TEDxNewEngland | 11/01/11 | The Future of Nuclear Power: Getting Rid of Nuclear Waste

For the first time in decades, there are an abundance of new designs for nuclear power reactors -- ones that are safer, more powerful, more portable, and even ones that produce hardly any nuclear waste. From the Department of Nuclear Science and Engineering at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Professor Dr. Richard Lester and Graduate Students Mark Massie and Leslie Dewan will talk about the evolution of nuclear power in the United States, and directions that the industry might take in the future. They will also describe new technology that solves two of the biggest problems with nuclear power -- Safety and Waste Disposal.
About TEDx
In the spirit of ideas worth spreading, TEDx is a program of local, self-organized events that bring people together to share a TED-like experience. At a TEDx event, TEDTalks video and live speakers combine to spark deep discussion and connection in a small group. These local, self-organized events are branded TEDx, where x = independently organized TED event. The TED Conference provides general guidance for the TEDx program, but individual TEDx events are self-organized.* (*Subject to certain rules and regulations)

[@Jim54_]

Civilisation’s rejection of Nuclear power was a massive mistake, and the environment has payed dearly for it as we continue to rely on fossil fuels for our electricity

[@RratsArtStudio]

Let's do it!

[@TimatorA]

According to the documentary Uranium: Twisting the dragons tail, they have started building the first WAMSR and expect it to be finished in less than 10 years. Highly recommend that doc too!

[@bbgun061]

I think it's basically the same as a LFTR, although instead of using thorium dissolved in flouride as fuel, it uses waste uranium. The molten salt used in a MSR is not sodium chloride (table salt) it is one of a couple types of metal salts.

[@yunged]

If these kids designs work as they say they will they will have just created one of the most important inventions humans have ever devised, in fact if you take into account that reliance on fossil fuels could bring on the end of humanity that would make this THE most important invention by definition I wish you guys the best... we all wish you the best! haha :-)

[@seaboardspastic]

Very good presentation. And the technology discussed, if feasible, could revolutionize the nuclear industry.

[@OfficeThug]

Yeah you're right, radiocaesium (Cs-137 and the far less worrisome 135) make up the ~15% (depends on what you're fissioning). I also totally agree about the Sr-90. Its fission product yield is high enough that it could be used in making batteries with betavoltaics. It would be more efficient and portable than using Pu-238, and infinitely easier to produce since it's always yielded from nuclear fission, whereas Pu-238 needs to be specifically transmuted.

[@beback_]

This sounds really good has it been developed yet?

[@OfficeThug]

Congrats on winning the top award at a U.S. Department of Energy innovation summit!

[@OfficeThug]

Again I stand corrected. I read a couple articles recently and they stated they were going to use fluorides, which is exciting for me as a thorium MSR advocate. The spectrum of their reactor is still secret at the time of this writing. It could be fast-spectrum (U-238 and Pu-239 mixed core?) or a fast-thermal bimodal spectrum (fast Pu-239 core, thermal U-238 blanket?). The exact salt they're using is also a mystery and I figure it will depend on their spectrum selection.

[@OfficeThug]

First issue about waste consumption. The fuel used by the WAMSR is the predominant naturally occurring isotope of uranium, U-238. This isotope is not fissile, but it can be bred into plutonium-239, which IS fissile. The trick to this system is to breed U-238 into Pu-239, using the excess neutrons you get from Pu-239 to keep the whole cycle self-sustaining. The breeding process requires special neutron energy moderation, which isn't easy to do in conventional reactors.

[@mthomo1992]

Once the nuclear waste has been used, could it be used as a thorium reactor instead? how would this WAMSR very from the LFTR?

[@MrNightLifeLover]

Great speech!

[@SailorBarsoom]

Cool. That's what I wanted to know. Thanks.

[@OfficeThug]

@zassounotsukushi Natural gas prices are extremely erratic, and unless Fracking becomes legal everywhere, gas prices are expected to rise again quite rapidly in the near future. Nuclear, on the other hand, has tremendous potential. Its current fuel efficiencies are extremely low and we haven't moved into intrinsically safe nuclear systems yet, both of which make up over 85% of nuclear's costs. Yet it's still competitive with coal in many countries. Any improvement will be huge

[@q4norm]

would we have to ship nuclear waste from all over the world to fuel a wamsr plant? Or is it more of a 1:1 conventional to wamsr plant ratio? and what if NIF or ITER really take off, does this tech still apply?

