Imperial College London | Fully Charged

[@neilens]

Yet more proof of why university professors should lead the country, not politicians who don't know how to solve the world's problems. They just speculate on where to move money to. These guys are creating real solutions that will change the world for the better. Put these guys in charge! (I see what you did there ;D)

[@XitUp]

Yes, that was mentioned in the video. Pumping it into greenhouses would work too.

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

I'm talking about mining equipment in general, like dumptrucks. Big operation, takes lots of oil to run, you might have heard of it. And while Thorium doesn't need enriching, it does need mining , and refining. True, it's a waste product from Rare Earth mining, but that is still a pretty polluting affair too. As for cooling rods and containment building, it's almost the smallest part of the equation. Most of it is just reinforced concrete and steel. And it is *still* a finite material.

[@mbirth]

"Guys! TV is coming over! We have to set up the green lights to make our fluids glow funny."

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

Carbon sequestering does have a potential use - to use as part of making fertilizer for food production. Heck, you could pretty much push it straight into that hydrogen producing algae, and it would thank you for it. All in all, an interesting episode, I enjoyed it. Thank you Robert. :)

[@CORNABY242]

very interesting. good video. More like this please

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

The main issue here, is that the further we come from the original energy sources, the less energy there will be to harvest since some is lost in transition. ie. pure solar power has more potential than wind energy, because some of the solar power was lost in the process. The closer we can get to the sources, the better off we are.

[@barn606]

If you read we are also banned from pumping with air to release the nitrogen to atmo (about 75% loss to atmosphere by spreading 10 ft above ground (top pipe of tanker etc)) . which would be a simple way of getting rid of the problem. this lost nitrogen still comes on the bill so to speak and has to be accounted for cutting the beef/sheep/pig etc. levels by a Min of 50% over the next year or so (already resulting in shortages for the major manufactures) so why are they allowed to do it ?

[@ab3000x]

great job again!

[@fj9fl61]

just thinking.....the japanese eliica 6 wheeled car of a few years ago....why are they not still banging on about it?? it seemed pretty innovative at that stage in electric car tech....whatever happened to it?

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

Indeed, though the greenhouse would have to be enormous ... this was in fact explored a bit on Top Gear of all places. :D

[@SciStarborne]

Legitimate science using green glowing energy coils. Hell yeah.

[@micheals1992]

I really hope super capacitors work and they manage to fix volt leakage issues! they'll make a huge difference in battery tech and would cost next to nothing when you only factor in the raw materials (manufacturing costs can be lowered, costs of rare materials cannot be lowered). solid state capacitors don't really degrade much either... so a battery will always maintain its capacity and will last much much longer with less maintenance.

[@un2mensch]

The technique of using process heat (eg, from a nuclear reactor) to produce hydrocarbons (ie, syngas, petrol, whatever) as quite old. This potentially renders moot the point about powering stuff like mining equipment. The same, of course, applies to the industrial process behind mining and refining, say, thorium. Speaking of which, did you know that the natural decay of thorium is what keeps the earth's core molten? There's quite a lot of it! It's a stepping stone technology for very long legs.

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

I would be "moving the goalposts", if I had started on it to begin with, which I didn't. I started out with mentioning that nuclear, wether uranium or thorium, is finite, expensive (and will become more expensive) and currently run almost purely on oil-driven equipment. It is ultimately not a sustainable solution - Which is what we need. In other words, we need a way to generate or collect energy, while using relatively easy to access materials. Otherwise we end up using more than we produce.

[@XitUp]

Link to farmers having to reduce nitrogen please. Are you sure you don't mean NOx?

[@neilens]

That's a silly way to think about theoretical physicists. Einstein was a theoretical physicist and lecturers still teach his theories of relativity which have benefited the world in amazing ways (satellites would not be possible without his theories). Those theories, and many others, can only be taught and not practically researched because we do not have the technology yet to experiment with them in real life. Theories can change the world just as much as experimental physics.

[@Nightstarsvoice]

I second that! :)

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

I suspect it is because earths atmosphere is 78% Nitrogen, so it won't do much damage there. Where as putting too much Nitrogen into the ground can pollute groundwater. It's just a guess though. As for nuclear power, that has another problem ... just like oil, it's finite and it'll run out, not to mention become outrageously expensive and thus not a good solution in the long run. But yes, wave and wind power are both good stuff - Relative low cost of common materials for good amount of power.

[@ChrisWeigel1]

bahhahaha how many times he says "right" love the episode!

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

Recycling nuclear waste is a good and noble thing to do. But even with that, the whole thing is a massive operation sustained run with petrol equipment. I think very few understand how much work goes into getting a pound of enriched uranium (or thorium for that matter) for a nuclear reactor. The end result is that nuclear material is a finite resource, just as oil is, and it will run out eventually. It's not a sustainable solution, though it might make the transition period a bit easier.

[@barn606]

@XitUp sorry on phone search for nvz requirements

[@roidroid]

haha, i thought at the end you were going to say: "It's all very exciting.... and i am getting very wet". *winkwink*

[@simoncuming41]

Seems ironic really that Imperial are creating ways of generating our future energy, but id sure hate their energy bill!

