Copenhagen Atomics' FIRST Test Reactor

[@NomenNescio99]

Quote from Admiral Rickover's famous paper from the 50ies. "An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: It is simple. It is small. It is cheap. It is light. It can be built very quickly. It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”) Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now." Most nuclear power startups sadly seems to be forever stuck with an academic reactor. But Copenhagen Atomics is slowly moving further, and is no longer a pure paper reactor company, things are actually being developed and built now - great news. I wish them the best of luck, and wish for speedy progress away from the academic reactor to a real world reactor.

[@rodkeh]

They are crooks and swindlers and you are just their shill. Fossil fuels meet all your requirements and they the cheapest and cleanest source of energy on the planet which is all available and accessible right now! No swindles needed to fleece the public as nuclear does!

[@EdPheil]

That was an anti-competion speak by Rickover. The reactor Rickover built was originally a paper/academic reactor as well.

[@rodkeh]

It is a total swindle and a con! All nuclear is a waste of resources and fossil fuels are the only rational and practical choice for energy generation!

[@Th-233]

An underappreciated consequence of thorium being a free byproduct costing essentially nothing, is that energy production will be effectively decoupled from mining, allowing very rapid growth. Supply chains will be simple and scalable, and the one time startup fissile can be extracted from spent fuel with a simple chemical process, incidentally eliminating the waste issue without subsidy.

[@UlrichHarms-ci1ov]

The chemistry for extracting the useful fuel from nuclear waste or used fuel is not simple and very expensive. Reclaimed Uranium and Plutonium is more expensive than new mined. Reprocessing thourium based fuel is even more expensive because of the high levels of gamma radiation. Scaling up gets tricky with the fissile fuel, as the breeding rate is very low in thermal thorium reactors. It is already challanging to get break even breading - that is getting enough to keep it running without added fissile material from the outside. Small reactors will have it extra hard to reach breeding. There is a good reason why India first developed fast breeders to produce extra fissile material to than use thorium that may at least initially will need some extra fissile material as support. Raw thorium can be rather cheap, but already puritication (especially remove the rare earth contamination) to make is useful for the reactor makes it a bit expensive. Doing the same with much more radioactive used thorium makes it very expensive.

[@perryallan3524]

First I am gratefull that Copenhagen Atomics now acknowleges that the early thorium reactors were unecomonical and that there really is a corrosion issue with a MSR (which you previously seemed to deny). However, the economic problem with the thorium power plant reactors (5 commercial sized thorium cycle power plants were built in the 1960s - 1980s)) was not that the reactor cores were inefficient. It was that the cost to convert thorium ore into thorium reactor fuel was vastly more expensive than to converter uranium ore into modestly enriched uranium fuel. The USA developed and proved viable light water BWR and PWR reactor cores - which could be retrofitted into about 80% of the worlds existing nuclear power plants if thorium was cheaper than uranium as a reactor fuel. No one in the world is doing that because... at the reactor fuel level - thorium is still more expensive than uranium reactor fuel. It matters not that there are tons of waste that has thorium in it. It cost real money to turn thorium ore into reactor fuel. You talk about the only way to utilize all the energy in thorium (actually U233) is to reprocess the waste fuel. That is also true of U235/Pu239 based reactors and is not a new concept at all. However, multiple countries have tried reprocessing nuclear power plant fuel and found that it is not an economical way to produce nuclear fuel. New fuel from fresh ore is cheaper. Now a few countries still reprocess fuel and utilize it - but they are doing so for reasons other than economics. So getting the U233 from the blanket into the core is of questionable economics, at best. The other problem a thorium fuel cycle has - that greatly affects reprocessing and long term storage of the waste fuel is that thorium ore commonly contains a blend of 6 or 7 isotopes of thorium. Its not just all Th232. At the same time uranium ore also contains other isotopes other than U235 and U238. Most of these other isotopes are at trace levels that don't really affect anything (with both thorium and uranium). But thorium has one isotope that is normally at a large enough concentration - and that converts to U232, along with a certain amount of U233 that converts to U232 - that it creates a real problem. U232 is a strong gamma radiation emitter which makes handling of both waste fuel and reprocessed fuel difficult and expensive. As an example: If you reprocess U235/Pu239 reactor fuel you can convert the uranium and plutonium into solid metal ingots that are safe to handle in normal clothing (lab coats are typical) and surgeon gloves. Reprocess the uranium from a thorium fuel cycle reactor and you end up with small metal ingots that you handle standing behind a heavy radiation shielded wall and with 18"-24" tongs to reduce radiation exposure due to the U232. As for your claim that you believe that you have solved the corrosion issue. Not even the Chinese are saying that - and they built a test reactor to find out if with the right combination of a custom super-alloy and the best filtering they believe will work. So far they are being very tight lipped on their results so far - and I expect it will be at least another 4 years before they will be willing to announce that they have likely found a solution (and if the announcement is quicker than that - then its that likely they have more work to do). The world nuclear testing and power plant industry is full of all kinds of ideas and equipment that people thought would work... that did not. We only have reliable light water reactors now because of over 60 years of lessons learned on what worked and what did not for long term reliable economic operation in those reactor design. I also question a lot your timeline, and the economics. Can you produce very pure Li7. Of course. The techniques have been known likely since the 1950's (if not earlier). Doing it economically is another feat. Physics testing of your "onion core" is of course possible. But now that its radioactive and full of radioactive waste it has to be managed as such for decades likely before it is buried in a hole in the ground somewhere. I just don't see this (or any other portable reactor) being freely shipped around between countries and cities. Can it be shipped. Yes. Tons of permits and special procedures for every movement. Will your onion core work as planned. See my previous comment about how many times things did not work as well as planned (I note that both the the original 2 MSR test reactors in the USA did not work nearly as well as they they thought they would. The 1st one had a critical failure releasing highly radioactive molten salt fuel/fission product into the environment after I believe about 1 week of operation. The 2nd one was so problem prone that it is listed as the poorest running test reactor ever built - and by huge margins (yet today a lot of MSR proponents claim it successfully ran - and don't mention just how often it broke down or had to have a "urgently scheduled"planned shutdown for repairs). Then there is getting permission and building a nuclear power plant. A reactor is not a power plant. It's just one component. Much of the entire power plant must be designed to withstand a whole series of natural disaster to the standards of the plant site (earthquake and flooding are very site specific). The entire plant design will have to be licensed. I will likely take 5 years to get a completed power plant design though licensing. Then you can build and operate it. I don't see that happening with your potential desing before the very late 1930's at best. Finally, the reason that the world builds nuclear power plants at the 1GW+ size is that economics of scale force that. If you double the size of a nuclear power plant you only need about 40% more material and it cost about 40% more to build. Often you don'e even need to increase the plant staffing; and when you do its a very modest staff increase. On a $MWe basis very large plants are much cheaper than multiple small plants (this has been demonstrated multiple times). Also, worldwide it only takes 6 years to build a GW+ size nuclear power plant. The Western nations forgot how to do it - and are taking longer as they relearn lessons lost. I also do not see that there is any hope of mass producing any nuclear power plant design until it has successfully run for a decade to show that its long term reliable and economical. Lots of lessons learned about that (and many closed plants) in the nuclear industry worldwide. So at best you might build 4-10 units, or so, piecemeal... and then the world will wait to see how they perform.

