The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn't This Happen (and why is now the right time?)

Google Tech Talk
December 16, 2011
Presented by Kirk Sorensen

[@wvhillbilly1909]

Advantages of thorium: Much safer than uranium-no pressure vesel, no fuel rods to melt down Much simpler reactor-Thorium salt liquid is pumped from the reactor tank through a heat exchanger and back into the tank Thorium is much more plentiful than uranium--in fact so plentiful it is considered a waste product from rare earth mining Thorium doesn't need expensive enriching to make it usable Thorium is of little use for weapons If power goes off liquid fuel simply drains into a pit which stops reaction. No fuel rods to cool or melt down if power fails This technology has been around for years. Why was it not developed long ago? Politics, methinks.

[@wvhillbilly1909]

Why were thorium reactors not developed? I think the main reason is thorium is of little use for weapons. Governments would rather build bombs than safe, inexpensive power plants, and thorium just doesn't fit that bill.

[@LUMBERTHON]

+wvhillbilly That is pretty much the reason right there.

[@etmax1]

You forgot 2 other real benefits: 1. conventional Uranium & Plutonium reactors convert only around 0.5% of the available energy compared to 99% with LFTR reactors. 2. And this is the most important, the waste products fall to background radiation levels within 350 years compared to 100,000 or more with conventional reactors

[@tristan2064]

Wvhillbilly most of the advantages you stated only apply to the LFTR.There are multiple reactors that can use Thorium as fuels and are very different.

[@Lugmillord]

Some misleading points in your comment: Thorium is only more plentiful than Uranium if you only consider earth's crust. Uranium is much more plentiful then Thorium in sea water. (However, extracting U from sea water is more expensive as of now). Thorium does need enriching to start the reaction (some Uranium is needed for that), but once it started, there is no need for further enrichment. So it's a bit misleading. It doesn't need expensive enriching, but it needs some enriching. As for weapons, it can be used, but as you stated, there are other more usable materials. But otherwise your points are valid. Here's a list with some Thorium myths: whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html

[@1crazypj]

I watched the Oakridge documentary from 1970's, then this. What has happened in the last 11 years as there doesn't seem to be any 'new' information except China is researching Thorium reactors

[@sysprog999]

It eventually became common knowledge that the main reason the UK promoted the implementation of a string of fast breeder reactors was not for the electricity they generate but to create enough excess plutonium for Great Britain's military to become a credible nuclear power.

[@learnerlearns]

This is one of the BEST Google-tech talks ever presented. Tight editing for concise content and Sorensen's masterful command of the subject shine here. This is THE MOST IMPORTANT topic for humankind and the future of Earth. We need LIFTRs NOW!

[@CoolKoon]

+Learner-Learns LFTRs? Now? It's a tad bit too late (50 years too late) for that I'm afraid. We missed out on so much R&D on LFTR that it'll be a blessing if the technology will become viable in the upcoming decades.

[@CoolKoon]

+darthvader5300 So, after you find the caps lock key on your keyboard, turn it off, then take all your meds, check this out: I'm not an American. Before you start ranting about conspiracies and scientists' powerful enemies, let me tell you that many other countries built MUCH bigger breeder reactors too, some with a power capacity of 1000MW (electrical) even and yet all of them have been scrapped. You wanna know why? Because it's still far too unfeasible to everyone who has access to U235. While U235 is around (and it WILL be around for quite some time in fact), building ANY kind of breeder reactor is simply not economically viable enough. The Americans had to spend billions of dollars to realize this and probably many other countries have also invested an ungodly amount of money in it too. And until no feasible FBR (let alone a LFTR) design is found (patents are pretty much irrelevant anyway, because the designs patented by Americans are useless anyway, otherwise they'd already be using at least some of them), no private company will take a risk of building a power plant utilizing that technology either (they rarely build nuclear power plants anyway, because they're so expensive).

[@floorpizza8074]

+darthvader5300 Even if I take the position that I agree with you, which I don't, let me ask.... has *your* government ever done anything wrong? Let he who is not sinless throw the first stone...And then after you throw that stone, throw your caps lock key, ok?

[@tommorris3688]

Probably not. Dr Kirk Sorenson's assertions are wildly optimistic. If the molten salt configuration were so much better, they would have been used long ago. Thorium IV has certain drawbacks as well. Do not be caught up by Dr Kirk Sorensen's charisma. You need to consider the issues objectively.

[@tommorris3688]

Rather incorrect, when studied in greater detail. Thorium LFTR is an obsolete relic from Oak Ridge from the1950's.

[@jefferee2002]

To say this guy knows his stuff is an understatement. Yet here we are in 2021, to my knowledge there are no plans for a LFTR in the US. China, however, is building at least one if not more.

[@MaxB6851]

Indonesia is receiving a ship from China carrying a Thorium fueled, Liquid Salt (aka LFTR) Nuclear Reactor. It will tie up at a wharf and supply the city with cheap electricity 24/7 - 365 for more than 20 years. The reactor was built using information obtained under the US freedom of information laws from The Oak Ridge National Laboratory.

[@trentballew]

Abilene Christian University is building one right now - kzbin.info/www/bejne/m4eugaipqN6Vjck

[@jefferee2002]

@@trentballew I'm talking about a commercial scale reactor. We've tested the concept already.

[@daviddreyer5817]

Kirk Sorenson is the Carl Sagan of Liquid Salt Molten Salt Reactors. He explains complex things to basic elements so it is more reliably understand.

