Thorium and Fast Neutron Nuclear Reactors
Today we are discussing Generation IV nuclear reactors and the prospect of Thorium fuels and Fast Neutron reactors.
Special thanks to Ludovic Mathieu, LP2i Bordeaux (CNRS and Univ. of Bordeaux laboratory) for answering many of my questions and helping clear up uncertainties.
Thanks again to William Norberg for making the custom intro.
Check out his art here: / blenderfoto
Sources:
3D Models:
Mykhailo Ohorodnichuk - Nuclear Station: www.turbosquid.com/3d-models/...
kim - Capitol: free3d.com/3d-model/capitol-9...
tomaszcgb - houses: free3d.com/3d-model/buildingh...
novusod - mall: sketchfab.com/3d-models/subur...
Resources:
Fast Neutron Reactors - world-nuclear.org/information...
Molten Salt Reactors - world-nuclear.org/information...
Uranium 233 - www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear...
Thorium - world-nuclear.org/information...
Neutron Flux Spectra - www.nuclear-power.com/nuclear...
Fast Spectrum Molten Salt Reactor Options - info.ornl.gov/sites/publicati...
The Stable Salt Reactor: Transforming the promise of the molten salt fuel concept into a viable technology - modernpowersystems.com/featur...
Shocked but not shocked that financing/interest costs are overwhelmingly the largest barrier to new nuclear. Maybe we need a global non-profit nuclear corporation to be created that can roll out advanced nuclear to where it's needed first, coal-intensive countries that need to rapidly shift their power production to carbon free...? ;-)
This would certainly be a much better use of time and money than what we're doing now. I wonder why instead everyone's just focused on taxing Fossil Fuels and trying to replace them with worse alternatives that all rely on Fossil Fuels anyway to even work in the end. It's a mystery.
@@metroidman3893 Taxing fossil fuels has the fastest impact, it can practically be implemented immediately (depends on the country's political system). Perfecting experimental nuclear technology takes time, and even proven one are slower to build than solar and wind, which can be installed in a week if needed. Generally speaking, people usually wants a result right now, so that could cloud the long-term judgement a bit. Taxing fossil fuels, if carefully crafted, would cover every sources that use fossil fuel, so no, it in itself isn't a problem. The real problem is that they don't invest enough in alternative power sources (including nuclear, wind, solar etc.), because there'll be powerful pro-fossil fuel politicians and lobbyists in the other end that don't want the government to spend too much on the alternatives. So the end result is a compromise and taxes that have a lot of deductions and loopholes. For example, Germany shutting down its nuclear reactors - but that's not the fault of wind and solar, they shut down nuclear reactors faster than they can prop wind turbines and solar panels up. So no, there's nothing mysterious about that, it's just that fossil fuel industries has a much larger power and influences than wind and solar. And nuclear is not a venture private sector wants to invest in a free market because it's not profitable, as long as fossil fuels remain cheap - only with government incentives will they even take a risk.
@@mickeyg7219 You could've just agreed with me that it's weird Gorvernments don't seem to be willing to foot the bill on Nuclear. It's the middle ground solution that reasonable people on both sides of the debate agree on. So personally I think that's why they won't. Hard to campaign against your opponents when you solve a wedge issue instead of create it.
yeah but u forgot we are humans greedy humans
Funding is the greatest obstacle of all scientific research which does not immediatly yield in profit. Because there is no direct benefit for tax payers nor investors. Our belief in science will determine individuals and societies will to invest in the yield that future generations might see. Everyone does not want to entrust their money onto something that might never flourish, but since research costs plenty of money, sectors that are profitable for investors will develop quicker than ones without clear buisness potential. To a degree, this is reflected in national politics. Depending on what values the current government, and its people uphold. Money will flow towards ideologically suooirtibg sectors of science. If a nation seeks economical prosperity it might invest into tech research thatll create appealing consumer products, a government will do this if their ideology builds upon national wealth.
The thing is, nuclear waste is already an extremely low concern. It’s really not that bad and only creates problems on rare occasions. We should work towards more energy efficient reactors, not waste efficient ones.
yea we already have really good ways to store it. most people probably think nuclear waste is some green goo stored in flimsy oil barrels, when in reality it's melted down into glass and stored within concrete and steel and is impossible for it to leak out over long periods of time. I think the public perception of nuclear power and nuclear waste really has something to do with it
That’s not the main benefit. Thorium reactors are able to power reactors using very little
@@mastershooter64 Many chemicals and industrial wastes are stored to way lower scrutiny while posing a similar danger, not to mention the coal fired radioactive fly/bottom ash actually being a bigger source of radioactive polution in the environment...
