This is the best visual/audio presentation I have ever seen on any catagory within nuclear power. And he's certainly speaking on the most diverse and interesting topic.
With the very high conversion ratios, we have enough Uranium in our spent nuclear fuel "waste" stockpiles to provide ALL human energy needs for at least 50 years. This is really amazing. That "waste" that everyone is afraid of is just sitting there in cooling ponds waiting to eliminate all coal burning if we would just wake up and use it.
These molten salt reactors are extremely promising. We really made a big mistake as a country when we funded the liquid metal fast breeder reactor program and shut down the MSR. It is clear that MSR is much safer, cheaper, and more feasible than LMFBR.
Is there a two or three page fact sheet I could find to send to congressmen, senators and the like to let them know what we are missing out not taking advantage of this technology we developed and ignored? Thanks.
We should consider adding research and SMR test reactors onto existing generation sites, in that way the heat could be used to generate heat for profit and all the other existing facilities would already be in existence and otherwise fully licensed, as would necessary personnel and other aspects. Test reactors could also come in handy to substitute for existing reactors scheduled to be taken off line for fueling or other maintenance. In this manner, the heat output would start generating revenue on day one of its operation!
250000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide, from just 60 years of fission nuclear power generating circa 10% of total electricity power generation; there is nothing sustainable about conventional nuclear fission power! There is nothing sustainable about nuclear fission power, even molten salt reactors, because the alongside reprocessing plant required for a molten salt reactor will also generate a radioactive waste stream. The idea that a molten salt reactor can "burn" the nuclear waste is a myth; in trying to burn up nuclear waste, new radioactive waste will be generator. What Dr Sorensen is describing is delusional. Yet more crap ill-considered US engineering, just like the AP1000 reactor design that was not properly earthquake proof, hence Fukushima Dai'chi. At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, to this day, people are still trying to clear up the radioactive mess from Dr Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiments from the 1950's.
@@tommorris3688 Short-lived radioactive waste is a problem that takes care of itself. It is the 'trans-uranian' waste-products that is a problem. The LFTR does not produce any plutonium etc...
@@longbeachboy57 A Thorium LFTR generates U233 which is great if one wants to fabricate a nuclear bomb. If a molten salt reactor is used to "burn" nuclear waste, there will plenty of Plutonium about. A LFTR does generate some transuranics in practice, but they generally become transmuted.
@@tommorris3688 If U233 is great for bombs, the US and the Soviets would have pursued the LFTR path instead of PWR and LWR, don't you think :) And U233 cannot absorb 6 neutrons to become Pu239. You need U238 for that. All it is good for is to fissile...
Why the hell aren't we doing this?!? Almost free energy and with little risk... I understand the weapons implications and why we chose to use uranium, but at this point we're worried about peak oil and global warming. This solves the problem! I recommend that all you American's out there sign a petition to encourage the US to spend money on this. Go to: petitions .whitehouse . gov/petition/focus-bulk-american-regulatory-and-technical-prowess-developing-test-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor/
i don't understand why the spheroid reactor is too small. Size doesn't matter. Power doesn't matter. What matters is the cost measured in dollars per watt. A smaller reactor lends itself better to serial production (assembly lines). Bonus points if it fits in a standard shipping container. doesn't matter if it's 1 MW for 2 million bucks or 100 MW for 200 million bucks.
@MillyVanillification No, the difference between a 10,000 year "store elsewhere" requirement and a 300 or 500-year "store elsewhere" requirement is a really big difference. 500 years is doable, we can bury things with 500-year containment enclosures. I don't think anybody ever took 10,000 years seriously as even remotely do-able. Plus the amount of waste is orders of magnitude smaller. I really think this deserves some serious consideration.
agreed. people including techies have herd mentality ... they are all now busy learning, exploring ideas on ruby on rails, ajax, saas, cloud computing & other cool IT ideas. ET (energy technology) is something that really needs attention right now.
May I suggest that we limit the workers to only use hand tools, this way the work will be slower per person and more jobs will be needed to get the required energy. :) All facetiousness aside, it is generally better to get more end product for less work, so if the end product we want is energy, then we want to get the required energy with the fewest jobs. This way people can work on using the energy to create goods instead. Cheers.
It's not a question of efficiency if the temperatures sink too low: you have to keep the fuel a liquid. Drop the temperatures too low and the fuel freezes!