[@XitUp]

What was remarkable about it? It was very big for a four seater, I'll give you that. It probably disappeared for the reasons I've stated.

[@Nightstarsvoice]

But surely the potential benefits of thorium energy in a LFTR would far outweigh the costs. Just being able to recycle the nuclear "waste" from other locations could maybe pay off its research and construction costs.

[@nikanand1203]

love how he spends the entire thing inside roderic hill and then finishes outside EEE :S

[@XitUp]

Yeah, that's about nitrates leaching into water. Nothing to do with nitrogen in the air.

[@barn606]

I know someone will point out that this was a trail, but surely they cant be planning to release all the nitrogen to atmosphere full time from a power plant ? and make the small folk cut back on nitrogen / unable to release to atmosphere themselves , that just does not seem right somehow.

[@Nightstarsvoice]

Thorium doesn't need enriching. It's 4 times more abundant than uranium and is already being mined as a waste product of rare earth mining. Thorium is completely different from uranium. With LFTR you don't need fuel rods or cooling towers or a big containment building. Also what "petrol equipment" do you mean, so I can fact check it?

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

While you can indeed produce hydrocarbons from process heat, or any waste heat that is high enough, really - It does not produce enough to run the mining operation. Don't get me wrong, any wasteful process should be made less wasteful, like the big honking flame on top of an oil refinery could be used to generate power. Does hydrocarbons help ? Yes. Is it enough ? Definately not. And yes, the earths core is very interesting and rich in fissiles, but also quite out of reach ... for now.

[@KuraIthys]

I don't know. Carbon sequestering may not make much sense long-term, but it makes a lot of sense while the planet is still covered in coal-firing power plants. You can't realistically just close them all tomorrow, so what are you going to do in the meantime?

[@XitUp]

If I read what? Give me some more clues than three letters. Are you sure it's nitrogen and not nitrates?

[@un2mensch]

I think you somehow completely miss the point! The more nuclear power you generate, the more clean hydrocarbons you can produce (assuming you even need them), the more material you can mine cleanly. Your point about it not being enough is completely indefensible, and I hope you concede that. As for thorium, there is an absolutely vast quantity available to us very accessibly throughout the world. As a stepping stone power technology, this is perfect for us.

[@XitUp]

I take it you've sent them the money to scale up their research then? What did they say?

[@titop96]

super capacitor carbon fiber with some resistors equal structural batteries sweeeett!!!

[@fj9fl61]

EVEN THE STORAGE SPACES OF THE EARTH ARE FINITE....AND WE'LL GO ON PRODUCING C02!

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

It got assimilated by the Borg ... erhh ... I mean, by Toyota, I think.

[@XitUp]

Was that the one that looked stupid and cost millions? Can't think why it didn't catch on.

[@barn606]

Why are they planning to release all the nitrogen to atmosphere, when the the British farming industry is having to restrict theirs and pay thousands in the process, many of which are going out of business instead ?, Which at some point will have to result in higher food prices, meaning yet another hidden,undeclared cost to the attempt to fix our planet, surely the safer nuclear options are the way to go i.e Thorium etc.. and as a longer term go for as much wave power as we can lay our hands on.

[@lucasskywalker]

This article might be useful for some of you. onepagenews-com/2012/04/20/how-planets-are-born-and-die-and-why-it-matters/

[@XitUp]

Trees take a while to grow. Trees eventually die, rot and release CO2.

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

Mining of any type, no matter which fuel is used, will never be clean, even if all the equipment was all electric and ran on solar power, it would still be a dirty business. You severely overestimate the amount of hydrocarbons generated, and while there is a vast amount of thorium in the crust, it still takes a lot of work and energy to mine it. You mention it as a Stepping Stone technology, but why? There's better technology out there, already.

[@Grumpy_old_Boot]

lol, it gets worse, they said it before you did, so basically, you're agreeing with Top Gear ! XD

[@XitUp]

Urgh, I hate it when Top Gear agree with me.

[@rydhwan]

lol they wud be a better solution definitely, but im not so sure about the lecturers who earn money through teaching theory work...

[@KuraIthys]

And if you're wrong about that, nothing will get done, and we ruin the planet's climate. Interesting gamble... That's the problem with things like this which, if they are true at all, tend to have long-term effects, rather than immediate ones...

[@rock3tcatU233]

Just scale the damn thing up, that's the thing I hate about the academic world. They seem to be so afraid of the real world that they continue to live inside their small theoretic and experimental bubble.

[@fj9fl61]

dismissive,sarcastic hater!! think about it,the car in question was remarkable and could have been improved,instead it disappeared,seemingly. there is no harm wondering what may have become of it!!

[@un2mensch]

You are committing the logical fallacy of "moving the goalposts". You have shifted the discussion about thorium and nuclear, and instead are talking about mess in industrial processes. There will be "mess" no matter what industry is taking place. Do you think mining for the vast amounts of metals and rare earths required for other energy industries? "You severely overestimate the amount of hydrocarbons generated" - please stop saying such stupid things. You can generate as much as you need.