Robert Hargraves - Thorium Energy Cheaper than Coal @ ThEC12

[@n1mbusmusic606]

we have a thousand years worth of thorium in the midwest in areas where no one lives. this guy is great!!!! wakre the hell up and change your mind about nuclear! before its too late!

[@timothycarne3151]

This is a classic "idea so good it will never happen". I would love to see it happen but there are some very large and very rich constituents that would move heaven and earth to stop it. Good luck, you have my support!

[@hentycatsanctuary2951]

This was amazing at opening my eyes to the total costs, i am trying to convince an oill company who has a great R and D section to look into this LF thorium reactor but it is hard up hill push. Thank you for sharing this video and information. I will surely use this information.

[@victorarnault]

Thank you for your effort.

[@hentycatsanctuary2951]

@@victorarnault unfortunatly the company i work for has decided to build a huge solar far and invest millions in batteries to reduce their energy costs, i still have hosp for the thorium reactors being built right now and are portable, i will keep pushing up that hill

[@RobertHargraves]

The backup for the facts in this talk is in a new book, THORIUM: energy cheaper than coal. Just search for "thorium" on amazon.com to view the book.

[@gordonmcdowell]

That is possible. It adds to the cost of energy. It requires water reservoirs at high and low location. Most (raised) reservoir locations are already developed for hyrdo-power which is already an on-demand power source (and so already compensating for intermittent power).

[@SPLITSLEEVE]

From Shec's Website "SHEC Energy has developed a complete suite of high temperature heat carrier technologies including the carrier, pumps and joints that can all operate at 850°C."

[@manw3bttcks]

Okay if you want to be pedantic, I know Th is fertile, but the point is that all isotopes of Th are usable via fertile conversion to something we can burn without having to use a fast breeder that the U238 needs. So my point was that a unit of energy from Th takes much less mining of ore than uranium.

[@dalesplitstone6276]

Not true! U238 can be converted into Pu239 in a breeding blanket around a thermal spectrum neutron uranium burner. Indeed my idea is to pair these reactors up. A thermal spectrum neutron uranium burner would breed plutonium in a U238 blanket. This plutonium would then fuel a fast spectrum neutron plutonium burner with a thorium blanket to breed U233 for the uranium burner. Excess U233 produced in the plutonium burner could be diluted down with U238 to be shipped across the nation to fuel new uranium burners.

[@trex2621]

@@dalesplitstone6276 It is unrealistic to get breeding coefficient above 1.0 with U thermal. It works with Pu though.

[@ronmcfarlandUnika]

I'm learning of 8 benefits of molten salt reactors. Within them are a wide range of applications. What do you think? Emissions: No emissions emitted to reduce climate change.Waste management (recycling): Can use existing waste and actually reduce that wasteCost of electricity: (If brought to scale, could be cheaper than coal energy)Local environmental safety: (around electrical power plant). Safer than other energy sourcesNon-bomb making ability: (Very low proliferation of nuclear weapons)Distributed energy: (no long-distance transmission required)Environment beauty: (plants underground)Fuel availability: (Fuel from extremely abundant raw materials)

[@SPLITSLEEVE]

The company SHEC energy has a way to store solar energy over night. They can store thermal energy at 570C* for at least 24 hours. Best Thorium talk so far from China. Thanks Robert, Thanks Gordon Wilson

[@BillLeavens]

Why are there so few comments on this? This entire thorium dynamic is going to have to catch on fire if any of the possibilities are to come true. And why is here so little interest in resuming the basic research that was started at Oak Ridge? Come on, world. Let's put on our thinking caps and make thorium power happen! And come on, Washington, take some leadership on the issue.

[@raipier]

This just blew me away. Two great things about this. One, is that the science is very compelling and valid. The other is that you didn't shy away from the costs. All the other eco-friendly people never mention cost...sure we can save the planet, but what does it matter if we all die do to not having enough money to buy food because it is all being spent on fuel processing or the govt subsidies. I love how you stuck to your guns on gov't subsidies...they make science look bad to people someti

[@chapter4travels]

What I've learned since this video came out is that thorium is unimportant. What is important is molten salt reactor technology. Even his own company, ThorCon is really a uranium reactor with a little bit of thorium thrown in for PR. I'm completely ok with this, it has brought a lot of attention to advance reactor technology, which is a very good thing. There is no shortage of uranium and it has all the same advantages as thorium.

[@keithpickering]

Yes, pretty much true. That's because the wind variability is high, so you need a backup that starts fast, and NGCT does while CCGT takes a lot more time.

[@gordonmcdowell]

Such ways of addressing Intermittent Power are expensive, when they are even geographically possible.

