Thorium Problem - Why it may never Happen

Рет қаралды 285,723

Күн бұрын

Пікірлер: 1 600

@louismechler4338 10 ай бұрын

In france, the most common molten salt design use NaCl (yeah table salt) to dissolve U238 and plutonium 239. The corrosion issue is resolved through ceramics coating. working with a fast spectrum vastly reduces the transUranic generation, while allowing to work with used Mox fuel. It also allows to work as a burner for long life waste.

@migBdk 10 ай бұрын

Using a flouride salt instead of NaCl adds a layer of security since a breakage of the reactor will let the fuel solidify into rocks not dissolvable in water. The fast spectrum is in itself a technological challenge. At the very least it means you cannot make a small compact reactor, since the size of the fuel and blanket salt necessary to sustain the chain reaction and breeding increase by a lot.

@youcantata 10 ай бұрын

@@migBdk Uranium chloride is solid or liquid if molten or dissolved in water. Uranium fluoride is gas. Solid or liquid are easier to handle than gas in case of accident.

@perryallan3524 10 ай бұрын

That's only a test reactor. Notice they never even talked of building power plants with that design... Perhaps it did not work as well as you think it did. There have been dozens of different designs tried as test reactors. Most of them show that other designs are known to work better.

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

This video ignored the fact that a 2MW Thorium pilot power plant has been running since June 2023. It is already happening. Lessens learned from the pilot plant will show the world how to improve the system for a safe and abundant energy source.

@feraudyh 10 ай бұрын

@@migBdkfluoride, fluoride

@strangereyes9594 10 ай бұрын

Another thing is, that all the liquid salts inside and outside the reactor are insanely corrosive at that temperatures. Although there are materials to deal with that, it remains a big headache when it comes to maintenance since every part of the system is contaminated, making any work on the system as a whole a pretty hazardous adventure.

@keeno86 10 ай бұрын

Glad to see someone mention this in the comments. It's much more difficult than the theoretical science makes it out to be. There is much more practicality in simply updating water cooled/moderated reactors like we are seeing with Small Modular Reactors, which are proven to actually be functional, safe, and more affordable.

@paulbradford6475 10 ай бұрын

Some designs (Thorcon?) want to simply replace the reactor core before its expiration date, thus avoiding altogether any serious corrosion issues.

@theflyingwelshman5338 10 ай бұрын

The corrosion issue has been resolved years ago.

@WJV9 10 ай бұрын

Copenhagen has claimed that they have solved the corrosion problem by eliminating contaminents in the fuel. They have been running Lithium Fluoride salts through their process loops for years with minimum corrosion problems.

@edding8400 10 ай бұрын

Checkout Copenhagen Atomics

@ultradimensions 10 ай бұрын

Most people don't understand nuclear power plants are safer than coal or oil.

@kevinclark2813 10 ай бұрын

Try living next to one.

@NotSomethingIsNothing 10 ай бұрын

It'd still be safer than living beside a coal power plant@@kevinclark2813

@theflyingwelshman5338 10 ай бұрын

@@kevinclark2813 I’d do that in a heartbeat. It beats living next to a coal power plant and being exposed to mercury vapor.

@crestofhonor2349 10 ай бұрын

@@kevinclark2813plenty of people already do. France itself is mostly nuclear and the US and Germany have quite a few as well. There is no issue living nearby

@CraftyF0X 10 ай бұрын

@@kevinclark2813 Actually I would very much like to, as nuclear power plants tend to provide very stable reliable well paid jobs which is kinda something nowdays.

@MrRolnicek 10 ай бұрын

The chemical process for Kirks LFTR specifically (which is what we're talking about here) does NOT look like what you describe here. There is no fluorine injection, it's basically electrolysis. You put a relatively small voltage across and Protactinium moves from one salt into the other salt while the other electrode is made from Thorium which by this electrolysis dissolves into the salt to replace the Protactinium. The two salts are in separate tanks connected by liquid Bismuth at the bottom which acts as one of the electrodes and allows the Protactinium to travel from one salt to the other. That purely chemical process is possible too like you say but I believe the electrochemistry wins out by simplicity and lack of maintenance needed. The only parts involved are a liquid metal which is not spent and being liquid no structural damage and the Thorium electrode which is destroyed but that is your refuelling process. The only thing you really need to worry about is keeping the voltage of the process at the right level which is in the modern day VERY easy to do. If you only use the voltage which corresponds to the binding energy of Protactinium you only pull out Protactinium, if you use a higher voltage you pull out things with higher binding energy too. The downside is that the process is probably a LOT slower than the purely chemical approach but should be easily able to keep up with the reactor. Flibe Energy KZbin channel has a nice introduction video of the "Thorium Fuel Cycle"

@cpt_bill366 10 ай бұрын

This won't get enough attention. Every time someone makes the argument against LFTR it feels like they're parroting things they hear from lobbyists instead of doing research and reporting their findings, you know, the scientific method. "But it will be hard, and we can't make good bombs" is the reasoning that will ensure China & India get it working before we do. We'd rather burn platinum than make affordable, reliable energy that has beneficial byproducts like other fuels we need here and in space. Industry doesn't see the big picture if it doesn't generate profit this quarter.

@MegamanTheSecond 10 ай бұрын

this is why i just ignore most videos about thorium other than 3 hour presentations by people who actually know almost nobody talks about this they just do some Wikipedia search and make a 10 minute video for views its extremely infuriating but oh well china will sell us back our own technology by 2030

@toddmarshall7573 10 ай бұрын

@@cpt_bill366 If we can pop energy out like jelly beans...anywhere in the world... and above it or below the sea... which is the potential here, the reason for all these wars.... and bombs largely goes away. We're just left with the megalomaniacs... and we can develop a pill for that.

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@MrRolnicek 10 ай бұрын

@@vxworks66 I didn't even know about that. Is that the chineese one?

@tonywilson4713 10 ай бұрын

ENGINEER HERE{ The real technical problem that is rarely being mentioned is operational experience with Molten Salt Reactors. Being honest this was something I had missed until it was pointed out recently by James Krellenstein on an interview he did with Decoupled Media here on YT. After they did the MSR experiment at Oak Ridge in Tennessee back in the late 1960s and Early 1970s the entire MSR concept basically was shelved with zero work being done until Kirk Sorenson re-discovered it as part of a project he was doing looking at powering a Lunar base. With the exception of nuclear fusion we literally have millions of hours of operational and maintenance time with all the other forms of nuclear power - gas cooled, liquid metal cooled, pressure water, CANDU.... etc. By comparison we have almost nothing with respect to any of the molten salt types. None of them were ever put into service so NOBODY actually knows what the ongoing operational or maintenance issues actually are. This is one of the most fundamental issues with all technologies. Its one thing to build something its another thing to operate it and yet another thing to maintain it AND EVERY technology goes through a learning phase that never really ends. Think about how much experience we now have with cars and aeroplanes and other technologies.

@whiteknightcat 10 ай бұрын

Wasn't one of the reasons MSR's were shelved (and very quickly, too) was because they couldn't produce weapons grade uranium which the government could use?

@cas1652 10 ай бұрын

Sure but it boils down to that we can't have good, safe, cheap nuclear power because we don't have good, safe, cheap nuclear power. We did have Oak Ridge though and I think the results from that are very promising. China is also building one so I have hope that we will finally see what Thorium can do.

@tonywilson4713 10 ай бұрын

@@cas1652 As an engineer I have to correct or at least clarify your main claims that we can't have good, safe, cheap nuclear power. 1) GOOD as compared to what? because every type of power we use has a number in inescapable side effects. Solar panels are great once they are made but making them is toxic and disposing of spent cells is near impossible. Like nuclear we still haven't found a way to deal with the waste. 2) SAFE as compare to what? Because if you are going to compare nuclear to coal then the fatality rates make coal one of the most lethal substances ever known. Coal mines are some of the most dangerous places any person can work. By comparison do you know how many people have died from nuclear power or nuclear power accidents? 3) CHEAP again compared to what? Yes nuclear is damn expensive to construct but once built its operating costs are quite low because it doesn't require a lot of fuel in terms of mass. Don't get me wrong there are some serious issues with nuclear the most obvious being what to do after wards. Other then the fuel the power stations themselves don't last for ever and cleaning up those sites has proven to be incredibly expensive. *BUT I'D ADD cleaning up so many other industrial sites ahs also been incredibly expensive. PLUS we have barely begun to start cleaning up many of the incredibly toxic sites built in the post WW2 era.* I'm Australian and did you know that Sydney harbour one of our great tourist spots is so toxic that NOBODY is allowed to eat any of the fish or seafood in it. Its all due to a Phillips factory that nobody knew was dumping stuff into the ground water system. I'm not a great fan of nuclear but I also accept we need a a reliable bulk energy system that can back up the renewable systems people want. Sorry but renewables just can't do everything, that's just a fantasy. Plus it will take decades to get all that we need installed. Nuclear is like so many other things. It can be done safely, reliably and cost effectively. THE PROBLEM is the people who's only interest is milking as much money is possible from it. *HAVE YOU SEEN all the crap at Boeing?* That sort of corporate stupidity is rampant through the engineering industries. That's the sort of stupidity that scares me way more than nuclear anything because they DO NOT CARE about the consequences other people have to deal with. That's what you should be calling out - stupid ridiculous corporate greed because its the *REAL PROBLEM.*

@cas1652 10 ай бұрын

@@tonywilson4713 i think i agree with. I just think Thorium will be (even?) better than we have now. 1) good: when the corrosion issues are solved, I expect Thorium to be easier and faster to build 2) safe: liquid salt reactors can be passively safe unlike contemporary designs that rely on active cooling with diesel generators in an emergency 3) cheap: thorium is much cheaper then uranium, both in fuel costs and for the nuclear waste

@tonywilson4713 10 ай бұрын

@@cas1652 I'd agree with all 3 of those points. There's just one major issue with thorium, but it is solvable. RIGHT NOW we have effectively zero experience with Thorium as well as with using MSRs long term. There's a channel called Decouple Media. I don't always agree with either the host or some of the people he has on because like so many of the pro-nuclear crowd they aren't engineers and don't understand what these issues mean or what it takes to deal with them. An exception to that is a guy named James Krellenstein who he's had on a number of times. Jame's family has been involved in the Canadian nuclear industry for decades. So there's a wealth of experience behind what he explains. He's spoken about the pro's and cons of all the different types including CANDU, MSRs and MSRs. A really important interview he gave was on Uranium enrichment. He went through the whole history and why there's now a major issue in that area with capacity. America RIGHT NOW can't even supply its own needs and has to buy enriched Uranium from the Russians. the only enrichment plant in America isn't even owned by Americans its owned by a British, German and Dutch conglomerate. *NOBODY else is even speaking about this stuff, which find even more amazing.* Not even all the pro nuclear clowns are talking about it. NONE of them are saying anything like: _"To get the nuclear industry going we need more mines and more enrichment facilities and better waste disposal."_ I think we will need thorium to help boost the baseload power supply and the sooner we get on and sort it out the better *BUT ALMOST NO ONE IS SAYING THAT.* This is the sort of thing that *as an engineer* I find truly aggravating. There's all these clowns who will never have to do a damn thing DEMANDING people like me solve these f*cking issues for them. Worse they will probably take credit when we do solve these issues.

