Why Bill Gates’ New Natrium Reactor is a Big Deal

[@crabel99]

This was my PhD dissertation. You have a few inaccuracies. 1. Long term storage is not needed. Seasonal variations in load are managed through timing power plant refueling and maintenance outages. 2. While it can absorb renewable energy fluctuation, the capital recovery of the reactor is also reduced, because the renewables require (mostly) idle backup capacity and extra storage. 3. Control rods are the primary means of reactivity control in PWRs and BWRs. We have a mantra that “reactor power follows steam demand” changing the steam demand is what causes the reactivity insertion that changes power. Boron is used to regulate the average coolant temperature, e.g. add boric acid temperature goes down (the negative reactivity from the acid causes the temperature to lower until the temperature coefficient of reactivity compensates. 4. Natrium reactor can absolutely load follow on the reactor side. It’s been a while since I looked but I remember doing reactor transient analysis on the order of 10%/second. The fuel is metallic so it’s conductive. It is also very porous (looks like Swiss cheese due to the fission product gases) and has a sodium bond inside as well. So the fuel is robust. It gets hot and the core expands rapidly inserting negative reactivity. The reactor’s average capacity factor is ~90% and does have some transients on the order of 5%/min that it can leisurely respond to. The storage slows everything down. It’s amazing. 5. The salt used in the storage system is “Solar Salt” a 60-40 Eutectic of NaNO₃ and KNO₃. It is not chloride based. The reactor can use LiCl to reprocess the used fuel on site, but that’s an entirely different topic. Here is my work: repository.gatech.edu/server/api/core/bitstreams/fa59d2ba-e48b-4f92-b581-ce5d3f4ac0d5/content

[@kirkwilson5905]

Excellent, thank you for that.

[@user-fy7ri8gu8l]

Is it true they've 'solved' the corrosion problems by mixing in a small percentage, like 0.2%, the Natrium with lithium?

[@dirtydish6642]

The phrase "reactor power follows steam demand" triggered anxiety stemming from countless Navy sub proficiency exams. My god, how long has it been, lol, apparently not long enough.

[@Kerem-uw2ov]

@@dirtydish6642in what point in the process of application that they have exams like this?

[@crabel99]

@@user-fy7ri8gu8l there are no corrosion issues. The sodium and the steel alloys all work well together. EBR-II which ran for 30-years could still see the machine marks when they drained the pool during decommissioning. Lead has significant corrosion issues.

[@chapter4travels]

You covered the thermal storage pretty well but left out some of the more interesting parts/advantages. Natrium is a low-pressure/high-temperature reactor, this is the most important aspect of this technology. Low-pressure means no expensive forgings and containment structures that high-pressure water reactors need. This saves a lot of money and improves safety at the same time. High-temperature allows for thermal storage but also separates the power conversion side of the plant from the nuclear side. All the equipment is off-the-shelf stuff that doesn't need to be nuclear certified. This saves a lot of money and allows you to start construction early, like you see in the thumbnail. You can't do this with a LWR. High-temperature along with fast neutrons means much higher efficiency and later waste burning. High-temperature also means cheap industrial process heat, something neither LWRs or renewables can provide. The demand for process heat is double that of electricity alone. This is a huge deal.

[@Deciheximal]

Thanks for the explanation!

[@bobthebomb1596]

Solar-thermal can provide process heat, but not solar PV.

[@chapter4travels]

@@bobthebomb1596 Industrial process heat is needed in manufacturing plants that run 24/7, not just a couple hours a day if it's not cloudy or winter.

[@hartmutholzgraefe]

The turbines and generators in a classic nuclear plant are also pretty conventional, the water from the primary cooling system never gets there, it transfers heat to the non-radioactive 2nd cooling circuit in a heat exchanger. Same with this plant, but the heat exchanger exchanges heat between molten salt and water to power the turbines.

[@bobthebomb1596]

@@chapter4travels I never said otherwise, but you stated that renewables cannot provide industrial process heat and that is wrong. Solar - thermal tends to be used in areas with plentiful sunlight (e.g. desert areas) and can be linked to molten salt storage just like the reactor described. Geothermal can also provide process heat.

[@michaeldiesner1078]

The windows joke, hahaha - you make my day Sabine! 😄

[@ryanb418]

I laughed so hard I inhaled my coffee

[@msromike123]

In the case of this reactor, low efficiency in certain scenarios still provides electricity with zero direct carbon emissions. The amazing thing to me is not the reactors themselves. It's why we haven't been building them for the past 20 years or so.

[@bartsanders1553]

Haven't you watched an HBO miniseries?

[@coupsdestylo]

greenpeace stopped it, but they were taken over by the oil money so no surprise

[@benhur2806]

@@bartsanders1553 That HBO miniseries, if anything, highlighted just how ridiculously you have to screw things up in order for a nuclear disaster to occur from a reactor...

[@noahwail2444]

Can´t be used to make bomb material.

[@bartsanders1553]

@@benhur2806 Half of my point. The other being people taking more cues from entertainment than from serious scientists.

[@connor43057]

"Slower with every use so I'm sure Gates is familiar with the problem" hahahahaha nice

[@lowcorrelation]

[ Laughs in IT ]

[@brainthesizeofplanet]

Probably same developers 😅

[@robertkirchner7981]

Never change, Sabine!

[@JZsBFF]

Windows "Chernobyl" 95 or was it 86?

[@scottcooper7586]

Too funny!

[@fiction8909]

The first rule of VPNs is that we never use the VPNs that spend all their money on advertising and which always turn up in the 10 best VPN lists while the best VPNs never appear because they haven't bribed anyone...

[@monsG165]

Well Acshullie. KZbinrs have to pay the bills man. Can’t be picky.

[@MyKharli]

@@monsG165 yes but vpn is a scam .

[@thebrowns5337]

The companies that host them literally also own the review website. It's a joke. Watch a Naomi whatever her name is video on them.

[@JohnAlbertRigali]

The independent VPN reviews that I’ve seen regard NordVPN as mediocre at best, and tend to favor Proton VPN or Rob Braxman’s VPN solution.

[@crokatron]

Okay then, what to use?

[@infini_ryu9461]

"Slower with every use. So I'm sure Gates is familiar with the problem." And they say Germans don't have a sense of humour... 😂

[@kennethralcock]

I literally spit out my coffee when she got to that part of the video. I work in information technology and make money on the side by refurbishing people slow computers ( basically setting it back to factory, reinstalling Windows, and removing all the bloatware). My God did she troll Bill Gates so hard! 😂

[@grantwithers]

So true it isn't even funny for me.

[@Punnikin1969]

The problem is that she didn't mention that he not only planned this slowdown on purpose but he also denied it. I can't wait to see how he manages issues with this reactor down the road.

[@chrisbraswell8864]

Isn't this the type of reactors they used in Russian submarines, that would kill the whole crew.

[@ponderingfox]

This was hilarious!

[@truerthanyouknow9456]

Nuclear Chill Pill sounds like a '90s cover band name.

[@JaneAustenAteMyCat]

Have you been watching Matt Rose? 🤣

[@joels7605]

Sounds like he's trying to put vaccines in our electrons!

[@daltonvanhorn5167]

Ned's Atomic Dustbin

[@VoiceTotheEndsOfTheEarth]

Sabine's sense of humor is absolutely wicked! Especially the knock on Gates' insufferably slow Windows on bootup at 3:29. She should have discussed what might happen if the power plant is running Windows in the control room and they get a blue screen of death....

[@Andreas-gh6is]

She is also recklessly optimistic about the logistics. If the company behind this plant says they'll go online 2030, don't expect anything before 2035. And they can't scale up the technology quickly, because for one thing they need to find cities and regions that are willing to host an unproven reactor - so that requires this one to be finished. And you can't build many of these in parallel, also because of infrastructure reasons and the small problem of having to invest a couple billion around ten years before the first power is produced. Nuclear power is not the future, it's too unwieldy.

[@Jimserac]

Or you can boot in ..."Safe Mode" and then it will tell you that even though you are the Administrator, you still can't delete some file. Not the wisest choice of operating system for any process control system.

[@ffsireallydontcare]

Personally I think Germany should be investigating energy produced by beer and sauerkraut. It's a renewable natural resource with explosive potential.

[@hamishfox]

The only issue is the methane emissions.

[@pontram]

Too many breakdowns with beer, too many gas leaks with sauerkraut. Germans currently prefer Kebab and Pizza.

[@jerbear7952]

We haven't done this joke enough yet?

[@ffsireallydontcare]

@@jerbear7952 Nope! It's timeless..

[@Sporting1210]

Both are results of a fermentation process, which needs no initial energy, so who knows. That said, the..uhm.."explosive" character of both is probably caused by the rather poor average diet (aka lack of >good< digestive microbes) of most people, who consume them, so you can only utilize it, if you keep feeding people more and more overly processed garbage and tons of starch+sugar, which then would "explode" your healthcare system at some point. Good idea if you believe in the concept of "endless growth" of our current economic system and there for see public health just as another possible source for profit, but in the long run not very sustainable.

[@mitchyoung93]

Im surprised the German word for sodium isn't Salzstoff.

