Thorium: An energy solution - THORIUM REMIX 2011

[@graemeab7634]

Why am I only seeing this now?.....3 years later. This should be the biggest story in "news".

[@christalicable]

I know right?!

[@sammcrae8892]

Maybe they don't want you to know...🤔

[@corsair6]

Thorium as a nuclear power source has been around for quite awhile, the hangup is really two-fold: 1. Lots of regulation, rightly so, however rather than being safety focused, the structure of these governing-oversight bodies actually discourage new developments and form an obstacle towards innovation. 2. Knee-jerk anti-nuclear attitudes foisted by the know-nothings of the world. The word nuclear usually generates a negative or, even visceral reaction amongst large segments of the populace. Mass media both news and entertainment attempt to explain nuclear energy in simplistic terms but, end up sensationalizing and generating hyperbolic contexts.

[@sanctun-3782]

Hello. I am a psychologist here in brazil, and one of the most valuables teachings of our job is that every point of view is important; the given wrong ones are so not only for a matter of fact, but mostly by contingency -social, financial, you name it. This i would really like to thank you for sharing this vídeo. Im personally a nuclear power entusiastas and yeah, this vid. was quite refreshing as a counterpoint of what weve grown weary to see about radiation. Always good to see something new

[@jvarennes]

Thanks a million to John Laurie who did the translation into french. Even if I'm able to understand english, such scientific subjects with dedicated vocabulary would have been too much for me, I could never watch this video for nearly two hours !

[@13minutestomidnight]

Utterly brilliant. Not only the simplicity and pure genius of LFTR, but this entire REMIX was really cleverly put together. Very witty and succinct, encompassing all sides of the idea and addressing opposing viewpoints very clearly based on statistical and evidence-based arguments. I had no idea America had even DESIGNED a thorium reactor. And a low-pressure system at that! Of course America designs something brilliant and only the Chinese government figures out how to use it. Should have guessed really... In my country, "environmentalism" is basically an excuse for our government to hit us over the head with counter-productive and inane policies, but I'm surprised that in America where people really band together and care about the environment that they would be so... stupid. Does anyone in Greenpeace do their homework at all?? I went looking around and couldn't find one concise coherent argument against LFTR that WASN'T based on misinformation or misunderstanding. I still think Fusion is ultimately going to be the way to go for space-based projects and expansion etc., but the technology still isn't advanced enough yet. In the meantime, LFTR is the best option I've read about for safe, sustainable renewable energy sources.

[@Rachel29979]

woah... why haven't i heard about this before? this is crazy cool.

[@colin76545]

More like FTL helped make bombs and idiots were running the show

[@premchand828]

@@colin76545 what's ftl now

[@TheAntiMalthusian]

Kirk Sorensen and all the rest of the Thorium pioneers will eventually be regarded as heroes in the history books for bringing this back into the nuclear debate and giving cheap and abundant energy to the whole world.

[@RustyOn9]

I wasn't optimistic about nuclear energy but after watcing this. It simply made me wonder why the whole world isn't using #thorium #LFTR tech. But good luck to China and Norway for pursuing this miracle fuel.

[@dr3pts]

I'm an engineer and I found this very interesting. Really this technology seems like it should have already been flourishing years ago. We discovered this stuff in the '50s and today it should be an every day part of life. To me it seems fission (such as the LFTR) is the technology of today, and fusion will be the technology many years from now. I actually have been very disinterested in chemistry, but after watching this, and seeing it at the nuclear level, it's actually extremely interesting.

[@francistalbot6584]

I got your CDs on the thorium Reactors. We must bring this technology back to the USA. I am a PE Nuclear Engineer in the State of Maryland and a US NRC reactor engineer inspector and technical reviewer. I love this reactor technology. It is total common sense and a must for the energy future of the world.

[@KimLJohnson]

Francis, if you Might like to work in Devel'g MSRs of All "genres" (Chem., Mat'ls, & últimatly Nuc.), connect w Me (Kim L Johnson) on Linkd-n. -Kim Chem. Engineer

[@Research0digo]

Hey! San Onofre!! I've been inside the steam generator - I've worked over the massive the turbines, etc. I was thunderstruck (in awe of) Unit One - Until I worked at Units 2 and 3. EVERYTHING in them is massive. While in construction phase we had a lot of prank fun. - Once they started putting in the heavy water, fuel rods, etc, we could get fired immediately, and escorted to our cars with armed security for any reason they thought a threat. (All joking stopped.) My security clearance was as high as the President's. An incredible time in my life.

[@SureshKaria]

This side of KZbin is rare, do stuck to it. Thanks for the awesome video man

[@eclipsenow5431]

While I've already said that I'd add chapter headings and sections to break down this video, and maybe a dumber, shorter layman's summary of the complicated physics and chemistry sections, I have to say that I *love* Kirk's humour and the awesome crowd in the basement lectures. That talk seemed to have all the magic running, including geek basement jokes, and a reference to the nuclear technician killed by a projectile nuclear fuel rod as "What a cool way to die!" I wish Kirk's recent TED talk had included some of that fun. But at least he's still plugging away, getting the message out there in different venues and formats.

