can't, with beneficial products and manageable wastes, and Thorium in LFTRs can fit that bill. The Oak Ridge prototype already proved the potential of LFTRs.
Let's work this through like a toddler taking their first steps.
What is the enrichment level of U-235 used in reactors?
What is the enrichment level of U-235 used in weapons?
Now, here's the tough part!
Can you use Low-Enriched uranium in a nuclear weapon? WHY NOT?
In 7 years nobody has answered you?
1) fresh reactor fuel for light water reactors is approx 3% Uranium 235.
2) I believe the enrichment level for weapons is 95 plus percent.
3) You can’t make a nuclear bomb with reactor fuel because all of those neutrons flying around from split U 235 would be absorbed by the Uranium 238 (97%) of the mix and then you have to wait for it to decay into plutonium.
Totally different physics path involved.
The sound quality was very poor I had to turn the volume way up. But conceptually, heck yeah.
I stand corrected, sub and edit "main pressure assembly" to "heat ex changer tubes/bundle"
At least there is no massage heat ex changer towers...aka drip cooling towers
Does anyone know at what point in this video he discussing india, I watched it all but can't remember at what point he covers it.
Fordi,
The sulfur-iodine cycle wants heat at 850 C or hotter. The Aircraft Reactor Experiment ran at 877 C, which is the hottest anyone's ever run a reactor.
Waste heat from the turbines will come out at... whatever you choose. Take it out at 50 C and you can air-cool the reactor. Take it out at 70 C and you can drive multiple-effect desalination, at 4% less electrical power output. But you can't drive sulfur-iodine with waste heat.
With a thermal reactor, you can transmute even-mass actinides to odd-mass actinides, and fission the odd-mass actinides. This only really works if you have an excess of neutrons which once-through fuels like U-235 or MOX simply don't have. The next best thing you can do with MOX is not have any uranium at all in it, and instead have thorium as the support fuel, because it's lighter and less likely to be overbred into transuranics
Fast reactors, which exist, can simply fission even/odd actinides
Just finished watching. That was an excellent talk. Kind of preaching to the choir with me, but very convincing nonetheless.
A side note on your last Q&A: From Dr. Hargraves' talk, waste heat, not electricity, would be used to split water via the sulfur - iodine cycle, and it need not affect the reactor's electrical efficiency at all.
Thank you for this video! i learnd so much and it really helped me to create my own power point show off :p
I hope the teacher grade it high :s
On an all too human level I wish that there had been at least one good close-up of the presenter sometime during the talk (he was wearing a very nice suit and is young enough to still look presentable in a close-up).
Long camera angles and gentle diffuse lightning may improve (slightly) the appearance of presenters belonging to the pioneering nuclear generation.
Why the MSR FUJI with molten-salt fuel on Thorium-Uranium is out of scope of this presentation? There is the International Thorium Molten-Salt Institute (ITHMSI), President K. Furukawa and Chief Manager Y. Kato. It would take only about US$ 300M to put the MSR FUJI into an INDUSTRIAL phase.
Should move to smaller countries ready to except this radical approach for lftr with small proof of concept reactor
Isn't all that needed for existing reactors?
Could you explain the "5 times more energy' statement at 13:16? This makes no sense in any interpretation I have tried so far.
Heavy necroposting, but it has to do with the probability of one fission causing another, neutrons that don't cause a fission are lost, that energy that neutron held is lost, so by decreasing the probability of neuron loss, with an equivalent mass of fuel a thermal spectrum reactor would produce more energy since it losses less energy in fissions that don't cause more fissions
You're mistaken. I could explain why, but you really ought to watch Kirk's other talks. The main point is that solar and wind are just too diffuse and intermittent to compete seriously with fission in terms of energy per unit cost, even if used at much higher efficiencies than current or foreseeable technology allows. They're not sufficiently energy-dense to sustain the growth of global technological civilization. Solar will find plenty of useful applications, but it can't be the main course.
great video thanks
6:30 "Seaborg, who had a very, very fertile mind..."
I see what you did there.
Transuranics can be fissioned using nuclear transmutation. Most fission products can also be stabilized in a similar manner.
Nuclear waste was never supposed to be an issue. Bans on nuclear reprocessing and anti-proliferation laws limiting breeder reactors basically created our waste issue, and didn't really help mitigate proliferation either.
And if you remove nuclear from our options altogether, all that waste we have right now will never go away.
