The Next Generation of Nuclear Power Is Here

[@RussellThomason]

You didn't mention one of its biggest benefits is that there's no possibility of a catastrophic meltdown because of how it operates.

[@Mr-Pulse]

Absolutely. But modern nuclear essentially has no risk now either.

[@raghu7174]

What is molten cannot have a meltdown!

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

@@Mr-Pulse Been looking for info to confirm your statement, but the big problem is still that with uranium/plutonium MSR reactors, the fuel still has to be enriched with centrifuges, driving up the cost of the fuel massively. Thorium MSR reactors breed their own U-233, and the fuel needs much less refining. Added bonus is that the waste products of Thorium MSR have much shorter half lives. Thorium MSR can even be designed to handle waste from other U or Pu reactors and produce ample usable energy from it.

[@Lildizzle420]

@@Mr-Pulse that's what they say about every nuclear facility

[@mobimaks]

Well, he mentioned it at 02:59

[@MiggyManMike]

So one of the other proposed benefits of thorium reactors was also the fact that they can more readily be a lot smaller and could on paper be used to better build a power grid system by having smaller, localised reactors rather than a few large ones and then having to get the power to where it needs to go, logistically it's simpler but also on paper you cut down transmission losses dramatically and improve overall efficiency.

[@schnoodle3]

No you don't. These aren't gas powered turbines.

[@mattbrody3565]

The reactors themselves can be smaller in size, and because of their lower operating pressure, they can be made of thinner metal. However, nuclear powerplants still work better when they're bigger thanks to what's called "neutron economy". Smaller reactors require higher fuel enrichment, which is both expensive and an easy target for fear-mongering. A small, localized reactor is better for getting the technology off the ground and for remote areas that can't rely on a grid. But once the technology becomes mainstream, bigger is better.

[@Ilamarea]

Aren't larger power plants more efficient, nullifying the benefit from avoiding transmission losses down to a capitalist optimum?

[@HyunJo]

@@Ilamarea bigger is better yes. But another thing to consider, especially in the United States, is the politics and complications of building transmission lines. If we can have smaller and more localized generation, we can avoid having to build those transmission lines

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

People are going to resist having small nuclear reactors all over town, I'm sure. But if the new tech is inherently safe, that problem will over time solve itself.

[@helmutzollner5496]

I think Thorium molten-salt reactors are the answer to many problems. 1.) The technically important heavy rare earth metals like Neodymium and Dysprosium usually come bound in mozanite minerals, that also contain a large amount of tlThorium. Currently this thorium is stored as radioactive waste. Thousands of tonnes of thorium are standing around in Malaysia, China and other countries. A lot of nuclear fuel used in Thorium reactors doesn't need to be mined specifically, but is a byproduct of Rare Earth Element production. 2a.)The molten salt concept allows the use of the Thorium fuel to a much higher degree. The continuous addition and removal of new and spent nuclear fuel, makes the operation of the MSR much more efficient, as there is no need to shut down the reactor for fuel rod changes. 2b.) The recycling of spent fuel is continuous and can be handles on site of the power plant. Highly active and long lasting radio isotopes from conventional lightwater reactors can be burned up into lower radioactive with shorter halflife isotopes. Those can be more easily stored for eternity. 2c.) The danger of nuclear accidents and core melt downs is much lower, because if the molteb salt is overheating, a simple passive security mechanism is used to stop the nuclear reaction. The ambient pressure of the reactor vessel will not explode to this huge amounts of radioactive waste into the atmosphere as happened in Cheronbyl or Fukoshima. 3a.) Nixon took the decision to keep the nuclear power industry in his native California. Oak Ridge National Labs, the originator of the Thorium molten salt reactor concept, was an outlier and did not fit into his plans. 3b.) The thorium reactors did not produce any weapons grade plutonium, which was needed to feed into the growing nuclear weapons stockpile. 4.) For China, India and even the EU, the Thorium Molten Salt reactor would be an excellent power technology, because it would allow the export of this technology around the world, without violating 'nuclear non-proliferation' treaties. The fissile material used or produced in it is not weapons grade. Thorium molten salt reactors are a big winner in my books. I truly hope that the experimental reactor in China will show the full potential of this technology.

[@maszlagma]

I can't wait to hear/read the reports on how the first tests in China's thorium reactor were like! Hope it's a success!

[@jbmurphy4]

China is notoriously slow at releasing information to the rest of the world though. We might hear from other countries thorium reactors first before China officially gives out the data.

[@njipods]

I can guarantee it will be a success. When you read the reports that is....

