China build the world’s first thorium molten salt nuclear power station

[@electricviking]

The best solar company in Australia just installed my new solar system. Check them out here: www.resinc.com.au/electricviking

[@stevensteven3425]

No, China had the 1st in test fase, last year. It's supplying energy to a small town. They are building a 2nd and 3rd already. You can almost "instantly" shut it down. Did you know in the 50's US could already use Thorium? US didn't want using Thorium, because they can not use it for nucleair weapons/boms.

[@tireddad6541]

Did you get batteries? What is the approximate cost?

[@MarkChen-m8n]

We are bound by local providers .

[@vrealzhou]

China built a thorium molten salt nuclear reactor a few years ago in the desert already for testing. The test succeed so it's building an actual power station now. Also there's a plan to build a thorium based nuclear cargo ship as well.

[@radeksparowski7174]

yup, I have to win that damn eurojackpot to buy myself a mini nuklear powered fully autark catamaran/trimaran and move to the middle of nowhere/maybe squat on an uninhabited island, tons of frozen food, long shelf life food, all appliances and nobody around....ofhorse starlink to be able to browse youtube

[@liongjiahwong5478]

Low life critics.​@@radeksparowski7174

[@rygyouwill5293]

​@@radeksparowski7174 bro use dried grape as brain cell

[@Withnail1969]

They did nothing of the kind.

[@subhadipsadhukhan6413]

@@Withnail1969 are u sure they havent done anything like that..

[@MederPhotography]

Exciting, I've been talking up China's investment into Thorium since 2005. Good to see it near commercialisation after 20 years.

[@ecospider5]

It’s exciting to here them talking about turning it on.

[@ecospider5]

Since molten salt reactors uses a liquid fuel it can have a plug at the bottom that will melt if things overheat. Then the molten salt thorium goes into a container under ground and the reaction stops.

[@buzzlightyear3715]

US gave up on the molten salt reactors, China took it over the finish line. Saudi wanted China to install MSR for them too.

[@ythowdy2838]

The cleanest and safest nuclear reactor is the thorium molten salt reactor.

[@larryc1616]

Fusion nuclear reactor 👈

[@MrArtist7777]

And the most expensive power on earth, by 6x higher than solar and wind.

[@oatlegOnYt]

A bold assertion with our current lack of true experience about these reactors. Well... Chinese will have one now. Let's wait to check the reality against the papers.

[@DeveloperChris]

@@larryc1616 really? you know of one that works?

[@DeveloperChris]

Except so far they don't work. They have been trying to get Thorium to work since the 40's. I really hope they do, but they are not as safe as its proponents claim.

[@mambocrazetube]

China is a big country and world's production center, so it needs a lot of energy, wind, solar and hydra are great but they're simply not enough, we (China) would need all the options we have, including this one.

[@andrewjoy7044]

Nuclear is at this moment about 5 or 6 percent of China's energy production. Nuclear is about 55 Gw in China compared to about 1400 GW of solar and wind. China is investing heavily in solar and wind and as far as I can see windimng back their investment in nuclear.

[@bobsmith3983]

Solar and wind are not reliable. Hydro, nuclear and thermal plants supply power reliably 24/7. Solar and wind energy can be stored in batteries or pumped hydro and use for peak demand. Baseline supply must be able to deliver energy 24/7 and that's the reason hydro, nuclear and thermal plants will be needed for the foreseeable future.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@andrewjoy7044 China needs lots of energy because manufacturing things such as EVs is energy intensive. They have lots of renewables including huge amounts of hydro. Alongside hydro, nuclear fills the capacity to cover periods of no wind no sun but keep the factories churning out product. They have done their sums, the plan is a fleet of around 100 nukes. It will also allow them to extend the 'economc miracle,' into western China.

[@brettmciver432]

​@jimgraham6722 Petroleum is worse . Just turning g off the jerry rig pumps that pump the oil out of the ground for 1 month in the states would return enough power into the grid for 16 million evs.turn off the pumps to the pipes you get enough for another 3 million evs. Petroleum production is incredibly wasteful.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@brettmciver432 China has no significant petroleum reserves of its own so is not interested in the stuff. This also explains it's interest in renewables, nuclear, EVs etc.

[@MightySteve001]

If any country that can make Thorium reactor to work, it would be China. After all, China has abundance of Thorium which is by-product of rare earth refining.

[@ecospider5]

Any country could have done it if they had the money to invest in it. China is just the one that spent the most money. So they are doing it first.

[@MightySteve001]

@@ecospider5 True. One also needs the envision of the potential of the new technology. American saw uranium way of making atomic weapons.

[@roberthealey7238]

Many countries have Thorium as a mining waste product; in US it is classified as hazardous waste so companies have to pay big bucks to have it disposed of properly; someone could get ALOT of Thorium for dirt cheep/free if they offered to haul it away at no charge for the mining companies, a win-win.

[@MightySteve001]

​@@roberthealey7238 India got a beach full of thorium.

[@leonelgaldinomonteiro4783]

​@@ecospider5Não a Europa gasta essa grana em inclusão LGBTS 😅

[@stanleytolle416]

Not just molten salt but thorium molten salt reactor. Being high tempature it can cool using air exchanger like a AC system. Since it operates at low presure these reactors don't need containment structures. These reactors can be built near population centers. Running at high tempatures heat can be stored in molten salt tanks so the power output can be ramped up and down as needed. A plant like this is able to output power at times twice the power output of the nuclear reactor. Heat storage in molten salt is 1/3 the cost of any other storage ststem.

[@terjepetersen]

They do need a containment structure it is just that the structure is very tiny. Water cooled reactors need a large containment structure because if water flashes to steam it expands by a factor of 1700.

[@beautifulgirl219]

China nuclear capacity has been growing rapidly in recent years, with the country adding more than 34 gigawatts (GW) of capacity in the last decade. As of April 2024, China had 55 operating nuclear reactors with a total net capacity of 53.2 GW. China also has 24 reactors UNDER CONSTRUCTION and 44 CURRENTLY PLANNED FOR CONSTRUCTION. China official energy policy is "as much as possible of all of the above". Watch domestic China TV if you imagine this to be untrue.

[@honza970]

Yes, but they are running out of suitable locations for npp. Everything is on coast and inland is problematic because rivers often dry out = possibly missing coolant. That's going to get worse with time and is one of big reasons for lftr that doesn't require water cooling.

