Quote from Admiral Rickover's famous paper from the 50ies. "An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics: It is simple. It is small. It is cheap. It is light. It can be built very quickly. It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”) Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components. The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now." Most nuclear power startups sadly seems to be forever stuck with an academic reactor. But Copenhagen Atomics is slowly moving further, and is no longer a pure paper reactor company, things are actually being developed and built now - great news. I wish them the best of luck, and wish for speedy progress away from the academic reactor to a real world reactor.
This is the future. Been a huge fan of thorium reactors for years now. We know that molten salt works with the MSRE back in the 60's. Love the modular design. Ammonia is a novel fuel for ships, however nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx and NO/N2O) are a concern with N2O being a very potent greenhouse gas, offsetting the carbon neutral nature of the process.
An underappreciated consequence of thorium being a free byproduct costing essentially nothing, is that energy production will be effectively decoupled from mining, allowing very rapid growth. Supply chains will be simple and scalable, and the one time startup fissile can be extracted from spent fuel with a simple chemical process, incidentally eliminating the waste issue without subsidy.
Uranium will impede scaling of conventional reactors, but not LFTRs (like this or the one from Flibe Energy). They can bypass the need for uranium mining and enrichment, as existing spent fuel is easily processed into a transuranic salt, and the world has enough to start several thousand gigawatts of LFTRs already. Where not available, or permission is not yet forthcoming, they can be started by feeding them LEU for a few years.
13:33 solar PV is still "growable" (at daytime- summers!), but windturbines are overinvested (DE, China, CA, ... on the Northern hemisphere). They already change weather patterns, the Westerlies are diminished, the "L"-ows are concentrating around GB, DE, and the North Sea; even the Northern Jetstream is affected (splitting, meandering, even figure-8-ing now, 2024!). it is more "wind change" than "climate change"; the deep ocean is a thermal buffer. All below -1800m, thermocline, about 1/2 of all ocean water is at cold 4°C. (little side note: this deep cold water makes for a superior steam turbine cooling source!) Clouds here in Germany look "noodle combed"! Why could that be? Think.
Like Fusion reactors MSR reactors will become viable in a few years. Always licences are denied. For the past 50 years MSR fission reactors have been just a couple of years away from being viable.
Thomas Jam Pedersen said that normal reactors are no good, too expensive. All todays proposed reactors should be put on hold. They take upto 20years to build. $6billion a GW plant. Or more. They must run 247, no room for any other generation plant for 60 years. They must have 247 cashflow for 6decades.😮😮😮😮 3kg of uranium metal fuel for 1,000MWh electricity 27 tonnes for each year. For 6decades, 60years.
Scam. Speculative or impossible technologies. Might as well invest in warp drive, teleporters, and tractor beams. Solar PV is more economical and scalable. Wind is more economical and more scalable. Both hydroelectric and geothermal are more economical and more scalable. Storage using hydro or geothermal is more economical for constantly available power. Nuclear power's chief benefits are medical isotopes, or military.
I've met the people, I've walked the factory floor. They may fail, but they are not a scam. And with respect to just Talking, these guys are one of the few that don't just produce paper designs, but actually build and test and iterate on both components and fuel production.
![THORIUM: World's CHEAPEST Energy! [Science Unveiled]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/U434Sy9BGf8/mqdefault.jpg)
Quote from Admiral Rickover's famous paper from the 50ies.
"An academic reactor or reactor plant almost always has the following basic characteristics:
It is simple.
It is small.
It is cheap.
It is light.
It can be built very quickly.
It is very flexible in purpose (“omnibus reactor”)
Very little development is required. It will use mostly “off-the-shelf” components.
The reactor is in the study phase. It is not being built now."
Most nuclear power startups sadly seems to be forever stuck with an academic reactor. But Copenhagen Atomics is slowly moving further, and is no longer a pure paper reactor company, things are actually being developed and built now - great news.