[@aaronanderson9511]

10:38 "in focus" "not out of focus" "maybe you need glasses" "try squinting" "try 3D glasses" "ooops"

[@flexabustbergson6141]

"-...And one poor guy got impaled to the ceiling by a control rod so ... -That's gotta be the coolest way to die" hahaha

[@johndoe-hm1lj]

The powers that be dont want this to come to light. This is reliable, cheap, efficient, and safe energy. All this means there is low profits in it for them and they wont go that route. This is why scientists and engineers need to rule the world with data and truth vrs politics and the "I fear this" statement.

[@CosmoFeldspar]

Thanks!

[@GraceLorraine]

I LOVE the question he asks near the end; it's something like 'how would you live your life differently, if you had plenty of cheap easy energy that wasn't damaging Earth?'

[@yurpurt]

Thank you for putting up these videos, and remixes of the longer presentations into formats that appeal to a range of potentially interested people. I really hope this technology takes flight in the coming years; if only for the selfish desire to see us all propelled into a new age of enlightenment (I can dream!) :)

[@tormaldonado4463]

watched this when I was a kid now I'm going to university for nuclear engineering 10/10

[@gordonmcdowell]

That's what I like to hear.

[@bitbloop]

As a little kid I was lucky enough to go visit Dungeness nuclear power station in Kent. I don't remember it too much, but I remember the sense of awe from the raw power you could feel pulsing under your feet and the roar of the turbines. It's a real shame they've closed it to visitors, it was an inspiring thing to see.

[@MaddrellRoger]

You've done a great job Gordon. Condensing so much important and gripping info into 5 minutes was always going to be a challenge. This is such important stuff and it frustrates me that many people just don't get it. I smiled when I read banthur's complaint that the video went for two f*?**ing hours! Even after the timer countdown showed the 5 minutes were finished, the poor soul musn't have known how to turn it off and had to sit there for two whole hours! Life must be so hard for banthur!

[@Scientist538]

all of the people in this video are heroes

[@SharBanning]

I can't thumbs up this enough!

[@NathanielSheppard]

Me Neither. So many ZING moments I want to share with the world.

[@davcnslt]

Nathaniel Sheppard Check this youtube out. youtube|dot|com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI

[@victorarnault]

Hearing for the second time. And still don't know why this hasn't done yet

[@CoachZed]

I work at Hanford Nuclear Reservation and was talking with one of my managers about B Reactor, and he was trying to give us a little bit of pop trivia about Xenon-135 and B-Reactor. He asked who discovered the neutron poisoning and I said with much certainty that it was Wigner after having watched this video in the past. My manager however stood his ground and said that Fermi discovered it. Wikipedia does have his back, but we know how that goes. I had to double check, and sure enough, around the 28 minute mark, Kirk gives credit to Wigner. My question, is who was it really?

[@Solanza]

@@tommorris3688 How the fuck is that related to the question he had?

[@tipfertool5457]

@CoachZed Of the two, I believe your manager was more correct... but I have a third option. The most likely person for this discovery goes to theoretician John Wheeler. When the phenomenon was observed at Pile B, the cause was unknown. Several ideas were proposed but it was Wheeler who made calculations that had previously been concerned about neutron poisons and other contingencies during the construction of the reactor piles. After at least two cycles of this mysterious effect, Wheeler narrowed down a mother/daughter decay pair to Iodine135/Xenon135 and Fermi arrived soon after and agreed after his own calculations. I'm not sure who initially proposed the "poison" hypothesis but it is implied that many were aware of the possibility. A strike against Wigner is that the original pile design would not have been as effective for Plutonium production due to the Xenon poisoning. Dupont company had opted to modify the design by adding additional fuel channels - which coincidentally allowed for getting past the "Iodine pit". Rhodes credits Wheeler for the alteration, but Wheeler commends a Dupont engineer for the modification. I'm well aware that Wheeler may have been taking a bit of liberty (though his interview does not give off that impression) but if there is any doubt to Wheeler you can always go with the head honcho Fermi. Sources to look into: Richard Rhodes "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" (1986, pages 557-560) John Wheeler 1962 "Fission then and now" IAEA Bulletin. Dec. 2 John Wheeler's Interview 1965 manhattanprojectvoices[dot]org

[@denisdooley1540]

You still here, Zed?

[@MachinecoMachines]

@@tipfertool5457 Thank you for that analysis. Your comment SHOULD get more thumbs up!

[@samcarman1]

Thanks for the captions. I know how much work goes into that, and really appreciated them.

[@RyanPape56]

Thought provoking. I just wish it was easier to watch, all of the hard cuts and lack of pauses and continuity make it very difficult to follow. It's like reading a very long essay, written on napkins, in 20 alternating styles of handwriting.

[@gordonmcdowell]

Ryan Pape Agree is far too choppy. I don't have a single long video to watch as an alternative but there's a bunch of communication ideas pursued here: kzbin.info/aero/PLKfir74hxWhPsAXSrCy--ORaxxbXdWnXK ...I think some are better than TR2011, but none are as broad in scope. In general the later chapters as better paced and easier to watch.

