www.patreon.com/thorium is where I do accept financial support. You'll probably find my Patreon feed of interest, if you like this video. Pitch in $1/year, is how I filter out those opposed to atomic power. I appreciate a head-count of supporters, if not real money. So don't feel like a small pledge is an insult... it is still very important to me.
Don’t be too modest to ask for more, you deserve it for getting this priceless knowledge out there! Editing & producing is tough work. I’m gonna move some stuff around in my Patreon acct soon ;)
I am the author of the third method of achieving nuclear fusion, this is the repetition of physical conditions as in the solar corona. In 6 months there will be a small prototype of a commercial fusion reactor. A commercial fusion reactor in 1-2 years! Power 100 kW. For many years (almost 25 years) I have been convincing scientists that thermonuclear fusion in the Sun occurs not in the core of the Sun, but in the solar corona !!! But scientists are very stubborn, and do not want to believe the obvious. Why are scientists not accepting new breakthrough scientific ideas? There is an assumption, accepted by most scientists, that thermonuclear fusion in the Sun occurs in the Sun's core. But no one has ever actually confirmed this. This is just a guess, the fantasy of an authoritative physicist. Scientists are currently using two methods to achieve nuclear fusion: inertial confinement and magnetic confinement. But there is also a third method of achieving nuclear fusion, this is the repetition of physical conditions as in the solar corona. Nobody is using this third method to achieve nuclear fusion? In 6 months there will be a small prototype of a commercial fusion reactor. A commercial fusion reactor in 1-2 years! I propose a technology transfer for a commercial fusion reactor under a contract. Thermonuclear fusion in the Sun - a new version. n-t.ru/tp/ie/ts.htm th-cam.com/video/izCALj848xU/w-d-xo.html
Yes he is. As an engineer myself I look up to him as inspiring and uplifting. If I was much, much younger I'd be back at uni studying nuclear and planning ways to work for him.
@@harry554 I'm not the best person to ask, but it's my impression the real challenges in MSR technology are in the chemistry and materials sciences. The nuclear aspect is reasonably well understood, but chemists who can contribute in this area are rare.
@@harry554 The essential topics are going to be enough core physics to understand the literature and the nuclear processes, a good solid understanding of inorganic chemistry, and enough maths so that you can understand the modelling tools. Then you'll probably want to specialise in either materials (a greatly under-rated area), chemical reprocessing, corrosion control, thermodynamics and heat transfer, or perhaps mechanical engineering. The core research was largely done decades ago, now we are up to the engineering stages, specifying, qualifying materials and components, and lifecycle management of every aspect of a reactor. But don't be too discouraged, this is still a wide open field. If you turn up to project and you've even so much as worked with a non-fissile molten salt, you'll still be way ahead of most others. Concentrate on the basic math, physics, chemistry and mechanics. They'll be the tools you will rely on for almost all your career.
@@harry554 I saw a video in which Sorensen recommended working with chemical salts for people wanting to work on LFTR technology. That would have been years ago though, so take it with a drop of salt.
The more I think about energy, the more I come to the realisation that molten salt thorium is the only real savior here. We need carbon neutral reliable and safe base power, and we need LOTS of it. If we are going to make Power-To-X liquid fuels for the transportation sector, the energy requirement is truly mind boggling. We need an energy source that can replace oil, coal and old nuclear. We need it to produce carbon neutral diesel and gasoline, as well as LOTS of desalinated water for irrigation. As well as electricity and local heat.
Would give anything to work on this project, I'd mow your yard just to be able to say I helped you. Stay the coarse Sir. Am I the only 1 who is dumbfounded by lack of support and funding this this literal gift from God is getting?
Hello Kirk, It's been a long time since I saw your last video, hope all is well and hope that your company is too. You were the one that discovered the paperwork and, woke me up about it.
Thank you, Gordon! I've been starved for news on Flibe. Was looking at their website the other day and talking about Kirk tonight and his 5 minute video from years ago. Are you still on Patreon? I was supporting you at one point. I'll have to go check.
9:54 - 10:23, 10:10 more specifically-- There's a really cool new discovery that can help with this. It turns out if you embed carbon nanotubes in the metal, they help reduce alpha-induced embrittlement by serving as pockets for alpha particles to diffuse into without compromising the strength of the metal. Currently, it's limited to Aluminum alloying and "sintering", which is basically squeezing metal powder together at warm temperatures, so it's not quite ready for the rigorous safety and strength standards of nuclear energy. But, all things considered, it might be fun to experiment with.
@@gordonmcdowell yeah, new emerging field of materials science. Exciting stuff. Just out of curiosity, have you heard about the UCS report on advanced nuclear? It's called "Advanced Isn't Always Better", they argued advanced reactors like MSRs and SFRs are actually more dangerous. They have a couple of good points, but a lot of misconceptions you could clear up. Might make for a nice video topic. I'd link the report, but YT tends to delete comments with URL links nowadays.
@@mattbrody3565 Edwin Lyman. Sigh. Yeah I generally don't respond to paper reports when there's no video assets... it just turns into a vey boring Gord talking to camera video. I'll read it though. March 2021. Thanks for the heads-up.
Oh my God, they're citing LFTR as the first MSR they mention. You know they took a dump on "Thorium Reactors" when Yang was talking about them? But of course THEN they cited a single-fluid design saying it didn't perform significantly better than the alternatives. (The alternatives being relatively kick-ass 4th gen reactors.) So NOW, of all the MSR looking to be commercialized they're choosing to focus on LFTR as their first MSR-suck example. Interesting.
@@gordonmcdowell I figured as much. (Quick heads up, this reply is a bit long.) Edwin doesn't really understand the engineering and manufacturing side of nuclear. The chemistry-related safety issues _(the ability to extract material from the core and its proliferation risk)_ is a good point, and the problem of freeze plug melting times is worth MSR companies addressing, but on physical safety, the guy's a complete idiot. Head to the bottom 3 paragraphs for the core argument to nuke Ed from orbit. He said low pressure permits water vapor to diffuse into the reactor, which can cause... steam explosions? Apparently dissolved xenon and turbulent flow can rip the reactor apart? Molten salt can release cesium, meaning an MSR cracking open can spread cesium into the environment... despite being contained in a giant concrete vault at low pressure? Total idiot, no clue about reactor construction. I've been thinking about responding to the report myself, so in case you don't want to read the whole report yourself, I've got you covered. The best target is the report's conclusion and recommendation to stick with LWRs. The best approach is to state how the rigorous engineering and manufacturing requirements make LWRs unviable, and how low pressure "NLWRs" sidestep those hurdles and give plenty of headroom to address their "novel" safety issues. *_The need to 'brute force' LWRs to safety is what makes them obsolete._* LWR containment vessels need to be forged from multi-ton ingots of high quality steel, milled in a massive machine, and are thrown away if ultrasound reveals internal voids the size of a human hair. Millions of dollars worth of work, thrown away over hair-sized cracks and bubbles. Then, these ultra-expensive parts need to be shipped across the country with specialized movers. MIT's recent study found that each new LWR requires small redesigns to fit its environment, leading to delays and higher costs. And, due to the 7-year construction time, politicians get impatient and pull the plug on reactor construction all the time. *Recommending LWRs puts us right back where we started.* Drop the pressure, and suddenly reactor parts don't have to be so perfectly manufactured and heavy duty. The containment building doesn't need to be so big or sturdy to contain vaporized coolant. The end result is a smaller, safer, cheaper reactor facility that's faster and easier to build, which more than makes up for the performance gain 'insufficiencies' in the report. Worried about flooding or radioactive liquid spills? Put the reactor hall inside another building and pour a thicker concrete floor. Worried about turbulent flow ripping the reactor apart? Take Amory Lovins' advice and use large diameter pipes with wide angle joints and gentle bends.
