I think Kirk is selling the idea just fine. He is showing all of the benefits. I got to know about this technology because of Kirk and I was not a supporter of the nuclear industry, hated it to its blown up cores. But the logic and thorough educational approach of Kirk and I became a supporter of this future nuclear industry. Fusion was my saviour but it is not going to produce results fast enough. The safety factor alone is the best reason to support this technology. Keep up the good work Kirk Sorensen, I'm supporting you by educating the youth about you and your message as a high school science teacher. Thankyou.
I have seen this three times now , Sir And the more I see this the more I feel like doing some popularisation work among teachers and students to build opinion regarding Thorium and Flibe-- Quite inspiring lecture
It's actually Thorium-232. Th-232 absorbs a neutron to become Th-233, which almost immediately decays into Protactinium-233. After ~30 days, 99.99% of the Pr-233 has decayed into U-233, which is your fuel. That Pr-233 has a high propensity to absorb an additional neutron so it needs to be isolated (that's a bit of the LFTR blanket you don't see here since it gets a bit too technical). Pr-233 isolation from additional neutrons is the big reason why single-liquid LFTRs wouldn't be very scalable.
The reactor contains both U and Th, but Th is the fuel whereas U is more like a catalyst. Thorium is fertile but not fissile, but it becomes fissile after absorbing a neutron. (Th232+n ->Th233->Pa233->U233.) You only need a small amount of U233 (or some other fissile fuel) to start a LFTR, after that, the fuel is regenerated from thorium as fast as it is used. A 1GW power plant would use about 1 ton of thorium per year, an amount that would easily fit in a bathtub.
I don't want to argue which reactor type is better, it was just a wish about a discussion with proponents of other designs, talking about their pros, cons and points were still much development is needed. About LFR: as far as I know, they don't necessarily have a positive void coefficient (again so many designs!) or it can be negated by negative fuel expansion coefficient.
1. Right now, it's debatable what to do with radioactive graphite. You should read IAEA's te_1647_web pdf report on it. The general feeling is to bury the stuff. 2. Ceramics would be a bad idea because of impurities. Hastelloy-N can operate at temperatures exceeding 1000 C with little issue. The problem was that one of the fission products, Tellurium, would alloy into the Hastelloy-N and damage it. Multiple solutions to this problem were already developed by the MSRE team back in the 70s.
16:46 probably explains that best, in the slide you see Thorium-233 decays to Uranium-233 so the solution will contain both... Thorium-233 is added as fuel but it is Uranium-233 which fissions.
Yes, but it's very challenging to operate a fast-reactor at high temperatures. Very hot sodium carries a significant explosion hazard, especially in the quantities needed for a modest fast breeder, while lead-cooled systems have positive void coefficients which increase the risk of a runaway reaction as temperatures increase.
I've seen him discuss this topic dozens of times, and i'm enamored with the idea that we could start heading in that direction. However, i'd like to see some kind of debate between Kirk and some of his detractors. I've seen lots of people mentioning the stumbling blocks - incredibly corrosive liquids, insufficient materials research for the reactor - Kirk doesn't address these things in detail. I want to believe Thorium is the godsend he says, but i'm worried we're glossing over something...
We have some video dialog pertaining to corrosion, so as I'm working thru materials in chronological order eventually that will get posted. But I don't have any debate between Kirk and a (say) Rod Adams type person who's more keen on LWR (in fact Rod is keen on LFTR but thinks LWR is being maligned unfairly). I hope that can happen some day. What's looking challenging is getting an anti-nuke to talk to Kirk. Anti-vs-Nuke debates do happen, but so far it has been out of my reach.
Corrosion doesn't seem a big problem (should be resolved). The biggest problem, I think, is the cost and availability of Berillium and the litium isotope required in the "Flibe" salt proposed. And to implement the automatic reprocessing step, never done before. But there are simpler and good enough alternatives, eventually (see Denatured Molten Salt Reactors (DMSR) from David LeBlanc).
FLiBe is going to be expensive, mostly due to its beryllium which requires special safety measures to handle. You'll expect much lower efficiencies from using heavier salt elements than Li and Be, especially in terms of distillation and fuel reprocessing. Still, the DMSR may end up being the poor-man's LFTR and that by itself is definitely worth pursuing.