[@geraldeichstaedt]

Because potassium chloride and copper sulphate are also salts.

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

This got a chuckle out of me.

[@Techmagus76]

following that logic Sauerstoff is used to make Sauerkraut and Stickstoff is the main component of sticks.

[@JorgetePanete]

I'm*

[@derimmerlugt3032]

@@Techmagus76 Sauerstoff/oxygen (oxy is Greek for acid) got its name because people assumed it was a necessary component of all acids and thus actually made things sour. Turns out that acids without oxygen exist and the one element all acids have in common is actually hydrogen, but the names still stuck.

[@ziggiLarsson]

UKAEA (Britain)and CEA(France) worked on and developed fast reactors in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s - up to 1250MW(e). They worked, up to a point. Big problem was the coolant itself. Sodium is so reactive with oxygen that, if there is a leak, or a rupture in the coolant loop, the thousands of tons in the case of Super Phenix/FR is one almighty bomb - which your local fire brigade will not be able to deal with. Maybe material science and welding have eliminated all defects in the intervening years, but as a technology, fast reactors carry big risks.

[@simonjohnson1]

That's why molten salt based fast reactors are the way ahead.

[@Mass-jab-death-2025]

Gates loves risks for others. He has injected most of the global population with experimental genetic material with no long term safety data. Why not install experimental radioactive bombs around the globe as well ?

[@runenorderhaug7646]

One thing I like about this video is that you are helping to break an issue I think has sadly affected media around science and tech solutions: that is if it connected even slightly indirectly to someone rich no matter how good of a solution it is; it is bad. Instead you are discussing the positives and negatives of it and giving more considering to it as a technology itself

[@RCAvhstape]

Sane people understand that a society needs its rich people, even the jerks like Gates, in order to finance art and technology and take risks on ideas like this.

[@user-fy7ri8gu8l]

We are in a populist era; it's cool to be dumb.

[@roidroid]

​@@RCAvhstape it can also be thought of as a side-effect of a society which underfunds such things, rich people become the only funding source left. It's especially sinister when U see rich people being the ones lobbying for those funding reductions in the first place - setting up the system how they want it 😑. I'm honestly not sure if Gates qualifies as this, I'd kinda doubt it since a lot of his interests (public health) have notably bad outcomes when private industries are in control, & he seems to be a pretty data oriented guy.

[@xyaeiounn]

The concern of the cynically minded is that the rich will use their power to get between us and any new advance with their hand out.

[@JamesTaylor-on9nz]

That's all true on paper, the problem is that modern western elites have a habit of doing the following: 1. Make up or even cause a crisis. 2. Create a surface-level solution that's too expensive, doesn't work, and breaks easily. 3. Market the absolute crap out of it so people actually think it's great. 4. ???. 5. Profit. Bonus: Make the government subsidize it so now taxpayers have to pay for the whole thing too. It's happened so many times that any time some billionaire comes up with something new, people immediately assume it's a gigantic scam of some sort.

[@perryallan3524]

1st a correction. While it is true that PWR light water plants use boron to assist in control of the reaction - they also have control rods. The 1st generation of PWR reactors were designed for load following and could handle quite the load swings (I have worked at 2 different 1st generation nuclear power plants). The controls for load following were still installed in the last plant I worked at in 2015 when I was downsized out. It was later determined that it was more effecient to operate PWR power plants in base load and I'd be surprised if more than a few of the 2nd generation plants were built with the capability to load follow and handle large swings. Thus the more modern plants cannot change power levels as fast as some of the older plants. As far as the Natruim Reactor. Personal opinion here. Its got a long road ahead and I am not yet convinced that it will ever operate. TerraPower does not yet have an approved reactor and plant design nor a construction license for it; much less an operating permit. The modern NRC process issues a combined "Construction and Operation License" (COL) at the same time which is the process that was used to build the Vogtle AP1000's - which still had horrible delays and cost overruns even when using an existing licensed reactor design. Based on news reports in the last 6 months I gather that they are actually planning to use the old process where they will build a plant and then hope that they can license it (a lot of plants in the 1980's-1990's in the USA failed badly with that process - or constructed plants had to be modified so extensively that construction cost blew up by $Billions). A number of plants were never completed and the utility investors and customers were often stuck with $Billions in losses. TerraPower is still in the "pre-license application" phase on the Natrium reactor - which will likely take another year or two to complete. That process is to identify to TerraPower all the factors that they have to address in an actual design license submittal - and to insure that Terra power has base programs and concepts that "in theory" could be approved as a nuclear power plant design. Once this process is complete TerraPower can prepare and submit a nuclear reactor and plant design for licensing by the NRC (which historically has taken a year+ to prepare after "pre-licensing" is complete. That normally takes about 3 years to approve a license once submitted. Also in every case that I am aware of the NRC required changes in the design once they started digging into the details during license review (the US NRC did license a number of different nuclear power plant designs - but only the AP1000 was built in the USA). So, I believe that it is very unlikely that the design TerraPower will submit will actually be licensed "as is." Design changes are bound to be needed. TerraPower has announced that they have started construction: That is likely for the staging buildings and is called "early site work" which involves road and the buildings necessary to warehouse parts and construction staff and shops, with provision for training facilities for the plant staff (engineers, maintenance, operators). All companies can do "early site work" without a nuclear construction license. TerraPower applied for a construction license on March 29, 2024 (3 months ago). I'm not sure how that is going to proceed as they do not have a licensed plant design. I guess it can proceed under the old rules; which does not guarantee that the plant will ever be license even if built as its designed. TerraPower claims the plant can be built in 3 years and it will be running in 2030. I doubt both of those claims. Even if they build the plant under the old rules (Build the plant first and then license its design) the licensing of the plant takes time. If the license process discovers a problem then its how much and how long will it take to modify the existing plant to meet requirements.... History tells us this often adds years to a nuclear power plant - and only some of the plants become licensed. TerraPower will not be able to get any nuclear fuel until the plant is licensed. IF they wait until they have a licensed design and a COL I would believe a 2034 -2036 plant online date. Also, the idea of stored energy from a baseloaded hear source (boiler or reactor) is not new. I worked out in the late 1980's how to baseload a brand new 350 MWe state of the art highly efficient coal fired power plant that I worked at back then before I transferred to nuclear power plants (instead of ramping it down at night) and using the steam to repower the older steam turbine-generators on the site - using a very huge well insulated steam storage tank). Too much efficiency loss to make it worthwhile. At an American Power Conference I found out a number of other Engineers had also done similar modeling for their plants Nothing new about the idea; and I question how effective and efficient it will be considering the cost to built it. Retired Fossil and Nuclear Power Plant Engineer

[@samheasmanwhite]

I think the molten salt lets you get a higher energy density, I wonder if that will be enough to combat losses? Not sure how much higher though unless there is a partial phase change or something, but even as a slurry any solids in the salt feels like it would cause a lot of challenges. I wonder if integration with pumped hydro would be better? Could maybe even run the pumping directly off the turbine with a gearbox if there is such thing as a clutch that works at turbine speeds. Sad to hear of the sorry state of regulation, that wouldn't be an issue if the US would just build it's own damn reactors but it seems they consider that communism or something and leave it all up to companies. I guess the TVA exists, but all of Washington has effectively vowed to never allow something like that to ever happen again and I'm not even sure how long that bit of the New Deal can even last in this political climate.

[@leonlowenstadter9223]

That answers one my thoughts. I was thinking that the major succes will be building a nuclear power plant in about five years, not the technology itself. In France and the UK have both a reactor under construction, both are more like 5 years behind schedule...

[@perryallan3524]

@@leonlowenstadter9223 Without looking at the exact current numbers - there are about 60 1GW sized nuclear power plants under construction in the world today. About 10 per year are completed. Worldwide - it takes about 6 years on average to build a 1GW sized nuclear power plant - and that's also by countries that are building to western standards. I've done a job for one of the Chinese AP1000 dual Unit plants that were built. I was totally impressed with how high of quality the plant was built to - the Chinese are not cutting any nuclear construction corners. What the other countries have (other than Western Europe and the USA) is that they have contractors and plant workers who are experienced in building a high quality nuclear power plant. Here in the USA and in Europe with the EPR we have forgotten how to build such plants (we can relearn by building more plants as the contractors involved have learned a lot of lessons - and will do better next time) - and as a result there have been very unusual delays. I note that China Built both 2 European EPRs and 4 AP1000 units - and while the 1st one took a bit longer; the remaining plants were constructed in essentially 6 years. Both Europe on the EPR and the US on the AP1000s had essentially a decade longer (without looking up the specifics).

[@karimelozno]

@@perryallan3524 I loved your comment. Do you have any links or additional information on this? Great science communicator, my friend. Greetings from Mexico.

