It’s time to rethink Nuclear Power! Limitless Green Thorium Energy is coming
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 18 май 2024
- Claim your SPECIAL OFFER for MagellanTV here: try.magellantv.com/arvinash . Start your free trial TODAY so you can watch "Fukushima: Robots in Hell" about how the 2011 nuclear disaster happened. www.magellantv.com/video/fuku... Also enjoy the rest of MagellanTV’s science collection.
Tickets to "Celebration of Science and Reason" Conference. Arvin Live: www.pang-burn.com/
Errata:
13:43 - Spelling should be "Protactinium"
Chapters:
00:00 - Power for 1000 years Thorium
2:33 - Where does nuclear energy come from?
6:36 - How do nuclear power plants work?
8:59 - The radiation waste problem
11:28 - How is Thorium better than Uranium
12:48 - How Thorium reactors work
14:55 - The problems with Thorium
15:36 - Technical and political barriers to nuclear power
17:04 - See Arvin live!
Summary:
Nuclear power may not be as bad as you think. If we used Thorium instead of Uranium, we could greatly decrease dangerous radioactive by-products. There is enough Thorium in the world to meet all our energy needs for over 1000 years.
In this video I show you how nuclear power plants work, and how Thorium can change the game. I aim to shift your views on nuclear power.
This is how energy is created in a nuclear reactor: When you split some heavier atoms into two lighter atoms, you get a lot of energy. For example, if you hit an isotope of Uranium, Uranium-235 with a neutron at the right speed, it will split into two lighter atoms like barium-141 and krypton-92 & 3 neutrons. These neutrons then split other U-235 atoms, leading to a chain reaction, producing more and more energy.
The energy comes from the binding energy related to the strong nuclear force. Binding energy is the energy needed to break the bonds between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms. It takes a lot of energy to keep protons and neutrons tightly bound together. When you split the nucleus, this energy is released.
Each splitting of U-235 releases 173 million electron volts (MeV). For comparison, when you burn paper each carbon atom consumed in the burning releases 4 eV. So the nuclear process releases 40 million times more energy per atom than burning fossil fuels. 1 kilogram of U-235 is equivalent to aout 2.7 million kilograms of coal.
How do nuclear power plants work? Inside a nuclear reactor is a core containing fuel rods with nuclear fuel, like U-235. Inside the fuel rods, Uranium splitting takes place and heat energy is produced. The energy heats water into steam, whcih then goes into a steam turbine, which drives a generator producing electricity.
The chain reaction is controlled by control rods that temper how much heat the reactor produces by absorbing neutrons and keeping them from splitting more nuclear fuel.
There is no carbon emission from this process. The plumes you see from the cooling towers is steam not pollution.
Nuclear power isn’t renewable, because you do consume fuel. Also, the fuel, U-235, is turned into waste products like krypton, barium that are generally radioactive isotopes. So we have to be careful with this waste as it can be dangerous for humans due to radiation. However, this is not the most problematic part nuclear energy because the half-life of these waste products is generally short, from a few days to 30 years. So most of this waste turns into stable and safe isotopes within a few years.
The bigger problem is that the uranium fuel creates more dangerous waste products from transmutation, when an element absorbs a proton or a neutron, and turns into a different element. Most of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor is NON-Fissile uranium-238, not U-235. U-238 absorbs neutrons, but instead of splitting it undergoes transmutation plutonium which is very toxic. And it can also be used for nuclear weapons.
This is the nuclear waste problem. But Thorium is different. Whereas Uranium fuel is 95-97% U-238 which creates Plutonium, almost all of the Thorium fuel reacts and only creates safer fissile by products, instead of producing Plutonium. This is because the brown ore, Monazite, that contains Thorium has higher concentrations of Thorium than does the equivalent uranium ore of Uranium. In addition, there is three times as much Thorium in the world as Uranium.
What are the problems with Thorium? First breeding reactors that creates its own fuel have to be used. The reaction: Thorium-232 absorbs a neutron to become Thorium-233. This decays to Protactinium-233. This transmutes to uranium-233.
#nuclearpower
#Thorium
Thorium is not fissile but U-233 is. Unlike with Uranium, there is little to no U-238 that turns into dangerous Plutonium. It also cannot be used to make nuclear fuel.
The reason Thorium is not being used is technical and political. Thorium nuclear power plant is expensive. Politically, people are averse to nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. And, since Thorium can't be used to make weapons, government funding has been scarce. 
Наука
Corrections and video notes:
7:44 - Nuclear reactors can't actually become nuclear bombs because there is not enough fuel density to create an uncontrolled chain reaction. But since many people believe this is a possibility, I stated "atomic bomb" in the video to dramatize and answer this question. The worst that can happen is that they can overheat, and have a meltdown. However, even a meltdown is not a possibility in new modern designs of nuclear reactors.
13:43 - Spelling and pronunciation should be "Protactinium"
I wouldn't expect any engineer or scientist to use the term "NOT A POSSIBILITY" for any thing man made. They work with risk factors not certainty.
@@rickharriss The term is correct. Certain things are not a possibility, even in science. Just like a truck cannot explode like a nuclear bomb, neither can a nuclear reactor.