[@tbthomas5117]

Kirk, your relentless advocacy for this technology has been heroic, and there are a ton of people who appreciate it, and want you to succeed in realizing this sane re-definition of a practical standard for safely utilizing the 'king of all fossil fuels'.

[@ChipKeefer]

Thank you Kirk Sorensen for all of your marvelous presentations. We are fortunate to have an expert in the field also be such a master speaker and educator. Nuclear power, I am convinced, will be the only resource that will get the world to a point where we stop killing each other over scarcities (many of them manufactured), and direct our attention on peaceful, more exciting endeavors, like exploring and profitably using our solar system.

[@MrBassbump]

Well said sir

[@MA_KA_PA_TIE]

Humans will always be warring with each other and killing each other. It's eternal and baked into what humans are.

[@nekoJens]

Nuclear power is a dead dog… almost nobody is building it anymore because it is too expensive. The lobby is pushing to get its next generation subsidies for a completely uncompetitive power generation mode. Look at France, their nuclear power strategy is collapsing with the tax payer picking up the tab in the end.

[@jasonwilt3903]

I am currently using information on MSRs for two college class final projects, and I'm only in my first semester of my freshman year. I believe very, very strongly in this concept, and all I did was do some research and read scientific articles on recent experiments in Japan. They work. They are cheap to operate, especially because Thorium is a waste product of Rare Earth Metal production. They are safe, becoming less reactive as the salts expand outside operational temperature range. Hotter salt is less dense, and less dense salt becomes less reactive. The salts are also chemically not very reactive, with minor corrosion issues solvable by a highly reducing environment inside the pipes. The negative temperature coefficient of reactivity + atmospheric pressure operation + chemical stability means that it's PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for an explosive Chernobyl-style meltdown. The way fuel is bred inside the reactor means it is very, very difficult for U-233 to be turned into nuclear weapons, as fission/decay products from U-233 create massive gamma radiation hazards to all but highly trained scientists and engineers, while terrorists are almost never that highly skilled. Not to mention the fact that these things could be used to power spacecraft, and it has been proven that asteroids are rather rich in heavy metals, including but not limited to thorium. There's enough thorium on Earth to power society for 80,000 to 100,000 years, and likely much more on asteroids to extend that to a million years or more. Stepwise re-development towards MSRs is going like: 1. Solid Fuel Reactor cooled by liquid salt 2. Solid Fuel Pebble-Bed Reactor cooled by liquid salt 3. Smaller Pebble Fuel 4. Slurry reactor of tiny fuel pebbles flowing with coolant 5. fuel is literally dissolved in the coolant as an MSR

[@Dennis-vr1ri]

Hello Jason Its been 6 years now I'd like to know if Thorium MSRs became a part of your future in one way or another?

[@StelaPop]

Since this video was produced we have been mining graphite in order to make graphine which eliminates the corrosion/oxidization problems noted here.

[@mantisnomo5984]

Mining coal for the graphene market? How many cups per year do you need?

[@chilled99]

@@mantisnomo5984 Mining coal to make rods for a few power stations or mining coal to just burn endlessly away producing a faction of the power a Thorium reactor could. Priorities as always

[@AlanDeRossett]

yes and any water still causes thorium salt to explode and leak out

[@nesslig2025]

@@AlanDeRossett What? The lithium in the salt is ionised. When the lithium metal reacts with water, it becomes Li+ that bonds with OH-. In fact, LiOH is the intermediate step in producing the salt. It's no longer reactive anymore. Do your research.

[@shaneschofield6303]

J D - That's right, while picking his nose with a pencil it occurred to him that the nib was sharp and hurt a lot. Thinking on his feet, he grabbed some Cellotape, slapped it on the end of his pencil then continued with rooting through his snot filled nostrils... After removing and subtly tasting the goods, he took the cellotape off and discovered graphite was stuck to it. Thus solving a life-long puzzle, securing him a Nobel Peace Prize and many bodacious babes.

[@unknownium275]

Goddamn great presenter. If i ever had the chance to watch a speech from this guy in person I'd gladly take it. Two honors science degrees later lol

[@rickholmes68]

Excellent Presentation Kirk. I've been following your work for some time now and as a layman with no scientific background it's taken me many hours of listening to your presentations and those of your peers to understand how important your work is. I think that a 3 min video presenting the case for Thorium power that could be understood by anyone. Simple diagrams, powerful pictures from nature and the key non technical points put across in a video that could go viral on facebook and google+

[@kurtstory9466]

Interesting history behind the decision for fast breeder reactors. I also suspect the decision was military, as the nuclear arms race needed plutonium, which required FBRs.

[@andrebalsa203]

A very good presentation on the history of nuclear engineering in the US.

[@PacoOtis]

Excellently presented! This man should be a professor! Best of luck to all of us!

[@TomTreeMan]

I remember the gas crunch from the oil embargo, being in the back seat of a hot car in the hot sun for hours in gas lines that stopped traffic for blocks.

[@nibiruresearch]

Thank you for this clear explanation of the past and present situation. The main reason for not developing the Thorium Molten Salt reactor is most likely the influence from the oil and coal companies, both producing the most pollution in the world. They see this development as a threat to their business. And the many people who work in those industries and the shareholders will do everything in their power to stop or at least slow down this development.

[@volt-amps3385]

Wrong!! You have been taught wrong. To keep the world green you need carbon dioxide. It's a good thing however, the "elites" want to BS people for their own control and wealth.