[@perryallan3524]

@@karimelozno I am not a paid member of KZbin and I find that anytime I post a link that the post gets deleted instantly. For information on the Status of TerraPower with the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission - look up the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission and find the "new reactors" section. If you dig around the NRC site under new power reactors you can find all the previously licensed reactor designs under the new process and even find out how long those design reviews took to complete if you know were to find that information. It's also worthwhile in my opinion to look at the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission site and look under Reactors and find the vendor design review section. As for worldwide information: Do a search for World Nuclear Association... It provides a variety of information with comprehensive summary information. That gives you several great places to start.. I wish you well

[@parswarr]

I once worked at the Naughton Power plant. Having trees around anything in that area in the virtual visualization made me chuckle.

[@oadka]

why? security risk?

[@jeffjwatts]

@@oadka Wyoming.

[@isabellakhadka5723]

Hi Sabina, A few points: -please note that this reactor uses 20% enriched fuel. No? Enriching uranium is extremely expensive, proprietary, difficult, etc . . . -liquid sodium? Liquid salts? All of these are extreme measures, with unproven technologies. . . - why not go with a gentle proven technology like the CANDU reactor that uses unenriched uranium, with heavy water ( D2O) as a moderator. No high pressure is generated and the reactor has the added advantage of being able to refuel while online. -The CANDU is a simple and elegant technology that does not use any extreme measures. These reactors have been operating and generating power for the grid in Canada for more than 40 years. -The CANDU technology is available and since most of the patent have probably run out by now . . . These reactors can be can be online safely and cheaply in a very short time. No extreme measures, this is a workhorse technology. -please do a show on the CANDU reactors, newcomers to nuclear energy need to be aware of the alternatives and that not everything related to nuclear energy it is difficult and dangerous and new PS I am your fan. Thank you for the channel.

[@chrisjohns38]

IT ABSOLUTELY ASTOUNDS ME THAT CANDU ARE NOT MORE PROLIFIC! Probably the US pressuring Canada since you could use natural U to make weapons grade metal. That canada is considering other technologies is amazing as well. They'd best not subsidize a PWR or BWR with tax dollars on account of the fact that canadians already paid for the development of CANDU.

[@isabellakhadka5723]

Yes. It is appalling that Canada is even considering another technology and buying so highly enriched fuel.

[@jeffreyormichelle1261]

Liquid salt reactors are decades old. Believe it or not, stuff did happen before you were born. Do your research.

[@paulwilliamson2370]

The CANDU is a good reactor design. Fuel costs are lower and after about 40 years the pressure tubes in the reactor can replaced then the station run for another 40 years. On the downside the initial cost is higher because of the cost of heavy water.

[@shahid3520]

Even gentler is solar power with thermal storage using sand , why not use it instead ?

[@OrenTirosh]

Fast reactors do not necessarily use more highly enriched fuel, but they do need a much larger amount of fuel. They do not consume more fuel. They need this larger inventory to be able to start.

[@johnarnold893]

so you're correcting a nuclear physicist?

[@OrenTirosh]

@@johnarnold893 she will readily admit that she is not a nuclear engineer. I am not one, either, but I play one on tv.

[@derekp2674]

That depends on what you mean by "more". Most civil thermal reactors use maximum enrichments of up to 5wt% U-235 in total U. Fast reactors need to use a greater enrichment than that.

[@skipperg4436]

@@johnarnold893 you can have fast reactor with ZERO U235 in it. Just depleted uranium and "reactor-grade" plutonium. Like Rosatom did recently (less than a year ago). Physics of this is common knowledge since 1950-ies. You need higher percentage of fuel being plutonium (~20%, the rest being depleted uranium) for fast reactor than for traditional water moderated ones (~5% of U235 for light water reactor and natural uranium for heavy water ones, e.g. CANDU).

[@samheasmanwhite]

I think you might have that backwards, most fast reactors use highly enriched fuel, on the low end of weapons-grade. This design says it uses a lower enrichment than most of them, but is still far higher than thermal reactors. I think the efficiency is a bit higher for fast neutron reactions? It's only a lot higher if they are operated as a breeder though, and I don't think I've heard about that here.

[@AAblade7]

A Commercial Nuclear Reactor’s inability to ramp up and down is more of a natural limit instead of a design flaw. Inherent Negative reactivity is producing Fission product poisons like Xenon. It normally takes more than a day for Xenon being produced vs Xenon being burned out to equalize. In addition as the operator is constantly making reactivity adjustments to stabilize power while Xenon equalizes he also has to make adjustments to where in the core the fission is happening. Unequalized Xenon can shift where the majority of fission is happening in the core and it if shifts to much you can get localized hot spots. Basically a tiny portion of core is melting down due to unequal distribution of cooling and reactivity control. First of Sodium MSR’s tend to leak and any leak will result in a fire. Secondly the fuel will have to be enriched with U-235 at double to 10 times the level current fuel is used in PWRs and BWRs. Which means double to 10 times the fuel costs. Third the stored energy volume while cool will cause reactivity change issues due to basic HX thermodynamics. So lets you’ve been using the stored energy volume to raise your power production. The main reason the Steam Generator is producing more steam is due to the raise in flow of the Molten Sodium. This will have a higher exit temp of the Molten Sodium leaving the Steam generator due to the decrease time it was in the heat exchanger. So when you switch to restoring your reserves your reduce flow and the exit temp is now much lower due to it having more time in the HX. This means that the coolant entering the Core will now be cooler which raises reactivity and the Operator will have to make adjustments. So swapping from Max production to storage to steady state isn’t a simple thing. More to the point you could see an even higher cost of fuel based on structural designs that may be needed to handle large swings in Rx cold leg temperature.

[@hartmutholzgraefe]

I was missing Xenon poisoning being mentioned as the other reason for not being able to change the load too quickly, and especially for not being able to shut down a classic reactor and then restart it immediately without a wait time in the order of magnitude of a day+

[@chrisjohns38]

Xenon burnout is only and issue if you shutdown completely. See how load following works by googling "Technical and Economic Aspects of Load Following with Nuclear Power Plants." Note that Germany is used as an example in that paper with actual % power swings shown on a typical day. Works just fine.

[@Andreas-gh6is]

Isn't it great to invest a couple billion dollars/euros into a single plant that you have to shutdown entirely if anything goes remotely wrong or just for maintenance? That's another reason nuclear power is not the future. Too many eggs in one radioactive basket.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

I worked on thermoelectric properties of molten sodium for the Kalkar nuclear reactor in 1975... 50 years later.. actually global warming is bloody fast , but not a breeder😂

[@Thomas-gk42]

Yes, The Kalkar disaster was the begining of Germany´s way out of nuclear power. Not many people remember that anymore.

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

@@Thomas-gk42 societie's memory time constant matches that of Tritium

[@Mentaculus42]

@@carlbrenninkmeijer8925 I really like that analogy, but possibly too esoteric.

[@ben_sch]

@@Mentaculus42 I had to look up what constant time is and what it is for Tritium = 12 years. It's the half time Pretty spot on but yeah definitely esoteric

[@spankeyfish]

How does pure sodium compare to NaK in this role?

[@artirm1979]

There are commercially successful fast sodium reactors, that have been operating for decades with no issues. The technology is being actively developed and is a key piece in the energy plan. Just on the other side of the iron curtain.... Wish there was more cooperation on this planet 😞

[@JNWoodworks]

I love your explanations, they have enough detail to satisfy an engineer. I also appreciate your subtle humor 🙂

[@jeremygraves3296]

Sabine, just wanted to say that I'm so grateful for you channel. You're doing a real public service. Thank you!

[@clivedavis6859]

Another advantage of sodium is that it is a metal and can thus be pumped around the circuit with no moving, parts. It uses an electric current induced in it by a moving magnetic field, working like an electric induction motor. Check out sodium liquid metal pumps.

[@RobertJWaid]

The foot print of the plant, thus named micro-plant, is a nice selling point versus other forms of energy creation.

[@johnmcelholum4203]

But they haven't said what it's really going to cost. All nuclear Power plants especially in America have cost overruns over 100%

[@Mass-jab-death-2025]

Yes let’s put one In Chernobyl and Fukushima. Oh wait those places will not be suitable for human occupation for the next 10,000 years . If only we could install something to make the rest of the planet like this . I’m sure Gates will find a way.

[@jesterlead]

Also, a significant amount of free Hydrogen is produced which can be sold on the industrial front. Otherwise, you're cracking methane to get that as an industrial gas. Always been a mystery why we don't have more MSR's, safer, a lot more flexible, lots of 'free' hydrogen along the way, cheaper to construct, etc.....

[@scribblescrabble3185]

I don't think the MSRs (should) get hot enough for the pyrolysis of water.

[@oskariKN25]

@@scribblescrabble3185 the heat isn't the issue, the pressure is, when pressure builds up in closed system and is let out it causes an explosion. nuclear reactors do not explode, the water inside them does. this reactor is supposed to be low pressure high heat reactor. preventing the issue and costs in maintaining and building high pressure resistant parts.

[@leonlowenstadter9223]

As fas as I know, the molten salt is the issue as it is super-corrosive. If I understood it right, this plant combines and "old" type of reactor with a molten salt storage. The molten salt pipes and containers does not get in touch with the core radioactive parts so a replacement is probably far quicker, easier and cheaper.