[@Brandon_letsgo]

The problem is: since that talk nat gas prices had come down. It's now at $2,15. Gas turbines also got more efficient in converting nat gas into electricity. GE just announced a combine cycle gas turbine with net efficiency of >64%. Give them more 4 years and they'll be delivering 70% efficiency gas turbines. So only Kirk Sorensen's idea of a molten salt reactor will be able to defeat fossil fuels. The plant needs to do more than producing electricity, it needs more revenew. That's why I believe we should focus on Kirk's work.

[@rogermorey]

Very wrong gordon, lowest unsubsidized cost are Wind and Solar, your data is old. It also has miniscule development cost, unlike nuclear. www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg

[@victorarnault]

Wow, what a lecture!

[@minchmoorramblers6856]

My friend converted me now I believe in Thorium reactors it’s simply amazing.

[@matsv201]

Thats really interesting number. But i say that the efficiency of the gasturbine is somewhat higher, about 35%. Also, 60% for a combined cycle, sure, it exist, but its really uncommon... well, shure if you build a new one. About power, it don´t work exactly. I Germany they run a couple of coal power plant on "idle"... Just turning the turbines without extracting electricity. Then they can increase power about 5% per minute. It becomes a lot more complicated to calculate because you have to take in to account the power needed to power the power plant at idle. If you dig in to the numbers i say its quite equal. It need about the same amount of power with windpower or with out, maybe a little less. But, it need a lot of upgrades to the power network. The transmission lite is hugly expensive. I thing the cost of the transmission lines in Germany is about 60% of what the cost would be with brand new gen III+ nuclear power-plants

[@matsv201]

Sorry, he actually expanded on that on the very end. And the numbers presented after the presentation is probably very accurate. A 3% change very reasonable to estimations.

[@totoritko]

You are comparing apples and oranges. Th-232 is not fissile, it is fertile, whereas U-235 is fissile. The most common isotope, U-238 is also fertile, but it requires a fast reactor to burn up efficiently. The reasons for going with Thorium have to do with the fact it can be efficiently burned in a thermal reactor plus a whole host of other advantages.

[@dalesplitstone6276]

Thorium has one major disadvantage, to make it a breeder the protactinium has to be sequestered so it does not absorb another neutron and become protactinium 234 that then decays to U234 which will absorb a neutron to become U235. One alternative to sequestering the protactinium is to use a very large volume of thorium to insure that, even without sequestering, it remains a very small percentage of the blanket material thereby minimizing the probability of each neutron finding a protactinium 233 nucleus to interact with, but if you are going to go with a large volume of material, you might as well go with a fast spectrum neutron plutonium reactor. One potential solution to this is to breed plutonium in a U238 blanket around a thermal neutron spectrum U233 burning core. This eliminates the need for seclusion of protactinium. Then use this plutonium in a leaky fast spectrum plutonium burner, surrounded by a very large thorium blanket to breed U233 for the uranium burner.

[@EricMeyer9]

Great lecture, great B-roll!

[@MrDanP1]

Also, he may even be a little over-generous to wind. Dieter Helm, in The Carbon Crunch, How We Are Getting Climate Change Wrong and What to Do About It puts wind capacity realistically at more 20-25% of the time, as opposed to 30%. Either way, it shows the problem. (Dieter Helm is not a nuclear advocate, but a natural gas one. He does not bash nuclear; he just doesn't hold out a lot of short-term hope for it.)

[@hzuiel]

And it is also one more expensive system to implement and maintain. You know how expensive the pumps would be to fill up any sizeable reservoir on a daily basis?

[@litltoosee]

Until we address the lack of political interest in gen 4 and gen 5 reactor designs, I'm afraid we will be forever wishing instead of doing. How can the Peter Lyons and Milton Shaw's of our government blatantly misdirect, misinform and stonewall our Political Representatives in hearings at a congressional level without challenge, effectively retarding, crippling and ultimately burying technical breakthroughs like LFTR's? We cannot continue to parlay and conference concerning these technical advantages that are obvious even to the layman, while avoiding the real barrier of progress: our lack of political leverage. Until we organize to effectively lobby our lawmakers, by whatever means, we will remain the carbon slaves that we are. The dream of humanity unshackled of energy restraints will continue to be just that.....a dream. Our civilization runs on energy, and those that control that energy control civilization, and our ultimate destiny.