[@xuecongwang6286]

FR

[@bruun8001]

Woke up dehydrated and now im learning ab new nuclear tech at 3am

[@-xirx-]

As long as the two aren't linked!

[@rvind92g]

Looks like you woke up thirsty for knowledge

[@paulmobleyscience]

Tellurium embrittlement is never mentioned in this video, wake up and learn why MSRs have never been used for commercial energy production. Also learn about tritium permeation of various metals and organically bound tritium. Did you know that at Indian point NY there is over 65,000% above background levels of tritium under the site? Did you know that tritium once ingested does not pass through the body within a month as previously thought? It actually replaces hydrogen or binds directly to cells causing DNA strand breaks, micronucleus formation, cell necrosis or aptosis, chromosal aberrations and other health issues thus negatively affecting human health? REDOX CONDITIONS, evaporation equilibrium coefficients of radionuclides that bond to oxygen in the water forming UO2 2+ default and U(iv) Uranium sulfate that is water soluble and how it travels around our planet in the water cycle? So much to learn, so little time especially when people such as the author never really tell you the whole story.

[@jimlofts5433]

checkout Power Thorcon also Thorcon Power Indonesia plus youtube and tedtalks by Kirk Sorensen the rediscoverer of the 1960's MSR when you are next thirsty - enjoy and yes they understand the shortcomings but have solutions / including keeping the reactor temp below 700C and I will leave that as your homework

[@MonkeyspankO]

Remember, pick up all the fusion cores at every trader visit, there's a limited supply in the Commonwealth.

[@clipsedrag13]

1 per family. This isn’t some capitalist commmune

[@MonkeyspankO]

@@clipsedrag13

[@johnlarson111]

just the fact that it can help clean up our Nuclear waste problem is a big plus in my opinion.

[@j________k]

It's seems like the only long term viable solution to the nuclear waste problem we have. The fast breeder reprocessing route hasn't worked, they're far to expensive and there are only two in the world! Perhaps some fusion fission hybrid. By us abandoning nuclear technology our civilization might ironically end up with more nuclear waste!

[@paulmobleyscience]

@@j________k It isn't long term due to Tellurium embrittlement of the vessels and exactly why they haven't been deployed across the planet. There is no long term solution to nuclear waste except to shut down every nuclear reactor and stop producing more waste. Nuclear power has never been about energy for the masses and has always been about uranium daughter procurement. Americium for smoke detectors, cobalt for high pressure gauges, Yttrium-90 and others for the medical field and of course the 1% of plutonium. Embrittlement of the vessel along with tritium permeation that leaches into the biota causes nuclear to be a massive issue. Once tritium is ingested it forms ORGANICALLY BOUND TRITIUM that either replaces hydrogen or bonds directly to cells and does not pass through the body within a months time causing DNA strand breaks, micronucleus formation, cell necrosis or aptosis, chromosal aberrations and other issues. Nuclear should be the past, not the future otherwise it may change all life on this planet.

[@j________k]

@@paulmobleyscience LFTRs are based on Thorium, they are thermal spectrum. Which makes for a great way to burn up heavy actinides of our nuclear waste stock pile while not producing plutonium. The containment is done with high Nickle steel and only creates low level nuclear waste. What I'm saying is without nuclear power we cannot get rid of the heavy actinides. LFTRs can burn them as fuel. The only waste are fission products. Geological storage of actinides is a philosophical solution. What we have today. Geological storage of fissions products is a practical engineering problem. LFTR is a great design to capture the gases Tritium and Xenon. I don't buy that just shutting down nuclear is a solution at all. We need to make sure the waste stream is just fission products and not transuranics. Anything else would be neglectful towards future generations and the ecosystem. Ignoring the problem of actinide storage is the issue imo.

[@j________k]

Lastly I might add. The nuclear industry is the ONLY industry where the waste stream is actually contained away from the environment. All fossils fuels pollute, all renewables create waste after their life ends. Until we have fully organic solar cells which biodegrade then everything else we do will actively pollute the environment with the exception of nuclear power. I realise mining for fuel does create waste. But we have pre mined Thorium just sitting on the surface as it is a waste product from other commercial mining. We have easy access to several hundred years worth of it. Without having to mine more.

[@paulmobleyscience]

@@j________k That may work on most but it will not with me. Tritium....is the issue and there isn't a containment on the planet that can outlast the lifespan of the waste. Nuclear power is the only power source that can literally wipe out all complex life on this planet. While fluoride is electronegative all heavy metals are electropositive....so let me ask you an honest question...do you still believe that fluoride in your toothpaste and drinking water is to promote healthy teeth? Wake up

[@paststeve1]

Great video Seeker! One reason the US opted out of thorium reactors was our need for fissile material for our nuclear weapons. Too bad.