[@ejduffy]

The US national laboratory at oak ridge TN made a test reactor in the 50’s. The story is fascinating. It stemmed from a request from the Air Force for nuclear powered bombers. Terrible idea, but an interesting problem and the engineers figured it out. The technology was squashed by Nixon for several reasons mainly that it wasn’t developed in his home state like the light water reactors were, but also because it will not produce material for nuclear weapons. In fact you can use a LFTR reactor to burn waste from the more conventional systems. It really is an incredible technology and while I agree that the majority of power can be supplied by renewables, this may find an application very close to its original intent powering long range space exploration. There are many old KZbin videos about this that are well worth watching. You have a decent overview but it’s actually way better than you think.

[@ejduffy]

Kirk Sorensen has been beating the drum on this for decades. He’s a good speaker too.

[@metsfanal]

I've thought for years that nuclear was only ever used as an energy source to build weapons with. They didn't care about the environment in the '50s (they hardly care now), so that wasn't the reason. Nuclear is the most expensive source today, let alone seventy years ago when fossil fuels were so much more abundant. So why would anyone want to build them? Let the market decide? We'll wouldn't the market just go with the cheaper and faster to build fossil fuel plant? Weapons would be the only conceivable reason, and probably the real reason they stopped building nuclear plants in the '80s: the cold war ended. No more rush to churn out more nukes than the Soviets.

[@johngonon1507]

@@metsfanal You should look at France before posting such a message. Lots of nuclear and the cheapest electricity in Europe. Admittedly, with renewable prices that have gone down and nuclear going up the tables have turned. The market can't build a nuclear reactor because it's a long term investment and nobody on the market thinks long term. Being a strategic asset, those have to belong to the state (like in France) which can guarantee safety.

[@metsfanal]

@@johngonon1507 I’ve looked into France. It was a huge mistake for them to use nuclear as well. Extremely expensive outcomes compared to if they had gone with fossil fuels. Though at the time they had done it, it was the most viable solution to reduce emissions. Not anymore though. Anyone arguing old style uranium nuclear in 2024 doesn’t know what they’re talking about.

[@SolAce-nw2hf]

@@johngonon1507EDF which builds, owns and runs all nuclear reactors in France is state owned. They tried to go public, but it was a big failure and the government bought back all of the shares. EDF really runs at a loss and the electricity is kept at a low price by using tax money to subsidise it. In 2022 there was a lot of nuclear downtime in France. Partially because of the aging power plants which never got the funding needed to do more than the bare minimum in maintainance, but also because river water is used for cooling. In summer some power plants need to shut down to prevent destroying the underwater life in those rivers by heating it too much. So a self contained Thorium reactor that does not dump heat and (diluted) Tritium into rivers and seas seems like a much better idea to me. The nuclear reaction slows down as the molten salt gets hotter, so risk of a meltdown is also zero if reality lives up to the theory. And let's face it: building nuclear reactors takes decades and billions. It is simply stupid to keep making reactors based on 1950's technology if something safer can replace it.

[@gelinrefira]

Maybe the Chinese government is waiting for the 4th gen nuclear reactors, including this thorium molten salt reactor to mature before they scale up. Once they decide to scale up, it is going to ramp up very very fast.

[@davidbrayshaw3529]

China doesn't wait for technology, it creates it.

[@rtzx12570]

Thorium MSR does not need water to cool it therefore ideal where there is no water in the desert.

[@davidbrayshaw3529]

What does it use to produce steam to drive the turbines?

[@bobsmith3983]

@@davidbrayshaw3529 If water is used it is in a closed system where the water is recirculated. PWRs require water to remove excess heat either by evaporation of water in a cooling tower or by cooling using a body of water e.g. a river, lake or ocean. That loss of heat is why MSRs are more efficient at producing electricity than PWRs.

[@davidbrayshaw3529]

@@bobsmith3983 That makes sense. Thanks for taking the time to reply.

[@brentpinkney7394]

@@davidbrayshaw3529 Supercritical CO2 is preferred.

[@phazyy]

Thorium reactors will run 24/7 non-stop. Renewables are at best supplemental (although I do like the idea of storing thermal energy from wind/solar) nuclear will always be the superior option.

[@lpdirv]

With a molten salt reactor you can have hot salt storage for load following. This way you can double the power output of the reactor during peak demand. Great for industrial heat as well.

[@ctuna2011]

Solar and Battery is perfectly fine for places where the Sun Shines and the Wind Blows but this is not everywhere.

[@lagmonster7789]

@@lpdirv Also great for district heating either directly or recovered from those industrial uses as DH only requires fairly moderate(~60-70C) temperatures. 😁

[@SifisoMoabj]

In China's Case, no it isn't... It would take so many decades for China to create enough nuclear to power the whole country.... Nuclear is extremely slow, and takes forever. China wants to become energy secure as quick as possible... Considering rising tensions with the west. Solar, wind, etc etc are the best options so far for China. China is able to install 3 times as much solar as the rest of the world combined... Including wind.

[@SifisoMoabj]

Also, even if that was the case for China. The best thing is to diversify.... China is diversifying it's energy....

[@ben-andyhein7497]

I think that NONE of the images in this video are of a "Thorium Reactor Plant". There was no "cooling tower" at Oak Ridge. That's why they don't need a water source, they aren't using it for evaporative cooling. Thus, those structures shown are "Traditional Uranium Power Plants".

[@zoidMonkey]

guess its stock footage... I would like to see what they've actually built. Anyone seen any actual pictures of it?

[@ecospider5]

Those are not cooling towers. They are containment towers incase there is a nuclear event. Chernobyl did not have one. That is why it was such a disaster

[@ecospider5]

Not saying those are thorium reactors though

[@aesma2522]

Some are coal plants (you can see the piles of coal).

[@ejduffy]

@@ben-andyhein7497exactly! That was the whole point of developing these. They are high temperature/low pressure reactors in contradistinction to conventional ones which run at high pressures and relatively low temperatures. The huge concrete shell of the building was necessary to contain a high pressure steam leak. That’s what made them unsuitably heavy to put in the envisioned USAF bombers.

[@donwilson5841]

Uranium was from the start preferred by USA, Russia from day one because it could be used to make nuclear weapons. Thorium was always the better choice.

[@DeveloperChris]

I used to believe that too but apparently its not true. it came down to Thorium was hard. Which is why we still have no commercial thorium power plants (till now?). Thorium has been around since the 40's

[@johnpalmer5131]

I think both comments are true…. maybe now with better technology and other disincentives to uranium, Thorium may be commercially viable.

[@bobsmith3983]

Thorium is not fissile. It is transmuted to U-233 by naturally fissile U-235 included in the fuel. U233 is fissile and decays producing heat. So it is the isotopes of Uranium the product the heat energy.

