Site visit: Building the nuclear reactors of the future

Enlit on the Road visited Copenhagen Atomics to talk to co-founder Thomas Jam Pedersen about how thorium energy can change the future of nuclear power. Copenhagen Atomics is pioneering thorium-molten salt technology for small modular nuclear reactors for assembly line manufacture.
Find more insights from Denmark: www.enlit.world/enlit-on-the-...

[@EnlitWorld]

Thank you for watching. Copenhagen Atomics will be speaking at Enlit Europe in Paris this November 2023. Visit for free and register on our website: www.enlit-europe.com/.

[@johnkutsch7609]

Copenhagen Atomics is the best hope for advanced nuclear

[@chapter4travels]

My money is on Terrestrial Energy or Moltex.

[@mauritsdolmans2536]

Excellent overview and something that provides some hope that we can get cheap, reliable, carbon neutral energy for a resilient and even negative carbon economy. Also energy independence, safety, and getting rid of nuclear waste. We need to share this news!

[@royh6526]

I think these small modular reactors are ideal for large ships. Imagine getting rid of the massive ocean pollution by diesel driven freighters and tankers with this thorium power.

[@jakobbernstein8719]

Interesting and inspiring

[@hiltonwatkins6750]

I expected to hear more about the end result and the toxicity of spent fuel… how does it affect the toxicity problem?

[@chapter4travels]

Go to Indonesia and compete/work with Thorcon Power, first to market wins second to market also wins because the market is so enormous.

[@migBdk]

I know about ThorCon and they are good. He say in a different interview that he consider the other MSR companies colleagues rather than competitors, as long as Copenhagen Atomics does not have a product fully on the marked. So they *should* collaborate on some research and development. However, Copenhagen Atomics are way ahead of ThorCon since they prioritise testing over modelling. The original MSR was infamous for having to be shut down all the time to fix issues with pumps and plumbings, so testing is of the essense. ThorCon also have a different design philosophy: floating barges (which CA say will add time to the development cycle), also not a pure thorium reactor - they even admit they mainly add thorium to the fuel mix for the hype. They do plan on using shipyard automated production facilities, which might decrease production time dramatically. But I think the reactors and power plants need to be designed specifically for this kind of production, CA go for a model where subcontractors provide the most parts rather than a giant automated factory. Also, I know Indonesia is a huge emerging enegy marked. But CA can place their reactors everywhere, not limited to large harbour cities without existing energy infrastructure. Providing energy for new industry like synthetic fuels, carbon storage or desalination plants is a huge marked on its own.

[@chapter4travels]

@@migBdk Both have advantages and disadvantages. Thorcon will likely go straight uranium, a good move, thorium just adds cost and complexity. CA needs to find a host country and it took Thorcon several years to establish that. Barge construction makes everything go faster, not slower, maritime laws are more lax than terrestrial. Something like 80% of the world's population is within transmission line distance to a port or major river and certainly, the industrial applications are in that range. I see thorium as a handicap at this stage in gen. IV development. It requires a breeder reactor which adds cost and complexity. Also, there is no shortage of uranium, we have about 2 billion years worth.

[@thewiseperson8748]

What about neutron embrittlement of the "onion" stainless steel structure, after a few years' of use ? The reactor would not to be dismantled and replaced, being then a highly radioactive structure. This was not discussed in the video and is an important practical consideration.

[@grilsegrils9330]

Norway has plenty of thorium down in the southern parts. I know the government now isn't going for nuclear as a first step. So some issues there. There is a regulatory body already but there has been some corruption. However, wouldn't Norway also be a good parallel choice for a research reactor, as the raw materials are abundant within it's soil/mountains?

[@grahamstevenson1740]

Experience in building reactors will be more important that having plenty of the thorium ore.

[@royh6526]

Why does Thomas Pedersen talk about Plutonium being readily available in the UK? This is a thorium MSR, but I know these reactors need a seed of uranium or plutonium to get the desired reaction cycle started. I would think this would be small quantities and available almost anywhere.

[@manatoa1]

MSRs can run on any sort of fissile fuel depending on the design. A really compelling fuel cycle is to use a combination of plutonium and spent nuclear fuel. That cycle takes care of the problem of excess plutonium stockpiles and nuclear waste in one go.