[@chrisbraswell8864]

We could be cracking Hydrogen at every Power plant in the USA during non peak hours, Nuclear plants would not need rapid cooling during non peak hours and Dams could run at full capacity all the time if the water is available. This is a now project that goes undone.

[@area51z63]

Hydrogen has no value on the industrial front.

[@athanatic]

Of all the video explanation of sodium-cooled reactors I have seen yours is the only that explained the relatively small cross-section of is very small. That is pretty key to knowing why all these people go on and on about the coolant beyond its heat-carrying capacity! Was the Windows comment a dig at Gates? I hope the reactor plants don't get software-update encumbered!

[@JamesLamb]

Windows. 😂 I finally took the plunge and saved two old computers with Ubuntu. It was easier than I expected.

[@edsnotgod]

@JamesLamb I now have several computers "too old for Windows 11" running both Ubuntu and Win7 and 10 if I absolutely need to use a Win app

[@Apollo-p1l]

Oh really? Yawn.........

[@altpotus6913]

I have a couple of laptops that run Ubuntu.

[@jefftysoutube]

How old? May have been better to chuck the PCs for a RPi5 or even a newer more efficient x86 SBC that run linux

[@edsnotgod]

@jefftysoutube the fact is that computers that Microsoft Update declares unfit for Win11 still run just fine with Ubuntu

[@Nathan-vt1jz]

I’m just glad someone is putting more focus on nuclear power. Advances in nuclear and battery tech are the most important for energy production.

[@SimoniousB]

In Australia, the conservative party is proposing old nuclear paid for by the taxpayer - walking backwards into the future.

[@scribblescrabble3185]

@@SimoniousB Australia's politicians don't really do politics for the general population, I feel.

[@Goodnessgraciousplea]

​@@scribblescrabble3185correct

[@greebj]

Both our parties are slaves to their corporate and property developer donor overlords ALP differs only by adding donors from what's left of trade unions into the mix

[@dominikvonlavante6113]

The problem with nuclear power is regulatory and within the nuclear codes and standards. They have reached a dead-end and actually need a legislative reform. Until that happens, nuclear power is dead.

[@Ikedawg43]

Plutonium is the easiest component of nuclear waste to recycle; half of a current PWR’s output comes from fissioning plutonium, and MOX fuels are a thing. They’re just not done in the US due to cost and regulations. It’s the actinides beyond Pu in the waste that are most difficult, and would be valuable to be burnt in a fast reactor.

[@geraldeichstaedt]

Plutonium is also not easy since you have to enrich isotopes, as well, or you require very short cycles to avoid the build-up of the "wrong" isotopes.

[@skipperg4436]

Cost is not an issue: e.g. France is extracting plutonium from Japaneese spent fuel and sell fuel rods made of that plutonium back to Japaneese for profit. Anti-nuclear "regulations" are.

[@geraldeichstaedt]

@@skipperg4436 The fuels isn't the expensive part of a nuclear power plant, yet. It's the actually unmanageable risk.

[@skipperg4436]

@@geraldeichstaedt Wrong, that's only for weapon-grade plutonium. Fast reactor used in power plant is absolutely happy with "reactor-grade plutonium" which is a mix of Pu-239, 240 and others. It will also happily "burn" other transuranic isotopes. If you are asking about weapons, you can't make one from "reactor-grade" plutonium. But even if you could, first, attacking a plant doing reprocessing would be a suicide, and second, its not the plutonium - its making the implosion device out of it which is the hard part. I recommend reading some book about Manhattan project and what challenges they had to deal with. I was commenting specifically to dispel myth of it being expensive. But since you asked...

[@geraldeichstaedt]

@@skipperg4436 By far the most nuclear power plants use thermal reactors. They aren't quite as susceptible to Pu-240 like weapons that tend to fizzle due to spontaneous decay of Pu-240 accompanied by the release of neutrons, but nevertheless MOX with too much of isotope Pu-240 is unsuitable for thermal reactors. You are right with fast reactors. But they are hard to control and of a high risk, anyway.

[@goncalocabrita7124]

Great video! One thing that generally astonishes me when it comes to generating electricity in most situations (thermal, nuclear) is that we are always getting energy... to heat up water!!! What about harnessing the energy directly from the heat directly to produce energy? Why not use thermoelectric generators (Seebeck generators)? I definitely am not an expert, but I would love to understand why we haven't moved from a boiling water technology yet...

[@mrspeigle1]

It's a matter of efficiency at scale.

[@oadka]

Seebeck effect has maybe 1/3rd the efficiency of a superheated rankhine cycle and costs waay too much at that scale.

[@goncalocabrita7124]

@@oadka thanks for the insight. But is this a theoretical limitation or is there room for improvement?

[@jeffhays1968]

Liquid salt self contained modular reactors make much more sense than fusion at this point.

[@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish]

Love that it's still basically a steam engine.

[@JaneAustenAteMyCat]

💚

[@jameshart2622]

Always have been.

[@Aureonw]

Our only hope to get outside of the steam engine design is with nuclear fusion reactors producing energy outright XD (I remember seeing some news they could try to do it) and technically every source of energy kinda uses water lulz

[@fakestory1753]

this is due to steam engine being good at its job it does 90% energy conversion with its input and output but quite a lot efficiency is lost when you mix hot steam into lower temperature like 500 degrees in order to get higher efficiency for a heat engine, your blade/piston/whatever mechanism must withstand and high temperature, also withstand high stress if you want a good power output our heat efficiency simply limited by our material, this is why stirling engine or tesla turbine will not help in here, because they don't reduce the material abuse by their design

[@Aureonw]

@@fakestory1753 True, steam turbines at best have 43% or near 40% efficiency at max when under load right?, tesla turbines have been made to be better but they choke up on loads too so all that theorized efficiency goes down the drain and it becomes even worse than a regular turbine

[@drewkoenen8334]

You still have nuclear waste! Doh!

[@palladin9479]

Ahh she skipped the best part this has over pressured water reactors, that it's using molten salts and is a type of Molten Salt Reactor (MSR). This also makes it one of the few Generation IV reactors that as passively safe and orders of magnitude more efficient then existing PBWR's. Being a MSR there is no high pressure steam near the reactor itself, no way for pressure to build up and explode, no hydrogen outgassing from water means no hydrogen explosions. Just overall much safer.

[@4Nanook]

The problem with liquid sodium cooled plants is they leak, and when sodium meets air or water, it burns, or produces hydrogen which explodes, not a good thing in a nuclear environment. A salt cooled reactor is much better in this respect and retains pretty much all the same advantages of sodium cooled reactors. I am happy to see fast reactors coming online though, we need to fission not store the long term actinide waste so it becomes short term fission products plus energy.

[@thisisyourcaptainspeaking2259]

Use a calibrated leak and adjust accordingly.

[@chrisjohns38]

that's why they need that costly containment system not shown in their cartoons!

[@relefg]

I thought that after Chernobyl, mankind should have learned, that flamable material inside a nuclear reactor is generally a bad idea. So let's make one of the main ingredient of the latest reactor generation a substance, that is not only highly flamable, but ignites spontaneously when in contact with oxygen and even explodes when in contact with water. 🤔 But hey, what do we expect from the guy that brought us MS Windows?

[@dmitryvodolazsky]

@@relefg *>flamable material inside a nuclear reactor is generally a bad idea* In any case, external contacts or leaks of coolant (= radioactively contaminated material) must be strictly excluded. Hot corrosive water under crazy pressure is much more unfriendly to attempts to prevent leaks than sodium.

[@richray4893]

You may want to check out the book "The Day We Almost Lost Detroit" about the Fermi reactor in Monroe Mich. That was a sodium moderated breeder reactor...similar to this.... I recall when touring the plant long ago, the same concern about using sodium from several engineers who were touring with the group.

[@metsfanal]

"if all goes according to plan, should be ready by 2030." Well it's a nuclear plant so that means 2040 and almost twice the price they promised, if it even gets completed at all. Why not build a thorium reactor that the internet's been talking about for twenty years?

[@johnbrobston1334]

A thorium reactor has the same issues as any other nuclear reactor, the greenies will be out in droves. There's nothing magic about thorium, it just gets bred into plutonium just like any other breeder reactor.

[@a.karley4672]

Because the experience base with thorium reactors is even smaller than that for sodium-cooled reactors. "Talking about on the internet" is not actual operating experience.

[@jomukuk1950]

@@a.karley4672 China has plans for a thorium-fuelled reactor, molten salt[s] cooling.fuel carrier

[@a.karley4672]

@@jomukuk1950 Plans are less important than construction and operating of one, to discover if they are anything like as useful as theorised. At least China doesn't have to worry much about PR in implementing a sustainable (for a few centuries) energy policy.

[@floydseyler7635]

Clinch River was a Sodium cooled reactor that was to be built on the Clinch river in Tennessee (TVA). Federal Funds ran out and it was only partially built. This isn't anything new. HtGR's are Helium cooled, SP100 Space reactor was Lithium cooed. The LMFBR or breeder reactors that are Na cooled make Plutonium. With electricity as a byproduct of the reaction. So the byproduct of this reactor is hot sault and Plutonium. I am sure that most of the technology was derived from GE Advanced Nuclear in Sunnyvale California in the 70s.