Waste efficiency is efficiency.
Idk if you've looked around, but waste material of any sort needs to be reduced/eliminated . Not to mention that we said the same thing about other polluting materials in the past. I'd prefer we prevent it all together as opposed to waiting until it becomes a problem. Humans have shown little responsibility with such things and I prefer my kid not live in a world with a nuclear waste problem. Money needs to go to fusion research. That's our golden ticket.
I can't describe how exciting it was to find you doing a video on thorium reactors! Very few people explain things as easily as you do
One thing people do is often conflate molten salt reactors with Thorium fueled reactors, MSR's can run with any fissile fuel, including U235 and Plutonium, we could run them with "spent" nuclear fuel to breed Plutonium.
Looks like someone improved his 3D modelling skills again 😄. Thanks for the informative video
Hes back. And just when we needed him most
You forgot to mention that, while they use slow neutrons, thorium breeders produce significantly less high-level waste just due to their lower atomic mass. And using fast neutron reactors to burn high-level waste is promising also.
We don't even know if breeding is practically possible in the thermal spectrum, it's possible on paper but no one has been able to do it. We know breeding in the fast spectrum is practical, it has been done with solid fuel and will be much easier with liquid fuel. Don't get confused by the word thorium, there is a thermal molten salt reactor and a fast neutron molten salt reactor, and thorium has nothing to do with it.
Thorium reactors make Uranium 233 in order to be able to fission. the volume of waste is less, but the nature of the waste is way worse than Uranium 235 fission. Fast neutrons are a bad idea for DNA.
@@cocojeffrey8502 There is no such thing as a thorium reactor. There is a molten salt reactor that uses uranium and you can supplement with thorium (Thorcon Power) There are fast breeders that could utilize some thorium but they choose not to because it's too hard and expensive. (Elysium Industries)
@@chapter4travels well, whatever it is called. For thorium to be used as a fuel it needs to be transformed into fissionable Uranium 233 by bombarding it with neutrons.
@@cocojeffrey8502 Correct, but there is no reactor that does that. A molten salt reactor can't do that, only a theoretical reactor called LFTR which has never been tested. As far as I know, only two companies have proposed such a reactor, Flibe and TransAtomic Power. TransAtomic folded when they realized it wouldn't work. ThorCon power says they could use up to 50% thorium if they would be allowed to use highly enriched uranium as the main fuel, feeding in Thorium as they go. International regs say no to highly enriched uranium, so they will simply be a low enriched uranium MSR. (This is great by the way, a huge step forward for humanity) Don't get me wrong, I'm about as pro-nuclear as you can get, I'm just being realistic about the technologies. Uranium in a MSR has every advantage that thorium is touted to have, and there is no shortage of uranium, and there never will be.
Elysium Industries molten salt fast reactor is the greatest reactor i have seen around. Please look it up. Its brilliant.
I agree but the Seaborg and Thorcon reactors are more important in the short term.
Sam o nella once told me thorium is a pretty cool guy
Bro why do u not have more subs like this content is so good
You are a pillar in the KZhead scientific community. Thank you for putting these videos out.
Your channel deserves so much more recognition. Thanks!
these videos are incredible. I have no background in any of this but you explain it very well. The animations look so good and are very helpful
It's been a while! Great to see a new episode from one of the greatest channels!
Wow this is an excellent review and explanations of reactors! 🙌🏼
Keep these videos coming
Best science channel ever, and good to see the quality of your videos are improving as well
Love your content!
Amazing video on thorium nuclear energy. Thank you.
Thank you for all this important information and the nice animations that make it better to understand. Within a few years we will know a lot more because many different ideas are studied and treid out for example in Canada.
I love your videos, best on YT
There are quite a few companies working on MSRs using the U/Pu fuel cycle - this will be a much easier way forward to real world reactors.
Nicely done 👍
Thank you so much for this video! It gave a great introduction to the topic for those that don't quite know it well, but had some very useful insights into the deeper mechanics, such as the absorption/fission ratios! I am interning at the Wendelstein Fusion plant, and a lot of what I can see there is telling me that it just won't be ready in time to have a meaningful impact. Your video has sparked interest in me to pursue MSRs as a potential career path again, because it sounds MUCH more feasible to extract the Pa-233 from the salts than to ever get fusion to work. And goodness we need new energy sources ASAP...