@josephboyle Basically what he is saying is, as an isotope in a reactor, Thorium has less absorption. You get a lot more energy, for less fuel due to the fact that the fission it's self is much easier. Plutonium and Uranium have a sizable absorption range, which means wasted fuel and effort.
Who was Dr. Weinberg's protector?
Cesorship by google of its own lectures ? Why is resolution of this video full of slides only 240 pixels ?!?
What about the shielding issues? If U-232 is flowing around in these pipes and pumps and heat exchangers and there is no 30 foot layer of water for shielding then what protects the workers and inspectors from the gamma emissions?
The liquid molten salt
galt57 www.nirs.org/factsheets/thoriumbackersoverstatefacesheet.pdf
Thorium Reactors: Their Backers Overstate the Benefits
galt57 steel and concrete.
does anyone know where i can find the pp slides used in this video. need them for a research project. appreciate help. thanks!
@halo07guy2 I regret that I did not express myself better. I believe that since there is little or not need for uranium and plutonium these days and since it is more expensive, less stable and less abundant than Thorium that the solution to most nuclear energy problems is Thorium and that the reasons against Thorium are corporate and politicial.
love the video really good
The graphite blanket wearing problem is not going to be easy to solve. There is only 1 percent of extra neutron you can workaround breeding your thorium. If you drain the graphite tank to replace the wall, you can only do it less than 1 percent of the time of the operation of the core. One day off every seasonal change, 4 times a year. But, is that enough to keep the graphite water tight all year round? Can you change the wall one extra time when graphite is leaking before the season ends? No, you only get one shot. You miss it, your power plant is dead. How is that for reliability ?
Work through the worst-case scenarios if you want but it is, in fucking fact, possible to achieve a conversion ration higher than 1.00 with the thorium fuel cycle, which makes it a self-sustainable breeding cycle.
What is with all the noise?!
@jimbalio "New queue ler" ain't a word.
I believe they pronounce it new-killer.
i guess the jury is still out: (Reuters Health) - "Rates of certain birth defects appear higher than normal in one of the Ukraine regions most affected by the 1986 Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster, according to a new study.
The findings, reported in the journal Pediatrics, stand in contrast to a 2005 U.N. report stating that there is no evidence of an increased risk of birth defects or other reproductive effects in areas contaminated by radiation from the Chernobyl accident."
No, my understanding is that the "fuel" in the thorium cycle is actually the plutonium or the uranium 233, the stuff that actually "burns" and produces energy and keeps the system going.
Sorry - guess, I couldn't spell "breeding". Without the plutonium or U233, thorium won't breed sufficiently.
OK, LFTR is not entirely theoretical.
not only do we have entrenched infrastructure...but your describing a system that is impossible to build with the current labor pool.. this salty high temp fuel flowing in nickle or stainless pipes is impossible to build without 4-7 TIMES the current amount of pipe-fitters in the US. the ramp up to build these would be four or five years
OK. The way the LFTR works as I understand is that it's safe, no need of large complex, no need of having peoples around to look after, and if something happen, the frozen plug will open to aloud for the liquid thorium mater to flow in to the holding tank.......... then what ? Can some one enplane what will happen after ? can it be re start it ?
He actually explains it in the video. ruclips.net/video/AZR0UKxNPh8/видео.html. The situation would be the same as when they would turn it off for the weekend. As I understand it thorium would get too hot, melt the freeze plug and get into the holding tank and because it's no longer heated it would cool down and turn into a salt. When you want to use it again you need to heat it up to turn it into a liquid to pump it back up into the reactor.
After it cools it can be manually removed, re-melted, and poured back into the reactor.
Suggest it to Mythbusters... not as bad/crazy as it sounds.
Why not? They already work with explosives and various other exotic and dangerous technologies. Ofcourse it wont be a fullscale production unit, but ....
lets just build it and see what happens...
yes the main pressure assembly cannot be robotically welded either...Isn't this just a scale up and scale down of a proven design, problem? why would we even need anything but nuclear (power plant) design engineers (another unaddressed shortage in the making..)
A Google Tech Talk and all that can be mustered is 240p of resolution? Stop using interns for your social media platforms!
He is good, but the model is not good enough. Tungsten is needed, Vacuum pomps to suck all the air out of the reactor, robots to make it save. I like to have him on my team for a project.