[@nibiruresearch]

@@volt-amps3385 I agree, we need carbon dioxide, but for every element, there is a good amount or an exeeding amount. Apart from the polluted air as we find in some industrial areas. That kills people.

[@volt-amps3385]

@@nibiruresearch So it's OK for China and other Countries to Build coal burners for their energy? Yes; I don't believe the Sham scientists that promote the sky is falling. There is no global warming! This world was created and We don't have the ability to destroy it. We are not that smart. This world was created with balance and aforethought!

[@volt-amps3385]

@@nibiruresearch Lots of things kill people- big pharma, etc. China building 3 new coal burners, USA has most clean coal and Schwab the NWO guy likes the China model with others. It's a joke to those that know the truth. The people understand. I can go on but; thank you.

[@GaryAKline]

What a fantastic presentation. Highly informative, easy to follow and sensible. I really can't see any good reason why the Thorium MSR shouldn't be pursued.

[@un2mensch]

@kirkfsorensen Thank you for being a champion for this cause. I've been following your work for years, and will be doing so for many more.

[@CarstenOepping]

very compressed,dense , fast speaking, no blabla , a very good presentation.

[@AdamBielecki006]

Thanks, just reading his bio. I am so amazed of this Thorium reactors and it could be beginning of the new era. As for now Chinese government seems to be really interested in that and I think once they develop this reactor they will be selling more electricity to foreign countries and make them even more powerful.

[@hermitthefrog8951]

Only problem with this is the WGW / CC claim at 30:34. The most important reason to move forward with LFTR is *public safety* .

[@AlanDeRossett]

how many years do you want to pay for safety? after its life get ready for $10 billion charges off to be paid by ratepayer to Guard from Terrorist

[@galt57]

The one problem that the mention of liquid salts will always bring immediately to mind is the problem of corrosion. We are already familiar with the problem of corrosion and leaks in our aging nuclear plants. The idea of extremely hot corrosive salts flowing around in the plant seems very dangerous. What materials offer practical solutions? Also what other potential problems are there in such a design?

[@thomaswilkinson3468]

Ceramics

[@LOGICZOMBIE]

Thank you for your contribution.

[@MrROTD]

It happened because making bombs was more important to the politicians and corporations so thorium reactors were not favored, now the nuclear energy business is so firmly entrenched they are standing in the way of a boundless energy future for short term goals. in other words greed is the culprit as usual

[@stanleytolle416]

Really it was much simpler that that. Reactors were built for US subs first. What was known, was how to build reactors for making bomb material so this is what was used in the subs. Of course boiling water was what was also known how to make a boat go. These designs were simply scaled up for power reactors. Most likely if the issue was first build a power reactor something else may have been built. A lot of industrial development works this was. Like the key board I am typing with. It is the way it is because the first typewriters had swinging keys that would get tangled if one typed to fast. To ovoid this the letters on the key board were placed to slow the typist down. We still use this keyboard even though there are much better keyboards for less strain and faster typing out there.

[@kenbrah]

you can get bomb material from thorium reactors

[@felixdanner4521]

kenbrah but its very difficult and expensive

[@darrenpat182]

@@stanleytolle416 I read about that in the book "After the car" by John Urry, its a phenomenon in industrial development known as "locked in"

[@dougless2104]

As a machinist in the 1980's, I machined tungsten honeycomb devices for a liquid sodium reactor being built by Argonne National Laboratory near Chicago. Rumor was their reactor was tested in Hanover ID and allowed to go super-critical and the design theory was proven as it shut itself down properly. Is this Thorium reactor similar?

[@alanbrown397]

Liquid sodium systems are still uranium-based - and anyone who thought that sodium is "safe" is from a different planet to me. No matter now many precautions you take there will be leaks and molten sodium burns pretty hot when exposed to air (the japanese have found this out the hard way) There are a lot of online resources about LFTRs and to be honest I think they're the best design available, with pebblebeds coming in close behind - the really big advantage of LFTR is that they're thorium-cycle based and that means you have a readily available supply of safe, cheap fuel which is extremely hard to weaponise.

[@DriveCarToBar]

The same reason for using molten salt as your fuel, is the same reason they cool fast reactors with liquid metal. You don't need to pressurize the reactor vessel to keep the fuel or coolant from boiling. PWRs need to be pressurized to something like 150 bar (more than 2000psi) and despite the name, Boiling Water Reactors are still pressurized to well over 70 bar or 1000psi. Sodium is very stable when irradiated though, which is why it is preferred in LMFBRs. The worst Sodium isotope you're likely to find in an LMFBR is Na-24 which only has a half-life of 15 days. This means storing the used coolant isn't really a problem, and if you have a leak and a sodium fire, you're not releasing harmful contaminants. And most of the time, the best bet for extinguishing a sodium fire is to just let it burn itself out. As it oxidizes, it forms an airtight crust and extinguishes itself. That Japanese incident at the Monju reactor was in a secondary loop which meant no irradiated sodium was released and the fire put itself out in less than an hour.

[@digantasaha9016]

@@DriveCarToBar I wonder why gallium was never considered as a coolant instead of sodium and lead ?

[@phantomwalker8251]

wasnt a reactor built in the 50,s,??,ran for over a yr,then shut down as useless to the military.tesla was poisoned for same,other inventors dissapeared,or bought out,made to look stupid.this has been going on with advancement for thousands of yrs,.this is why we still have piston engines,batteries,ect,after 130 yrs.NOTHING NEW....thorium,graphine,tesla,free power,.not happening.

