ThorCon's Thorium Converter Reactor - Lars Jorgensen in Bali

Lars Jorgensen of ThorConPower.com gives an in-depth look at their THORium CONverter reactor in Bali.
ThorCon is a molten-salt fission reactor. Unlike all current nuclear reactors, the fuel is in liquid form. It can be moved around with a pump and passively drained. This 500 MW fission power plant is encapsulated in a hull, built in a shipyard, towed to a shallow water site, ballasted to the seabed. ThorCon is a straightforward scale-up of the successful United States Oak Ridge National Laboratory Molten Salt Reactor Experiment (MSRE).
The complete ThorCon is manufactured in 150 to 500 ton blocks in a shipyard, assembled, then towed to the site. This produces order of magnitude improvements in productivity, quality control, and build time. A single large reactor yard can turn out twenty gigawatts of ThorCon power plants per year. ThorCon is a system for building power plants.
ThorCon has been working with the Indonesian government to add reliable electric power to the grid. In 2019 the Ministry of Energy completed a successful study of the safety, economics, and grid impact of the 500 MW prototype ThorConIsle. Phase 1 is to build and test it with step by step commissioning, ending in a type license for future power plants. Phase 2 is shipyard production of ThorCon plants to provide an additional 3 GW of cheap, reliable electric power.
Scientists attending the International Conference on Emerging Nuclear Energy Systems in Bali, Indonesia, were excited by ThorCon CEO Lars Jorgensen’s presentation of the design of the TMSR-500 liquid fission power plant. Nuclear engineering professors termed the design brilliant and clever. The conference added a second session to answer questions in detail. Nuclear professionals from Malaysia, Brazil, Japan, and South Africa engaged in subsequent discussions. Indonesia’s former Minister of Energy came specifically to hear about ThorCon.
The ThorCon team then returned to state-owned shipyard PT PAL Indonesia, which had begun reviewing ThorCon specifications in July. Potentially PAL can manufacture the exchangeable Cans which contain the liquid fuel, pump, and reactor vessel. Teams from PAL and ThorCon spent two days discussing specifications. ThorCon is revising them, and PAL will verify its capability and provide a budgetary cost estimate. PAL is seeking to diversify its shipbuilding business to include the energy sector. “The thorium molten salt power plant can produce clean energy cheaper than coal, and could be a reliable energy system in a low-carbon economy” -PAL.
This video was captured by Bob Effendi on 2019-10-16. Bob posted his original edit here:
• THORCON CEO EXPLAIN DE...
...Bob also shared his raw footage with me, as I was interested in applying iZotope RX 7 noise reduction (and echo-removal) audio processing to make Lars easier to hear. I don't think my edit nor Bob's original have great audio, but perhaps you'll find one easier to listen to than the other.
Thanks to Bob for access to his footage. Hopefully this alternate edit will help ThorCon tell their story.
I've also included brief audio snippets from Rod Adam's podcast "Atomic Show", as Lars made some clarifying (audio) remarks after this video was shot:
atomicinsights.com/atomic-sho...
ThorCon Power: thorconpower.com
My nuclear-power video projects (MSR, Thorium, etc.) can be monitored here:
/ thorium
-Gord

[@gordonmcdowell]

[Timecode index follows.] This footage was captured by Bob S Effendi who shared his footage with me. (Thanks, Bob!) ThorConPower.com has a great website with all plant renderings and diagrams used in this video. If you'd like to support my video editing efforts please visit www.patreon.com/thorium where I do accept financial support. You'll probably find my Patreon feed of interest, if you like this video. -Gord 00:18 New coal plants. Indonesia. 01:20 Coal waste. Nuclear waste. 02:30 Molten-Salt Reactor vs LWR. 04:51 ThorCon = THORium CONverter. 06:29 Hull (ship) shaped nuclear power. 07:42 Overhead tranmission. Undersea cables. 08:33 Crane. Hatches. Doors. Repairs. 09:38 Two cans. Generate power or cool down. 11:48 Four loops. Fuel salt. Nitrate salt. 13:50 The Can. The reactor vessel. 14:45 Fission Products. Xenon. Krypton. 15:15 Freeze Valve. Drain Tanks. 18:35 Shutdown rods. 18:55 Offgas system. Bottled Xenon, Krypton. 20:18 Graphite moderator. Replacement. 21:39 Shallow-draft. Rivers. Ocean. 23:37 Earthquakes. 25:21 Instant station blackout. 26:32 Aircraft strike. 27:19 Earthquake vs Sand. 28:02 Tsunamis. 28:56 Waste vs Coal. Storage Options. 31:14 Shipyard experience. Cost. Capacity. 33:44 Pre-Fission Test Platform. 34:47 Cold start. Connecting to Grid. 36:16 Pre-Fission Test Platform. Uses. 37:34 Accidents. Decay heat. Proving safety.

[@mrvaticanrag3946]

The world needs unlimited energy from "walk-awy-safe" Liquid Thorium ion molten salt energy converters which can produce hydrogen for the fuel cells in trucks; JP4 jet fuel for aircraft; ammonia for fertilizers; desalinated sea water; for crops; low pressure- high temperature heat for recycling metals and plastics as well as electricity for homes, factories and EV's (loaded down with heavy batteries); plus rare medical isotopes while converting current stockpiles of partially used nuclear fuels called "waste" left over from the 50 year old designed light water reactors, that they should be replacing ASAP - and at the cheapest cost of less than USD0.04/kWh - beat that with your short life, erratically supplying solar and wind farms made from imported Chinese processed rare earths...

[@danny8bit]

Please can you explain the part about using "high voltage DC" for reactors located at great distances? Did he perhaps misspeak, as I'm very familiar with the subject from Tesla's battle with Edison, where Tesla advocated for A/C., that can be transmitted over long distances at high voltage, with minimal energy loss (through heat etc), thus allowing for power plants at significant distances outside of a city (e.g. from a dam), in contrast to D/C, which in Edison's time required numerous plants within the city, due to the inefficiency of transmission.

[@mattbrody3565]

Gordon, if you put the timestamps in the description, KZbin should auto-segment the video timeline for you. It's a new feature they rolled out.

[@varno]

@@danny8bit hi, we can now use active electronics to convert dc voltages, and dc produces less electrical stress on wiring, so cheaper wires can be used and so for very high voltages and distances it ends up cheaper.

[@danny8bit]

@@varno I found an excellent article that explains this recent development (even includes a mention of the Tesla vs Edison battle 😊): www.electropages.com/blog/2019/09/ten-things-consider-when-comparing-ac-vs-dc-power-transmission

[@ihopetowin]

Imagine how much these reactors could have evolved and improved had they been given the go-ahead back in the 1970's.

[@jacksimpson-rogers1069]

I do so, with great sadness.