[@terjepetersen]

Molten salt reactors can run on uranium. In fact, they use thorium by converting it to uranium-233. Molten salt reactors are the best choice of design in my book, but I'd still use uranium.

[@twu905]

Solar and wind power are great. But for countries like Canada, which does not get a lot of sun, hydro and nuclear is still the best alternative. Also, thorium reactors don’t need water. So these reactors are good for inland, small, mountainous countries that do not have a lot of space for solar and wind. So still a worthwhile alternative energy technology.

[@royh6526]

Since Canada is unwilling to develop our own LFTR, we will probably allow China to build them here so we can buy electricity from them.

[@travarb]

Thorium, for this period in time is a fantastic option for power. Much better than enriched Uranium reactor. Safe and clean. You can't say that about dirty Uranium.

[@johngonon1507]

Are you aware that the first thing Thorium does in those reactors is to transmute into Uranium 233 ? You should look at the Thorium fuel cycle before posting something about "dirty" Uranium.

[@crazyforgg]

Ecofreaks don't actually care about that. They just swallow the kool-aid about bogus technology like wind power and spit it on everyone else.

[@royh6526]

@@johngonon1507 It is safe by design, the fuel does not determine safety.

[@johngonon1507]

@@royh6526 I didn't mean it was not safe. It's just that he said "dirty Uranium" when Thorium reactors also use Uranium as the "real" fuel ... so it seemed a bit ... paradoxal.

[@royh6526]

@@johngonon1507 I get your point. But the argument against LWR's using uranium is that only about 5% of the fuel is used and the remainder has to be disposed or stored for thousands of years, hence the "dirty" part. As you know the LFTRs burn almost 100% so very little left over waste, and because the unburned is faster decaying only has to be stored for a few hundred years. As far a decommissioning, about the same.

[@bruceelegge]

Thorium is an awesome idea. Would not be scared of it one iota. I am 100% behind thorium reactors.

[@fireofenergy]

Thanks for doing this. It's nice to not have to figure out and answer all of our own questions, all the time (You're good at it).

[@terjepetersen]

He got so many things wrong in this video.

[@northernsamba7388]

Thorium molten salt reactors do not require water for cooling. Molten salt is used for heat transfer. Corrosion was a significant obstacle. Chinese scientists must have overcomed this for it to be commercialized. Small Thorium nuclear reactors could be built in remote regions and since it does not produce by products for weapons, it can be safely sold around the globe. Small Thorium reactors are safe for use in ships. India has a huge source of Thorium and has been working on it much longer. For some reason it now lags China in this area. Many other countries are now jumping on the idea and I wish them success. It takes a country like China to push peaceful use of nuclear energy.

[@ejduffy]

@@northernsamba7388 you’re exactly right. I would only add that many believe the corrosion issue was far overblown to get the desired outcome. Certainly with the intervening advances in materials science that’s more of a speed bump than a barricade today.

[@zes7215]

wr

[@terjepetersen]

Molten salt is less corrosive than hot water. A more corrosive thing is some mix of salt and water. (ie salt water). Whether your reactor design uses salt, or you use water instead, you want to keep the coolant very pure.

[@northernsamba7388]

@@terjepetersen That suggests two probable main reason why USA killed Thorium reactor development, they wanted bomb making uranium or they viemed keeping salt pure difficult.

[@terjepetersen]

@@northernsamba7388 - I don't think either of those were significant factors. I think the budget was axed because the benefits were not well understood by those that allocate budgets. Light water reactors were working.

[@burung81]

thorium LFTR is next gen high density energy, a gap plug, while waiting for nuclear holy grail.. fusion energy to mature.

[@bruceelegge]

Thorium and batteries go hand in hand. Electric vehicles will all need charging and thorium reactors provide an excellent starting point. The two are not mutually exclusive but complement each other.

[@januszpedzinski7651]

Diversification of electric grid is lot more important than Electric Viking believes. Nuclear production of electricity is the only green base power available. High cost of installation is always going to be secondary consideration And China gets it

[@ejduffy]

I feel like I ought to add one more angle to the discussion (if it’s still ongoing). Thorium is actually the reason we “don’t have” many rare earth elements in the US. While it has a an extremely low level of natural decay (not harmful) it is classified as nuclear waste when mined. It occurs very commonly in conjunction with all of those other minerals that we would like to have. Because it is currently not used for power it has the be disposed of and the classification as radioactive waste makes that expensive enough to abort any real attempt at mining these resources in North America. GE (since Westinghouse went under) is the only provider of nuclear energy here and they have many lobbyists who would prefer to keep the monopoly. Therefore we have complete regulatory capture.

[@andrewjoy7044]

This is a small 60 MW reactor that will produce heat and 10 MW of electricity. As far as I can see it is another stage in the development of molten salt thorium reactors. It is supposed to be completed in 2029 and up and running in 2030. Right now China has about 1400 GW of solar and wind and 54 GW of nuclear. Nuclear will play only a very small part in China's energy mix now and into the forseeable future.

[@larsnystrom6698]

Small modular nuclear reactors will likely play a larger role than you think in both China and the rest of the world. About half of the energy production is my guess. Thorium might become the standard, but they are exploring all options, including fission!

[@andrewjoy7044]

@@larsnystrom6698 SMRs could play a big role. However at this stage there are no commercial scale SMRs in the world. There are a couple of companies that say they are close but have yet to show any actual real life reactor. Solar and wind with battery backup are at this very moment showing that they can power the future.

[@philipperapaccioli2868]

How much electricity do the 1400 GW of solar and wind actually produce. I imagine that the 1400 GW figure is at peak sunlight and wind speed. So actual production is probably around 20% of nominal capacity, and not necessarily when the electricity is needed. Peak consumption is usually early evening when solar produces next to zero. Those 54 GW of nuclear probably have an online ratio of 80%, and provide on demand electricity, ie when needed. The other 20% is maintenance down time. Most of China's electricity comes from coal, which provides on demand electricity. Second largest source is hydro, again on demand production. Sun and Solar account for a little over 10% of electricity production. In 2022, nuclear generated about as much electricity as solar..

[@zoidMonkey]

Though wind, solar, and batteries are a lot cheaper and so much quicker to implement, thorium molten salt reactors have a load of great bonus benefits that make them one of the few reactors worth considering. Here's why: - Thorium reactors can also burn waste fuel from other reactors, on top of the salt-dissolved uranium-thorium fuel mix they use. - Some designs (not all) of thorium reactors can produce very rare and difficult-to-create materials that can be used in cancer treatments. - MSR reactors operate at low pressure but at much higher temperatures than normal reactors, ranging from 800 to 1500 degrees Celsius. This is super useful for hundreds of different chemical processes that require extreme heat and are currently almost impossible to make green. - Because of the low pressures its a lot safer. And in the event of an emergency, they can drop the liquid fuel into a special tank that sits below the reactor tank which makes it inert and stops the reaction dead. This is the ultimate safety system, and it literally requires no power to activate-in fact, it activates if the power is cut to the safety systems. Significant reduction of the risk factor.