[@mahtoosacks]

This is an extremely information - dense presentation, which does take some thought to follow, but I found it quite entertaining. Imagine how long it would have taken to watch with all of the pauses included. Also, I believe this is a culmination of many of his talks to provide one cohesive argument for the production of these facilities.

[@mark4asp]

+Ryan Pape I found it easy to follow. I like the choppiness. Montage, very Vertov.

[@mark4asp]

+Ryan Pape The only bit I disagreed with was that stuff comparing the price of gasoline in USA with Canada.

[@wasteoink8376]

Ryan these hard cuts are called marketing. it's like a sales pitch, that's why it's designed like that. unfortunately like tedx it's meant to pitch stuff not debate on them :)

[@MrVaticanRag]

The been watching Gordon's videos for over 10 years and most more than once - but I can't remember watching this one more than once ( maybe being 2 hours long) but it really is a great remix of some of the best cuts from all those others meticulously archived by Gordon. So please appreciate what has been achieved here and thank you Gordon.🥝🥝🙏

[@utczulu8935]

I thought Sorensen was a well informed enthusiast for thorium after viewing his presentations in shorter videos. Looking at this video to find he is actually a doctor of nuclear engineering and physics explains a lot… A WHOLE LOT. So now I am really intrigued and have the same question that maybe a whole lot of other people have… Why are we not already using thorium reactors? Is everything about using thorium being told? Up until now, I have seen a lot of these videos that present thorium as the answer for all our energy needs with virtual no cons. There has to be some drawbacks or technical challenges not being addressed as to why someone has not already built one of these. It is understandable that in the U.S. that money and special interests can hamper the development of a thorium reactor (oil, coal, those that support uranium reactors). If somebody comes up with something new that can threaten someone’s business and/or wallet then there will be resistance. The more powerful they are the more resistance. I get that part. But what about France, Great Britain, China, and Japan? Especially China and Japan. These two countries alone would have a vested interest in building one of these and do not have the political hurdles that the U.S. has to deal with. China, being a mega-manufacturing giant that wants more energy and less pollution, would be all over this. Then there is Japan with natural disasters. I find it hard to believe that the most technologically advanced countries in the world have never heard of thorium or heard of it and decided not to use it. This makes me wonder if pro-thorium videos are only showing one side of the coin. Searching for disadvantages I found this on the internet (I know anyone can type anything on the internet but these look credible.): *Breeding in a thermal neutron spectrum is slow and requires extensive reprocessing. The feasibility of reprocessing is still open. *There is a higher cost of fuel fabrication and reprocessing than those that use traditional solid fuel rods. *Thorium, when being irradiated for use in reactors, will make uranium-232, which is very dangerous due to the gamma rays it emits. This irradiation process may be able to be altered slightly by removing protactinium-233. The irradiation would then make uranium-233 in lieu of uranium-232, which can be used in nuclear weapons to make thorium into a dual purpose fuel. *Unlike uranium, natural thorium contains no fissile isotopes; fissile material, generally 233U, 235U or plutonium, must be added to achieve criticality. This, along with the high sintering temperature necessary to make thorium-dioxide fuel, complicates fuel fabrication. Oak Ridge National Laboratory experimented with thorium tetrafluoride as fuel in a molten salt reactor from 1964-1969, which was expected to be easier to process and separate from contaminants that slow or stop the chain reaction. *Fission product processing greatly complicated by the presence of Thorium *Higher neutron leakage *Weakly positive temperature coefficient, can be fixed but at large cost *Pa removal needed unless both thorium and 233U loading increased substantially Now I will say I am an enthusiast and the idea of using thorium sounds good, but all this excitement for thorium is starting to remind me of cold fusion and fueling cars with water.

[@gordonmcdowell]

Sorensen has now completed his masters in nuclear engineering. His education was underway while Thorium Remix 2011 was being shot. . I think the arguments you're citing here include those against thermal breeding in a solid fuel reactor. . "There is a higher cost of fuel fabrication and reprocessing than those that use traditional solid fuel rods." - There are NO fuel required. Thorium is dissolved in liquid (molten) salts. . "The feasibility of reprocessing is still open." - Well the very first power reactor did breed thorium into U-233 (Shippingport Reactor). I've heard Argonne researcher describe it as a complex clockwork process, one that you'd not want to replicate commercially. Those challenges were because the breeding was taking place inside solid fuel rods. So that reprocessing which was complex Kirk is looking to simplify by avoiding solid fuel rods altogether. The chemical processes used are described by Kirk as "off the shelf", although they are "off the shelf" in a non-neutron-flux environment. . "Thorium... will make uranium-232... emits gamma rays" - It does this within the reactor. Yes, U-232 would kill you. There's plenty chemical toxicity and radioactive materials inside the fuel salt though, that there's no need to single out U-232's gamma rays... it is a nuclear reactor... if you step inside the whole environment will kill you. Check out... . MSRE: Alvin Weinberg's Molten Salt Reactor Experiment - "Th" Thorium Documentary . ...and you'll hear from researchers maintaining an experimental reactor they couldn't get close to, shielded by a thick layer of concrete. That reactor was run on Uranium, and did not include the thermal breeding cycle they'd have later tested (had the project not been cancelled). . U-233 is created. It is possible to weaponize U-233. The challenge of diverting U-233 out of the reactor (which would certainly alter the reactor's operation and be detected) ought to be compared to the process of enriching uranium and making a bomb from that. Did uranium up out of the ground. Enrich it to 90%. You have weapons grade material. It is not impossible to weaponize LFTR, but it is not the easiest way. Worst case: LFTR is restricted to countries which already have such weapons, and a denatured MSR such as I-MSR (by Terrestrial Energy) is offered to countries that might try re-purpose the reactor for non-energy purposes. . However, I'd like you to keep in mind there's a whole host of medical isotopes we could be harvesting from the fission products created in nuclear reactors. LFTR offers a practical means of extracting them, particularly short lived ones we'd never get out of solid fuel rods before they decay away. So the weaponizaton argument is sort of a flip-side to the medical isotope argument. Are we not going to treat dispersed cancers because pulling medically useful fission products out of liquid fuel salts might also mean someone might pull U-233 out of liquid fuel salts? . The next point again mentions fuel fabrication... not applicable. I'd suggest you find counter-arguments against LFTR specifically. Because the thorium fuel cycle is still too broad a category and solid fuel fits under that.