@@azafreak There has never been so much $$$ available than right now. Get some now before we switch back to sound money and real wealth is hard to come by.
So the vision that Flibe Energy is following is definitely the most technically challenging of all the current MSR companies. Flibe is the only company trying to make a thorium breeder reactor, all the others are creating uranium burners. There's good reason for that, a lot of the technology that Kirk is talking about is entirely unproven. For example, as I understand it, Hastelloy-N is not currently an approved nuclear material: it'll need to go through a qualification process, that takes years. He's also dependent on sub-critical CO2 turbines: that technology is unproven as well. Depleted lithium is not available in sufficient quantities and is apparently also a significant proliferation risk. He didn't talk about it but I imagine his design, as a thorium breeder, will need to do online chemical processing. That is also all entirely untested outside a laboratory. There are lots of deep technical hurdles that he isn't talking about here. I definitely think Flibe energy should keep investigating their approach as it is really interesting, and I sincerely wish them the best. However, there's a reason all the others (Moltex Energy, Terrestrial Energy, ThorCon) have gone for the uranium cycle: it's just a hell of a lot simpler.
The issues are regulatory, regulatory and regulatory. The US system is 100% geared towards PWR with solid fuel. They don’t have an approval path for anything else. U.K. has a ridiculously difficult regulatory service that takes everything back to first principles. Moltex Energy (a UK company) moved to Canada where there is a will to get things done.
Because investors and governmental agencies with the requisite billions of dollars don't like to take risks with them, and new technologies are always a risk.
Captain Kirk,I did a paper on green energy in college which included molten salt reactors .this new reactor seems far better in its goals . Keep up the good world . I hope to see it go on line soon thank you.👍🏾👌🏾
If Kirk Sorensen's focused design doesn't make it, I'm 100% on board with making him the ambassador for MSRs. I wish he had a monthly podcast with Gordon or something of the sort. Just covering 4th gen nuclear news or pretty much anything, actually. If the top-end Thorium Remix taught me anything, it's that I could easily listen to those two for the better part of six hours.
@@mukiex4413 Every commenter here besides me is a computer. I am smart enough to figure that out just as I knew in about 2009 the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor was the future. The spambots were scoping out all this a few years ago. This channel is run by that whole computerized industry too probably. These programs these computers use to generate scientific dialog are extremely advanced and can actually comprehend science as far as generating different ways of phrasing a particular scientific statement because they use software developed to translate scientific textbooks and papers. All the scientists will be fooled by all the comments on obscure scientific points referencing scientific papers and that are in original text and not plagiarized from some existing source.
Same experience; always worries about nuclear waste when talking about nuclear power. 240.000 years of being radioactive scares people. This story has been ingrained in people's mind. Takes a serious PR campaign to overcome this, if even possible.
I approach people from this perspective: I am also concerned about nuclear waste. The best way to reduce potential harm of *current* waste is to forge ahead with new nuclear technology. Same for fear of meltdowns. The current nuclear fleet IS aging, my friend. Do you want to replace that with fracked NatGas, or a new generation of safer, meltdown-proof reactors that can burn up the waste from the past? Explain it so they understand MSR is "on their side" and addresses their concerns.
@@NphenExcisting nuclear is already the safest form of energy available (Google deaths per kilowatt). So replacing it with nat gas would be a bad decision from a safety perspective and such a decision would cost lives. You are right that new nuclear such as molten salt will be even better and cheaper but we should not close or stop building nuclear until this improved nuclear becomes available.
@@arjanwesselink3418 99% sure you know the difference between α, β, γ, decay and how short and long half-life relate to how `hot` a sample is. Sometimes I'll post a short primer on the topic to 'receptive skeptics' just to put things in perspective. I'd post mine, but you probably have your own approach.
I've keep up with this for the past 10 years or so. Its interesting! It seems so much better thought out than water cooled uranium reactors. How do you propose to solve the hard-gamma emitter issue with some of the decay products?
We do some experiments with high temperature salt - solar power plant and for salt bed-reactors in chemistry. The problems you mentioned are well known. My concern is the weldability and the microstructure. According to the shell theory, we need thick sections if we'd like to increase the diameter and so the power. In order to have the necessary corrosion properties of a nickel-basis alloy, a solution annealing is necessary. At this point the size of a reactor could be the problem, because this solution annealing means quick cooling from ca. 1150 degrees of C. I have this experince with Alloy B-3, and C-2000. Any deviance could result corrosion or precipitations at the grain boundaries - and we talking about decades of operation temperature. Do you have some results on welded samples? Graphite: There is some situation - e.g. silicon-carbide production for catalysators - where the only option is a heat exchanger made from graphite. Graphite is extremly badass in this situation and used in special cases. I've seen some graphite heat-exchangers in SiC production. We use SiC for catalysator production. If we don't have so high pressure, we might don't have to calculate with PWSCC in reactors/nozzle connections and this would be a game-changer. PWSCC is a huge problem at the conventional reactors. You didn't mention in this video, but there is a possibility to use MSR to produce hydrogen as well - the salt can transfer heat to a hydrogen production system based on e.g. of a variant of the Ca-Br (UT-3) thermochemical cycle. This projects is really nice and I really like your vids, prehaps we could work together once :)
Couldn't the alloy be solution heat treated after welding? Unless it is welded in situ at the reactor site, or is a very large component such as the reactor core it may be a problem. In which case can these materials be friction stir welded or ultrasonic welded?
@@Bordpie ultrasonic welding wouldn't be a good choice, not for thick section. Friction stir welding would have the same problem, inhomogenity in the weldment, therefore a solution annealing might necessary. As I mentioned above, I have experience with B3, C2000, 625, 825 and C4. In most cases a solution annealing is not necessary - due the low operational temperature (below 300 degrees of C) and not such a harsh environment like molten salt at high temperature... A lot of material reseach sould be done - and hopefully would be done. Without nuclear energy the real and reliable clean energy is just a wishful thinking - and a great opportunity to steel some money from any goverment. Sadly, the best example is Germany or California.