[@Maples01]

@@alanbrown397 I remember engine basics class, don't pull the valves from a head and toss in the hot tank until you have made certain they weren't from a leaded gas burning engine, they contained sodium, a cracked one would go boom.

[@Greenmachine305]

Excellent presentation.

[@JoSh4238]

This was very interesting and useful seeing as I;m doing a uni project on thorium-based nuclear power.

[@kenlee5509]

The problems are in the Uranium reactors mostly, the 1940's - 1950's design... think of a 1950 car... still running but not in any way safe the way modern cars are. The Oak Ridge MSR is also from that era, but they are studying Molten Salt there right now, with all new parts.

[@drgjamesbaxter7933]

We need to do this , this could also be used for space travel, and space exploration,this opens a lot of benefits for mankind, and the ecosystems

[@jamespfp]

+DrGJames Baxter Interesting that you've identified that there is potential for using tech like this in space, but tell me -- how to make use of that energy, in space? Have you any ideas for direct applications for it? "Desalinating water" in space.... if we also boost a huge tank of salt water up with the reactor and the spaceship that holds it...

[@drgjamesbaxter7933]

+jamespfp The thing is with everything there is the positive and negative, we would have to take salt water to space to begin with , but then once we have a source there established it would solve the issue . In space it would be safer for long term power supply , for research stations, colonies, and exploration. all in due time things can be solved . The issue is why are we not doing this faster?

[@drgjamesbaxter7933]

+jamespfp The biggest benefit of this is safety and cheaper energy. Safer for everything and protecting life.

[@MalleusDei275]

@@drgjamesbaxter7933 the materials are already in space...

[@walterrudich2175]

This company has been making nothing but beautiful charts for a decade.

[@sdphotography4733]

This is by far, the best approach to not only solving the need for energy in a modern world but can also alleviate global warming. It would behoove the U.S. to invest in LFTR's much like it did for the Manhattan project. The sooner these come online the better.

[@francistalbot6584]

Start talking to US DOE and US NRC now. The time is right to bring back MSR technology now.

[@Hallnick77]

My father briefly worked for the DOE back in the 70s-80s before going to the DOT and he said it was a shit show... Hard to press new tech while there is so much money spent on current reactors.. just may be a small part of it

[@frankrwalsh]

is it possible to produce power though Magneto Hydro Dynamics using the molten salt?

[@michaeledwards2251]

As far as I am aware the molten salt slurry used would have been sufficiently conductive given a strong enough magnetic field.

[@rubeius]

Monju is based on fast neutrons and highly reactive liquid sodium metal coolant! The molten *salt* used in Th-MSR is stable. The U233 (contaminated with U232, as others have noted) is an intermediate produced in the salt for burnup, not to stockpile for weapons. The U233 has ~92% chance of fissioning; ~8% will capture a neutron instead and move to U234, which almost always captures a second and moves to U235. U235 has ~85% chance of fissioning; only ~1% of the Th232 input gets to 236+

[@blairjohnson1277]

Thank God we have the ability to learn and understand these very important issues by means like this, on-line . Educated members of society can thus assist in advancing and understanding ways to further help all people arrive at the conclusions needed for the human race to get to the next step of a greater world for EVERYONE !!!

[@TCBYEAHCUZ]

So basically Nixon, Milton and chet are all crips?

[@RodLandaeta]

Why isn't this transmitted or featured on youtube? Come on Google... it takes little effort to place it within the feed of the crowd to share the knowledge and initiate the moment across the planet.

[@LUMBERTHON]

+Rod Landaeta Especially when they own both formats... It couldn't have anything to do with outside influences could it?? No, impossible...

[@CoolKoon]

+Rod Landaeta Because most of the people are too dumb or too ignorant to care. And if they aren't, they would a hard time comprehending it as well.

[@-BuddyGuy]

It's really poorly shot

[@sophrapsune]

Great lecture on an issue that should be much more widely understood. If fusion won't be with us until 2050, the decision to scrap molten salt reactor research could see coal burning go on for decades longer than it needed to. Thanks.

[@Pertamax7-HD]

very nice sir

[@hermitthefrog8951]

The dangers of fast breeder reactors are very scary and a scared public is more easily controlled (terrorism).

[@taraswertelecki7874]

Terrorists cannot get plutonium to build bombs without either building a nuclear reactor, and reprocessing plant OR a nation state furnished it to them. It cannot be obtained simply by separating it from used nuclear fuel, the reactor must be designed to produce plutonium-239 primarily. That is how one goes from irradiated nuclear fuel to a bomb.

[@0730Ender]

I'm convinced the future of nuclear energy is in the thorium cycle and the LFTR. I wonder what advancements have been achieved since this video was made.

[@mantisnomo5984]

I'm convinced the future of nuclear energy is on the moon, and powering nuclear rockets launched from a lunar spaceport.

[@dwc0]

Note to Kirk: fission is pronounced like "gone fishin" (like mission, compression, session, possession). The single 's' in fusion has the fyü-zhᵊn sound (like confusion, contusion, intrusion, etc.)

[@rubeius]

@DrakeDorosh "Plutonium for the cold war" means relatively high-purity Pu239; for that the military had special weapons-optimized reactors like the "B Reactor" at Hanford. Civilian (power-optimized) reactors (fast breeders included) that are operated normally will produce plutonium with significant quantities of contaminant isotopes like Pu238, Pu240 and Pu242 that render it fairly useless for weaponization.

[@mickeygarcia1876]

So why The Hell isn't a Thorium reactor in operation somewhere Yet???