@unqualified_engineer 10 ай бұрын

He has returned.

@xbox70333 10 ай бұрын

I subscribed again on my new accnt just today lmao

@jonilappalainen6056 10 ай бұрын

this video is a propaganda video with zero real input other than plz stop regulating my industry with shit out of Ayn rand's novel like 'oh those Bad actors'? Is this video a joke or wtf

@unqualified_engineer 10 ай бұрын

@@jonilappalainen6056 tf are you on about?

@fuckyounoonecaresaboutyouyoun- 10 ай бұрын

escuse me mam are you on drugs? or are you part of the "bad actors"@@jonilappalainen6056

@vapormissile 6 ай бұрын

This. Is. Propaganda. You are indeed an@@unqualified_engineer

@champisthebunny6003 9 ай бұрын

This video was doing all right UNTIL, he decided the pull that worn out old trope, the green(peacers), are largely, if not entirely to blame for any problems, real or imagined in the nuclear energy field. And no, I am not with GP, nor do I know anyone that is in that org. But I do know a strawman when I see them, and its appears here@ 7:32

@davidfuechtjohann1632 9 күн бұрын

Yep... I dropped our when he said its safee than wind and hydro....

@makisekurisu4674 10 ай бұрын

You forgot to mention that you can run a lifter like molten salt reactor for urainium also.You can pretty much use any fissile or fertile material in there.

@migBdk 10 ай бұрын

Yes, ThorCon plan to use a mixture of 235U and thorium, so the thorium does not turn it into a real breeder it just reduce the time needed before refuelling.

@tomshackell 10 ай бұрын

@seanprice7645 this isn't correct. ThorCon's design is not a modified breeder at all, it's a uranium burner to which thorium is added. You could do this with *any* nuclear power plant: just replace some of the U238 with Th232. In any case this seems a moot point. Last time I heard, ThorCon have been looking away from using thorium because they can't get the necessary fuel: it's just easier and simplier to run with standard low-enriched-uranium. This turns out to be true for almost *any* design that uses thorium: it's just easier and cheaper to use uranium. Which is why there is very little real interest (i.e. outside of the internet) in using thorium in any timescale anyone cares about.

@morgan40654 10 ай бұрын

CANDU reactors, a design from the 60's, use non-enriched uranium for fuel currently, and are perfectly cable of the Thorium breeding cycle and fuel re-processing with stuff like MOX cycles.

@5353Jumper 10 ай бұрын

Which is oen reason they are not looking closely at Thorium yet, they are more interested is using waste fuel from older nuclear plants before they start looking at new fuel types.

@SubvertTheState 10 ай бұрын

Well Thorium molten salt reactors basically do run on Uranium. Uranium 235 (Neutron source to start the breeder reaction), Uranium 238 and Uranium 233. As well as a hundred ( I have no idea ) other actinides. I have high hopes for LIFTER, but doubt America will be able to do it. Unfortunately the bureaucratic state is much like the USSR and nothing is going to get done.

@SonnyPlayz2-wo7jx 10 ай бұрын

I literally was looking for your channel yesterday to see if you had posted any new cool videos, and I was so sad there hadn't been for a year. BUT TODAY HE HAS RETURNED, WE HAVE BEEN BLESSED

@nsa_surveillance_orb-42b 10 ай бұрын

I believe he runs the Bleak Science channel as well, where we get good quality snarky science delivered from time to time.

@megabebrik2 10 ай бұрын

same!

@Hi-Im-RubX 10 ай бұрын

He has been using his time on another channel of his ( don't remember what is called ) I thought he had abandoned us. Not sure what to think of it. Edit: It's called "Bleak Science"

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@SonnyPlayz2-wo7jx 10 ай бұрын

@@Hi-Im-RubX thanks bro

@manojkumar_5478 10 ай бұрын

Chinese and indian researcher is quite advanced in thorium tech. India will commission its Prototype Fast breeder reactor in 2024 for our 2nd stage of nuclear programme. In third stage we intend to using Thorium which is present in abundant supply in India instead of nuclear fuel which is imported

@arnehofoss9109 10 ай бұрын

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZCbpIRjnZt7d7c India and China are leading this "race"!

@stickynorth 10 ай бұрын

And China has already turned on its thorium reactor in the Gobi and announced its thorium fueled shipping fleet!

@agnosticatheist4093 9 ай бұрын

@@stickynorth India is not lagging behind in terms of thorium reactor development, but rather pursuing a different and more comprehensive approach than China. India’s thorium programme is based on decades of research and experience, and has the potential to revolutionise the global nuclear energy scenario.

@tedchandran 8 ай бұрын

Jai 😊

@NavasAp-ie6bn 7 ай бұрын

@@stickynorthChina also hacked datas from indian thorium reactor 2 years ago

@st0ox 10 ай бұрын

I feel somewhat misrepresented in this video. I am an avid anti nuclear activist, but I never lobbied against Thorium Reactors or Nuclear Fusion or any research projects in Nuclear Fission. I am just against a very badly maintained nuclear reactor (Tihange) built in my vicinity and I know a lot of people in my neighborhood who see things as I do. More research in nuclear energy technologies will make things safer and why should an (let's call it) anti conventional nuclear powerplant activist be against research? I am just against nuclear powerplant companies that cut corners, which unfortunately is a thing. Why should I tolerate that someone is risking the whole landscape I grew up in for a profit margin they should have put in maintaining the powerplant to keep it as safe as possible? So please don't blame it on me that there might not be Thorium Reactors in our future.

@Unb3arablePain 10 ай бұрын

Coming as someone who works with typical U-235 LWRs, my biggest question with Thorium is what do you do to start back up the plant when it inevitably shuts down? You can't run it forever, equipment (especially pumps) will need maintenance overhauls at some point or some sensor fails and brings you offline. Is molten salt really going to allowed to solidify in the piping? If so how will you unblock these solid masses of salt to get flow again? I assume a massive amount of heat tracing but haven't seen a commercially viable answer to this.

@arnehofoss9109 10 ай бұрын

kzbin.info/www/bejne/pZCbpIRjnZt7d7c

@brucerubenstein7843 10 ай бұрын

Just spitballing here, but the nice thing about modular reactors is you can have more than one. So it seems plausible that you could have one shut down for maintenance while others continue to operate.

@nikolatasev4948 10 ай бұрын

You can drain the pipes into a heated tank, it doesn't have to solidify in the piping.

@stevecummins324 10 ай бұрын

Run the salt lines inside larger pipe? It's extra containment, and When plant running such could maybe serve as heat exchanger. To warm up salt... instead of feeding water in...feed in steam. Nb unlike water, the proposed molten salts are likely to behave as most materials do and and contract on freezing. Lower chance of burst pipes. And for horizontal runs...there'll likely be a small volume of pipe left unfilled by frozen salt, along which hot salt would be able to flow during a restart.

@WilhelmGuggisberg 9 ай бұрын

It's a relatively short circuit and limited quantities of fuel, and the heat is about 400*c to keep the salt liquid, no big deal, if one pump stops I guess you can have a secondary parallel circuit implemented as a back up while you repair the main one. We are dealing here with cheap materials at atmospheric pressures.

@VaImorian 10 ай бұрын

Anti nuclear people are halting human progression so much its insane. Also the road to clean, sustainable energy.

@freedomwriter1995 10 ай бұрын

Those types of individuals aren't swayed by facts and reason. Only anger and fear.

@freedomwriter1995 10 ай бұрын

They've been brainwashed their whole lives and only accept information that confirms their bias.

@Saji_0 10 ай бұрын

the dumber people is the one that shout the loudest

@Gelatinocyte2 10 ай бұрын

A lot of them are astroturfed by Fossil and adjacent companies anyway. I bet these so-called "green activists" probably couldn't even tell you the real answer to what would be the best course of action to solve the climate crisis - which is to cut out consumption of underground carbon (fossil fuels) for electricity.

@clehaxze 10 ай бұрын

Imagine Greenpeace actually does what their name indicates and we actively build nuclear reactors in the past 20 years. We'd have solved the majority of CO2 from electricity by now.

@lahma69 10 ай бұрын

I think calling the nuclear industry "plagued by accidents" is a bit extreme.. and that's an understatement..

@bestmessi87 10 ай бұрын

No it's not. Search "Death rates per unit of electricity production" in Ourwolrdindata. Your welcome

@Gelatinocyte2 10 ай бұрын

I know right! Like he thinks there have been 3 Chernobyl incidents, 5 Fukushima incidents, and that Three Mile Island was an actual accident and has happened at least twice.

@davidford3115 10 ай бұрын

Indeed. There is a reason why the IAEA takes its cues from US Navy Nuclear Program. Thanks to Admiral Hyman G. Rickover, there has NEVER been a reactor related accident.

@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 Ай бұрын

The only problem has been meltdowns caused by a failure of the cooling system for one reason or another. With MSRs that issue is removed.

@Jonesy-f5v 23 күн бұрын

How many meltdowns happened in non nuclear plants?

@TheCptnOfFail 10 ай бұрын

So to make this reactor work, you need a highly radioactive material, combined with a highly corrosive material, at high temperature, mixing with another pretty radioactive and corrosive material, also at high temperature, and you need to remove another material from all of this otherwise the system fails. And then to top it all off you have to get the government involved. Suddenly it all makes sense why this tech has been theoretical for so long.

@0neIntangible 10 ай бұрын

Good break down on how it breaks down.

@antarcticmonkeys 10 ай бұрын

These are engineering problems. It isn't theoretical either, a react ran for a number of months in the 60s I believe.

@CraftyF0X 10 ай бұрын

@@antarcticmonkeys Was called the MSRE at Oak Ridge. It was a test reactor and ppl say it was kinda succesful.

@CraftyF0X 10 ай бұрын

It is an unfair characterisation of the technology. First, every reactor uses radioactive material, which gets hot, and even more radioactive during operation. Corrosion happens in every industry including the current PWRs. That is being said water is actually more corrosive than salt I see a lot of confusion about this. The removing of materials breaks down to realtively simple chemical steps. I see, also, not a lot of ppl knows that nuclear fuel reprocessing happens in salts anyway, so unless you prefer throwing away 95-96% of the useful fuel as "high level nuclear waste" that no one wants in their backyard or even under their mountain you already on the side of doing this sort of chemistry on our spent fuels. This proposal merely means they cut out the fabrication step and do reprocessing in situ. "And then to top it all off you have to get the government involved" so does in case of building highways, fight crime, catastrope relief, provide security, education, healthcare, pension etc. I don't like the goverment not a tiny bit more than you, but ppl tend to forget what we gain by not living in a complete anarchy. "Suddenly it all makes sense why this tech has been theoretical for so long." The two thing correlates. If it has been pursued when it was first conceived, we would already either perfected or discarded the technology by now.