[@utczulu8935]

Just to be clear, I am not against thorium if it is the real deal. Looking at the videos on your channel, along with other pro-thorium videos, I see some very intelligently people articulate extremely well the benefits of thorium. What I don't get, as I stated earlier, is that no one with the power and resources to actually do anything is behind it. You would think that our gov't (or any other gov't) could be convinced to fund some research or someone like Bill Gates (who I have seen speak positive about thorium) would put their money behind it. If thorium really is the Holy Grail of our energy needs then there is a disconnect someplace between all these highly informed people in these videos and the powers that be to make this happen. Do you get where I am coming from? Our elected officials cannot be this inept or out of touch to let thorium pass us by. The scientific community can't be so divided where you have all those that support thorium on the side of the fence that do not have the resources or power to build a reactor. Someone, a group, or a committee can be convinced to spend who knows how much to turn half a state into a wind farm or solar energy plant but they can't be convinced to build a thorium reactor? What is not happening? What is being missed on the subject of thorium? Something does not seem to be adding up.

[@gordonmcdowell]

UTC Zulu I do think there's always the possibility someone with lots of resources will come in and help. That's basically what Bill Gates does for the Traveling Wave Reactor.. that's a technology choice I'm not really qualified to critique, but I'd hope he'd hedge his bet by also supporting MSR. He defenitely does know MSR (/LFTR) exists, but his last comment on it was that he thought it would be difficult. Has he spoken to MSR researchers themselves (some of which are still alive)? I don't know. . But elected officials can't really drive technology. Simply stating that you favor nuclear cuts your support, never mind speaking on a specific technology that is not yet commercialized. Bill Gates has criticized USA renewable R&D as being way too timid... fear of another Solyndra when Solyndra was itself far too safe a bet to fundamentally move solar forward. Fundamental R&D advances means sometimes betting on losers, and politically no one is willing to take such a gamble any more. . Making LFTR commercial might take a billion dollars. Yet MSR research is often bottlenecked on the first million... Flibe Energy, Terrestrial Energy, Transatomic Energy are companies to watch. But any rich person not simply wanting to address poverty and climate chance, and who is also looking to turn a profit will be asking themself: Which of these companies will succeed and which will fail? If they pick wrong they'll lose all the money (millions?) they invest. The safest course of action is to wait and see. . Sucks for the planet of course. . Regulation is another challenge. NRC very difficult ship to turn, and right now they're set up to regulate PWR not MSR. So folks like Terrestrial Energy and TerraPower (Gates) look to outside the USA to actually build prototypes and maybe even start selling their first commercial units. Flibe and Transatomic still hope for prototyping inside USA, hopefully they'll be able to navigate (or improve) NRC regulations.

[@Solanza]

@@utczulu8935 Pretty sure this video covered that subject pretty well, it all comes down to the mass fear that is surounding nuclear power. This fear that is generally created by the uninformed slander that most politicians delve into. Shortly put, It's not thoriums or radioactivity's fault that ithese type of reactors are not around yet, It's the fault of the general uninformed, and sadly uninterested civilian. As well as, most energy companies realize that you can essentially "make more money'" by doing it the old fashioned way. Or do you think that, once we get to a point where the creation of energy ( by for example thorium fission or perhaps even fusion ) would be so cheap ( disregarding the costs of having to build such a facility ) that the energy companies that control these reactors will sell electricty to the public for next to nothing? I agree that's the dream, if I had the money to build one of these reactors, i'd be giving away the electricty it produces for next to nothing to the public with the thought of perhaps provoking more scientific breaktroughs. However in today's economics that doesn't seem like something feasable, where generally every single company is build on the premise of creating money, and solely money. It mostly boils down to capitalism I guess?

[@chalry_]

This is incredibly eye opening. I had no idea! Thanks so much for this!

[@axelkusanagi4139]

Fusion reactor is a huge vacuum tube at 10 KEV, inside this is superconducting magnets, held in liquid helium, jacketed in a lithium blanket, breeding mega curies of tritium, injected into this reactor, which is driven by these giant neutral ion beams...(and all I could think was:) held in place by unicorns, presided over by leprechauns, who report to Odin himself. It might as well be magic.