Oh you’re at the stellarator! From a mostly untrained perspective, my understanding of fusion is that it’s mainly just a matter of scale. Either something many times the size of ITER, or of a similar size or possibly smaller but using superconducting coils, and you’d be able to get overunity wall plug efficiency. Though I can’t say I’m well-versed on the stability issues that led to the stellarator in the first place. Some of those pulsed fusion designs are definitely promising too, but at this point all I see is marketing without anything to show for it. Well aside from inertial laser fusion, which looks inordinately expensive to scale up even if it does get overunity wall plug efficiency. But yeah, extracting protactinium from thorium and dealing with molten salt fuels definitely feels more feasible.
@@Scrogan Well, I'm just an Intern, I don't yet know all the nitty-gritty details. Getting the fusion itself to work is absolutely a thing of scale. You need large expensive magnets to make it work, and those are more efficient in bulk. HOWEVER The second problem is - once we get the fusion itself to be self-sustaining, we don't really know how to get the power out of the system. The plasma itself is so hot that you can't have any common, or exotic, material be in touch with it - it'd melt or even just evaporate. Even then, we have large losses due to the extreme temperature gradients (Million-C hot Plasma to a heat exchanger at at most 600C). There are ideas to capture certain types of radiation that the fusion produces, and plugging those into a sort of solar-panel equivalent, but I haven't even heard of a practically tested model of those. Meanwhile, in a nuclear reactor, we got all that sorted out. Of course we have the issue of metal corrosion from the salts to solve, but that seems more like a reasonably-challenging material science endeavour. Everything else we know - the physics, the Pa-233 separation is some tricky chemics, and we can keep using fairly rugged and well-known steam turbines for the heat-to-electricity conversion.
@@MrRedwires Regarding fusion energy collection, do the superconductors heat up during operation? If so, couldn't that heat be captured? Sorry if it is a stupid question.
@@patiuskas0071 Not a stupid question, it's a very interesting topic for sure! Superconductors only work at very very low temperatures, around -150C or less. If they become too warm they stop conducting properly, and the magnets have to be turned off. Sadly that means we can not efficiently extract energy from them during the reactor operation, and it actually takes quite a bit of effort to keep them that cool!
Yes - In 25 years we will have fusion reactors. This generation will need to use fission.
Note about 10:00 in: if you're already experiencing problems with reactor core coolant being exposed to air ... dissolving your fuel into that coolant will result in radionuclides being exposed to open air -- ie. your coolant is now radioactive.
That's for molten metal cooled reactors, molten salts are pretty much nonreactive to air.
Honestly, i want Gordon McDowell to do an update to his excellent megadocumentary on thorium, featuring these excellent explanations. Previously, i've been lead to believe that separating out the protactinium was a not-quite-that-hard chemical problem, where one proposed solution was to exploit the different properties of... something-heptaflouride and something-hexaflouride. If you have even more to share on the topic of advanced nuclear, i'd LOVE to hear it. These videos are great.
Yes - Kirk Sorensen kind of glossed over the problems expressed clearly in this video.
Excellent video
Thanks for this well balanced video about nuclear power.
Oh yeah, a new "But Why?" video is out! :D
Superb video !
Great video! 🙏👍
I think I need to watch this video about 3 times, before I can understand everything said. But I'm happy to do so :D
This is the thorium video I've been waiting for... so much "thorium is perfect", "thorium is useless" videos on KZhead. I've been waiting for an informed technical discussion of the pros and cons.
but why: smart enough to gain graduate-level understanding in multiple scientific fields and effectively communicate that knowledge me: yes the floor here is made of floor
11:18-11:50 and that is ladies and gentlemen one of the simplest inditement of capitalism. Very clear, societal goals will always be an afterthought to the profit motive. It's a great video btw accurate to the details and explains it quite well to the layman. One more thing, as far as I know at least in the case of a LFTR the plan is to use fluoride volatility for the seperation of Pa from U due to the fact that uranium has higher oxidation states available while Protactinium does not, and they also have a significant difference in phase state under chemical processing conditions (protactinium tetrafluoride is liquid while the uranuim hexafluoride is a gas at that temperature and pressure) which makes the separation a somewhat simple process.
What are we to do when profit incentives don't line up with "societal goals"?
@@metroidman3893 That's where a competent government is supposed to step in, unbiasedly using taxes gained through profitable industries to fund non-profitable (but good for society) projects. Unfortunately humans don't seem to competent governments very well.