[@lucaslittmarck2122]

Wow longest comment on yt. Cool. We have glas and ceramics now that handle both radiation and the corrosion.

[@perryallan3524]

@@lucaslittmarck2122 Great comment; but there are two problems with both glass and ceramics. You cannot join them with glass or ceramics - and every joint is now a potential leak path. There are reasons that virtually every joint in a nuclear power plant is welded. Massive lessons learned about bolted and threaded joints leaks. 2nd major problem is that both glass and ceramics tend to be rather brittle - and do not withstand earthquake seismic vibrations and forces well. There is also a problem in that you cannot induce eddy currents into them to inspect for cracks or defects. So how do you inspect things to find defects. Yes there is ultrasound, and X-ray. But those can miss things that often eddy current techniques sees (note that I used to have about a $million dollar/yr budget to use various kinds of inspection technologies to look for defects in nuclear plant heat exchangers at the last nuclear plant I worked at, and worked hand in hand with the technicians inspecting piping and other components in the plant - I know what the technologies are and their limitations). Between the two issues its going to take a lot of research and work before I believe the regulators would approve a nuclear power pant built with a glass or ceramic reactor vessel, piping, and components.

[@mauritsdolmans746]

And as video explained: corrosion solved by development of high-purity salt

[@perryallan3524]

@@mauritsdolmans746 The fluoride salt has never been the corrosion issue. The corrosion issue is from the nuclear fission process products and other chemicals formed from them reacting with each other and the salt fuel mix after the nuclear reactions start - and continue. You could safely build a MSR out of 302SS (or any better 3xx) alloy if it was just the salt and the fuel. Copenhagen has for years has previously said that there was no problems with just using 304. That is only true until you start the nuclear reaction. Since you are building a nuclear reactor - you have to account for all the fully developed chemicals in the highly radioactive salt - fuel - daughter products - chemical reactants mix. Multiple countries have spent over 15 years doing metallurgical research looking for some kind of custom super alloy that might be suitably corrosion resistant; without finding any actual possibility (and I have read some of the published papers on this research, and summaries of other papers). They have found several possibilities that might have "slow enough" corrosion rates if you can remove the worst of the corrodents. The chemical filtering to remove all the "bad" products is also just a theory at this point. The Chinese are the only ones to have built a test reactor to verify that 1) it works as thought. and 2 is long term reliable and maintainable. So far the Chinese have not said a word about how well its actually working.

[@TheVigilantEye77]

Spoil sport

[@williamthesling1201]

Awsome... I wish you great success!!!!

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Thank you so much!!

[@SteenLarsen]

Excellent presentation! Thank you for your work to giving us a world with abundant, cheap and climate friendly energy!

[@aaalll2826]

I came to study in Danmark from Greece just for this company. Huge love

[@mustafaatatuzun]

I'm really interested on your company on your talks and on your topics keep posting

[@ludwigreiser4053]

Very interesting! 👍 Thanks a lot! 🍀

[@backacheache]

What I think is exciting is even if you fail, all the components you have improved will have a ripple effect across many industries

[@misorensen]

Well done. Great work!! - Great progress!! - Keep up all the good work. So interesting to follow.

[@SinisterMD]

This is the future. Been a huge fan of thorium reactors for years now. We know that molten salt works with the MSRE back in the 60's. Love the modular design. Ammonia is a novel fuel for ships, however nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx and NO/N2O) are a concern with N2O being a very potent greenhouse gas, offsetting the carbon neutral nature of the process.

[@bartroberts1514]

Nuclear is the future for medical isotopes and military applications, perhaps, but much too costly for commercial energy. We know that molten salt has too many issues not just from MSRE back in the 60's failing, but also from an entire non-nuclear molten salt industry we've learned such lessons from as "don't do it unless you absolutely have to," and "never, ever mix with anything else dangerous." You can love all the Rube Goldberg 'modular' designs in the world; doesn't make them practical. Ammonia is an inferior fuel to urea, for ships, however there are no coastal routes that cannot be navigated with battery powered shipping, and marine biofuel from the waste byproducts of lumber milling is more practical still, getting senescent methane-generating timber out of the forests and replacing with young clean new carbon-capturing growth.