[@frankconijn3987]

Indeed. The whole global warming problem and the whole dependency on oil and gas from dubious countries could have been avoided.

[@apuuvah]

Sad and depressing shit.

[@mpetersen6]

@@frankconijn3987 After Three Mile Island the No Nukes campaign kicked off. I remember at the Central Park rally one of the speakers talking about how we had coal for 600 years. Any technology used for power generation has potential downsides. Coal. Its CO2 and acid rain. Hydro. On the large scale dam failures and potential ecosystem loss. Roof top Solar. Injuries or deaths from workers falling off of roofs*. Plus the recycling of non functional panels and the environmental costs of manufacturing them in the first place. Wind power. Blade failure on turbines. The recycling or retirement costs. Nuclear. The spent fuel rod issue** (the vast majority of nuclear waste is low radiation contaminated safety gear). Large land based thermal solar. Land use in desert areas that someone is sure to protest. One issue I can see with Thorcon's model is placement of the plant facilities in areas that are more prone to tsunami events.

[@frankconijn3987]

@@mpetersen6 There are two principle types of nuclear plants: uranium and thorium plants. They're miles apart when it comes to radioactive waste. And where uranium plants can run out of control in case of a critical accident, thorium plants die out, stop by themselves due to their design. They're each others opposite when it comes to that. This is basic knowledge for the ones who studied them.

[@manasXP]

This is an epic development. This is the way to do civilian nuclear, not borrow solid fuel tech from military(submarines) and get to Chernobyl or Fukusima. Every part of this talk is so well presented, I could feel I am building this plant myself. Thanks for bringing such developments in your channel.

[@xxxxCronoxxxx]

you say that like chernobyl and fukushima were the same thing

[@brusso456]

just need 44 of these reactors to run New York city. New York City uses 11, 000 Megawatt-hours of electricity on average each day. Wow, New York City spends 1 billion dollars on electricity each year.

[@jimgraham6722]

Just nine years to affordable, clean, abundant safe energy on grid. That could be a world saver. Thorcon has put a lot of thought and care into their proposed first cut at realising the promise of molten salt nuclear power reactors. They deserve support and hopefully success.

[@mrrberger]

Jim Graham yeah/na 9 years till this concept passing every farm gate perfectly using sponsors funds produces: purchase to rent. So, double the cost and time line to get to commercialisation, then to recoup find a buyer who has to buy plant on the basis it's useless unless they subscribe to the replacement Can servicing program. If this project was financially sound, Thorcon would be selling electricity only and managing the infrastructure within their own business internals. Don't get me wrong, this looks well worked through and needs mega long term funding the likes of which only a pension fund could justify. By offsetting returns to future contributions and drawing current deposits to pay current dividends you could fund this, however the PE isn't high enough for the risk and positive inversion horizon.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@mrrberger Good points, funding is a big issue, made more difficult not only by regulatory hurdles but also in absence of carbon pricing the free riding of fossil fuel industries. That said I think the Thorcon proposal with its shipyard approach is the right direction for minimising capital cost and dealing with risk. If anything goes seriously wrong with the plant you simply tow it away. Interestingly Russia is commissioning its first floating nuclear plant this year and I understand the Chinese are launching their first one next year. If western businesses want to be in this they need to get weaving.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@tinymints3134 It is possible to get this done if the will is there but the forces arraigned against making it happen mean you may well be right. I fear for my grandchildren.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@tommorris3688 Yes problems are likely to occur but this happens with all pioneering programs. That said molten salt reactor proposals have been extensively studied including three or four research reactors that have been found to work well. I don't think waste is a problem, one of the benefits of molten salt reactors is high fuel efficiency leading to small volumes of waste compared to PWRs (5:1 or better reduction) and waste with short radiological life (about 500 years). All molten salt proposals fully cost in a waste management program which is more than can be said for the coal industry and the vast amount of waste it produces including damage to our atmosphere, the air we breathe and the climate.

[@jimgraham6722]

@@tommorris3688 Yes I agree there are issues but opinions vary on how difficult they will be to address. I understand the neutron flux issue is being addressed by keeping the reactions near the middle of the melt, some proposals use a breeding blanket to protect the outer wall. Also it is expected the alloys used will be significant improvements on Hastalloy-n which was used successfully in the MSRE. We also shouldn't get hung up on the Thorcon proposal it is only one of several, all of which take slightly different approaches. It is very likely two or three will come to fruition if not in the US, probably Canada, UK, China or Russia. In relation to waste and cool down of highly radiated components all the proposals I have seen have strategies for dealing with this, most focusing on the idea these small modular reactors at end of life (5-10 years) are allowed to cool for several years before being removed to permanent storage and/or recycling. This is practical because the reactors are small (about 350 tonnes). The MSRE actually included a demonstration of how this could be done using the robotic machinery available in the 1960s, so this aspect of molten salt reactors has been thought about for a long time. Finally, nearly all molten salt reactor proposals have strategies for dealing with large breaks, cracked vessels and over heat. These centre on there being tanks under the reactor that take escaped liquid (flowing under gravity) packed with neutron absorbers to stop the reaction and cool the salt both thermally and decay heat. This is clearly an area of intensive research as it is key to claims of walk away safety held for these reactors. The main issue though is how we get a fossil carbon free future by 2050. This is absolutely essential and in many parts of the world can't be done by renewables alone. PWR has priced itself out of the market in my view mainly due to poor thermal efficiency and has its own safety issues. Fusion remains an unknown, likely at some point but probably too expensive and too far in the future to help address climate.. In my view alongside these hazards and risks, molten salt modular reactors look to be a cake walk.

[@patriciourrutia4834]

I read more than a decade ago about the Thorium molten salt reactors. I always wonder why they never try to apply it to our increasing need for energy in the growing modern society. For the moment sun and wind is not enough and fusion is always 10 years away. Here is the quick answer that our civilization has been looking for. Even third world countries can afford it. Thorium is abundant,cheaper ,safer and almost non pollutant. Congratulations Lars Jorgensen. Excellent presentation ,we can still hope to leave a cleaner world to our children..

[@sharonkeith601]

I KNEW it would appear sooner or later! I read about this maybe 8-10 years ago and saw this day coming! Thank God that you've undertaken this project. Thank you and congratulations from an old American lady! 🤗

[@MobiusMinded]

Ditto to everything you stated

[@antonnym214]

Outstanding video. I have been following LFTRs for years and now this is super-exciting! Mr. Jorgensen is an excellent communicator. I subscribed immediately.

[@jacobrip8776]

Finally, a company that wants to move forward with a workable plan to make MSRs a reality. I hope your company succeeds. You have my support.