[@geekswithfeet9137]

biggest problem with ramping traditional reactors is managing delayed neutrons and neutron poisons. Without a good intuition or modelling an operator can easily end up in a state of local hot spots or even prompt criticality. PWR's are safest at constant load.

[@tomkrehbiel]

Delayed neutrons are a problem for all solid core reactors that limit their ability to respond to changes in load. Liquid core reactors can be designed to automatically follow changes in load (i.e. no control system or human interaction required).

[@MervynPartin]

I would like to point out that without the delayed neutrons that are emitted at some time after the initial stage of the fission process, the safe control of a reactor would not be possible. Prompt criticalities are not very nice. The Xenon poisoning spike following a reactor trip did make an immediate start-up difficult, so load reduction could not be too fast or to a very low power, but then, after spending billions on a reactor, you would want it to run at full power as much as possible.

[@tomkrehbiel]

@@MervynPartin Prompt criticality can be avoided in the mechanical design of the reactor. Negative reactive feedback can be accomplished in the thermal design. Educational reactors (i.e. triga reactors) can be run by students with little training. These reactors are design to go prompt critical and recover without any human intervention.

[@guytech7310]

@@tomkrehbiel This reactor uses solid fuel pellets, just like LWR or previos Sodium Fast reactors. Its doomed as Sodium cooled reactors are not economically feasible. Liquid fuel reactors (really just Molten Salt) still have neutron poison issues. Fast reactors will produce Cs133, Eu155,Cd113, Sm161, if I recall correctly. You still have to reprocess the fuel to remove the solid N. poisions.

[@kennethferland5579]

The 'Iodine Pit' is what it's called. If you Ramp Down you will have left behind burnable poisons which then make your ramp back up VERY DANGEROUS. This is the root cause of the Chynobyl disaster as the juiced the reactor to burn off poisons and overshot. This is why Nuclear powerplants don't want to Ramp up EVER, it is inherently the most dangerous thing they can do. Ideally you only Ramp down and up for a Refueling and you take days to do it.

[@antonnurwald5700]

Hey, i recently learned that Wyoming is also building massive numbers of wind turbines, more than they need, and will sell the excess energy to California. Way to go Wyoming! Someone got their energy economics right.

[@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895]

Lol. Ignorance is bliss

[@SimonHough-p5k]

Pleased to see you again Sabine have missed your explanation of things. You explain things so I can understand thank you.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

Most important to me is the state of the steam entering the turbine as this relates to the efficiency. Present water reactors produce steam at about 300°C whereas boilers fired with fossil fuels may have 600°C hot steam temperature, which gives a much better efficiency.

[@leonlowenstadter9223]

As you can't burn fossile fuel without releasing its CO2, their higher efficiency is overcompensated.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@leonlowenstadter9223 It becomes a problem to get cooling water for Gigawatts of lost energy. In some hot and dry summers, the Italian fossil-fired power stations had to be switched off because of heating the Po River too much. So the low efficiency of present nuclear power stations becomes problematic too.

[@leonlowenstadter9223]

@@gottfriedheumesser1994 In France they had to either slow down or switch off nuclear power plants in 2022, too - for the same reason. Today, one would probably combine power and heat usage - but usually nuclear power plants are usually build quite far away from living areas so that may need some infrastructure to be build.

[@gottfriedheumesser1994]

@@leonlowenstadter9223 The problem is that in summer there is little demand for remote heat. So this would not help. Sadly we cannot store the heat for the winter.

[@richardbaird1452]

The outlet temp of the Natrium reactor discussed in this vid at full power is in the 500-540°C range. That is used to heat the molten salt. Haven't seen anything published on the steam temp yet, but it is likely to be higher than current reactors, closer to fossil temps.

[@OMCPoker]

I recall, some years ago, that molten salt was highly corrosive. Again, I recall, a pilot plant that had to shut down due to this issue. I need to look this up.

[@grindupBaker]

Also an issue with condensed solar power

[@guytech7310]

Yes, But this is a molten Sodium metal reactor, not an MSR. That said both designes have major problems.

[@williewonka6694]

correct, corrosion is the number one problem, right next to the water-sodium issue.

[@timothyblazer1749]

Corrosion isn't an issue anymore, with modern ceramics and composites, even at these temperatures. FSMSRs are old tech, and have been forbidden to be researched for decades. One wonders what changed, and why Gates is allowed to build a pilot plant.

[@TristanMorrow]

Precision machining of exotic materials for components has increased 10×-ish in both speed and precision, resulting in better-if-not-cheaper components. (Additive mfg unlikey to be used in this case)

[@diogovalada1522]

Dear Sabine, You have a couple innacuracies in this video 1) "Fast reactors use fuel that is more enriched in radioactive compounds". This is not what enrichment means. U-238 and U-235 are both radioactive. When we say that fast reactors use higher enrichment, it means that the fraction of fissile isotopes (U-235, or Pu-239) in the fuel is bigger. 2) "Newer types of fission reactors have control rods [...]" Control rods are not a new feature of nuclear reactors. Most nuclear reactors, even RBMKs (such as the ones in Chernobyl) use it. In fact, they are the startup/shutdown method of most reactors in existence. Boric acid is also used, but it is more for fine-grained adjustments, including for those related to the fuel burn over time (which reduces reactivity). Regulating the concentration of boric acid helps keep reactivity constant even while the burning of the fuel proceeds.

[@I.M.A.Panther3619]

So do YOU have a channel full of all your vast knowledge we could watch and be enlightened by ?

[@diogovalada1522]

@@I.M.A.Panther3619 No, not yet :P Don't understand why the sarcasm however. Isnt it good to point out the innacuracies, so they are not repeated? You can confirm what I said here en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enrichment en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressurized_water_reactor

[@MultiRRR123]

Come on with the Nord VPN ad hyperbole... "Ultra secure" and "no one can spy on your data" is a stretch. Sure you can keep apps and websites from knowing your location, but VPNs don't make anything any more safe

[@garrickhanson]

Are you familiar with an activity called "advertising"? I, for one, am willing to put up with these types of ads if it means that Sabine can keep making videos.

[@VikingTeddy]

She doesn't choose the pitch. Sponsors usually want you to follow a script. If you have a problem with it, you'll have to take it up with the company.

[@antonnurwald5700]

​@@VikingTeddyweeeelll, i see different levels of hyperbole among youtubers, some are very careful.

[@syrus3k]

Correct because pretty much all websites use Https now because it's no longer 2001

[@WatHat-kw8zb]

ProtonVPN does. Which is why you never hear commercials for it.

[@mikedebear]

The siting of the reactor is interesting- Wyoming understands that it's huge coal reserves are politically unpopular and likely to be sanctioned in the future. With abundant electricity and/or heat, you can refine coal into liquid petroleum products. Those aren't going anywhere soon, so this is a pretty savvy move for Wyoming.

[@-_James_-]

I'm sure it has just as much to do with the fact all US-based multi-millionaires and billionaires have ranches/homes in Wyoming and they're looking to ensure their future power requirements are met when the world goes to shit. (Or maybe I'm just too cynical these days?)

[@CarlosOddone-z6k]

Germany was doing it during 2nd War, very polluting business.

[@a11424]

this is because the old coal generation plants still have the high voltage wires running to the network.

[@Mass-jab-death-2025]

Yes Wyoming can be the the Chernobyl of the West. Very savvy !

[@vne5195]

This reminds me of the Monju fast-breeder reactor from Japan. After decades plagued with sodium leaks, nuclear contamination and cover-ups, the public became very fearful of this project. It was eventually canceled after a monumental amount of resources yielded nothing in the way of significant power generation. Now it's all dead except for the decommissioning and decontamination. Luckily, in America, we have people like Bill Gates who we can trust to be transparent and benevolent when promoting such projects. Right?

[@tban4122]

How are they solving the corrosion issues with molten salt for long term usage

[@wetbadger2]

This problem has apparently been solved. Gates has talked about the corrosion problem.

[@MegaJohny777]

This is in fact the key question. But maybe it is almost solved?

[@chrisjohns38]

@@MegaJohny777 not really. they will use the usual (60%NaNO3-40%kNO or Dow HitTec?) salt, which is nasty at higher temperatures. Stainless steel doesn't work well enough, last I saw.

[@davewitter6565]

Wyoming has a state population of 570,000 a 10th the size of a good sized city. There are coal mines big enough to see from Commercial Airlines. There is an abundant of wind. Wyoming has the potential to produce more power than Hoover and Grand Coulee combined.

[@Nphen]

Probably there for a pilot program perhaps due to lack of a local ignorant population who will protest and cities who have the budget to tie it up in court. Liberals need to listen to science nerds and trust that nuclear power deserves investment & regulatory easing.

[@Lutherson1962]

Windmills in Trumpistan???

[@playedout148]

Why do you love pollution?

[@stephenlangsl67]

China has been working on a commercial Thorium reactor and, from what I understand, is very close to becoming a start up business. A commercial Thorium reactor could go online and officially start up sometime next year.