@@ArvinAsh You made me rethink how I got a perfect score on a periodic table of elements quiz for a sec right there
While the byproducts of fission aren't weapons grade, they are capable of being highly enriched from that low enrichment state. Starting with nuclear waste is a far better option than mining the ore when it comes to building a nuclear weapon. A lot of the work has been done for you, not to mention the added "bonus" of radioactive materials that can be included in a dirty bomb.
In general breeder reactors are attached to double time, which is the time to produce of enough fissile material to start a second core. But keep tons of fissile material inventory represents a problem to the "Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT)" where several countries participates.
It's nice to see more people talking about thorium reactors, it's way overdue.
Agreed. When I was in college, 10 years ago, I had wrote a paper in favor of thorium energy. It's incredible that thorium is still not widely embraced.
@@Ashenshugura From my research since Thorium has become "hot" in recent years, the idea of Thorium reactors is at least 50 years old. Why hasn't it caught on? You can't make bombs with it.
Now if we could just get the NRC on board. Its hard to get them focused on anything but light water reactors.
@@mikeall7012 But LWRs are "safe". Ask those who lived in Fukushima."
@@knoahbody69 Fukushima is what happens when human arrogance, meets an antiquated design and a company who doesn't listen to their engineers. I do feel we have closed those gaps in the US LWRs. I was involved in some of those projects and have some first hand knowledge.
But ultimately the best thing we could do is build passively safe reactors. The technology has been around for decades and has been proven. At the end of the day, we have a fleet of very safe reactors in the US but when you have a passively safe reactor, you take the bean counters/executives out of the safety discussion, which is where the early stages of any major industrial accident usually occur.
If Fukushima just rebuilt the wave break, it would still be operating to this day. Not to get too off the rails but that's why I think "unregulated" power markets are a terrible idea. Texas' blackout the other year was a perfect example of that. I'm saying that as someone who is small government guy. Utilities need to be regulated to protect infrastructure. Investors should be an afterthought. Oddly enough, aside from Texas, most of the red parts of the US have regulated power markets while most of the blue ones have "unregulated."
I work as an engineer in nuclear power plants. After several years in this career and after seeing many many plants, it still amazes me how much power can be derived out of such a small amount of fuel. 1 rod of low enriched uranium can provide 6 years of electricity for several thousand homes and commercial reactors have hundreds of rods in their cores, providing up to 1.5GWe.
We have learned a lot about how to run these plants safely and efficiently. Nuclear power could easily provide all of our base load electrical needs, in the US and Europe, if folks would get over the stigma. If folks are truly worried about carbon emissions and have a basic understanding of why wind and solar can't provide base load electricity, we should be building plants like crazy right now.
And I don't care what you read on buzzfeed or in the NY times... wind and solar can't be replied upon for base load electricity due to inherent physical limitations, grid/voltage stability and logistical shortfalls. You need large synchronous machines to provide baseload electricity, unless you like brownouts during hot summer days.
I did physics but moved into finance. We don't build plants because the payback period can be 50 years. Corporate interests are not aligned with those horizons meaning governments and special interest groups (France, CCP, Arab Royalty, Bill Gates) are the only ones actually investing in R&D and new plants. The government also has to guarantee a minimum profit for operators and usually agrees to a price that is a little too generous towards private investors, meaning everybody pays baked in higher prices
From a corporate perspective the ambiguous nature of nuclear physics in the public psyche makes it not a suitable candidate for CSR/ESG reports (Corporate Social Responsibility/Environmental, Social and Governance). Investment in solar, wind and other renewable tech like bioengineering make for better headlines and immediate returns
You understand better than me the requirements of base load and that this power must be provided by nuclear or fossil fuels. While nuclear has potential for serious incidents using Uranium, MSRs with Thorium or nuclear fusion technology (if that ever becomes economically viable) do not carry the same penalties. There's still a lot of debate about what route to take, thorium, natrium, throw all the eggs into fusion, and there's a lot of resistance from powerful players like Germany and Japan. Germany appears to have solved its issue by using Russia's gas but perhaps not. Japan is facing terminal political headwinds for the nuclear industry. We and Japan still need the radioactive isotopes for medicine and industry
It's not easy to be certain which technology should be deployed in which region. It takes a long time to get your money back if you invest even if nothing goes wrong in budgeting or operation, it appears more expensive than other renewables despite being essential to end the use of fossil fuels, and is perceived to be hazardous despite fossil fuels being the driver of extreme weather conditions and environmental destruction. Nigeria doesn't have nuclear power but large parts are destroyed by oil and gas.
For countries like the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, India, China, Brazil, Russia, the nuclear solution is the best solution. Fusion at spectacular efficiency and scale is the best case scenario but other than fusion, what nuclear tech would you like to see more of in the US?
I worked (Senior Reactor Operator) in nuclear for 40+ years and am now retired. I am not anti-nuclear and the issues of waste, design safety, radiation, etc. are minor barriers to a nuclear resurgence. The real problem in America is that we cannot build them on time and within budget. Just look at the most recient examples of VC Summer and Vogel. All I hear is that these new designs won't have those problems or there will be a learning curve to produce them efficiently. These are all bull excuses. The reality is that nuclear does have a future but it is at least 25 years away and then only if we address the construction issues.