@@G3HP the shorter answer would've been "No relevant data." Lol. I mean here's hoping. As I get older I see now more than ever that there's no ironclad solution to anything. Humans go through periods of prosperity when people are honest and doing the right thing while corruption and weakness sets in, then starts over a little better than the last cycle. Rinse and repeat.
Fossil fuel is still abundant and comparative cheap, so in a free market, it's the most profitable option for private industries to take. And millions of people are working in fossil fuel industries directly, and they don't want to lose a job. If we want to transition to non-fossil fuel sources quickly, we need to be willing to compensate people who'll lose their job. If you're proposing a climate policy that doesn't answer what will happen to the working class in those sector, a large percentage of the population wouldn't support it. People are willing to support environmental policies, as they'll always put their own wellbeing above it first. Fortunately, wellbeing and environment are not mutually exclusive, but as the current system goes, politics would appeal to only one or another, because fossil fuel industries have a big influence on the politics.
@@mickeyg7219 Yea that is the conventional thinking about these things. Here is a radical heretic thought to you: ppl does not need jobs in the fossil fuel sector, they need opportunity to live a comfortable life and a society that values them for what they do istead of working in that industry. This "jobs must be created" and "jobs must be protected" mentality does nothing but slows down the progression of automation and the elimination of boring, repetitive, dangerous sometimes even meaningless busy work. Maybe if the owner class would not take all the surplus for itself we could have achived a much better living standard for everyone even with less work by now. Productivity keep rising as technology progresses but the ppl still work as much as ever if not more. They try to fuel an endless growth, but not for themselves, only for the very few on the top. To what end - I would ask- we want to grow the economy forever ? Why if it only ever lift the already exalted ? Is it economical to use up all our resources ever faster to "convert them" into some abstract conceptual value on a bank account that only we, inteligent apes value at all ?
Excellent video! Btw, are you animating metaballs? It is what it looks like and I'm just curious.
I was introduced to thorium by salmonella and I can finally see how they probably work
I love your videos
I like the animations.
I'm so excited for thorium reactors.
So cool
I like nuclear power, it's clean and safe. But I don't go for Thorium because the intermediate stage between Th232 and U233 is Pa233 which has a half life 10 times longer than Neptunium 239 and therefore it takes 10 times longer to breed U233 from Th232 as compared with breeding Pu239 from U238. It's not something that can be engineered around. India has a project to build a fleet of Thorium reactors as they have lots of Thorium. 50 years ago It was projected to take 70 years, it's still in its early stages. Because we need to switch to non-fossil fuels quickly then investment is better directed to wind and solar.
Investing in wind and solar is simply throwing money out the window. We also don't need to invest a penny into anything concerning thorium, but what does need the investment is the molten salt reactor utilizing uranium.
@@chapter4travels Thorium produces 200 more energetic than Uranium. Plus all other advantages, it leaves its old school predecessors in the dust.
Thorium has other bonuses that are the main reason it’s pursued: it is more abundant compared to Uranium, it has shorter lived products, and is inherently proliferation resistant. However, with how desperate the climate crisis is I don’t think we have the time to fully develop the technology. Maybe if the research had continued since experimental reactors 60 years ago, but at this point I think only SMRs will be available in time to be a stopgap. Also unfortunately, nuclear doesn’t have the power variability or financial/political support to singlehandedly solve our energy problems, to write off other forms of power that don’t emit fossil fuels is shooting ourselves in the foot. It’s the same problem as when other groups talk about using only renewables. The only way to get through the next few decades is with both nuclear and renewables. Both won’t be fully realized versions, they will have some significant drawbacks but don’t need to be a long term solution. They just need to be much better than fossil fuels.
@@nathanj202 true, what we now need are direct actions. The research on other more efficient nuclear fuels was just so long abandoned to just start today. But they are in long terms the future (at least for sometime).
@@GG-zb1uy You are confusing uranium used in a light water reactor to thorium used in a molten salt reactor. In a MSR, uranium is a better fuel because it's ready to fission where as thorium has to go through several changes before it can fission.
Proposed Thorium reactors will be more efficient converting U238 to plutonium due to the cross section of U238. They could also tailor the salt for preferred mix. The extra production of transuranics is less of a concern to nascent bomb producers.
Worth getting in my nuclear energy playlist.
And that, boys and girls, is why we will fuel our molten fueled and molten salt cooled 4G reactors with recycled water fuel, initially from Canadian CANDU reactors. One you have that going, you can spend the money you made into the new Thorium fuel cycle.