[@cerad7304]

Navy Nuclear Pressurized Water reactors routinely go from say 15% to 100% within a minute or two. So you could designed commercial reactors with better response to load changes if you wanted to. I would like to see a follow up video on the engineering difficulties of dealing with large amounts of liquid sodium. There are reason why these sorts of reactors are not widespread. But at least they are not pretending to build a fusion plant.

[@sillyking1991]

while this is true, those reactors are also fairly inefficient overall. thats kinda the point she was making. in order to improve the speed of ramping you lose out on efficiency.

[@THX..1138]

The Navy's reactors are tiny compared to reactors powering the grid. So they have lot less mass to carry heat thus they are much faster to ramp up and down. The Navy also isn't too concerned with reactor efficiency. All the same Natrium's reactor appears to be pretty small too. You have to wonder how fast a conventional reactor of around 345 megawatts could throttle output with out the need for giant tanks of irradiated sodium.

[@solconcordia4315]

France has been operating many sodium-cooled reactors for at least decades already. Some of them are nearing their end-of-life decommissioning. It's why I'm very interested to know about France's experience.

[@derekgarvin6449]

naval reactors use a negative coefficient for reactivity which never shows up in civilian uses. As steam is used to increase power, it cools the reactor coolant and in turn, causes output to increase due to increased efficiency therrmalizing neutrons.

[@williewonka6694]

The fissionsble enrichment of naval reactors is FAR beyond that permitted for commercial use. That's the reason rate of power change is limited. I doubt it will ever be politically viable to license plants that can go "boom"

[@MrKallemyran]

ha ha.. love the self-distance in "who needs reliable energy sources when you've got lederhosen and beer"

[@RelakS__]

Let's not forget about the sauerkraut in the lederhosen 😅

[@02Lemonhead]

@@RelakS__ And Kraftwerk, ofcourse.

[@higherresolution4490]

We should have been using thorium reactors a long time ago. One of the best reasons to use it is to get off of the grid and make ourselves far less vulnerable. Thorium reactors can economically be scaled down to Neighborhood size.

[@HiReeZin]

This extra heat storage doesn't change the fundamental technical challenges of sodium reactors. A Big Deal would be the first viable construction of one.

[@chrisjohns38]

Correct. A solid fueled fast reactor only makes sense if it’s licensed and built in conjunction with reprocessing on site. Even then, existing water cooled reactors are far more cost effective. And the huge energy stored in that huge pool of sodium needs a real close look for protecting against uncontrolled distribution of fission products during a design basis accident.

[@a.karley4672]

Your big deal happened in, IIRC, 1958 or 59, at Dounereay on the north coast of Scotland. The decommissioning is going on as we speak. No, it wasn't a "commercial" reactor, but an experimental one. But it proved molten sodium as a HTLP coolant, and what problems it did have weren't related to the sodium _per se_. (I think they actually used a sodium-potassium mix, to lower the operating temperature a few hundred Kelvin, but there are other ways to do that.)

[@chrisjohns38]

@@a.karley4672 ​​⁠well, not viable, from the perspective of stepping up to a commercial design on account of the difficulty of demonstrating the expected margin of assurance against the release of radioisotopes. Sodium=stored energy

[@Peaceforall1892-x5z]

Solar wind and battery can be built for millions and take years to finish, Nuclear Power takes billions of dollars and requires decades. Then the nuclear plant will run around 30 years (which is typical) and you have a high level spent fuel problem that needs to be buried for 10,000 years. However, the DOE hasn't approved transport routes, transport casks, or a national repository after 60 years of trying. No one is willing to expend the political capital to get this done. The result is we have 92 nuclear power stations with high level spent fuel "temporarily" stored in their backyards.

[@NealX_Gaming]

3:05 missed opportunity to say "not great, not terrible"

[@SteveNaranjo]

At 3:05 if Sabine would have said "Not great not terrible" my mind would have exploited🤯🤯🤣🤣🤣

[@HuyV]

How did they manage to Trademark "Natrium"??? Can they sue every producer of Chemistry books in Germany now?

[@esecallum]

$$$

[@ericmoore9952]

Well trademarks are limited to a particular business. Do it's just trademarked for nuclear reactors.

[@robertscoville]

I wish you made another video that explained all this in a way a layman could understand. The technical jargon had my head spinning.

[@lgolem09l]

I'd love a scientific breakdown about how vpns make browsing safer

[@asdfqwerty14587]

There's not really much to say about it. Essentially, there are 2 parts to this - without a VPN, there are 2 main considerations. First, anyone along the connection can potentially intercept your message. If you're doing anything that matters, this message should be encrypted so they can't really determine a lot about the message (without a truly excessive amount of effort anyway), but they can still determine where it's being sent to (ie. what website you're visiting) and a few other pieces of information like how big the message is. The other part of it is that the website you're sending it to knows where the message came from (and of course knows everything about the message because they're the recipient of the message and they couldn't possibly function otherwise). If you have a VPN, then what changes is that when people intercept your message, they can only determine that it's being sent to the VPN (or if they intercept it after it's gone through the VPN they know the message came from the VPN and where the message is going but not where the message came from before it reached the VPN), so people (other than the VPN company) can't determine where your requests are being sent to. Also, the website that you're actually connecting to at the end does not know where the message is coming from (other than that it's coming from the VPN, but it could be anyone on the other side of the VPN). The VPN also doesn't know what your message is, so this also means that nobody other than yourself knows both what your message was and where it came from at the same time (unless the website and the VPN were both sharing their information, which wouldn't normally happen but could happen in criminal investigations). Really it's much more in the realm of cryptography than science though - a VPN isn't really doing anything scientifically interesting, all it's really doing is acting as a middleman, ie. you send your message to the VPN, the VPN passes that message to the website, the website sends the response to the VPN, and the VPN passes the response back to you. That's all a VPN really does.

[@entelin]

I know you're joking, but for others benefit, they obviously don't. From a privacy perspective the government has taps in all the isp's, cloud providers and major online services, and definitely the vpn providers as well. From a safety perspective, endpoint protection with browser integration is what you want, sentinelone or bitdefender are the top big two. The VPN services you see advertised all over the place are really only good for one thing; circumventing media region limitations.

[@peterfischer2039]

If you are in a country where it is illegal to search for certain things, then a VPN hides from your ISP what you are searching for. So your government will have to ask for that data from the VPN provider instead of from your ISP. Everything else is not really what a VPN does and is mostly a gimmick if your VPN offers that.

[@phiality9070]

Here's the catch, they dont. You just move the privacy issue one step down the line.

[@rockets4kids]

What you're going to get here is a breakdown of how VPNs can be used as an additional vector to capture your personal data.

[@anonanon6596]

3:15 Thia image is how people look to me when I have a panic attack.

[@hamishfox]

Same. The human brain is a bizarre thing.

[@blackshard641]

Omg, I thought just my brain did this.

[@JaneAustenAteMyCat]

Like Margaret Thatcher? That must be terrifying

[@anonanon6596]

@@JaneAustenAteMyCat Like the proportions are all wrong. Especially the head.

[@robertwilkinson7014]

That was a great explanation. Really well done. Thanks

[@kellyrobinson1780]

I THOUGHT Eutectic salts were involved. I worked on a project at a little "Mom and Pop" R&D outfit in the '80s. Plastic containers containing Eutectic salts, irregularly shaped to provide lots of surface area and accommodate surrounding airflow, were stacked outside a house. The melting/freezing points were engineered such a that the salts would phase change at certain temperatures. For heating at night, during the day certain salts would absorb heat, and melt. At night, cold air would be blown across the containers of molten salts.The salts would phase change to solid, and the circulating air would carry the released heat it had picked up from the phase change into the house for warmth. During the day, warm air would be directed across the containers. The salts melted, absorbing heat from the air, and the cooled air would in turn cool the house. It worked in principle, but the salts would "wear out"; chemically break down over the course of many cycles. If I remember correctly, the salts broke down too soon for the process to be commercially viable. The expense of replacing the salts periodically was greater than the cost of conventional heating and air conditioning. Had the salts been more robust, the system might have worked. This is the first time since then that I have heard about these kinds of salts being used at scale for energy storage and transfer. I can only guess that new methods have been developed to enhance the working life of the salts.

[@chrisjohns38]

@@kellyrobinson1780 yes, Hitec I think, for storage.

[@Nphen]

Interesting that the salts broke down over time and became useless. Would be great to see the chemistry behind that. I would imagine a reaction was happening if they were exposed to open air. It could have been oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, or even local air pollution interacting chemically with the salts. The storage salts for these reactors will be in sealed containers. I'd imagine salt stabilization is also part of the R&D time & expense.

[@a.karley4672]

@@Nphen My bet would be on the salts absorbing moisture from the air. That is present at percent (w/w) levels, while the CO2, and hopefully "pollution" should be down in the parts per million (500ppm CO2 = 0.0005%).

[@richardbaird1452]

The plan is to use nitrate molten salts similar to concentrated thermal solar, which don't go through phase changes and are stable for long timeframes.

[@kellyrobinson1780]

@@Nphen The containers for these salts were also sealed. Supposedly, there was no direct contact with atmosphere.