@@tiborkemeny8644 There is tensile and rupture life information on the Haynes website for Hastelloy N for welded plate samples. Tensile strength goes down a little for the welded material and rupture life reduces by half compared to the stress relieved sample, measured at 700C. Nothing on how the corrosion resistance changes though. I stumbled across a paper looking at the microstructure of welded Hastelloy X for WAAM. Some molybdenum carbide precipitates formed in the weld bead although this is different to Hastelloy N, less molybdenum and more chromium and iron in the X alloy so it is not necessarily representative since different elements can affect soluability of others and formation of different precipitates.
Hi Tibor, I work with the metal fabrication industry in Israel. Are you aware of the qualitative advantages of laser welding of metal alloys ? Contrary to traditional TIG welding, laser welding can produce a weld bead that's actually stronger than the surrounding base material. I train and support customers in this type of application, it's well established and available in Europe and the USA.
@@trespire Hi trespire. Well, there is no easy answer for this. My main consern would be in this topic the Marangoni-flow during the welding and how could this cause some microstructural difference. Basically the longitudinally welded pipes made from nickel-basis alloys are always solution annealed after welding. Welding points differ in composition and structure (crystallinity, metallurgy) from the rest of the base material and could be more susceptible to corrosion -> This is the reason for a solution annealing - I even if it had been welded with laser.
Kirk you're such a hero to me and many other's. No matter how many setbacks you may face remember you have a lot of people who've got you're back. People are finallny waking up as to how nuclear is in fact our ally in fighting climate change.
Viable operating temperature range of 150C, graphite confirmed as most viable moderator, and usable with Hastelloy-N, with a practical approach to capturing Tritium, top shelf work! The only major constraint being the availability of highly depleted Lithium, and of course legislature/licensing/public support. Otherwise very promising stuff, this is one area of research that gives me genuine hope.
@jomax clux Start by looking up the isotope Lithium-6 and its properties, you'll probably find some peripherally related data concerning the Castle Bravo project, which is a cautionary tale about knowing what different isotopes of Lithium can do in a nuclear situation.
@jomax clux And the second stage was a mixture of 30% Lithium-6, 70% Lithium-7. Separation of two different isotopes of the same element is where the problem lies.
@jomax clux Agreed, I would love to see it in Australia too, I'm learning everything I can about it, even looking at doing mechanical engineering so I can help build the things if that's what it takes!
@jomax clux MSRE was a uranium burner not a thorium breeder. Is a thorium breeder possible? Sure, but more complex. I'm more in the single fluid fast spectrum camp these days because of their potential simplicity (no moderator, cheap NaCl salt) and fuel versatility (breeds and burns just about anything as far as I can tell).
@jomax clux I didn't say it wasn't possible I literally said it was possible, but more complex than some other designs. Also, I'm not sure why you bring up fusion.
None. Initial fuel was 33% enrichment U235 and later smaller amount of U233 was used. Thorium breeding blanket was not introduced. It demonstrated the feasibility of the Molten Salt Reactor engineering.
Note - if you have been watching Flibe/MSR/Thorium since the beginning, only the first 1-2 mins of this vid is stuff you probably already know. It gets interesting quickly. Feel free to use TH-cam's 2x or other speeds if in a hurry.
I have been listening to Kirk for many years now. I am retired MSc metallurgist, have been teaching for 30 years. I heard much nonsense about nuclear energy, but this guy knows what he is talking about. Using Thorium and all that depleted already collected Uranium.. Would yield all energy we need for the next centuries.
I have it captured but expect ORNL to be the ones sharing the talks. They have the server-side recording, this is just a client-side rip. During the conference they made repeated mentions of sharing online (asking if talks can be shared) so I'll inquire what the plan is. I'd rather see ORNL post to TH-cam, they have the better assets. I haven't watched the rest myself, except to sync audio+video. I'll be watching myself over the next week. This one talk is different because was already in conversation with Kirk and easy to get an OK.
@@Brandon_letsgo 2020 are all released there should be a ORNL MSRW 2020 playlist. The 2021 was server-side captures by ORNL on MS Teams but are now waiting on ORNL to collect release signatures. I have a laptop capture of most of it, but I'm waiting on ORNL to release their server-side recordings as that's the optimal coverage.
Thr next problem is that it is still steam age. Can anybody come up with a solution how to directly move electron from cathode to anode, thus cutting the turbine out of the equation.
Per James Fowler below - any new info on how the loss of Russian petro/coal products, puts a fire under the development of this? How could it not - especially for Thorcon and Seaborg ship-based reactors. Kirk needs to get his stuff on ships too, Korean-built ones.
I don't think Kirk has done many new videos in the last few years, which is interesting given that he had a huge influence on getting molten salt reactors into the public conscious in the first place. Nothing really new presented here, but i am glad to see Flibe still active. Would love to see LFTR developed, but I am a bit pessimistic given the long term likelihood of rock bottom natural gas and solar prices. Shale has really changed the long term outlook for nuclear in the last decade. Natural gas is really taking over electricity production in the US lately. It looks like, for the time being, that trend is going to continue.
@@JO-mx3rz Sadly you are right but nuclear will still be relevant, especially when we run out of gas. Furthermore, nuclear reactors can be used for space exploration, which is something Mr. Sorensen was working on before (space exploration not nuclear applications for space exploration).
@@tommorris3688 Nuclear is a key component to addressing human-made global warming. And this technology can become cheaper, but innovation has to happen. And for that, failure has to occur.
@@tommorris3688 If that were true we would not be in this situation. Renewables and Nuclear must work together, not against each other. Renewables are too resource-intensive. Improvements are happening, but they cannot replace every energy source. It would require a major overhaul of our energy sector. Not all energy is used for electricity purposes.
I am hanging my hopes on the NuScale SMR being developed in Utah and Idaho because they have already cleared regulatory hurdles and it could be deployed by the late 2020s. These other advanced reactors won't come to fruition any time soon. Maybe some day.
There is some really good technical information in this video. It answers a lot of questions I had. Particularly about Tritium. What causes it to be made, and what needs to be done to address it. (I remember Kirk asking Syd Ball and Richard Engle about this topic that "patio lunch" video you had posted some years ago and thought "What's that all about".) But also the question about "well why also Be2F?" We hear Kirk talk about "LFTR" a lot, which covers the L and F, but not the Be, so I always kinda wondered how that comes into play. Now I get it. Great presentation, Kirk! Thanks for posting the video, Gordon!
Sodium 22 chloride salt reactor with a stainless steel vessel with fuel salt in a boron carbide tube or zirconium hydride tube could breed uranium 238 from waste to thorium with gravity for processing of waste, skimming for floating waste or out gassing. Chloride is cheap and abundant. Though iron boron aluminum alloy might work for lead bismuth reactors. Though beryllium chloride with thorium chloride with boron carbide may work.
The MSRE needed a gravitational field (gas extraction, salt circulation, melt plug etc). Just my opinion but I think zero G might be possible but would likely involve greatly added complexity. For the moment RTGs seem a more practical solution for space/zero G.