[@NukeMarine]

I love how easy this was to follow thanks to the additional edits to show explanatory images and videos. What really caught my attention was that they can use a surplus shipyard to put out 20x 500mW power plants. That's equivalent to a 10 GW power plant each year which is an insane time scale compared to LWRs, but again the video makes that claim seem downright reasonable. Here's hoping it works out and can get Indonesia a large amount of power. With that, it's not hard to see other nations both first and developing third worlds buy it over coal.

[@FreeOfFantasy]

32:00 a large shipyard can build 20x1GW per year. 32:57 There is enough surplus capacity to build 200GW per year.

[@muhammadirfanataulawal7630]

@@FreeOfFantasy That's an insane capacity. I guess this is the merit of using this kind of shipyard manufacturing so the reactor can be produced just like making cars on assembly line

[@paulbedichek2679]

Yes,this would end global warming, but they need to have evidenced based regulation, no one has that, we'll have MSR here in the US and Canada an IMSR from Terrestrial Power.

[@tinkertailor7385]

Great design for a molten salt reactor to get the ball rolling for Thorium generated power..... It will be even better when a Thorium breeder cycle is perfected. This looks really promising. The proof of course will be when they start making and using this design. Been lots of talk. Needs to be turned into a working, viable power station.

[@ihopetowin]

Tinker Tailor. Could not agree more.

[@itchyvet]

I'm 70 years old, and have been hearing about thorium reactors all my life, BUT the weird thing is, NO ONE, ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET, has yet built such a reactor. WHY NOT, if they are so super cool ??????

[@DavidKnowles0]

@@itchyvet Because they don't make the materials neccessary for nukes or the materials neccessary in medicines.

[@solexxx8588]

@@itchyvet China is commissioning one now.

[@HeyU308]

Nuclear power is by far the most efficient baseload energy source.

[@cdreid99999]

As long as you completely ignore the problems of nuclear waste and the devastation it is caused across the planet

[@matthewevans4296]

@@cdreid99999 meanwhile, we currently ignore the waste and devastation that coal plants produce; which research has shown is FAR more damaging to our global environment than had we used nuclear over the past 30 years. What other options do we realistically have for baseline energy production?

[@Feinrizulwur]

@@cdreid99999 Wrong! TMSR doesn't produce waste with long life. And the neutron eating noble gas is taken out on line. What you call waste is fuel contaminated with neutron eaters. Reducing waste even more. TMSR is 200x more efficient than LWR. But the best is in could climate. No waste heat at all. That energy con heat industry and homes. And very important ; heat for cleaning waste water.

[@scoobydoo936]

Yeah and Fukushima is efficient too, in polluting the world.

[@ericasw28]

@@scoobydoo936 someone who didn't do any research has just spoken

[@johndoudna7055]

Keep up the good work, Gordon McDowell. The word will get out eventually.

[@jackfanning7952]

The word will get out. Sorta like nuclear waste, huh?

[@jimrobcoyle]

@@jackfanning7952 "nuclear waste" is actually "fuel being wasted".

[@jackfanning7952]

@@jimrobcoyle Nuclear waste is one very toxic radioactive isotope being turned into about 300 very toxic radioactive isotopes that are 1,000 to 1,000,000 worse.

[@yumpinyiminy963]

I knew about this type of reactor for awhile and wondered why it wasn't used commercially. Nice job.

[@raj-nz4bj]

it doesn't benefit rich countries as these reduce energy monopoly. Thorium is available everywhere. secondly they are very complicate far more than uranium one. third they are commercially not viable right now as uranium would give very tough competition in pricing so no private players is interest. fourth NRC laws of USA is hampering the growth and they the pioneer in this technology.

[@dodaexploda]

At first I thought it was a bit strange to use ships as reactors. But hte more I think about it the more I agree with it. You don't even need to worry about where you're putting it as it will have water available. You'll just have to decide on if it will have a desalination plant or not. Then if you're only building 1 design of a plant you can manufacture a bunch of them. All the host nation needs to do is bring the grid to the spot and make sure there is enough sand in place. You can build bigger reactor cores to swap out. If you did a land based one you would have to ship them via truck or train which limits the size. If you need a security while shipping material, use the nation's navy. Pretty damn smart if you ask me.

[@andymontemayor175]

This is all amazing, and very exciting stuff thanks Gordon!

[@billhart9832]

I'm so pleased to see Lars (and Bob Effendi for videoing, and Gordon Publishing) make this presentation all so matter of fact, anticipating every conceivable negative scenario while demonstrating it's passive safety and buildable nature using all existing technology. Indonesia should be congratulated for working hand-in-hand to develop the regulations concurrent with your process development. The rest of the world needs to be paying attention to ThorCon and Indonesia as the emergent leaders in cost-effective, CO2 free, reliable power, delivered to your door!

[@quinto190]

glad someone is moving forward with this

[@MitzvosGolem1]

Dr Alvin Radkowsky and Dr Alvin Weinberg. Suggested this long ago . Build that ASAP.

[@seanbaxter1050]

I've seen the thorcon stuff before, but this is an especially slick and exciting presentation. The cut-away view of the platform with all the subsystems on display... amazing.

[@mikefromflorida8357]

Very well done, Mr. Lars. Very well presented.

[@avejst]

Interesting walkthrough 👍 Thanks for sharing 👍😀

[@RJM1011]

VERY GOOD thank you for the video. :)

[@ellenwalker7892]

Fantastic!! Now we need to get it going

[@jackfanning7952]

It has been around since the 1940s with no takers. Listen to someone other than nukie cheerleaders and you will know why.

[@JonathanFrost]

One of the best options for the next decade. I wish you every success.

[@carrdoug99]

This is a fantastic presentation.

[@jameshead9119]

What’s a crying shame is we could have had these back in the mid 70’s if Nixon hadn’t killed program in favour for the water reactor design

[@mukiex4413]

Nixon killed stuff. Ford killed stuff. Kerry helped kill next-gen stuff. Basically NOBODY is nuclear power's friend and it fucking sucks. Hoping between Canada and Indonesia (and stateside efforts like Ed Pheil's weapons/waste-eating generator)

[@cdreid99999]

So you want to irradiate the oceans.

[@Feinrizulwur]

Nixon demonstrates his ignorance in public. He was not ashamed of demonstrat it. The problem is he didn't understand MSR or TMSR. The problem is the same for most even today. It is the combination MSR and thorium that is the key. This must be developed asap.

[@ScarletFlames1]

@@cdreid99999 these things are barges basically, the only way these sink is if someone purposefully sinks them. Considering that these are meant for island nations to rent as building a nuclear reactor is expensive both monetarily and in land space (which is a premium on island nations) this is one of the best solutions for this case. Also, most of the radiactive waste is loaded onto ships for transport for final disposal, no one wants that shit on roads, so it's much more likely that nuclear waste from a standard reactor to sink with a ship than it is for a barge that's going to stay near a shore for its entire life. In fact, the biggest risk with radiactive material sinking is not being able to extract it safely again until it leaches into the environment. I think the standardized storage mediums for nuclear waste was observed surviving in the ocean without leaking for at least 20 years. Also, in the worst case that those generator barges sink they have quite a long time to recover the fuel, since it's all inside a heavily reinforced vessel made of thick steel inside a barge made out of steel, AKA not likely to leak beyond deliberate sabotage.