[@migBdk]

@@bartroberts1514 Battery shipping is a nice idea, but consider the cost of a battery and the size of it. Batteries are a very low-density type of energy storage. Meaning the ship will have to give up significant amounts of shipping capacity with a battery switch. That's very bad for the economy. Also the "biofuel from waste byproducts" sound nice in theory but the amount of fuel needed for global shipping far exceeds the amount that can be made from byproducts of lumber milling.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@migBdk Seriously? Batteries are too heavy for use on ships!? Batteries are too costly for ships?! Not much on the maths, here. Ever even been on a ship? Significant amounts of shipping capacity? Like the fuel tanks and engine room take up? Your objections are noted. But they're absurd. Battery ships are more economical per nautical mile-tonne. That's good for the economy. They're independent of fossil; making them only bad for one kind of economics: the kind that causes climate change. As for the amount of fuel 'needed' for shipping by sea, plus aviation, after conversion to electric for the portion that gains from that transition, is about 13% less than the available biofuel from lumber mill wastes.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

@@bartroberts1514 : Batteries and Hydrogen are both viable for shipping as clearly shown by Japanese submarines.

[@perryallan3524]

Neither of the test MSR reactors build in the 1950's and 1960's ran well. The 1st one developed a major primary molten salt/reaction product leak within I believe a week of startup. The 2nd one broke down (or was "urgently" scheduled for a shutdown so often that it was by far the worst running test reactor that the USA (and likely the world) ever built. All these reactors proved was that you could build a molten salt reactor - and you had a lot of problems to be solved, and after Oak Ridge there were no obvious solutions to the problems known, while there were other nuclear reactor technologies that were working far better with a small fraction of the problems. So, MSR work was suspended at the time. As far as thorium reactors. The USA went whole hog into trying to make thorium power plants viable. Beyond test reactors they built 4 commercial nuclear thorium power plants in the 1960's - 1980's (22 - 300 MWe) of BWR, PWR, HTGR designs. Germany built a 5th (300 MWe) HTGR in the 1980s. Thorium cycle fuel cores were developed and put into other existing BWRs to generate the needed U233 to seed future thorium fuel cycle power plant through reprocessing of the fuel. The USA built an entier thorium nuclear fuel processing plant -- and planned to scale it up to supply at least half, if not all, of nuclear power plants in the USA. However, despite the abundance of thorium ore... it turned out that converting that ore into usable nuclear fuel that can be put into reactors was a lot more expensive than converting uranium ore into somewhat enriched U235 nuclear fuel. At least 2 of those 5 thorium cycle power plants were converted to U235 plants due to cost and ran for many years as U235 plants. I had a co-worker who worked at a 3rd one who told me it had also been converted to U235 fuel. However, I have not been able to easily find a reference to that on the internet with basic searches. Economics killed thorium then; and as we already have proven core designs that could be retrofitted into at least 80% of existing nuclear power plants worldwide - economics kill it now. U235 or U235/Pu239 mixed oxide fuel is cheaper than thorium fuel. Otherwise we would be having nuclear power plants running thoruim fuel cycles right now - someone out there would be doing it. Of course, this would be done just like existing U235 or mixed oxide fuel and the spent fuel generally not reprocessed (as reprocessing of nuclear fuel has turned out not to be cost effective - many countries have learned that). I often wonder why all the proponents of thorium never mention this history - nor the U232 problem with potential recycling to recover usable U233. I guess its the same reason that MSR propoents virtually never mention the very real problems and issues that were identified in the 1st 2 MSR test reactors. There is a reason China only built a 2 MWthermal test plant. They are well aware that its just a test reactor and may not work well enough to do much further development at this time (note the Chinese 2 MWthermal test plant uses U235). Have a great day.

[@titussteenhuisen8864]

Good progress with the parts; onion core, pumps, testing etc. Final product is pushed down in time. Looking forward to a real reactor test. Original timeline is being stretched.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

It is true, the original timeline from years ago have been stretched slightly, although not by more than a year and a half. With that said, it is still one of the most ambitious timelines in the industry, and with our work in Switzerland we are arguably also one of the closest to upholding our original timeline.

[@TomMcinerney-g9b]

> The reason why the U.S. boiling & pressurized reactors were built at 1 -- 1.5 GW scale, was to achieve decent output efficiency (allowing electricity at modest cost). Generally, smaller fission plants will sell electricity at more expensive rates. > Some people from MIT a decade ago were planning to use molten salt reactors, and expected that CFD might help avert damage. (perhaps modern stainless steel alloys will prove immune) > Bill Gates explicitly designed his nuclear plants to avoid opening the reactor vessel, to extent possible. I agree that constant refinement of fuel charge would improve operations. > My understanding is that efficient sequestering of the depleted fuel requires advance planning of the reactor products/byproducts. The knowledgeable American researcher concerned with long term storage of highly radioactive components (Rodney C. Ewing, of U. Michigan and Stanford), mentioned that development of small modular reactors would complicate the methods of waste storage.

[@BogenmacherD]

Ask anyone who is in the insurance business, if they could offer an insurance for such a power plant. They won't. And if they would, it would cost astronomical sums. Nuclear reactors can be build and operated only under the umbrella of states (who will also cover the cost of the nuclear waste that will be around for 10.000s of years.

[@Emanuel-t5e]

That argument already shows you are German. lol Classic German anti nuclear bias.

[@3ntomcrav]

shut up and take my money

[@arubaga]

That is not the problem. Lack of licensing from a government is the problem.

[@BogenmacherD]

@@arubaga No government official in its right mind would be so stupid as to grant them ANYTHING.