@@clarkkent9080 We have built more than a hundred in less than 2 years each, for millions, not billions. You know this full well yet continue to spread your nonsense.
@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk Then please explain the reason VC Summer spent 5 billion and then canceled their reactor and Vogel spending 15 billion and at least 2 years away from completion if ever. Why don't they just choose the 200 million reactor and get it up and running in 2 years. You are PAID to twist the truth and lie.
@@clarkkent9080 Not my project, I wasn't there. It's easily viewable online, look it up yourself for your explanation. All power applications have cost/time overruns and cancellations, why don't scream the same nonsense about them? You completely ignore that we have made hundreds of small modular reactors because it doesn't fit your propaganda narrative.
I agree with 98% of your analysis. Very thorough and informative without over-simplifying. However, there’s two slight issues to this presentations as it relates to the proliferation capabilities of thorium based reactors:
1) Operation Teapot MET was a U-233 based detonation for a U.S. weapons test. Nuclear weapons can, and have, been driven by U233. The process is slightly more complicated based on the inclusion of U232 which limits the fissile capability of the material as you mentioned. Same issue exists in weapons.
2) thorium reactors produce neutrons at high speeds (~1 MeV for generic fission events) these 1MeV neutrons are around the same speeds that cause neutron absorption in U238, which eventually transmutes to Pu-239 via double beta decay. One could theoretically put U-238 inside a thorium based reactor for the purposes of breeding Plutonium.
All in all, thorium’s super promising due to its abundance, higher burn up rates, and cheaper feed supply chain. But it’s slightly short sighted to think that thorium based reactors can’t be used for weapons. Rather, the good should be seen with the bad and regulations should be mindful of the potential issues of weapons as the technology develops over the next decades.
Great video still 4.75/5 stars 🙂
Good points. Thank you.
@@ArvinAsh - Also, fuel rods don't stop the reactor from making a nuclear explosion. If the reaction went uncontrolled, it would just cause a reactor meltdown, which isn't the same as a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons have to go supercritical for an explosion, which means that you have to suddenly induce a neutron flux in a dense enough sample of uranium or plutonium. Nuclear reactors can go critical, but they can't go supercritical because the fuel isn't dense enough. There is no chance of a nuclear explosion at a reactor.
But this "creating weapons of mass destruction aka nukes" from thorium reactors is still less efficienct compared to conventional uranium reactors correct? I mean that's why it wasn't used much i guess.
@@loganwolv3393 Yepp! That’s correct. It’s not a pathway that’s typically taken. Mostly because it’s a more difficult and intensive process, but not an altogether infeasible. The increased difficulty is definitely a positive to thorium!
Oh dear, yet another science channel bought off by the nuclear industry.
Sorry but I don't buy the nuclear power greenwash.
Germany shutdown all it's nuclear power plants because they're too expensive.
Long story short, empirical evidence shows that nuclear power is not environmentally and economically sustainable and a horrible investment compared to other energy power sources. It's overcomplicated, extremely and critically time consuming, and needs a lot of critical resources and high security costs to build power plants.
Thorium can be used in "dirty bombs", and nuclear labs and plants are a favourite and easy target for military forces.
The human race's common foe is our rapidly changing society and overdevelopment influenced by rapid technological growth. Left, right, and centre, up and down, etc., all amped to eleven. Everyone impatiently sitting around talking crap to people we don’t know and about things we don’t know about. Everyone's got a _great idea_ that they want someone else to pay for. Is our rapid progress and advancement a sign of society rising or a sign of a western culture that’s broken and falling?
Stay safe and good luck!
the best part of this was teh review of different transmutations and their significances. Not found in other presentations but very clarifying
Doesn't the military use thoreium nuclear reactors power the submarines and aircraft carriers?
This video is incomplete without a discussion of molten salt reactors and their inherent advantages, especially safety.
Seconded,
@@tonyduncan9852 Thirded. lol
@@Whippets fourthed. Lets continue this.
@@sparshsinghal9238 Not sure I'm allowed to Fifthed this, you should really just get one kick at the can. Maybe someone else will come along and Fifthed, Sixthed, Seventhed the Firsted comment.
@@Whippets i would like to start again from eighted
I am living in Germany and between the 11. and 12. Class you have to write a scientific document about 20 pages on a topic you like. Well I decided for a month ago to write about this topic and I think I learned a lot of new informations about it and I want to put this video on my sources. Just want to mention it, thanks for the video.
Great explanation 👏👏👏
I still can't believe that US and India, especially India, are not investing in R&D in developing Thorium reactors.....
Thorium would significantly reduce their dependence on oil, which will be both economically and politically good for them.
Hope the leaders are listening to this 😊
India definitely IS investing in Thorium nuclear power, they are building test reactors and plan on having operational Thorium power plants in the 2030's.
We apreciate Arvin soo much. We really appreciate Arvin, his explanations in the field of physics are easy to understand.Keep on Arvin!