[@holeefuk4614]

lf Nixon didnt kill it someone (ah hem Exxon, Rothschild Sauds) else would have. As a matter of fact him and his buddies are now on my dead pool

[@peterm.eggers520]

Modular molten salt reactors are the terrestrial grid power source for the foreseeable future. Solar works for many off-grid, rooftop, and especially mobile applications. Solar is not the solution to large-scale power production due to its finite nature, widely varying atmospheric losses, collection losses, conversion losses, and transmission losses. Solar definitely has good uses, but grid power is not one of them. Wind power also has off-grid uses in particular situations, but its environmental negative impacts are significantly greater than its positive ones for grid power. Nuclear is the way forward for the future of grid power.

[@cleanwillie1307]

Solar has the other major disadvantage that there are many many places in the world where there isn't sufficient sunshine to make it feasible for more than boutique application.

[@peterm.eggers520]

@@cleanwillie1307 Solar works well for mobile applications especially when boondocking out in the wilds. There are a few exceptions, but many thousands of people living on the road or at sea rely on solar systems for electricity. Some larger mobile solar systems are backed by small generators when weather does not cooperate. Most add panels or battery capacity though.

[@bozo5632]

I'm not against nuclear power, especially thorium. It's almost too late though. Solar is going to end up being ridiculously cheap, like aluminum foil cheap. And it won't depend on exotic elements. Pretty soon, I betcha. It's already cheaper, more portable, more scalable, more sustainable, safer and cleaner than any other technology, hands down. Storage will solve most of solar's shortcomings. Solar might even be the best option in Antarctica some day.

[@LeoInterVir]

Solar is not sustainable or cleaner since Storage is not sustainable or cleaner.

[@peterm.eggers520]

@@bozo5632 No matter how cheap solar becomes, power density is a problem even under ideal conditions. It takes somewhere between 25% and 50% of Earth's land mass covered in solar panels, under ideal conditions to provide power for the USA for 24 hours. That doesn't account for atmospheric losses due to clouds, dust, and smoke. It also doesn't account for conversion losses, storage losses, or transmission losses. Plugging electric vehicles into the power grid could help level the peaks and valleys of power demand, but you are still left with a finite and insufficient amount of solar energy reaching Earth, power losses at every juncture, and high variability on sunlight actually reaching the Earth's surface. Solar has applications for mobile and offgrid applications, but basic physics shows that it is insufficient and unreliable for grid power.

[@martingiuffrida2679]

Very informative presentation. Best of luck with your project.

[@mpetersen6]

The big way to keep the costs down is of course batch production in an industrial facility used to building large complex structures rapidly. The ship yard method is ideal for that.

[@Saiphes]

Great - I was wondering how this project was going. Please allow LBRY to mirror/sync your quality content where you can further spread the word by being featured, and viewers can tip you tokens. No strings!

[@datashat]

Sorry to criticise Gordon but the audio processing is really distracting here. The unnatural spectral gating of the room reverb is clipping off some of the ess and eff consonant sounds, and causing pretty violent jumps in volume, all adding up to a pretty fatiguing listen. It's much easier to understand on the original audio.

[@Rustyy4]

I think its just edited by compressing/skiping some audio and video between Gordons words and sentenses to make this a much shorter video, still at almost 40mins long this would prob be more close to an hour if the video was untouched. I think its worth the tradeoff

[@charlesdare2046]

Yes reverb and high piched sssks squeaky voice bad acoustics for flogging something for billions of $

[@Milosz_Ostrow]

Right. I have difficulty distinguishing, say, "four", "fourteen", and "forty".

[@davidsmith3736]

I wondered what was going on with his arm.

[@suehwan]

Best Thorium Reactor Video ever

[@wazza33racer]

i like there use of secondary loops to deal with tritium and compatibility issues. that introduces a lot of extra safety to deal with the materials issues. The hull of their vessel really needs to be a double hull design to increase its strength by a large factor to resist collisions etc.

[@bencoad8492]

isn't it double hull? its steel concrete then steel again?

[@sachyriel]

I found this easy to follow and informative, I only have a high school education in science but I liked how they grounded it in examples like the plane crash, Fukushima and the terrorist attack. Comparing to coal helped me visualize it, but other energy sources would have given more of a gradient (it's easy to look good next to coal). I also enjoyed the small bits of history f how the reactor came to be, that's my favourite subject, history.

[@NeilHaskins]

They compare it to coal because that's the cheapest form of power. It's not wind and solar they're really competing against. Especially in a developing nation like Indonesia.

[@guringai]

Renewable energy is cheaper & cleaner. Take a look at that too.

[@Steellmor]

@@guringai It's cheaper when you subsidize it and tax the shit out of coal for polluting air. Best example of "Renewable energy" fail - UK Drax Power Station which now burns WOOD SHIPPED FROM US,cause like - "Look we using biomass,trees will grow again!".

[@mrvaticanrag3946]

@@guringai but not safer - importantly they can be load follower or a base loader to carry the erratic supplies from solar and wind...

[@rice0009]

@@guringai I love Renewables. The one thing that Renewables have a hard time delivering is the "base" load. That's the consumption load that's always on the grid. All Day, All Night. Alarm clocks, cell phone chargers, street lights, hospitals, police stations, industrial power consumption for things like smelters that are NEVER turned off. Power consumption doesn't end at night but Solar does. Winds don't always blow when you need the power, and current battery technology just can't scale to be able to provide a large enough base load.

[@davidabulafia7145]

This sounds wonderful. Australia should get a dozen to start with.

[@yuboka49]

We, in Holland, like to buy 5 of them.

[@franglish9265]

We need these in the US, along with breeders.

[@saarangsahasrabudhe8634]

Australia should skip putting stuff on a ship. Just build a Nuclear power on land.

[@tomglenn485]

Might just be a good idea build the necessary skill base. Your talking about a country that's redesigning diesel power into French nuclear submarines and spending $50billion to do it... So a few ducks to line up first.

[@davidwilkie9551]

Australia really only needs MS Heat Batteries. Plenty of Sunlight and old Power Stations needing to maximise their usefulness. We need the Service Industry for Reprocessing the Uranium to suit these MS Reactors, and burn bomb materials to ash.

[@myronjohnson6126]

Molten salt reactor, sounds great, thank you.

[@jackfanning7952]

Great for a new year's celebration. Molten salt catches fire when exposed to oxygen and explodes in contact with water.