In addition to nuclear still being vilified as the third-rail in the energy sector, Thorium also represents a risk to the Petro-Dollar, which is an even bigger issue for the powers in the U.S. and other petroleum producing countries. Once the USD has been sufficiently decoupled from petroleum you will have an easier path. You'll know when its coming because the powers, politicians, etc. will be making their MSR investment moves.
It is irrelevant to battery recycling. For nuclear purposes this is extremely low-volume compared to battery waste. And "depleted" means containing a particular isotope not "used up" as in aged battery. You might have known that, but just making clear.
Mr. Sorenson, the conventional nuclear people have many vested interests in not wanting to change. The first is the multi billion dollar reactor facilities they now own , the second is not wanting to admit they undertook these not small investments without even looking to see if something else could do better. If the utility types had held off a bit, and out waited the government and it's defense capability biased (every conventional nuclear plant in the US, some more by design, produces fissionable nuclear material suitable for making a bomb) design decisions, we would be far ahead of where we are, and maybe accidents like Fukashima or Three Mile Island would have not happened or been as bad.Keep fighting the good fight- the relatively near term is going to need these solutions as we turn more and more of our total energy budget over to less and less environmentally disastrous means and technologies.
Kirk Sorenson has plenty of hat, but are there any cattle? I'd love to hear from Terrapower, Thorcon, Copenhagen Atomics and Elysium. Thanks for your irreplaceable coverage, Gordon!
Canada's Terrestrial Energy, which was doing research on SMR (Small Modulare Reactor) at Ontario's Oakville Nuclear site, has been granted a $20 Million research grant from Atomic Energy Canada to hopefully progress the design into a fully functioning 195 megawatt SMR within the next 10 years.
They also presented at the MSR conference. Terra power is pretty far in development and recently was awarded a bunch of money from the DOD for reactor research. The others are about the same level of development as Flibe more or less
@@dsl145 Thorcon seems to have very imminent plans, and Terrapower and Copenhagen Atomics are AFAIK the ones with the most prototyping work on components. I hope Thorcon has similar prototyping work in hand, given their timeline, but... Nothing against Flibe Energy really, they just don't strike me as one of the ones in striking distance. Sorensen's enthusiasm seems like it may have been very important to enabling this whole thing.
The DOE is funding advanced nuclear R&D in a big way this year. Including building prototype reactors. Write to your politicians to make sure it stays that way. Spread the word. Advanced nuclear is on Biden's platform even though it started getting seriously funded in Trump's DOE, so it's hopefully here to stay unless someone kills it.
@@sealpiercing8476 Cheers, but I’m in 🇳🇿.. NZ.., interfering in US politics is kinda going against the last 80 years😂... and a touch sensitive at the mo...🤔 lol too funny👍
@@tigertiger1699 Apologies. Still, I'd consider it a favor if you yelled at any US friends to vote. Anyway, Thorcon might be the earliest option for an MSR in NZ. They're one of the highest-readiness groups; they've got a deal with Indonesia, and I think they're doing non-nuclear prototyping right now. Their reactor's thing is that the whole power plant is built into a barge that you deploy by towing it over from the shipyard in South Korea and filling it full of concrete to ballast it down where you want it. So, write your own government about that one if you want an MSR ASAP?
@@sealpiercing8476 Agree Thorcon for early start, they solve uncertainty around degradation problems by regular reactor can replacement. It seems to me once we better understand the technology in service, it should be possible extend service life of the reactor vessels through incremental improvements.
@@jimgraham6722 I have researched this issue. Thorcon intends to use SS316Ti (maybe Ni clad) for most salt-contacting components. It can be made work. They may not succeed, but it won't be because of that salt-facing materials trouble. Thorcon reactor is also a good option for NZ I think because it is ship-deployed. It wouldn't be held back by lack of domestic nuclear infrastructure.
We're working on the small modular concept for bases and off-site field installations. While still in the concept stage we have 2 models built on the MSRE concept. The most promising is a small modular Fast reactor.
the little danger with fast_MSRs, in my opinion, is that by mismanagement, ignorance, or geological-disaster-event (super-volcano), water could get near the fast-core and start maliciously moderating the neutrons! Chernobyl had two explosions, 3 seconds apart, one of that was quite certainly a supercritical event! See Scott Manley on TH-cam
I don't think the challenge is containing the majority of it, rather that tiny quantities frequently escape and can't be segregated from normal hydrogen (or then water). From a sell-the-stuff perspective it should be fine. (Anyone feel free to correct me on this.)
Will this technology be using Enriched Li6 , Li7 and if so how will that cost be approached and more Importantly Its Title as a Weapons Grade material.
I'd suggest following ConradKnauer on Twitter he's monitoring SINAP as best he can. Or a Twitter search: "(from: ConradKnauer) TMSR" here's my latest result using that: twitter.com/ConradKnauer/status/1368828739988070403 "CAS researcher Li Zhijun (李志军) profiled, following an award. That looks like the LF1 vessel he's securing."
Would tritium be a useful propellant in ion drives? I know, cart in front of the horse, but plan ahead. If you're ok with a charged storage tank you could strip off the electrons to make it denser?
They usually use heavier gasses for ion propulsion. My guess is they'd use something even heavier if they could, to get more mass for each molecule pushed out of the thruster. Equal and opposite reactions. A heavier molecule = more thrust
I thought Xenon was "the thing" for ion propulsion.. and I'm pretty sure Xenon is produced as a fission product and could be captured as it gasses off from the salt. Thought KS touched on this in a video or two.
about 1/2 the ocean water is at a frigid cold 4°C, all the saltwater below 1800 m (even in the tropics; in the waters around Iceland You need not go to such depth!). If Fission MSRs could use this for cooling water You would get more than 43% efficiency! There is a lot of "cold" left over from the last ice ages, down under the waves!
at 9:05 the blanket salt is mentioned as a neutron barrier that protects the reactor outer shell (its function to carry the thorium that absorbs those neutrons to breed uranium is not mentioned). Does anybody know what separates the blanket and fuel salts?
The blanket is separated by the moderator channels. In the original MSBR that's all that separated the fuel salt from the blanket salt. They were intended to combine the two streams in the online fuel reprocessing "kidney" and not the core.
The salt research for MSRs is identical to fusion research for just that reason. One use wants to maximize it (fusion) while the other wants to minimize it. But in both cases its a molten FliBe salt
Sorensen, sir you stand up there with similar people like N. Tesla. I hope the environmentalist can see past the world “Nuclear”.. This can save the planet from CO2
As far as I knows, and is not much, in case the salt leaks out of the reactor it will solidify and could be recovered taking safety measures, but for what I know there is no risk of filtration to underground water or mixing with the floor... I don't know about water/air entering de core sorry. Cheers
@@babyelian77 Yes molten salt reactors need to be kept well away from water. Whereas PWRs need lots of water to cool core in case of pressure loss, so must be by river or sea, MSRs are unpressurized and in the unlikely event of overheat the drain plug melts and the fuel is dumped into cooling tanks. They are better suited for dry or even desert environments as they can be designed not to need any cooling water (the MSRE was air cooled). Any MSR installation would need to be built well away from flood prone areas.