[@arubaga]

@@BogenmacherD Nothing can stop Trump.

[@VulcanData84]

💯%

[@VulcanData84]

​@@arubaga McDonald's Can!

[@davidwilkie9551]

Only 10 years to wait now. But in the meantime clarification of the superposition identification of Math-Phys-Chem and Geometrical phase-locked Superposition-point Singularity Perspective Principle is always standing by, ready for reiteration and technological redesign, as demonstrated. Condensation Correspondence quantization cause-effect of probabilistic correlations in omnidirectional-dimensional logarithmic resonance bonding proportioning chemistry has Hilbert's Infite Hotel type categorization of Infities superimposed in perspectives (=modulation). We want the next generations of scientists to share their sense-in-common awareness of the Universal Bio-logical Recursion to the Mean Memory Code here-now-forever, ie in conformity to Epicyclic Aether reference-framing containment. (No more disingenuous fear of the unknown)

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Not quite 10.

[@henrikpedersen343]

Keep up the good work 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Thanks, will do!

[@mechadense]

10:02 Is the plan to replace graphite moderators with silicon carbide? That'd make me feel so much safer.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We do not plan to use graphite as a moderator at all. Our moderator is heavy water. The core will eventually be made from silicon carbide.

[@mechadense]

​​​@@CopenhagenAtomics Ah! I see. Probably confused it with an other groups molten salt thorium reactor design. I feel SiC is the best (safest) choice possible if technically and financially possible. I suspect D2O water as moderator introduces the problem of high pressures again that salts alone avoid. But still so much safer than graphite in the core. I guess primary cooling loop is molten salt? I probably just need to look it up on your website …

[@grilsegrils9330]

Is/ will it become reality? 😊 I'm cheering for you ♥️ from 🇸🇯

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We are sincerely doing all in our power to make it so :) Thank you for your support

[@RePeteAndMe]

18:37 No, ammonia's lack of carbon means nothing. In fact, synthetic carbon-based fuels sequester a teensy bit of carbon until they are burned. Completely irrelevant, but if you want to play that card, it goes against ammonia (as does toxicity). I don't know which fuel will win out, but the ability to carry micro plastics will be key. We've got a lot of plastic to cleanly burn. Hope your stuff works out.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Certainly it is unsure which form of synthetic fuel will be the main one chosen in the future. For our current project we're focusing on green ammonia, also due to it's properties in fertilizer.

[@peterjohn5834]

Just so you aware, China added by installation more solar energy last year than the entire world nuclear production of energy. Solar installations will potentially double across the world next year. I applaud your efforts especially in choosing Thorium as the reactor fuel.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We applaud the rate at which solar is being installed, it is a great example of why economies of scale matter. Unfortunately the rate at which we install any renewables at the moment is not large enough to accommodate the rate at which the entire energy consumption is growing, meaning we're still using more fossil fuels.

[@RainerNase-b3q]

@@CopenhagenAtomics That is due to special interest.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

China also installed more coal fired generators than the rest of the world.

[@juliane__]

@@CopenhagenAtomics China and India plus developing countries will, not the "western world" in general. Are your first and biggest markets in China, India and developing countries?

[@johnjakson444]

Just so you aware, solar and wind are poor uses of land requiring about 1000x the land of nuclear reactors, not only that the intermittency makes them useless when they get to a certain point. Energy storage costs will kill intermittent energy sources, right now it is usually nat gas or hydro that buffers solar and wind. Hydro is very limited, and nat gas peaking only shifts CO2 emissions back onto solar/wind so what's the point. Base load CCNG power at 60% eff has the same CO2 emissions as a mix of solar/wind combined with less efficient 40% peaker power plants. Again what's the point of RE if it is buffered by low eff nat gas peaker plants.

[@andrewjmcd919]

Kairos Power is also building a Li7 plant!

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

That's great, we're going to need more!

[@jenslrkedal9219]

Fremragende, hvis det lykkes at komme ned på 20$/kWh. Hvis energien så også kan reguleres op og ned nogenlunde hurtigt, bliver det simpelthen fremtidens energisystem. Men jeg vil godt lige se det fungere i praksis, før jeg danser på bordet.

[@rudolphriedel541]

What about using Uranium from "spent" fuel rods? Germany alone has at least 15.000 tons of that stuff. We really do not need to produce more toxic / radioactive waste.

[@interfaithquest]

El Salvador would host your company and allow the real working reactions

[@serversurfer6169]

100MW heat ~= 42MW electric What's the plan for the other 58MW of thermal energy? 🤔

[@johnjakson444]

Monsieur Carnot says it goes to the environment as low grade waste heat. If you actually want to use the heat for industry or heating then you can't have electric energy as well, you can divvy it up between e and 2h. All of these high temp reactors would produce heat that allows the Carnot cycle to be 50% more efficient compared to the usual 350c at 35% eff. But with a Super Critical CO2 turbine should get closer to 60MW, but you wouldn't do that on such a small reactor.

[@JSDudeca]

Controlling the equipment is key to prevent misuse of this technology so selling this to third world countries would be a challenge due to political stability issues.

[@brentpinkney7394]

How are we going to misuse it? Please be specific.

[@JSDudeca]

@@brentpinkney7394 It is possible to extract bomb building materials from any type of nuclear system. Throrium based systems are no different; its just a matter of scale and difficulty. If a country were able to get their hands on the internals of these systems and have the technical resources to operate them on their own over a long period of time, they could extract enough to make a bomb. It it a likely scenario? not even close. However, IMHO even a five sigma probability is enough for some export controlling states to block exporting of such technologies to less stable regions of the world without stringent security controls.