Fuel cost is negligible. It’s not a factor in this equation. He literally says this in the video.
Ok if u want to use sodium as coolant the reactor room must filled with non reactive atmosphere but in such a environment for repairs or emergency will be interesting. Floride salt coolant will need a miracle material for its pipes.
I hope they figure it out. With that kid of energy we could power co2 scrubbers and electrolysers to make carbon neutral synthetic hydro carbon fuels out of the air for planes, trains, boats and automobiles with no necessary modifications. Redefining the whole definition of energy sector. That would ruffle some feathers though if any country couldmake its own hydro carbon energy though wouldn't it?
Once again it depends on the cost. However, if the leaders of that country are far thinking, they would realize that the security of the country;s economy would be greatly enhanced. It may come to pass this Winter as Germans lack for heat that they will agree.
Unfortunately, even if we billions into thorium reactors research, they won't be cheaper than ordinary uranium for at least 50 years. The concept looks interesting on paper but it's simply not worth it, Pu cycle is much more well known, we have all of the neccessary infrastructure and it works good enough. There aren't even enough Th mines and processing plants so support the reactors. Not to mention the ridiculously difficult fuel reprocessing.
Of the six proposed fourth-generation nuclear reactor types, the Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) is the only type with high fuel efficiency, no danger of explosion, and does not generate substantial amounts of plutonium. The fissile uranium-233 produced by the MSR is difficult to use for weapons because of the presence of highly radioactive uranium-232. While other Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) can serve as a short-term solution, MSRs are considered a more promising mid-term solution due to their potential to address these issues more comprehensively. Hopefully, we will have fusion by the time we run out of uranium and thorium. With the molten salt reactor, 7.5 million tons of uranium will be exhausted in a thousand years at an annual consumption of 7500 tons. Using thorium will extend it by a couple of thousand years. The differences between Light Water Reactors (LWR) and Thorium Molten Salt Reactors (TMSR) are significant in fuel utilization and waste production. LWRs use approximately 0.5-1% of uranium fuel, leading to the generation of long-lived radioactive waste due to inefficient energy conversion and the use of enriched uranium. In contrast, TMSRs can achieve fuel efficiency of up to 98%. This is achieved by converting fertile thorium-232 into fissile uranium-233, substantially reducing waste production and more manageable radioactive waste. Uranium Molten Salt Reactors (UMSR) will produce more plutonium but are just as effective as TMSRs. 940 kg of natural thorium in a Molten Salt Reactor (MSR) can generate 1 gigawatt (GW) of electricity for one year. In comparison, generating the same amount of energy in a Light Water Reactor (LWR) would require mining 210 tons of uranium. In an MSR, the storage requirement for 83 percent of the spent fuel is 10 years, and 300 years for the remaining 17 percent, whereas in an LWR, 24.44 tons of spent fuel need reprocessing and storage for 200,000 years. MSRs can utilize the spent fuel from LWRs. A coal power station will need to burn 3.5 million tons of coal and emit 10 million tons of carbon dioxide to produce the same amount of energy for one year. That amount of coal contains 3 to 14 tons of uranium, 3 to 14 tons of thorium, and an average of 84 tons of arsenic. MSRs can adjust power output to match electricity demand, thanks to the inherent and automatic load-following capability provided by the fluid nature of the molten salt coolant. A key safety feature of MSR is that it automatically adjusts to prevent overheating. This is achieved through a "negative thermal reactivity coefficient," which means that as the temperature rises, the reactor's reactivity decreases, preventing a runaway chain reaction. Additionally, the MSR has a "negative void reactivity coefficient," ensuring that the reactivity decreases if there is a loss of coolant or boiling, preventing potential overheating. These safety measures help keep the reactor stable and safe under various conditions. Looking ahead to 2040, China plans to deploy Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) for desalination of seawater, district heating or cooling, hydrogen production, powering of ships equipped with thermoacoustic Stirling generators, and power plants with supercritical carbon dioxide turbines within its borders and globally. In the Earth's crust, thorium is nearly four times more abundant than uranium. Every atom of natural thorium can be harnessed, unlike natural uranium, where only 1 out of every 139 atoms can be used. China produces thorium as a byproduct of its rare earth processing. Similar to the trends observed with solar and wind technologies, MSR costs are anticipated to decrease with the scaling up of production and the development of robust supply chains.