@@jimgraham6722 Having to be water cooled is a big drawback which LFTRs avoid. Tsunamis for one, heating and cooling of water with cycles affecting water inhabiting life is another.
If you mean solid thorium then you are creating the same problems as we have in today’s reactors. If you mean in a liquid (dissolved form) then in what salt. Also you see they have a blanket to absorb most neutrons. It just never gets them all
From what I understand of the LFTR design, the intent is to have Thorium tetrafluoride in the blanket salt to absorb spare neutrons, which is then separated out and left in a decay tank to be converted into protactinium, then decay into uranium. You can then fluorinate it and add it to the fuel salt. Breeder reactors for the win!
@@AximandTheCursed they are leaving it to decay in the blanket for protection in the last review as it is more protected that way.also how do you fill the gap between the cladding(what cladding in this design) if he means the vessel wall then you are protecting the outer wall with a blanket but there has to be a wall that separates the blanket from the fuel and this wall is still getting a high flux
@@brianwild4640 Decaying in the blanket salt for protection? How do they intend to eliminate the possibility of the protactinium absorbing more neutrons? If it becomes Pa-234 then it is useless. Decaying from Th-233 to Pa-233 to U-233 is done by shedding Beta particles, they would only need a small amount of aluminium shielding for that.
@@AximandTheCursed they reckon if they have enough of a blanket this will be minimal. And I was on about the shield from the core to the blanket that still has to be able to survive the high flux no matter how much blanket
I believe one of the problems with having Li-6 present is that it will eat neutrons. Li-6 has a neutron capture cross-section about 5 orders of magnitude higher than Li-7. The neutron budget to sustain the Th232->U233 process is already pretty low. You want to reduce neutron capture in anything else to an absolute minimum.
If we can make enriched uranium in centrifugal enrichment with u238 and u235 imagine how much easier it would be to enrich lithium 7 and lithium 6. Compared to the difference between u235 and u238, imagine how much easier would be from 6 to 7 compared to u238 and u235. Much much easier to go from 6 to 7 and u235 from u238..
The way for industries to make the right choices is to make the system honest in representation of costs, including costs to the environment and future generations (opportunity costs). If we charge fees proportional to how much pollution is emitted, resources are extracted or habitat is destroyed, then those harmful impacts will automatically be avoided by producers and consumers as a matter of course. The policy will be fair if fee proceeds are shared to all people. The market and economic system will embody a respect for Truth as a primary value when prices are honest. A respect for Fairness is shown, is manifest in reality, when (a monetary representation of) natural wealth is shared to all people. (Or to all adults. The portion of natural wealth that might be claimed by children could be awarded as tokens that they might use to purchase educational experiences from a menu of options, visits to museums, health care and other services that most people agree promote the healthy development of children and a healthy society in decades to come.) The policy will embody in practice the idea that we have a shared right to define limits to overall impacts, if we raise fees until random polls show that impacts of various kinds are within limits that most people think are acceptable. An honest economy would favor those solutions that meet basic needs and wants at the least cost to the environment.
How viable would it be to start the move to MSR's using uranium burner reactors? I understand the excitement for thorium and breeding, but we probably shouldn't put the cart before the horse. As a layman I might be completely getting this wrong as to what mixture MSRs need to function, but it seems like erecting uranium burners as a baseline would perfectly well fit into current nuclear supply chains and could be done immediately. Again, tell me if I'm full of crap and getting the chemistry completely wrong.
The main reason for the slow developing of the Thorium Molten Salt reactor is most likely the influence from the oil and coal companies, both producing the most pollution in the world. They see this development as a threat to their business. And the many people who work in those industries and the shareholders will do everything in their power to stop or at least slow down this development.
Three mile island didn’t kill anyone and the water wasn’t contaminated Fukushima didn’t kill anyone from radiation the deaths were caused by the trampling of people trying to evacuate Chernobyl the only nuclear accident in history to kill people from radiation Meanwhile oil spills regurlely contaminate water and cause more damage than Cheryobyl And just being near a coal plant can give you lung cancer from air pollution
what happens is the reactor fails in some way and the salts cool down in the pipes? How do you restart the reactor or find and fix a problem in the pipes or valves? I am a strong supporter nuclear power, and get stronger when I look at the reality the planet faces ... but we cannot afford more nuke designs that are going to have problems or create catastrophes
I believe the pipes would have an external heating mechanism. That's required to fill the system with liquid salt in the first place. So if the salt freezes it could damage the pipes if it doesn't dairy effectively, but assuming the drainage system works even a loss-of-power scenario should have enough salt drained to keep the pipes from being damaged. This is not an expert opinion, it was just my general opinion that a electricity-based pipe-heating system would be required for the system to be viable in the first place.
@@gordonmcdowell Thanks for your reply. Just my gut feeling, and no expert opinion from me either, but the complexity of that and the failure points I could imagine, something like Fukushima, makes me feel in my gut this is not a good technology to implement on a large scale. Is there any long term experience with this reactor technology? The Light Water Reactors are something we have a lot of experience with and the appeal of the relatively simple and walk-away safety has a simplicity that I think the public is more likely to accept. Because if something goes wrong, troubleshooting a complex technology in the middle of a possible nuclear catastrophe is something I don't think anyone would want to see, and would cause the anti-nuclear people to raise hell and doom the industry worse than it is now. The chemical reactivity and toxicity of the salts seems like a red flag to me - even worse at high-temperatures. The scale of the global warming problem and the importance of nuclear to its solution, to me, seems to scream safety and simplicity, and having a lot of experience with, especially in light of the "stupidity" of the humans in operation and design of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Will be watching more of your videos, thanks.
@@justgivemethetruth The point of the salt is lack of reactivity. I think it is pretty clear in the video the failures we have experienced is because current reactors do allow the coolant to become separated from the fuel, and that liquid fuel ensures the coolant and fission-products (what continues to produce heat once reactor is turned off) are one-and-the-same. All the complexity of online chemistry is to keep the reactor operating, not for safety. Safety is passive. The reactor has many ways to potentially become inoperative (billion dollar repairs) but none of those paths result in release of radioactive material. That the salt is toxic shouldn't be a concern... the battery in your phone is toxic. The gasoline in your car is toxic. This is an industrial process, and our realistic concerns should be does the process RELEASE toxins, not whether toxins are involved. The output of an efficient Th-MSR is fission products. The salt is recycled. The actinides are recycled. It is all valuable stuff we don't want to throw-away, not just because it would be illegal, but because it represents very expensive material that would need to be re-created for the reactor to continue operating.