@Gelatinocyte2 10 ай бұрын

Didn't China already built at least one thorium salt reactor?

@m-mori 4 ай бұрын

Here after China launched its first Th based reactor. Let's see what will happen.

@seductive_fishstick8961 Ай бұрын

That one was only a test too, they are currently building a full scale one with it expected to enter suvice by 2030

@kallekangasmaki311 10 ай бұрын

At around 5 minutes, it was mentioned it takes a month to refuel a power plant after 18 months of usage... Depending on the plant, the outage might only last less than a week, with refueling only taking a few days. Other maintenance is way more time consuming in general, from my experience. Usually during refueling all the other work is done, too, taking up most of the outage time

@nikolatasev4948 10 ай бұрын

CANDU reactors are not shut down for refueling at all.

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@ethanlamoureux5306 9 ай бұрын

@@vxworks66 Got any more specific information on that?

@GeorgeLerner 6 ай бұрын

You really should specify what reactor you are talking about. That "month to refuel" could be accurate for LWR, but completely incorrect for most designs of Molten Salt Reactor. Most MSR designs would be refueled while the reactor is running; no removing fuel rods to replace them, because there are no fuel rods in MSR.

@Dayanto 10 ай бұрын

The fundamental problem with LFTRs is the same as what killed all previous attempts to make breeder reactors, namely proliferation. Breeders naturally produce weapon's grade material, and with the chemical separation on these thorium reactors it's even worse, because you essentially have pure U233 on tap. Thorium fanboys have long claimed that U232 poisoning prevents this, but this ignores the enormous difference in halflife, which allows the U232 to simply be skimmed off before the Pa233 -> U233 decay has barely even started.

@brianhirt5027 10 ай бұрын

"Skimmed off". You're funny. You skimmed over how hard it is to do just that. Trying to separate nearly identical atoms with only a single neutron weight difference. At best breeder reactors won't get you more than 40%-60% purity. Way south of fissile capable. Gotta hit 92% for the boom. Getting the last six percent takes the most herculean efforts.

@brianhirt5027 10 ай бұрын

@Dayanto 10 ай бұрын

@@brianhirt5027 There is no need to separate them by weight. Stop repeating that myth. I'm talking about the CHEMICAL separation of U from Pa, which is something a LFTR _already does_ during normal operation. Because Pa232 has a 20.4x shorter halflife than Pa233, 99.99993% is already long gone by the the time that merely _half_ of the U233 is done processing.

@brianhirt5027 10 ай бұрын

@@Dayanto Go argue with Wikipedia & the NRC about the physics. I'm sure they'll be appropriately impressed. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons-grade_nuclear_material

@zecorezecron 10 ай бұрын

@@brianhirt5027 You separate the U232 from the PA233 before the PA233 decays into U233. Just wait a few months and less than one part per BILLION of PA232 would remain and the PA233 would be down to about 1/8 the original. At that point, very simple chemical separation would allow you to easily produce weapons grade material superior to plutonium. Dumbass.

@xXYannuschXx 10 ай бұрын

The biggest problem is gonna be cost. Uranium NPPs already struggle on the market due to their high costs, even in countries that can mine their own Uranium (USA) and Thorium NPPs are going to be even more expensive.

@cas1652 10 ай бұрын

Thorium is much cheaper and there is less waste which can be more easily stored or reprocess.

@offroadsnake 10 ай бұрын

For me to use thorium just need a just a little uranium as starter just imagine uranium like the stone to begin the fire in a firecamp

@sualtam9509 10 ай бұрын

@@cas1652 The fuel isn't the prohibitive cost factor.

@Signal_Glow 3 ай бұрын

Th breeder is very possible, already online in China where what was said at 5:29 isn't a problem because they are serious about it. In the West we can't even build basic PWRs because nuclear tech isn't owned by the government, the rest is corruption. Russia and South Korea took similar path to China, it is the main reason why they routinely build AP1000 like reactors in 5 years for less than 10 billion eur.

@baichuanren885 10 ай бұрын

Summary of Tech advance in 21st century. The west: Finding excuses of why it can't be done. China: Went ahead and already finished it.

@davidford3115 10 ай бұрын

You realize the US had already pioneered Thorium reactor technology on the USS Seawolf(SSN-575)? The main reason why Admiral Rickover rejected it was that it never delivered on the claims. Further, it was an accident waiting to happen should sea water contact the internal components.

@philipthecow 10 ай бұрын

It's more like this The west: Already did it but can't seem to do it again due to political reasons. China: Builds on what the west already did.

@bencoad8492 6 ай бұрын

@@davidford3115 that as another commentor said was a molten METAL Na reactor not a MOLTEN SALT reactor two very different things...and yes molten metal Na is dumb

@davidford3115 6 ай бұрын

@@bencoad8492 Seawolf was still a thorium reactor and failed to deliver on the power output claims of its advocates.

@Gustav_Kuriga 4 ай бұрын

@@davidford3115 Perhaps the design was bad.

@chaineddepths9523 10 ай бұрын

China approved building a thorium salt reactor last year.

@perryallan3524 10 ай бұрын

Partially correct: China approved building a 2 MWthermal thorium molten salt reactor (MSR) 3-4 years prior to last year. It started up in August 2023. It is about 1/4th the size of the Oak Creek test MSR reactor of the 1960's. The key purpose is to see if we now have a suitable "super-alloy" along with a side stream chemical separation process that works well enough to control the corrosion rate to an acceptable level that would allow construction of a future 40+ year operating life power plant reactor in the future. It will be many years before we know the answer to that question. The Oak Creek MSR reactor had a huge issue with corrosion as the daughter products from splitting atoms and the chemical compounds they form are extremely corrosive. The key reason there was never a 2nd generation MSR test reactor was that no known alloy of the day could withstand the corrosion rate of the "in use" circulating molten salt mixture.

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

@@perryallan3524 You bring up an interesting point about China’s 2 MW thermal thorium molten salt reactor (TMSR) that started up in August 2023. It’s important to recognize that this project is part of a much larger and ambitious thorium program initiated by China several years ago. China's interest in thorium reactors began in earnest around 2011 when the Chinese Academy of Sciences launched a comprehensive R&D initiative focused on developing TMSR technology. They sought to leverage historical data and insights from the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in the United States, which operated the first thorium reactor prototype in the 1960s. This collaboration allowed China to access valuable knowledge from past experiments, particularly regarding reactor design and operational challenges. The TMSR-LF1 prototype, which is the 2 MW reactor you mentioned, was constructed in Wuwei City, Gansu Province. It was designed to test the viability of thorium as a fuel source and achieved criticality in October 2022. The successful operation of this prototype marks a significant milestone, as it is the first thorium reactor to achieve sustained fission since the MSRE at Oak Ridge was completed. (and the program hastily shut down by the fossil fuel and nuclear weapons industry) Looking ahead, China plans to build larger commercial reactors capable of generating up to 60 MW thermal by 2029, with expectations for commercial deployment by 2030. These reactors will not only provide electricity but also aim to produce hydrogen through high-temperature processes. The advantages of thorium MSRs are substantial. They offer enhanced safety features compared to traditional reactors, significantly less long-lived nuclear waste, and utilize a fuel source that is abundant and incapable of proliferatio. With China's substantial thorium reserves, estimated to meet energy needs for over 20,000 years, this program positions China as a potential leader in advanced nuclear technologies. In summary, while the TMSR-LF1 is smaller than earlier prototypes like Oak Ridge's MSRE, it represents an important step forward in realizing the potential of thorium as a sustainable energy source. China's commitment to this technology could have far-reaching implications for global energy production and nuclear safety.

@seductive_fishstick8961 Ай бұрын

@@perryallan3524 china is currecntly building a full scale one with it expected to be operational by 2030

@perryallan3524 Ай бұрын

@@seductive_fishstick8961 No they are not. China built a 2 mw thermal MSR test reactor, when online late summer 2023. They have plans for about a 20 MWthermal test reactor next, assuming things go well. Yes there are people who talk about full sized power plants - but the people actually running the program are not an know that it will be at least a decade before they can even build a small likely 30-50 MWe scale up power plant. If you want to look at companies who are talking about full sized MSR power plants you need to look at the Canadian Nuclear Regulator website and the USA NRC website to see companies who have been working through a license development pre-approval process to be able to submit a license application for a MSR. There is actually a company in Canada who has completed the pre-license application review process who could submit a license application for a MSR. But, they are encasing the fuel containing molten salts in fuel rods which can be changed out every 4-6 years while a non-fuel containing molten salt solution is just the heat carrier. They address the corrosion issue by changing out the fuel rods periodically and the main piping and reactor itself material life is not challenged.

@perryallan3524 Ай бұрын

@The_CGA 10 ай бұрын

Feel like you left out a lot of anti nuclear lobbying is funded and pushed by fossil and wind/solar interests-the companies can “improve” their product by chipping at perceptions of the alternative

@BjarneLinetsky 9 ай бұрын

Anytime you have isotopes that decay this rapidly, you have intense radiation. This sounds like a real "dirty" process.

@deandeann1541 2 ай бұрын

For dirt you just need to add a bit of detergent, this makes removal of dirt much easier.

@MightyElemental 10 ай бұрын

"the uranium industry sees thorium as a major threat" Then why don't they join the thorium industry so they can benefit from it? Like, if you're concerned about some tech outpacing yours, just invest in that tech so you have say in it and profit from it.

@tadferd4340 10 ай бұрын

Because it's more effort and cost than lobbying.

@davidford3115 10 ай бұрын

Funny, because if thorium was everything it was claimed to be, the Uranium Industry would already be a part of that market. The reason they are not is the same reason why Admiral Hyman G. Rickover rejected the Thorium reactor originally installed on the USS Seawolf (SSN-575): it never delivered on the claims of its advocates.

@ewoutvm1 9 ай бұрын

There are two technologies involved here. 1. A Thorium breeder reactor and 2. a molten salt reactor. The combination (if scientific challenges are met, like the corrosion problem etc.) is in theory awesome, but a molten salt reactor, fuelled with Uranium is so much more efficient than a traditional one (water cooled under pressure), that you could fuel them with nuclear waste (plenty of it available), greatly reducing the waste in volume, as well as reducing the time you have to store it safely. So maybe, we could build some molten salt reactors and in time, add the breeder-unit and switch to Thorium later.

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

We completely agree that starting with thorium right away is the way to go! Thorium has so many advantages, like being more abundant and producing less waste. Plus, using thorium reduces the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation, which is a huge benefit for global security. If we prioritize thorium now, we can take advantage of the existing research and technology that’s already been developed. It’s frustrating that some groups are resistant because they want to protect their interests in fossil fuels and nuclear weapons production. But if we push for thorium reactors, we could create a safer and cleaner energy future much faster. Let’s advocate for this change and make thorium the focus of our energy strategy!