The physics is ok. The rest ist BS: The Problem on Nuclear Power is not Physics, its the economics. And the only improvement of Thorium is a small improvement on the cost side. The main issues are still there:
- Extremely High initial Cost
- Nuclear Waste is still there and must be securely Stored for hundreds of centuries
- Nuclear Reactors are still pretty unflexible (and will not match to the renewables). Look e.g. at SMARD, Nuclear Plants are run at 80-100% at every time(excluding maintenance), even there are NEGATIVE MARKET PRICES.This will pressure Renewables out of the market.
- the cost of the long term save store is payed by tax payer.
@@muten861 Not really.
Initial Cost - yes you are correct 100% but over the long term the benefits will out-way costs.
Nuclear Waste - no U 232 has a half life of 68 years so no, we don't need to store for centuries but more like decades.
Inflexible - How is this a bad thing? we want stable power at all times. Not some power source that work part of the time and suddenly turn off during peak hours. Renewables will need to adapt and will need to have 24h storage solutions built into them.
Safe store - this is not a problem unique to the nuclear industry, every industry will have a costs for minimizing environmental impact and usually tax payer will have to pay for it. For example in the case of renewables it'll be recycling batteries, even with today's crazy Lithium prices recycling Li-ion batteries is not profitable(there are startups working on it but that's it they are just startups).
Breeders make nuclear contaminated material , just like other reactors. He's trying to pass this because it doesn't make plutonium....well normal plants like we use, don't either. Only breeder reactors do. So this is plain double speak and not the cure-all.
The waste from uranium still is barely a problem compared to other methods of generating electricity. We know exactly how much waste there is and exactly where it is and it is essentially doing nothing and harming no one.
Excatly. The waste coming from a nuclear power plant is neatly packed potentially reusable carefully monitored waste. The polution coming from a coal plant is just that, polution right in the air, for anyone to inhale it. Also, nuclear fuel is very enegry dense, thus the waste is volumetricly speaking very small (compared to biofuel/ coal ash piles)
Yes, but the big problem is human error in managing nuclear power. You cannot build nuclear plants in highly seismic countries (Fukushima, Japan), or with poor maintenance/control (Chernobyl), or where waste products will not be handled according to regulations (countries where corruption is too high, like South America or Africa). It is 20 years Thorium appeared as a big improvement, but progress was very slow. I suppose until Uranium reserves finish we will not see many Thorium plants...
@@MrAndrea01987 the margin of human error encasing waste in concrete is low. We've been using concrete for a long time, cheap and easy to work with. Most of these concrete casks are stored just outside the plant harming no one.
@@23rt2308u24tkhg yes but the problem in waste storage becomes relevant if you do not store radioactive material appropriately following regulations. In appropriate sites and with appropriate covering. The human error could be that you give the waste products to the wrong people which to save money will dispose of the waste cheaply (corruption)
'.The waste from uranium still is barely a problem' ... 'compared to other methods of generating electricity.'
What, even PV and wind? What waste is there with hydropower? Oh, did you mean other dirty dangerous nuclear methods of generating?
Man, I forget sometimes how great your videos are. You are so much more thorough and complete with your ideas and information than most other people. On top of that your pace is so good. Densely packed with information, but presented in a very digestible way. Just absolutely nailing it. Thank you!
Arvin, I see an awful lot of neutrons coming off those reactions. What effect does that have on any of the steel exposed to bombardment by those neutrons? In school we were taught that neutron bombardment of steel causes "nuclear embrittlement " of the steel exposed to it. Such steel was loosely compared to precipitation hardening of steel where the steel hardens over time due to carbon being forced to diffuse into the steel's lattice structure causing distortions in the lattice that prevent cracks from progressing very far, thereby making the steel more martensitic (i.e.harder, but much more brittle). We were taught that because of nuclear embrittlement things like pipes, pressure vessels, fittings, and even entire pump assemblies MUST be replaced periodically due to the fact that they get so brittle they can no longer be counted on to safely perform their functions. Obviously steel that has undergone such neutron bombardment is quite radioactive. And yet I have never, ever, not even once, heard of such waste steel talked about in relation to the problem of nuclear waste? Is that because such steel has such a short half-life that it really isn't a significant problem? Or is this a dirty little secret of nuclear power that just isn't spoken of? And to bring it more on topic, wouldn't this still be a reasonably serious drawback regardless of what fuel you use? I mean, just how do you get rid of something with the shear size and mass of a reactor's pressure vessel? You can't cut it up with a torch. You can't cut it up with a saw, or worse a grinder? And these things are BIG, and they're HEAVY. Could you do a video on nuclear embrittlement and it's associated issues, or, perhaps, NON-issues?
I really liked the detailed explanation as to how thorium is actually used. It is quite a process! It is amazing how much energy can be had from such a tiny percentage of the mass of the atom.
Great explanation! I knew about Thorium reactors and had general idea why they are better, but not as clear as you explained it. Thanks!
Dude this guy explains stuff in a way that is so incredibly easy to understand. Well done 👏
Definitely a better breakdown of the thorium process than other videos on this topic. Good job.