[@jtlagyt0l]

Axel Kusanagi shes a witch BURN HER!!!

[@bradster2214]

this is not a LFTR XD you just watched linus tech tips Hydrogen Fusion Reactor

[@davidmorris918]

An amazing video!!! I will be hounding my state reps and EVERYONE about this.

[@wakewind4129]

good

[@Blivinity]

This was extremely informative and actually enjoyed watching the entirety of it. I wish this would have been showed in my school, for most science classes would be much more enjoyable. :)

[@TheAetherspeak]

You've got My vote I've been a supporter of nuclear for years for it's higher level of sustainability. Your right though lot of hippies out there, that won't even look at it. Great Stuff! Getting so tired of institutions supporting dead technologies and showing their best scientists the door. I'd like to read more any books You can recommend?

[@eugenespicer3272]

Interesting, I have used thoriated tungsten electrodes for welding, and noticed the little radioactive warning on the package, but the energy was so small that it couldn't do any harm. I often wondered what it did for the electrode. Anyway this intrigues me. We should definitely do this.

[@leemisaac]

This is great! I hope I can tell as much people as I can also. Let's spread the word and make this our main source of energy before gas prices go above 5 bucks....

[@muddywaters8706]

1:42:06 This section of the vid really got my blood boiling, IF TRUE it's insane that we are not pursuing this tech given all the benefits. We could go a long way to being a more self sufficient country, but noooo, the precious petrol dollar and muh green energy dichotomy have to dominate the conversation and get the funding. It's analogous to our two party system in the US... Why is a third option always so under exposed and seemingly far fetched in this country? Evidently thorium reactors would even aid in the acquisition of materials for the other energy producing options to utilize and provide a new avenue of economic independence! Just being more efficient, cheaper and safer than the current reactors should be enough, how much more incentive do we need?! Do they have to make it produce a low calorie spread that taste like butter that doubles as a more lifelike breast implant filler as waste material as well?? Jesus...

[@49andrew]

Gordon - great video! I watched the whole thing over at Atomic Insights. Thank you for your work and I'm so glad you took/made the time to do this, and all of the other videos you've done for EnergyFromThorium. I was at Protospace and met Kirk; I'm counting that as a high point of my life. IMO this is a brilliant documentary. I also love your "What is Thorium" trailer. I hope you're looking for broadcast and theatrical distribution.

[@paulisham5669]

How about a lecture this year?

[@Maviel85]

This was uploaded 4th of October, 2011. How can this NOT have more views? How can people be so IGNORANT. How can people not see that this is so EXTREMELY important to aspire towards.

[@softron4soul]

The Energy source of the Future :-) Forget all Uranium based power stations, Thorium are much better and cleaner.

[@HuMaNiTaRiAn1]

This is what I would happily sit and watch for 2 hours. Very informative! I want to ask so many questions now!

[@1111kordun]

Wow, this is something that everyone should see, yet there are only 500,000 views for this video. On the other end of things Lady Gaga videos get 100,000,000 views on average. Does anybody else see a problem here?

[@49andrew]

Gordon - super work as always, and I look forward to more of the TEAC 4 videos. I also really enjoyed Kirk's tour of the US Space and Rocket center in Huntsville with Baroness Worthington. I've already done an excerpt from Dr. David LeBlanc's presentation - and it's got a couple of views. Thanks for making all of these CC licensed.

[@WanderingPaladin]

Someone needs to sit this guy down with Elon Musk.

[@SeleniumGlow]

***** Mr. Musk might already know about this. Right now, he is busier trying to find ways to connect the world in a faster manner. Sharing of ideas and culture is also important for world peace... or so I thought.

[@smh9902]

+Selenium Glow LFTR would achieve that goal much faster. No more energy or resource wars.

[@Veldtian1]

Elon Musk is a fictitious front man, a cut-out for Globalist overlords engaging in PT Barnam type stunts of zero relevance to the betterment of humanity in ANY substantive way whatsoever, pure theatrics. Dragon X pfft, hey the Saturn V wants it's LEM back dude!

[@wakewind4129]

Veldtian1 this is probably 100% true

[@samgerland6087]

And all other vehicles :D aah, one could dream atleast... Maybe in a few generations (if we still exists) they will implement it when they realize money is only money, and life is more important.

[@RobMorse]

@Kudamorf , LFTR would consume about 97+ percent of the fuel. Some fuel transmuted in the reactor and lost in side reactions. Some small fraction is lost during reprocessing.

[@MatthewBendyna]

There is also a such a thing as too little nuclear radiation. Radiation seems to be used as a kind of adult's version of the boogeyman by the media.

[@ivojurisic3127]

Nicely put :)

[@Acers2K]

You Sir, are walking an amazing path... lots of respect :)

[@jona_KardCiv1]

I love this guy! What can I do to help? OMG!