[@UberMick]

This concept is bloody awesome! Well done! Cant wait to see the first vessel get built and in service results. The Philippines would also really benefit from this kind of energy solution, I was on Siargao last December, we had 8 black outs in the 12 days I was there, one of which lasted a full 24 hours! Luckily the bar down the road had a small genny to keep the beers cold, haha!

[@chapter4travels]

The only question is whether Indonesia will have the guts to go forward and if so when. The amount of anti-nuclear propaganda from the fossil fuel and renewables industries is enormous.

[@shainemaine1268]

It usually traces back to that! Or misinformed moms...

[@halnineooo136]

A thorium non proliferating reactor can be sold to such countries if they can have sovereign control on the process and the fuel cycle without being dependent on AIEA and nuclear powers for their energy supply.

[@deadwingdomain]

It takes zero propaganda to know nuclear is a stupid idea.

[@Reth_Hard]

@@deadwingdomain Coal is a really a better idea?

[@chapter4travels]

@Davvy Jannes What's that got to do with anything? The Indonesian government is not funding Thorcon they only have to commit to buying the electricity it produces.

[@anonymoususer3293]

Fissionable is the correct term. Fissile means the material can be split, like mica. Fissionable means the nucleus can be split.

[@goldenteech3436]

Nice editing

[@mrvaticanrag3946]

How is progress going with PLN and PAL considering Covid-19 is currently raging throughout Java?

[@Fordi]

When was this talk? [Edit: October 2019]

[@makespace8483]

Absolutely brilliant!

[@genepreston6025]

Excellent. Now I know what nuclear plant we need to be working on.

[@myronjohnson6126]

I think there building a thorium salt reactor in Utah Versatile test reactor. Look it up.

[@paulbedichek2679]

@@myronjohnson6126 VTR doesn't use Th it would be a Sodium cooled fast reactor can't be more different, instead we are building the Natrium system at a coal plant in Wyomingh,same people GE with Prism and Bill Gates Terrapower,and they join with Warren Buffet.

[@kingothesea1]

Considering this done in Indoesia I figure'd you'd touch on volcanos!

[@croftegan7993]

Good to see this moving along as per shedual go go go!!!

[@kevinkravchenko4655]

Glad to hear this info

[@ttystikkrocks1042]

The logistics of fuel delivery and waste removal are seriously simplified. The construction of the facility is as proven as centuries of shipbuilding. Once these are in regular production, the orders for power plants could be filled in much less than two years; that timeline is just for the first units delivered. Modular, portable design means ease of delivery. Most of the world's population is near the coast, so building them like ships fits the need very well. I can see a time in the not so distant future where these will be far cheaper than coal fired power plants, not to mention cheaper and easier to operate.

[@parrotraiser6541]

What are the factors affecting scaling on these units? How small or large is economic, and what's the sweet spot? Normal thermal power plants benefit from economies of scale, up to a point, but that means large, expensive units that take a long time to design, plan, and build. Small modular reactors of a standard design provide much more system flexibility.

[@AnalystPrime]

Looks like this is the sweet spot, otherwise they would have made it bigger or smaller.

[@jxmai7687]

China is making one just like a house size, it can supply power for a small town, once it is become stable and reliable, then it will be duplicated into larger production numbers and up scale to bigger size for larger town and city. we will very soon to see them in large numbers in next 10 years.

[@kelvinham8576]

I really like the idea of mobile floating power plants, generates really good jobs for domestic power, safe clean. Can lift the living standards around the world.. exciting development.

[@WJV9]

They only float when being transported, when site located they are bedded down on sand base in 10 meters of water.

[@steveturpin4242]

Go for it folks...we're all with your example......we need this now.... this decade! The World will watch carefully.

[@AximandTheCursed]

So a stepping stone design, leading towards breeders without needing to go all the way, extending fuel life, looks very well thought out, usable and could extend the knowledge base of all the steps needed to make full breeders. Hope we can get our government to adopt this concept in Australia, it would be a major boon to all heavy industry.

[@timothycurlee9682]

Please watch and share @ kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqqnk6RrfbemZtE

[@stephenrichards5386]

This makes me feel so much more optimistic about the future. Rolls royce are also building small nuclear generator. All that is needed now is the end of green stupidity among the western politicians. That gives me the shakes.

[@tomasmieger6826]

Well said

[@albripi]

Those Rolls Royce seem nothing special: just smaller LWRs. This one is revolutionary

[@veronicathecow]

Hate to break your bubble but solar and wind are already here. Since money has been spent on developing them they have come on enormously. Battery research is now following a similar curve. These is no need for nuclear and it's associated risks. www.nrel.gov/pv/cell-efficiency.html

[@jimgraham6722]

@@veronicathecow Wind and solar are important but like it or not storage is a huge issue. Pumped hydro might work for those countries with mountains and water resources, but require lots of dams the level of which will go up and down. Dam building is not at all popular. Batteries might work but to do the job properly for every one GW in generation need to be vastly bigger (about 100 times) than the largest battery in the world, the Hornsdale battery in South Australia. It is important to remember this is not just about keeping the lights on, technically that is a minor issue, it is about keeping the wheels of industry turning that underpins modern civilisation.

[@red-baitingswine8816]

@@veronicathecow Who's going to pay for the shloads of batteries/panels/high-voltage power lines for ourselves (let alone poor countries desperately in need of power)? Even California is building natural gas plants as we speak! Do you really think we can power massive desalination/recycling/nuclear waste processing/regreening of deserts, etc. with solar/wind? It's like removing mountains with shovels. hammers, and chisels - solar is orders of magnitude weaker than even fossil fuels. Not to mention - you must have seen by now the statistics on deaths due to the different sources of power. . Let's make MSRs cheaper than fossil fuels while researchers continue to find ways to improve it, and let solar/wind etc. also continue to improve and find its proper place.

[@richdobbs6595]

Is anything happening with respect to the construction of the pre-fission test bed?

[@paulbedichek2679]

We haven't heard a peep,so no.

[@babyelian77]

Interesting at about min 11:50 the thermal efficiency is 46,4 or 47,7 % , that means you can dry cooling them and locate even in remote sites with no or very little stream of water available. Or, on the other hand, you can co-generate low temp heat and electricity with very loss of power

[@jimjardine4705]

We need to get them to come down and build all of our Liquid salt reactors!

[@redfern_mike]

@7:16 the subtitles incorrectly show the spoken text "500 megavolts" as 500mV (millivolts), should be 500MV. Really good work otherwise.

[@etommmy]

Neither of them. 500kV. That was he said. And that is a widely used line voltage also. 500MV is way too much for any practical application.

[@ilovecops5499]

9VDC battery?