Thank you so much for this video Arvin
This must be the best explanation of nuclear power and Thorium out there! You break things down in the most understandable ways. Thanks!
Most of this I knew, but the parts I did not know were absolute gold! Thanks, Arvin!
great video, well told and great graphics. A lot of work went into this. thank you!
Really looking forward to the event with you and Sabine Hossenfelder You two are some of the best science communicators out there!
Arvin is better IMO. Sabine's videos have less clarity
Thank you, Arvin. Your video can help demystify nuclear plants and undo the bad image of them. We need, as you said, political strength to make the necessary investments in thorium research to make the plants more viable (in cost and time) options.
Thorium-232 reactors are really uranium-233 reactors. The World Nuclear Association said about thorium in November 2020 that “Extracting its latent energy value in a cost-effective manner remains a challenge, and will require considerable R&D investment.” There are so many different thorium reactor variations in play (PHWRs HTRs, BWRs, PWRs, FNRs, MSRs, and ADRs), that the idea is hard to discuss.
Excellent video Arvin!
So much basics cleared and Thorium seems to be a great hope..
Glad to see thorium reactors being discussed.
Control rods are interesting. They can be made of either Hafnium (probably the best all round neutron absorber), Boron or a Cadmium-indium-silver alloy. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
Thats the easiest explaining someone has done on this topic. You successfully managed to create a picture of this process in my head that is gonna stay! Thanks 👍
This channel provides mega tons of information ! Keep up
Even when the production of unlimited energy becomes viable (and honestly, the technology probably exists now but won't be implemented until ever last dime of profit has been squeezed from finite resources) we plebes will still have to pay the powers-that-be for maintaining the infrastructure that delivers power. And it'll be maintained by the same people that are right now mining oil, gas, developing wind and solar, etc. So even though generating limitless power might someday be a possibility, the common man won't have access to unlimited energy. His limit will be determined by his finances. Same as now...just buying cold-fusion delivery instead of gas and coal delivery. In other words, the ability to generate limitless energy only means something to those who will be selling it--they will not be powering your homes and Tesla cars for free, trust me.
Absolutely correct
True up to a point. One of the proposals for a molten salt thorium reactor is that it makes possible "municipal scale" power generation. A city, or even a housing development could build its own small, self-contained and automated reactor. This isn't going to be available for a while, but it's possible because the molten salt process is safe enough and reliable enough that the whole thing can be sealed and buried underground. I'm not saying it will be easy or cheap, but there is an opportunity to sort-of "democratize" power generation beyond the reach of current entrenched interests.
Cheaper to produce electricity means cheaper to buy electricity. It will not be the same price as the production costs as you say since there are other expenses, but it will still be cheaper.
Except if you have a solar PV system with batteries (PV+B) on your house, that is FREE energy once you pay for the system (about 5 years now)... & there's no 'limit' on sunshine for the next 5bn years or so.
That's why the powers that be don't focus on PV+B... because we plebs would then be our own energy company. Micro-generation means a bottom-up smart grid system & nukes mean a top-down centralised grid system. I reckon it will end up as a bodge job between the two... but gov'ts don't want all those plebs getting their energy for free... because that would be in 'competition' with their expensive infrastructures.
Why don't you solve this problem by mining thorium, processing it, build a reactor, build a distribution system, and then give away the electricity for free.
I have to say, this is one of the top 3 physics channels I have ever seen... the quality and also the content
Thank you so much for the work. Great piece as always.
Thanks for this explanation!!
Wonderfully informative video.👌
In India, Kerala coast has almost all the thorium deposit. Indian government is rather secretive. I fondly hope that the government of India which is committed to reduce reliance on fossil fuel is working on a thorium reactor.
" I fondly hope that the government of India which is committed to reduce reliance on fossil fuel is working on a thorium reactor."
India has had a research and development project to use Thorium for a long time. I went to the 2015 Thorium energy conference at the Bhabha Atomic research centre in Mumbai. Very interesting to hear the details of their project. But (see my comment above), getting up to speed with Thorium takes a long time because the reaction Th232 + n -> Pa233 -> U233 + e takes a long time. The original plan was that it would take 70 years to get a full fleet of Thorium reactors. That was 50 years ago and they haven't made much progress, so it'll be another 70 years.
I'm a student from Kerala... From my little research, I found that Monazite Sand from Southern Coast of Kerala have enough Thorium to generate Electricity all over India. According to Three Stage Nuclear Programme, implementation of full stage breeder reactors will be only after 2-3 decades. Don't know why that takes that long...
46.8% of India's CO2 emission is from Coal fired Plants~1144 MegaTon. Future will be great if electricity from Thorium is real.
@@fidelkhamar5048 well politicians are rather willing to spend money on subsidy on electricity bills for political benefit rather than giving funds for research
I would like to see another, more detailed video on the fine structure constant. ISnt this a major mystery in physics? I dont remember Sabine H ever talking about this. Isnt this a clue to the relationship between electron and photon? I dont think anyone understands this, yet it goes to the heart of the wave/particle duality,
Very nice and detailed video, but also easy to understand. The best about thorium energy I found on youtube so far.
What a GEM! Thanks Arvin!