[@PatriotGamesUS4]

join the "Thorium Energy Alliance" - a nonprofit advocacy group promoting this. On their Facebook group (not the page, the group - you'd have to request to join), under files, there's good printable informational flyers that you can print and hand out in your local community. Also tell your friends and family. The single most important step is getting the public's attention. If you're really hardcore about helping, write to your Congressional leaders and ask them to push for this technology. NRC restrictions are one of the biggest obstacles in the way of creating new nuclear plants in the U.S.

[@jona_KardCiv1]

Thank you Marine.

[@TxFw]

Jona Adams I asked Kirk about TEA and he said he was rather unimpressed with them and was quite embarrassed when he took a high-level guest to one of their conferences. I trust him more than them. What has TEA done about NRC restrictions? I think of Ford, a man of private industry, who ran into all sorts of obstacles with the government... he had to drive his own cars and put on races to show his invention was safe... but he succeeded... and I think Kirk will too.

[@PayPuh]

No worries, good sir. I appreciate all of the effort you put into your videos. So whenever you feel comfortable releasing it, I'll be there ready to watch it.

[@joeforliberty2451]

fast forward a decade and we've made no progress. Even worse Mr. Potato Head is president.

[@lemonaut1]

we did it

[@lukelee1495]

I am currently writing a research paper on this topic and this is helping me a lot on getting started.

[@TuxedoTalk]

That young woman at the beginning is exactly why democracy and universal voting rights are a horrible idea. She has the same vote as you and me. They're in the way.

[@yazzy613]

thank you for this video, it's very inspiring and gives me great hope for future innovations and technologies. keep up the great work.

[@Lodexxor]

dam....i admit this is pretty much most complex thing made easy to understand even for morons like myself =)

[@gordonmcdowell]

Peter, if you want another take on it... Nuclear Disasters & Coolants - "Th" Thorium Documentary ...is from a nuclear disaster's perspective, and it skips over a bit of the details but perhaps conveys a bit more practical insight comparing technologies. Would love to hear which one you think is a better introductory video.

[@Lodexxor]

ok thanks for link. ill look into it soon.

[@then33k4]

probably the most insightful documentary i have watched this year.

[@TheAnointedSamurai]

Brilliant stuff! Very Amero-centric though, which is understandable. I just wish we had more people talking about freeing humanity from the very real, hegemonic, war-incensed, megalomaniac, Orwellian, slavery inducing interests that will(are) try to resist this, or, try control it themselves for ridiculously supernormal profits that will continue to enrich and embolden the 1% of the 1%, rather than just thinking about Americans. Anyway, spreading the word.

[@smh9902]

This video is mostly made by Americans, and America has the most experience with this tech because ORNL and a few other agency's actually built these reactors way back when.

[@javiergimenez40]

shouldnt the french have the most experience?

[@jasonwalker2881]

I'm an undergrad student in Nuclear Engineering. I had never really grasped the advantages of liquid fuel before watching this video. Too many concepts for non-water reactors have obvious disadvantages e.g. sodium-cooled reactors. One point that stood out to me in this video was about radiation hormesis. I didn't know that there were any significant studies that supported it. In the program here we mainly treat it as a myth frankly.

[@wakewind4129]

Jason Walker Awesome. What school do you to and what's their nuclear program like?

[@jasonwalker2881]

Georgia Tech, graduated last year. Great program, though small. Their lab has a surrogate reactor and a bunch of detection equipment to tinker with, but it's difficult to do real experiments in reactor physics without a real research reactor. GT's Mechanical Engineering side is state of the art though, and many courses overlap.

[@little.wing.]

Fuck this, I'm learning Chinese.

[@delphidelion]

O love how sever Alexander's demeanor is with the edit of his section. It makes you feel like he's teaching your soul rather than your brain.

[@yxooo]

where is Elon Musk? most def he needs some cheap energy

[@PatriotGamesUS4]

I was thinking the same thing. Someone needs to let him know about this stuff

[@bradster2214]

combine elon musk and thorium reactors, they can make thorium powered cars! it's still a tesla coz it runs on electricity tho. then cool down the steam to create drinkable water for the driver XD

[@aronchai]

Just signed the petition, thanks for alerting me to it. It's a hassle to register, but worth it folks!

[@bird557]

666k views

[@KimLJohnson]

Now _-agóra Gaster- há_ (there-are) *More* than 677.7-K Views~

[@gordonmcdowell]

@zassounotsukushi If you check out ThoriumRemix website on the ACT page, you'll see a series of remixes. Each version of this video (including the 120m version here) highlights a different aspect of LFTR first. They are completely overlapping... this is the main video from which they are all derived. But if you agree LFTR is worth pursuing and want to share the idea with an audience the might not be receptive at first, consider sharing one of the other versions. They are... SHORTER too.

[@myhrcat]

I have seen a lot of discussion about the corrosive nature of liquid salt, and the need for the material which contains it to be non-corrosive and neutron shielded. I'd like to hear Kirk address that issue. I have yet to hear a solution to that, nor the way they managed it in the experimental LFTR reactor that ran in the late 60's.

[@Epsilonsama]

Love how you showcased the green nuts for wanting to limit progress. Good stuff!

[@Ihavetwoears]

Thank you for this video and the work

[@wazza33racer]

One of the most technically challenging and interesting videos ever............wow Kudos to Kirk !