[@Merecir]

The program was stopped by Nixon, for political reasons...

[@wilderbeast9368]

It is now in China's hands, meaning the US made the correct move.

[@aminulhussain2277]

@@wilderbeast9368 China has books, does that mean you're going to stop reading them?

[@CanariasCanariass]

@@wilderbeast9368 I dont understand your logic here..

[@wilderbeast9368]

@@CanariasCanariass China is an enemy of the US and Europe because they can't control us. They already have a media monopoly, which is poisoning the views of our people, slowly yet surely. Who knew the war was a battle, and the real war was culture clash. China is almost guaranteed to try to take us someday, and the last of us holding onto our sense will wisely use the weapons set out for us to stop it.

[@xslowday6850]

since it uses waste, it makes more sense to us younger scientists

[@clipsedrag13]

Oh shut up 🤣

[@amirmoezz]

The earth is flat.

[@SimplySketchyGT]

Behave normal nuclear reactors make just as much sense.

[@FrequencyOfThought]

@@amirmoezz Flat and smooth just like your brain

[@bigcauc7530]

@@amirmoezz prove it.

[@potatomatop9326]

Thumbnail: next gen nuclear power is corn candies.

[@j.gwentworth974]

Looked like poison pellets to me

[@hyenaman12]

Thorium is great, generates more power, less waste and is harder to turn into weapons.

[@idzkk]

Lowest half cycle as well

[@jashpaper8370]

It's not new tho...

[@feriztiojanuarabdau3339]

Wrong, it can turn into weapon, railgun?

[@youtubesuccs860]

There's a reason thorium is not used ;)

[@aminulhussain2277]

@@youtubesuccs860 It's because people are stupid.

[@9kilsyth]

I love Thorium reactors. A molten salt thorium reactor is a game changer. Hope they make it happen!

[@frucajse]

Everything super ok, but unfortunately greens are brided and their dark forces are stronger to keep back this cheap source of energy.

[@studiosnch]

Sam O'Nella's video on thorium reactors introduced me to this future concept

[@MeteCanKarahasan]

One minor correction, though: thorium test bed is not small for qualification, with thorium, you don't have to maintain a fast cycle in a huge reactor. Thorium burns in slow cycle and you supply it with U-233 at a fraction of the big reactor.

[@dennish5150]

The only channel that mentioned China without the “standard” negative toon 👍

[@thomassterner5729]

I like the fact that the coolant is at 1 atmosphere and because the coolant is at a very high temperature you can use standard power turbines which makes the power plant cheaper.

[@johnhankel7432]

Talk to some of the scientists that worked at General Atomics in the late 60's, early 70's, thorium is much harder to make into weapons.

[@SC-yy4sw]

Nobody makes military grade Pu in commercial reactors anyways.

[@paulmobleyscience]

Talk to the scientists from the 60s that worked at Oak Ridge Tennessee that knew why MSRs couldn't be used and it had nothing to with weapons and ask them what they know about Tellurium embrittlement of the hasteloy. Guess what the Chinese built their vessels with.....

[@BobMotster]

Thorium reactors :O I never thought I'd live to see the day. Here's hoping they manage to make it work efficiently.

[@combixooo]

On one hand, its great that we see more progress in cleaner energy, on the other hand, its in a country that prevented radiation leak crisis by raising the aceptable levels of radiation.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Be glad China is taking steps to move away from industrial and automotive fossil fuel burning. They know damn well what's at stake, China has the worst city smog in the world. Besides India, maybe...

[@bobdinitto]

The US did the same with mercury contamination. Governments work for corporations, not consumers.

[@dutchwebswebsites6057]

Dude forgot to mention one key point: Thorium reacts at a much lower temperature then uranium, which makes the whole operation easier and safer

[@lithostheory]

This doesn't make sense, nuclear reactions don't depend on temperature. Actually, higher temperature reactors are thermodynamically more efficient.

[@TrangleC]

Creating heat is the whole point of a nuclear reactor. A nuclear power plant ultimately is just a glorified steam engine. You create heat, that heat is used to evaporate water into steam, that steam powers a turbine and that turbine is connected to a dynamo, which generates your electrical power. It is the same as a coal powered power plant, just that you don't have to burn coal to get your steam. Many people seem to think nuclear reactors are some magical thing that just makes electricity, like a "Warp Core Reactor" in a Star Trek space ship. That is not how it works. It is just a heat source. It is the same with fusion reactors, if we ever get them to work. They will just be heat sources for making steam too. So saying "Thorium is better because it creates less heat." doesn't really make sense. It might be safer because it is less likely to get out of control than a uranium or plutonium reactor, but heat is definitely something you want and you want as much of it as possible.