[@jsanders100]

How about decommissioning?

[@zoidMonkey]

@@jsanders100 The designs I've seen have multiple smaller reactor modules. So maybe a cycling of decommissioning and adding new ones as reactors age. Probably something like that. As for how modules get decommissioned I have no idea. You'd have to ask someone like Kirk Sorensen

[@bobsmith3983]

The high temperature can also be used to thermally crack water to obtain hydrogen. I believe the pebble bed reactor can be used do the same. A commercial pebble bed reactor is also being built in China.

[@williamwoo866]

we need it all. as long as its safe

[@jeebusk]

it's not just MSR, it's liquid fueled (LFTR) an MSR typically refers to a conventional Uranium plant with a MSR cooling loop.

[@johnrdadrian]

If you have Granite Counter tops, you have Thorium 232 in your home. You can hold it in your hand. How does Thorium 232 transmutate into Uranium 233 -Thorium 232 is bombarded by neutrons created by the fission process -This transmutates Thorium 232 into Thorium 233 -Thorium 233 decays within a day into Protactinium 233 -Protactinium 233 decays into Uranium 233 within a month -Uranium 233 is a fissionable element that can be used to generate energy.

[@johnrdadrian]

Liquid Salt Reactors can be turned on and off again by the flick of a switch. Oakridge National Laboratories' build the first Liquid Salt Reactor in the 1960's. Friday night they would hit the switch, and turn off the reactor. Monday morning they would turn it back on again. The Liquid Salt reactor was build for the US Airforce "Nuclear Powered" plane. A plane need to be able to power up, and power down. That is why they went with the Molten Salt Reactor. Now the plane was never built, but the reactor was...

[@terjepetersen]

All reactors can be turned off with the flick of a switch. Fission is very easy to stop. However, all reactors need to contend with the fact that there is no way to turn off decay heat. Decay heat must be managed. Molten salt reactors can usually manage decay heat passively.

[@scottstormcarter9603]

Good news. It has a "plug" that melts if the reactor were to overheat, which is supposed to stop the reaction. But I am talking about the original American version, not this new Chinese one.

[@tildarusso]

Water-cooled reactor works in vey high pressure to avoid boiling inside the core, But if it is out of control, the water will eventually explode, turn into radio-active steams and potentially hydrogen and oxygen. molten salt works in normal temperature, it won't explode, but the core can still melt if heat accumulates. In that case, the melted core will go down to a safety canister reaction will stop (in theory). But still, it is never hurt to be extra careful for the first commercial reactor. Let it run several years for more data is a sensible choice.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

4:07 Sam you should go back to the Oak Ridge original design. If the reactor has an issue the frozen salt plug at the bottom of the reactor is allowed to melt and the radioactive fuel is allow to drain into the drain tank. The tank is design to absorb neutrons, shutting down the chain reaction. If Japan had a MSR in 2011 it would have been a non-issue.

[@johngonon1507]

"No one wants to live close to a nuclear power plant" ... Depends on what you call close. You clearly don't want to be that close to the cooling tower for the view. In France, where I live, there are lots of people living not far from a nuclear power plant. Also, it's not because nobody lives there that you can't use it for something else like having a forest that captures CO2. A solar farm using the same surface would have no surface available for a forest and maybe produce less electricity. We currently need all means of electricity production to get rid of coal, and China most than others. Ideally, we would have solar panels located over fields of fruits/vegetables that like shade (beetroot, carrots, leeks, strawberries, ...), in order to have no wasted space, and enough batteries to store energy. But having a "base load" is nice to have, and for that nuclear is a good choice. I was under the impression that the Thorium reactor was already in production for the past 2 years ... maybe I misread an article at the time. It's just not producing electricity from the heat because it's a demonstrator, not an actual plant. Having Thorium reactors doesn't replace Uranium reactors, because you still need the "waste" from those other reactors to start the reaction in the Thorium reactor. At least the first time. After that you can use the waste from this reactor for each restart.

[@terjepetersen]

The molten salt reactor in China that was in operation was a test reactor. The reactor now being constructed will generate electricity and put it on the grid. However, this new reactor is still small. Molten salt reactors can be designed to run on uranium, thorium, plutonium or some combination. Whatever the design they are going to need something fissile to get started. Which usually means uranium. It does not necessarily need to be from a legacy reactor.

[@Arjan_2]

Australian coal shipped to China isn’t used in power plants, but steel mills instead. Plenty of power plant grade coal available in China itself. Decarbonising steel mills will probably take a few decades…

[@davidbrayshaw3529]

Yep. Metalurgical coal isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[@bluecedar7914]

China buys both thermal and metallurgical coal from Australia. Quite a few of their coastal coal fired power plants are engineered to specifically run on Australian or Indonesian bituminous coal and run poorly on the local Chinese higher sulphur lower density thermal coal. This was a contributing factor to their power shortages in 2022 after banning Australian coal imports.

[@davidbrayshaw3529]

@@bluecedar7914 True. Is it a significant export for Australia, though? I thought met coal out did thermal by 10:1?

[@bluecedar7914]

@@davidbrayshaw3529 Both grades are significant export earners for Australia. The ratio varies with market demand and mine outputs. In the 2022-23 financial year the ratio was almost equal in tonnage, around 53 percent metallurgical to 47 percent thermal, while in 2023-24 metallurgical exports were 156mt worth around $61 billion and thermal exports were 205mt worth around $37 billion. NSW exports around 4:1 thermal to metallurgical while Queensland exports around 3:1 metallurgical to thermal. Not sure where your 10:1 comes from, even in earnings metallurgical coal hasn't reached this level of relative importance. India mainly imports metallurgical coal from Australia as it has good local thermal reserves and import agreements with Russia as well as Indonesia for thermal coal. China imports substantial amounts of metallurgical coal from Australia but imports considerably more thermal coal when not cracking a hissy fit.

[@terjepetersen]

Coal is also used to reduce silicon oxide to make silicon. Which is needed to make solar cells. Nobody likes to talk about this source of CO2.

[@BrianArnold-fh6ks]

So the first one was built at onle in 1956 as a ship reactor. The second one was in 1965 at Oakridge. The reason it was not continued was the USA wanted Plutonium for bombs.