... 250000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide, from just 60 years of fission nuclear power generating circa 10% of total electricity power generation; there is nothing sustainable about conventional nuclear fission power! There is nothing sustainable about nuclear fission power, even molten salt reactors, because the alongside reprocessing plant required for a molten salt reactor will also generate a radioactive waste stream. The idea that a molten salt reactor can "burn" the nuclear waste is a myth; in trying to burn up nuclear waste, new radioactive waste will be generator. What Dr Sorensen is describing is delusional. Yet more crap ill-considered US engineering, just like the AP1000 reactor design that was not properly earthquake proof, hence Fukushima Dai'chi. At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, to this day, people are still trying to clear up the radioactive mess from Dr Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiments from the 1950's.
This may be better than concentrated solar thermal power with (liquid salts ... again) heat storage! I prefer the expansive "cover the deserts with mirrors (not black PV) idea" only because it seems that with the diffuse nature of solar, many thousands of times more jobs would be created. Of course because of that, energy costs would be more. Would that be the solution to the melting economy? (Need an economists to answer that one).
. 250000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide, from just 60 years of fission nuclear power generating circa 10% of total electricity power generation; there is nothing sustainable about conventional nuclear fission power! There is nothing sustainable about nuclear fission power, even molten salt reactors, because the alongside reprocessing plant required for a molten salt reactor will also generate a radioactive waste stream. The idea that a molten salt reactor can "burn" the nuclear waste is a myth; in trying to burn up nuclear waste, new radioactive waste will be generator. What Dr Sorensen is describing is delusional. Yet more crap ill-considered US engineering, just like the AP1000 reactor design that was not properly earthquake proof, hence Fukushima Dai'chi. At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, to this day, people are still trying to clear up the radioactive mess from Dr Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiments from the 1950's.
@@tommorris3688 That's because it was an experiment. Today, we could have automated decommissioning, just like we have auto rocket return landings... Anyways, we would probably have a mess if we did all that, however, less people would have died. Seriously, the alternative for the last century and the first two decades of this killed millions, according to CDC (is it?) because of smog, acid rain, etc. Edit, had to cut it short, just got the jab... Anyways, done and out of the waiting room (waiting for my arm to hurt) 😊 I said the first two decades of this decade, meaning we don't need nuclear anymore! Maybe for an area that has little solar, wind, hydro and long powerlines resources? Anyhow, best to continue with Tesla style industrialism 😆
@@fireofenergy Well, if your assertion is correct, what about Fukushima Dai'ichi ? ... it is not possible to make robots function there because ambient radiation levels are too high.
@@fireofenergy Yes, I accept that. A molten salt reactor has a less abrupt operating characteristic at criticality in comparison to solid fuel rod reactors.
250000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide, from just 60 years of fission nuclear power generating circa 10% of total electricity power generation; there is nothing sustainable about conventional nuclear fission power! There is nothing sustainable about nuclear fission power, even molten salt reactors, because the alongside reprocessing plant required for a molten salt reactor will also generate a radioactive waste stream. The idea that a molten salt reactor can "burn" the nuclear waste is a myth; in trying to burn up nuclear waste, new radioactive waste will be generator. What Dr Sorensen is describing is delusional. Yet more crap ill-considered US engineering, just like the AP1000 reactor design that was not properly earthquake proof, hence Fukushima Dai'chi. At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, to this day, people are still trying to clear up the radioactive mess from Dr Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiments from the 1950's.
Irrational fear in the society is not really a security problem but an education problem. Radiation is not as dangerous as they tried to make us believe during the cold war (when russia was todays terrorist threat). A power plant is basically impossible to make in to dirty bomb of any kind. And even if they steal the material it's not that easy to do it. Cars release more dangerous particles every day than any dirty bomb could.