[@dutchwebswebsites6057]

@@TrangleC Agree with most of what you are saying, but for efficiency there is an optimal temperature to run the reactor, being able to control this temperature makes the energy transmission more efficient.

[@saultcrystals]

@@dutchwebswebsites6057 no you got it completely wrong, the higher the temperature that you run your reactor at, the higher the efficiency.

[@Merecir]

@@dutchwebswebsites6057 You are both wrong. The molten salt reactor will run at about 500 degrees Celsius, wich is much hotter then a 'traditional' reactor. This higher temperature is also BETTER for the reaction. And since the fuel salt also acts as the coolant you do not need water at all, the heat can rather be transferred to the turbine with a gas like carbon dioxide. And by simply using a gas turbine instead of a steam turbine the efficiency is increased by over 30%.

[@jimk8520]

The only reason we stopped pursuing it in the 60’s is because it can’t be easily used for weapons and as such there was no desire to fund research just for simple power needs.

[@jacobpugh9531]

Sad that the United States failed to capitalize on the technology.

[@bobdinitto]

I'm also really excited about thorium reactor technology because it is the only viable safe alternative to our current dirty, dangerous, and overly expensive nuclear power technology. I don't care how many articles are written about how clean and safe nuclear technology is, I will never accept something with the potentially destructive force and brutally persistent toxicity of pressurized nuclear reactors and their hazardous waste as clean and safe. It simply isn't.

[@Mr-Pulse]

Modern nuclear is safe and effective now, but its amazing to see more progress in their clean energy field. We need to build more plants now, and these new reactors can be put in place as the tech is proven.

[@Lildizzle420]

that's what you guys have been saying through out it's entire history but have failed to delivery sustainable, effective and safe nuclear options to the world. now we're facing trillions of dollars in clean up and have to solve chernobyl, fukushima and hanford before the next incident

[@montithered4741]

@@Lildizzle420 Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest, most powerful, and most sustainable energy source on the planet.

[@georgesaliba8876]

The reactors don't have to be built, as much as replacing the already existing reactors' infrastructure which isn't difficult engineering-wise.

[@montithered4741]

@@georgesaliba8876 Do you mean replace existing reactors with new ones?

[@georgesaliba8876]

@@montithered4741 the uranium and plutonium reactors already have the existing exterior and such, you would just change the interior turbines to the ones needed for the thorium. No sense in constructing an entirely new reactor.

[@rensback]

One big plus is also the fact that thorium is much more abundant than uranium, freeing countries from the handful nations that control uranium production (a major factor in international diplomacy)

[@maybehuman4]

I've heard this for 30 years now. Thorium sounds great but it's low energy yield and more importantly a molten salt coolant, which is super corrosive and introduces a lot of instabilities. Even China, who does not care about pollution, is only building a tiny 2MW reactor as a test, and China has fully embraced nuclear power as much as coal.

[@shuaige3360]

China do care about pollution, and China invest many hundreds billions dollars a year against pollution. For example China invest more in renewable energy than USA+Europe combined. China has already 400.000 electric bus vs around 200 in USA. China air pollution has collapsed since 2015… really collapsed The 38.000 km of high speed train already built in 12 years decrease a lot the use of planes and cars and thus pollution (in 15 years they will have 70.000 km of high speed train, and they are soon starting to build a network of maglev train going 600km/h on the most busy lines). And if China is investing hard in nuclear technology is to be able to decrease the air pollution and global warming.

[@Alexpktang]

"Even China, who does not care about pollution" what a big lie !! As per capita, China is well behind US, Canada and Australia on CO2 emission. China did not leave the Paris Climate change Agreement. Read more about their determination to cut pollution and is the largest producer and user of renewable energy before you demonize China !

[@maybehuman4]

@@Alexpktang China didn't leave the Paris Agreement because it didn't have to, it was never bound by it's rules. Their 'determination' to cut pollution is just a determination to cut down the smog over the cities, and to move industrial areas and their coal power plants further away from the city. It helps to read things not spoon fed you by the CCP.

[@jimlofts5433]

Paul Kelly song "from little things big things grow" of course they are building small

[@maybehuman4]

@@jimlofts5433 At it's heart this is still a Fission plant, just using a different fuel and coolant. There is nothing groundbreaking about it, we've been building Fission plants for 60 years now. Indonesia and TerraPower are also experimenting with this crap. ITER will be groundbreaking when it finally comes online.