@albertrogers8008 4 ай бұрын

"An industry plagued by monumental accidents" ??? There have been three losses of civilian reactors, and exactly one of them had proven deaths and sickness, caused by an operation warned against in the operators manual. Even so, the death toll is under 100, which is hardly monumental. There was a fire at a reactor of the weapons-producing "pile" type at Windscale in England, and it may have caused a number of deaths from radioactive iodine.

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

Absolutely! It’s surprising how some people still call nuclear energy “plagued by monumental accidents” when the facts tell a different story. With only three losses of civilian reactors and a death toll under 100, it’s clear that nuclear energy is one of the safest and most effective forms of power we have. The incidents that did occur often stemmed from specific operational mistakes, not inherent flaws in the technology itself. Modern reactors are designed with multiple safety features to prevent accidents, and the industry has learned valuable lessons from the past. It seems like only paid, organized opposition groups ignore these obvious facts. They overlook the incredible advancements in safety and efficiency that nuclear energy has achieved. The benefits of clean, reliable nuclear power far outweigh the risks, and it’s time we recognize that!

@adlockhungry304 8 ай бұрын

7:58 I don’t understand why the U235 industry wouldn’t see the introduction of Thorium into the energy mix as an opportunity for expansion. Of course, I’m completely ignorant of the “boots on the ground” details of how each works, so this is probably a naive position.

@winstonsmith478 10 ай бұрын

As pointed out by LFTR advocate Kirk Sorenson, the current, conventional Cro-Magnon technology reactors work on a razor/razor blade profit model. The money is not made by building the plant. It is made by supplying the custom fuel elements/modules. Thus, I will extend that point to say that there is a lobby against reactors like LFTRs where the "fuel elements" can be supplied in drums and/or bags that anyone can make and are not proprietary. Thus, I predict that thorium reactors will originate in China where there isn't a lobby against that.

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

This video ignored the fact that a 2MW Thorium pilot power plant in China has been running since June 2023. It is already happening. Lessens learned from the pilot plant will show the world how to improve the system for a safe and abundant energy source.

@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 Ай бұрын

Washington State Gov Insley has approved three modular reactors to be built by Amazon and Google by 2030 which they are going to pay for. They are needed for AI power planning.

@snuffles_bear Ай бұрын

@@vxworks66 He didn't ignore anything - it's you who hasn't watched until the end of the video. He said only three countries have it currently running: China, Russia, and India. And at the very end of this video, he said "I don't trust anything China is doing."

@robertlee6338 9 ай бұрын

Worked at GE than two thorium start ups and now with KEPCO. One major hurdle is what happens if a shutdown is required.

@clarkkent9080 9 ай бұрын

Actually the major hurdle is COST

@GeoffryGifari 10 ай бұрын

Knowing that molten salt needs to be run under very high temperatures, what about energy loss from the dissipation of heat?

@JohnSmall314 9 ай бұрын

"what about energy loss from the dissipation of heat?" The heat goes into making electricity. The laws of thermodynamics mean that if the difference between input and output temperatures is large, then the efficiency of power generation is greater. So very high temperatures are a benefit. You just have to make sure that there's a lot of insulation on the pipes between the reactor and the turbines generating electricity so you don't waste all that heat. Also the high temperature means you can use the Sulphur-Iodine cycle to make hydrogen more efficiently than converting heat into electricity and then using the electricity to electrolyse water.

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

🤣

@kuromyou7969 10 ай бұрын

0:38 " in an industry plagued by monumental accidents." Plagued?? There have been 3. In ~80 years. And nearly all images were just from a single accident. 🙄

@regdor8187 10 ай бұрын

But the problem remains deadly for hundred's of years after the problem....

@Oktokolo 10 ай бұрын

So everything has to stay above 400° at all time or all the piping has to be replaced?

@WilhelmGuggisberg 9 ай бұрын

Why all the pipping?, only what is deteriorated, and this is a technology that requires only cheap alloys and work at atmospheric pressure, so it's cheap and easy to replace. And to keep the heat at 400* in a small circuit is not a big deal.

@richardbaird1452 8 ай бұрын

@@WilhelmGuggisberg Not sure about the cheapness of the alloys. While the issue being addressed is different (i.e. pressure for LWR and corrosion resistance and chemical induced fatigue for MSR), the materials for the MSR are still fairly exotic and therefore relatively expensive, at least so far. The cheap and east to replace part is also questionable, as the big difference in repair costs is whether the particular pipe/part has been directly exposed to fuel/radiation or not, regardless of the reactor type. One of the issues with traditional MSR designs is fuel and/or fission products plating out on piping. Some designs plan for sacrificing all the fuel contact parts on fairly short timeframes kind of like cladding is sacrificed in traditional solid fuel reactors to address this, others have more elaborate schemes. As far as all the parts/piping needing to be kept at high temp, that is only when running. If the reactor is shutdown for repair, the fuel salt would be drained away, allowing the entire active part of the reactor to cool without significant issues. After repair, you heat it up again prior to reintroducing the fuel. Of course if the part being repaired/replaced has been in contact with fuel salts, the cost just spiked significantly.

@douginorlando6260 10 ай бұрын

20 years from now a factory in China will be shipping small Thorium reactor power plants every month. 10 years later, the thorium power generation market will drive out all other types of power plants and electricity & heat will be half current prices.

@SunShine-xc6dh 9 ай бұрын

Meanwhile back in reality

@bencoad8492 6 ай бұрын

@@SunShine-xc6dh no that will be reality, tho China might have us bent over, charging way more for it then if we had done it ourselves...

@SunShine-xc6dh 6 ай бұрын

@bencoad8492 that why they still building new fossil fuel plants over there... China only can steal already tech, whatever they building is a knock off of the stuff that we already have built...

@SunShine-xc6dh 6 ай бұрын

@@bencoad8492 lol nah well a have the unlimited free energy of fusion figured out by then that's 'only 20 years away' too

@toddmarshall7573 10 ай бұрын

The way to test the viability of a substitution and eliminate all the FUD arguments is as follows: (1) Assume the proposed replacement is the entrenched process. (2) Make the case for the actual process as better than the proposed process. This limits the inertia of the entrenched process which shouldn't enter into the question at all. And this technique proves it.

@nsa_surveillance_orb-42b 10 ай бұрын

Thanks for the Thorium review, good to see your video. Material Science has come a long way, though I understand maintance on a corrosive system like that will be problematic. I hope it comes about some day, would be nice to have safer energy being produced, at least until we figure out how to tap Zero Point energy like the other cool fantasy aliens do....

@drmosfet 10 ай бұрын

You don't need StarGate technology. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2GnpWekp5qalcUsi=4X7ySk6QRXMpWxDl Powered by Plasmoids

@aRomanSoldier 10 ай бұрын

(looks around, see if anyone is watching) (makes some Zero Point energy)

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@prjndigo 10 ай бұрын

Shutting down a conventional rod reactor every 18 months isn't as bad as having to replace flow structures in a molten salt reactor sometimes as often as every 200 days. The cool thing about water being the moving part in conventional reactors is that unless things go way way off the rails the water is stupid safe and doesn't tear up the pipes. Molten salt reactors just add an absurd step of ALSO moving the fuel around. If you think liquid salt fuel that is liquified by the radioactive fissile action internally is somehow going to "cool off" when it isn't moving through a cooling system or especially if the cooling system fails and you end up with elephant feet inside the reactor system I'll be more than happy to take seed money for my new outlet expander that doubles the amount of power available from 15A to 30A on a conventional household outlet!

@maxwilliamson3701 10 ай бұрын

Safer than wind? Curious! I'm not doubting that that might be the case, I'd just love to hear more/read the evidence on that!

@raylopez99 10 ай бұрын

A little bird told me... :)

@dasgibmekker768 10 ай бұрын

Don't get your hopes up, that's just BS...

@bencoad8492 6 ай бұрын

it is, deaths are low and the amount of energy produce is frigging high(per mass), compared to wind which has a very low energy output(per mass), especially when compared to coal which is about medium output but high deaths(over small amount per day all the year with very few spikes)

@MajorisMons 4 ай бұрын

So the major hurdle for Thorium Salt Reactors, is overcoming the corrosive nature of high heat and salt solution? Can they not coat exposed or parts with the likelihood of coming in contact with both hazards. With the same stuff they put on Space Shuttles, Space bound rockets, or even the International Space Station? Is this "juice", that special and or expensive?

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

Nice thinking 99! Yes, exactly. GR3535 and GH3535 - two special metails developed in the last 10 years totally corrosion proof. Check them out... Who by? China of course.

@swampscott2670 3 ай бұрын

Ok, so while western scientists and “scientists” keep telling us what can’t be done, didn’t the Chinese just announce to go live with one or two of these soon?

@alperwal200443 3 ай бұрын

I guess the western scientists forgot to tell Chinese colleges that its very difficult to build and maybe even impossible

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

Absolutely! China is making significant strides in thorium technology, and it's exciting to see their progress. They recently announced the operational launch of the TMSR-LF1, a 2 MW thermal molten salt reactor, which is a groundbreaking development in nuclear energy. Construction for this reactor began in September 2018 and was completed ahead of schedule in August 2021. The National Nuclear Safety Administration issued an operating permit on June 7, 2023, allowing the Shanghai Institute of Applied Physics to operate it for ten years. This reactor will use thorium as a primary fuel source, which is not only more abundant than uranium but also offers enhanced safety features and reduced waste. China's commitment to thorium technology is impressive. They plan to build a larger reactor with a capacity of 373 MW by 2030, which could significantly contribute to their energy security. With thorium reserves estimated to meet energy needs for 20,000 years, this technology could reshape the future of energy production. It's clear that while some may doubt the feasibility of these advancements, China is actively demonstrating that thorium reactors can be a viable and safe alternative to traditional nuclear power. Their focus on innovation in this area is something we should all be paying attention to!

@fliporhold Ай бұрын

China got all their research from the USA we did it in the 50s..

@juliane__ 10 ай бұрын

8:28 Talking about nuclear output capabilities: Nuclear doesn't produce more energy than wind. The difference is, one time you build a centralized plant, the other time you build a hundred to twohundred windgenerators.

@prich0382 10 ай бұрын

Energy density dude, Nuclear clearly trumps wind

@CesarMartinez-wi7wc 10 ай бұрын

I love your content, keep on strong!

@cpm1003 10 ай бұрын

Why would creation of Pa234 be a problem? Wouldn't the resultant U234 be very likely to end up as fissile U235?

@faroncobb6040 10 ай бұрын

When U-233 (or U-235) is split, it gives off a limited number of neutrons, one of which is required to hit the next fissile atom to keep the chain reaction going. If the remaining neutrons aren't enough to turn another Th-232 into a fissile atom you don't have a fuel cycle, you have a fuel dead end. To date, the creation of U-233 from Th-232 has always involved neutrons primarily sourced from the fission of naturally occurring U-235. U-234 is just as far from fissile material as Th-232, so it represents a waste of two neutrons, neutrons that a thorium cycle reactor doesn't have to spare. Getting the cycle to close even with the Pa-233 being separated out quickly is already a major challenge that is not necessarily solvable at a reasonable cost.