@@gordonmcdowell My understanding of the LWR is that they use water as a moderator, so when the water drains or boils off the reaction is halted - that is a pretty simple and does not require complicated failsafe mechanisms. That is what we should be aiming for. > That the salt is toxic shouldn't be a concern... the battery in your phone is toxic. While true, that logic does not convince me of anything. My cellphone battery is not a nuclear reactor. And as for gas in a car we have had a century of all kinds of experience with gasoline - moving to something new for no real major benefit because someone thinks it's cool and a company can make money off it when the future of the whole nuclear industry is at stake .... not a good idea. > The reactor has many ways to potentially become inoperative (billion dollar repairs) but none of those paths result in release of radioactive material. That should not be the criterion for a good reactor design.
@@justgivemethetruth Stopping fission is not a challenge. Controls rods can drop in due to gravity when power is lost. Reflective material (beryllium) could be moved to make the core sub-critical. These can all be passive mechanisms. Really, only fast-spectrum reactors present any additional considerations because the introduction of moderator to a fast-spectrum reactor could make it super-critical. Stopping fission hasn't been a concern since Chernobyl or (fast-spectrum) Fermi-I. It has been the dissipation of decay heat that is the challenge, and every single meltdown or severe accident has ALSO been due to decay heat. Dissipation of decay heat CAN BE a concern for LWR since water can AND HAS fled the scene during TMI and Chernobyl and Fukushima. You are concerned about chemical "toxicity" of nuclear fuel salt? I suggest you steer clear of any and all industrial processes. No one (including myself) cares about what circulates inside a closed-loop industrial process. People care what is released into the environment. And the best way to not release toxins of any sort (radioactive or chemical) is to avoid accidents in the first place. The best way to avoid accidents with nuclear reactors is to have passive mechanisms for dissipating decay heat. Billion dollar repairs: "That should not be the criterion for a good reactor design". Lots of criteria to consider. I wish you the best of luck with LWR. We do need them, as they're proven statistically safe and are ready to be deployed. Please go try build some and tell as many people as possible how clean and safe they are.
Another excellent presentation by Kirk Sorensen. His dedication is commendable, as MSR is the only viable energy option that I am aware of. Wind and solar only work if heavily subsidized and supplemented by other technologies. I am 100% behind transmuted U233 fission reactors using molten salt in the reactor core. What annoys me the most is that not everyone else is 100% behind this technology. To me this seems rather insane. THIS IS THE ANSWER WE ARE ALL LOOKING FOR. I don't know how to express this fact more clearly and I am quite frustrated by this. Cheap and abundant energy equals prosperity for everyone.
Kirk Sorensen, Robert Zubrin, ( and many others) must periodically look into their Whiskey, Brandy or Coffee cup and ponder, so little is stopping our ideas from being realised in our lifetime. A toast, here's hoping !!
Cant the surface corrosion be solved with some kind of surface treatment or protective layer? Im thinking a gold protective layer would work pretty well. It doesent melt, it doesent crack, it doesent flake. Its relatively simple to apply either chemically or with sputtering. In the grand scheme of things it isnt even that expensive since the layer is thin and also not proprietary
@@caav56 you might be right. it might just be the case that corosion is a fact of life, and you have to treat the reactor vessel and salt loop as a consumable.if you have several reactors in one spot you could pump the salt from a spent core to a fresh core and treat the empty tank on its own.
How does the Flibe design eliminate the higher actinides? Fast reactors fission them directly, but a thermal spectrum doesn't do this. So how are the long-lived guys like Americium, Neptunium, etc. addressed?
IANANP but my understanding is that this is not a question of the molten salt design, but of the Th-U fuel cycle. ²³³U is a lot farther away from those higher actinides than ²³⁸U, so in practice, not a lot of the fuel will ever absorb enough neutrons to get to the "bad" actinides.
Tritium is hard to contain, and the creation of Tritium costs precious neutrons. LFTR is extremely neutron-tight, and everywhere neutrons can be saved they need to be saved so they'll hit U-233 or hit Th-232.
@@gordonmcdowell ah, ok. Is this production happening in the core? I thought he said it was in the turbine and steam but I am probably not understanding correctly. I'm a software guy, not chemical/nuclear guy 😅
@@aaronely759 FLiBe salt is both in core salt and blanket salt. So that Li will produce Tritium. Kirk is hoping to use a CO2 turbine which will make it easier to catch any Tritium which might escape the reactor (as compared to H2O in steam with Tritium getting mixed up with normal hydrogen). Isotopic separation of Lithium is a thing in Russia and China but no longer USA. Kirk has ideas how to do it, as do some other folks that are trying to fly under the radar presently. Worth doing for battery tech and medication not just for Li6 vs Li7 in FLiBe. (Or just pay China for Li7. Yikes, but probably doable.)
@@gordonmcdowell using co2 seems like a brilliant idea. Did USA outlaw isotopic isolation? Asking because you said 'no longer'. Very curious to hear why this is the case.
@@aaronely759 They had it for the original MSRE (which used FLiBe salt) and probably for weapons? I think Li6 had some utility in hydrogen bombs? Was never outlawed, but people poking around at starting it up got some pushback. That was before MSR were taken seriously, and I've not heard of any pushback in the past 5 years.
@@tommorris3688 hi, tku for your comment... can you be more specific... how can one be more familiar with this comparison... after all, oil business is the most subsidized industries off all... if all these prices were imposed on the oil industry it would not be profitable... please, where can we see a fair comparison
Material Science has come by leaps and bounds to the present day. We can move around atoms, one at a time, lay down a film just atoms deep, and build materials that were once incompatible to each other. In chips alone we already layer dozens of materials in tiny places. With petabytes of data still to be assessed, perhaps true AI can be our test bed.Tritium as a waste product? That Element is profoundly expensive. Future Fusion needs Tritium.
www.patreon.com/thorium is where I do accept financial support. You'll probably find my Patreon feed of interest, if you like this video. Pitch in $1/year, is how I filter out those opposed to atomic power. I appreciate a head-count of supporters, if not real money. So don't feel like a small pledge is an insult... it is still very important to me.
Dear Kirk Sorensen I hope you can read this. What do you think about the Dual Fluid Reactor ?
Can the uranium fluoride be molten and form into a ball and then can it be used for easier transport?
@@CUBETechie (question 2) The form of the fuel isn't really where the transport issues arise...
Don’t be too modest to ask for more, you deserve it for getting this priceless knowledge out there! Editing & producing is tough work. I’m gonna move some stuff around in my Patreon acct soon ;)
I am the author of the third method of achieving nuclear fusion, this is the repetition of physical conditions as in the solar corona. In 6 months there will be a small prototype of a commercial fusion reactor. A commercial fusion reactor in 1-2 years! Power 100 kW.