[@invsiblshowercurtain]

27:20 Is liquefaction during an earth quake of the sandy sea bed a problem? I'm a nuclear engineer not a civil engineer so I don't know that much about earthquakes, but there are many impressive videos of things sinking into liquefied soil or sand during earthquakes

[@loungelizard836]

Post piles and spreaders would prevent liquifaction problems. A tsunami would be another issue altogether. Not sure how they account for that.

[@CyrusSabounchi]

Liquefaction is not common. Geotechnical research will show the soil type before start. But, I assume this will not be an issue as the "foundation" is submerged.

[@jimgraham6722]

They mentioned tsunami and earthquake tolerance. I expect best option though is not position plant in risky areas.

[@stupidburp]

Everywhere next to an ocean is a risky area. We can not rely on recent past patterns. Full mitigation of tsunami and hurricane forces far beyond those observed is necessary. We cannot afford any more reactor damage incidents.

[@FreeOfFantasy]

I think that would be solved by parking it in deep water a few km off shore. Even a big tsunami isn't that big there.

[@buildmotosykletist1987]

Very interesting research project.

[@chapter4travels]

IF Indonesia stays on track, they will be building dozens of these per year before 2030. And that's a very big IF.

[@robtheknob7791]

Brilliant!

[@larrylaffer2188]

does your new reactor produce bi products that can be used in weapons or require fuel that can be used in weapons?

[@brianwild4640]

@larry laffer this reactor uses uranium and thorium the u235 part of the uranium is between 2 and 5% you need about 90% for weapons grade up to 20% is reactor grade. Also the thorium makes u232 which emits gamma radiation making very unsuitable for weapons it kills the electronic and people close by( not when exploded when sat) also very easily detectable so hard to steel. If any body wanted to make a bomb they would build a uranium/graphite pile and make plutonium and refine that way easier

[@OleTange]

Since there are alarms to the IAEA I think we can safely assume that it does. If not directly then indirectly.

[@davidsteer8142]

Ole Tange Your comment makes zero sense. Weapons grade material has to be high purity. That is eliminated by the fact that it is only 20% fissile material. IAEA interaction is a good thing so you don’t get a dodgy operator dumping, etc. As for indirectly, you have lost me. The reactor is modular. It is interchangeable for continuous operation. The only weapon you can make is a dirty bomb and there is nothing different going on here that is already possible with what’s around today.

[@larrylaffer2188]

Im all for reactors solar and wind power is only a bandaid for now the manufacturing of these devices is probably causing more pollution than its worth. If it were up to me i would fund a thorium breeder reactor its what we need at the same time living without power takes priority over surviving a nuclear holocaust. This type of thing needs to be operated and MAINTAINED by a world body that is not run for profit. Government's and companies cant be trusted to take care of these things as we know from the past. Forget terrorist what about pirates the western world has made it too difficult to get a start for their reactor obviously its going to happen one way or another indonesia doesnt know anything b about these things but if it goes pear shaped i know where that nuclear fuel is gonna end up probably india to be changed into something useful to make weapons from. Ignorance is bliss.

[@paulbedichek2679]

No need for new nuclear we can just go on as we are and kill everyone in a burning cauldron, like Venus.

[@MarkRLeach]

T-max is given as 704°C... which is quite hot. So, what alloy is used for the reactor vessel 'pot'? Has your chosen alloy (I guess some type of Hastelloy) been nuclear certified? Good talk, I enjoyed that!!!!

[@etsio6972]

He mentioned it was steel, I don't know the reactance with the salt but my guess would be something like high alloy nickel cobalt. That should hold the temperature nicely.

[@JaneDoe-dg1gv]

He mentions that salts only become corrosive in the presence of oxygen and water. If it can handle the temperature and radiation it should be fine.

[@bencoad8492]

didn't he say the steel can take 1400C so plenty of overhead, just need to keep the water and o2 out

[@RicksPoker]

Oak Ridge in the 1960's developed a nickel steel alloy which worked. However, we have 60 years of advances in material science so I expect that we wouldn't use the 1960 alloys.

[@etsio6972]

@@bencoad8492 the issue is creep, it starts at 40% TM, and you really don't want creep. He mentioned in one of the scenarios of a creep of 0.05% over a period of a couple of months. With an operating temperature of 700C it would have to have a TM, of about 1800C.

[@francoismonast4186]

Très belle présentation, concise et complète; mes meilleurs souhaits pour la réussite de ses projets.

[@revan6059]

I'm glad people are learning nuclear is much safer then they thought! Great video

[@jackfanning7952]

not

[@thefoundingtitanerenyeager2345]

@@jackfanning7952 * is

[@5kehhn]

Ah. There. I got my Thorium fix for the day...

[@canadiannuclearman]

Making 20Gw per year is impressive.

[@thefoundingtitanerenyeager2345]

I looked it up and the entire us used 140 Giga watts of energy per year so only 7 shipyards could power the entire USA energy consumption

[@tomasmieger6826]

Nice to see that nuclear technology lives on and up. Thx for that great documentary video.

[@madisonbrigman8186]

out of all the designs for thorium-based MSRs, this is by far the most impressive and ingenious idea i’ve seen yet. this is so smr, this is a full scale power plant….i can see the the future as well maybe having the ability to pull these flotillas us rivers and then crane part by part over to land to assemble as well - which would double their market penetration.

[@chapter4travels]

Thorcon is a uranium-based MSR in reality.

[@adamdanilowicz4252]

I know that you've made an attempt to improve the audio of the original recording, but to me this version is more difficult to understand due to the constant fluctuations in volume between his words.

[@ivigrupp6687]

To think: Australia once had the chance to fund such a project & partner with ThorCon Power, to be both a User of & an Exporter of ThorCon NPPs But then-PM - Tony Abbott - was happier to enlarge some seaport(s), to enable even larger ships to carry away more Fossil Fuels to other lands, than to consider healthier alternatives to burning toxic Coal in "the World's' dirtiest Coal power plant" (in Victoria) and others (in Queensland & New South Wales). Abbott was unaware (or didn't care), that such anti-Climate activities Embarrasses Australians, eg, when they see Three of Australia's states depicted in Black or Dark Brown, in app "ElectricityMap" & ElectricityMap.org, and make them wonder Why both West Australia and the Northern Territory seem to hide their Energy Mix data. so often, from the same visual scrutiny. The time was ~2015, when South Australia was conducting its own "Nuclear Fuel Cycle" Royal Commission (ie, public inquiry), to consider new ways for the state to get more value from all the Uranium mined there. However - in an early stage - the Commission decided to Close its Mind to new Molten Salt Reactors (& anything not yet available "off the shelf"). Some say a "hidden agenda" was to limit what SA could do in the Nuclear industry to securely store Nuclear waste. Indeed, the chair of the Commission was an ex-Navy man with experience in Logistics, not Nuclear Physics or the like. In 2020, a location in South Australia was chosen for a Nuclear waste "dump" - not for waste from other lands, but only for waste from ~100 places - in Australia - which generate such waste. Nearby First Nation people were Excluded from the group of people, who could vote to Accept or Reject the offered "dump" project in their vicinity, which suggests a less than valid Social License exists for it. Just 45 jobs are to be created, to build the facility. Worse, of course, is that the project's revenues will Exclude income from Outside Australia. After an MP (for the area in which the facility is to be built) was Unable to offer his own property for the project, a local farmer - with the same surname of this MP's Campaign Manager (per his First Speech, in 2008) - is the lucky owner of the land, chosen for the "dump." Nevertheless, Kimba (the nearest town) is optimistic, that its dwindling economy will make a big turn-around, due to the project's arrival. Unlike places like tiny Estonia & (closer) Indonesia - which seem "on their way" to benefiting from their decisions to invest in Clean, Green, Nuclear Energy - Australia suffers from an outdated 1999 Nuclear Energy BAN, that protects the Coal Industry, that feed both its own toxic Coal power plants, as well as many overseas.