[@FelipeRodrigues-yo1el]

funny ozempic moment at 3:14

[@DARKEMERALDFLAME]

Gates has infinitely more gravitas for something like this than Musk. Let's get real power back into the hands of normal people.

[@philochristos]

You don't raise the power output of a pressurized water reactor by raising the control rods. You do it by opening the steam values, increasing steam demand. When you increase steam demand, that cools the steam generator. The cooler water going back to the reactor is more dense. That increase in density slows down more fast neutrons, enabling those neutrons to be absorbed by the Uranium, leading to more reactions. The increase in reactions causes the output water in the primary system to be hotter, and it goes to the steam generator, ,etc. That's what increases the power output. Eventually, you get back to an equilibrium state with a higher power output.

[@tenbear5]

….. so we’re still in the steam age then?

[@SocialDownclimber]

@@tenbear5 If you can think of a better way to run a heat engine please let us know!

[@tenbear5]

@@SocialDownclimber Nahhh, we know best don’t we! Steam power all the way! 🤣🤣🤣

[@chrisjohns38]

Someone else in the room has started up a PWR!

[@chrisjohns38]

@@SocialDownclimber HELIUM! Much better. But you must not just roll bond your heat exchanger tubes like some idiots did for Ft St Vrain.

[@derekgarvin6449]

You might want to do a follow up on this to examine the safety of the reactor. I'm curious to know how the sodium doesn't corrode the pipes.

[@entelin]

I think the point is that the sodium isn't traveling through the pipes, unlike many other designs. It stays in the storage tank.

[@derekgarvin6449]

@Turnipstalk so pure liquid sodium doesn't react with metals?

[@derekgarvin6449]

@Turnipstalk weird flex

[@crabel99]

@@derekgarvin6449 it doesn’t at all. You could still see the machine markings of the sodium cooled test reactors in the US when we decommissioned them. Prematurely. For political reasons.

[@derekgarvin6449]

@@crabel99 Thanks for the information. We didn't cover sodium reactors when I was in the navy. My understanding was we abandoned the idea because the sodium coolant became highly radioactive. Actually walked through D1G during it's decom

[@JoeIsOut2lunch]

You are an absolute treasure. I just love being explained in detail things that I know nothing about.

[@cognitive-carpenter]

The most appealing factor of this creator is that she reminds us all of that one Eastern block highschool teacher that told us, "if you can't do this--how do you expect to do anything with your life"

[@konstantinsemenov1627]

But Russians use plumbum instead of natrium. As I know, sodium explodes in contact with water. The water has a very low boiling point, so if the pumps break down, we also get an explosion. While the lead will simply isolate the reaction area and solidify.

[@geraldeichstaedt]

Hot sodium returns much more impressive fireworks than cold sodium. The whole thing mixed with nuclear. What a huge festival for Russia these days when it's caused by a US oligarch who lost contact with reality. Pb makes more sense from a safety point of view, but it's still a bad enough idea.

[@IgnatShining]

The lead one (BREST-300) is only being built (expected to finish by 2029). There are two working sodium reactors, BN-600 and BN-800, in operation since 1980 and 2015 respectively

[@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895]

*cue russophobia*

[@100c0c]

​@@generalmarkmilleyisbenedic8895 you're crying at something you made up lol

[@bawdyanarchist8261]

Gates playing the long term disaster setup.

[@Mark-s7d6l]

A natrium reactor was demonstrated in the 60s using Thorium as the fuel source. It got shut down in favor of GEs breeder reactor because of the cold war. There were some other problems because the liquid salts are corrosive and we didn't have the materials to handle that problem. I'm glad to see that nuclear power is finally making progress.

[@area51z63]

They already tried this type of reactor in the tower surrounded by mirrors. It was a big waste of time

[@krishnam1]

Why not just use the nuclear for baseload. The ramping can be done with a variety of means (including the Sodium storage). Then you get fully Carbon free power. And meanwhile LIFTR can be developed and deployed

[@Johan88k]

I believe the point is to reduce the need for fossil fuel as it is the main way we are handeling the fluctuation of renewable energy. As there are currently no efficient way to store electricity unless you live in a place suitable for pump hydro or where there are almost no cloudy days.

[@mrrolandlawrence]

just getting a new nuclear power station is an achievement. fast reactors are the way to go.

[@mefobills279]

​@@Johan88kCATL condensate battery is 500 wH/Kg. The storage problem is over.

[@MrHerrS]

@@Johan88k As far as I remember there are multiple systems involved in managing a power grid. There are also special consumer, mostly glas / aluminium / steel production or other electricity-intensive operations, with special contracts and systems to allow the grid management to immediately switch on or off consumer in order to keep a smooth 50Hz or 60Hz. Basically wasting energy or stall production. There are some interessting ideas to a next evolution and using meaningfull consumer (loading EVs) or switch on small producer or switch off "optional" consumer to load balance the grid. But all ideas involves the grid management to run via internet. And in the eye of a cyber security guy, this would be terrifying.

[@Johan88k]

@@MrHerrS Those industries are not designed to regulate the power grid. It takes several hours or even days to get them up and running at full capacity after a shutdown. The capital cost is huge. It's very expensive to shut those down and should only be used as a last resort to avoid damaging the grid. Any way to generate energy is going to be less expensive than to shut those down if it is an option. As for load sharing (battery storage) they can only handle short fluctuation often only minutes or maybe up to an hour or so. I'll take my country as an example we can have periods with very low winds like around 10% of normal for days or even up to a week or two a few times a year. No battery storage is going to be able to handle that (solar wont be able to compensate either as we have low- or no sun for half the year).

[@matthiastams9985]

Hi. It is not the first natrium cooled fast reactor. Look for the BN800 in Russia. 🙂

[@jatpack3]

What are the dangers of the corrosive salts in a containment failure?

[@geraldeichstaedt]

Sodium delivers beautiful yellow fireworks, while potassium fireworks use to be kind of magenta. Just stay away far enough.

[@CanalTremocos]

Google "Monju power plant accident". Comparing the other options, it isn't that bad. I still would prefer not to take a splash of lye and hydrogen gas, though.

[@crabel99]

@@jatpack3 the salt is in a tertiary loop outside of the containment. So to answer your question, nothing. Also the nitrate salts aren’t corrosive if you have the right materials. It is the exact same tech that is used in Solar Thermal systems.

[@chrisjohns38]

@@crabel99 yeah, but you know how design basis accidents work, right? and you know the world has failed all kinds of nuclear containments, right? so why isn't it credible to have ingress of moist air in a design that isn't even leak tight?

[@crabel99]

@@chrisjohns38 It's hermetically sealed and under positive pressure.

[@gracebromfield9070]

Drink beer while wearing lederhosen on a bicycle connected to a generator to produce electricity 🍺🚴‍♂️⚡

[@Thomas-gk42]

German passionated biker here, I´m excited about your suggestion😂

[@Netsuko]

4:50 thanks for reminding me again why I didn't vote for the green party. People need to be much MUCH more angry about this decision.

[@TimurDavletshin]

Aren't they using natrium reactors in Russia for decades?

[@romank.6813]

Для них Россия плохая и надо делать вид, что её нет. Реактор на свинцовом теплоносителе, кстати, тоже строится. Говорят, к 29-му году будет готов. Поскольку строит Росатом, а не какой-нибудь, прости господи Греф, то есть основания полагать, что так и будет.

[@leonlowenstadter9223]

Actually, it's not Russia that is bad, it's the Russian government/president.

[@TimurDavletshin]

@@leonlowenstadter9223 bad for whom? For the US and its allies? Well, probably, but at least they have elections unlike one closest Western ally...

[@specialsnowflake2309]

@@leonlowenstadter9223 yeah, we totally care what average westoid goober thinks about our country (we're not)

[@chrisjohns38]

@@romank.6813 Not really true. When I worked at Terrapower, we considered Russian technology extensively. Some really good stuff from Rosatom for sure. I'm pretty sure we used BOR-60 for fuel testing too! Rosatom is NOT Putin, we know that. I'm super stoked that Rosatom is going lead cooled with BREST-300! I hope they figured out a better solution to the corrosion issues than the oxygen slot method! At very high temperatures, there are good solutions to the corrosion problems with lead.

[@OolTube02]

I'm getting the feeling she doesn't agree with Germans' antinuclear environmentalism.

[@johngeier8692]

I remember telling my German relatives that the nuclear power plant near my late uncle’s home was safe and that the government was wasting money on wind turbines. Germany is currently suffering from the consequences of energy policy based upon 3 ridiculous and economically destructive popular delusions. The false and delusional belief that man’s effects on the Earth’s climate are significant and dangerous, the false and delusional belief that transitioning to non fossil fuel energy sources will be cheap and easy and the false and delusional belief that nuclear power plants are unsafe.

[@spudpud-T67]

Antinuclear agenda: Shout loud enough and everyone will believe it.

[@tokukeitaro]

The German people swallowed whole the negative propaganda about nuclear technology put out by the oil and coal industries in combination with well meaning but science illiterate green activists. We could have reduced our global carbon footprint decades ago but for the gullible conned by the amoral and greedy.