@cpm1003 10 ай бұрын

@@faroncobb6040 Ah, that makes sense. Thanks for the explanation!

@perryallan3524 10 ай бұрын

U234 does not easily convert to U235. It takes just the right amount of energy for a neutron to convert U234 to U235; and that is only if that neutron hits a U234, and while it does happen it's more on the rare side. Thorium fuel based reactors do in fact produce some U234. That can be a good thing. U233 is fissile and makes great atomic bombs (the USA even tested one). The USA stuck with Plutonium 239 for atom bombs as it was cheaper to produce than U233 (that was a seriously studied and debated in the late 1950's and early 1960's). However, just as Plutonium 240 poisons Plutonium 239 and interferes with its ability to be a good bomb material, U234 poisons U233 as a bomb material. In both cases you must produce bomb grade materials in reactors where the parent material (U233 or U238) is only run for several months in a reactor to limit the U234 or Plutonium 240 contamination below a certain amount. That is why special plutonium production reactors are used for bomb making as a 11+ month fuel cycle of most nuclear power plant creates too much plutonium 240 and does not allow the resulting chemically separated plutonium to be used as a nuclear bomb. The same would be true of thorium powered nuclear reactors if they used conventional fuel cycles. 11+ months is too long of a run time and there would be too much U234 to allow use of chemically separated uranium as a bomb material (most fuel rods are rotated through 2 or 3 run cycles in a BWR/PWR plant. 33-46 months operating time) However, a molten salt reactor could easily change its fuel out after a limited number of months run time as the reactor does not need to be taken apart (etc) - all it needs is to drain its liquid fuel into one set of drain tanks and refill the reactor with new liquid-based fuel. Then all it takes is chemical separation of the uranium and you have bomb grade uranium (assuming no U238 in the original fuel). In fact, a thorium molten salt based reactor is vastly more of a nuclear weapons proliferation hazard than existing hot gas or light/heavy water power plant reactors.

@drmsig.r1000 10 ай бұрын

YESSS!!!! AN ACTUALLY VIDEO UPDATE AGAIN! I know these videos are expensive to produce subject zero but I love and im very happy you made another of these its been a while sense u uploaded here!

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@andersvj 10 ай бұрын

So SMR got funding and approval and then in the next sentence you say that it can never happen for Thorium because of the anti-nuclear lobby? That makes 0 sense.

@edwinschaap5532 10 ай бұрын

There is also competition form the fusion side (ITER project) who are afraid they have to share their research funding with thorium research.

@Ludak021 10 ай бұрын

It is worth to remind people that nuclear accidents, all of them, are due to human mistakes. Today we don't hire that kind of people anymore. We have 440 nuclear reactors operating today all over the world. People in power need to understand and adhere to standards and FORGET about doing anything corrupt in that sphere of civic engineering. No cutting corners, no mother in laws' brother or sister as an employee because you have the pull to make it happen.

@juslitor 10 ай бұрын

Well that directly rules out every region ever touched by communism.

@nikhilfagwani2885 10 ай бұрын

Good to see you back Sir😄. Try to keep animations simple & easy to render in order to make your production process faster and focus more on the core topic of the video sir. We would love to see more from you🙂.

@drmsig.r1000 10 ай бұрын

Me too. I'm so happy. I know these are expensive for him to produce, but I hope he keeps going

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@laura-ann.0726 6 ай бұрын

I worked in the nuclear power industry 1974 to 1989, including 4 years at the Rancho Seco plant near Sacramento, CA. As stated in this video, the chemical processing is going to be the biggest hurdle. The MSR experiment at Oak Ridge revealed many unanticipated problems with molten salt reactors, one of the most difficult being that the the hot, corrosive, and radioactive salt itself was degrading the structural integrity of the Hastelloy piping far more quickly than was anticipated. My gut feeling is that the CANDU reactor offers the most benefit with the fewest "downside" of all of the various reactor designs. On-line refueling with no need to shut down the reactor. The fuel is solid ceramic pellets - we have decades of experience in how to safely handle spent fuel in solid form. There have been studies showing that it may be possible to design a new generation CANDU with the ability to burn mixed oxide fuels, which would be a combination of U-238, U-235, and Pu-239 recovered from spent LWR fuel, and (maybe) Thorium. To use MOX fuel, you still have to re-process spent fuel with the PUREX or a similar peocess, but PUREX processing doesn't require the material you are handling to be an extremely hot and highly radioactive salt. Re-processing spent LWR fuel to create MOX for a CANDU would use spent fuel that had been decaying in storage casks for at least a couple of decades, whereby the extremely dangerous, short-half-life daughter products, like I-131 and Sr-90, would have decayed to (relatively) low levels. Reprocessing spent fuel with PUREX is still not as "safe" as mining and refining native Uranium, but my hunch is that it would be far less hazardous than running an LFTR and having to mitigate leaks of that hot molten salt as it moves through the process piping between the reactor and the processing equipment.

@LinasWizz 10 ай бұрын

We have missed you Your channel should have atlast 5mln subscribers to start with

@claywynn4507 5 ай бұрын

Thanks for a refreshing presentation which finally gets realistic by showing this "chemical plant" (that thing on the left) required to keep down the super high gamma generator formed in the loop from wrecking the useability of the entire system.

@tommos1 2 ай бұрын

It's already happening though...

@supertruckertom 23 күн бұрын

In China

@CraftyF0X 10 ай бұрын

I don't think the uranium mining industry can be particualrly in the way of "building up thorium infrastructure". Thorium is an abundant byproduct of rare earth mining and right now for the most part considered as a nuisance. One of the big advantage of the plan to use thorium is then we talk about material already mined and just sitting in piles as unwanted byproduct.

@Gelatinocyte2 10 ай бұрын

It's probably a byproduct of uranium mining too; if anything, they'd probably be more in favor of thorium power industry than against it.

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

You raise an excellent point about Thorium being an abundant byproduct of rare earth mining! It's true that Thorium is often considered a nuisance in the rare earth element (REE) industry, and this presents a unique opportunity for its utilization in nuclear energy. Thorium is indeed found in significant quantities alongside rare earth elements. For instance, the Bayan Obo mine in China, which is the largest REE mine globally, has produced over **70,000 tons of radioactive Thorium** as a byproduct. This thorium is often left in tailings, creating an opportunity to utilize material that is already mined and sitting unused. Utilizing thorium from existing rare earth mining operations can significantly reduce the costs associated with mining and processing. Since thorium is often extracted as a byproduct, the primary costs are already incurred during the extraction of REEs. This means that the additional costs for processing Thorium are relatively low, making it an economically viable option for nuclear fuel. Moreover, using Thorium can help mitigate some of the environmental issues associated with rare earth mining. Currently, for every ton of rare earth produced, approximately 2,000 tons of waste are generated. By repurposing Thorium from these processes, we can potentially reduce waste and improve sustainability in the mining sector. Global Thorium Reserves Globally, thorium resources are estimated to be around **6** million metric tons, with significant reserves located in India, Brazil, Russia and Australia. India alone possesses about 25% of the world's known thorium reserves, estimated at around 340,000 tons. This abundance positions Thorium as a promising alternative to uranium for future nuclear energy production. Leveraging Thorium as a byproduct from already produced rare earth mining not only provides access to an abundant resource but also aligns with economic and environmental goals. Utilizing this existing material plays a crucial role in building a sustainable energy future. Your insight into this aspect highlights an important pathway for integrating Thorium into our energy infrastructure!

@stickynorth 10 ай бұрын

But didn't China just open its first Thorium Power plant last year and isnt it planning a 24,000 TEU cargo ship fleet powered by Thorium SMR's?

@ltribley 10 ай бұрын

Yes and Yes. The Chinese Thorium (test) reactor was licensed on June 7, 2023 and is located in the Gobi desert region. It is operational. There is also talk that China might use a Thorium reactor in a future aircraft carrier.

@stickynorth 10 ай бұрын

No doubt they will! I think the public cargo/military evacuation ships are probably first before the out and out military applications like aircraft carriers are coming, but they are a coming!@@ltribley

@anakinskywalker4949 8 ай бұрын

The host of this channel is biased against China. He said "I'm skeptical of everything China does". I don't know, this is supposed to be a science channel, not politics or Chinese hating channel. He decided to ignore the achievements because they are from China. Mind boggling!!!!

@GeoffryGifari 10 ай бұрын

When it comes to public perception of nuclear power, what are the steps that have been taken for nuclear power to be seen in positive light?

@stickynorth 10 ай бұрын

Facts, facts and more facts... Just look at Visual Capitalst and their section on nuclear power... That alone should snap into focus the realities of the industry... It's as clean as solar, wind or geothermal but almost always available... I am pro renewables but I am also pro nuclear. Whatever decarbonizes the world as fast as possible, I am all for!

@basavaraj__ 8 ай бұрын

Get out off the west and look at india as we have fully developed thorium reactor with no waste left

@-Sophia5455- 8 ай бұрын

Great video! Very informative and well written! Always love your animations and visuals!

@onenote6619 10 ай бұрын

Thorium cycle has a nasty hard gamma ray spectrum that will need some engineering to protect against. Not a game-ender, but important.

@WilhelmGuggisberg 9 ай бұрын

put it underground or whatever, not an issue.

@claywynn4507 8 ай бұрын

Continuing to gloss over this issue and not even mentioning it in most sunshine pumping essays such as "whatever, not an issue", is a big issue.

@hg2. 10 ай бұрын

India will pursue thorium because it has "big thorium reserves"? This is poor reasoning -- thorium is so plentiful it can be "mined" from all surface DIRT. It's literally "dirt cheap". Thorium availability is not an issue in thorium power.

@Who-vt9oh 8 ай бұрын

I don't think we should discount or dismiss everything China does simply because they are organized around a different ideology than most Western countries. The fact is, serious breakthroughs on thorium technology are more likely to come from China than anywhere else, because of how much their government has directed to be invested in thorium projects. I don't see any other country advancing as quickly as China in thorium development, without similar levels of state direction.