.53.#НАЛОЖЕНИЕ ЯДЕРНОЙ ПАМЯТИ ИНФОРМАЦ.ЭП КОЛЕБАНИЙ,ОПРЕДЕЛЕНО ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНОЙ СВЯЗЬЮ ПРЕВРАЩЕНИЯ СИНТЕЗА,ПЛАЗМЕННО/УРАНОВОГО ТРАНСПОРТА ГАЗА ЦЕПИ!.КОДОВОЕ КОНВЕКЦ.ИЗЛУЧЕНИЕ,ОПРЕДЕЛЕНО ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНЫМ НАЛОЖЕНИЕМ СИНТЕЗА,Т.К.ТРИ СИСТЕМЫ ВЫПОЛНЯЛИ СКАЗАННОЕ,В ПРОЦЕССАХ СЧЕТА ЦЕПИ ИЗЛУЧЕНИЯ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ ЭП КОЛЕБАНИЙ:1.БАКТЕРИИ!.2.ВИРУСНАЯ СИСТЕМА КОРРЕКЦИИ ПЛАЗМЕННО/УРАНОВОГО ТРАНСПОРТА СИЛЫ СЧЕТА!.3.ЯДЕРНО/КЛЕТОЧНЫЙ ИММУНИТЕТ /Д.Н.К./,Т.К.ПАМЯТЬ РЕГУЛИРОВАЛАСЬ ВНУТРЕННИМ ПОГЛАЩЕНИЕМ СЧЕТА И ВНЕШНЕЙ СИСТЕМОЙ ПЕРЕДАЧИ ЗАКРЫТИЯ ЦЕПИ ЭП КОЛЕБАНИЙ!.Т.Е.КОДОВОЕ КОНВЕКЦ.ИЗЛУЧЕНИЕ -ЭТО ПРОЦЕСС СОЧЕТАННОЙ ПЕРЕДАЧИ ПОДДЕРЖАНИЯ СЧЕТА ЦЕПИ КОЛЕБАНИЙ ПРЕВРАЩЕНИЯ,КАК ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНАЯ/ЯДЕРНАЯ/СИСТЕМА ВВОДА КОДОВОГО УРАНА СЧЕТА,САМОЙ ЯДЕРНОЙ ПАМЯТИ ПРЕВРАЩЕНИЯ ВОДЫ И СВЕТА ЯДЕРНОГО ЭП,ЧЕРЕЗ СУММАРНЫЕ МЕХАНИЗМЫ РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ,ТЕРМОЯДЕРНОГО РАЗДЕЛЕНИЯ,ВИМБРАЦ.ВОЛНОВОГО ЭП!.⚡Т.Е.КОДОВОЕ КОНВЕКЦ.ИЗЛУЧЕНИЕ ПРОИСХОДИЛО ПО ФОНОВОМУ ИЗЛУЧЕНИЮ ПОДДЕРЖАНИЯ СЧЕТА/ЦЕПИ,СОЧЕТАННОГО ИЗЛУЧЕНИЯ АТМОСФЕРНО/ГАЗОВОГО ЭП,ПРОИСХОДЯ ЕСТЕСТВЕННО,В СМЫСЛЕ ЕГО ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНОГО ПОДДЕРЖАНИЯ СЧЕТА/СОХРАНЕНИЯ,ВНУТРЕННЕЙ И ВНЕШНЕЙ ПАМЯТИ СВЯЗИ СИНТЕЗА КОДА МАТЕРИИ!.И ЗДЕСЬ НЕЛЬЗЯ НЕ ДОПОНИМАТЬ,ВСЮ ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНУЮ СИСТЕМУ ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ СИЛЫ МАТЕРИИ!.ЛЮБОЕ ДИФФИРЕНЦИАЛЬНОЕ ИЗМЕНЕНИЕ,ДОЛЖНО РАССМАТРИВАТЬСЯ ИСКЛЮЧИТЕЛЬНО,ЧЕРЕЗ ВСЮ ЯДЕРНУЮ ПАМЯТЬ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ ЦЕПИ,В ПРОТИВНОМ РАССМОТРЕНИИ-ЭТО ВИРУСНОЕ ПОГЛАЩЕНИЕ РАЗРУШЕНИЯ СЧЕТА!.ЧТО КАСАЕТСЯ ВАКУУМА?!.Я НЕ ЗНАЮ,ЧТО ТАКОЕ ВАКУУМ,Т.К.ЛЮБАЯ ЭЛЕКТРОМАГНИТНАЯ ВОЛНА В ВАКУУМЕ РАСПРОСТРАНЯЕТСЯ РАВНОМЕРНО И БЕЗ НАПРЯЖЕНИЯ???!.В КОДОВОМ ОБМЕНЕ-ЭТОГО НЕТ,Т.К.НОСИТЕЛЬ ПОГЛАЩАЕТ,ЧЕРЕЗ КРОВЬ,КОСТИ,НЕЙРОНЫ,КЛЕТКОЙ,ЯДЕРНУЮ СИЛУ ИЗЛУЧЕНИЯ,И ЗАПРЕДЕЛЬНОГО ИЗЛУЧЕНИЯ!./U#/Pu#/-ПРЕВРАЩЕНИЕ ЦЕПИ,СВЯЗАНО СО ВСЕЙ ВЕРХНЕЙ ЧАСТЬЮ ТАБЛИЦЫ ЭЛЕМЕНТОВ,Т.К.НАЛОЖЕНИЕ МНОГОУРОВНЕВОГО ЭП ЦЕПИ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ,ЗАКРЫВАЛОСЬ СИЛОЙ К.Т.В.#!!!.⚡.53..#zZz#.