[@dalesplitstone6276]

We need to convince Tulsi Gabbard and/or AOC to get behind advanced reactor technology, and I may have a way to do this. It starts with getting Tulsi Gabbard behind using a plutonium based LFTR to burn weapons grade plutonium to produce U233 in a blanket that can be diluted with depleted uranium to replace U235 enrichment of natural uranium for existing LWRs. As for AOC, she can potentially be brought into the thorium reactor camp by getting to convince her that for her wind and solar initiatives to be feasible we need to get the NRC to relax their rules regarding thorium so that we can produce our own rare earth metals. The initial idea would be to hedge against the Chinese developing MSR technology then cutting off rare earth metal supplies to the rest of the world in order to force the rest of the world to buy reactors made in China. Once she is hooked on the idea of the US producing their own rare earth metals, she could be convinced that the best way to prevent China from forcing the world to buy made in China reactors is to design our own competitive reactors.

[@zapszapper9105]

Dale Splitstone Congress is still hooked on fighting the war of terror for the Rothschild theifdom Israel, they still think Osama Bin Ladin did 9/11 and lucky "Pull it" Larry had nothing to do with it. " And so we had our first design meeting in April 2000 ". The point is there is vested interest in the status quo. How do you control a LFTMSR, ? And can you convert/or burn or use or reuse all the by products, ?So you don't have a safe storage problem. If it all turns to shit and the reactor contents leak out, will they melt the concrete and keep getting hot, or do they cool down solidify and can they be safely cleaned up and reused. Will the contents fire off fast neutrons, that basically zap anything that comes near, people or electronics etc. I understand you need Uranium 233, Where and how do you make or get that.? In a LF molten salt reactor, is it the volume of the contents and temperature that determines the rate of nuclear reaction or is it the shape of the reactor container as well? Do you need control rods, ?Can you make control rods that work at 800 degrees. If you push the rods in and things cool down, can you still pull them out, or will they be stuck in a solid lump of radioactive salt.?

[@dalesplitstone6276]

@@zapszapper9105 There are no control rods in a molten salt reactor. The reaction rate is controlled by the size, shape, and density of the core. The core has a negative coefficient of reactivity. If it heats up, it becomes less dense, and the reaction slows down. If it cools down, it becomes more dense, and the reaction rate increases. This makes MSRs well suited to a variable grid load. Not all the by products can be used. In fact, 17% of the fission products have to be secluded for 300 years before they decrease in radioactivity to the level of natural uranium. The fact is that the non-radioactive waste from MSRs is a greater threat than the radioactive waste, but is less of a threat than the waste from the production and disposal of PV solar panels, and the radioactive waste in the coal ash piles from burning coal. No solution is perfect, so we need to go with the least damaging affordable solution. Going 100% renewables for the US is estimated at $80 trillion while the estimate for going with an all MSR solution is estimated at under $10 trillion. Realistically, we can not go carbon free with MSR technology before 2050. The biggest problem is regulations and licensing. We could go 100% renewables by 2022, but the cost would be about $7 trillion per year. This would be 30% of the total US GDP. But we do not have to go carbon free in the US by 2012. The US currently accounts for only 15% of the carbon problem. Both China and India currently account for more of the carbon problem than the US. Both of these nations are investing heavily in nuclear. China's largest investment is in molten salt cooled solid fuel reactors. India's investments are in thorium technology. If we can develop the technology faster than the rest of the world, we may be able to deploy it much sooner in China and India than the US.Especially considering the energy needs of China and India are growing faster than those of the US, perhaps the best strategy is to spend about $10 billion up front for research and development in India, and perhaps even build the first assembly line in India for mass deployment around the world.

[@red-baitingswine8816]

I think if anything AOC et al. will be more favorable to MSRs than the political establishment - because she and her allies have come out in favor of what's best for we citizens as opposed to donors etc.!

[@andrewlambert7246]

This guy is wonderful.

[@rogermorey]

@ 24:00 Love the Boeing Aircraft analogy for Model for building nuclear reactors. Note the anachronism for costs on Wind and Solar.www.lazard.com/media/450436/rehcd3.jpg

[@totterdell912]

great presentation Robert, & brilliant coverage as usual Gordon

[@duanegrindstaff9635]

A good talk on Energy. What I found frustrating though is that he talks of subsidies for renewables, while completely ignoring the massive fossil fuel subsidies, as if they didn't exist, making much of what he says invalid. If you can see through this discrepancy though, it is still a good talk.

[@GTA5Player1]

How does that make what he says invalid?

[@babyelian77]

I don' t understand the point about wind and gas back-up need, are you really sure that all the stations to back-up wind intermittence are only 30% efficiency NGCT and not very efficient CCGT (as I guessed it is) ?

[@sdmatt1975]

I'm big on MSRs. I also am big on the Polywell and Focus Fusion. These are worth funding to see if they can work. If they do then they make fusion practical unlike Tokamaks

[@dskaz8926]

I think they already gave up on it, didn't the last post on their blog say so?