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

We completely agree! No one shouldn't overlook the significant advancements China is making in Thorium technology just because of differing ideologies. The Chinese government has heavily invested (billions) in Thorium research, and this commitment is likely to yield serious breakthroughs that could benefit the global energy landscape. For instance, China recently achieved a major milestone by receiving operational approval for its first Liquid Fission Thorium Burner (LFTB), which is located in the Gobi Desert. This reactor is expected to demonstrate several advantages over traditional uranium reactors, including enhanced safety, reduced waste, and better fuel efficiency. In fact, experts estimate that China has enough Thorium reserves to meet its energy needs for 20,000 years, making it a sustainable option for the future. Furthermore, the upcoming construction of a larger LFTB capable of generating 60 MW of thermal power by 2030 showcases China's ambition to lead in this innovative technology. These reactors are designed to be inherently safer than conventional reactors; they operate at lower pressures and can safely drain molten salt in case of an emergency, effectively eliminating the risk of a meltdown. China’s investment in Thorium technology not only aims to enhance its energy security but also positions the country as a potential leader in the global nuclear energy market. As other nations grapple with regulatory hurdles and political opposition to nuclear power, China’s proactive approach could pave the way for safer and more efficient energy solutions worldwide. It's clear that serious breakthroughs in Thorium technology are more likely to come from China, and we should be paying attention!

@RP-qs1tp 6 ай бұрын

Indias 3 stage nuclear program is around Thorium as main fuel. I read very few articles about it. Any more information about it?

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

Find our other comment here on the progress of India.

@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 9 ай бұрын

Molten Salt Reactors have already been built and are providing energy in a number of countries including Indonexia, which bought a ship borne MSR from an American company called ThorCon, and China put at least one online last year. India is setting up several and we have a couple pilot projects underway in the U.S. Terrapower is setting up a Natrium (fluoride sal) reactor in Wyoming on the site of a former coal plant and Flibe Energy is constructing one at the Pacific Northwest Nuclear Laab in Hanford, WA. Because of footdragging by the NRC, we are ten years behind China!

@richardbaird1452 8 ай бұрын

Correction, the Natrium reactor is not an MSR. It is a fast spectrum, metallic fueled, liquid sodium cooled pool type reactor along the lines of the EBR-II. The thermal storage scheme uses molten salts to provide wide load following ability, but they not involved in the operation of the reactor itself.

@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 Ай бұрын

@@richardbaird1452 Fast Reactors have known problems. Modular Reactors are better. Washington State has just slated three for construction by 2030. They can be MSR's if desired. Kirk Sorensen is involved in LFTR projects, and ThorCon has built a ship bourne MSR. So it isn't true that Terrapower is the "first" or only. India has several running and China just started one up earlier this year. Here is a past from Terrapower's site. (Unlike today's Light Water Reactors, the Natrium reactor is a 345-megawatt sodium fast reactor coupled with TerraPower's breakthrough innovation - a molten salt energy storage system, providing built-in gigawatt-scale energy storage. This makes the plant a perfect support for high-renewable penetration grids where variable power output is a concern.)

@deaddocreallydeaddoc5244 Ай бұрын

@@richardbaird1452 Look at this post; @louismechler4338 8 months ago In france, the most common molten salt design use NaCl (yeah table salt) to dissolve U238 and plutonium 239. The corrosion issue is resolved through ceramics coating. working with a fast spectrum vastly reduces the transUranic generation, while allowing to work with used Mox fuel. It also allows to work as a burner for long life waste.

@johnslugger 10 ай бұрын

*India is building 6 Thorium reactors RIGHT NOW! India has the worlds largest Thorium deposits on their Western beaches.*

@RovingTroll 10 ай бұрын

New to the channel and your voice was so nice and clean, i started getting paranoid about ai voice bs. Went through your archive to make sure, and i gotta applaud your consistency of narration, while also improving in your oration

@ussromantics 9 ай бұрын

Most problems with nuclear have been about human error or neglect, corporate capture etc. France has been using nuclear for some time without problems.

@clarkkent9080 9 ай бұрын

Except the 50% that had to shutdown last summer due to climate change high river water temps

@jghifiversveiws8729 9 ай бұрын

France is the worst example to use here when the vast majority of their fleet was down last year due to neglecting maintenance...

@clarkkent9080 9 ай бұрын

@@jghifiversveiws8729 They also had to shut many down due to elevated river water temperatures caused by climate change

@combrade-t 10 ай бұрын

Tbf it does also kind of go against the grain of some newer reactor designs, a lot of which are increasinly implementing inherent safety designs and focus on being more simple to build and modular. Thorium has potential, but needs a lot to get going when any development in the nuclear industry apart faces huge scepticism and a hugely uphill battle on all fronts. If China is investing into them, they could set about the base level knowledge and supply chains that let it spread a bit more. Whether or not it's ideal, China is one of the few countries now making advancement in Nuclear power. Doubtful if this will result in positive effects on approval of the technology, seems more likely it will end up as just another way to demonise it counterfactually. Also, to be fair an "infinite fuel cycle" as Thorium could feasibly do failed in the original nuclear rennaisance, although with Thorium it's self-contained within the reactor, it relies on a great deal of ambition and confidence in the future of the technology.

@juslitor 10 ай бұрын

IF china can handle their nuclear powerplants in the long run, it would serve as popularity boost. E.g. If china can, we can etc.

@perryallan3524 10 ай бұрын

Note that China has ordered 6 more Westinghouse AP-1000 reactors (nominal 1150-1200 MWe) beacause the 4 AP-1000 units they built are running better and more efficient than their own most current designed nuclear power plants. Perhaps the west still knows some things that the Chinese does not know about nuclear power plants.

@Bob-b7x6v 10 ай бұрын

The biggest hurdles to Thorium Breeders are the high operating temperatures in the fuel cycle and the crazy safety devices and materials needed to safely contain molten Soidium cooling loops and heat exhangers...

@JohnSmall314 10 ай бұрын

The fact that the half life of Pa233 is about 10 times longer than Np239 means that breeding enough fuel for another reactor takes about 10 times longer than a U238 fast breeder reactor. India started a project to have the country running on Thorium. They estimated it would take about 70 years to get a full fleet of nuclear reactors running on the Thorium cycle. That was 50 years ago and they're still in the early stages. In the UK Rolls-Royce estimated it would take 200 years to breed enough U233 from Th232 to run the country on Thorium. The time it takes to breed enough U233 from Th232 is the biggest problem.

@WilhelmGuggisberg 9 ай бұрын

You can start the process by adding other fissile materials to the mix, that's not a relevant issue.

@geoffstrickler 8 ай бұрын

You start with some U235 in the mix, within 90-120 days, you’ve bred enough U233 to sustain the reaction, and you always introduce new Th232 to keep the breeding going. With the 160KY half-life of U233, you can extract/add U233 in the fuel mix as needed. The burnup rate can exceed 90% because the fuel is constantly being “reprocessed”. So, not only is Th232 more abundant in nature, you can use nearly 100% of it, unlike Uranium. Yes, it’s tricky to keep processing the fuel to remove undesirable isotopes and reintroduce desired ones, but the benefits are huge.

@richardbaird1452 8 ай бұрын

@@geoffstrickler "Burn up" doesn't make sense to me in this context, as we're not talking about a fixed amount of fuel, unlike solid fueled reactors. I think you'll find the majority of potential benefits are the result of MSR generally, not Th specifically. Whether there are potentially "huge" benefits to use of the Th cycle is dependent on where in the world you are. If you have lots of Th and little to no U, then the benefit is obvious. If not, then much less so.

@geoffstrickler 8 ай бұрын

@@richardbaird1452 you’d be wrong about that. Th232 is one of the few isotopes suitable for a “breeder” reactor. As for worldwide availability, Thorium is widely available in basically every country, and is 4x as abundant as uranium. Uranium deposits are limited to a few countries and seawater (low densities so extremely expensive to extract). So, everything you wrote is incorrect.

@roshan-yognamaskar 7 ай бұрын

India faced lots of delays in the process, but the installation of stage 2 fast breeder reactor of 500MW was a huge development. But still it has long way to go, they say we will have fully functioning thorium based reactor by 2047 and considering the economic development in India, it will only incentivize the process and will reduce the possibility of delays like earlier. One major factor in delay of this technology is assassinations of many of our nuclear scientists.

@Gustav_Kuriga 4 ай бұрын

Zero Science is the right name for this channel.

@kyomawolf2 10 ай бұрын

Sorry, but this is cut short in so many ways. First of all: thorium reactors have been built test wise and they were found to be problematic because of the insane high corrosion due to the salt. This means, that these reactors need repairs after around 2 years. That means draining the reactor, cleaning it, replacing the parts and the starting it up again. This alone is a big reason why it is economical not feasible. The other part is, that any nuclear reactor comes with very high building times, as when compared to solar or wind, you may need a couple of years. The safer and faster return of investment here is clear. All that together makes it hard to find anyone investing in it, if its the government (because of ideological reasons) or private investors, for which the sums are waay to high for that kind of uncertainty. Current already established research is going to make wind and solar probably even cheaper, and energy storing techniques are improved every day, so we can buffer them. I would like to see a video from you about that, actually. Otherwise cool animations!

@davidford3115 10 ай бұрын

Indeed. All of these advocates of Thorium reactors seem to ignore that the US Navy has already tested the designs in the USS Seawolf (SSN-575). There is a reason why Admiral Hyman G. Rickover rejected it.

@juslitor 10 ай бұрын

Solar and wind will never work in regions closer to the poles. Heck, go close enough to either pole and the sun will be gone half a year. Wind is not reliable, usually when the temperatures drop, the wind dies down, precisely the time when you need the most energy. The only thing that delivers at times like that is oil and nuclear, to lesser degree hydropower.

@Gustav_Kuriga 4 ай бұрын

The same country that made solar cheap (China) is the one heavily investing in Thorium...

@oraz. 10 ай бұрын

I think the overpromotion of Thorium damaged awareness of Uranium MSRs and hindered it's development.

@ARJUN__ROY----400 6 ай бұрын

INDIA has already entered STAGE 2 of its Thorium Reactor Program

@evanfinch4987 2 ай бұрын

im at stage 4

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

You're absolutely right! India has indeed made significant strides in its Thorium Reactor Program, and entering Stage 2 is a monumental achievement. Here are some key details that highlight the importance of this development: Overview of India's Three-Stage Nuclear Program India's nuclear program is designed around a unique three-stage strategy, conceptualised by Dr. Homi Bhabha. The aim is to utilise the country's limited uranium resources while maximizing its abundant thorium reserves, which account for approximately **25% of the world's known thorium**. 1. Stage 1: This stage involves using Pressurized Heavy Water Reactors (PHWRs) that utilize natural uranium fuel to produce plutonium-239 (Pu-239). The spent fuel from these reactors is then reprocessed to recover plutonium for use in the next stage. 2. Stage 2: Currently, India has entered Stage 2 with the operation of the Prototype Fast Breeder Reactor (PFBR) at Kalpakkam, Tamil Nadu. On March 4, 2023, Prime Minister Narendra Modi witnessed the commencement of core loading at this reactor, marking a crucial milestone in India's nuclear ambitions. The PFBR has a capacity of 500 MWe and will initially use Uranium-Plutonium Mixed Oxide (MOX) fuel. It will also incorporate Thorium-232 as a blanket material to breed fissile Uranium-233 (U-233) through transmutation. 3.Stage 3: The ultimate goal is to utilize U-233 in advanced reactors, specifically designed to harness Thorium's potential fully. This stage will involve the use of Advanced Heavy Water Reactors (AHWRs) and accelerator-driven systems (ADS) to generate energy efficiently from Thorium. (Not AIDS). Key Facts and Figures - Investment and Development: The PFBR project has seen contributions from over 200 Indian industries, showcasing a strong commitment to indigenous technology and self-reliance. - Safety Features: The PFBR is classified as a third-generation reactor with inherent passive safety features, ensuring a prompt and safe shutdown in emergencies. This design significantly reduces nuclear waste compared to traditional reactors. - Future Expansion: Following the PFBR, India plans to construct two additional 600 MWe Fast Breeder Reactors adjacent to Kalpakkam, with construction expected to start soon. This expansion aligns with India’s goal of reaching a total nuclear power capacity of 100 GWe by 2047. - Energy Security: India's nuclear energy sector currently contributes about 3% to the nation’s electricity generation, with a target of increasing this to 9% by 2047. The successful implementation of the three-stage program is crucial for achieving energy security and sustainability. India's entry into Stage 2 of its Thorium Reactor Program represents a significant leap forward in harnessing Thorium for energy production. With its vast Thorium reserves and advanced reactor technology, India is positioning itself as a leader in sustainable nuclear energy. As we move forward, it’s exciting to see how these developments will contribute not only to national energy security but also to global advancements in clean energy technology!