[@rutaija]

Although you may be right at some level (if we try to learn from the history), I've read a lot about the thorium technology and it actually seems to be quite the opposite. In the early years of nuclear power the LWR was picked because it provided right stuff (isotopes) for bombs in its waste. However the competition (Thorium) didn't so it was shelved because it had fewer "benefits" at the time. Now when it's viable to make money with this tech it's THE motive the private sector needs.

[@OfficeThug]

Issue 1: Plutonium forms a fluoride-salt-insoluble complex with fluorine. It would just precipitate as it's formed in the blanket and be incredibly difficult to retrieve or use in the core. Issue 2: Pu-239 has a comparable neutron capture rate vs. neutron fission rate when subjected to thermal neutrons. The LFTR is a full-thermal spectrum reactor, so if you dump Pu-239 in it there's a ~50% chance it will just absorb neutrons and become heavier transuranics rather than fission like intended.

[@Fordi]

From what I read in an interview with transatomic, they plan to simply dissolve the fuel pellets directly in the salt. I don't know how that's done, exactly; UO2 isn't soluble in fluoride salts. It seems to me they'd have to oxidize it with HF first to yield UF4 (soluble in FLiBe and FLiNaK).

[@emphaticus]

has there been any advances with WAMSR being incorporated into new nuclear power plants?

[@AD-nn7vh]

Are the large oil and gas companies going to allow production of this new power plant and how do you plan to stop over pricing?

[@karatefylla]

so what kind of container is holding the molten salt then? wouldn't that also get irradiated ?

[@OfficeThug]

WAMSR plans to use chloride salts instead of fluoride salts, which present their own unique set of challenges (notably how to separate un-bred U-238 from bred Pu-239). However, you'd solve issue 1 by having Pu-239 in a soluble form, and partially solve issue 2 by being able to use salt compositions that have more suitable moderating capabilities.

[@JustinHEMI05]

I don't disagree that that is part of the problem, but for a utility, cost is the issue. As a senior reactor operator at such a utility, I can say that there is a lot of "not us first," in addition to the unwillingness to foot the bill without being able to pass that to the customer. It's a completely separate issue from the regulatory issue that you mentioned, and that I agree exists.

[@cuejorge2003]

This is the best way for a nuclear power to operate. Ccongratulations!!!

[@SteveLiddle]

quite an interesting discussion, even those who believe in the man made global warming myth should like this concept, hopefully we can see some of these plants sooner than later :)

[@robertbernal8666]

Sounds like LFTR without the thorium. Less processing issues!

[@idarusskie]

no beryllium either which is pretty nasty stuff to work with.

[@fliteshare]

We run out of Uranium in 500 year (which is before we run out of Coal). But there is a billion years worth of Thorium on this planet. Let's figure this processing before the 72 year nuclear waste is gone.

[@WookieeMonster]

Reminds me a lot of the LFTR that utilizes Thorium in lieu of conventional nuclear fuels.

[@pebre79]

These MIT engineers are going to save the world! :)

[@OfficeThug]

Waste consumption - 4 If you have enough neutrons of the right energy, you can breed transuranics into odd-mass isotopes which can be more easily fissioned. Once those are fissioned, all you have left for the most part is fission products. These can also be transmuted into other isotopes that are much, much shorter lived, and thus completely stable by the time they leave the reactor for reprocessing.

[@RebeccaPedersonHessey]

There is a series of books called Ringing Cedars. Book #8 titled The New Civilisation talks about this issue and mentions deconcentrating the storage of radioactive waste.

[@NicosMind]

Tell me more Leslie. Tell me way way more :)

[@Fordi]

Actually, in an interview, they said it was unlikely they'd be using chloride salts. They might be planning to use some variant of FLiNaK, tuned for PuOx solubility and/or mid-to-fast spectrum neutrons? I don't know.

[@OfficeThug]

@flufster777 Why not push for both? The WAMSR could deal with nuclear waste and the uranium cycle, which the LFTR isn't too specialized in, while the LFTR could deal with the thorium cycle, which utilizes a more plentiful resource and produces more valuable products. The designs would be similar to boot. I'm sure both of these guys could exist in harmony. Besides, trace actinide extraction from rocks will yield both uranium and thorium, we shouldn't let either go to waste.

[@OfficeThug]

Waste consumption - End Only Cs-137 (~15% of product mass) and Sr-90 (~5%) are too difficult to stabilize, which are produced in significant enough quantities to warrant long-term repository. Both have half-lives of 30 years. So compare conventional total mass consumption of fuel, which was 80% of ~5% (only U-235 is consumed) to produce 100% of the mass as waste, to the new consumption method which might be 80% of >90% (remaining U-238 is consumed), to produce 20% of the mass as waste.