[@robertweekes5783]

The Flibe-UF mixture is so beautiful in solid form! Blue rocks are awesome!

[@TheBibliofilus]

Amazing and very informative video, but I got to say it: Kirk is a fantastic speaker which withthis tricky subject makes ALL the differance!

[@jeffberwick]

Wow! I have always been kind of anti-nuke, but I am even more anti-C02. This has really opened my eyes to a truly revolutionary solution to global warming. Thorium LMTR's are so much smarter and safer than the older nukes, and in combination with wind, solar, EVs and battery storage it gives true hope for a way forward out of the fossil fuel mess we have created. I love the idea that spent fuel can be burned, rather than just being left behind on the grounds of closed reactors, as was done in my home town when the nuke plant was decommisioned. Let's do this!!!

[@slukky]

LFTRs also have the capability of being portable. You won't need anything other than a small regional LFTR for your energy whims & wishes. Unless you wanna go completely off-grid. Then you'll need storage. That would best be H2 cells.

[@Youhaveaname]

Fantastic vid.

[@TheJBerg]

Incredible presentation! Thank you! I'll be sure to tell my friends!

[@TheJBerg]

@@tommorris3688 Holy Zombies Batman!

[@TheJBerg]

@@tommorris3688 no, just you replied to an 8 year old comment! 🤣🤣🤣

[@jamestakeshi]

I watched the entire thing... That is so informative and it really does clear up some of the misconceptions about nuclear energy. Let's get this up and running.

[@PayPuh]

Excellent! I'm looking forward to it. Thanks for the quick response.

[@pebre79]

This is amazing. You're my hero, Gordon!

[@gordonmcdowell]

Hey... I've been thinking about how fast/slow I've been moving here, and I am starting to doubt I'll have a final edit done in September. I mean I'd certainly like to there's a Calgary International Film Festival I was hoping to present it at... but certainly I doubt now I'm going to have something I'd call a "final edit" done by September. It does look like I'll have SOMETHING of practical use by then... I may release in chapters to make that happen. November by best ETA for whole thing. Sorry.

[@thomasbdugan]

I really like what you did here. Please keep it up. I will loath the day that Thorium in a molten salt reactor is shut down from U.S. development as the leading energy source.

[@CrazyAce01]

This video has converted me. I will now be promoting LFTR technology to everyone that even casually mentions energy independence. Go Thorium, go!!

[@MrDanP1]

I would love to see this commercialized in my lifetime. But, even conventional nuclear has too many advantages over fossil fuels for us to continue down the path we have all been on (relying on fossil fuels for 75%+ for all our energy needs and just under 20% for nuclear. People always bring up Chernobyl as the poster child for nuclear. Chernobyl was horribly designed reactor, called an RBMK (one even the Soviets were smart enough to try and phase out thirty years ago, to try and replace them with VVERs). Six safety mechanisms were intentionally removed (including removal of the control rods) to carry out a test on the turbo generator. People also make foolish statements like, "A Fukishima can happen anywhere". 1) No country outside the former Soviet Union uses an RBMK; no country, even prior to Chernobyl, outside the Soviet Union, would actually carry out such a test on the turbo generator of a reactor already in public service; 2) despite the fact that a lot of different numbers are thrown around, around 40-60 people have died because of Chernobyl (not the hundreds of thousands some would have you believe). Although this is still too many (which is why I like the idea of LFTR), those 40-60 people are still a mere fraction of those killed by the Piper Alpha oil rig disaster which happened two years later and killed 167. 3) Fukishima was caused by a tsunami, meaning A FUKISHIMA CANNOT HAPPEN ANYWHERE BECAUSE TSUNAMIS CANNOT HAPPEN EVERYWHERE! My state and town (along with the city it is a suburb of) are at absolutely no risk for a tsunami (unless a comet or small asteroid crashes into Lake Michigan, at which point, a nuclear accident is the least of our problems...and what are the odds of that happening in our lifetimes?) Even if a nuclear reactor is operational in a tsunami-prone area, however, by simply securing diesel or other fuel tanks from risks of flooding or being washed away...you have ended the threat of "a Fukishima". Of course, the best way to avoid "a Fukishima" in such areas is to have a reactor that shuts down if the fuel stops being supplied; has "a freeze plug" melt so the fuel can be allowed to drain away. Such a reactor could exist some day in the form of LFTR. (Having a liquid fuel would also be beneficial because if the fuel becomes too hot, it can also be removed from flammable-at-high-temperature-graphite...thereby ensuring "a Chernobyl" will not happen. 4) I have spent my life growing up in the Chicago suburbs. For several decades, Illinois has generated nearly half its electricity from conventional nuclear power. No "Chernobyls" happened; no "Fukishimas" happened here! Instead of opposing nuclear power, and discussing nuclear energy as if disasters are inherent to nuclear energy...maybe it would be better for some of you to ask the questions, "Why do some places use nuclear energy without problems, while other places have problems with nuclear energy?" "Are there safer ways, 'fool proof" ways?" By generating half its electricity from nuclear, Illinois reduced the amount of coal it burnt (coal makes up almost the other half by itself), thereby reducing the amount of deaths from coal pollution; deaths from coal mining; deaths from "coal fly ash" and "coal slag" dam collapses.