[@Schmidtelpunkt]

Because she understands only the technology and not the people who use it. Which is a classic nerd problem.

[@edsnotgod]

"Our friends the trees all need CO2, and Green studies have shown that those trees prefer CO2 made in Germany with Russian gas"

[@SrenGrauslund]

Please make a presentation on Copenhagen Atomics. Their take on nuclear energy production is so innovative and promising.

[@chapter4travels]

It sounds too good to be true, that's why I'm both skeptical and hopeful at the same time.

[@chrisjohns38]

@@chapter4travels liquid fueled reactors are the only advanced reactor concepts worthy of the level of development necessary to tease out a viable design. Terrapower is also pursuing a molten salt reactor concept and INEL is plowing along with a research reactor using a fuel type similar but much less corrosive than TerraPower’s concept.

[@chrisjohns38]

The primary benefit of a liquid fuel reactor concept is the combining of power production and fuel reconditioning/reprocessing.

[@chapter4travels]

@@chrisjohns38 I agree, the molten chloride fast reactor being developed by Terrapower and Exodys (previously Elysium) seems to have much more potential but they aren't being built and Natrium is. That makes it better.

[@chrisjohns38]

@@chapter4travels salt-in-first-of-a-kind-experiment/

[@fissionnw]

We were honored to host a livestream interview with the project director. 2 years later we're excited to see the progress and support this project.

[@brianjones8206]

Haaaa Doc that was a fierce 3:45 windows burn 🔥 lol

[@porpentosa]

Thank you for your excellent channel. Some remarks (rather, additions): - The molten salt tanks - similar to those used in Concentrating Solar Power (CSP) plants - lose very little heat, thanks to their size (tens of thousands of tons of salt for a 10-hour storage on a 100 MWe CSP plant plant), thereby benefitting from a high inner volume/outer area ratio (exponent 3 vs. exponent 2). In other words, there are little first-principle thermal losses. Most losses are second-principle losses, that is, exergy losses (with an "x"; not a typo). In other words, the heat is available for the power cycle at a lower temperature (because of the heat exchanges), which affects the cycle's efficiency and eventually the power output. - The cost of electricity generated by a nuclear power plant is mostly the amortization of the capital (of which the reactor is a major part); the fuel (uranium) is very cheap per unit of energy generated. Therefore, the benefit of increasing the plant's efficiency is mainly about increasing the (electric) power output obtained from a reactor of a given thermal power and investment cost. It is not really about minimizing the uranium consumption at part load. Therefore, efficiency matters at full load but not at partial load. The justification of equipping a nuclear reactor of a given thermal output with a thermal storage is to 1/ run the reactor at full load (or at a higher yearly average load) to better amortize its substantial investment cost, 2/ install a bigger power cycle that allows generating more power when the grid needs it (i.e., when the price of electricity is much higher).

[@joyl7842]

How do they make sure the Natrium (Sodium) does not come in contact with water?

[@raybod1775]

It’s all sealed.

[@zimriel]

In that part of Wyoming, maybe they're less worried about a superabundance of water.

[@irrelevantdata]

The Russians didn't just already build this long ago, they have one in production already producing electricity for people, and another being built. So no, it isn't new.

[@wumi2419]

I had the same reaction until about the middle of the video, where I learned that the difference is having 2 coolant buffers...

[@Phil-W]

+1 for being willing to take the hit for making updates to videos

[@eprofessio]

Calling it Bill Gates Natrium Reactor is like me paying the lawn guy to mow the lawn and saying I mowed the lawn.

[@Leunamex2]

i feel the same with spaceX and Elon

[@JohnWear-s3f]

@@Leunamex2I literally went to respond the exact comment.

[@eprofessio]

@@Leunamex2 exactly!!

[@lilbaz8073]

You might not have mowed the lawn. But it's your lawn. You can name it however you want..

[@curtd2741]

I have no problem with that!

[@carlbrenninkmeijer8925]

I almost thought that you suffered a core melt-down, or that a gravitational wave hit you, please stay put !

[@generic6587]

Could not have chosen a more picturesque place to constructs such a plant...good old Kemmererererer.

[@presbiteroo]

Molten salt energy storage doesn't need nuclear as a heat source.

[@geraldeichstaedt]

Exactly! They'd better use renewables.

[@domtweed7323]

​@@geraldeichstaedtConverting electricity into heat, then back into electricity generates a minimum 40% energy loss. Nuclear generates heat anyway, so there's no additional inefficiency with nuclear.

[@cermi8125]

Nuclear is one of the cleanest forms of energy, but I know you guys are too myopic to understand. All you guys can see is Chernobyl without understanding the mechanisms that made it happen.

[@mb-3faze]

@@geraldeichstaedt Exactly, Exactly! Geothermal? If Gates put 1/1000th of his wealth into drilling tech it might become a reality, everywhere.

[@XMickyMouseX]

Thats what is called concentrated solar power, or should we call it nuclear fusion powered solar power, just to have something nuclear in it, but without the waste. Just quickly found High Temperature Liquid Sodium Solar Receiver or Solar Power Tower, to throw in some more buzzwords for clicks 🙂

[@greyjay9202]

Currently, France generates 70% of its power needs using its own domestic nuclear reactors. China and Russia are both building nuclear reactors for domestic and foreign use. The U.S. is way behind the curve, due to the so-called "environmental" movement. Much of Europe also has this problem. Wind and solar are hopelessly inefficient and unreliable. They will never contribute significantly to the power grid. Nuclear, on the other hand, has the potential to generate large amounts of reliable, stable power.

[@geraldeichstaedt]

Nuclear is mostly expensive, dangerous during the whole life cycle, and isn't remotely able to provide the required power. France sometimes is able to generate most of its electrical energy by nuclear power plants, provided it's winter, regulations are ignored, and nobody cares about the origin of the uranium.

[@guytech7310]

France will be shutting down all of its reactors by 2035. Probably sooner has it lost its Supply of Uranium from Africa. Worlds running out of Uranium with economically recoverable mines to be depleted around 2050. Thats why the US & EU are not building any new plants. Russia isn't building any new commerical reactors, A few small 55 MW reactors in Uzbekistan. I believe Russia has also cancelled its BM-1200 (breeder reactor) that was under construction & testing.

[@JaneAustenAteMyCat]

There's a future nuclear fusion plant very close to where I live. I'm really excited to see what will happen, but sceptical about how long it will take

[@patrickday4206]

You will notice that the countries with lots of nuclear power plants is on par with their nuclear weapons arsenals. It was always about breeding the tritium and plutonium. Tritium must be swapped out every 12 years

[@T33K3SS3LCH3N]

The fastest that global nuclear power capacity EVER grown was 20 TW per year (now down to 10). Renewable growth is about to exceed 300 TW this year. Nuclear is a niche technology that has no chance to grow to an even remotely relevant scale until it's way too late to respond to global warming. The nuclear supplier industry is small and inflexible. If states actually would raise the pace of nuclear construction (which they won't), prices would skyrocket (from their already uneconomical baseline) due to the mismatch of supply and demand before any economy of scale can kick in. A nuclear power plant takes about 35-60 years to be planned, built, and pay back the investment. And this number keeps rising as renewables expand, since it means that nuclear can no longer count on hitting 90% uptime. That is economic lunacy when renewables can do it in 10-20 years, and a key reason why nobody builds nuclear at scale anymore.

[@histershellac2842]

throwing the 'windows' shade was great

[@Martimus98]

The concern I have regarding Gate's involvement in this project is that he is not the philanthropist that he claims to be. Bill Gates typically does not get involved in a project where he cannot personally benefit from his involvement. So this makes me wonder what is his long term plan here?

[@Joe_Bandit]

Make money?

[@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis]

And how does he benefit from eradicating malaria? More people get to live and buy Windows computers? Oh no, that’s sooo terrible

[@AbelShields]

Could it possibly be that the nuclear reactor will make money selling electricity? 😂

[@Martimus98]

@@whyamiwastingmytimeonthis You mean by owning an exclusive patent to a treatment plan?

[@Martimus98]

@@AbelShields Yea... Controlling a technology using patents and other legal means to limit access to the technology. In other words, higher costs to use his technologies and limited sources to get access to his technology.

[@zdspider6778]

3:05 "It's not great." Me: "...not terrible." 😂 "Only" 3.6 roentgen.

[@zimriel]

And now you know why when a Central European says that water-cooled reactors can't be ramped down easily, she means it.

[@cepamor]

Thank you, Sabine Hossenfelder, the Ruth Westheimer of the physical sciences. 😊

[@arctic_haze]

I loved the Bill Gates booting time joke. It is so true.

[@quint3ssent1a]

I was like "wtf, never saw that word written in English letters", turns out it's latin spelling...

[@nneeerrrd]

лошара рссукій 😂

[@nneeerrrd]

Jlowapa😂

[@u1zha]

Great to see you explain ramping up and down in more detail. Tired of hearing all the superficial talk that goes "nuclear cannot adjust to demand, period"

[@MrBottlecapBill]

Bill Gates actually doing something useful rather than evil? Wow.