[@TimKaseyMythHealer]

Could someone walk me through the solid frozen/salt plug with all temperatures along the line leading to the auxiliary safety storage tank. Every time I run this through my thought experiment scenario melt down, the system has a breach at the reactor core before 100% of the hazardous material can 1) melt the plug. 2) drain down into the auxiliary storage tank. Additionally, this design doesn't take into consideration the human beings that must work near pipes that are apx. 1000deg. F.... how is this safe to the guy who must be in the same room with pipes over 1000 deg. F? What of the room air temperature being heated by these pipes? The other obvious problem is that these pipes must be at a constant 1,000deg.F indefinitely. What happens to the gaskets, and surrounding parts? Does anyone have any experience with process piping at these temperatures? Failures every 24 to 48 hours seem the norm for such high temperatures. Also, water coming into contact with 1000-2000 degrees F before all the molten salt melts down will be explosive.... where's the engineering controls for this part of the design? Anyone have some insight into these questions/observations? Extreme high temperatures will crack water into oxygen & hydrogen, and now you've got yourself an explosive condition. Where are the engineering diagrams, answers, scenarios for such safety engineering?

[@mcduck5]

Given that the concept of the vid has been found to be incorrect (the reactor would not reduce the amount of nuclear waste anywhere near what they say here) is it responcible to leave this vid/talk up here without an update/correction?

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

Show where they are incorrect.

[@mcduck5]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk They admitted it...

[@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk]

@@mcduck5 You didn't watch the video.

[@mcduck5]

@@danadurnfordkevinblanchdebunk You know this how?

[@fraterec]

This is LFTR, we must do it!

[@OfficeThug]

Utilities invest in increasing their electric capacity all the time. They do it because there's a profit to be made down the line. They foot the initial capital required to build power plants, but it's ok if it returns several fold more in profit. That's why nuclear was so popular in the 60-70s, building them was really cheap and fast, and they were still very safe (unless you lived in Russia). Once built, expenses were minimal. And that's for reactors with 0.5-1.2% total efficiency.

[@animangafan342]

they fixed their design but it didn't meet commercial standards. also could not use nuclear waste. still a really good concept that needs to be built upon and their research has been made public

[@OfficeThug]

Waste consumption - 3 A plutonium-breeder, like the WAMSR, is specially designed to support nuclear transmutation. Transmutation is when a nucleus absorbs a neutron to become something else. Conventional plants can't do that very well because they simply don't produce enough neutrons and they only moderate their neutrons to fission U-235 efficiently. A WAMSR would use conventional waste, which is >90% U-238, as fuel. That's easy because U-238 is its primary fuel anyways.

[@Fordi]

Reaction is UO₂ + 4HF => UF₄ + 2H₂O; the water just gets boiled off and possibly sequestered (that close to fissiles, there might be tritium).

[@davevaneck8554]

Seems like a very good idea. Does anyone have an idea as to how it will be possible to convert the used fuel pellets to liquid salt without creating a plant as dangerous as a nuclear power plant?

[@kkielkopf]

"Do we actually know what the hypothetical waste:fuel ratio would be???" It all depends on how many GW you want to produce. We don't know exact details, but, from the video above; 1) ~20 tons produced per year, per conventional LWR, 2) ~270,000 tons of spent exist today, 3) WAMSRs are claimed to be able to fill our global energy needs for 72 years on that ~270,000 tons of spent fuel. Some have estimated that a 1 GW MSR could use ~1 ton of spent fuel per year. We don't know for a WAMSR.

[@liviociaralli9261]

After 3 Mile Island they should have doubled down on research.........maybe now that we have more powerful computing platforms and advanced machining processes, the engineers and scientists can really get ths right........Do it right and we will not have to worry about energy ever again......hats off to younger scientists interested in this technology.

[@MrGuesp]

It's a little disappointing to see so many people in the comments claiming these guys are "stealing credit" from Alvin Weinberg and others before them. Do people need to sing praises to William Shockley every time a faster and smaller computer processor is developed? The fact is these guys made a development in a technology which has unfortunately been largely stagnant in the US. Personally, I'm just glad companies like Flibe Energy and Transatomic are persuing this technology, its about time...

[@OfficeThug]

Waste consumption - continued The isotope of uranium that's actually consumed in our current reactors is U-235. 0.7% of all natural uranium is U-235, and it is fissile so it can be used as a nuclear fuel directly. We need to enrich it to higher percentages because, at 0.7%, there's too much "other stuff" taking space or interfering with the nuclear reaction to ensure the continuous fission of all the U-235. We typically use up to ~5% U-235, with ~95% U-238, as our fuel.