[@poulwinther]

100% because of scare created by the illiterate humanist hippies in the 70's.

[@phantomwalker8251]

it dont produce weapons,work it out,the world is run by the military,NOT,the gov.,

[@earthman4222]

It is being built right now in China. Look it up.

[@phantomwalker8251]

if,you look at history,more than 10 yrs ago,,,duh,,,they had one running for over a yr,till it was shut down by the gov.,in 1954...

[@AlanDeRossett]

its not economically sustianable. people do not want to pay more for energy and no private VCs or governments want to subsidize

[@parrotraiser6541]

Has the DoE ever produced or enabled the production of a kWh (or equivalent) of energy?

[@mantisnomo5984]

Yes. A megaton is 1.16 Billion kWh. And talk about power! The DOE produces all of that energy in milliseconds!

[@parrotraiser6541]

@@mantisnomo5984 It sounds as though you are talking about a bomb. I was referring to civilian power produced or facilitated by the Department's actions.

[@mantisnomo5984]

@@parrotraiser6541 - I was referring to the fraud of double-speak under which the DoE was founded. It's true they were given power over consumer energy production in the US, but their focus and primary interest has always been to exert control over the nuclear weapons of the US. The 2 responsibilities appear to be unrelated, if not diametrically opposed. It's time for a change in this part of the infrastructure. You're right: Turns out providing energy for the civilian sector is important, too.

[@DrakeDorosh]

That is immensely illuminating because there was a story told in a goggle lecture where the guy who was developing the Thorium reactor got fired and ridiculed for being over concerned with safety. The way that guy tells it the navy could have chosen his reactor instead. His telling of events left me very confident but somehow mislead. Naturally the oldest technology would earn the greatest loyalty and "safety" is what you know.

[@johndeck3816]

this will really help support my research paper.

[@BigDaddyKai620]

This could reduce the threat of nuclear war. Possibilities are endless

[@brucewilliams2106]

8 years later.....lol....

[@tribulationprepper787]

WHAT DID YOU EXPECT??? It's Google.

[@lrrrruleroftheplanetomicro6881]

@@BringDHouseDown If somebody pulls of the vision discussed here, that's absolutely what the world needs. Maybe it's a good thing if china keeps the west on it's toes technologically.

[@sethbishop3306]

www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/us-department-energy-rushes-build-advanced-new-nuclear-reactors Doe is building 2.

[@JoelKreider]

Seth Bishop ...That’s encouraging to see. I wasn’t aware the DOE was pushing things along. Maybe it’ll gain enough traction to sustain a non-supportive presidency. However, it is well stated: ”The 7-year time frame also strains credulity...”. Overall hopeful, anyway.

[@evannibbe9375]

9 years later now

[@ZraveX]

Very informative, thanks!

[@Fordi]

Its diversion, however, is easily noted (hey, where's my start charge!?), and it's basically the same stuff we use in research reactors around the country. We've already got security protocols surrounding that. At the fueling phase, there's literally no proliferation risk. In the periodic defueling phase (i.e., removal of excess U-233 produced), proliferation is limited by the production of 232-U. In the spent fuel removal and storage, there is no risk, since there are no fissiles.

[@tzmanthropology]

And something called Honey Boo Boo is on The Learning Channel.

[@warren286]

Molten salt is highly reactive if it is exposed to moisture. It also doesn't have a negative coefficient of reactivity, which makes it inherently unstable. The main reason MSBRs weren't pursued was primarily because of safety concerns and reliability. Thorium Breeder Reactors would be great, but it should be cooled by pressurized water, not molten salt.

[@shmore]

Good editing for a google talks video, thanks.

[@OfficeThug]

@Knepperify1 Actually the plugs are made of FLiBe salt, just like the molten salts in the reactor. The plugs are kept cool enough to remain solid by external fans. If the salt heats up too much, the plugs overheat and melt. The fans can also be manually stopped to purge the molten salts for scheduled shutdowns (they did this every weekend with the ORNL MSR project, before going home). If power is cut off, the fans stop and the plugs also melt then.

[@bimmjim]

Where is an operating thorium reactor so we can do a Cost Benefit Analysis on it? .. Answer - No where. ..

[@hzuiel]

There was one dumbass, it got shut down for political reasons.

[@trishgao8950]

@@hzuiel where is it located?

[@hzuiel]

@@trishgao8950 Oakridge national laboratory. It operated from 1965 to 1969, 7.4 mw reactor. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment All of their research was essentially shelved because the military controlled everything to do with nuclear, and they wanted plutonium for bombs. The project was shuttered, but a few years back the chinese started asking around and they literally were let in and allowed to take all the research, or at least make copies of it. That would have included operating notes that you could use to calculate operating cost to benefit analysis, by knowing how much electricity they generated and what was required to maintain it.

[@AlanDeRossett]

'Without exception, [thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'

[@lightfdar]

Time to go back to university. A masters degree in nuclear engineering here I come.

[@francistalbot6584]

lightfdar: I would get the Nuclear Engineering degree. I already have one including a PE license in nuclear engineering in the state of Maryland. It is guaranteed job security. Oh, and yes the MSR is more job security for nuclear engineers for the next 1000 years plus.

[@OfficeThug]

@Blyledge Actually if the salt does leak from the reactor (the worst case scenario) it quickly expands because it's no longer under slightly-higher-than-atmospheric pressure. As it expands, nuclear reactions cease, the salt cools very rapidly and eventually solidifies. The salt is insoluble in water and stays put until you clean it up. Because the salt is reprocessed constantly during operation, there is very little Radioxenon present in it at any time to escape into the environment.