[@kirtg1]

thank you

[@dansheppard2965]

"Our plan is that this is Bhutan's problem". Now, there's a twist I didn't see coming.

[@PhilosopherRex]

Simple is better IMO - the best part is no part.

[@JonathanFrost]

Modular is amazing

[@paulbedichek2679]

An IMSR is simpler, all you do is add fuel, nothing ever leaves the reactor, at the end of 7 years you put the old reactor in storage and start a new one. Nothing will leak, because there are no pipes.

[@paulbedichek2679]

Besides Terrestrial Power will get a license from the NRC.I would welcome the ThorCom in the US or worldwide but it won't be allowed.

[@SupercovenGW2]

please someone fund a Thorium plant. we need a real attempt.

[@charlesratcliffe6839]

Funding isn’t the problem. Politics is.

[@ellenwalker7892]

@@charlesratcliffe6839 Exactly! Which is why they went for the LWR design against Alvin Weinberg's advice back in the day.

[@JaneDoe-dg1gv]

It would be easy for a rare-earth mining company to build and fuel a reactor like this on their own but extreme nuclear reactor regulations prevent them from doing so. I'm a fan of molten sodium-chloride fast breeders myself.

[@jimbo92107]

@@JaneDoe-dg1gv Agreed. I really wish a company like Thorcon would adopt Ed Pheil's fast spectrum design. Simpler, safer, fuel flexible, more modular, and you can let it run for 40 years non-stop, not just 4.

[@chapter4travels]

@@jimbo92107 I want them both, competition is good.

[@hansulrichjohner2694]

How do you remove the insoluble decay products from the salt circuit?

[@tomchupick9450]

A very impressive presentation. Can a FOAK build really be that straightforward? Why has it taken decades so far?

[@n1mbusmusic606]

I love nuclear power!!!!!! I love thorcon!!!!! Space mirrors and this plus pumping fresh water out of arctic along with high speed paddledock grazing to regenerate top soil and we may just actually survive!

[@Veldtian1]

Space mirrors beaming concentrated light/heat back to Earth? what if a flock of birds flies through the light beam?

[@jackfanning7952]

Then you pay for it instead of U.S. taxpayers.

[@n1mbusmusic606]

@@jackfanning7952 buy bitcoin. thanks.

[@jackfanning7952]

@@n1mbusmusic606 A lot of people are saying that.

[@paulbedichek2679]

Yes,we need geo engineering, better would be high altitude aerosols. We should be doing experiments now .

[@recklessroges]

Fission base-load now! (To reduce pollution and battle climate change.)

[@Veldtian1]

The climate is always changing, 900K years of Greenland ice cores prove that, sometimes the global temp has flucuated 10's of degrees C over hundreds of years, we are in an extraordinarily benign period, we actually don't know how good we have it.

[@nigeltown6999]

I've been hoping for this for years - so let's hope this is a realisable prospect - I didn't watch the whole of this due to time pressure - but does he address the corrosion issues of the liquid salt?

[@gaussmanv2]

Could you suspend the moderator as a particle in the liquid? Could you use something like a triso fuel that is self contained?

[@PhilosopherRex]

While I'm sure it's not an "approved" material in most construction yet, I think "foam-crete" would be a great addition to the hull, between the concrete and the steel - it's cheap and absorbs a huge amount of energy from impacts. If enough foam-crete is used, these barges would effectively become "unsinkable" as well.

[@danahebdon6810]

Foam-crete isn't a viable option for use with this. The reasons for using concrete are both as shielding from possible radiation and to help protect the reactors and the necessary equipment from damage due to airplane strikes, etc.. I'm speaking with knowledge from working in the nuclear industry.

[@stupidburp]

The reactor design itself seems fine but I see a huge potential problem with having it as a structure on top of a barge or on sand in a bay. That leaves it vulnerable to natural forces such as debris from hurricane force winds or high surges or waves from storms or earthquakes. It seems to me that it would be much safer to build it far inland or inside of a high walled steel seagoing vessel. Perhaps a double hulled oil tanker for example. A tanker is going to be more expensive than a barge but I don't think a barge can offer adequate margin of safety. The reactor and all internal structures should be designed to be capable of safely going inverted or on its side in case of capsizing which could even happen tied to a pier in port. Simply putting a land based reactor design on a barge or other floating vessel adds additional serious risks. If the reactor structure is damaged or tipped from external forces then all of these internal safety measures may be insufficient. Building it on sand in a bay is still going to be suceptible to being hit by hurricane or tsunami and tipping over or being pierced by waves or debris. Additionally, building on sand brings up the potential problem of liquifaction during an earthquake which could cause it to sink unevenly and be damaged. Mother nature has a habit of hitting structures with forces beyond design limits, building to a certain tsunami wave height is asking for trouble.

[@danahebdon6810]

Please rewatch the video, and pay closer attention to where he talks about just exactly your concerns.. you'll understand that those things have been thought about in the designing of the reactors.. the actual design is not a land based design, it has been designed from the inception to be in an ocean based vessel. The only portion in the presentation that is based on land is the testing proof of concept unit.

[@TuxedoMedia]

Imagine the entire Earth's population with access to high amounts of energy that's literally dirt cheap. The world our grandchildren will build will be as amazing to us as the world we've built would be to those from 500 years ago.

[@chapter4travels]

This is true of uranium, the same as thorium.

[@JaimeFon1961]

Very good work, I would like to see this working

[@gregmattson2238]

you know, my country - the US - has done a MASSIVE array of stupid things, and not following up on this technology is top of the list - yes, above the war on terror, the credit crisis and the response to the current pandemic. if we had simply followed the logic here, we wouldn't be looking at the possibility of climate change overwhelming our civilization right now, the world would primarily be powered by these things and poverty would be almost non-existent because consumer goods would be very cheap to sustainably make right now due to low-cost energy. We would have in short cracked the power problem - and with it, the water problem and to a large extent the pollution problem. Please start making these and start building them in bulk.