Important advantage of thorium at 27 mins 30 seconds - what happens if you pull the plug on external power - the whole thing just shuts down naturally. Lessons for Japan and the world over. China are definitely onto something going this way.
And eleven years later China found it's levelised cost of energy too expensive to commercialise.
Seems I usually get things right, but I cannot understand what i did last night.
@Suqatish Cheap energy is very profitable if you're the business of making things.
Could you email the presentation to me?
India is using thorium in conventional reactors, not LFTRs.
@halo07guy2 Thank you for your information on Thorium. It is definitely a better answer than enriched uranium.
By the way, why do you think the fusion reaction fizzles out?
Thanks, Rich
WE must get of lobby-ism on all levels!
We could break nuclear waste down, extract the useful and reduce the mass of real "waste" by a 100, but the reason that we don't is that its not economical. The lion's share is unburned fuel; it is "cheaper" in our industry to mine virgin uranium than gather the 99% left in the spent. The reasons its uneconomical are mainly political: "not in my backyard", entrenched new fuel interests, the relative hazardousness of the job, and the liability implications if the lowest bidder botches it. ...
show where anyone has grown 200 tons of algae per arce. Show where anyone has recovered 200ton of oil from algae.
Why would you take a billion dollar nuke plant that is up 90% and use it as backup for a system that is ready at best 20% and also costs a billion dollars if not more.
I believe you missed the point where he said this type of reactor burns the nuke waste from other reactors until you only have about 300 years dangerous levels of reactivity. what better use of spent fuel?
100% this guy is styropyros dad.
they can use up the waste from reactors first and that would last a long time.
emerald1one1 www.nirs.org/factsheets/thoriumbackersoverstatefacesheet.pdf
Thorium Reactors: Their Backers Overstate the Benefits
thanks for the fact pages, lots involved with the topic .
Bronner33 duly noted ,thank you.
+emerald1one1 Look up thorium_briefing_2012.pdf
Had Chernobyl employed LFTR, there would have been NO problem :)
Because theyre doing it assbackwards at Hanford, they didnt want to acknowledge the stupidity of liquids near storage then. They dont want to do it now either. Proper drystorage with stable element containment with 5% maximum amount of Pu at given mass of material is an infinitely secure storage that cannot under ANY circumstance go critical let alone supercritical.
@bdhcarbon The US has the greatest stores of Thorium on the planet, we are the OPEC of the new energy economy, just too much corruption and egomania in the way of the conversion.
HVDC is nothing new; been around for decades. Even at the short distance electricity is transmited now you're paying more for transmission than you are for generation.
They haul coal by railroad at great expense because it's cheaper than building electricity lines to the mine mouth.
Solar has a capacity factor of 20%; but you're paying for those lines 100% of the time, even when you're not using them.
"...without ammonium fertilizer 5 out of 6 people on the earth would be dead since our modern agriculture is based on it..." . Organic farming is vastly superior to 'industrialized agriculture' primarily due to its soil enriching capabilities. Dumping synthetic fertilizer on soil ruins it. I could go on...suffice it to say, there are FAR more useful things to do with this technology - Mr. Sorensen should not dispense misinformation about a topic for which he is quite obviously unqualified.
@stiffyschlong
wikipedia ---> Nirvana_fallacy
what you're suggesting is simply not feasible.
More likely it was just what Westinghouse was selling.
At least try to speak in a language that is coherent with nuclear physics if you're going to make things up (cross-sections, neutron energy/spectra, and neutron emission ratios). You'd need to be trying really hard to fudge your design if you lose 61% of your neutrons
Also we're talking about a thermal spectrum. The only way U-232 production even comes close to U-233 production ratios is when the neutrons are not moderated at all (fast spectrum). Again we are talking about the thermal spectrum.
Just a comment to office Thug. Neutron emission (per fission) * capture probability * * decay losses in moderator gives NO self-sustaining chain reaction in Thorium reactions. The fact that 232-Th can be up transmuted into 233 - U doesn't help because relativistic neutrons only cause up-transmutation NOT fission, thus a moderator must be present in sufficient ratio to kill up-transmutation WHILE not also consuming neutrons (always does). Result? No 233-U based bombs can be built and if you can't do it under Implosion density, it is impossible at normal density.
THAT is why there are no working 232-Th based reactors anywhere without a 235-U based core.