[@michaeledwards2251]

The Xenon/Radium gases simply bubble out of the liquid salt.

[@raypsi1]

Gr8 video Kirk have you solved the graphite moderator trouble in the LFTR yet is copper graphite laminates the answer? Or are you moving toward graphite pellets rolling around?

[@d8d810]

So politics cost the people of the USA 100s of billions of dollars and the people of the world trillions of dollars.

[@d8d810]

To bad it is illegal for the average Joe to invest into his company. Damn you regulation.

[@Qwertie256]

It just goes to show, the president of the country should not be its CTO. (What's that? We elected Donald Trump? I rest my case.)

[@matthorseman706]

and the earth

[@suzieseabee]

Politics gets in the way of everything that could improve lives. Also it has to do with money. Just look at science and medicine, only big money gets the go ahead for projects.

[@kamakaziozzie3038]

@@suzieseabee Thats 100% true. The reason money is the main factor in most decisions on this scale is of the enormous amount of R&D required. Private capital will expect a return on investment. On the other hand, government energy subsidies are somewhat of a norm in the modern age, but few elected officials will back any energy concepts with the word "nuclear" attached to it

[@nonameplsno8828]

tumaru No,neither thorium or its byproducts can be made into a bomb. That is the other reason why thorium reactors were not funded when they were invented-it was during the cold war. (nuclear arms race,FTW)

[@watchthe1369]

Carter worked with Rickover during his time in the Navy. Ford could not ignore Carter's expertise and authority there. TMI and Carter's presence and speach from the grounds was an authoritive effort to settle the outcry and panic.

[@billhutchinson6462]

From what I have gathered so far Kirk seems to be saying that meltdowns have occurred in the past because of various chemical properties of the system leading to failure. This LFTR seems to have dealt with these issues by using a different fuel and a different fission method to eliminate not only the risk of a meltdown but the possibility of one. Since the fuel mix is already molten it can easily be drained into a containment unit designed to dissipate heat safely.

[@greenspiraldragon]

"The downside is that they are very expensive and have ”never been commercial”. Superphoenix, a breeder reactor in France, took seven years from 1974 to build, but produced a small fraction of the electricity it promised to produce and was eventually closed in 1998 Diesendorf is unconvinced about thorium particularly: ”The new technology doesn’t exist. It’s all talk, it’s all plans. India has been trying to build an incredibly complicated three-part system for thorium and if it ever works it will be much more expensive than existing reactors and even more dangerous.”

[@roblikes8435]

#Thoriumisthefuture

[@bigfootbubba1425]

4:50 is this where the saying "you couldn't hit the broadside of a barn" comes from?

[@Fordi]

Additionally, since there's very little mas to deal with, relatively speaking, (~1 T/GWy fission products, ~10 kg/GWy 233-U, compared to ~100T/GWy of mixed fission products, XXX-U and XXX-Pu), the overall risk is lower. So LFTRs offer much more proliferation resistance than LWRs - but that is absolutely not to say LWRs are not resistant, or that they're "weapon-supporting".

[@litltoosee]

Kirk should be Trump's Energy Secretary when he's elected President...

[@tureytaino2785]

Trump only cares about obsolete technologies, like coal and oil.

[@Qwertie256]

Just goes to show, the president of the country should not be its CTO.

[@LordZontar]

No, it goes to show why an idiot should never be elected president.

[@tommorris3688]

Dr Kirk Sorensen has my vote; he has charisma and can inspire people in politics. Adolf Hitler had charisma and was able to influence a large number of people in Germany. We need more than charisma; we need objective thinking. Thorium LFTR has serious drawbacks also.

[@WadcaWymiaru]

Trump should talk to this man...and made him rich! BTW- 33:05 - HOLY CRAP!

[@Jabootie-oz1cb]

Bravo Tom! BRAVO!

[@johnerichoare7732]

Let us hope the politicians can keep the costs down rather than the big investors failing to consider the poorer people of our World. I am fed up with big Nuclear power companies and others putting their profits before those who need a cheaper energy source like Thorium 232 and 233 and similar breeder reactors described by Kirk Sorensen and his discoveries in small Thorium 232 and 233 nuclear green power plants. John Eric Hoare. British Brexiteer, and international deep-seaman, retired.

[@danishfella]

"Sounds great right?! Well, unless you're the environment."

[@madmax2069]

danishfella derp

[@tommorris3688]

Correct. Thorium LFTR: hard gamma emissions in operation, corrosive materials, containment vessels (Austenitic stainless steel) becomes very radioactive after prolonged use, containment embrittlement, continuous chemical reprocessing needed concurrently (creating operating hazard and other types of nuclear waste). Dr Kirk Sorensen is naively over-optimistic.

[@madmax2069]

@@tommorris3688 wrong

[@phantomwalker8251]

@@tommorris3688 &,,??..so,all the 2000 plus reactors that exploded,is nothing,??,2000 plus nuclear bombs set of for what,??,we all know they go bang,.fuck.&,on the fuck subject,why dont you go clean up fukashima,,OR DOESNT ANY ONE CARE....its a joke.!!.

[@landaroon7793]

Reply to Brad not Landa All the science here, and you swallow the AGW lies about CO2

[@AlanDeRossett]

[thorium reactors] have never been commercially viable, nor do any of the intended new designs even remotely seem to be viable. Like all nuclear power production they rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.'