This is a pretty common but very misrepresented argument as well. I mean, acids are very corrosive to certain materials as well, but electroplating facilities have HUGE baths of acids with no regular major problems. The corrosive "problem" was indeed a concern for the original inventors back in the day, and they believed pretty well proved that certain slightly modified Hastelloy. Please see ORNL-3708.pdf (pp. 252-257) for more details, they pretty much solved this problem 50 years ago.
I'm curious to see if the exhaust gases are hot enough to heat the seawater to superheated steam with enough energy to run additional turbines to further increase efficiency during the desalination process.
Travis Beagle I think, given the large amount of research and education that has gone into this idea that they've already explored that possibility. It's probably factored into the statistics already.
Uhm, Kirk gave that answer in another one of his talks on the plant design, by the time the hot gasses get to that point, it only has just enough heat energy and pressure to run desalinators, or you pass it through a cooling tower. Otherwise, you've not sized your hot gas turbines and generators correctly to maximize their efficiency. Remember, this isn't necessarily designed to sit near any large body of water, so the desalination step is merely a "bonus" of the design if you do happen to put it near a saltwater source.
15:45 uhh liquid metal cooled reactors can also operate at very high temperatures and low pressure and the nice thing about them is that lead boils in T about 1700C (3100F). BTW as mentioned before - I'd really appreciate a discussion about the pros and cons of LFTR with proponents of other designs, because let's be honest, Kirk is obviously sugarcoating the LFTR, while there are lots of other viable reactor designs.
One point I would like to add to the discussion is HF safety. How is HF safety going to be worked into the reactor lay out?? HF is a weak acid but very very unsafe for humans to work with?
I also want to know what the tech problems are (such as corrosion) but believe they can and must be overcome even if that means replacing large parts every year. Sounds wasteful, but I believe that volume of "wastes" is still less than LWR wastes due to the efficiency gains. Whatever the problems, they have been overcome, 50 years ago. It is either LFTR or hundreds of thousands of sq miles of solar, wind AND costly storage. There are NO other options aside from fossil fueled depletion.
I'm not a huge fan of the graphite moderator, or the complexity of the salt recycle / electrolyzer circuit inside the containment. I still prefer the TerraPower design, but I support Flibe too.
Joseph, this is the different perspective take on energy consumption. We use a great deal of stored energy (per capita and in total) compared to our ancestors. So if you want to mitigate our impact on the planet, we can consume less energy, consume it more efficiently, or consume CLEANER energy. By pursuing CLEANER advances can be applied to emerging countries too... YOU use less energy? Great. But you are just you. India & China's middle class won't care, it is their turn for quality of life.
solar wont do the job, neither will wind, tidal power and geothermal are the only reliable renewables, even hydro is in some circumstance is unreliable (drought). I would put my money on LFTR as being the only real alternative to generate massive amounts of power like coal or conventional nuclear power generators, solar and wind to my mind will never be in a position to generate power efficiently and reliable in the amounts required by a growing industrialized economy
Every time I watch one of your videos, I come away wishing I had some serious money I could throw at this to help make it happen. Have you not yet been able to sit down some billionare investors for a presentation? As much as Bill Gates wants to leave the world a better place, and is willing to throw enormous piles of money at things to make that happen, you'd think he (or someone like him) would be up for this. Unless they fear having their name tarnished by association with 'Nuclear'.
Doesn't sound like Flibe will attract any investors. This all sounds good, but I really doubt it will get any funding. Too much engineering required for new technology, too much fear associated with conventional nuclear industry, let alone new untested stuff. I am sure USA will not support this effort. I hope Chinese will be able to get LFTR online, but they also say that they have severe budget constraints.
I think Kirk is selling the idea just fine. He is showing all of the benefits. I got to know about this technology because of Kirk and I was not a supporter of the nuclear industry, hated it to its blown up cores. But the logic and thorough educational approach of Kirk and I became a supporter of this future nuclear industry. Fusion was my saviour but it is not going to produce results fast enough. The safety factor alone is the best reason to support this technology. Keep up the good work Kirk Sorensen, I'm supporting you by educating the youth about you and your message as a high school science teacher. Thankyou.
Great job Kirk and keep it up. Greetings from Bulgaria!!!
I have seen this three times now , Sir
And the more I see this the more I feel like doing some popularisation work among teachers and students to build opinion regarding Thorium and Flibe--
Quite inspiring lecture
great talk I'm sure I'll watch this ten more times thanks Gordon
Kirk, Can I come work for you on LFTR's? I'll sweep floors just to be part of what you are building.