@bryanst.martin7134 10 ай бұрын

Nixon's legacy. Killed the MSR project and had all materials and data destroyed. All for his So Cal fast breeder reactor. He was from Cali. ORNL had a Thorium slow breeder reactor running for 20,000 hrs. Trouble free. They could even shut it down Fri evening, and start it right back up Monday morning. Easy as a diesel. 3 Mile Isle, Chernobyl, and Fukushima Daichi never needed to happen. The 95% efficiency is my key feature of the system. Current reactors burn 5 to 8% of the fuel, the rest is waste. The 5% from a T reactor could be used in Medicine and long distant space probes like Voyager. What do think O'Biden's legacy will be? Balkanization of the USA?

@Gelatinocyte2 10 ай бұрын

There was no actual accident in 3 Mile Island, it was all just hysteria. Wasn't Nixon pro-Fossil/corpo anyway?

@BrainDamagedBob 10 ай бұрын

Was the ORNL MSR a breeder? I thought it was a Uranium 235 fueled non-breeder reactor with the fuel in molten salt. There was some investigation that indicated that a Thorium breeder would work but that it never made it into practice. I may be wrong.

@bryanst.martin7134 10 ай бұрын

@@BrainDamagedBob Thorium breeder. Thorium has to be made into a fissile material. Kirk Sorensen covered that really well. He met with some of the surviving engineers, to get as much data remaining as possible before they passed on.

@BrainDamagedBob 10 ай бұрын

@@bryanst.martin7134 I just rewatched the MSRE video. It clearly describes a non-breeder reactor with U235 dissolved in the flibe salt and that reactor was tested at length. My "key feature" of that reactor was the negative temperature coefficient that made it load follow. In the film they said "the reactor was stable at all power levels."

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

Luckily not destroyed. Yes, the team was told to do so - one of our team members was on the MSRE program and was told to "move his arm across his table... and push all that data into the bin". But, these people know a scam when they see one and so they hid the files instead. In fact the main archive of research data from the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE) was discovered in 2010. Specifically, it was found in a children's library at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. The archive contained extensive documentation and data that had been largely overlooked for decades, including operational records and research findings from the MSRE, which operated from 1965 to 1969. This rediscovery was significant because it reignited interest in Liquid Fission Thorium Burner technology, which had been largely dormant since the MSRE's initial experiments. The data revealed the potential of Thorium-based burners and provided valuable insights that could inform future nuclear energy developments. in 2015, at the request of the Director of of ORNL, China came and took copies of it all. The director knew his country would burn it if given the chance.

@charlesjohnson1655 10 ай бұрын

One of my favorite channels. Glad to see you!

@csdn4483 10 ай бұрын

The biggest problem with Thorium you hit on at the very start, but decided to go down another road. Thorium reactors are breeder reactors, which means you make more fuel than you consume. This fuel, because you're dealing with fissile materials, means you can skim off some and use it for weapons. I hear a lot of people state that Thorium is "safe" because of the n,2n reaction and no one would try to gather the U233 for weapons because of the dose from those n,2n reactions (and the gammas they emit). U233 has a half life of 160k years, someone that had the patience can easily wait out the n,2n reaction before gathering the U233 for weapons. So, this is why any country that is serious about following the Non-Proliferation treaties will never take a serious look at LFTR and any county that is will be getting a serious amount of scrutiny from those countries that have signed various NPTs. As someone that has a degree in Nuclear Engineering, I can tell you that you are very much less likely to have issues with any governments if you're using "burner" reactors (the typical reactors you see now) than if you're dealing with "converters" (make as much fuel as you consume) or "breeders" (like LFTR where you make more fuel than you consume).

@raylopez99 10 ай бұрын

The world does not seem too fazed by North Korea so I doubt that "biggest problem" you mention is de facto the biggest problem. I think the anti-nuclear lobby is in fact the biggest de facto problem to Thorium.

@Steve-m6r 10 ай бұрын

I also did not hear any mention of how they take care of xenon, which is produced in the process and kills the reaction.

@esra_erimez 10 ай бұрын

This video about thorium is very interesting and informative. Plus, you have the the most ASMR voice.

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@user-221i 10 ай бұрын

Even in China share of nuclear has stagnated.

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

While it might seem that China's nuclear share has stagnated, the reality is quite different when you look at the facts. China is currently in the midst of a massive nuclear expansion, with plans to build 150 new reactors by 2035. This ambitious goal is part of their broader strategy to reach 200 GW of nuclear capacity by that same year, significantly increasing their current capacity of 56.9 GW** from 56 operational reactors. Recently, on August 19, 2023, China’s State Council approved the construction of 11 new reactors across five major projects, including the innovative Xuwei plant in Jiangsu province. This facility will be the first to combine a high-temperature gas-cooled reactor with a pressurized water reactor, showcasing China's commitment to advancing nuclear technology. Once operational, the Xuwei plant is expected to produce over 11.5 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity and supply 32.5 million tonnes of industrial steam annually, effectively reducing coal use by 7.26 million tonnes and cutting carbon emissions by nearly 19.6 million tonnes each year. Moreover, China has **27** reactors currently under construction, which is more than any other country in the world. This rapid buildout demonstrates their dedication to diversifying energy sources and reducing reliance on coal, which is vital for addressing climate change and improving air quality. While some may perceive stagnation from some misguided erroneous reporting, China's aggressive nuclear expansion plans and ongoing investments in advanced reactor technologies clearly indicate a strong commitment to increasing their nuclear energy share in the coming years.

@user-221i Ай бұрын

@@thethoriumnetwork Thanks chatgpt

@At0m5k 10 ай бұрын

Have you looked into Quaise? They're pretty close to deploying a working gyrotron drilling system capable of surpassing the temperature and pressure limitations of conventional drilling to reach rock hot enough to produce supercritical steam for nearly any turbine system found in existing power plants. Why build a nuclear reactor for use on Earth when we have one larger than anything we could ever build right beneath our feet?

@Gelatinocyte2 10 ай бұрын

Geothermal energy is awesome

@juslitor 10 ай бұрын

Being pretty close and actually having a commercially viable product are worlds apart.

@regdor8187 10 ай бұрын

The Earth's mantle is constantly moving, snap!!

@Gelatinocyte2 10 ай бұрын

@@regdor8187 that's so random

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@shantanuchaudhary9712 10 ай бұрын

the return of the king

@c_b5060 10 ай бұрын

This was most informative ! I support thorium generation of electrical energy, I was not aware of all of the problems that you discussed.

@vxworks66 10 ай бұрын

@scooby1971 3 ай бұрын

Its happening. China's already in the process of doing it.

@robertbrandywine 2 ай бұрын

Has done it.

@scooby1971 2 ай бұрын

@@robertbrandywineits not production ready yet. Theyre still testing and preparing to deploy

@robertbrandywine 2 ай бұрын

@@scooby1971 I'm curious what your source for that is. But "production ready" is the final stage in a year's long process. It goes into operation long before that, and from what I read, it is operating.

@scooby1971 2 ай бұрын

@robertbrandywine look up TMSR LF1. That's their thorium reactor that's "operating." It doesn't produce any electricity but produces 2 MW of energy and is still considered experimental. They're still learning but are far ahead of anyone else.

@robertbrandywine 2 ай бұрын

@@scooby1971 Thanks for the correction/update.

@suzyzyklo7933 10 ай бұрын

and, by the way, here in Europe, the price of renewable energy is one fifth of the price of of nuclear energy, the waste problem not counted

@LaMangouste 10 ай бұрын

Because it's heavily subsidized. And these subsides are financed by taxes.

@aaroncosier735 10 ай бұрын

@@LaMangouste Wait till you hear about the subsidies for nuclear and fossils.

@joeb3129 10 ай бұрын

Good to see you back SZ! 🎉

@peetiegonzalez1845 10 ай бұрын

He's BACK! Your side channel is fun but this one has a solid following.

@schmitzbeats6102 10 ай бұрын

Rule 1: When something sounds too good to be true, it rarely is. One of the many problems with Thorium, that are barely mentioned is the low breeding rate. There simply aren't enough neutrons available to produce an excess of U233.

@harmenkoster7451 10 ай бұрын

That's what the lithium beryllium salt is for. Beryllium-9 has the neat property that if you hit it with a neutron, it immediately decays into 2 alpha particles and 2 neutrons. So you multiply the number of neutrons floating around by 2. Which means that by tuning the ratio of beryllium to thorium, you can tweak the breeding rate into something self sufficient. They use a similar trick at ITER to get the fusion reaction to breed enough fuel. Of course this comes with the massive downside that you are now using Beryllium as a fuel, which is pretty rare. Worldwide production of Be is only like 200 tons a year, and ITER alone is eating up 10% of that. If we wanted to use molten salt thorium reactors, we'd quickly run out of Beryllium and the costs would be truly astronomical. As always, the problem with nuclear is pure cost. Not any of the made up problems like activists or a renewable energy lobby, and its not something you can realistically fix by trying alternate fuel cycles. At the end of the day, its just a lot cheaper to build renewables and they have a faster return on investment. Which is why everyone is building renewables and nuclear is left to die a quiet death.

@schmitzbeats6102 10 ай бұрын

@@harmenkoster7451 Thank you! That was new to me. But as you say, it sounds that it's not a sustainable solution either.

@xXYannuschXx 10 ай бұрын

@@harmenkoster7451 "As always, the problem with nuclear is pure cost. Not any of the made up problems like activists or a renewable energy lobby, and its not something you can realistically fix by trying alternate fuel cycles. At the end of the day, its just a lot cheaper to build renewables and they have a faster return on investment. Which is why everyone is building renewables and nuclear is left to die a quiet death." - Sadly I see ALOT of people thinking that nuclear fission power is the cheapest source of energy and that renewables are only built due to subsidies.... I just dont understand where that weird hate boner for renewables come from. Is it because people associate it with the climate activists and taxes?