For many years (almost 25 years) I have been convincing scientists that thermonuclear fusion in the Sun occurs not in the core of the Sun, but in the solar corona !!! But scientists are very stubborn, and do not want to believe the obvious. Why are scientists not accepting new breakthrough scientific ideas? There is an assumption, accepted by most scientists, that thermonuclear fusion in the Sun occurs in the Sun's core. But no one has ever actually confirmed this. This is just a guess, the fantasy of an authoritative physicist. Scientists are currently using two methods to achieve nuclear fusion: inertial confinement and magnetic confinement. But there is also a third method of achieving nuclear fusion, this is the repetition of physical conditions as in the solar corona. Nobody is using this third method to achieve nuclear fusion? In 6 months there will be a small prototype of a commercial fusion reactor. A commercial fusion reactor in 1-2 years! I propose a technology transfer for a commercial fusion reactor under a contract. Thermonuclear fusion in the Sun - a new version. n-t.ru/tp/ie/ts.htm th-cam.com/video/izCALj848xU/w-d-xo.html
Kirk Sorensen is a hero of our age. His should be a household name and I truly hope it is one day.
Yes he is. As an engineer myself I look up to him as inspiring and uplifting. If I was much, much younger I'd be back at uni studying nuclear and planning ways to work for him.
@@harry554 I'm not the best person to ask, but it's my impression the real challenges in MSR technology are in the chemistry and materials sciences. The nuclear aspect is reasonably well understood, but chemists who can contribute in this area are rare.
@@harry554 The essential topics are going to be enough core physics to understand the literature and the nuclear processes, a good solid understanding of inorganic chemistry, and enough maths so that you can understand the modelling tools. Then you'll probably want to specialise in either materials (a greatly under-rated area), chemical reprocessing, corrosion control, thermodynamics and heat transfer, or perhaps mechanical engineering. The core research was largely done decades ago, now we are up to the engineering stages, specifying, qualifying materials and components, and lifecycle management of every aspect of a reactor.
But don't be too discouraged, this is still a wide open field. If you turn up to project and you've even so much as worked with a non-fissile molten salt, you'll still be way ahead of most others. Concentrate on the basic math, physics, chemistry and mechanics. They'll be the tools you will rely on for almost all your career.
Yes! His sealing wax is markedly better. So sad to see a brilliant engineer dupe himself into wasting his time.
@@harry554 I saw a video in which Sorensen recommended working with chemical salts for people wanting to work on LFTR technology. That would have been years ago though, so take it with a drop of salt.
This guy. I wish I had the money and resources to bring this to reality.
@Tim [Laughs in cloud coverage]
Kirk, please keep yourself healthy for a long time ! Mankind needs your voice and your work💡
17:30 I’m sure when LFTR’s get going depleted lithium won’t be a problem 👍🏼
Glad to see Kirk is still moving Flibe forward.
I want to thank Kirk Sorensen for his Insights and work to bring Thorium and Salt Reactors to the world and to our future.
The more I think about energy, the more I come to the realisation that molten salt thorium is the only real savior here. We need carbon neutral reliable and safe base power, and we need LOTS of it. If we are going to make Power-To-X liquid fuels for the transportation sector, the energy requirement is truly mind boggling. We need an energy source that can replace oil, coal and old nuclear. We need it to produce carbon neutral diesel and gasoline, as well as LOTS of desalinated water for irrigation. As well as electricity and local heat.
sodium cooled fast reactors will be the best of both worlds, provided solar + batteries won't outcompete it all. But let's see.
Would give anything to work on this project, I'd mow your yard just to be able to say I helped you. Stay the coarse Sir. Am I the only 1 who is dumbfounded by lack of support and funding this this literal gift from God is getting?
Hello Kirk, It's been a long time since I saw your last video, hope all is well and hope that your company is too.
You were the one that discovered the paperwork and, woke me up about it.
Thank you, Gordon! I've been starved for news on Flibe. Was looking at their website the other day and talking about Kirk tonight and his 5 minute video from years ago. Are you still on Patreon? I was supporting you at one point. I'll have to go check.
Okay, you are on there. Not sure what happened. Signed up again.
@@Lulu58e2 Thanks, much. Good reminder, I should be Patreon groveling with every upload as pinned comment.
9:54 - 10:23, 10:10 more specifically-- There's a really cool new discovery that can help with this. It turns out if you embed carbon nanotubes in the metal, they help reduce alpha-induced embrittlement by serving as pockets for alpha particles to diffuse into without compromising the strength of the metal. Currently, it's limited to Aluminum alloying and "sintering", which is basically squeezing metal powder together at warm temperatures, so it's not quite ready for the rigorous safety and strength standards of nuclear energy. But, all things considered, it might be fun to experiment with.
I'd not heard that one before.
@@gordonmcdowell yeah, new emerging field of materials science. Exciting stuff.
Just out of curiosity, have you heard about the UCS report on advanced nuclear? It's called "Advanced Isn't Always Better", they argued advanced reactors like MSRs and SFRs are actually more dangerous. They have a couple of good points, but a lot of misconceptions you could clear up. Might make for a nice video topic.
I'd link the report, but YT tends to delete comments with URL links nowadays.
@@mattbrody3565 Edwin Lyman. Sigh. Yeah I generally don't respond to paper reports when there's no video assets... it just turns into a vey boring Gord talking to camera video. I'll read it though. March 2021. Thanks for the heads-up.
Oh my God, they're citing LFTR as the first MSR they mention. You know they took a dump on "Thorium Reactors" when Yang was talking about them? But of course THEN they cited a single-fluid design saying it didn't perform significantly better than the alternatives. (The alternatives being relatively kick-ass 4th gen reactors.) So NOW, of all the MSR looking to be commercialized they're choosing to focus on LFTR as their first MSR-suck example. Interesting.
@@gordonmcdowell I figured as much. (Quick heads up, this reply is a bit long.) Edwin doesn't really understand the engineering and manufacturing side of nuclear. The chemistry-related safety issues _(the ability to extract material from the core and its proliferation risk)_ is a good point, and the problem of freeze plug melting times is worth MSR companies addressing, but on physical safety, the guy's a complete idiot. Head to the bottom 3 paragraphs for the core argument to nuke Ed from orbit.
He said low pressure permits water vapor to diffuse into the reactor, which can cause... steam explosions? Apparently dissolved xenon and turbulent flow can rip the reactor apart? Molten salt can release cesium, meaning an MSR cracking open can spread cesium into the environment... despite being contained in a giant concrete vault at low pressure? Total idiot, no clue about reactor construction.
I've been thinking about responding to the report myself, so in case you don't want to read the whole report yourself, I've got you covered. The best target is the report's conclusion and recommendation to stick with LWRs. The best approach is to state how the rigorous engineering and manufacturing requirements make LWRs unviable, and how low pressure "NLWRs" sidestep those hurdles and give plenty of headroom to address their "novel" safety issues.