[@frank-y8n]

The first was part of a project to develop a jet engine for nuclear bombers which would fly for a week or so rather than using B-52s that had to be provided with fuel while flying.

[@BrianArnold-fh6ks]

​@user-yt8gu1cl5x I know you have read that, having researched it. The information is however wrong. The aircraft could never have left the ground. So it was tested in a ship.

[@rebeckareed3841]

The first Thorium reactor was built at Oak Ridge national laboratory!

[@loktom4068]

Then left the design on the shelf for cob webs to dream about it for decades ago.

[@ronwoodward716]

They never actually built and ran the reactor on Thorium. It was molten salt but ran on uranium. They ran the reactor to understand corrosion issues. The reactor cannot run on Thorium because it is not fissile meaning it cannot sustain a nuclear reaction. The idea is to breed Thorium into fissile material by exposing it to the neutron flux from the reactor. Then chemically remove the created uranium to run the reactor. They were also studying the chemical separation system to understand its operating parameters.

[@loktom4068]

@@ronwoodward716 Thanks for the info.

[@terjepetersen]

@@ronwoodward716 - for a time they did run it on uranium-233 which had been made out of thorium in a different reactor.

[@davidnika446]

Sam, a thorium reactorit IS a nuclear reactor. It isn't "like" one. But it is WAY safer than using Uranium. The U.S. had a reactor, but defunded it because the byproducts couldn't be used for nuclear weapons for the insane nuclear weapons race. It hard to explain quickly, but thorium reactors won't melt down like uranium reactors can. If cooling is interrupted, the reaction is halted (* this is a very quick explanation- I can't pack in the whole explanation here). Anyway, the U.S. will get back on this, if it's smart (which is no safe bet unfortunately).

[@johnrdadrian]

It is impossible for a Liquid Salt Reactor to "Melt Down". Why, its already a liquid, its already melted. It is also impossible for a Liquid Salt Reactor using FLIB Salts (Fluoride) to explode. If the Salts heat up too much, the reaction naturally decreases and stops. Plus the freeze plug will melt if it gets to hot, dumping all the Fluoride Salts into a drain tank.

[@bobsmith3983]

The advantage of Thorium is that there is an abundant supply enough to last for more than 1000 years.

[@ghostmourn]

China has been about to launch this since I was 12. Now solar is way too cheap for nuclear to make sense

[@danielstapler4315]

How old are you now 17? 71?

[@micheleassisi8560]

Bro sun Is not 24 h

[@mark11tz]

...Do you know the major reason that "solar is cheat" is because China produce 78% of the solar planels and simultanesously install more than 50% of solar power GW (that means all the other countries combined < China)? What if one day they decide to not produce that much any more because of the process is really harmful to the environment?

[@johanvkjr]

although you stated that it is possible for a "meltdown" to occur - it is my understanding that a runaway or "meltdown" is statistically insignificant, given the nature of how molten salt reactors operate. if the reaction becomes unstable and tries to go critical the physics in how the reaction occurs combined with the manner in which the reaction chamber is built causes the reaction to exit the chamber at the bottom to a space where the reaction is rendered inert. where am i wrong or what did i miss?

[@dr.x4050]

A thorium reactor is huge news. In the works for 50+ years. Anyway, I see a need for a lithium-based non-fossil fuel power source that also has high energy density and is long-lasting for special applications (spaceships, submarines. giant container ships, etc). However, I also think/agree thorium power is not as well suited for typical grid power such as wind/solar/geothermal.

[@WickeD72]

In the past reactors have been built on major fault lines, coastlines and near population centers. As long as they avoid such obvious blunders then modern nuclear would be a great source of power provided its cost effective.

[@honza970]

I am more worried about human intervention. In Ukraine, there was fighting near nuclear plants.

[@johnmullin4175]

The reason that it wasn't used before is uranium provides a better path to make nuclear weapons. Thorium is actually much easier to process because you can chemically extract all of it. You don't have to run it through centrifuge farms for months to get the single rare isotope of U235 that can be used.

[@jb5music]

I like the people that make the photos for your presentation. You start talking favorably about lithium... and and simultaneously (probably unbeknownst to you) they're showing in the background behind you speaking... The giant environmental catastrophe brine pools created from lithium extraction. They're hilarious. You should probably just let them make the commentary.

[@acwojtkowiak]

Some facts to keep the perspectives based on real information. Thorium is fertile but not fissile. For it to be used in a nuclear , it is transmitted to Protactanium which in term is transmutted to Uranium233. Molten Salt Reactor MSR, could be of different types, use either Uranium ex.NATRIUM (Bill Gates - Wyoming) or Thorium. MSR plant costruction savings could be realized because High pressure ratings components may not be required, however corrosion resistance requirement may negate any cost savings. China is trying all energy flavours, and not negating nuclear in any way, they will decide longterm soltions based on emperical data, including constructability and operationak costs, derived in their own country.

[@terjepetersen]

Hot water is more corrosive than molten salt. All reactor designs need to consider corrosion. Thorium does transmute to Protactinium. However, Protactinium does not TRANSMUTE to U233. It DECAYS to U233.

[@acwojtkowiak]

@@terjepetersen Yes, and for hot water, it is corrosive but for all the coal fired plants on utility boilers, or any industrial boilers or package boilers, the water quality is managed, well definedset of sampling points and prescribed chemical additives. Well estsblished methods.

[@terjepetersen]

@@acwojtkowiak - molten salt has been used in industrial processes for a long time and the corrosive aspects are quite well understood and manageable. I think the corrosion concern with molten salt reactors is way overstated. Obviously, it needs to be managed but it is very manageable.

[@acwojtkowiak]

@@terjepetersen manageable ok but not as cost effective as using water as coolant, currently that is. All the current utility boilers, industrial and package boilers have water quality systems, and these are well established. Bill Gates' NATRIUM reactor is being built, so at least more data will be available for assessments.

[@terjepetersen]

@@acwojtkowiak - the Natrium reactor is cooled by molten sodium (metal) not molten salt. Water may be simpler in some regards but it also adds enormous cost to a reactor. For starters you need a spectacularly large containment building with the associated concrete fabrication costs if your coolant is water. Secondly your temperature caps out at about 300C meaning you need an extra large expensive turbine that delivers less power and less efficiently. Then there is the ten mile emergency planning zone you have to have. Also your reactor walls need to be a foot thick to contend with the pressure. Water causes lots of add on costs that molten salt avoids.

[@TankEnMate]

Uranium isn't absolutely limited (235 or 238), you can make Uranium and various Uranium isotopes from other elements; it's just that it's costly, so it is economically limited. Breeder reactors, fast breeder reactors (and the theoretical proton breeder reactors which have never been properly studied let alone built as they are most likely an economical black hole).