[@Scientist538]

We need these and we need LFTR's

[@Fordi]

Cs-137 only gets 6.337% yield - but in combination with Cs-135 (a longer-lived variant), you have a total yield of 13.248%. That said. Sr-90 excites me. It's a high energy, pure beta emitter, and it yields at 4.505% of fission mass. High production rates of the stuff create the potential for its use in betavoltaics - simple semiconductor batteries that run down after 14 years or so - and can then be recycled into new batteries and precious zirconium.

[@spacecadet35]

Total death toll from nuclear power to date 58. In the USA coal power kills 28,000 per year. Measuring danger in deaths per Terra Watt hour, wind power is 400 times more dangerous than nuclear. Solar power is 11 times more dangerous. Check these figures out for yourself. I heartily recommend Thorium based pebble bed reactors.

[@OfficeThug]

Waste consumption - continued 2 Over time, the U-235 is mostly consumed (up to around 80%), which is not that bad. The surrounding U-238 won't fission appreciably when subjected to neutron radiation and will instead absorb neutrons to become Pu-239. That Pu-239 doesn't fission very well in the Thermal spectrum (slow neutrons, better for fissioning U-235) and instead will keep absorbing neutrons to become heavier and uglier transuranic products. On top of that, you have fission products too.

[@JustinHEMI05]

People often ask "why isn't so and so type of reactor where we are going..." The answer is simple..., who is going to pay for it? As soon as that person is asked if they would support paying higher rates to invest in new technology, their tune quickly changes. They seem to think that magical new technologies just pop out of thin air, or that utilities bring them to market out of the goodness of their hearts.

[@k-mar9587]

this is almost 3 years old, was there any progress?

[@carolinewong6558]

TerraPower has a working design and was working with an experienced manufacturer to build one. But the manufacturer is in China and the Americans had to leave when the Trade War started. It is unlikely any politician will back building the prototype on US soil. So it's on hold until politics change and green(er) energy is championed by the President. Another country may give them a chance. I am hoping Canada would be that country because a bunch of reactors are slated to be refurbished or closed before 2025. I don't know if this new process will make cobalt-60 as Canada is the only source worldwide. The Candu reactors produces a lot of the radioactive isotopes used in treating cancer. Anyway, Canada is building mini-plants so maybe they'll have the manufacturing expertise to do a TerraPower plant in the near future

[@jackjackson3356]

If what those kids said 6 years ago is true, that is awesome. The heart of the problem is that the layman cannot tell. One of two things it is either Massie and Dewan innovation is technically flawed or Oil lobbies will not let them advance. In either case it is sad for the human race...Scarce vital resources almost always lead to cruel inhuman barbaric wars. This is an event they sould have exceeded the 2bn views...They still did not cross 100k

[@allendupras]

How are they "copy and pasting" LFTR??

[@brightmal]

The waste product disposal issue only exists because of the design of the current, very old tech, nuclear reactor designs.

[@watchthe1369]

do we want to use "Malon Nuclear" or "UFP Nuclear" dirty urabium nuclear or much cleaner thorium nuclear(that can clean up a lot of the uranium mess). Uranium/ Water/ Steam reactors need too much engineering for saftey.and do not "fail Safe". The LFTR or Molten Thorium Salt reactor needs to take over for the technology.......

[@cyberzeus7343]

Why we have not done more on this is beyond explanation...maybe ask Rickover... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_Breeder_Reactor_II

[@haruspex1-50]

This sounds too good to be true.

[@MarcusAsaro]

It's not too good to be true. It's real. I just think these researchers are playing a little fast and loose with the word invent. Molten salt reactors have been studied for decades and now, and their nuclear processes, having waste actinides being almost completely consumed, was conceived of long ago. I am glad that molten salt reactors are finally getting to see the light of day, but I don't know what these graduate students claimed to have invented that wasn't already known to previous thorium fission pioneers.

[@agorist.boogaloo]

It is.

[@MarcusAsaro]

Confident Introvert ....wrong. Do your research on it.

[@jb678901]

Why not both? The LFTR can be modified to process/burn LL waste from current gen reactors. Seems to me that this approach mirrors the LFTR concepts discussed by folks like Keith Sorensen, on Google TechTalks. However, between the revolving door lobbyists on Capitol Hill and solid fuel reprocessing profits from conventional approaches, I doubt we will see this clean tech until it's too late.

[@mastermenthe]

WAMSR really IS an LFTR. They even used some of the same images.

[@kingofthepaupers]

Jct: Good. I guess the problem has gone away.

[@OfficeThug]

I've read the reports and they seem to contradict what you're spouting here. The reports are peer-reviewed, your claims not so much.