What happened to the video about electronegativity? I loved that one
Flige Energy has solved the problem of the Thermal Salt Reactor. The Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor looks to be ready for production by Kirk Sorenson of Flibe Energy.
can you make a video about nuclear fusion please? There are quite a few very promising fusion projects these days such as Helion and SPARC/commonwealth fusion. We seem to finally be somewhat closer than '30 years away'.
I plan to. But I currently have the next 5 video topics selected. I think maybe #6 will be a look at fusion unless I get inspired by something else while researching #5.
@@ButWhySci Cool. I look forward to watching your next videos!
Fusion is the energy of the future, and always will be.
@@ButWhySci do a video about the impossibility of fusion due to the complete lack of available tritium and lack of available Li6 to make tritium.
Hello! Thanks for this comprehensive review. Thorium reactors tend to have either fans or complete dismissal, so it is good to have something objective that covers all aspects. Do you have a twitter account?
de broglie is pronounced de broy Always pog to see nuclear love
There is plenty more fast reactors then just NaK and Salt/Sodium. There is also Helium and Lead. Its also a bit more complicated than reactors are just thermal and fast. With reactors that is traditionally thermal have some fast spectrum, specially so for say like SCWR reactors. Then there also exist plug in fuel cell. Sort of a upgrade for old reactors. Those already exist, but are not in use (well possibly in India). the main reason they are not in use is that due to how regulation works they are not economical.
The more you know! 🌈🌟
I like the videos but do have to say the sequence could reasonably be interpreted as based on a negative attitude vs a balanced attitude to Thorium: odd way order of presenting the information especially as molten salt reactor advocates don't want to use solid fuel, but chemically and in-line process to remove Protactinium. Molten salt fuels were mentioned, but not till 9:45 minutes or so.
The current BWR nuclear reactor designs are built to create weapons-grade plutonium; the electricity they produce is just a sideline.
Hogwash. About 1% of the spent fuel is by weight pu and that is due to the way the reactors work. Yes the pu can be reprocessed to extract the pu but the power production is the real goal of the plant and if any reprocessing for pu for weapons is done its independent of the power production goal. The US hasn't reprocessed since the 70's. On the other hand, weapons grade pu has been used as fuel for reactors so it can actually go the other way and does. Not all the pu for MOX fuels is from spent fuel. On the other hand, you can produce pu at much greater efficiency with reactors built for that purpose. Additionally, we are not building bombs anymore. In fact it is the opposite. We are dismantling bombs or reconfiguring so there isn't a need to produce any more pu for bomb making. It's looking more and more like Russia is breaking the treaties and producing more bombs but its difficult to prove. We haven't needed pu for over 30 years so its pretty hard to argue that these plants are for bomb production and electricity is a sideline. Decades ago it was a consideration but after the cold war and the nuclear reduction treaties, there is no need for additional pu.
But, u234 captures thermal neutrons to become, TaDa U235, which IS fissionable, so I fail to see the problem here and wonder why you excluded this tiny detail?
The future looks bright, cherenkov bright.
Why can't we use gallium in fast reactors? it's pretty unreactive and has a low melting point (26 degrees celsius or something)
Gallium costs $500 per kg and total annual production is less than 800 tons. You might run into a supply problem. ;-)
After these next generation reactors come online we need to build multipurpose reactors ones that can make red hydrogen and produce power for a given area. Thus supplying stored energy and On demand energy. When the grid isn't needed it can be used to create hydrogen at an increased rate. Effectively storing the nuclear energy that was going to go to waste anyways while idle at low power draw when demand is low. But I do believe for a great deal of large and medium size off line power needs, hydrogen is going to overtake battery especially when resources are going to become harder to get a hold of with coming skirmishes and wars. Hydrogen power and burning uses far less precious metals and far less needs to be especially recycled at end of life. I believe the Japanese are ahead of the rest of the world in red hydrogen.
If it isn't energy making the world go 'round, it's money.
@6:27, if talking about "mass of thorium on Earth" you should take the full earth's crust mass (~3x10^18 tons) and multiply by ppm (12 ppm or 1.2x10-5). That gives about 3.6 x 10^13 or 36 TRILLION tons (not "6.35 million tons"). I expect you used the "reserves" numbers, but reserves change based on price of the material and its volume of consumption. The world USES very little thorium, so the reserves are far lower than what is really on Earth. Also, Thorium is found in PERCENT quantities (~10%) in monazite sands, which is where rare earth elements come from (those needed by high technology, such as neodymium for motors and generators). That thorium is actually a WASTE product of the mining and so we would have access to massive amounts of thorium if we just consumed even that much. In any case, if you then combine thorium on earth with burnup-rate you are well into the millions/billions of years. We won't run out.