[@Jack-mi9ok]

I'm not even a chemist but this is interesting. Watched the whole thing

[@DamplyDoo]

this is actually an awesome video explaining normal reactors.

[@starvis89]

2 fantastic hours of my life, I feel like I want to leave my current job in I.T and try to change the world now by pushing thorium in australia and educating the people I know about this.

[@noahmoss]

17:45 2.43 or something from MIT website I think. 24:35 fission products 33:46 instead of doing fast or thermal they just burned uranium which is really rare and gets into history 56:50 the man who invented the PLWR also invented the TMSR but they pushed him and his new invention away 1:12:07 LFTR makes plutonium (1% of waste) but it's plutonium-238 which NASA and SpaceX really need. We used to buy some from Russia but now they ran out, so we're relying on having enough to get people back home. LFTR is what makes P-238. Also leads to barium which can help cure some cancers. 1:17:13 why it’s cheaper 1:27:00 coal plants also release radon but they don’t count it. They release more than a PP ever would be allowed to. 1:51:30 the fuel is liquid so you just leave it in the reactor until it’s all burned up

[@taesheren]

I can't like this enough. And the editing is awesome!

[@loloolololololol]

I mined heaps of Thorium in world of warcraft, I never thought of throwing neutrons at them though. This is a really good idea and someone with enough capital should get behind it and make it happen.

[@hivemindconcussion2173]

Netflix is running a fantastic series- Occupied. It's all about the Thorium and the energy wars.

[@karmasuaz2643]

Excellent! (Environmental Science student here!)

[@siebren005]

Can anyone point me the specific time in this video where he explains how exactly they can generate electricity with thoriumreactors? Can't find it..

[@gordonmcdowell]

43:11 Briefly explains how electricity generated by typical nuclear reactor. With an MSR the coolant is Molten Salt instead of Water. Molten Salt moves through a heat exchanger to heat clean salt (another Molten Salt without nuclear fuel dissolved in it) then that hot salt can be used to drive a turbine. There is a more technical video here focusing on 2 things: the Chemical Kidney and Power Conversion System kzbin.info/www/bejne/rnPQnGqqarBma6M

[@paperweight57]

FANTASTIC COLLECTION OF CLIPS!!!

[@arabboy87]

This is so interesting! The whole world needs to know about it!

[@mukiex4413]

Wind + solar has gone from 1% in 2011 to 10% in 2017. We might double our worldwide Li-Ion storage production this year and triple it by next. It's like living in the 80s, looking at the Commodore 64, the best-selling computer of all time (and to this day), and saying that computer technology will never hit the mainstream. That said LFTR looks really snazzy. I'm hoping the stuff China's doing takes off.

[@gordonmcdowell]

@Tidensbeskyddare The rapid cutting is a result of barely-enough coverage, and a 2h limit (to facilitate remixes via KZbin Editor). THORIUM REMIX 2012 will be easier on the eyes.

[@gordonmcdowell]

Thanks for your feedback on the video! Please be more specific. As you can see from below comments, sometimes people have misconceptions about MSR technology. They post those comments here as sort of a stream-of-conscience rambling as opposed to citing facts that can be checked. Do you know any facts? If you do, please share.

[@mariodaniil133]

cuts shmutz! this is alot of important info presented in a very engaging economical way. it could hop between presentations less, but it wouldn't matter, it's the same preso cut into itself at different locations. this isn't so far fetched. i'll do anything to help spread this message, i believe in this future. i do loads of tech conferences, putting keynotes in front of investors, to get them excited about technology, and they'll have a presenter talking about spacesuits, and another, on about cloud computing, then the mandatory social media advocate walks up their and says the word 'storytelling' alot in regards to gathering likes, but this.. this is the only news as far as i'm concerned.

[@Nodzor01]

@bnightm it does say in the text below the video that it begins with the 5 minute Too Long, Watch Later version. Maybe that should be the first text, but its not that unclear... After 5 minutes the summary is done!

[@tapster15]

If I had a spare billion, I'd be investing in this. It obviously needs to be done.

[@gordonmcdowell]

That's why being a billionaire sucks. If you aren't a multi-billionaire then there's no spare billion kicking around. If you want to pledge $1/year I'll take it. patreon.com/thorium

[@terraint3697]

@4:30 Well.. actually human slavery is worse than ever. Human trafficking second highest crime in the world.

[@gordonmcdowell]

"Worse than ever"? In absolute terms, yes. The world's population has increased helping to enable this. China and India are the only nations with generally good access to electricity where that continues significantly. Mostly slaving nations are energy (and democracy) poor. But looking as how most developed and energy rich nations have progressed, slavery is illegal and almost entirely eliminated. But thanks for raising this point, I didn't realize in absolute terms we might be at peak slavery right now.

[@ChiliTomatoNoodle]

It takes a lot more talent to put things together than to take them apart.

[@gordonmcdowell]

The U-233 is bred in the blanket then (once separated) sent to the core. This process will not involve moving uranium hexafluoride far from reactor, so will be using remote tools or automated equipment just as operation of pumps would be automated. If it is being bred and stored for seeding other LFTR then yes there's storage and transportation considerations.