[@bbgun061]

spent fuel from a molten salt reactor is only dangerous for 300 years. We already have the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico, that is capable of safely storing spent fuel for up to 10,000 years. There were plans to build a new facility in Yucca Mountain, Nevada that could store fuel for even longer, but it was canceled in 2010 for political reasons. Hopefully, if we can start building these MSRs, then we won't need any additional storage. The only obstacles now are mainly political.

[@OfficeThug]

The problem in this case isn't funding. It's getting it through regulations. Short of it is that western nuclear regulations are very sloppy and very conservative. They only look at one type of reactor, the light water uranium-235-burning designs, because they have the most experience looking at those. Have something different for them to approve? It might take you 20 years considering it takes half that to approve prototypes of reactors they DO like.

[@sbellaharris]

Glad they found the solution now. But how did they come into the decision to use the nuclear power without knowing what to do with the waste in the beginning??

[@davidgrover5996]

GG2K7AU05, There was the pressing issue of dealing with the most murderous regimes in human history making the we will just bury it option seem like a good plan.

[@spacecadet35]

Actually, Thorium reactors can also burn high grade Uranium nuclear waste. Carlo Rubbia and others have proposed thorium reactors as a way of getting rid of plutonium and other nasties for many years. WAMSR is not a new technology and it is not the only technology that does what they propose. As long as they use some technology. Of course if we store it properly, there are some valuable isotopes in that waste.

[@elpagna]

what you need to point out is that Nuclear power maybe "dangerous" but people are making it safer and safer to avoid disasters

[@chubbychode1869]

It's not plagiarism if the original technology wasn't patented. "Old school" scientists often didn't patent their works, firstly because it wasn't common. but also because they genuinely wanted people to use their ideas to better the future of mandkind, which was their main goal. Then along came profiteering. I agree it may sound like they are claiming an "invention", you also have to remember the presentation is timed, and giving a history lesson on nuclear energy takes a lot of time.

[@infini_ryu9461]

When faced with an option to stop global warming, humanity decided not to take it because of an irrational fear. All of Humanity just got the Darwin Award. GG

[@silverfox2358]

This has already been done at the ebr 2 reactor shut down by american politics lets hope they don't get shut down as well.

[@animangafan342]

green energy is only okay when it's not efficient

[@SamsonZoomBespoke]

See the netflix film Chasing Ice and permanent iceberg dissolving. What we need is a highly focused web site that shows the interest in in change. This could come by giving review and credit to say 100 sustainable consumer industries and sources of energy and co2 dissolving technologies that produce clean energy.

[@MrNihilist74]

This is the kind of thing politicians should be promoting.

[@swatkins818]

During the three Mile Island (partial) nuclear meltdown, you could have stood right at the border of the property and literally hugged up against the security fence and you would have been exposed to less radiation than you absorb spending a day in Denver. Think about that.

[@bdist]

Not a single mention of the cost of the electricity generated from these reactors. The problem with all of the methods that use nuclear waste is that they generate electricity at higher cost than reactors that use new fuel and generate waste. Economics is currently in the way. These reactors will not be built unless someone subsidize them. And why would anyone do that? We should be reducing our electricity need first (insulation, better lighting, use waste heat in industry etc). Then build more renewable power (cheaper, safer). Then perhaps these reactors could be built. Likely not. The last bit, new people in the industry, is not necessarily a solution, but more likely a source of new problems. Old forgotten problems will pop up again.

[@mattgriswold5954]

Right on! youre so right lets make some trivial incremental adaptations and watch the world go to shit! thats a better idea, for sure. Also do your math over homeskillet, the economics of the proposition are not a deterrent, its voters like you. Please do share your better idea for meeting the grand challenges we now or shall soon face

[@SailorBarsoom]

First of all, they are not kids. They are adults. Young adults, but adults. They are about the same age Albert Einstein was when he published his paper explaining Brownian motion. They're the same age as a lot of people who have made important discoveries. Besides, they're not building one in the back yard; they've got people with gray hair involved too.

[@Writein2012]

"Some people believe that liquid fluoride thorium reactors, which would use a high-temperature liquid fuel made of molten salt, would be significantly safer than current-generation reactors. However, such reactors have major flaws. There are serious safety issues associated with the retention of fission products in the fuel, and it is not clear these problems can be effectively resolved. Such reactors also present proliferation and nuclear terrorism risks because they involve the continuous separation, or “reprocessing,” of the fuel to remove fission products and to efficiently produce U-233, which is a nuclear weapon-usable material. Moreover, disposal of the used fuel has turned out to be a major challenge. Stabilization and disposal of the remains of the very small “Molten Salt Reactor Experiment” that operated at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960s has turned into the most technically challenging cleanup problem that Oak Ridge has faced, and the site has still not been cleaned up." Roald Wigeland et al, "AFCI Options Study," Idaho National Laboratory, INL/EXT-10-17639, September 2009. Available at www.inl.gov/technicalpublications/Documents/4480296.pdf Don't let attractive young scientists convince you to go down a road that is dangerous.