The technology we have no took decades and centuries to perfect. everyone writes off strange new tech way too fast.
Ah yes, science, something I definitely understand.
I am actually working at a nuclear experiment lab working on salt reactor research right now
Thorium is the energy of the future and always will be! ;-)
It's refreshing to see a realistic video on fission. I will upset a lot of people but the Thorium/MSR fanboys and girls believe everything these MSR companies are selling. These things need way too much regulatory oversight and materials development to be practical in the short term. As this video shows Uranium solid fuel is understood. The newer TRISO solid fuel is a lot safer than the solid fuel in Gen 1-3 reactors AND it is already licensed. Kairos Power and X-Energy use TRISO and their reactor designs don't require exotic, and unlicensed, materials. I'm guessing they will be the first to become reality and the MSR companies will continue to raise money for their very long R&D programs. I think this is the actual business model of some of these MSR companies.
Because it's being tested and makes sense. The TRISO sounds good too. The more options on hand the merrier.
Salmonella academy made a great video on this
I kinda just realize even today with nuclear energy we still use it to boil water to spin turbine. I wonder how much energy is wasted in that process (considering water's high heat capacity) and is there a more direct way to harness the energy directly.
You're missing the big picture. These reactors generate high-temperature industrial heat with hundreds of applications, making electricity is just one of them.
Steam turbine are actually quite an efficient process but some research is going toward supercritical CO2 turbine that would be more efficient and free the need to build reactor close to large body or water.
Thorium and fast reactors are the future!!!!
Distant future yes. For now, uranium-based molten salt reactors will be simpler and cheaper. Then comes uranium breeders and lastly thorium breeders. We have enough fissile fuel to last the entire world a few billion years.
what is 'fizzle'?
are you referring to "fissile" (sounds similar)? it refers to an element that is capable of undergoing fission (splitting of the atom).
As TeslaCuil said. But the pronunciation in the video is non-standard or regional US English. It should really be more like /ˈfɪsaɪl/, with the diphthong found in the word "eye".
@@teslacuil1437 Technically its fissile if it can be fissioned with thermal neutrons. It may seems a distinction without difference but it's not. You can induce fission with 2MeV neutrons in fissionable material if you want while orders of magnitude less energetic neutrons can fission fissile material. For example U-238 is fissionable but not fissile.
1:30 I think you forgot americium 242 and instead have two times americium 241.
There needs to be a lot more research into newer and cleaner reactors but it's never funded...
I have 3 words for you: Solar freaking roadways
We barely get to repair our streets with normal resources, that would cripple any small community trying to fix them. And on top, the more the street is being used the less electricity will it produce, while the maintenance raises.
@@GG-zb1uy solar freaking roadways
Should method Change without water, direct generat electric
U233 is a gamma source, rather than U-235 which is an alpha source...which means handling U233 is a major problem...
7:16 de broccoli wave???
U-235 is already great. The current gen reactors are already great. Don't hold out for perfect when really good already exists.
U-235 is already great in a MSR, not a PWR.
Lmao, Thorium makes 200 more energy, it's safer and cheaper. It basically takes advantage of all the positive things about nuclear power, while avoiding the negative.
@@GG-zb1uy I'm not saying to abandon Thorium, but just don't say, "Don't operate NPPs until we're only using thorium".
@@Waldemarvonanhalt reasonable point.
"Molten Salt Reactors and the Prospect of Limitless Clean Energy" There fixed it for you, thorium has got nothing to do with it.
Well, Thorium plays a big role in modern reactors. It's cheaper, easier to get, better to handle, produces less reactive waste and even makes more energy (200 times more than Uran).
@@GG-zb1uy None of that is correct. You are comparing uranium in a LWR to Thorium in a MSR, apples to oranges. In a MSR, uranium is a better fuel than thorium for each of the reasons you described in your comment. You should study the thorium fuel cycle, thorium has to go through several changes before it becomes uranium and can fission, using uranium directly the MSR gets much simpler because the fuel is ready to fission from the start. This is why all of the viable gen. IV nuclear start-ups are using uranium and not thorium. Even ThorCon Power with thorium right in its name is a uranium MSR that they may one day add in some thorium if they can get HALEU fuel to start the reactor. You should also be happy to know that there is no shortage of nuclear fuel, uranium, or thorium, so that is a moot point. whatisnuclear.com/blog/2020-10-28-nuclear-energy-is-longterm-sustainable.html?fbclid=IwAR1rldq_x09IDVGxaWccAZzw_oO-P6atj9mxum1CYnrMO7mgLlw1HM9s8FA
You unlike public school, Teach Physics Poetically!!!