"And, since Thorium can't be used to make weapons, government funding has been scarce." very scary to think that most developments in nuclear technology have been geared towards politics and destruction
Commentary: the clone war
@@Jean_023 I think this is the original one
Except nuclear weapons grade material CAN be made with Thorium reactors.
The reason it was abandoned decades ago, was because the reactors are far more expensive than Uranium reactors.
Go read: "Thorium Reactors and Nuclear Weapons Proliferation"
He didn't mention that india has been working on thorium power plants since a long time and will probably complete one by the end of this year.
Which is the major downfall of nuclear power, cause without government funding, the amount of money it takes to build the plant and store the waste is not feasible. You notice how all these videos never talk about the waste management. How much it costs, where do they store it, who pays for the storage, who maintains the storage facility, how much waste does it produce, etc..
Thanks Arvin! Your video is concise and clear, and it gives me hope that any future nuclear power will be safer! I love your content, sir!
Thank you Arvin. As ever, really informative. 👏🏽👏🏽👏🏽
ThankYou, Arvin. Very exciting news. 🐉
It what seems like a life time ago I worked in a commercial General Electric boiling water reactor power plant for 5 years. If I remember correctly in a commercial power plant the plutonium produced also fissions and is used for energy. With the thorium reactor I see that one of the daughter elements of fission is xenon, which I believe is a neutron poison which may also be a technical challenge of this reactor. At any rate sooner or later nuclear will be our only option, the fossil fuel will eventually run out.
interesting to know Stu
U-238 becoming Pu is called conversion and does extend the life of U fuel of low enrichment. Have you figures showing Th produces more Xe than U does?
This could be taken further, by going into molten salt or pebble bed reactors. Will we see more videos on these subjects? How about uses for nuclear by-products.
Nuclear by-products make excellent killing tools. They cause cancer, genetic damage carried into the next and the next and the next generations, mutations, deformities, impaired immune function and reduced life expectancy. Oh, and lots of pain. Pain that even morphine and heroin will not remove. A pain that gets worse and worse until the victim mercifully dies. And these fission byproducts don't go away. They keep killing and killing for centuries and thousands and hundreds of thousands and millions of years. Go find another planet to experiment with your death machines.
@@jackfanning7952 Ignorant reply. Nuclear medicine uses isotopes created in reactors. Industry uses isotopes created by reactors. People who fly airlines regularly have more exposure to nuclear radiation than technicians in the nuclear industry. Nuclear material and isotopes are all around us, in the air we breath and the water we drink. Our DNA adjustments to radiation is a big lever in our on going fight to be the fittest creature on this planet and in others to come.
@@rustylugnut755 Keep the insults coming. It lets me know I am over the target. There is no safe dose for a carcinogen. Soon we won't have any nukies around anymore. Safer, cheaper, cleaner, more easily implemented, better ROI in renewables. Good riddance. Learn to code.
@@jackfanning7952 Lusty rugrat. :) There is no safe dose for Life. You always die in the end. Life is better than coding. Live before you die.
@@jackfanning7952 _"Go find another planet to experiment with your death machines."_ - ALL machines and tools can be used to kill. Humans normally use them for something different, and this has been true for a long time now on _this_ planet.
Amazing video, Arvin! It was very interesting and fun to watch and I actually understood it. Can't wait til the next video!
Great video and explanation. Thanks for sharing the knowledge
Arvin? Please? PLEEEASE take a good look at Molten Salt Reactors vs Lightwater Reactors. The combination of Thorium with a molten salt reactor could be the answer everyone is looking for. The theoretically much safer operation of a molten salt reactor combined with the other benefits of Thorium could very well be the stop-gap solution we need until proper fusion is up and running.
Ahhh Fusion is only 20 years away 😉
It's also more technically difficult to control thorium properly, because plants have to operate at much higher temperatures. But apparently we are up to speed now. I understand that although needing to operate at higher temperatures, it's still safe. Plants can be engineered so the reaction, perforce, is damped if something goes wrong.
Really well done. Thanks!
Thank you so much for the explanation.
Super cool
I am going to boost this post so that everyone could see it and vote to get this into indian government's attention 🤟🏻
Nice video Arvin. A couple of points: 1. Some power from commercial reactors is produced from fast neutron fission of U-238. In addition, as U-238 absorbs a neutron it can be converted via Beta minus decay to Neptunium 239 and via another Beta minus decay to Plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is fissile and its build up elongates the life of the core as up to 40% of its power comes from Plutonium fissions near the end of its operating cycle.
2. Proliferation is not a problem in US/Russian/Chinese reactors due to the governments already having access to vast amounts of fissile material.
In either case your argument is correct that Thorium would make a better fuel.
This was really helpful. Thank you.
I’ve been extolling the virtues of thorium reactors for a few years now. This is explained incredibly well. I learned more.
See above!
I bet you never once extolled the virtue of corrosion, and how molten salt eats reactors...
@@dougaltolan3017 small price to pay for 1000 years of energy
@@kcwallacetube what part of "your reactor is a pile of rusted pipes" do you not understand?