You gonna build 400 in the next 20 years???? You guys are terrible at predictions. Why would anyone trust you with anything when you make such wrong headed prognostications?
That depends on how much you value energy independence. China has vowed to have a proof of concept operating in 2017 and a commercial MSR 5 years later. They currently have 300+ scientists working on this with a budget (I believe) of $2M annually. The Chinese would likely be willing to lease (or franchise) this tech to the western nations - for the right price.
This is the best visual/audio presentation I have ever seen on any catagory within nuclear power. And he's certainly speaking on the most diverse and interesting topic.
With the very high conversion ratios, we have enough Uranium in our spent nuclear fuel "waste" stockpiles to provide ALL human energy needs for at least 50 years. This is really amazing. That "waste" that everyone is afraid of is just sitting there in cooling ponds waiting to eliminate all coal burning if we would just wake up and use it.
These molten salt reactors are extremely promising. We really made a big mistake as a country when we funded the liquid metal fast breeder reactor program and shut down the MSR. It is clear that MSR is much safer, cheaper, and more feasible than LMFBR.
Unfortunately I don't have the facts on hand but I understand the Chinese and Indians from India are working with
Are working with thorium reactors liquid salt
What a great talk on Thorium reactors! I greatly enjoyed this. Technical and realistic!
Is there a two or three page fact sheet I could find to send to congressmen, senators and the like to let them know what we are missing out not taking advantage of this technology we developed and ignored? Thanks.
Great talk, I'm impressed by all the different configurations and geometries presented. I wonder if David is collaborating with Kirk at all...
We should consider adding research and SMR test reactors onto existing generation sites, in that way the heat could be used to generate heat for profit and all the other existing facilities would already be in existence and otherwise fully licensed, as would necessary personnel and other aspects. Test reactors could also come in handy to substitute for existing reactors scheduled to be taken off line for fueling or other maintenance. In this manner, the heat output would start generating revenue on day one of its operation!
For my entire life I have been promised fusion power "within the next five years".
Thorium is the future of energy!
250000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide, from just 60 years of fission nuclear power generating circa 10% of total electricity power generation; there is nothing sustainable about conventional nuclear fission power! There is nothing sustainable about nuclear fission power, even molten salt reactors, because the alongside reprocessing plant required for a molten salt reactor will also generate a radioactive waste stream. The idea that a molten salt reactor can "burn" the nuclear waste is a myth; in trying to burn up nuclear waste, new radioactive waste will be generator. What Dr Sorensen is describing is delusional. Yet more crap ill-considered US engineering, just like the AP1000 reactor design that was not properly earthquake proof, hence Fukushima Dai'chi. At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, to this day, people are still trying to clear up the radioactive mess from Dr Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiments from the 1950's.
@@tommorris3688 Short-lived radioactive waste is a problem that takes care of itself. It is the 'trans-uranian' waste-products that is a problem. The LFTR does not produce any plutonium etc...
@@longbeachboy57 A Thorium LFTR generates U233 which is great if one wants to fabricate a nuclear bomb. If a molten salt reactor is used to "burn" nuclear waste, there will plenty of Plutonium about. A LFTR does generate some transuranics in practice, but they generally become transmuted.
@@tommorris3688 If U233 is great for bombs, the US and the Soviets would have pursued the LFTR path instead of PWR and LWR, don't you think :)
And U233 cannot absorb 6 neutrons to become Pu239. You need U238 for that. All it is good for is to fissile...