Where do you find a private school that does this?
Fission energy will only last for a few billion years with our current uranium reserves so we should try to switch to nuclear fusion asap.
WE JUST CAN'T HAVE NICE THINGS!!
The trouble with cheap energy is that it's hard to produce profitably.
President Nixon scuttled the Oak Ridge molten salt thorium reactor program in the early 1970's in favor of a fast breeder reactor. It sounds like you want us to make the same mistake today.
There is no logical reason why we aren’t using molten salts. They can be used both as a burner and breeder reactor. We could easily burn nuclear “waste” from old fuel cells, while having the safest design that has ever been developed in nuclear technologies. With the most efficient method for fuel distribution burn up. Molten salt all the way!
I find it weird that most of Nuclear energy is extracted by boiling water. Surely there's a more efficient way but idk?
Actually, it's flashing water to steam to turn a turbine to make electricity. What they always leave out of these video are the hundreds of other applications for the high grade industrial heat these reactors generate. (the old pressure water reactors can't do that.)
fizzle
Use co2 instead of water to spin a turbine
Great video. 👏👍 You sound like Bill Gates at his younger days.🙂
Why not just find the fundamental frequency of the element then design a radio to tune into it. This isn't my idea in fact the man who proved rhis also that a inverse wave form at a higher impulse amplitude nullifies radioactivity
I would probably need a solid 20 hours of research to understand everything you said here
Never say limitless, that's a lie the fusioneers tell.
In their dreams everybody can fly. I used to dream that I am running down this hill and there is a strong wind blowing from below. I am extending my arms and my feet barely touch the ground. I am taking longer and longer leaps and then I am gliding inches above the ground forever. Great dream. In reality fusion is like climbing Mt. Everest in winter during a storm in the nude without equipment. ;-)
4 billion years' worth of fuel is pretty close to limitless considering the sun is supposed to burn out soon thereafter.
There is a private, capitalist solution on its way. Go read about Moltex Energy. Their goal, build a molten fueled, molten salt cooled, Small Modular Reactor who's startup and running costs are lower than a combined cycle gas plant who's design does _not_ require any new Nuclear Steels to be designed, tested and approved but the IAEA and the rest of the world's national nuclear safety and regulation bodies. Let's say that again: _A Molten Salt SMR that uses no New Nuclear Steels and is cheaper to build and operate than a combined cycle gas plant._ And the first one will be built in Canada before 2030. Go 🇨🇦 and 🇬🇧 Go!
Moltex you say.... I'll check that out. Thanks.
Fission is a waste of time and an endless rabbit hole of problems. Fusion may work out some day but now money needs to go to improving photovoltaic and battery technology.
Low energy-dense, intermittent sources are a waste of time, money, and land use.
Minute 17.
thorium mod from terraria
whatever nuclear fuel cycle you can think of, the power generating scheme is still based on James Watt design= heat water under pressure, expand the steam through a turbine/piston/Stirling/whatever, condense the low pressure steam. Repeat. The trouble with this is it only uses the energy of the steam. The energy used to boil the water in the first place is WASTED, and that accounts for about 60% of the energy provided by the reactor. Then you get the nuclear reaction by products. EPA and DOT have written thousands of pages (killing a lot of trees in the process) on how these wastes should be stored/transported/disposed of. There is no limitless clean energy. To make the concrete-steel structures to house the reactor, you need to pour CO2 into the atmosphere, as limestone is turned into Portland cement, and iron ore is turned into steel. Then there is the huge amount of Diesel fuel used by the trucks and bulldozers at the construction site. Then there are the thousands of gallons of gasoline from the company's lawyers cars going back and forth from City Hall, Sacramento, Washington to work out the permits, taking city, state, federal officials to dinner...CLEAN energy? give me a break!
Nothing will ever be 100% clean, but there's definitely a whole lot of stuff we can do to get it closer to that, I'm pretty sure we have something better than literally burning stuff
cleanER
I also think a barrier to funding comes from fossil fuel lobbying that inflates/exaggerates public fear (and thus less investment) about nuclear energy when nuclear power has proven to be one of the safest energy resources, especially compared to fossil fuels.
U
If solar electric plants are less expensive than the nuclear plants, why we digging to this rather than energy storage? Seems dumb.