It's actually Thorium-232.
Th-232 absorbs a neutron to become Th-233, which almost immediately decays into Protactinium-233. After ~30 days, 99.99% of the Pr-233 has decayed into U-233, which is your fuel. That Pr-233 has a high propensity to absorb an additional neutron so it needs to be isolated (that's a bit of the LFTR blanket you don't see here since it gets a bit too technical). Pr-233 isolation from additional neutrons is the big reason why single-liquid LFTRs wouldn't be very scalable.
Build it! Damn it!
Jemalacane0 Can't in the US, first molten salt reactors will be produced in S. Korea and China.
The reactor contains both U and Th, but Th is the fuel whereas U is more like a catalyst. Thorium is fertile but not fissile, but it becomes fissile after absorbing a neutron. (Th232+n ->Th233->Pa233->U233.) You only need a small amount of U233 (or some other fissile fuel) to start a LFTR, after that, the fuel is regenerated from thorium as fast as it is used.
A 1GW power plant would use about 1 ton of thorium per year, an amount that would easily fit in a bathtub.
"BUILD IT AND THEY WILL COME"
I don't want to argue which reactor type is better, it was just a wish about a discussion with proponents of other designs, talking about their pros, cons and points were still much development is needed.
About LFR: as far as I know, they don't necessarily have a positive void coefficient (again so many designs!) or it can be negated by negative fuel expansion coefficient.
I'm sold.
1. Right now, it's debatable what to do with radioactive graphite. You should read IAEA's te_1647_web pdf report on it. The general feeling is to bury the stuff.
2. Ceramics would be a bad idea because of impurities. Hastelloy-N can operate at temperatures exceeding 1000 C with little issue. The problem was that one of the fission products, Tellurium, would alloy into the Hastelloy-N and damage it. Multiple solutions to this problem were already developed by the MSRE team back in the 70s.
This is our future !
Good work!!
16:46 probably explains that best, in the slide you see Thorium-233 decays to Uranium-233 so the solution will contain both... Thorium-233 is added as fuel but it is Uranium-233 which fissions.
Yes, but it's very challenging to operate a fast-reactor at high temperatures. Very hot sodium carries a significant explosion hazard, especially in the quantities needed for a modest fast breeder, while lead-cooled systems have positive void coefficients which increase the risk of a runaway reaction as temperatures increase.
I've seen him discuss this topic dozens of times, and i'm enamored with the idea that we could start heading in that direction. However, i'd like to see some kind of debate between Kirk and some of his detractors. I've seen lots of people mentioning the stumbling blocks - incredibly corrosive liquids, insufficient materials research for the reactor - Kirk doesn't address these things in detail. I want to believe Thorium is the godsend he says, but i'm worried we're glossing over something...
Corrosion problem is solved by Hastelloy-N and similar alloys. They are inert in LFTR molten salts.
We have some video dialog pertaining to corrosion, so as I'm working thru materials in chronological order eventually that will get posted. But I don't have any debate between Kirk and a (say) Rod Adams type person who's more keen on LWR (in fact Rod is keen on LFTR but thinks LWR is being maligned unfairly). I hope that can happen some day.
What's looking challenging is getting an anti-nuke to talk to Kirk. Anti-vs-Nuke debates do happen, but so far it has been out of my reach.
Corrosion doesn't seem a big problem (should be resolved). The biggest problem, I think, is the cost and availability of Berillium and the litium isotope required in the "Flibe" salt proposed. And to implement the automatic reprocessing step, never done before.
But there are simpler and good enough alternatives, eventually (see Denatured Molten Salt Reactors (DMSR) from David LeBlanc).
FLiBe is going to be expensive, mostly due to its beryllium which requires special safety measures to handle. You'll expect much lower efficiencies from using heavier salt elements than Li and Be, especially in terms of distillation and fuel reprocessing. Still, the DMSR may end up being the poor-man's LFTR and that by itself is definitely worth pursuing.
This is a pretty common but very misrepresented argument as well. I mean, acids are very corrosive to certain materials as well, but electroplating facilities have HUGE baths of acids with no regular major problems. The corrosive "problem" was indeed a concern for the original inventors back in the day, and they believed pretty well proved that certain slightly modified Hastelloy. Please see ORNL-3708.pdf (pp. 252-257) for more details, they pretty much solved this problem 50 years ago.
Great video, the chroma keying looks good!