[@1MinuteFlipDoc]

agreed! just think of the trillions of dollars we've put into the middle east over the last 10 years, fighting wars over oil. if we just spent 1 trillion on that, at a national level, we wouldn't need 8 years! we'd be there!

[@sirmoke9646]

You left out free unicorns and beer for life +5 years but otherwise great utopia.

[@capnron65]

Climate change is not "overwhelming our civilization." Not even close. Pollution is definitely a worldwide problem, but climate change is manageable. Agree that we have missed many opportunities to move to cleaner and more self-sufficient technologies. Most the issues in the US stem from misinformation and over/bad regulation.

[@gregmattson2238]

@@capnron65 its not overwhelming our civilization now. It has the potential to do so. it all depends on the how the predictions shake out. One study predicted that for every 1 degree celsius the average global temperature rises, that is 1 billion people on the move. (www.washingtonpost.com/weather/2020/05/04/human-climate-niche/). And at the PETM maximum (55 million years ago), it rose 5-8 degrees celsius, due to runaway CO2 then. so yes, we could be in for a world of hurt. The more the temperature rises, the more the effects will compound each other, and the worse our predicament will become.

[@paulbedichek2679]

Here in the US we will use the IMSR the reactor Bill Clinton halted work on, the Canadian Company Terrestrial Power will get a COL license, some similarities, the pot is replaced after 7 years and sent to repository, very cheap clean power, key difference ,Terrestrial Power is going through the paperwork.

[@TheTruthSeeker756]

Good luck! Hope you succeed!

[@sudkhetlehmann857]

Thanks for the great video. Being an engineer, I have a lot of questions that could not be explained in detail in the presentation. One main question would be, which company would produce all the components and systems needed to build this power plant. Since such power plant have never been built commercially, I am curious about which company would be qualified to produce the parts and systems, and according to which safety standard?

[@rohan.fernando]

This is an incredibly impressive approach to nuclear power generation that is obviously designed and engineered to be much safer than past land based nuclear power stations like Fukushima. This company ThorCon unquestionably has a solution that can completely replace Coal-fired Power Stations and Gas-fired Power Stations anywhere in the world, and they will almost entirely eliminate CO2 emissions. Absolutely brilliant !!!!

[@Grunchy005]

It almost sounds "too good to be true". For example, if it were as good as they say then presumably they could simply build and own the reactors and only sell the electricity. They just build the hull 5m longer and they can store 80 years worth of waste onboard. Why, it almost sounds as if there's zero downside to the scheme! Yet they hesitate...

[@rohan.fernando]

@@Grunchy005 from my research on ThorCon, it seems to be an incredibly innovative approach to delivering a power station. Having personally worked on coal fired power stations and their automation systems, I can say these coal fired plants are generally quite complex and super expensive to build and operate. The coal fired plants are also absolutely filthy and spew out ridiculous amounts of CO2 and this other gas generically known as NOx which is super toxic for the people living in towns around the plants. In contrast, ThorCon appears to be an entirely new and innovative way to deliver a nuclear power station that is no doubt also incredibly complex and expensive to build, but it’s modular and simpler heat generation system is definitely better than coal fired systems. It also seems significantly more safe than traditional land based nuclear power stations. Also given ThorCon effectively emits no CO2 and no NOx this is an absolutely massive benefit when you consider the critical importance of reducing global CO2 emissions. Like most innovations that break the traditional business approach such as what ThorCon is working on, it always takes time to get investors and the necessary approvals and authorisations. I’ve worked on many startup businesses and they have all been simply very hard work to get going. I’m guessing ThorCon is going through this very hard startup process right now. I hope they succeed because the world needs to remove coal fired power stations that spew out CO2 extremely urgently. Just read the first 40 or so pages of the IPCC Assessment Report 6 released 9 Aug 2021.

[@EricRobinsoncav3manb0b]

When are we going to see the design for the plant that will handle the spent cans?

[@dannyobrian5957]

Well addressed

[@prjndigo]

So how do you stop your reactor from producing random uranium, plutionium, lithium and cesium isotopes thus poisoning the salt?

[@YodaWhat]

IF there are problems with that, they can either add-on a continuous separation unit, or just replace the entire fuelsalt load when needed, and reprocess it elsewhere. But he said in the vid that they combine with the salt. Perhaps that dilutes bad isotopes enough to explain the 16-year fuelsalt change interval?

[@karstenholland1255]

This is obviously the right solution for inexpensive power around the world! I would feel completely save living within a few miles of this power plant because the fuel in this design will melt the freeze-plug and drain to safe area before it could possibly go critical. And there is no steam in the primary heat exchange, which is the next place there could be radioactivity leaked. My only concern is that - on a boat... could it capsize and go critical at the bottom of the sea? (Or would it always be sitting directly on sea-bed?)

[@timothycurlee9682]

@ kzbin.info/www/bejne/qqqnk6RrfbemZtE

[@nurlatifahmohdnor8939]

There is a plastic bag of molten salt sold around. There is a small metal disc inside. When the disc is bent, an instant chemical reaction occur. Massive heat. For medicament purpose. What type of salt is that?

[@jeadie8131]

If the freeze plug melts and the salt flows into the drain area, will it solidify? If so, what is the next step to get the salt and fuel liquid again?

[@chapter4travels]

There are electric heating elements in the drain tank that will melt it and it's pumped back up to the reactor.

[@JamesBrown-uv4sn]

What happens if earthquake sensor fails, earthquake happens. The force damages the liquid salt drain? Could the liquid salt either not drain or drain outside of the containment and begin to overheat?

[@johnhiggs9735]

A very interesting design, but there is one aspect I would like to understand : part of the intrinsic safety of molten salt/fuel reactors is that the reactor has a self limiting top temperature where the thermal expansion of the liquid brings the reactivity down to below unity. This requires that the fuel reactivity is maintained at some constant level (usually by on-line fuel chemistry adjustment). If the cans are only serviced after a 4 year burn how is the reactivity kept constant during the 4 year burn-up period? Is the fuel accessed, and mix adjusted during the operating period?

[@chapter4travels]

" Is the fuel accessed, and mix adjusted during the operating period?" Yes

[@jnathanbush1780]

Did you find a way of dealing with all the waste esp. Protactinium and for how long will the waste from this reactor need storage n how toxic is it?

[@chapter4travels]

They need to store it until molten salt breeder reactors get commercialized so it can be reused.

[@sailingonasummerbreeze7892]

Very Innovative Design. I wonder if they can get government sponsorship to get a prototype up and running?

[@digital2rain]

Where are the pebble bed reactors using safe helium coolant?

[@n1mbusmusic606]

thorcon for the win!!