Wrong. U235 is only needed to start the reactor. One of these ran successfully at Oak Ridge for a number of years.
Lie. Never once has a 232Th reactor run without 235U
Would you mind telling me where your information comes from?
Various articles in Nuclear Abstracts, circa 1997.
No new information has been forthcoming.
232U poisoning is the central reason they call Thorium the "safe" nuke.
Can't make a self sustaining chain reaction (bomb)
@soylentgreenb
Yeah, like somebody is going to try and take money from big oil. They'd be killed. You know that's the truth.
300 year 1/2 life is nothing compared with the 1/2 life of spent fuel from light water reactors. so, yes it makes a big difference.
Can you say a person can build a container to last 100,000 years? ............Maybe.
Can you say a person can build a container to last 300 years.? .................Of course, you can.
Fuck all the diagrams are in 240p
OMFG
1 hour long
This guys is 100% wrong on this. Barack Obama told us that wind and solar are the only alternate energy sources the US needs.
Dude, It's bulletproof. India's building one now and China has a team assembled to start on them. We'd rather piss our grandkid's money away with foreign adventures. That's OK, I'd buy a few shares.
eatenbytheweasel www.nirs.org/factsheets/thoriumbackersoverstatefacesheet.pdf
Thorium Reactors: Their Backers Overstate the Benefits
Ron Maimon Please look up
thorium_briefing_2012.pdf
Ron Maimon Thanks for your interest!
Ron Maimon There is no counter-argument? Who are you, so wise in the ways of science?
Ron Maimon You are of course entitled to your opinion.
FJB stairway falls…#POW
25 mg of thorium can --? #POTUS #POW
Who is the impolite, inconsiderate fricking jerk creating the subnoise during Kirk's presentation? This is a Google presentation? You need to control the venue Google, and show a little class,......
I'm sure glad that guy at the beginning wasn't the presenter. He was extremely annoying... uh, ah, they-they, they, nukyular... reminded me too much of George W,
Thug, here's the issue. Fission does not happen 100% of neutron impacts. Neutrons do not 100% survive long enough to impact any nuclei. Neutrons require density of fissionable material * fission probability / neutron.
A good minimum number of neutrons per fission event for light water is 3.8 and above.
If you check your numbers for fission probability, you will discover WHY Thorium has not replaced enriched 238U.
See? Just too easy.
"per fission event for light water" -- you're talking about in a Light Water Reactor, a solid fueled, water cooled reactor, using U235 + U238 (breeding some Pu239).
That doesn't apply to using molten thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor such as LFTR. With molten fuel, you don't need enough uranium to last for the 18 months a solid fuel rod would be in use; with molten fuel, you need enough fissionable uranium to maintain fission -- and that can be controlled through simple chemical processes, and that doesn't have to be controlled exactly since the molten fuel expands/contracts with heat so excess fission expands the fuel reducing fuel density and thereby reducing fission. In a LFTR, converting thorium to uranium-233, you need slightly over 2 neutrons per fission.
*****
Molten fuel allows removal of fission products that absorb neutrons. Solid fuel these fission products are trapped in the fuel pellets. The video mentions xenon gas simply bubbling out of the fuel salt, to be safely stored; this is a major neutron absorber in LWR. Neutron economy is not as important in MSR vs LWR.
I'm no expert but thorium wouldn't be in a light water reactor.
*****
Wrong. Liquid salts are ALREADY diluted, corrosive, subject to leaking and build up both daughter products easy to remove AND transuranic byproducts of transmutation that are stable as in non-fissionable and those ARE VERY difficult to remove. The entire bath will have to be reprocessed in real time while literally glowing blue due to Chrenkov radiation. The gamma that is killing you is invisible.
Meanwhile, 235U by enrichment is the only way to maintain the reaction.
Ever wonder why they don't build bombs out of the stuff? Thorium will not self sustain except in an implosion core, like Plutonium except worse since a moderator MUST be in the mix.
*****
The problem, of course, is 233-U doesn't produce 2 slow neutrons per fission. It produces 1.88 and can only fission in an implosion core. 235-U is required to create a chain reaction....that and deuteron bombardment with 3 - 8 MeV (exact energy varies with both temperature and depth of bath).
Assuming net loss fusion is available, that would also work.
So far, neutron reflectors simply are not efficient enough to sustain a 232-Th based chain reaction post-transmutation.