The thorium reaction is a great idea but WE DON'T HAVE MATERIALS TO BUILD A COMMERCIAL ONE.
@@dougaltolan3017 isn't China working on that??
OMG, I never thought I could understand the science behind nuclear power plants! Your explanation was clear and easy to follow.
I agree with you 100% ❣️
So well explained! I am glad I found this channel. Thank you.
Beautifully explained sir. Thank you for this great video.
I have classes but this is more important.
No I just like science
Great job Arvin, especially taking the time to talk about Thorium’s different decay chain. I think this could use another video, the next time talking about molten salt reactors. They have more benefits compared to modern Light Water Reactors, like operating at atmospheric pressure instead of 100+ bar, not needing a lot of water, being scalable, and being able to vent of Xenon-135 and other gases, and more.
Yes, initially, I had made this video about molten salt reactors, but decided to talk more about the fundamental differences between Uranium and Thorium. If there is enough interest, I'll make a second video.
@@ArvinAsh I certainly am interested and looks like others are too. I think starting with fundamentals was helpful for general public who don't know about these details. Thank you!
I've read from another engineer the utility of molten salt reactors and other technologies he's researched, such as "nuclear lightbulbs", which are efficient heat engines due to a high temperature gradient.
A video on this topic would be informative.
@@CL2K I’ve heard of MSRs being used for their heat, but I hadn’t heard of this. That’s interesting.
@@randalljsilva MSRs are one example of high-temperature thermal generators. It's a huge step up from boiling water and using the steam to generate power. The primary reason, as I mentioned, is due to the higher thermal gradient between the generator and environment, which allows for higher efficiency.
Very good sir. Been here since you started. Nice to see you grow
Arvin, I want to thank you. I never knew where the energy came from, I just looked at the mass difference. You're explanation of binding energy was very clear and concise and now I know something about that, and of course it will turn into a bunch of new questions. Learning science is exciting.
I always watch videos about nuclear energy
There has also been an entrenched industry making money from the uranium process that opposes research into thorium, and that is likely responsible for spreading misinformation about the thorium process.
As the oil industry did with global warming, and the tobacco industry did with medical science, and the motor industry did with seat belts, and politicians do with everything and everyone. PS Forgot pharma and the "food" industry.
This channel is so cool. Thanks Arvin for all the great education.
This was informative, thank you~
It's fun to see how people worries about the nuclear waste, while we've never had a problem with the waste yet. All the nuclear problems had been related with core meltdowns, not with nuclear waste itself.
They don’t understand nuclear power/energy so they are scared.
We also don’t see folks worrying about all the waste from the so-called “green” wind turbines (the blades are made from non-recyclable plastics so when they wear out guess what… into the landfill they go) plus all the oil needed for the turbine motors.
Please take me to your world ^^ your statement is awfully ignorant.
Alternative reactor designs such as Molten Salt Reactors make Thorium an even more appealing fuel source as they address many of the safety concerns with traditional nuclear reactors.
Most of the remaining challenges with MSR's are supply chain and engineering problems.
He is referring to MSR's in this video.
@@chapter4travels Are you sure? I don't recall him mentioning MSR's a single time in the video. It seems to me he's referring to Thorium breeding as a safer and cleaner source of Uranium for traditional reactors.
@@sleeplessdev7204I can't be 100% certain, but I'll bet money he's referring to a LFTR, which is supposed to breed thorium in the thermal spectrum. This is was Kirk Sorensen has been advocating and where 99% of people have heard of thorium.
The reality is completely different. No one even knows if that's even possible, (TransAtomic power tried and failed) and Flibe is the only start-up proposing this kind of breeding let alone using thorium at all.
Just think of the term thorium as a slogan, a catch-word, or brand used for molten salt reactors.
@@chapter4travels It seems strange to me that he would leave such details to be inferred implicitly, if that's what was intended. Though it is a pretty glaring omission. I don't think I've ever heard someone promulgate Thorium outside the context of MSR's.
@@sleeplessdev7204 "I don't think I've ever heard someone promulgate Thorium outside the context of MSR's." That's my point.
Great video! Very well explained! Thanks!
Nice TIDY explanation of all the reactions involved in both "Bad" and "Good" Nuclear power. I'm dyslexic, so keeping track of all those isotopes is hard work, but I took notes and pretty much get it now.
We have to use nuclear power
Although this is a great video, Arvin does not touch on what I see as the main advantage of thorium reactors, ie. Chernobyl and Fukishima would not and could not have happened if they had been molten-salt reactors.
The basic issue with all water-cooled nuclear power plants is that if cooling is even briefly lost then the zirconium in the nuclear fuel rods will catalyze the decomposition of the water into hydrogen and oxygen in the core of the reactor. And then all it takes is a spark and that hydrogen and oxygen will explosively recombine smashing the core of the reactor and possibly breaking the containment domes. That is the common thread behind every nuclear disaster in the commercial nuclear reactor industry.
Molten-salt reactors simply are not vulnerable to this, nor anything else comparably serious. Molten-salt reactors can burn thorium, uranium, and plutonium, plus a number of other radioactive species. Molten-salt reactors can even extract energy from spent nuclear fuel rods, ie. the waste generated by the water-cooled nuclear power plants, and thus clean that waste up.