[@sammorris2721]

We had this Technology, we squandered it.

[@zukodude487987]

Thunderf00t: So you've chosen death.

[@Ryukachoo]

Yup, china picked it up and ran with it, basically took our (USA's) progress out from under us. Our fear of nuclear energy will be seen as a massive stumbling block on the world stage in thirty years

[@nielsjensen8727]

He may confuse Norway with Denmark, as They have two companies developing Morten salt reaktors. Copenhagen atomics and Seaborg.

[@himo3205]

Power tech hasnt changed since the industrial revolution. We are still basically using a tea kettle, a fancier kettle but still boil water capture steam.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

Will do for a long long time until a technology comes along that can directly convert heat into electricity on a large scale without the steam intermediate.

[@JonMartinYXD]

We should be dropping in small modular reactors at every existing coal power plant. Basically replace the burn-coal-to-make-heat part of the plant with a factory made fission-nuclear-fuel-to-make-heat module. The rest of the plant - the steam turbine, the cooling facility, the tranformers, all the plumbing, etc. - can pretty much be used as is.

[@jonnyde]

Don't forget the on going research in this field in Canada !

[@anthonyfrias5533]

I'm pro nuclear power

[@emwonsix]

They never wanted Thorium because it doesn't produce nuclear weapons as a byproduct like conventional nuclear energy.

[@jenspettersen7837]

4:15 You say that Norway is working on thoriums reactors. I have never heard about that, so I find this very exciting! However who are doing this? Where can I look them up?

[@dieheart001]

Google bruh tf

[@jenspettersen7837]

@@dieheart001 Yes, please do!

[@Bob-Fields]

@@dieheart001 Seeker brought it up in the video. It is more than reasonable to ask for their sources, BRUH.

[@jenspettersen7837]

What I found when googling it was a private company named Thor Energy that makes thorium fuel pellets that they have tested at the reacton in Halden. However the reactor was closed down in 2018 and I can't see that Thor Energy have any plans of building their own reactor. So I asked to see if Seeker was talking about someone else or if it was Thor Energy he talked about.

[@terencewithers8615]

Physicist anton petrov has great 10 minute vid on youtube For more in depth Kirk Sorensen.

[@TourniquetTwin]

yes we can! i'm rooting for thorium!

[@peterdorn5799]

I'm ready for thorium power, let's get this party stated

[@DhruvrajsinhRaijada]

Please boost the volume of this video - it was barely audible on full volume! Other than that very interesting video, keep up the great content.

[@swapshots4427]

About time!! Reagan and his energy minister vetoed them for the oil industry. Kirk Sorensen has fought tirelessly and futiley for them for decades.

[@GreenThumb27]

I am super excited for thorium to work. The world needs this fuel source badly!!!

[@dcphillips1991]

Imagine if we weren't all individually researching the same thing, wasting time, money and resources, wer could acheive a lot more in the same time scale.

[@davidcooke9320]

Absolutely HAS a future and needs to be persued

[@Juze81]

This technology can replace steam turbines in coal-fired power plants. The turbine may remain in place but fuel and technology will change. Cheaper when there is no need to build a new turbine and transformer field.

[@SpoopySquid]

Mmm forbidden candy corn

[@therealKINDLE]

Why isn't this the main focus of every country? 2030? We'll be screwed by then. Watch this space.

[@johnkesich8696]

(2:28) yellow cake? yum.

[@dontedimora5942]

I remember the last thorium video all those years ago

[@5kehhn]

Nice to believe this is not another '30 years away' pipe dream.

[@t3cker254]

We could have them for decades, unfortunately it's not possible to produce plutonium with it. Thats why the US gov stopped the research in the 70s

[@cprn.]

Can't wait to have thorium batteries in my WiFi mouse because it died again...

[@janjager2906]

I definitely see a future fore thorium molten salt reactors!

[@Tzimisce]

"The Next Generation of Nuclear Power Is Here" "The concept still has a way to go." and the reactor hasn't even been tested yet.

[@SimplySketchyGT]

Be fair, these are reactors the USA refused to build in the 50s and 60s because they wouldn't produce weapons grade materials. The fact China and India for that matter are now testing is basically 'here' as they aren't that complicated and will work.

[@FrequencyOfThought]

They are trendy science nerds. The cult of Dr Fauci who repeat anything they are told. Probably think Bill Nye is a real science guy too.

[@blink182bfsftw]

@@FrequencyOfThought rent free

[@Lildizzle420]

the nuclear industry survives on hype...so..