[@a.v.gavrilov]

Why you saying "we couldn't reach it with solar"? Yes, we can. You can choose as goal for your reactors big sea ships for directly ship power supply, instead using NH3

[@swedishpsychopath8795]

What about the free dandruff you got on the headrest?

[@BasGresnigt]

It's much cheaper to produce ammonia from wind & solar elektricity!

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Not quite. The cheapest green ammonia today is about twice as expensive as grey or blue ammonia: www.spglobal.com/commodityinsights/en/market-insights/latest-news/energy-transition/051023-interactive-ammonia-price-chart-natural-gas-feedstock-europe-usgc-black-sea

[@sammavitae114]

I guess that answers why France built a thorium reactor and then retired it.

[@perryallan3524]

That was only a test reactor. Lots of countries built test reactors and the vast majority of them shut down further thorium cycle research. The USA went whole hog into trying to make thorium power plants viable. Beyond test reactors they built 4 commercial nuclear thorium power plants in the 1960's - 1980's (22 - 300 MWe) of BWR, PWR, HTGR designs. Germany built a 5th (300 MWe) HTGR in the 1980s. Thorium cycle fuel cores were developed and put into other existing BWRs to generate the needed U233 to seed future thorium fuel cycle power plant through reprocessing of the fuel. The USA built an entire thorium nuclear fuel processing plant -- and planned to scale it up to supply at least half, if not all, of nuclear power plants in the USA. However, despite the abundance of thorium ore... it turned out that converting that ore into usable nuclear fuel that can be put into reactors was a lot more expensive than converting uranium ore into somewhat enriched U235 nuclear fuel. At least 2 of those 5 thorium cycle power plants were converted to U235 plants due to cost and ran for many years as U235 plants. I had a co-worker who worked at a 3rd one who told me it had also been converted to U235 fuel. However, I have not been able to easily find a reference to that on the internet with basic searches. Economics killed thorium then; and as we already have proven core designs that could be retrofitted into at least 80% of existing nuclear power plants worldwide - economics kill it now. U235 or U235/Pu239 mixed oxide fuel is cheaper than thorium fuel. Otherwise we would be having nuclear power plants running thoruim fuel cycles right now - someone out there would be doing it. Of course, this would be done just like existing U235 or mixed oxide fuel and the spent fuel generally not reprocessed (as reprocessing of nuclear fuel has turned out not to be cost effective - many countries have learned that).

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

If more grid nuclear electricity, then that means more grid capacity construction. The grid has a massive footprint and a massive economic footprint. TRILLIONS footprint. Nuclear promoters are deafening silent about the outside of the compact nuclear plant.

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Actually we don't want to sell to the grid. We want to focus on large scale applications in closed grids that utilises near 100% capacity 24/7 in the heavy industries which currently run on fossil fuels.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

@CopenhagenAtomics that would be a wasteful first step as the existing customers need to be retained connected to the grid. This is the economic part of the evolving use of the existing national grid. You must understand that grids are extremely expensive. PV is popular with customers, and EV production is happening now. Tesla's factories are extremely efficient. Horse meat was cheap when the Ford model T production line started. Millions and millions of horses were not needed. Horses were sent to the nackery, and the big cities filled with horseless vehicles.

[@johnjakson444]

Oh please, it is the RE people that are clueless about grid costs, when nuclear goes on the grid it is generally baseload, when the REs go on the grid it is variable and has to be mixed usually with fossil fuel peaker plants or hydro power. Also it it the climate science policy wonks that are pushing for electrification of everything so of course the grids will have to be trebled in size to avoid having any fossil fuel transport use. See the Energy Flow graph from LLNL, 100XJ/yr in the US, currently about 1/3 of that is as electrical. You cant have it both ways. Also "Without the hot air" by David MacKay. It will tell you almost everything about energy use and production. There is a US rewrite by Bill Gates, because well...he had too.

[@camronrubin8599]

Large-Scale solar installations are already $10 a megawatt in some regions

[@northernouthouse]

I've seen lcoe for solar around $30 - $40. Can you direct me to some articles?

[@MyUtubeScott]

Please, go and hug a tree somewhere

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Perhaps so, have not seen any such reports. You're welcome to direct us to the source. However, even if it is the case, that is likely to be in a few regions and when the sun is shining at its brightest. And if you want to convert that electricity to utilise in high temperature applications, it will not be that cheap.

[@camronrubin8599]

@@CopenhagenAtomics the Al Dhafra solar power plant in Abu Dhabi, offers electricity at 1.35 cents per kWh.

[@johnjakson444]

And when the sun don't shine and wind don't blow what is the cost then, it should be infinite, and do any of these low cost REs include the total cost of making their energy 24/365, nope.

[@stanmitchell3375]

The main limit is uranium production and upgrading,

[@Th-233]

Uranium will impede scaling of conventional reactors, but not LFTRs (like this or the one from Flibe Energy). They can bypass the need for uranium mining and enrichment, as existing spent fuel is easily processed into a transuranic salt, and the world has enough to start several thousand gigawatts of LFTRs already. Where not available, or permission is not yet forthcoming, they can be started by feeding them LEU for a few years.

[@johnjakson444]

The oceans contain vast amounts of uranium dissolved at a few ppm, it can be extracted with filter systems developed by japan, it is more expensive than mining but that is a small part of the cost of energy production.

[@BogenmacherD]

They will not get licenses for commercial reactors. One reason is that these reactors will produce Uranium 233, which is the actual fuel of the reactor, bred from Thorium 232. Uranium 233 is perfect to build nuclear warheads. Do we need to discuss any further?

[@brentpinkney7394]

If you want to make weapons grade uranium, its easier to just start with uranium ore and centrifuges.