[@llee4225]

Solar and wind maybe perfect in Australia, many countries may not have the environment (arctics) for it as well as very high demand applications.

[@petertrom]

They do not need to be next to rivers, where usually also the citiies are. You can build them in the australian desert for example.

[@mintakan003]

Renewable will probably dominate. But they are intermittent. Storage can help. But one needs a low carbon dis-patchable "clean firm power" in the portfolio, ... just in case. In emergency situations, or remote locations, diesel generators currently dominate. Micro-nuclear power can be an alternative. Completely factory manufactured. Something that can shipped on a truck. Can ramp up and down. Can be used to top off one's batteries, in a micro-grid.

[@feandil666]

Molten salts reactors have the advantage of passive security: they have a plug of frozen salts, refrigerated by helium. If anything goes wrong, or everything, the plug melts and the molten salts drain down into a reservoir, where the reaction will stop and the plant will have time to cool. It's WAY safer than old nuclear plants, there's zero risks of Chernobyl.

[@cb250nighthawk3]

Next year, this channel could be talking about thorium cars. No need to charge and it would run for 100 years, basically, a lifetime. 😊

[@b.g.6667]

Funny because the world could read 1 year ago about the TMSR-LF1 2MW testreactor (check "world nuclear news") and the given operatig permit. is this also the first commercial reactor? Even CSSC shiping has allready started to design a ship using a TMSR. Btw. China also run the first commercial 4. Gen reactor in northern Shandong province.

[@sunshine7453]

Thorium reactor is known for 70 years. It have many advantages over light weight reactors. They are not used because the high cost of construction. China is good at making things affordable like they did with solar power and wind power. Their contributions to green energy is immense!

[@TonyGrant.]

My understanding is that Thorium reactors still need a plutonium core. So there are still issues with them.

[@gn01945116]

the main reason Thorium Reactor is not the 1st choice is simply it cannot produce nuclear bomb, the investor are mostly from Military industrial complex.

[@patrickcollins7030]

The greener the better, the bulk power unrestricted by weather is a great option to complement solar and wind.

[@0ctatr0n]

Thorium (LFTR) reactors are safer Sam, regular water reactors are dangerous because in order for water to hold enough useful heat (because at room pressure it only holds 100 degrees) they have to compress the water up to 50 atmospheres so it can hold temperatures around 400 degrees in order to get the most bang for their buck. (It's also why the buildings they were contained in had to be so huge!) LFTR reactors therefore won't explode like the other type because the molten salt can hold much higher amounts of heat (Up to 800 Degrees) without being pressurised. The safety mechanism is easier to implement since all the fuel is mixed into the salt, they have a blower cooling a draining pipe, if the power is cut the fan stops and the pipe warms up and drains the reactive material into a storage tank away from the fissile reactant. Thorium is also more efficiently used up at 98% , whereas only 1% of Uranium is used up before it needs to be disposed of. It cannot be turned into nukes, (Which is why Nixon didn't opt for it when given the option between uranium and thorium reactors). They made one of these back in the 60's and it ran successfully for 6000 hours at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory. It is only radio active for 100 years instead of 25,000 years like uranium is. It was originally going in the first nuclear aircraft but never made it to production.

[@youcantata]

Good thing about thorium is not cheap fuel. Uranium is also cheap and abundant enough that fuel cost just 10% of total cost. Best thing about Thorium as nuclear fuel is it produce nuclear waste (spent fuel) in much less quantity and much easier to store. It reduces nuclear waste to 1/20 of Uranium waste. And Uranium waste should be stored 100,000 years for safety. But Thorium waste need to be stored about 300 years to be safe. It is much better solution for nuclear waste disposal.

[@tempcadoganenright]

Its a race to the finish between Fusion, Thorium reactors and magic vapourware

[@tedchandran]

Jai Hind. We Indians have the most thorium resources and, hence we are working on our sodium based breeder reactor to use thorium as fuel.

[@royh6526]

You guys should be working on the LFTR design. Not uranium breeder with thorium added.

[@jfv65]

Wind, solar and hydro are nice but they are not very reliable energy producing infra. You need energy production to have stable long term energy. It would stabilise the grid when there is no wind ans no sunlight. A thorium reactor could do that.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

8:13 hell, it looks like a great replacement for Pb in my AR-15 bullets

[@daniel17319]

Stop pushing nuclear scare tatics

[@larryc1616]

Just don't live within 50km of one. You definitely have enough time to escape in your car

[@philipkudrna5643]

Fortunately also some European Companies (like Copenhagen Atomics) are doing research into the TMSR. Copenhagen Atomics seems to have mastered the corrosion problems by purifying the molten salt. They claim they can fit their onion core reactor into a shipping container to make it simple to transport and use it in a decentralized way.

[@johnrdadrian]

Great Video, love it. But these reactors produce energy at a much lower cost than Wind & Solar. We need them.

[@theatheistpaladin]

Every one lives closer to nuclear power than they think.

[@lavectech]

Interesting. Good to hear you have your solar installed now. I'm hoping to get a powerwall 3 when ever it is released in Australia at end of the year. Faster and cheaper to setup solar and battery in a distributed model with Virtual Power Plants, gives the power back to the tax payers.

[@i6power30]

It's better to have diverse source of energy. In case sun gets blocked by a huge volcanic eruption or some other reasons.

[@michaeldietsch1054]

A couple of misconceptions need to be cleared up. If the fuel is already liquid, how is it possible to have a melt down? Doesn't a meltdown presuppose a solid fuel? Also 5% enriched U235 is not tied to light water reactors. Terrestrial Energy is using enriched U235 in their own Integrated Molten Salt Reactor (IMSR).

[@acwojtkowiak]

Meltdown refers to structure meltdown whic would mean loss of containment, where radiactivity and heat would not be contained. Imagine in a foundry that yor pot cracked spillout of hot molten metal and radiactive to boot.

[@michaeldietsch1054]

@@acwojtkowiak I think I have to disagree, meltdown refers to melting of the solid uranium oxide fuel because of a loss of coolant (LOC) accident. The Three Mile Island and Fukushima accidents show that even though both reactor cores were essentially destroyed, the core rubble didn't melt through the reactor vessel. The radiation release at Fukushima was caused the very hot zirconium cladding on the fuel rods being oxidized by reacting with superheated steam in the reactor vessel which produced free hydrogen gas. The reactor vessel pressure relief valves eventually reached their lift point and vented the super hot hydrogen gas into the reactor building atmospheric air where it caused the explosions we all saw on TV. MSRs have freeze valves which allow over temp molten fuel salt to exit the core into dump tanks.