[@PaulHigginbothamSr]

Kirk: After listening to Crosby Lyle I have come to the conclusion that our flibe reactor can be proliferative without solid controls. The key here is praseodymium. In other words the capture of this chemical bypasses the concentration necessary to protect the material from high rad 242. Chemical separation of this chemical can be pure. Or have got this wrong?

[@jeffsmith6371]

Can the containment building safely hold the complete contents of the reactor in the event of a rupture? What is the output level of waste gases like xenon and how are they handled?

[@evannibbe9375]

The ruptures you are thinking of are all caused by high pressure environments. Molten salt doesn’t release enough gases to have more than 1 atmosphere of pressure at the 1500 degrees Celsius operating temperature. Meaning that even if the container is 1 mm thick, it wouldn’t rupture because the air presses back on it the same amount that it presses out. The reason ruptures happen with light water reactors is that water must be compressed several times (on the order of 100 times) the pressure of the atmosphere, leading to the almost inevitability of a stress fracture that leads to the water flashing into steam and destroying everything.

[@honestycounts9352]

The CHINESE are going to be the first to build a series of Molten Salt Reactors, and with that technology they are going to make the U.S. look like a small backwards 3rd-world nation by comparison. the Chinese are already building their versions of this type of reactor and should be operational by 2018 to 2020.

[@finnmitra4618]

+Honesty Counts communism has its benefits, as long as no racist paranoid loonies get to the top.

[@mikeyh0]

+Honesty Counts But they first have to steal it from us.

[@CoolKoon]

+mikeyh0 No, they don't, because the US has almost nothing of note on the topic anyway. Had you watched the presentation you'd know that the only (experimental) American LFTR ever built was closed down more than 30 years ago.

[@CoolKoon]

+Honesty Counts And what kind of reactor will that be? A research reactor or a commercial reactor that actually will be connected to the grid as well? I REALLY doubt that it's the latter (the Chinese are not THAT advanced, nobody is) and if it's the former then that's nothing extraordinary. Also, do you happen to have a source on this bit of information you have too?

[@zaighamabbas2041]

+mikeyh0 how come? chinese have their own scientists who have been working on it for over 10 years

[@hg2.]

I wish Dr. Sorensen hadn't invoked "global warming" to promote Thorium.

[@jamespfp]

+hettygreene I agree partly with what you're saying, but it isn't his primary defence, is it? Beginning of the video, he says explicitly that it allows for some solution to carbon fuel, not because of environmental disaster, but because we recognize there's a limited supply of carbon fuels; he is not pretending that oil is indefinitely useful.

[@hg2.]

+jamespfp In a word No. As much as we'd want thorium to succeed, we shouldn't make concessions, however small, to the, basically, mass ignorance of "global warming".

[@-BuddyGuy]

@@hg2. Yeah everyone's wrong but you, including all scientists not funded by fossil fuel energy companies. Idiot.

[@hg2.]

+Buddy Guy

[@WmArthur]

I'm wondering if we could build LFTRs next to existing nuclear power facilities so the spent fuel pools and maybe the containment vessel and other buildings could be used for part of the LFTR after a shutdown and remodification. The grid network and steam generator set and infrastructure are already there that could make this more feasable. Maybe radioactive contamination would be too much of a problem but, what do you do with a nuclear plant when you're done with it? Recycle, Reuse?

[@tommorris3688]

165000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide - too much to be transmuted using Thorium LFTR, because transmutation rate is too slow.

[@adbogo]

Kirk Sorensen has a bee in his bonnet for LFTR reactors. In my opinion he is not very objective about it. Much can be said in favour of Thorium as a nuclear fuel but plenty can also be said against it.

[@jayhartbarger2793]

fukushima, their were deaths. The area is costing billions to clean up, entire villages had to be evacuated and are still radiated. Not important? Tossed with the remark, "no deaths".

[@brianschneide0]

This. Needs. More. Awareness.

[@usmh]

So basically, battery engineering is what I would want to aim for if I pursued lighting power? Any ideas on suitable educations?

[@fullyawakened]

look at all these youtube scientists lol you people know everything about nuclear power and how to fix all the world's problems huh? funny that you know all the answers but the smartest people in the world that have dedicated their lives to studying these things experimentally and theoretically simply can't figure it out. if only they watched youtube videos all day instead of wasting their time at the most elaborate science experiments in the world.

[@Pencil0fDoom]

@FollyAwakened: Your sense of irony is genuinely amusing; I literally laughed out loud! But your mockery of the lay community coalescing in dialogue around what is arguably the most urgently vital topic of our day seems driven by a cynicism that runs counter to one of the noblest facets of the web... a more informed, aware general public! If you are in favor of an informational oligarchy where only those bearing the Imprimatur of the Avout are suffered to listen, speak, learn or debate about such lofty matters as what kind of Yak shit the tribe should burn to heat our huts, then mine some Thorium and Patrician-fist it up your time-hole back to Medieval-1984-Serf-Nazi-Illiterate-Dirt-Farmer-Land. There you shall be unmolested by us irksome internet ignorami. D!ck.

[@Pencil0fDoom]

Nathan Duke IDK why I capitalized "Yak".

[@waterkingdavid]

Nathan Duke Ouch!!!

[@schm147]

The guy in the video has two master's degrees and one bachelor's. I'm pretty sure he's more of a scientist than you'll ever dream of being.