[@BogenmacherD]

@@brentpinkney7394 it's the other way round actually. The reason to build nuclear reactors was to produce plutonium, as enriching Uranium was way too costly and would never have allowed to build a nuclear force. This whole idea was then sold to the public as a means to produce cheap electricity, which of course is one of the biggest lies ever told. If you include all secondary costs, nuclear power was and is the most expensive way to produce electricity. Oh, and molten salt reactors, particularly small ones, will only be even more expensive.

[@CliveWilmer]

Nobody has ever built a bomb from U233. Fact.

[@BogenmacherD]

@@CliveWilmer Interesting, so you have access to the nuke facilities of all states concerned? Wow I'm impressed!

[@ruegen_9443]

Why does this take so long? Couldn’t this be done by mid 2025v

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Regulation, funding and extensive testing before starting the test reactor in Switzerland.

[@frankkolmann4801]

For the last 20 years MSR reactors have been a couple of years away from implementation and will forever be a couple of years away from implementation.

[@cowdogg3085]

If you're in a place that won't let you make a chain reaction....then why have you been there for so long??? Make it make sense. I've been watching you on KZbin for years, and you're still almost in the same spot.....

[@EdPheil]

⅔ of today's nuclear comes from U235 ⅓ of today's nuclear comes from Pu239/Pu240/Pu241, in LWRs, HPWRs, like CANDUs, & similar RBMKs.

[@RogueSecret]

Will we see you on the Stockmarked? And would that help?:) Copenhagen Atomics should team up with Norway :)

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

It is not yet sure when we will go public, it will surely not be before the test reactor.

[@konradcomrade4845]

13:33 solar PV is still "growable" (at daytime- summers!), but windturbines are overinvested (DE, China, CA, ... on the Northern hemisphere). They already change weather patterns, the Westerlies are diminished, the "L"-ows are concentrating around GB, DE, and the North Sea; even the Northern Jetstream is affected (splitting, meandering, even figure-8-ing now, 2024!). it is more "wind change" than "climate change"; the deep ocean is a thermal buffer. All below -1800m, thermocline, about 1/2 of all ocean water is at cold 4°C. (little side note: this deep cold water makes for a superior steam turbine cooling source!) Clouds here in Germany look "noodle combed"! Why could that be? Think.

[@bartroberts1514]

ROFLOL!

[@man_at_the_end_of_time]

So the bird choppers change climate?!! How dare you Greta. We always knew you were with Chad but we couldn't put our finger on it. Or maybe the effect is more local and not global and will lessen frosts in adjacent fields. This is already done with orchard fans for vineyards.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@man_at_the_end_of_time Still stalking young girls online and using old 80's slang? Tch.

[@man_at_the_end_of_time]

@@bartroberts1514 She is all grown up and legal. And you are lucky I am not using 1950's slang. It has been claimed that I am from the year 1700. Prepare for the third Great War and the Greater Depression as one or both will befall this timeline. (Ever hear of timeline modelling?) Note the great population decline is already in its early stages and has been and is being accelerated. Let the reader use discernment.

[@stephenbrickwood1602]

Thomas Jam Pedersen said that normal reactors are no good, too expensive. All todays proposed reactors should be put on hold. They take upto 20years to build. $6billion a GW plant. Or more. They must run 247, no room for any other generation plant for 60 years. They must have 247 cashflow for 6decades.😮😮😮😮 3kg of uranium metal fuel for 1,000MWh electricity 27 tonnes for each year. For 6decades, 60years.

[@FWrulesful]

The PPT is ready. Reactor in 2090. Please drop your Invest in our black hole now!😂😂😂

[@freetrade8830]

Switzerland Atomics

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Maybe in the future, who knows

[@kenpe1455]

You should go on joe rogan

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We wouldn't say no to that!

[@gjurasek]

Or Lex Fridman who’s podcast is more science friendly

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

@gjurasek That would also be a great podcast! You're very welcome to recommend us to them :))

[@bobbyvetter2514]

Joe Rogan and Lex , both

[@johnjakson444]

No they should not, Rogan is a blithering idiot, what is the point in talking to a sack of potatoes.

[@frankkolmann4801]

Like Fusion reactors MSR reactors will become viable in a few years. Always licences are denied. For the past 50 years MSR fission reactors have been just a couple of years away from being viable.

[@YellowRambler]

We don’t have fusion because of the laws of physics. We don’t have TMSR because of the laws of bureaucrats.

[@johnjakson444]

Nothing like fusion at all. Fission is intrinsically a simple process that runs at up to 800c in high temp reactors. MSRs can do the fission within the coolant loop and move the heat outwards to secondary coolant loops with storage. Fusion runs at 100,000,000C, so what could be easier.proximity

[@YellowRambler]

@@frankkolmann4801 Fusion has been held back by the laws of physics. Thorium Molten Salt Reactors have been held back because of bureaucratic red tape. I wouldn’t give up on fusion completely see Focus Fusion.

[@cyberslim7955]

7:00 Gosh, what a load of rubbish. Hinkley Point C in the UK is now at $160/MWh, and the thing is not running! The further the price for solar and batteries drop, the high the nuclear lalaland flies! 🤣🤣🤣

[@RainerNase-b3q]

Mankind knows for long: not everything that can be done, should be done. There is a better place to invest intellect, you will also realize some time.

[@johnjakson444]

What the heck is that supposed to mean,

[@RainerNase-b3q]

@@johnjakson444 How can you support nuclear, if you do not understand what is said?

[@Emanuel-t5e]

@@RainerNase-b3q You are clearly German. The antinuclear insanity is a specific German pathology

[@bobcannell7603]

Neither affordable (compared to SWB) nor clean (cf SWB). Make money while you can with last century tech, nukes.