[@Garium87]

+Judy Frankel What is such a clean up compared to the risk of a nuclear meltdown in conventional reactors or with billions of tons of CO² and the clean up which climate change will cause? Also, it was a experiment. The design can certainly be improved.

[@puncheex2]

If you don't buy a lottery ticket, then you will never win. That applies to nuclear energy as well. Don't let young activists dissuade you from learning the reality of the situation.

[@cyberzeus7343]

EXACTLY - the nuclear haters are not just saying there's danger - they are saying don't do any research which is fucking lame. Christ, go back to the middle ages and if you said "hey - I bet we can fly" and they'd burn you at the stake - and boy - look what we did - we figured out how to do it because WE TRIED - FAILED - TRIED AGAIN. I have no issue admitting that nuclear energy is difficult and dangerous - but so is burning every milliliter of fossil fuel and saying "oh shit - what now???" and having done nothing in the lead up. Not pursuing nuclear energy with a full steam ahead (no pun intended) approach is not only foolish, it is lunacy...

[@edwardparsons5316]

We're going to need a thorium engineered alternative to the current nuclear power plant producer's

[@chapter4travels]

"We're going to need a molten salt engineered alternative to the current nuclear power plant producer's" There, fixed it for you, thorium has nothing to do with it.

[@johanengqvist544]

Well, this is pretty good stuff, though getting by the fact that a nuclear powerplant never produces enough electric power to solve the building and safety cost is going to be much harder.

[@creamofbotulismsoup9900]

How do you figure that?

[@jonjo2598]

Phlaked Corn He is basing that on nothing- however the tech in the video utilizes waste...so yah.

[@Ahldor]

I think it is our responsibility to leave as little waste as possible for future generations. No matter if its plastics in the oceans, chemicals in the ground or nuclear waste laying around. Digging down nuclear waste into the ground is like sweeping things under the carpet. It is not an acceptable solution. We, as humankind, should make good efforts in developing nuclear that could burn all this waste. I salute these young students for understanding and working towards that! But there is a long way left. Nuclear is what it is, it is not evil or bad by default. Just like fire can hurt and kill people, fire is still a good thing. I would say the same about nuclear. Whole cities has burnt down during history, million of people have been killed in fires. But should we have banned fire? Of course not! We have learnt how to manage fire, and we should also learn how to manage nuclear. I also think solar will be a big energy source in a few decades, but we still need energy during the night. Batteries is one solution, but any solution will only add to the cost per kWh. Nuclear is a good base to stand on.

[@JurijFedorov]

We need more nuclear energy no matter in what shape or form it comes in. If we build good new reactors the technology and infrastructure will be ready for these different reactors too.

[@JasonDeveau]

Isn't this basically LFTR with a different name?

[@kokofan50]

No, it's a different form of molten salt reactor. LFTRs are a form of breeder reactor; this seems to be burner reactor.

[@leerman22]

kokofan50 It hast to be a fast spectrum MSR in order to have a breeding ratio above 1.0 when burning waste. There isn't enough fissile material in waste so it needs a boost of high level fissile material.

[@silverfox2358]

They missed out that you can use the uranium and plutonium neutrons generated to fire up a thorium isotope fuel.

[@theq4602]

***** So what? you use bomb fuel to start it, then it runs itself.

[@leerman22]

David Vermillion Bomb grade is 90% fissile, fast spectrum fuel is 20-30% fissile (probably diluted bombs). Still a lot higher than a CANDU's 1.2% but you get so much more energy out of the fast spectrum you couldn't normally burn.

[@omaregb]

Can anybody show me a serious academic document talking about this wamsr thing?

[@a.thales7641]

after 6 years of development they now say that it will produce just 4,8 tons of waste instead of 10 tons of older other type of reactors. it's great that it's less than half but not as great as we all hope. 1 ton vs 10 ton would be great.

[@tylerscofield5706]

Thorium reactors reduce waste 1000 to 1, plus waste only radioactive for a few hundred years.