[@justgivemethetruth]

Walrus1911 So what. That doesn't make him a good scientist, or a good judge or engineer or anything. Lots of good smart people are putting genetically modified organisms into the world because they know better. There is no proof or even economic argument to say we need them, it's just another way to make money and lock others out of that stream. That is what dictates most of the stuff we see and hear ... educating the public, that's a good one. I supposed in regimentation and indoctrination some amount of education must take place. Nathan Duke you sound like a D!ck actually.

[@lucianoguerra9013]

What you need is heat resistant glass combine with metal. Will last longer and you also have to fine a better energy storage system. Thank You Loader.

[@johnmcentegart007]

A thermal neutron is a free neutron with a kinetic energy of about 0.025 eV (about 4.0×10−21 J or 2.4 MJ/kg, hence a speed of 2.19 km/s), which is the energy corresponding to the most probable speed at a temperature of 290 K (17 °C or 62 °F), the mode of the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution for this temperature.

[@Fordi]

An LWR has high resistance at the fueling, defueling, and storage steps - first, low enrichment; second, high radioactivity; last, high burnup meaning contamination of the 239-Pu with 240- and 241-Pu, which have gamma emitters in their decay chains (like 232-U) and a spontaneous fission problem (== premature fizzle). A LFTR has similarly high resistance, with one exception: the start charge needs to be fairly high enriched fissile uranium - 235 or 233. If 235, it's entirely useful for weapons.

[@johnbattit286]

Batteries can be made from Paizo material which is salt and the frequency can be adjusted with diodes collecting into a capacitor sale of lithium ion and layers of navy odium

[@Chilldude_101]

And I'm here researching it for a essay all these years later.

[@chrisdamelio9723]

Maybe we can get it together in thorium development. It is above in every way except , giving the powers that be,who need the the by products for bombs and war. Let's move on with the intelligent way. Bravo-keep going forward!

[@OtakuBozu]

@kirkfsorensen Do the fission products from a fission by a fast-neutron differ from those of a fission by a thermal-neutron in their proportion of which isotopes of which elements get produced? I'm just curious.

[@binaryblade2]

transmission is part of it, but the other part is storage. Because renewable like solar and wind are intermittent you need either some storage mechanism or base load plants which can be turned up and down at whim like nuclear, hydro, coal and oil. Anything which has a fuel really.

[@carl-cx9uh]

Solar/wind power not usable until such time we come up with a storage method that is not batteries. A modern coal power plant is super clean and safe.

[@dougstevens1877]

I agree. No reason for coal to pollute atmosphere or environment. Also possible to make much smaller, highly efficient coal plants more locally to reduce distribution costs. Unfortunately lower efficiency brings higher profits for the corporate parasites.

[@radishesonmars9309]

It should be noted that Molten Salt is not the only way to use Thorium. Thorium is the optimal fuel cycle from a proliferation standpoint and could work using the current PWR and Fast Breeder technology. There are many options, I'm quite a fan of a Thorium fueled traveling wave core.

[@alanbrown397]

Robert: you're perfectly correct that Thorium could be used in both cycles. but the big disavantage of both is the issue of "fuel rods" which end up containing an unholy mixture of fissile byproducts (and leave you vulnerable to Xenon poisoning) which are an attractive target for bad people wanting to do bad things as well as requiring that you periodically shut down the system to replace fuel assemblies. One of the big things that MSRs have going for them is that you can run continual onsite reprocessing (it's a necessary part of the design) and "clean as you go" - which means that the reactor seldom-if-ever needs to be shut down for maintenance.

[@daobagua]

hastelloy n is the alloy (not aluminum) that was planned to combat the corrosion problems. But even if the reactor leaked, the waste would not explode and irradiate a 50 mile radios. It would dribble on the floor to be cleaned up by someone with the proper PPE.

[@rubeius]

Consider for a moment the chronology of nuclear reactors; the first nuclear submarine, the USS Nautilus, was launched in 1954 and AFAIK was based on pellets and pressurized water; its basic design was scaled up and used for the first US civilian power reactor, at Shippingport, in 1957- its first core was retired (after producing ~2 GWh electric) before the molten salt reactor experiment even began in 1965. (1/2)

[@nicholasrnr]

@SuppenHahnBier I think the history lesson was required as a preface to the point he was trying to make. It gave substance to the last 6 minutes that, without, would have lacked a real "punch" if you will. I think it's kind of nice to hear WHY he feels its not being used today (in a discussion style) and not just a cut and dry bullet format list of reasons. But to each their own I suppose.

[@usmh]

Speaking of new and improved energy sources, if I were interested in becoming a scientist trying to find a way to use lightning for harnessing energy, can anyone say which educations would be good for that? Doesn't matter where in the world they are located.

[@gunnarkaestle]

31:40 The argument with the data center in Sweden and the solar power plants in Spain is a false one. Facebook build the data center next to the arctic circle, because the hydropower plants had not much customers there and it is costly to transport the power to the Stockholm area. High loads next to remote hydropower is the usual recipe with aluminium smelters in Norway, Iceland and Canada. In case solar power becomes widespread in Northern Africa, consumers will move there. Industry has always followed power sources (first run of river, later coal), not the other way around.

[@jb678901]

My understanding is that the freeze plug would unfreeze and gravity drain the piping long before it would solidify in the loop(s). Maybe you are confusing this with the liquid sodium cooled reactor design (e.g. USS Seawolf)?

[@evannibbe9375]

It’s a very small plug and a very fast fan pushing air onto it, so it can stay cool.