[@shazzz_land]

Why tf does it take you 3 years to test a 1 mw bullshit?

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Simply, regulation

[@shazzz_land]

@CopenhagenAtomics not a valid answer

[@BogenmacherD]

No, it's not super-difficult to replace coal, oil and gas with solar, wind, water and geothermal. Actually it is very easy compared to nuclear power and we are already on the way. We will be 100% renewables ay before you could have the first thorium reactor operating.

[@johnjakson444]

What exactly makes 5hrs a day of solar practical when electrical energy is used 24/365. In the US NE, solar insolation varies 5 fold between summer and winter. What kind of storage can handle the US use of about 100XJ each year of primary energy use. It is fossil power that runs the low efficient peaker plants that makes the grid work when the sun goes down.

[@BogenmacherD]

@@johnjakson444 At an electric grid to your picture, lots of wind energy plus geothermal plus of course plenty of storage (hydraulic and battery) and you have the most powerful, reliable and most of all most economical power supply. Besides, us arguing is pointless anyways. The war is already won by regenerative power, as it is already cheaper than anything else. Guess why? It needs no fuel and there are no safety issues or long term cost for the still-not-existing-deposits. Please understand that all start-up that have ever ventured in "small-reactors" have gone bankrupt.

[@BogenmacherD]

@@johnjakson444 kzbin.info/www/bejne/jnamomyre9isbNE

[@CliveWilmer]

@@BogenmacherD Really? Then that is why the UK has the most expensive electricity in the world

[@BogenmacherD]

@@CliveWilmer Maybe because of the 10 reactors that are still in operation in the UK?

[@EmilNicolaiePerhinschi]

please not amonia

[@joelado]

Nuclear is not economically viable. It is too expensive, takes too long & is beset by uncertainty like cost overruns, delays & accidents. The cost of nuclear, the most expensive energy we have, keeps getting more expensive as time goes by rather than becoming cheaper, while renewables, now the least expensive, keep dropping in cost. It's a no brainer. Take that money and put it towards wind, solar and batteries. The world seems to be going in that direction. Why go with the most expensive solution?

[@pauliusvolcokas8338]

Did you even watch the video?

[@frankkolmann4801]

You are correct regarding the URANIUM PRESSURISED LIGHT WATER REACTORS. MSR reactors have 2 problems that I know of 1 Release Tritium Tritium is radioactive toxic and pollutes water. 2. Releases GAMMA RADIATION that irradiates everything and is very difficult to manage

[@joelado]

Thorium is a nuclear reaction used to produce energy. First the Thorium-232 reaction needs to be started in much the same way as the uranium-235 nuclear reaction found in more common nuclear power plants. Thorium-232 captures neutrons typically being fluffed off by something like the very radioactive californium-252, changing into thorium-233. Then the thorium-233 goes through what is called a beta decay, emitting an electron and transforming into protactinium-233. Then protactinium-233 undergoes another beta decay, emitting another electron and becoming uranium-233. It is the uranium-233 that is used to produce electricity. To produce electricity using uranium-233 fission, the process involves bombarding uranium-233 nuclei with neutrons, causing them to split (fission) and release a significant amount of heat energy; this heat is then used to boil water, generating steam which drives a turbine to produce electricity, essentially following the same principle as most nuclear power plants, but utilizing uranium-233 as the fuel instead of the more common uranium-235. The molten salt reactors (MSRs) are nuclear fission reactors that use molten salts as fuel, coolant, and moderator. The reasons thorium reactors are thought to be safer than a typical more direct path to a nuclear reaction reactor are, first because the reactor talked about above is a molten salt reactor, which means they can operate lower pressures than conventional water-cooled reactors. Next, the production of uranium-233 from thorium-232 can be stopped by removing or blocking the neutron starter (i.e. californium-252). No uranium-233 no nuclear reaction. Problems with thorium-232 are that the process of getting it to provide energy makes uranium-233, which is a weapons grade version of used in nuclear bombs. Making sure that security around maintaining control of this material needs to be perfect at all times and forever so that it can never get into the hands of terrorists and paria states. Next is that molten sodium has had and continues to have accidents. The most known is the "Sodium Reactor Experiment (SRE)" incident in July 1959 in Los Angeles, California, USA, where a leak of organic material (tetralin) into the sodium coolant system clogged cooling channels, which led to partial melting of fuel elements within the reactor. The partial melting of 13 fuel elements caused a contamination within the reactor system. A bigger disaster was avoided just by luck. A major concern with sodium-cooled reactors is the potential for sodium fires if the sodium leaks occur. Sodium reacts violently with air and water. In 1995 at the Monju Nuclear Power Plant in Japan a fast breeder reactor experienced a significant sodium leak incident leading to a major safety concern.

[@tanner3801]

Small modular reactors can be built in factories, making them inherently cheaper to build than huge pressurized water reactors. Beyond that, liquid fueled thermal spectrum breeder reactors can consume nearly 100% of the fuel instead of a couple percent, making them almost two orders of magnitude more fuel efficient, whether they run on U238 or Th232 or some mix of Uranium 233, 235, 238, Thorium 232, and Plutonium 239... Thankfully, you are incorrect. The future of energy is very positive. Widespread modern nuclear affords us the luxury to use PV and batteries in places that don't require much energy (residences don't require much without 50-100kWh per day of EV charging).

[@johnjakson444]

@@pauliusvolcokas8338 no of course he didn't, the greens have flooded the comments section with idiotic solar talking points

[@bartroberts1514]

Scam. Speculative or impossible technologies. Might as well invest in warp drive, teleporters, and tractor beams. Solar PV is more economical and scalable. Wind is more economical and more scalable. Both hydroelectric and geothermal are more economical and more scalable. Storage using hydro or geothermal is more economical for constantly available power. Nuclear power's chief benefits are medical isotopes, or military.