[@4Nanook]

You can count me as one of the folks that really wants to see this happen for many many reasons, not the least of which is to dispose of the long term actinide wastes from conventional pressurized boiling reactors, and Candu's, but also because this tech is inherently safe as opposed to conventional plants which are a disaster waiting to happen. I think a lot of the push back comes from the fact that you can't readily separate out weapons grade plutonium from these reactors. Yes, it does produce produce plutonium 239, but it also produces other plutonium isotopes which are short lived and thus would cause the bomb to fizzle rather than explode if you don't do isotopic separation, and these isotopes are so hot that they are difficult to work with, so one would just leave them in the reactor as more fuel. But I do expect this is the main reason the DOE has been so reluctant to license these in spite of their huge safety and waste advantages over traditional reactors.

[@stanmitchell3375]

Why not make it drum shaped ,for less welding?

[@friedrichkoerner]

Is there an advantage/disadvantage to the dual-fluid-reactor?

[@royh6526]

I don't understand your question. Do you mean the flouride salt with thorium vs flouride salt with uranium 233? That is what this is.

[@friedrichkoerner]

@@royh6526 The main difference seems to me that CA uses heavy water as moderator and pumps the salt through a heat exchanger. The DFR on the other hand has no moderator and uses liquid metal as coolant. But both are capable to breed U 233 from Th 232, so have a similar goal. So what are the advantages/disadvantages of these different approaches?

[@MrGottaQuestion]

​@@friedrichkoernerfast reactors can be more technically difficult and also require much larger inventory as the neutron has a harder time interacting with the atom in the fast spectrum. This larger inventory makes it much harder to power the world on existing stocks of the kick starter fuel, existing stockpiles of nuclear waste.

[@BertWald-wp9pz]

I gather a significant challenge is how to contain highly corrosive salts for a long period. Perhaps this is a trade secret but if not, it would be interesting to see the proposals. I imagined some sort of ceramic vessel but perhaps the temperatures are too high for this.

[@MrGottaQuestion]

The secret is ultra purity (lack of oxygen)

[@watchthe1369]

Iconel and Niconel alloys, same stuff that a lot of nukes use. It is TOUGH stuff and costs a lot more than regular piping.

[@zbret]

Copenhagen Atomics recently released another video addressing this question. In short, they filter the salt and ensure it remains pure.

[@camresearch5120]

What about chromium migration of Hastelloy at temperatures 🌡️ approaching 700C making the alloy brittle? What about the lost efficiency due to the physics of fluid dynamics? Pipe size matters. Good idea to invest in research reactors and there are promising niche uses but not to deploy for large scale economic power solutions. For fossil fuel ⛽ transition we need safe, tested and proven effective solutions now. Most of all we need a large scale commercial nuclear waste repository. Australia should become the waste materials repository. Australia 🦘 exports uranium and has a responsibility for the residual end products. In exchange the world 🌎 as part of a Paris Style agreement could help Australia transition from coal to nuclear ☢️.

[@stanmitchell3375]

Laser welding is raster

[@Y_S_I_Thompson]

Brilliant light power will soon be able to produce electricity much cheaper using its SunCell.

[@joeybenoit6269]

Supercomputers can solve this problem instantly! Or go rogue

[@klugekluge]

talking about price without any REAL figures comparison with other OEMs doesn not make any sense

[@railgap]

Even the choice of 3D printer for the background is embarrassing. Nothing wrong with that brand, but... you're presenting yourself as a state of the art cutting edge reactor company, and even _if_ you really do need a 3D printer... I find it hard to believe one wouldn't buy a higher-end (high precision and repeatability for starters) unit.

[@joeybenoit6269]

Tesla we took his knowledge and we buried it

[@mississippi-son]

Unfortunately, you will have to scratch the back of your partner. You wont be able to own the entire tech, the reactors and the profits. You will most likely need to partner with a country or private investor and sell the reactors to existing power companies.

[@railgap]

As a retired engineer, scientist, and researcher, I was forced to be part of a few dog-and-pony-shows, so when I say that THIS is a dog and pony show... look, other engineers and scientists are NODDING VIGOROUSLY right now. Ask one you know. No, not the free energy nut who tinkers with fusors and Over-Unity Devices in his basement, A REAL ONE.