I wish them the best of luck, and wish for speedy progress away from the academic reactor to a real world reactor.
This is the future. Been a huge fan of thorium reactors for years now. We know that molten salt works with the MSRE back in the 60's. Love the modular design. Ammonia is a novel fuel for ships, however nitrogen oxide emissions (NOx and NO/N2O) are a concern with N2O being a very potent greenhouse gas, offsetting the carbon neutral nature of the process.
shut up and take my money
That is not the problem. Lack of licensing from a government is the problem.
Well done. Great work!! - Great progress!! - Keep up all the good work. So interesting to follow.
Awsome... I wish you great success!!!!
Excellent presentation! Thank you for your work to giving us a world with abundant, cheap and climate friendly energy!
An underappreciated consequence of thorium being a free byproduct costing essentially nothing, is that energy production will be effectively decoupled from mining, allowing very rapid growth. Supply chains will be simple and scalable, and the one time startup fissile can be extracted from spent fuel with a simple chemical process, incidentally eliminating the waste issue without subsidy.
Very interesting! 👍 Thanks a lot! 🍀
10:02 Is the plan to replace graphite moderators with silicon carbide?
That'd make me feel so much safer.
What I think is exciting is even if you fail, all the components you have improved will have a ripple effect across many industries
Will we see you on the Stockmarked? And would that help?:)
Copenhagen Atomics should team up with Norway :)
Only 10 years to wait now.
Keep up the good work 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻
The main limit is uranium production and upgrading,
Uranium will impede scaling of conventional reactors, but not LFTRs (like this or the one from Flibe Energy). They can bypass the need for uranium mining and enrichment, as existing spent fuel is easily processed into a transuranic salt, and the world has enough to start several thousand gigawatts of LFTRs already. Where not available, or permission is not yet forthcoming, they can be started by feeding them LEU for a few years.
You should go on joe rogan
We wouldn't say no to that!
Or Lex Fridman who’s podcast is more science friendly
13:33 solar PV is still "growable" (at daytime- summers!), but windturbines are overinvested (DE, China, CA, ... on the Northern hemisphere). They already change weather patterns, the Westerlies are diminished, the "L"-ows are concentrating around GB, DE, and the North Sea; even the Northern Jetstream is affected (splitting, meandering, even figure-8-ing now, 2024!). it is more "wind change" than "climate change"; the deep ocean is a thermal buffer. All below -1800m, thermocline, about 1/2 of all ocean water is at cold 4°C. (little side note: this deep cold water makes for a superior steam turbine cooling source!)
Clouds here in Germany look "noodle combed"! Why could that be? Think.
Like Fusion reactors MSR reactors will become viable in a few years. Always licences are denied.
For the past 50 years MSR fission reactors have been just a couple of years away from being viable.
Thomas Jam Pedersen said that normal reactors are no good, too expensive.
All todays proposed reactors should be put on hold.
They take upto 20years to build.
$6billion a GW plant. Or more.
They must run 247, no room for any other generation plant for 60 years.
They must have 247 cashflow for 6decades.😮😮😮😮
3kg of uranium metal fuel for 1,000MWh electricity
27 tonnes for each year.
For 6decades, 60years.
please not amonia
Scam. Speculative or impossible technologies. Might as well invest in warp drive, teleporters, and tractor beams.
Solar PV is more economical and scalable. Wind is more economical and more scalable. Both hydroelectric and geothermal are more economical and more scalable. Storage using hydro or geothermal is more economical for constantly available power.
Nuclear power's chief benefits are medical isotopes, or military.
Give it to Elon Musk and you‘ll get it build in 2 yrs. You are clever people but tooo nice.
I think this company is a scam, all they do is talk. They never show anything, just talk talk talk...
I've met the people, I've walked the factory floor.
They may fail, but they are not a scam.
And with respect to just Talking, these guys are one of the few that don't just produce paper designs, but actually build and test and iterate on both components and fuel production.