[@sdmatt1975]

Fusion?

[@seaplaneguy1]

My engine and NH3 can do the job along with Thorium. Go from 25 mpg to 100 mpg. Store NH3 at 1600 times less than Li-ion battery. A 1000 gallon Propane costing $1500 can store 12,000 kwh of NH3. This would cost $2.4 million in Li-ion battery at $200/kwh. The key is new engine to use NH3, which my engine can... The efficiency will also be par to Electrical vehicles at 60-75% plug to battery to Electric motor to wheel, vs plug to NH3 maker to engine to wheel. The car can also be 1/2 the weight and therefore always be LOWER energy than EV due to no battery need. Cost can be 4-32 times less also.... The battery is the fuel made from electricity, whether wind/solar/or nuclear.

[@davidwilkie9551]

For comparison, fossil fuels "cost us the Earth", any alternative is fine if it isn't privatised and becomes weaponised against the planet's ordinary citzens by corporatepirates, as is done presently. 8 years ago, this was an excellent lecture, some parts need upgrading now because the subsidies for energy of any sort are to be compared with the costs of social protection against destruction of Civilisations.

[@KellyLCall]

I want one of these scaled down to produce 8-10kw for one or two houses perhaps in a shipping container in the back yard. Can this be scaled? Then we could really create personal autonomy in our cultures.

[@retovath]

It could be scale, but the contamination due to radioactive activation wouldn't make your neighbors happy.

[@WalterPaulKomarnicki]

an interesting and relevant lecture.

[@completesalvation1755]

Walter Paul Komarnicki sorry it’s biased. He did not address the problems with molten salt reactors.

[@steveturpin4242]

Very interesting talk...thanks a lot.

[@Shojikitsune1]

29:48 Actually, the State of California (or any other State) would never allow an opportunity to take more money from residents to escape so easily. There's another $1.60/gal equivalent in free tax money there. Someone will certainly find a way to add taxes to ammonia if such a savings was available. I am only being slightly facetious here.

[@LadyTink]

500 years in the future... we have thorium powered cars ;D Actually... more like 50 years in the future, thorium produced hydrocarbons save the world :)

[@doctorj1607]

With enough power you can quite simply turn co2 With water (hydrogen) to methane.

[@RurickTheGreat]

So Coal cost 5.6 cents per watt, wind cost 18.4 cents per watt and you telling me wind is the future? Nope its nuclear power.

[@solexxx8588]

The new reactors will be too late. We also need wind, hydro and solar as quickly as possible. It's not either or. Its all of the above to slow down climate change. LFTR will be a great solution for base load if it can be rolled our quickly enough.

[@pleabargain]

0:26 What is on his shirt collar?

[@haolelongpig6147]

Has Robert Hargraves weighed in on Transatomic Power's design?

[@Dave5843-d9m]

This vid is 6 years old but you can add Moltex to the list with an ultra low cost fast reactor that can burn high level nuke waste

[@bocckoka]

why do all thorium/lftr/msr related videos have these face closeups?

[@mauricio9564]

This video did not fully age well ,although it’s true that thorium still has a future in our energy mix coal doesn’t have to.PV solar and onshore wind are already cheaper than coal and will continue to be.All that was needed was some subsidies and invesment into capital cost and the rise of wind and solar has been unstoppable .Today both are cheaper than coal,countries in the third world can now transition to wind and solar at a cheap price per kWh the only thing stopping it as it was here until recently is their local power generators and private and bureaucratic industrial execs.

[@gordonmcdowell]

Ontario stopped burning coal in 2015. The cheapest alternative was hydro. The second-cheapest was nuclear. Search for 2021 Bruce Power Ontario Energy Report. On page 14 you'll see the comparison. You're thinking "Levelized Cost of Energy" LCOE which is amortized hardware (like a solar panel) cost per kWh. You're not thinking integration costs, and what solar does to the grid. Solar and wind provide intermittent kWh which are of far less VALUE than dependable kWh. What's the value of a solar panel at night? Germany is an excellent example of a country which has driven up electricity prices and also failed to substantially reduce carbon emissions. Germany can't stop burning coal, and Germany also became dependent on fossil-gas from Russia. There's nothing inherently cheap (or clean) about a grid with high renewable penetration.

[@ImortalMonster1]

Has there been any study on the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere/stratosphere? Is it possible that the very air we breath maybe in decline? Are we looking in the right place?