I think Google Tech Videos are awesome but they need to have some pros record these - the quality is uneven and the sound is usually awful
One of the best speakers on the subject. Thanks Google! $5 *****
Why the hell aren't we doing this?!? Almost free energy and with little risk... I understand the weapons implications and why we chose to use uranium, but at this point we're worried about peak oil and global warming. This solves the problem! I recommend that all you American's out there sign a petition to encourage the US to spend money on this. Go to: petitions .whitehouse . gov/petition/focus-bulk-american-regulatory-and-technical-prowess-developing-test-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactor/
I do like these tech talks, very interesting.
i don't understand why the spheroid reactor is too small. Size doesn't matter. Power doesn't matter. What matters is the cost measured in dollars per watt. A smaller reactor lends itself better to serial production (assembly lines). Bonus points if it fits in a standard shipping container. doesn't matter if it's 1 MW for 2 million bucks or 100 MW for 200 million bucks.
@MillyVanillification No, the difference between a 10,000 year "store elsewhere" requirement and a 300 or 500-year "store elsewhere" requirement is a really big difference. 500 years is doable, we can bury things with 500-year containment enclosures. I don't think anybody ever took 10,000 years seriously as even remotely do-able. Plus the amount of waste is orders of magnitude smaller. I really think this deserves some serious consideration.
@f2o9x8 the clean nuke is far mroe treacherous- just think of a bomb with lots of power but with very little fallout?
@astrialkil It all depends on the geological factors, many areas aren't suitable for geothermal energy.
agreed. people including techies have herd mentality ... they are all now busy learning, exploring ideas on ruby on rails, ajax, saas, cloud computing & other cool IT ideas. ET (energy technology) is something that really needs attention right now.
@ingeborgsjon Deep well closed loop geothermal can replace existing power plants directly.
May I suggest that we limit the workers to only use hand tools, this way the work will be slower per person and more jobs will be needed to get the required energy. :)
All facetiousness aside, it is generally better to get more end product for less work, so if the end product we want is energy, then we want to get the required energy with the fewest jobs. This way people can work on using the energy to create goods instead. Cheers.
It's not a question of efficiency if the temperatures sink too low: you have to keep the fuel a liquid. Drop the temperatures too low and the fuel freezes!
Is it worth the cost?
... 250000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide, from just 60 years of fission nuclear power generating circa 10% of total electricity power generation; there is nothing sustainable about conventional nuclear fission power! There is nothing sustainable about nuclear fission power, even molten salt reactors, because the alongside reprocessing plant required for a molten salt reactor will also generate a radioactive waste stream. The idea that a molten salt reactor can "burn" the nuclear waste is a myth; in trying to burn up nuclear waste, new radioactive waste will be generator. What Dr Sorensen is describing is delusional. Yet more crap ill-considered US engineering, just like the AP1000 reactor design that was not properly earthquake proof, hence Fukushima Dai'chi. At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, to this day, people are still trying to clear up the radioactive mess from Dr Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiments from the 1950's.
Btw, I googled for that fusion reactor in France. It is another experimental reactor!!!
Very interesting. Hopefully we can get some nuclear power option figured out in the near future.
This may be better than concentrated solar thermal power with (liquid salts ... again) heat storage!
I prefer the expansive "cover the deserts with mirrors (not black PV) idea" only because it seems that with the diffuse nature of solar, many thousands of times more jobs would be created. Of course because of that, energy costs would be more. Would that be the solution to the melting economy? (Need an economists to answer that one).
. 250000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide, from just 60 years of fission nuclear power generating circa 10% of total electricity power generation; there is nothing sustainable about conventional nuclear fission power! There is nothing sustainable about nuclear fission power, even molten salt reactors, because the alongside reprocessing plant required for a molten salt reactor will also generate a radioactive waste stream. The idea that a molten salt reactor can "burn" the nuclear waste is a myth; in trying to burn up nuclear waste, new radioactive waste will be generator. What Dr Sorensen is describing is delusional. Yet more crap ill-considered US engineering, just like the AP1000 reactor design that was not properly earthquake proof, hence Fukushima Dai'chi. At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, to this day, people are still trying to clear up the radioactive mess from Dr Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiments from the 1950's.
@@tommorris3688
That's because it was an experiment. Today, we could have automated decommissioning, just like we have auto rocket return landings...
Anyways, we would probably have a mess if we did all that, however, less people would have died. Seriously, the alternative for the last century and the first two decades of this killed millions, according to CDC (is it?) because of smog, acid rain, etc.
Edit, had to cut it short, just got the jab...
Anyways, done and out of the waiting room (waiting for my arm to hurt) 😊
I said the first two decades of this decade, meaning we don't need nuclear anymore! Maybe for an area that has little solar, wind, hydro and long powerlines resources?