@davidford3115 10 ай бұрын

Well, and then there is the issues of implementation. The US Navy could never get it to work on the USS Seawolf (SSN-575), which is why Admiral Rickover rejected the design.

@schmitzbeats6102 10 ай бұрын

@@xXYannuschXx I notice this too. Is it the Nuclear lobby and spin doctors at work? While in reality the cheapest electricity (in my country anyway) comes from renewables. And nuclear was heavily subsidised as well.

@paul13561 10 ай бұрын

the reason company cannot use it because they have no profit making fuel because it is easy to make it chemically if you are a chemist.

@TomDrez 10 ай бұрын

Well that would be some serious bias at the end, i would have liked to know your reasons as for why you're "sketpical" or if it just whishfull thinking, but hey at least you mentioned them, because you knew there would be someone talking about them, and that's normal, all the cons you mentionned simply don't exist there, and so far the government control the richs and do not hesitate to massively invest in infrastructure, inside the country as well as outside. But TSMR-LF1 for example is the first one of many reactor being either build, or planned in the desert, and china do have a lot of thorium, india or should we now say, Bharat, is way behind technologicaly speaking, and has a much more divided population than anyone else. And yes they do have a lot of thorium in the south east, but china also have more than enough to run this power for centuries if not more, they're also working on fusion reactors and even studying stellarators, so this techonology has a purpose of research and completion rather than a complete dependance. But if you want to act that way then be my guest, they don't give a damn about anyone else being "skeptical", they'll do what they planify to do anyway. Beside india is a brics partner, if ever needed, china could buy a lot of thorium to them for a lower price, despite they're ambiguous relationship. And you know why? Because there's actually so much thorium in Bharat that the country would gladly open a new commercial route for a sustainable ressources that no one else except this two countries actually use, but there's thorium in many places, so there could be potential concurrents for bharat, africans nations for example.

@OctoPen 10 ай бұрын

I get what you meant when you said that the nuclear energy industry was plagued by disaster but there have only been 3 nuclear plant disasters and 2 of them were from human error and negligence with one of them being partly from cut corners as well. The other one being Fukushima which was a tsunami. It does come off as you saying there have been numerous nuclear plant disasters which there haven’t been. It is a great video nonetheless

@davidford3115 10 ай бұрын

Three that people are aware of. Not on your list is the Kyshtym Disater, which was WORSE than either 3-mile Island or Fukushima. Neither is the Windscale Fire in the UK, nor the Swiss Lucens reactor meltdown. All three of those I listed are never mentioned by the anti-nuclear crowd.

@faroncobb6040 10 ай бұрын

@@davidford3115 The Kyshtym disaster and Windscale fire were both the result of nuclear weapons work, and have nothing to with nuclear power generation. The Lucens reactor meltdown was only a category four incident, with no radiation release outside the cavern which has since been decontaminated anyways. The problem with nuclear power is the cost of building new reactors, not the danger.

@davidford3115 10 ай бұрын

@@faroncobb6040 Windscale was not just weapons, it WAS used for power as well. You don't have cartages designated as fuel just for production of weapons grade uranium and plutonium. Regardless, you are trying to downplay the examples I gave because they are inconvenient details and events. The fact that the anti-nuclear crowd NEVER mention them shows how dishonest their arguments are.

@faroncobb6040 10 ай бұрын

@@davidford3115 Pile 2 of Windscale was air cooled, using large fans during operation and with tall chimneys that would provide passive airflow for cooling even during shutdown. There was no provision for electrical generation at all, reactor designs for plutonium production have very little in common with designs optimized for power production.

@kuromyou7969 10 ай бұрын

@@davidford3115why would anti nuclear people NOT mention the accidents you did? Seems like that would help their case, not hurt it.

@SkypowerwithKarl 10 ай бұрын

The major hurdle is money, those that stand to loose their monopoly and those that are funded by the same, through lobbyists. If something doesn’t make sense, always follow the money. Politicians are the winners and humanity is the loser

@a.p.2356 10 ай бұрын

Something that immediately jumped out to me about this design is that the chemical processing plant is outside the primary containment vessel, and contains insanely hot, toxic, corrosive, radioactive, and likely chemically reactive molten salts. What happens if part of that molten salt rube goldberg machine springs a leak? I'm assuming that flaming hot radioactive poison salt mix would react to atmospheric oxygen with... enthusiasm. My understanding is that thorium reactors are inherently safe from meltdowns, but it still seems like you could end up with a serious radioactive accident on your hands if anything in there fails. I know that's a concern with the primary steam loop in a traditional reactor too, but while the water is radioactive, it's also water. The shit flowing through these pipes would be massively more dangerous than some radioactive steam...

@philipthecow 10 ай бұрын

From what I understand the half life of the chain is only something like 60 days, so long term radioactivity isn't an issue. I'm not a chemist, but I'm not sure oxygen will react strongly; oxygen fluorides would be highly endothermic to create. I also don't know if the byproducts of any such reaction would be gas; if they're solid it won't spread very far. In short, I imagine a major mishapwould just result in a local poisonous spill that while bad is comparable to any other industrial accident.

@bencoad8492 6 ай бұрын

not really, the salt would drop to the floor and just freeze, water on the other hand expands rapidly then explodes, showering radioactives all over the place....O2 and water just makes the salt very corrosive that why you have to get it away from the salt otherwise you would corrode your piping too fast..

@dsl145 10 ай бұрын

A very fair take on the situation 👍

@uberfalcon1965 10 ай бұрын

The problem doesn't start with the technology. It starts with public perceptions of nuclear power.

@ilkerYT 10 ай бұрын

A plane in Turkey crashed just before some scientist were about to explain the Thorium problem...

@toddmarshall7573 10 ай бұрын

7:50 "... infrastructure...": What's the difference between a uranium infrastructure and a thorium infrastructure?

@chief8559 Ай бұрын

China already did it

@snuffles_bear Ай бұрын

He said that already at the end of the video.

@GeorgeLerner 6 ай бұрын

@alanjenkins1508 What "problem of how to moderate such a core"? If you mean "keep the fission rate under control", Molten Salt Reactors have been demonstrated to have a highly stable fission rate (as the fuel salt heats, it expands, lowering fuel density so reducing fission rate). Graphite is one moderator, there are others that could be used, have been used in nuclear reactors. FLiBe salt (the most common salt for molten salt reactor designs) is itself a moderator, sufficient to increase the chance of neutrons hitting the uranium causing fissioning instead of absorption (that is the main purpose of a moderator). Many MSR designs would not use any moderator for control (unless regulators who apply LWR rules to MSR senselessly require one). Fast-spectrum Molten Salt Reactors would use a different salt to combine with uranium and have no moderator, but with the same inherently stable fission rate. "Very corrosive" - chemists would say "corrosive to what material". We have already demonstrated materials that last long enough to use for multiple decades in a nuclear reactor, with uranium or plutonium fission products. One was used in the 1960s Molten Salt Reactor Experiment. "Highly radioactive" - yeah, that's the point. Whether gamma rays (light), electrons, or helium nucleus, in a reactor these produce heat, which we use. Even 1960s remote control arms were able to replace components; modern robots can easily do that. "Chemical processing plant" "work completely reliably" - if you mean "separates 99.99999999% of the fission products", that is not needed; just separate as much as you want, for example to sell the xenon to industries that need it, and that will keep fission products from blocking fission. If you are implying we don't know the chemistry, that's wrong; for example the adding fluorine to uranium to convert it to a gas to move uranium into the reactor core, well, uranium fluoridation is used in making fuel for LWR. Solid fuel: you would have to remove the fuel from the LWR pellets or TRISO pebbles, then melt the fuel, to chemically separate the fission products.

@thethoriumnetwork Ай бұрын

Correct. But not because of expansion. Check out Doppler Broadening. Physics is cool.

@luc_libv_verhaegen 10 ай бұрын

Stop blaming greenpeace. Start blaming simple economics and money. Go and ask a big insurer what it costs to insure your nuclear power plant, ask him what it costs to insure any fossil or renewable power plant. Then go to a bank, and give the bank your cost breakdown and business plan, and compare that to any renewable.

@keeno86 10 ай бұрын

True. The regulation and associated cost to comply are the biggest issue. Investors and power companies are not going to fund the building of a plant that takes 20 years to build with negative returns and historically crazy overages, over simply building a gas plant in 2 years for 1/50th the cost lol.

@kaasmeester5903 10 ай бұрын

There's certainly a bit of market failure there. But keep in mind that these plants do not replace renewables, they replace coal and gas at the point where renewables cannot, not without a huge breakthrough in energy storage. Which actually makes it a little worse: if renewables provide the bulk of our power and nukes are only used to make up the shortfall, then the cost per kWh is even worse. But in general, nuclear power isn't that expensive... the problem is the enormous risk associated with regulatory issues, and the large up front investment required. One way to address this is to not treat every nuclear plant as a separate project, but build several. Another way would be for the government to build these, if private parties are reluctant to make the investment. The thing is: we will need either coal / gas plants, or nukes. Renewables cannot as yet provide 100% of our power. With that in mind, it's worth calculating whether it makes sense to build nukes, or to keep some gas plants around, and accept the CO2 they emit (or sequester it). But sadly no one around here seems to be willing to make any actual plans. We're already dealing with an overloaded grid, and politics are more concerned about distributing the capacity "fairly" than with doing anything about it.

@nathanj202 10 ай бұрын

These are gen four reactors too, companies don’t want to risk billions on a design only tested by 1-2 reactors at a national lab in the 70s. Which is one of the main reasons they just keep building LWRs (along with all the regulation hurdles mentioned in other comments).

@keeno86 10 ай бұрын

@@nathanj202yes another issue is that most of the Gen IV concepts are created by startups with no established means to actually build a plant unlike say GE or Westinghouse who are focusing on newer LWR designs for the same reasons you stated.

@Gelatinocyte2 10 ай бұрын

People here citing "regulations" are trying to make that out to be the biggest hindering factor, but you got to remember that regulations are the reason why nuclear energy is the safest form of energy production that it is - even safer than wind energy, actually. What's really hindering Nuclear is corporate lobbies, they're the ones propping up unnecessary/unwanted bureaucratic hurdles to compete against nuclear progress; let's not forget that they fund "green" activists too.

@seanhewitt603 10 ай бұрын

The trouble with radioisotopes is chiefly that they do not have addictive toxic effluent pouring out of the exothermic reaction that generates the energy necessary to power technology. Crude oil distillates and the exhaust generated gives humans serious deleterious neurological side effects (they get high) as well as the energy generation. Quite simply put, humanity is a doper, and thorium doesn't get them high, that's why the disinterest.