[@gordonmcdowell]

Rod Adams at Atomic Insights embedded the video on his blog, there's a decent conversation that took place there. Also a few comments on Reddit. But KZbin is rarely a decent spot for technical discussion. Gets swamped by CAPS-LOCK !!! EXCLAMATION-MARK !!! wielding knuckle-draggers.

[@totoritko]

"without having to use a fast breeder" You never mentioned that in your original post and now you're shifting the goal post. "So my point was that a unit of energy from Th takes much less mining of ore than uranium." And I simply pointed out that your "300times more efficient" claim is comparing apples to oranges. If you compare them correctly, it's more like 2x in pure ore volume (and almost negligible in cost). I don't know about you, but I don't consider a factor of 150x off to be "pedantic".

[@dalesplitstone6276]

It takes 800,000 tons of uranium ore to produce 250 tons of natural uranium, this is 3200 times as much ore as uranium metal. By contrast 200 tons of thorium ore produces 1 ton of thorium metal. On the basis of metal yielded per ton of ore thorium is 160x more efficient. This assumes that we don't mine uranium that would be justified by twice the price, and that we don't use thorium that is waste from mining other metals. Mining less rich deposits of uranium at double the price would drive up the amount of uranium ore mined per ton of metal, while using thorium that is waste from mining other metals would drive down the amount of "thorium" ore needed for a ton of thorium metal.

[@lw1945three]

In this talk about molten salt reactors one of the primary impetus for this type of technology was not discussed, which is Preservation of humanity. Our wonderful planet has the nasty habit of every so often exploding with a super volcano or taking a hit from a big space rock and blotting out the sun causing a mini Ice Age! Therefore, the true impetus for developing cheap dependable and abundant fueled nuclear power plants is self-preservation of humanity.

[@drakedorosh9332]

In the end a political figure got up and said that the reason politicians spend too much on technology is to help improve technology. The correct answers are: Good try, let's not lock in undeveloped technology without a schedule of improvement. Now try big investment in Thorim and new reactor designs.

[@lewisdoherty7621]

The mass produced units shouldn't be shipped in small unit parts transportable by trucks, but by larger units by rail. Every location that such a Thorium plant would be built would be in a rail corridor since that is where the energy consumers, industry and population live. This is done now with other power plant components.

[@kowalityjesus]

I

[@OnlyKnowsGod]

I completly agree with you. However thorium produces far less output per square foot then uranium but does so cheeper then uranium. Also getting a thorium plant that small so that it fits in an iso shipping container for movment on trucks and rail hasnt been done and even if it could the output would be so little that you would need one per 4-5 miles to suit the comminities it powering. That kind of volume for the usa would take years to role out. but yeah your right i just hope the world gets a move on and does whats needed quickly.

[@dalesplitstone6276]

@@OnlyKnowsGod Producing units that can be shipped by truck is not a good idea. The smallest unit should be shipped by rail car. The argument about the area that a plant takes up is not applicable since a large plant can be built out of many smaller units. Moltex proposes mass producing a standard 150MWe IMSR that can be used as a standard building block for reactors up to the 2000MWe range. My local county has a population of about 30,000 people. At one kilowatt per person we would need a single 30MWe plant. The nearest big city has a population of about 250,000, so a single 250MWe plant would be sufficient. The smallest Moltex plant would have one 150MWe IMSR and two half units, providing 300MWe. Add one more 150MWe IMSR and a single plant could provide enough electricity for several counties surrounding this larger city in less area than a coal power plant.

[@trex2621]

Have you never seen oversized cargo on trucks? Have you ever seen oversized cargo on rail?

[@robertweekes5783]

bomb drop @ 15:03

[@Dave5843-d9m]

Do you mean the point that Wind power creates more CO2 due to the need to backup gas fired plant running at low efficiency?

[@911NewsTV]

Every energy mogul millionaire billionaire should be voted to rebate a large portion of their estate to fund clean energy projects like Thorium and solar. We all believe they knew about these technology but kept it secret. The world needs to sue these people for hurting the earth so bad. ALL OIL COMPANIES NEED TO BE STRIPPED OF THEIR CAPITAL... PERIOD

[@ilovecops5499]

They need at least 5 1,000 MWe thorium reactors in somalia.

[@abdAlmajedSaleh]

actually that maybe ture

[@StefanHeitmann]

I would be glad to convert thorium generator into my life s line of work and happines

[@Kezoman1]

Why do so many of these 'PRO-LFTR SPOKESPERSONS' appear wearing dual dosimeters?

[@gordonmcdowell]

hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/10/01/060205/rockbox--refurbished-mp3-players--crowdsourced-audio-capture

[@PiratesVersusNinjas]

cool!