Anyhow, best to continue with Tesla style industrialism 😆
@@fireofenergy Well, if your assertion is correct, what about Fukushima Dai'ichi ? ... it is not possible to make robots function there because ambient radiation levels are too high.
@@tommorris3688
All the accidents were caused by not have molten salt.
@@fireofenergy Yes, I accept that. A molten salt reactor has a less abrupt operating characteristic at criticality in comparison to solid fuel rod reactors.
Capital cost must take into account the cost of storing radioactive waste and guarding it for hundreds of years.
Canadian. yay for LFTR
250000 tonnes of high level nuclear waste Worldwide, from just 60 years of fission nuclear power generating circa 10% of total electricity power generation; there is nothing sustainable about conventional nuclear fission power! There is nothing sustainable about nuclear fission power, even molten salt reactors, because the alongside reprocessing plant required for a molten salt reactor will also generate a radioactive waste stream. The idea that a molten salt reactor can "burn" the nuclear waste is a myth; in trying to burn up nuclear waste, new radioactive waste will be generator. What Dr Sorensen is describing is delusional. Yet more crap ill-considered US engineering, just like the AP1000 reactor design that was not properly earthquake proof, hence Fukushima Dai'chi. At Oak Ridge National Laboratories, to this day, people are still trying to clear up the radioactive mess from Dr Alvin Weinberg's molten salt reactor experiments from the 1950's.
@beachbelle80 I'm just amazed 18,000 people watched this!
@MillyVanillification
Geothermal can't produce the energy volumes required to power the economy.
LFTR doesn't have the same problems.
so there was what, about 3 ppl in that room listening?
You don't want to poison your fuel or you wont have enough neutrons flowing through the mix for a stable nuclear reaction.
7K per year for a PhD?
Looking for more information about nuclear energy and Thorium? Check out the Facebook group "Lansing Nuclear"!
Come on people, ever heard of video editors?
Irrational fear in the society is not really a security problem but an education problem. Radiation is not as dangerous as they tried to make us believe during the cold war (when russia was todays terrorist threat).
A power plant is basically impossible to make in to dirty bomb of any kind. And even if they steal the material it's not that easy to do it. Cars release more dangerous particles every day than any dirty bomb could.
Old video...time before Fukushima happen.
Thorium would save the Fukushima Daiichi...
Not believing that Google does anything for anyone for free.