[@FrequencyOfThought]

@@blink182bfsftw BRUH

[@ronaldronald8819]

Yes please. Nuclear power, especially Thorium reactors.

[@aaa8509]

Thorium it's a waste product of first generation heavy water reactors, the US has a stockpile of thorium that could meet and exceed the US's projected power needs for 500 years. The *BIG* downside of molten salt reactors is the waste byproducts it products. Things like hydroflouric and nitric acids with negative pH's and heat pollution in scales like we've never seen before. The advantages beyond CO2 emissions are you can make them small enough to put in a semi bed but still power 10,000 homes or one industrial facility and the decentralization that covers with it saving untold amounts of power generated.

[@rogerfroud300]

The issues are ones of Chemistry, and unpleasant as these byproducts are, they can be managed.

[@aaa8509]

@@rogerfroud300 can be managed? And we are going to trust corporations with this management because they've done so week in the past... We can frack for oil in an environmentally safe way, yet only 3% of wellheads meet that standard and it's required by law that all of them go. So when you get power companies to follow the laws already in place... Then maybe we can move to far more dangerous byproducts.

[@eckligt]

How do you get Thorium from Uranium? Are you not confusing it with Plutonium, which is well known to be created in Uranium reactors when U-238 captures a neutron?

[@aaa8509]

@@eckligt it's a long round about way because this is KZbin but you get it in the refining process for heavy water fuel. Sorry, guess I could clarify but I'm lazy and don't care to be 100% accurate. If your want perfection in things then you should leave the internet and fall into a star.

[@paulmichaelfreedman8334]

HF and HNO3 may be waste products but these are highly wanted acids, in the chemical industry both are used as reducing agents. This is waste with a high value and can be sold to bidders. Dunno where you get the heat pollution nonsense from.

[@xtieburn]

Its a neat technology, but time is a _huge_ issue. 2030 for 100,000 homes if everything goes well is quite a few years, and thats essentially just proof of concept still, when they need reactors thrown up to supply countless millions of homes. You are probably looking at very optimistic estimates of 20 odd years to start getting great chunks of China on this power. Standard nuclear has never been built at an ideal speed, but itd no doubt be much faster than that. Meanwhile renewables have changed the energy landscape dramatically in the previous 20 years and would quite likely have dramatically improved in efficiency and obtained some decent grid level storage by the next 20 years. I.e. If this isnt to the detriment of other power sources then I cant see why you wouldnt do it, but Im not sure if its fast enough to rival normal nuclear and renewables in the short term, or be relevant when renewables have improved in the midterm. (While ITER is providing the proof of concept for fusion in the long term.)

[@wii3willRule]

Yeah, and that's one of the problems I have with a lot of proposals that are supposed to help with climate change-- we need drastic changes in carbon production now, we really don't have a bunch of time to spend anymore Thorium powered reactors are exciting from a tech point of view and maybe in the long run they might even win out as an ideal energy source, but that doesn't have much to do with solving the climate crisis we're currently in

[@jimlofts5433]

but once developed they will be churned out as modular units in factories - 1,000's could be built a year

[@FenexDragonis]

Uranium was chosen over thorium solely because its by products could be used to make weapons.. considering the landscape of the era. WW2, the cold war, its really not surprising that Uranium was chosen over thorium.. When you consider everything thorium is comparable to "green" energy in terms of environmental impact.. as many tend to ignore the impact solar/wind farms have on their local ecosystems... a middle ground of green an nuclear energy sources is the best future pan given current technology

[@homewardboundphotos]

it's not surprising they chose uranium at the time. why they continued far beyond that era, is stupid

[@FMFvideos]

Thorium Oakenshield, King under the mountain!

[@rogerjackway429]

didn't the reactor in the 60s run flawlessly at over 100% and have 0 issues but since we couldn't make a weapon from it they scrapped the program and shut it down? 🙄

[@killcat1971]

Politics for the most part, and they WANTED weapons grade Plutonium.

[@Lildizzle420]

are you talking about the russian reactor that leaked?

[@hansblitz7770]

Still not sure how it works. Can we get a diagram?

[@Ifaniwura]

The problem isn’t just the energy that is used, it’s the over exploitation, disregard and using nature as a tool that is the problem

[@larryhepler9065]

I've been a thorium reactor fan since the 1960's. Still hopeful, but have seen politic$ and poor decisions get in the way over and over. Nice video, but come on, showing water vapor coming out of the cooling towers of a nuclear power plant and implying it is pollution, sad.