[@chapter4travels]

"Storage is the Holly Grail for renewables" This is not true, it would mean their demise, cost wise. With storage (If invented) would make reliable sources cheaper and intermittent sources far more expensive and take up huge land areas. A nuclear plant only needs half a day's worth of storage and the reactor can be made smaller and run constant 24/7. Intermittent sources need a week to tens days worth and 10 times as many panels or turbines to charge up those batteries very fast lest another storm rolls in. When there are no storms, they have an excess of power with nothing to do with it.

[@stevepeacock1914]

Load following and peak can be handled in nuclear easily by liquid air storage: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l6rPqpyMqsZrmbs

[@mrgomelonsolaris]

So maybe we will see storage paired with nuclear first, to smooth out its production. Also, to increase its security.

[@warpeace8891]

Now in June 2019 and the massive up scaling of photo voltaic solar globally has resulted in a lower lifetime cost for such large scale electricity production than any other source. Currently under 4 cents per kw/h and continuing to go down.

[@gordonmcdowell]

This is Electricity Map: www.electricitymap.org/ ...show me the industrialized nation providing clean energy using your solar-pv approach. Where is the example you'd like us to follow?

[@jwestney2859]

Of course we should aggressively build solar, and aggressively improve solar; I dream of the day when solar will provide more than a few percent of our electricity, but it still does not. Also, we should continue to seek batteries that will enable us to use solar 'round the clock. But GE invested a billion dollars in my town to make batteries for this purpose and then concluded that they could not develop a marketable product. Until such a battery is developed, solar power is available less than half the time and not in every climate. Most batteries give back only 80 percent of the power that you put in. So even when a good-enough battery is developed, we will need to generate 1.25 KW-H of solar electricity in order to use get 1KW-H during the consumption peak that occurs every evening. Global warming is urgent. It looks to me like we could really have big problems if we don't make BIG progress. Are you really suggesting that Thorium power should be suppressed just because solar is making progress?

[@maunaowakea777]

his numbers are off on costs of renewables

[@Andrath]

The waste can be used as fuel in a LFTR. No need to enrich.

[@dalesplitstone6276]

Not exactly true. The waste can be burned in a LFTR once the fission products are removed, but it might need to be enriched with fuel from the breeding blanket.

[@andrewlambert7246]

One million die a year from coal. How many in the world knows that. I didnt know that.

[@rampally07]

ground braking

[@manw3bttcks]

A big point that's skipped a lot, every atom of thorium in the environment is nuclear burnable, but only 1 atom out of 142 uranium atoms in nature is isotope 235. That means that mining thorium is almost 300times more efficient (thorium is already 2x more common than Uranium in general) so you don't have to move as much ore or process as much.

[@kevindouglas2060]

The so called renewables are really only the best choice when you need to do something intermittent and remote. For example using a windmill to pump water for cattle on the far reaches of a ranch. Or solar to recharge batteries on some distant monitoring device. It helps to remember that ships were once wind powered and no one wanted to go back once engines were developed. I think it would be helpful to teach the public especially the p.c.types just how dirty things were before electricity. Even early coal fired power plants were a vast improvement. We need to move forward not backwards. Molten salt reactors look like a big move forward probably starting with burners and moving in steps to the full Thorium cycle without shutting down. At first I thought maybe it was OK to use the current climate scam to scare people into doing the right thing but the truth is starting to come to light. Carbon dioxide has only a small effect on temperature. actually the world's temperature shouldn't be as stable as it is ! But the feedback loops regulating world climate tend to dampen change instead of increasing change as the climate models assume. I think it is best to be truthful . Explain that all people want to clean things up if they can afford it. Above all don't lie because this is going to take far longer than most people on this site think . And eventually the public figures things out.

[@alpheusmadsen8485]

I would have to confess that a major reason I fail to believe "climate change" is a crisis is because those who fear it the most, with very few exceptions, don't seem to be interested in nuclear power at all as an option to aleviate the problem. If anything, they actively *decommission* nuclear. Having said that, while I suspect that fossil fuels will be economically viable (all other things being equal) in the next 100 years or so, I cannot help but think that nuclear should supplant fossil fuels (at least for fuel) anyway -- and that we *cannot* explore the solar system, unless we go via nuclear power.

[@henrikaize]

if it can be modular and put over a truck ,then it must be very cheap for a country financial,And may be it cheap enaugh for an university lab or for a rich man . Then why only talking , Why don' t just make it. Shows it to public transparantley everything. People will follow if there is examples.