I'm curious to see if the exhaust gases are hot enough to heat the seawater to superheated steam with enough energy to run additional turbines to further increase efficiency during the desalination process.
Travis Beagle I think, given the large amount of research and education that has gone into this idea that they've already explored that possibility. It's probably factored into the statistics already.
Good point. It might also be a future possibility once it hits the market and gets established.
Uhm, Kirk gave that answer in another one of his talks on the plant design, by the time the hot gasses get to that point, it only has just enough heat energy and pressure to run desalinators, or you pass it through a cooling tower. Otherwise, you've not sized your hot gas turbines and generators correctly to maximize their efficiency. Remember, this isn't necessarily designed to sit near any large body of water, so the desalination step is merely a "bonus" of the design if you do happen to put it near a saltwater source.
15:45 uhh liquid metal cooled reactors can also operate at very high temperatures and low pressure and the nice thing about them is that lead boils in T about 1700C (3100F).
BTW as mentioned before - I'd really appreciate a discussion about the pros and cons of LFTR with proponents of other designs, because let's be honest, Kirk is obviously sugarcoating the LFTR, while there are lots of other viable reactor designs.
One point I would like to add to the discussion is HF safety. How is HF safety going to be worked into the reactor lay out?? HF is a weak acid but very very unsafe for humans to work with?
Why change the audio source at 5:55? I've heard you do this in other video and it seems distracting.
HUH...this is way better and less intrusive to just about everything and it lets us all live like royalty!
you mean that Thorium-232 is added, right?
I also want to know what the tech problems are (such as corrosion) but believe they can and must be overcome even if that means replacing large parts every year. Sounds wasteful, but I believe that volume of "wastes" is still less than LWR wastes due to the efficiency gains.
Whatever the problems, they have been overcome, 50 years ago.
It is either LFTR or hundreds of thousands of sq miles of solar, wind AND costly storage.
There are NO other options aside from fossil fueled depletion.
One question.
What happens *if* Flibe boils? I know it probably won't happen but at some point
(in 50-100 years) it *will* happen.
***** True but look at the containment buildings they are displaying they are very small.
Before that happens, the plug melts, the fuel drains and it all comes to a quiet stop.
@@harleyb.birdwhisperer I know
but im posing a hypothetical
Sorry, meant to say Pa, not Pr which is praseodymium.
Assuming the regulatory agencies can become convinced, what would the cost be to build a msr?
exactly! well-said. and a great movie btw.
I'm not a huge fan of the graphite moderator, or the complexity of the salt recycle / electrolyzer circuit inside the containment. I still prefer the TerraPower design, but I support Flibe too.
For years I learned that was only uranium as fuel. We all get wrong!
th-232 + n gives th-233 then beta decay to Pa-233 then beta decay to U-233
So that's why...
Joseph, this is the different perspective take on energy consumption. We use a great deal of stored energy (per capita and in total) compared to our ancestors. So if you want to mitigate our impact on the planet, we can consume less energy, consume it more efficiently, or consume CLEANER energy.
By pursuing CLEANER advances can be applied to emerging countries too... YOU use less energy? Great. But you are just you. India & China's middle class won't care, it is their turn for quality of life.
solar wont do the job, neither will wind, tidal power and geothermal are the only reliable renewables, even hydro is in some circumstance is unreliable (drought). I would put my money on LFTR as being the only real alternative to generate massive amounts of power like coal or conventional nuclear power generators, solar and wind to my mind will never be in a position to generate power efficiently and reliable in the amounts required by a growing industrialized economy
Every time I watch one of your videos, I come away wishing I had some serious money I could throw at this to help make it happen. Have you not yet been able to sit down some billionare investors for a presentation? As much as Bill Gates wants to leave the world a better place, and is willing to throw enormous piles of money at things to make that happen, you'd think he (or someone like him) would be up for this.
Unless they fear having their name tarnished by association with 'Nuclear'.
gr8 vbl0g viva FLIBE n LFTR
Have you tried Smarter Money Maker? (look for it on google) It is a fast way to make extra cash quicker
Doesn't sound like Flibe will attract any investors.
This all sounds good, but I really doubt it will get any funding. Too much engineering required for new technology, too much fear associated with conventional nuclear industry, let alone new untested stuff. I am sure USA will not support this effort.
I hope Chinese will be able to get LFTR online, but they also say that they have severe budget constraints.
Kirk yaps a lot with nothing to show for it!
Why is this fool talking about temp in C instead of F ?