[@benmcreynolds8581]

I really want our society to overcome our taboo stigma around nuclear power because it seriously is the future now that technology has advanced so much. We went through a rough dangerous chapter but it was terrible technology and techniques.

[@paulmobleyscience]

It isn't taboo Ben and unless you've studied nuclear physics then you would never know the downside of nuclear of which there are many. When it comes to MSRs, tellurium embrittlement is what has kept them from being developed as this has been known since the 60s. When it comes to water cooled reactors the issue is and always has been tritium that permeates the metal structure and leaks into the biota and exactly why Indian Point NY has over 65,000% above background levels of tritium under the site. Once tritium is ingested it forms ORGANICALLY BOUND TRITIUM that either replaces hydrogen or binds directly to cells causing micronucleus formation, cell necrosis or aptosis, chromosal aberrations and various other issues that negatively affect human health. It is not taboo and I only mentioned a few issues surrounding nuclear power when there are hundreds of issues not known by the public. Start reading and stop watching pointless KZbin videos that never tell you the other side of the coin.

[@gregorymalchuk272]

@@paulmobleyscience I think thorium is severely overrated compared to existing designs of liquid metal cooled fast breeder nuclear reactors.

[@paulmobleyscience]

@@gregorymalchuk272 Too expensive....there isn't a nuclear reactor on the planet that should be in operation

[@bothandeach]

Upside is so fantastic

[@markjmaxwell9819]

I would say it's worth the effort.... I have another solar power plant design up my sleeve... Uranium and plutonium have been used as power sources before, roll on thorium...

[@JockMcBile]

Depends on how long China has been researching and building this project for. Plus, this was only a test case, so do we KNOW yet, if it'll work large scale?

[@peterwurst5407]

Why do you always make such super short videos?

[@user-lh1ef1st3k]

Sweatshop style nuke reactor sounds dangerous 😂

[@Totalinternalreflection]

Chill with the racism

[@user-lh1ef1st3k]

@@Totalinternalreflection have you ever gotten into umm CRT things, get woke go broke lol

[@Totalinternalreflection]

@@user-lh1ef1st3k no because your bullshit politics and politicalisation of various issues that shouldn’t be politicised isn’t a thing outside of your dying country.

[@chapter4travels]

Thorium is not a big deal, the MSR technology that can utilize it, however, is a big deal. Thorium is just one of several fuels that can be utilized in a MSR and has no advantages over uranium, in fact, it's much harder to use. That's almost all most of the MSR startup companies are just using uranium. There is also no shortage of uranium as was initially thought when the original MSR was developed.

[@StephenYuan]

Thorium has a major advantage in that it is more plentiful. China and India have a large stockpile.

[@wilderbeast9368]

Could you be more specific about the Uranium used? Since the idea is to turn the Thorium-232 into Uranium-233.

[@eckligt]

@@wilderbeast9368 Ancient Chinese proverb: "Molten-salt reactor, not picky eater". Basically, as long as you can dissolve the nuclear fuel in the salt, it'll work. So you can in fact run MSRs using a normal U-235/U-238 mix (at some level of enrichment, which I don't know).

[@wilderbeast9368]

@@eckligt lmao That's great to know.

[@eckligt]

@@wilderbeast9368 The only thing I'll add is that there can be a physical difference between MSRs used for breeding (Thorium) and MSRs used for burning (Uranium). For breeding, you have the option of having a two-fluid system, where the Thorium is dissolved in one salt, and the bred Uranium-233 is dissolved in another salt, and these two salts flow in proximity to each other in the reactor itself. With burners, you would obviously use a single-fluid design. Single-fluid designs can also be used for breeders, in which case the Thorium and Uranium are mixed in together -- this has upsides and downsides.

[@brianbrewster6532]

I have been a proponent of this technology for well over a decade now. It astounds me that the U.S. didn't dump billion$ into developing this, choosing instead to sit this out while China stepped in to pursue this heavily. It was our original Oak Ridge research and now the largest Communist population on the planet might have the cheapest, cleanest source of energy on the planet. Does anyone see the danger in the this or am I merely being paranoid?

[@royaldecreeforthechurchofm8409]

When china makes it work, us politicians will realise the economic benefits it will have for china and will be forced to build them aswell to stay in the game. I see it as a win-win for the planet as nuclear is clearly better than coal. Usa can build them, politics just won't let them because it takes 10 years and people are in office for 4 so they don't care to take on the burden but with china excelling I believe it will force usa hand to also build them and go greener.

[@user-st6nv4mj2f]

It’s quite alarming that China is spending money on long term R&D projects in science and technologies, while all the money in the US goes to Wall Street and the top 1%.