If you are capable of saying the following sentence: "Today I got my New, Clear glasses...they are bi-focals", then you are capable of correctly pronouncing the word "Nuclear". Failure to do so puts you dangerously close to being in the same league as The Idiot Bush. "New queue ler" ain't a word.
more than LFTR would than uranium). In other words, you have just wasted all our time with your BS post. Thank you...but go away and let the informed adults talk!
Every time the presenter mentions how safe Thorium supposedly is, he starts to stutter. He sounds noticeable nervous, and he is awkwardly laughing - all though what he is saying is not funny.
Cold Fusion Dog Bob watch some more videos on this. This is for real.
He was a mechanical engineer first, then an amateur nuclear physicist. He knows that the graphite blanket problem is unsolvable like fusion reactor in the near term. When an engineer is lying, he knows that he is lying. When a physicist is lying, he does not know that he is lying.
I'm inspired to become a LFTR evangelist!
I don't know about the USA, but in the UK, an entire LFTR programme could be developed for just the small change of the nuclear decommissioning programme.
can't believe it's been 10 years since this talk. still one of my favorites
Now if google could just upload a higher resolution version of it.
@@eitkoml I know! c'mon Google!
I love how down to earth and realistic this man is, a true engineer, I like the fact that he accepts it will take billions for this to happen. It is true. It is sad, but true.
By my estimates there is 5.97200 × 10 to the power of 18 kilograms of Thorium on earth and it is quite easy to obtain, why are we not funding this?
Wait math... people hate math..
There is a shit load of Thorium.
+roflcopterkklol
Mainly because you can't use Thorium reaction by products to make a bomb (eg. no plutonium.)
Ken Marshall I suppose i should have figured that from the video haha, they outline that being the reasoning behind why funding was cancelled in the early days, but still that was back then and this is now, we already have enough nukes to blow the world up 10 times over, you would think something like this would be on the table before plans to mine helium 3 from the bloody moon for a replacement fuel for breeder reactors.
+roflcopterkklol Because the cost of the research to develop a commercial-grade reactor is about $1 Billion.
Hired Mind So the Australian government alone could fund this project 1500 times every year?
Heck the HMAS Canberra and Adelaide cost $3.1 billion, are you saying for a third of the price of two warships the world could have had this technology?
Yeah i am failing to see why this is not being funded, A billion dollars in funding is literally nothing in the worlds economy today.
@MrMaveri Unfortunately, India's approach (using solid based fuels) loses many of the key benefits Mr. Sorensen explains under a LFTR program.
Solar still requires backup fossil fuel generation...especially if we switch from internal combustion engine driven cars to electric vehicles. Worldwide, the nuclear power industry has a much better safety record than the various fossil fuel industries (See 1998 Paul Scherrer Institute Report comparing accidents and fatalities across the energy sector from 1969 to 1996. Hydroelectric actually has the worst safety record). Solar will NEVER have the capacity to replace fossil fuels, the least
Why is the resolution so poor? I cannot read the slides at all. Please give us a higher resolution where the slides are legible.
I've created a VERY fast paced doc THORIUM REMIX 2011, on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors featuring Kirk Sorensen. It is free on RUclips, and Creative Commons licensed. If you are curious about LFTR please check it out.
Google, please invest in this clean energy technology!!
Or Apple...any of these companies could do it -- I think they worry about the PR if anything goes wrong hurting their current status.
trumanhw
Hell, Bill Gates should invest in this! He knows about it, AND he advocates advanced nuclear! What is missing? lol
Robert Weekes That scumbag Gates also advocates killing innocents with vaccines. He's slime.
Robert Weekes PV, wind, geo, hydro, wave, tide, yes. Screw Goodge/NSA though.
k4lgarcias
I dunno, what was the thread about? LOL
Economic investigator Frank G Melbourne Australia is following this very informative content cheers Frank 😊
I'm a big Th232 fan but I do have a question that has yet to be answered from the Th community. What is the solution to the hard gamma from U232? What are the shielding considerations? how is that going to inflate costs? A second less so question would be has there been a material developed that shows promise in containing UF6 without significant maintenance / leakage issues?
I came here seeking an answer to these two questions. Still no convincing answer after a decade. A Danish lab is claiming it has developed resilient stainless steel pumps and plumbing and a good core design for passive control of actinide burning as well as preventing proactium neutron absorbtion, but their cost assumptions weren't convincing.