[@JohnChampagne]

Thorium reactors can provide energy WAY cheaper than coal IF we take account of economic externalities. That means charge appropriate fees when pollution is put or natural resources are depleted. Fees are 'appropriate' (high enough) when random polls shoe that most people think there is not too much pollution of various kinds and not too-rapid taking of limited natural resources. If we have a shared *right* to define limits to environmental impacts, then reality must match what average opinion deems acceptable. "Taxes are not enough" sounds like an irresponsible assertion. Taxes should not be neglected. Carbon taxes (or fees...and payments proportional to environmental impacts generally) are necessary to make prices reflect true costs. Making prices honest will turn the whole economy toward efficient and sustainable business models and technologies. That means turning toward thorium nuclear power generations and thorium-powered manufacture of liquid fuels for transport. Pollution fees and resource depletion fees can be politically viable IF they are revenue-neutral. Proceeds should be shared equally to all people. (The policy should be global.) Biological Model for Politics and Economics: gaiabrain.blogspot.com/2010/03/biological-model-for-politics-and.html

[@RickMaltese]

Great presentation in the right time and place. I review the book here See my review of the book on my thoriumMSR blog

[@CraigHocker]

the biggest problem is coal, clearly the weaker part of this talk was on the fuels for vehicle to replace gasoline, that was pretty sketchy and it's clearly mostly theoretical at this point. I don't see those technologies replacing future improved versions of the Tesla Model S. Israeli entrepreneur Shai Agassi concept of treating batteries as fuel would seem better, because it all uses electricity. The infrastructure changes seem much less formidable.

[@matsv201]

Well, for nitrogen based fuel, sure, but G2L plant have existed since WW2. It will probably make fuel some what more expensive than the nitrogen based, but still it can be, with a thermal cycle, cheaper than gasoline today... Also, because its synthetic, its 100% pure. No more population from combustion powered cars. This is not theory. Plants like this is commonplace in South Africa and Australia. Also, thermal hydrogen plats also exist. If you build a MSR you can just connect it to a thermal hydrogen-plant (already existing technology), then connect the thermal hydrogen-plant to a G2L plant (also existing technology). The only thing needed is a source of coal. Battery powered car is a really bad idéa. The problem is in part that they are hugly expensive to produce. About half the cost of the tesla is battery. The battery only last for 5-8 year or 600-800 charges.

[@CraigHocker]

matsv201 Your objection that electric cars are hugely expensive to produce will rapidly disappear in the next 10 years if it's not already invalid. Tesla says it's battery assembly is already less than a quarter of the costs in the car and they are talking 10 years for a battery pack. And the sorts of the batteries they are using are quoted dropping in costs at a rate of 10-15% per year. Shai Agassi's solution was radically different approach, you don't own the battery pack, his cars just swapped out the battery pack in less than a minute at refill stations. So the whole objection you make isn't even relevant. The only climate neutral hydrocarbon sources that Robert mentioned in this talk is some schemes that haven't been implemented and the other was sourced from agriculture which looked to require way to much agriculture land use. The synthetic fuel methods that Germany used in WWII started with coal. For existing G2L plants you mention, I don't see conversion of natural gas to liquid fuels as exactly carbon neutral technology.

[@matsv201]

Craig Hocker "10 years if it's not already invalid" People keep saying that for the last 30-years. A new tesla cost twice as mutch as a old Th!nk electric car, that's how they "solved" the problem. EV1 they suppose to sell for $25k, they had to raise the sails price to $40k to recoup the batteryinventory, and people was talking about a price hike. Now tesla is selling cars for $100k and people say its cheaper. "Tesla says it's battery assembly is already less than a quarter of the costs in the car " Well, thats about the sails cost relative to the cell for the 40kWh version that´s not on sail any more. Not the true batterypack cost of the 60kWh version... and also, to component cost. " talking 10 years for a battery pack" They can talk out of there asses all day long. They don't make the cell, they buy them from other companies. "And the sorts of the batteries they are using are quoted dropping in costs at a rate of 10-15% per year" No, the Lithium-cobalt-manganese batteries have cost about the same since the late 90-tys, its the one tesla is using. The Lithium-Phosphor-iron betteries is the one getting cheeper, and that's mostly because the market its not saturated yet. " Shai Agassi's solution was radically different approach" Its i theoretical and stupid idéa from someone how don´t know what they are talking about. A simple question. If a car come in every 5 minutes and switch batteries. what capacity power-lines does the station need? "The only climate neutral hydrocarbon sources that Robert mentioned in this talk is some schemes that haven't been implemented" It´s not true. In eurupe we use them all over the place, not for a carbon source, but for a energy source, it workes exactly the same way. "agriculture which looked to require way to much agriculture land use" You didn´t get it, its a waste product today. "The synthetic fuel methods that Germany used in WWII started with coal. " Well, actually they use CO and OH and heat. The pre burned the carbon to CO+OH, its a two step process. Adding more hydrogen makes the process more efficient. "For existing G2L plants you mention" False, both CO and OH is gases. " I don't see conversion of natural gas to liquid fuels as exactly carbon neutral technology." It´s the exact same process. GAS to LIQUID. It does not matter if the gas is natural gas or a CO2/CO+Hydrogen mix. That´s why its called gas to luquid, because it can use just about any hydrocarbon gas.