[@acwojtkowiak]

@@michaeldietsch1054 . At 3 miles island the dome fullfiled its Design Basis Accident role. Fukashima, there was a directive to relocate the pump and motors that the utility did not follow. You use nuclear engineer's terminology, not disputing your facts.

[@michaeldietsch1054]

@@acwojtkowiak I use nuclear engineering terminology because I worked I was an engineer on navy nuclear sub propulsion plant systems for 36 years, but I think you might be missing my point. The loss of coolant accidents at Three Mile Island and Fukushima showed that the radiation releases did not occur because the damaged core melted through the bottom of the reactor pressure vessel (RPV). They occurred because the oxygen and hydrogen in the superheated steam above the damaged core disassociated and oxidized the zirconium cladding on the fuel rods releasing hydrogen gas. The build up of this hydrogen gas mixed with fission product gases that were released by overpressure protection system is what caused the radiation release, not structural failure of the RPV. This distinction is critical to your original comment about the failure of the RPV being the defining event of a meltdown, it is not. The defining event of a meltdown is the overheating of the fuel to the point where the fuel lost structural integrity. In neither of these accidents did the RPV fail.

[@ecospider5]

One benefit of molten salt reactors is some designs can use old nuclear waste as fuel.

[@MarkChen-m8n]

Please show us more about renewable Marine tech. My understanding is that shopping worldwide isn't up to par! Bigtime waste,and pollution. Thank you

[@JaysonCarmona]

The thorium reactors can't really melt down. It is build to be fail safe.

[@mrstevecox7]

When Thorium designs become practical (next year several projects are planned to build their first practical reactors), they will be a useful complimentary part of a mixed energy economy based on solar and wind. They will be brilliant for low land use, heat for industry and baseload power. they will reduce the need for vast battery-farms. The low pressure design will mean that Elon Musk will not have to worry about having small Thorium plants close to centres of population. They will be - literally - safer than wind or lithium batteries. Perhaps the most vital use will be for desalination plants and cutting out fossil fuel use in third world countries.

[@charlesbeaudry3263]

It will work... eventually. But the reactor type you are talking about, won't be producing electricity anytime soon. For a post-industrial society you cannot produce intense power without nuclear.

[@frankmynard6325]

Why do you need 26 Kw? Maybe for an EV collection or kerbside charger for the neighborhood

[@robertfonovic3551]

50 panels on Sam's roof? Yeah nah.😅😅

[@suchdevelopments]

😄Good day from GOONELLABAH, NSW! I am an engineer. I am promoting the Copenhagen Atomics reactor: Thorium encourages me, and it will be a Game-Changer in Energy. I'll embark on a six-month journey to circumnavigate Australia in two CYBERTRUCKs and a Tesla Semi, covering 22,000 kilometres at the beginning of February 2025.

[@FlintStone-c3s]

A nice little Thorium 1-5KW reactor would be handy to recharge Cybertrucks. Thorium is not self sustaining without a Neutron source. If that could be electrically generated then power outages will auto shutdown the reactor.

[@suchdevelopments]

@@FlintStone-c3s It would, and any government won't. As we travel, we aim to meet all the Premiers of the States, including notable figures like The Hon. Anthony Albanese, MP Prime Minister, and The Hon. Chris Bowen MP, Minister for Climate Change and Energy.

[@PRANITMALIK]

India has thorium test plant for years. Thorium plant will also come online next year. This is in Tamil Nadu. Read about it.

[@widodoakrom3938]

India only talking while china is doing it

[@frank-y8n]

A Thorium atom Th233 catches a neutron and then decays to U233 which is the real fuel for the reactor - U233 also catches a neutron and then splits, providing the energy - and not providing fuel for a bomb. The chemistry of the molten salt mixture has to be watched. Some twenty years ago the son of the then Chinese president went to Oak Ridge to ask for everything US had about molten salt reactors and it has taken twenty years to solve the problems, mainly because the molten salt at six or seven hundred degrees Celsius is able to eat most metals. A main advantage is that operating at such a high temperature you can achieve a much higher thermal efficiency, about 50% rather than the measly 33% or so of PWRs. And because no pressure vessel is needed the whole thing is a lot smaller and lighter. Because of that and because so many neutrons are caught by Thorium many few neutrons will escape the reactor and will have to be caught by a lead mantle that that thing too will be much lighter. A dozen years ago China said that the new coal fired power stations would have their steam generators replaced by nuclear reactors when these became available. These need steam of 550 deg Celsius or more so molten salt reactors can be so used. Det Norske Veritas recently approved the design of a class of very large container vessels, 24 000 TEU, powered by a molten salt reactor for use year round between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans north of Siberia.

[@dianewallace6064]

Interesting, I've heard about thorium molten salt for years.

[@nathshaw]

Maybe, if the Chinese can make this work - Australia can put a few of these in the desert using Chinese I.P. (but built by Australian contractors, who don't use tofu concrete) as a part of Dutton's nuclear plan... couple these with the molten-salt storage idea developed by TerraPower, and it'll work in well with Australia's massive solar 'duck' curve. Problem solved... no need for dangerous, environmentally damaging batteries or useless massive scale wind-farms, which only generate 15-20% of the time.

[@titussteenhuisen8864]

Can you compare the technical aspects of this Chinese Thorium and Copenhagen atomics?

[@martinwinlow]

As others have pointed out, the *principal* historical reason for the lack of development of thorium-based nuclear reactors is simply that there is no scope for the byproduct of the reaction to be used for developing nuclear weapons. On that basis it is clearly a *vastly* superior technology in terms of 'safety' to conventional uranium-based nuclear reactors, call me a cynic if you will.

[@AniMageNeBy]

3:59 This is faulty and shows little actual research. It's impossible for a LFTR design to have a "nuclear meltdown", because It IS ALREADY "MOLTEN". Both the coolant and the fissile material are in a liquid state, so how can it "melt"?? In fact, if the geometry of the container is choosen well, it is inherently stable, because when there is to much heat, the molten salt expands, which means the fissile material doesn't produce more reactions, which means less heat transfer, which means the salt cools down, which means th reactions augment, which means more expansion through heat, etc, etc. It has, thus, a dynamic equilibrium which makes a LFTR inherently stable.