[@michazajac5881]

technically they've lied. Waste of this reactor is going to be MUCH more radioactive. That's actually one of the major problems to deal with. It's just its half-life would be much shorter so it would go down to natural levels in few hundred, instead of millions, years. But still, initially, it's radioactivity would be much higher.

[@AlldaylongRock]

Thats the thing. Lasts a long time, barely radioactive Lasts a short time, yikes radioactivity. High radioactivity isnt a bad thing. We have uses for high radiation doses, including radiotherapy

[@flufster777]

It won't keep burning unless it's breeding... and the Uranium/Plutonium cycle won't breed unless you're using a fast spectrum reactor.... so the first step to getting the experience we need for WAMSR (which will likely end up as a liquid chloride msr) is to build the LFTR they are copying.

[@samann95014]

So, why are we not doing it? What's stopping it?

[@JasonDeveau]

There are some issues with corrosion with molten salt that are still being worked on. New metal alloys have been identified that can resist this corrosion but are expensive, so cheaper options are being investigated.

[@silverfox2358]

Jason Deveau If its in a liquid state then wouldn't it be easier to pour the fuel into a newly fabricated reactor from the old one? Then sadly scrap the old one and decontaminate it?

[@leerman22]

Jason Deveau MSR's will have additives like beryllium to have a preferred place to corrode. Also your return on investment for those corrosive resistant parts is really high anyways. I would prefer those parts to be easily replaceable and the secondary loop to be cooled by lead or something that doesn't corrode. Then that is fallowed by a steam turbine.

[@phiksit]

The US had an experimental MSR which Nixon cut funding for in 1973, and fired the man in charge of research, Alvin Weinberg. Years of the research and metallurgical samples were simply thrown away. Nixon and his buddies wanted fast breeder reactors (plutonium). It was about the same old bullshit as today... politics, money, egos and making bombs. Ever since the 40's, its been like a religion with these assholes taking us in the wrong direction.

[@CatsZeroWing]

Expanding on what phiksit said... It's really all the fault of these assclown politicians, combined with an equally uninformed public that is more easily impressed by Greenpeace's irrational fear-mongering than it is willing to confront things with intellectual honesty. The idiocy of large parts of the media isn't helping either. In my country, Germany, nuclear research is discontinued altogether and we will shut down all nuclear plants by 2022. It makes me ashamed.

[@jkielkop]

There is no real reason it couldn't be 1:1. If NIF or ITER ever succeed, it will not be in the near term. Should you wait to use your belt to stop bleeding from the femoral artery of a wounded leg because you think a better tourniquet may be available at some unknown time?

[@abdulhaseebmuslim5662]

It's very difficult to control waste and safety problems of nuclear fission reaction but I hope they do it.

[@MarcusAsaro]

Molten salt reactors are pretty close to being fail-safe. Perhaps the freeze plug somehow get's clogged during a power outage, but that will just melt parts of the reactor until a hole is created, at which point the liquid leaks onto the floor within the containment vessel and cools, stopping any more nuclear reactions. As far as I know, there is no way for a true meltdown to occur.

[@OfficeThug]

"Anthropogenic change has been detected in surface temperature with very high significance levels (less than 1% error probability). This conclusion is strengthened by detection of anthropogenic change in the upper ocean with high significance level. Upper ocean warming argues against the surface warming being due to natural internal processes. Observed change is very large relative to climate-model simulated internal variability." You know what else they can model nowadays? Nuclear reactors.

[@backyardsounds]

Wow, I'd let her talk to me about nuclear physics all day long.

[@MagnumInnominandum]

@ 6:00

[@Nightstarsvoice]

I've been avoiding any videos with these kids. I can't believe they said they invented it and they called it the "Waste Annihilating" MSR of all things. Are they serious? They barely mentioned Weinberg or his reactor that ran for 5 years in the 50s at all. Okay they may have had a different idea for extracting and dissolving the fissile material from solid fuel pellets in the flibe solution but they didn't exactly show how their reactor core design would be different from Weinberg's LFTR.

[@psychedelicpython]

Apparently this guy is avoiding the ignored request from US nuclear power plants that have reactors that need to be fixed but aren't getting it. I live close to Hanford and the EPA has ignored several request to repair leaking reactor tanks. Workers at Hanford have filed several complaints on vapors making them very sick and causing severe breathing problems, so much so a lawyer in Spokane recently got involved for the workers. Nuclear power is not safe, and several power plants in the US are in need of several repairs but not getting them. I feel we are the next Fukushima.