.53.#НАЛОЖЕНИЕ ЯДЕРНОЙ ПАМЯТИ ИНФОРМАЦ.ЭП КОЛЕБАНИЙ,ОПРЕДЕЛЕНО ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНОЙ СВЯЗЬЮ ПРЕВРАЩЕНИЯ СИНТЕЗА,ПЛАЗМЕННО/УРАНОВОГО ТРАНСПОРТА ГАЗА ЦЕПИ!.КОДОВОЕ КОНВЕКЦ.ИЗЛУЧЕНИЕ,ОПРЕДЕЛЕНО ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНЫМ НАЛОЖЕНИЕМ СИНТЕЗА,Т.К.ТРИ СИСТЕМЫ ВЫПОЛНЯЛИ СКАЗАННОЕ,В ПРОЦЕССАХ СЧЕТА ЦЕПИ ИЗЛУЧЕНИЯ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ ЭП КОЛЕБАНИЙ:1.БАКТЕРИИ!.2.ВИРУСНАЯ СИСТЕМА КОРРЕКЦИИ ПЛАЗМЕННО/УРАНОВОГО ТРАНСПОРТА СИЛЫ СЧЕТА!.3.ЯДЕРНО/КЛЕТОЧНЫЙ ИММУНИТЕТ /Д.Н.К./,Т.К.ПАМЯТЬ РЕГУЛИРОВАЛАСЬ ВНУТРЕННИМ ПОГЛАЩЕНИЕМ СЧЕТА И ВНЕШНЕЙ СИСТЕМОЙ ПЕРЕДАЧИ ЗАКРЫТИЯ ЦЕПИ ЭП КОЛЕБАНИЙ!.Т.Е.КОДОВОЕ КОНВЕКЦ.ИЗЛУЧЕНИЕ -ЭТО ПРОЦЕСС СОЧЕТАННОЙ ПЕРЕДАЧИ ПОДДЕРЖАНИЯ СЧЕТА ЦЕПИ КОЛЕБАНИЙ ПРЕВРАЩЕНИЯ,КАК ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНАЯ/ЯДЕРНАЯ/СИСТЕМА ВВОДА КОДОВОГО УРАНА СЧЕТА,САМОЙ ЯДЕРНОЙ ПАМЯТИ ПРЕВРАЩЕНИЯ ВОДЫ И СВЕТА ЯДЕРНОГО ЭП,ЧЕРЕЗ СУММАРНЫЕ МЕХАНИЗМЫ РЕГУЛИРОВАНИЯ,ТЕРМОЯДЕРНОГО РАЗДЕЛЕНИЯ,ВИМБРАЦ.ВОЛНОВОГО ЭП!.⚡Т.Е.КОДОВОЕ КОНВЕКЦ.ИЗЛУЧЕНИЕ ПРОИСХОДИЛО ПО ФОНОВОМУ ИЗЛУЧЕНИЮ ПОДДЕРЖАНИЯ СЧЕТА/ЦЕПИ,СОЧЕТАННОГО ИЗЛУЧЕНИЯ АТМОСФЕРНО/ГАЗОВОГО ЭП,ПРОИСХОДЯ ЕСТЕСТВЕННО,В СМЫСЛЕ ЕГО ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНОГО ПОДДЕРЖАНИЯ СЧЕТА/СОХРАНЕНИЯ,ВНУТРЕННЕЙ И ВНЕШНЕЙ ПАМЯТИ СВЯЗИ СИНТЕЗА КОДА МАТЕРИИ!.И ЗДЕСЬ НЕЛЬЗЯ НЕ ДОПОНИМАТЬ,ВСЮ ФУНДАМЕНТАЛЬНУЮ СИСТЕМУ ОПРЕДЕЛЕНИЯ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ СИЛЫ МАТЕРИИ!.ЛЮБОЕ ДИФФИРЕНЦИАЛЬНОЕ ИЗМЕНЕНИЕ,ДОЛЖНО РАССМАТРИВАТЬСЯ ИСКЛЮЧИТЕЛЬНО,ЧЕРЕЗ ВСЮ ЯДЕРНУЮ ПАМЯТЬ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ ЦЕПИ,В ПРОТИВНОМ РАССМОТРЕНИИ-ЭТО ВИРУСНОЕ ПОГЛАЩЕНИЕ РАЗРУШЕНИЯ СЧЕТА!.ЧТО КАСАЕТСЯ ВАКУУМА?!.Я НЕ ЗНАЮ,ЧТО ТАКОЕ ВАКУУМ,Т.К.ЛЮБАЯ ЭЛЕКТРОМАГНИТНАЯ ВОЛНА В ВАКУУМЕ РАСПРОСТРАНЯЕТСЯ РАВНОМЕРНО И БЕЗ НАПРЯЖЕНИЯ???!.В КОДОВОМ ОБМЕНЕ-ЭТОГО НЕТ,Т.К.НОСИТЕЛЬ ПОГЛАЩАЕТ,ЧЕРЕЗ КРОВЬ,КОСТИ,НЕЙРОНЫ,КЛЕТКОЙ,ЯДЕРНУЮ СИЛУ ИЗЛУЧЕНИЯ,И ЗАПРЕДЕЛЬНОГО ИЗЛУЧЕНИЯ!./U#/Pu#/-ПРЕВРАЩЕНИЕ ЦЕПИ,СВЯЗАНО СО ВСЕЙ ВЕРХНЕЙ ЧАСТЬЮ ТАБЛИЦЫ ЭЛЕМЕНТОВ,Т.К.НАЛОЖЕНИЕ МНОГОУРОВНЕВОГО ЭП ЦЕПИ НАЛОЖЕНИЯ,ЗАКРЫВАЛОСЬ СИЛОЙ К.Т.В.#!!!.⚡.53..#zZz#.
You gonna build 400 in the next 20 years????
You guys are terrible at predictions. Why would anyone trust you with anything when you make such wrong headed prognostications?
Thorium makes ITER look like a joke.
ITER is a wrong approach. It will never be economically viable.
That depends on how much you value energy independence. China has vowed to have a proof of concept operating in 2017 and a commercial MSR 5 years later. They currently have 300+ scientists working on this with a budget (I believe) of $2M annually. The Chinese would likely be willing to lease (or franchise) this tech to the western nations - for the right price.