[@CraigHocker]

First off, you completely miss the point that Tesla's current cars are luxury cars. The next model is going in the right direction to lower price, and that trend will continue. The rest of your response just is not making much sense so I'm done. You're mixing what's happening with theoretical. Yes, I understand chemistry. What's happening is not carbon neutral and your comment on Agassi just shows me you don't know what you are talking about. I'll make a prediction, in 15 years from now, what you are proposing will have gone exactly no where.

[@matsv201]

"Tesla's current cars are luxury cars." They are expensive, yes, that does not automatically make them into luxary cars. The thing is you cant make them mutch cheeper because of battery cost. Sure, you can make a electric car for half the price, but then the performance also lowers. "The rest of your response just is not making much sense so " Well, you don´t understand it, that obvious, but that don't make it wrong "You're mixing what's happening with theoretical." Al calculation is based on a theoretical model, if you don t understand the link, then you will not be able to make a theoretical estimate, and then you are just plain guessing. "15 years from now, what you are proposing will have gone exactly no where. " I didn´t predict anything, just told you what techology exist.

[@MrDanP1]

Adding to what he said about the price of gas going up...some oil rigs and gas rigs are interchangeable. As the price of oil goes us, rigs are changed over from gas to oil...thereby lowering supply of gas...thereby raising the price. On another note, let me disabuse some of you from the foolish notion that "energy efficiency" has an important role to play. Any energy savings we achieve through "energy efficency" will be consumed by something called the "Jevon's Paradox". I encourage all of

[@mekanopsis1]

I think the reason is that the topics of environmentalism, and cutting edge nuclear science are unfortunately of interest to completely separate and disconnected groups of people. Very few of our species seem rational enough to not only acknowledge climate change but also support pragmatic solutions.....

[@antpowell5974]

The Chinese will be happy to supply the USA with LFTRs. Coals to Newcastle.

[@MrDanP1]

you to research it.....................

[@theprofessorfate6184]

36:00 the "Green" woman would rather subsidize expensive electricity to make herself feel good.

[@raquelredmond9396]

B. B. T

[@plausible_dinosaur]

Thorium is a pretty shit reactor implementation tbh. It’s very existence relies on the fact that Protactinium can be pulled from the thorium blanket salt. This is possible, but the main advantage of thorium is that it’s proliferation resistant because the uranium that is created by breeding it is very very radioactive- much more than 235. The protactinium has to be removed because it eats free neutrons and stops the reaction, like it’s own control rods. So you have to concentrate this reaction stopping protactinium which decays into your extra poisonous U233 fuel. You can do this- but there is significant engineering challenges getting molten salts to not eat the very pipes they flow through. Separation schemes are even more abysmal. To get the protactinium out you must reduce the salt by adding lithium metal dissolved in molten bismuth or, when you are refueling the reactor, thorium. The added metal displaces the protactinium and what little uranium there is in the blanket salt into uranium. Then the protactinium is separated from the uranium by bubbling fluorine gas into the bismuth solvent which makes UF6 a gaseous compound that bubbles out of solution. This uranium is reduced and re dissolved into the salt and used as fuel to provide neutrons to convert the thorium to protactinium in the blanket salt. Also the protactinium that is produced must sit for 30 days for it to decay into uranium to fuel. Either you run an inefficient reactor or you concentrate an incredibly dangerous isotope of uranium. The other problem is you can make very simple energy storage devices from catalysing water to make hydrogen which you can burn in a generator, or you can compress air and use that to drive a generator. They can be combined with wind or solar. You don't need billions of research, you don't need to wait decades and costs just keep on tumbling down. If you absolutely need nuclear for any reason just use an off the peg uranium design and swallow a known cost instead of the lies the Thorium industry HAS to tell to make themselves look viable. You really only have to look at the fact that you can mass produce solar and leave it in a field for its life time and compare that with a nuclear reactor with endless checks, security guards, refuelling and maintenance to see that nuclear has no chance in hell of competing price wise.

[@nwphoto74]

Have you been asleep in Rip-Van-Winkle land? This has been (& is) done many times for many years, hardly an original suggestion.