[@cyberzeus7343]

You're making the same straw-man argument made by nuclear energy haters which is that nuclear energy is inherently unsafe rather than being difficult due to the human factor. As with anything, it is dangerous when mishandled - so is rubbing alcohol - so this isn't really the issue nor debatable. What is debatable is if we can do it safely by enacting proper legislation & processes? I mean we do have precedent in the US Navy - we have over 50 years of nuclear reactors running in subs with no nuclear incidents. That said, however, whether this can be translated into civilian operation of numerous power plants is still unknown. Remember - Chernobyl and Fukushima occurred not due to inherent danger - they occurred due to the human factor. So I definitely agree there are risks but those are also very surmountable if we (the collective human species) are willing to get our shit together and start doing it. The inherent possibility is there - the tech is workable - the main variable is human behavior. Bottom line - we either do this and end up having a shot at species survival or we don't and guaranteed humans will be a cosmic footnote within the next 200 years or so...

[@asArsenic]

Citation needed?

[@atthehops]

Its not investors, its the politics of permitting. While I support eliminating nuclear waste, why not thorium reactors?

[@RayLutz]

Unfortunately, until you actually design and build such a reactor, you won't know all the little problems that will surface. For example, right now, waste storage canisters are trying to deal with CISCC -- Chloride induced stress corrosion cracking -- occurring in any salt environment... If you've ever lived by the ocean, you will know that every piece of metal degrades almost instantly. The rough block diagrams by a couple of young kids gives me no confidence that these will be any safer than what we have now -- and the warm fuzzy feeling they are trying to promote here makes me very uneasy. Nuclear energy is not green, and it is fraught with problems. Avoid it and adopt renewable sources instead, please!

[@navylaks2]

exactly corrosion in saltwater is enormus that's why they often use zinc as an anti-corrosion agent specially on large ships. I've allways wondered why they still use steam engines and haven't adopted the stirling engine instead

[@JasonDeveau]

No Ray it isn't fraught with problems that just myth that Americans believe. "renewable" sources are whats fraught with problems. Many countries that were early adopters of wind and solar are now figuring that out.

[@RayLutz]

As an engineer, I can tell you without fear of contradiction that EVERY system has many details that are unexpected problems, including renewable systems. But the worst that can happen in a solar or wind system is the thing falls off your roof or blades fall off. Fukushima is now killing the Pacific ocean, and I am worried that this plant will doom life on earth, if the oceans can't be rescued. To start talking about any sort of nuclear power is certainly irresponsible.

[@RayLutz]

Rooftop solar can easily handle the load of typical homes. Just get rid of ten wasteful wall adapters, such as those used for cell phones and other appliances, and you can eliminate the need for an entire nuclear reactor. Between efficiency improvements (LED lights are owning the market right now, and will be the only thing you will buy in three years max) and distributed generation means we can avoid the danger of nuclear plants. At the San Onofre Plant, we have 3.2 million pounds of high level radioactive waste (so called spent fuel) which is extremely dangerous. One gram of Cesium 137 ground up into small particles and spread evenly will make a square acre uninhabitable for 180 years. Coal dust is fairly easy to clean up by comparison. You can't clean up radioactivity because it goes into the atomic structure of the elements. cornskid... you are just spouting off crap.

[@RayLutz]

Try breathing in some uranium dust and see how well you do. The WIPP Plant in New Mexico is a good example of storage gone wrong. And they don't even store high-level waste. But because they accidentally bought organic kitty litter, the drums are now bursting and deadly radioactive gas is escaping. The 3.2 million pounds is just from one plant. You have to multiply that by at least 104 for the US alone. The danger of high level waste is so far greater the coal plant pollutants it isn't even funny. Go do some more research. Your information is largely all wrong, cornskid.

[@ProfessorFreaksworth]

I don't mean to be 'the smart guy' and I do certainly respect both the expertise and passion of these two people but this is not a new idea and I am a little disappointed they are calling it their invention. I've been reading about LWR waste (and material from decommissioned nuclear weapons) used as fuel for MSRs since the early 90's. Many people, from all walks, have discussed and promoted this potential. I hope with these two the idea matures and becomes a reality.

[@n1mbusmusic606]

Graphene based carbon capture membranes for coal plant smoke stacks, we gotta cut off emissions now, the glaciers melting and we have no time. the sulfur dioxide atmoshpere pump could maintain the earths temp mechanically at 1 degree C so we could have time to go nuclear, to ensure that africa and india stop burning coal.

[@Drainege]

Isn't that common in Science? Ask Mr Telsa :)

[@spacecadet35]

Still waiting for that proof. The section you quoted does not say this is proof, it says this is supporting evidence. It then produces a fallacy of ignorance and supports this fallacy using unvalidated models and at least one untrue statement. May I suggest a course on critical thinking. Most universities do offer them.