[@stevemeisternomic]

Calling it a scam is going a bit far. Difficult to implement without a doubt. The only thing stopping us from building them on a large scale is that we need stronger materials to handle the heat and corrosion in the process of generating energy. It is many orders of magnitude less difficult than building a warp drive or teleporter. Putting them in the same group gives the impression that you have a vested interest in them not succeeding.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@stevemeisternomic You're right. 'Science fiction for money' is more accurate than 'scam'. Since building a warp drive or teleporter is impossible, let me work out the orders of magnitude of this other impossible thing.. still impossible. Can't be made commercially worthwhile outside of medical isotopes or military use. My vested interest is in kicking those bandwagon jumpers off the climate change solution bus when they get in the way of actual solutions, because if climate change doesn't get solved a lot faster than we're doing now, then bread will be $30-$40 a loaf by 2040, and my vest likes me to eat at least once a day. What's your vested interest in saying what's impossible could succeed?

[@bartroberts1514]

@@stevemeisternomic You're right. 'Science fiction for money' is more accurate. Impossible things are always difficult to implement: nuclear can't be made commercially worthwhile outside of medical isotopes or military use. My interest is in avoiding bread going to $30-$40 a loaf by 2040. What's your vested interest in saying what's impossible could succeed?

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

We never have and never will say that we should stop investing in other clean energy sources right now. The energy consumption in the world is growing so rapidly that we need every type of clean energy we can get. The problem lies in the data. Although renewable energy sources have grown radically over the past few decades, it is still not nearly enough to compensate for the growth in energy consumption as a whole, meaning that we still use more fossil fuels year after year. This is inclusive because steel production, rare earth mining, etc., for renewables utilise massive amounts of energy, which is currently provided mainly by fossil fuels. (not saying that that is the only reason why, but a contributing factor). In addition, we do not want to sell to the grid, where renewables can be excellent power sources. We want to focus on large-scale applications in closed grids that utilise nearly 100% capacity 24/7 in heavy industries, which currently run on fossil fuels. As such, we don't see renewables as a competitor; we see ourselves as a complementary technology to them.

[@bartroberts1514]

@@CopenhagenAtomics There is a limited budget for R&D, design, development, and deployment of clean energy. There is a very limited time horizon for clean energy to displace dirty fossil, before the technology we have or can imagine can no longer fix the damage to Holocene climate stability it takes to have successful agriculture and fisheries. If by 2030 there is still fossil trade, then by 2040 food trade will cost ten times as much. $40 for a loaf of bread. $200 for a single serving of cod or halibut. Energy waste far exceeds actual energy consumption, and energy waste growth is faster than energy use growth. If the growth of consumption is your concern -- and it should be, it's very serious -- would it not be better to invest in energy efficiency than in the promise of more wastable science fiction? The problem is not in the data; the data tells us very clearly we have ample resources for clean hydro, geothermal, solar pv, and wind, and those are the only sources that can be implemented in time. The problem is in science fiction fans who really, really want their phasers and light sabers to be part of their income, and PhDs who like funds to look at subatomic particles. I get that your off-grid Rube-Goldberg survivalist heavy industrialist libertarian scheme markets well to your base. But it will put less than zero food on the table. It takes food out of the mouths of the future. And that future is now just sixteen years away. A person born today will not be able to get a driver's license by the time a hamburger costs more than a tank of gas.

[@henrimoens8636]

Give it to Elon Musk and you‘ll get it build in 2 yrs. You are clever people but tooo nice.

[@northernouthouse]

You mean the man child that destroyed Twitter? The one who stated that robo taxis would be functional by 2020? The idiot that just gave up 40% of his profit at Tesla when trump will end the sale of environmental credits to oems? The one who said Tesla semis would start production in 2019? The one that promised SpaceX would go around the moon in 2018? The one who promised first commercial flight of starship by 2018? And while we're on the topic, are the chopsticks landing pad suppose to appear on Mars first before starship? It's a chicken and egg question. That man child?

[@CopenhagenAtomics]

Likely he could force governments to change the regulation more effectively than we could.

[@nytsamlegt]

Like the hyperloop?

[@johnjakson444]

Elon Musk is an idiot, he dreams up new ways of doing things that are already 100 year old ideas. SpaceX is nothing more than a government welfare recipient. Tesla is 100x overvalued because of the self driving tech that does not work. If all Tesla cars had their crappy self drive removed, the company would implode, that's what keeps Musk awake at night.

[@lancewood1410]

EU's clean energy will NEVER be affordable lol. Wishful thinking at best.

[@Servant_of_Christ]

I think this company is a scam, all they do is talk. They never show anything, just talk talk talk...

[@andershansen4884]

I've met the people, I've walked the factory floor. They may fail, but they are not a scam. And with respect to just Talking, these guys are one of the few that don't just produce paper designs, but actually build and test and iterate on both components and fuel production.

[@andrewjmcd919]

At about the 4min mark he shows his prototype Also Denmark is anti nuclear. In 1985 a nuclear power plants were banned by their parliament. Just recently, this year, I think, a resolution was made to even mention nuclear power in parliament.

[@perryallan3524]

The bigger indication of a scam is that they are not working with a nuclear regulator on pre-licensig of their design. There are at least 9 companies worldwide who have been working with nuclear regulators on what would be needed to be able to submit a license application for a nuclear power plant using their design to the regulator. There is one company in Canada that has completed that process. Now we wait to see if they will submit a design for actual licensing.

[@pancakeflux]

@@andrewjmcd919not just that, they pressured Sweden to shutdown one of the safest reactors in the world as it was just across the öresund…too close I guess