[@tedchandran]

Jai Hinduja. Nah, US and NATO money were well spent on regime changes of the 7 Ummahs to ensure their Energy security.

[@warwickwestonwrigful]

I totally thing this tech should be persued, but should be persued much quicker than 2030.

[@JRubik726]

@3:43 Ah, the sputtering chamber of science. That's the clip that really brought this video together. But actually, what are they sputtering and why? And how does it relate to thorium reactors?

[@Zonker66]

Been waiting years for this. Everything seems to be about Tokamak reactors these days. I loved the thorium idea and it seems to have been railroaded. Hate seeing the US watch China pick up the pieces... but well done, China.

[@blinded6502]

"And while uranium 233 can and has been used in nuclear weapons, it's always contaminated with isotopes that emit-high energy gamma radiation, so it's easy to detect and hard to handle. Features that make it less suitable for use in nuclear weapons" Uhhh.. what?

[@StephenYuan]

In other words, it's dangerous and expensive to handle it. Not ideal material to work with.

[@waywardgeologist2520]

Because of uranium 232, hard gamma emitter.

[@blinded6502]

@@StephenYuan Yes, so he basically implied that Torium is far better suited for nuclear weapons since it's easy to handle and hard to detect.

[@DennisKapatos]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/fGqVfWl8Za6Bj80

[@StephenYuan]

@@blinded6502 He said it's easy to detect and hard to handle. You have it reversed. The US DOE did extensive studies on thorium and found it unsuitable for weapons production, at least compared to uranium.

[@JustAThought01]

It is better to have new knowledge rather than remain ignorant. The knowledgeable can make reasoned choices. We need to collectively support research.

[@maestrulgamer9695]

US meanwhile:MORE OIL!

[@buddha1736]

Look 👀 at all the greenhouse gas water vapour. 😉

[@vishaljoy6802]

It's scary that we have only till 2030...

[@frequentlycynical642]

I remember when I lived in Colorado in the 1980's they had some kind of alternate nuclear technology like this. The Platte River something or other. But it eventually went something more conventional. Sorry if I'm lame on this.

[@zyedansary1429]

You’re wrong about this being the start of thorium research. They studied thorium back in the 1960s, and they found since it wasn’t a plutonium isotope as its main transmuted product.

[@timng9104]

3:45 looks like a sputter deposition machine/ not a reactor

[@tomgucwa7319]

Morten salt " when it rains it pours" u know?

[@lubedhomo]

Have You thought of getting contacts?

[@terryblack4385]

Should be considered, we can't afford to miss any possible energy sources.

[@mnd3607]

Thorium based reactors provides best alternative for countries using coal based thermal power plants..cannot understand why there is so much focus on fusion reactors than thorium based reactors..

[@lordunhold5381]

Very simple if we really can build a fusion reactor it would be ridiculously efficient (by matter consumption) aproximitly 200x more efficient then any fission reactor

[@HienNguyenHMN]

MOLTEN salt is the coolant? How hot does the reactor get??

[@dgpozniak]

For the audio editor: Your videos are so quiet, next to every other vid on youtube, that everytime I need to volume up on the speakers.

[@shameekpanesar5782]

Why are people disliking the video...I really don't get it...or maybe they don't 🤣

[@rinkevichjm]

Did they use a super critical CO2 coolant to increase power production?

[@thedesk954]

PJSalt reactor

[@The_Cyber_System]

Looking forwad to a successful test

[@lazygenes]

I'm still hoping for a first-generation nuclear waste disposal system. It would be wise to start working on one that works.

[@rinkevichjm]

That is called a fast reactor because a fast reactor can burn all the long lived elements leaving only a small amount of short lived products after processing.

[@rinkevichjm]

BTW an MSR can be somewhat fast.

[@breadifies2800]

WOOO thorium let's gooo

[@macjonte]

More info about the Norwegian reactor?

[@skrtyam3312]

👍👍👍👍 for China 🇨🇳 🙌

[@LeonardGreenpaw]

THORIUUUUUM ALL THE HYPE

[@Thunderwalker87]

Molten-salt-rector and thorium-fuel-cycle is literally mentioned in my prayer nonary petitions...

[@comeradecoyote]

You need to do more on nuclear as a topic!

[@Epicdio01]

So what I’m hearing is fusion or power cells

[@BradElliot]

When watching videos about thorium reactors I thought it was just a bunch of miss information, however the info I was missing is that if the atom gains another neutron it'll create fision

[@Ganjaz]

why is the camera quality so low? looks like 720p recording o.o