MacroVoices

MacroVoices hosts Erik Townsend and Patrick Ceresna welcome Thomas Jam Pedersen, founder of Copenhagen Atomics. They will discuss the role thorium fission will play in the energy transition and the benefits of molten salt-cooled and liquid-fuelled thorium-burning nuclear reactors over conventional light water reactors fuelled by uranium. bit.ly/3QzHtuu
⚫ Find out More: www.copenhagenatomics.com/
✅Sign up for a FREE 14-day trial at Big Picture Trading: bit.ly/46Ul2FD
🔴 Subscribe to Patrick’s KZbin Channel: / @patrick_ceresna
🔴 Subscribe to Erik's Substack: eriktownsend.substack.com/
🔴 Check out Energy Transition Crisis on KZbin: / @energytransitioncrisis1
🔴 Check out Nick's KZbin channel: / optionfinity
✅ Join OptionFinity discord: / discord
🔴 Subscribe to Nick’s Medium: / ngalarnyk
Please visit our website www.macrovoices.com to register your free account to gain access to supporting materials

[@JohnTaylor-ts8wk]

Eric’s earlier videos on SMR’s and his focus on Thorium makes more sense after watching this. Hopefully this all works. Previous designs of salt-cooled dissolved-fuel reactors have been tried and the corrosive properties of various fission products would complicate things. These complications are certainly solvable, and using Thorium instead of U235 will have a different mix of fission products. I’d have to agree that one of the biggest obstacles will be regulatory, as the NRC might not approve any new designs and the current nuclear waste treatment is quite extreme. Anyway, it is exciting technology and I really hope we see it move forward some day. Ironically, the way that “green” zealots have been able to throw aside environmental concerns when it comes to wind, solar, and biomass will end up paving the way to re-think our treatment of everything nuclear.

[@EfficientEnergyTransformations]

Thomas Jam should learn to speak that the nuclear (and for that matter any ) reactor does not produce energy but transforms it. @43:00 when he describes the pant, it is not clear at all if the every box outputs electrical or thermal energy, clearly in the fist case it is the already the complete product and very minimal additional infrastructure is needed, while in the second one the heat still needs to be transformed. In addition, in a case where the reactor boxes output electricity (this is my base assumption), how the company envisions dealing with the scaled down efficiency of the considerably smaller steam turbines (quite an expensive tech) and are they looking at old/new technology of using considerably less expensive thermodynamic transformers commonly known as steam turbines.

[@KamilMauel]

At least, except Australia, the leaders of resources are different from uranium with the US adversaries far less influential.

[@davidhemsted5372]

What about the coal-fired steelworks to make the heavy steel containers?

[@bentray1908]

These guys have the solution but they are not hardcore enough. We don’t have 20 years for them to get around to building. Also they need 100/day not 1/day.

[@bentray1908]

We need a regulatory change and SpaceX to buy this company and move properly fast. Too slow!

[@FlailingJunk]

How many are you building?

[@davidhemsted5372]

What about the supply chain for the heavy steel containers?

[@chapter4travels]

By heavy steel containers, I think you mean forged pressure vessels used in current light water reactors. Those are not needed with the Copenhagen MSR or any other MSR for that matter. Common stainless steel is all that's needed, this is a big part of the low cost of MSRs.

[@drgauravkumar317]

Largest owner of thorium research n reserve's is India i believe u r wrong in thant

[@GiovanniGeorgio69]

Comparing Uranium and Thorium reactors to Carts and Cars is WILDLY off the mark! It is far closer to comparing a Hybrid Car to an Electric Car - and this is why there is little need for a switch from an already developed and ever-improving product which dramatically improves quality of life on an individual and economic level, to reinventing the wheel to get minimal additional benefits (relatively speaking). Don't get me wrong, I am all for Thorium reactors! But this is 50+ years away

[@aryaman05]

It is this sad attitude which junked all the effort by Thorium researchers in the 70s, by Nixon and gang. You also missed an important point as highlighted at 56:00, i.e.: waste from 'traditional' nuke plant can be used as fertile material for Thorium plant. We're not 50+ years away on this, India is already operating, albeit on 'small scale', so too the Czechs.

[@GiovanniGeorgio69]

@@aryaman05 You are very naïve my friend. Have you seen how long it has taken for uranium reactors to get to where it is now in terms of widespread adoption?! You think the current momentum in uranium reactors is going to subside and thorium is going to take it's place with wide-spread adoption within 50 years? I wish you were right, but it aint happening.

[@aryaman05]

@@GiovanniGeorgio69 On time taken for Uranium Power to mature - you don't think lessons learned from that gets transferred to Thorium projects ? I will agree with you on "wide spread adoption", unlikely to happen within next coupla decades. But your reinventing the wheel metaphor for Thorium is completely out of whack, at least in India's case as they don't have a choice and for them to rely on foreign fissile material supply is both unwise or outright dumb given that they have truckloads of Thorium in their front lawn. India has an active decades long 3-stage nuke program. The Czechs similarly have been working on this for decades. Now the Chinese are on this as well. Can we not see at least 3 nation states going Thorium Power, in part at least, within the next 1 to 2 decades ?

[@togoni]

Erik keeps bitching about Ukraine in every show instead of bitching about Putler 😡😡🇺🇸🇺🇦🇺🇸🇺🇦

[@felipemoraes2316]

He doesn’t want earth to be exploded, and he is right when he says that we have just sent 90B dollars in destruction power rather than evolving our society

[@chapter4travels]

Thomas please stop making false comparisons, it really hurts your argument. Stop comparing thorium MSRs to light-water reactors. Compare thorium MSRs to uranium MSRs. When you do that, there are no advantages. Actually uranium MSRs are simpler and cheaper than thorium MSRs.

[@mikaringstrom5634]

There is a big difference, thorium can breed in the thermal spectrum

[@chapter4travels]

@@mikaringstrom5634 Thorium needs a breeder reactor uranium 235 does not. The MSR will be simpler and cheaper using U235 than having to breed Thorium. There is plenty of time down the road to use thorium after U235 becomes expensive.

[@Dandy852]

This guy way too pompous You want to save the world ?!! Please.