Yes, molten salt reactors are a big advantage.
_"The basic issue with all water-cooled nuclear power plants is that if cooling is even briefly lost then the zirconium in the nuclear fuel rods will catalyze the decomposition of the water into hydrogen and oxygen in the core of the reactor. And then all it takes is a spark and that hydrogen and oxygen will explosively recombine smashing the core of the reactor and possibly breaking the containment domes. That is the common thread behind every nuclear disaster"_
Fascinating & terrifying.
Absolutely brilliant. A great video
I have always wondered this exact question and issue and why the heck the world is not choosing thorium as the general energy source!
1. Governments can’t make bombs out of it (the waste plutonium), which is why they invested in uranium in the first place.
2. There is a lot of negative stigma towards nuclear power as a whole, on account of the Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters (even though ironically, fossil fuel plants claim way more lives then nuclear plants ever have).
3. The fossil fuel industry is too powerful and wealthy. They have influence over what gets funded, and only care about profits.
Basically, humans are morons
I’d tell you a joke about thorium but it would be quite shocking…
Not unless you have a steam generator on hand.
thorium is boreium
How dare you, thorium is greatium
Those jokes are really hilariums... 😐
Absolutely fantastic Arvin as always
thanks for the video
Nuclear energy is environment friendly in one way
I'm seeing a lot of bot conversations recently
I Love Love Love to learn about nuclear energy and nuclear weapons
That's the clearest presentation explanation I've seen yet. I like to think that I can actually allude to understanding how nuclear energy is created. And the difference between thorium and traditional nuclear energy
Your explanations are simple and amazing
Back in engineering, I remember reading somewhere that the introduction of thorium power plants has the potential of reducing the electricity bills in India down to 2 digits per month.
Imagine having to pay only 60-70 rupees as your electricity bill. (Most of this would also be just tax). It was mind blowing.
Reminds me of the early days of nuclear energy when they said nuclear power would be too cheap to meter.
@@blackandcold I think you may have missed my point. We've heard promises of cheap nuclear before, and now we're hearing them again with thorium plants.
@@blackandcold ; -)
In the description, you wrote _"since Thorium can't be used to make weapons, government funding has been scarce."_
I don't think that's true-at least not in India's case. For more than 60 years, India has had grandiose plans of using thorium to become self-sufficient in energy. But we're still far away from that goal.
This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons. Becoming energy self-sufficient is an overarching goal, and a powerful motivation in and of itself. The government currently spends billions on importing fuel-money it can scarcely afford-and billions more on building power plants of all types-renewable and non-renewable, clean and dirty.
As for why thorium hasn't succeeded: It's the other reasons you mentioned-cost, technical difficulties, and people's fear. Mostly technical difficulties.
And the main reason is one that you did _not_ mention: Renewable forms of energy-wind and solar-have become cost-effective and widespread.
Disclaimer: I myself am opposed to fission-based power plants. However, I'm hopeful that fusion-Tokamaks-will become a viable source of energy soon. I'm putting my money and hopes on fusion over thorium.
Glad to hear that about India. My comment is more aimed at the US, Russia and other cold war countries.
This one was a topic I’ve been waiting on for a while, wish I could chat with someone super knowledgeable and get more into the nuts and bolts of it.
Great Job! Thank you.
"But I thought nuclear power was BaD" should have been followed by, "That's because you've been led astray by liars with agendas". Jmho...
I love how careful you have to be to tell the truth.
If you're reading this comment on 2024 or 2025, I'd like to let you know that It's 12 Feb 2022 and you won't believe that, at this very moment, the legendary Arvin Ash has only 627K subscribers!
Hope he gets a million soon
@@redstoneninja3375 He WILL. I believe!😌❤️
So far one of your best watchable videos ''good info good elobration
Brilliant video - so well explained - I now understand this so much more - thank you...
Awesome-for India's map, you used the version that's officially approved by the Government of India. Better get prepared for the avalanche of protests by China and Pakistan! 🤣
I don't See Galwan in this Map.
Looks like entire World knows
What Modi Surrendered . 😳
Well, this was not intentional. We just used the standard maps available on our stock photo website.
@@ratnamani8228 Wake up rip van winkle. Half of it is with china since nehru gifted it, Rest is with India since then, You worry about KPK and Balochistan which is with Afghans
One of your finest episodes Arvin
Thanks Arvin.
Best explanation of thorium nuclear reactors I've ever hear. Thank you.
Outstanding explanation as always!
I’ve never seen the subject so well explained, in a way that even I can understand it.
Thank you so much About binding energy reactors 🙏🙏👏👏 constructive energy .. great work
Good video thanks. Very informative 🙂
Thank you for doing this! It’s so important to change our thinking on nuclear power! Much appreciated!
Very helpful, thank you
Nice one! Another bonus is the Xenon is the gas of choice for Hall Thruster propellant.
Great Video. I wish I was closer to Vancouver to see you. Nice discussion on Nuclear power. I knew the waste products of fission but was unaware that the harmful ones came from Changing the U 238 itself and not from fission.