[@themogget8808]

Once again, the nuclear kids are solving the wrong problems. Regular nuclear is already clean and safe and its fuel is a tiny fraction of its cost per watt. Thorium reactors will still have a giant steam system, still be the size of and employ a small town, still will have very dangerous stuff that needs a security detail, still take decades to build, still rely on a centralized power system with huge transmission costs, and still be difficult to ramp up or down (don't want that molten salt cooling off, do we?), and of course COST WAY TOO MUCH. While next gen nuclear (fusion or thorium) is less likely to blow up your town, it will be too expensive and too late to save it from climate change.

[@MASMIWA]

Thorium molten salt reactors are exactly what the title says. molten thorium with a molten salt causing a reaction that produces fissible uranium causing high temperature heat. Because of the high temperature, a carbon dioxide turbine can be used making for a small compact reactor that has potential for both land and ship use. China has had a small 2 nw developmental reactor running in the Gansu Desert since late 2022. It is planning a medium size version starting in 2025 and completion by 2029, with industrial sized reactors in 2030. As mentioned before, the Shanghai Jiangnan shipyard says it plans to build merchant ships using a thorium MSR. Is it possible that this reactor could be used for this purpose? Further the same shipyard and the Dalian shipyard are said to be building the fourth and fifth super carriers said to be nuclear powered. It could be that these carriers could also be thorium MSR powered.

[@Krasbin]

You still need uranium to get started with a thorium reactor.

[@taiwanjohn]

What's needed is a neutron source. Uranium is just the simplest, easiest way to achieve that.

[@Krasbin]

@@taiwanjohn Well, a thorium reactor starts with thorium 232, but it has to become uranium 233 by indeed taking up a neutron and decaying. So whatever uranium you need, it is either 233 or 235.

[@taiwanjohn]

​@@Krasbin You could also use a neutron generator/gun to fertilize the Thorium, it's just a LOT more complicated and expensive.

[@Krasbin]

@@taiwanjohn But that would still generate uranium 233 as a fissile material. Thorium 232 is what you might put in, but it is the uranium 233 that you want to get from the process. I have looked at accelerator driven systems, and as far as I understand they are not (yet) energetically favorable, which means that at the moment you would have to put in more energy than you get out. Without even a net positive energy gain, you can (for now) forget about a net economic gain.

[@taiwanjohn]

@@Krasbin Yes, of course. The point is that you don't necessarily need 233U to start with, because you can generate it from Thorium with a neutron source. Once the breeder cycle is initiated it should be self-sustaining, but you need a neutron source to get it started. If you happen to have some fissile Uranium lying around, then great! But even if you don't, you can still "ignite" your reactor with an artificial neutron source. (In theory, anyway.)

[@obama8888]

I see many 'scientists' here who knows more than China.

[@aesma2522]

A molten salts reactor is one variant of nuclear power plant, the fuel can be uranium, plutonium, thorium... Thorium fuel can also be used in another type of reactor, the pebble-bed reactor, one is already running in China. Pebble-bed reactors can also use uranium and plutonium. Both designs are fail safe, they can't melt down. The molten salt one obviously can't since it's molten from the start. And the pebble-bed type is a high temperature design that won't melt even if there is no more cooling. In both cases the radioactive fuel is concentrated enough to produce a nuclear chain reaction=>heat=>power, but not concentrated enough for the reaction to get out of control. The molten salts reactor needs a chemical treatment on the running fluid to remove waste elements produced by the reactions, and that's the part I'm quite skeptical about. A traditional reactor just needs refuelling every 18 months or something like that, it's a lot easier.

[@b9eda9ad]

Not everybody lives in Australia were it is possible to build the grid on wind, solar and batteries only. In Poland for example the grid would be better if it had like 10-20% of nuclear. Think of what happens when there is sunny weather in january for 10 days. Not much energy created from solar and there is no wind. You do not have that kind of patterns in Australia.

[@فارسليبورد-ك8و]

الصين عايشه في المستقبل ❤

[@Wemdiculous]

So, in Japan, their reactor got to hot, and all the water used to cool it turned to steam, then couldn’t be used to stop it from a meltdown because they lost electricity to their pumps because they couldn’t get power from their reactor to the pumps because of an earthquake, and also their generators went offline. I don’t remember why, and I’m not gonna bother with fact checking, so I’m gonna say it’s because they got wet…. Uranium & Thorium reactors are designed like ovens to keep the heat contained within the reactor so the reaction keeps happening, and then syphon off the excess heat that would melt the containers as energy to power the grid. When a thorium reactor is operating, it’s a liquid. The reactor that traps heat is placed above a container that will expel heat and halt the reaction. The barrier between the reactor and the second container requires electricity to stop it from falling into the 2nd container. So when the power goes out from an earthquake, or an asteroid strike, or a solar storm or whatever, the barrier “fails” and the liquid slurry falls into a container in which it cannot maintain a temperature sufficient to maintain the reaction. So… I’m sure that this isn’t 100% absolutely foolproof, nothing is. Like if a terrorist sneaks in and fills the second tank with insulating foam and no one notices it will prolly fail. But it won’t fail the same way as old reactors, so hopefully thorium reactors can say uranium reactors fail an order of magnitude or 2 more often.

[@jayyoo906]

Uranium and thorium are rich but fuel rod making plants are rare. Russia monopolize and they do not sell US and its allies. US now build the fuel plant but no one knows how many of years will take. China has small uranium mine but found the thorium abundance in the Gobi deserts. That is why China develop Thorium nuclear power. Their reactor design is what no one expect so far. They make fuel ball encapsulated, not rod and place them on the bed in reactor. Being confident in technology, they try to build thorium nuclear powered, large container ship.

[@zanebliss3764]

A couple of good documentary to watch on the subject matter is "Pandora's Promise" and "Atomic States of America".

[@NiklasWestin]

No problem to live near a reactor. Wind-plants no. Best solution for the climate, economy and the grid is to build a lot more reactors.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

6:01 the beryllium in these reactors is not exactly benign. Is the LiBe the most efficient, yes. Is it the only option, no. One could use Na-Zr fluoride salts, and given these two elements are more common than Be, it might make economic sense.

[@peteinwisconsin2496]

I did not hear about costs. Costs in the US for combined-cycle natural gas electric generation are $1/ nameplate Watt for the equipment and about 6 cents per kWh produced. PV and wind are also close to $1/ Watt and 6 cents per kWh. Coal and nuclear are far more expensive, per the un-subsidized costs as researched by Lazard and Assoc. Can thorium beat a dollar a Watt and 6 cents/ kWh?, or must us taxpayers subsidize yet another pipe dream?

[@squishedfrog99-gp4qq]

Why not build a plant that burns old ev batteries to produce steam. You could even use the stockpile of new ones too.

[@TheRealLarissa]

Did you get a certificate of memorial for the acres of rainforest that was cut down to mine the titanium for your solar cells?