*_The need to 'brute force' LWRs to safety is what makes them obsolete._* LWR containment vessels need to be forged from multi-ton ingots of high quality steel, milled in a massive machine, and are thrown away if ultrasound reveals internal voids the size of a human hair. Millions of dollars worth of work, thrown away over hair-sized cracks and bubbles. Then, these ultra-expensive parts need to be shipped across the country with specialized movers. MIT's recent study found that each new LWR requires small redesigns to fit its environment, leading to delays and higher costs. And, due to the 7-year construction time, politicians get impatient and pull the plug on reactor construction all the time. *Recommending LWRs puts us right back where we started.*
Drop the pressure, and suddenly reactor parts don't have to be so perfectly manufactured and heavy duty. The containment building doesn't need to be so big or sturdy to contain vaporized coolant. The end result is a smaller, safer, cheaper reactor facility that's faster and easier to build, which more than makes up for the performance gain 'insufficiencies' in the report. Worried about flooding or radioactive liquid spills? Put the reactor hall inside another building and pour a thicker concrete floor. Worried about turbulent flow ripping the reactor apart? Take Amory Lovins' advice and use large diameter pipes with wide angle joints and gentle bends.
It is 2020. What is the hold up? Waiting for this to become a reality is exasperating.
$$$
@@azafreak There has never been so much $$$ available than right now. Get some now before we switch back to sound money and real wealth is hard to come by.
So the vision that Flibe Energy is following is definitely the most technically challenging of all the current MSR companies. Flibe is the only company trying to make a thorium breeder reactor, all the others are creating uranium burners. There's good reason for that, a lot of the technology that Kirk is talking about is entirely unproven. For example, as I understand it, Hastelloy-N is not currently an approved nuclear material: it'll need to go through a qualification process, that takes years. He's also dependent on sub-critical CO2 turbines: that technology is unproven as well. Depleted lithium is not available in sufficient quantities and is apparently also a significant proliferation risk. He didn't talk about it but I imagine his design, as a thorium breeder, will need to do online chemical processing. That is also all entirely untested outside a laboratory. There are lots of deep technical hurdles that he isn't talking about here. I definitely think Flibe energy should keep investigating their approach as it is really interesting, and I sincerely wish them the best. However, there's a reason all the others (Moltex Energy, Terrestrial Energy, ThorCon) have gone for the uranium cycle: it's just a hell of a lot simpler.
The issues are regulatory, regulatory and regulatory. The US system is 100% geared towards PWR with solid fuel. They don’t have an approval path for anything else.
U.K. has a ridiculously difficult regulatory service that takes everything back to first principles.
Moltex Energy (a UK company) moved to Canada where there is a will to get things done.
Because investors and governmental agencies with the requisite billions of dollars don't like to take risks with them, and new technologies are always a risk.
I'm cheering for you Kirk!
Captain Kirk,I did a paper on green energy in college which included molten salt reactors .this new reactor seems far better in its goals . Keep up the good world . I hope to see it go on line soon thank you.👍🏾👌🏾
Brilliant, thanks for this interview!
Its been probably 8 years since I would study the Thorium Energy Forum but I am able to follow every single thing he says.
If Kirk Sorensen's focused design doesn't make it, I'm 100% on board with making him the ambassador for MSRs. I wish he had a monthly podcast with Gordon or something of the sort. Just covering 4th gen nuclear news or pretty much anything, actually. If the top-end Thorium Remix taught me anything, it's that I could easily listen to those two for the better part of six hours.
@@mukiex4413 Every commenter here besides me is a computer. I am smart enough to figure that out just as I knew in about 2009 the Molten Salt Thorium Reactor was the future. The spambots were scoping out all this a few years ago. This channel is run by that whole computerized industry too probably. These programs these computers use to generate scientific dialog are extremely advanced and can actually comprehend science as far as generating different ways of phrasing a particular scientific statement because they use software developed to translate scientific textbooks and papers. All the scientists will be fooled by all the comments on obscure scientific points referencing scientific papers and that are in original text and not plagiarized from some existing source.
Same experience; always worries about nuclear waste when talking about nuclear power. 240.000 years of being radioactive scares people. This story has been ingrained in people's mind. Takes a serious PR campaign to overcome this, if even possible.
The weird thing is that nobody cares about waste from other energy sources which is dangerous forever!
I approach people from this perspective: I am also concerned about nuclear waste. The best way to reduce potential harm of *current* waste is to forge ahead with new nuclear technology. Same for fear of meltdowns. The current nuclear fleet IS aging, my friend. Do you want to replace that with fracked NatGas, or a new generation of safer, meltdown-proof reactors that can burn up the waste from the past? Explain it so they understand MSR is "on their side" and addresses their concerns.
@@NphenExcisting nuclear is already the safest form of energy available (Google deaths per kilowatt). So replacing it with nat gas would be a bad decision from a safety perspective and such a decision would cost lives. You are right that new nuclear such as molten salt will be even better and cheaper but we should not close or stop building nuclear until this improved nuclear becomes available.
@@Nphen I couldn't agree more.
@@arjanwesselink3418 99% sure you know the difference between α, β, γ, decay and how short and long half-life relate to how `hot` a sample is. Sometimes I'll post a short primer on the topic to 'receptive skeptics' just to put things in perspective. I'd post mine, but you probably have your own approach.
I've keep up with this for the past 10 years or so. Its interesting! It seems so much better thought out than water cooled uranium reactors. How do you propose to solve the hard-gamma emitter issue with some of the decay products?
This is awesome! Thanks Gordon!
Kirk deserves our full suport
We do some experiments with high temperature salt - solar power plant and for salt bed-reactors in chemistry. The problems you mentioned are well known. My concern is the weldability and the microstructure. According to the shell theory, we need thick sections if we'd like to increase the diameter and so the power. In order to have the necessary corrosion properties of a nickel-basis alloy, a solution annealing is necessary. At this point the size of a reactor could be the problem, because this solution annealing means quick cooling from ca. 1150 degrees of C. I have this experince with Alloy B-3, and C-2000. Any deviance could result corrosion or precipitations at the grain boundaries - and we talking about decades of operation temperature. Do you have some results on welded samples?
Graphite: There is some situation - e.g. silicon-carbide production for catalysators - where the only option is a heat exchanger made from graphite. Graphite is extremly badass in this situation and used in special cases. I've seen some graphite heat-exchangers in SiC production. We use SiC for catalysator production.
If we don't have so high pressure, we might don't have to calculate with PWSCC in reactors/nozzle connections and this would be a game-changer. PWSCC is a huge problem at the conventional reactors.
You didn't mention in this video, but there is a possibility to use MSR to produce hydrogen as well - the salt can transfer heat to a hydrogen production system based on e.g. of a variant of the Ca-Br (UT-3) thermochemical cycle. This projects is really nice and I really like your vids, prehaps we could work together once :)
Couldn't the alloy be solution heat treated after welding? Unless it is welded in situ at the reactor site, or is a very large component such as the reactor core it may be a problem. In which case can these materials be friction stir welded or ultrasonic welded?
@@Bordpie ultrasonic welding wouldn't be a good choice, not for thick section.
Friction stir welding would have the same problem, inhomogenity in the weldment, therefore a solution annealing might necessary. As I mentioned above, I have experience with B3, C2000, 625, 825 and C4. In most cases a solution annealing is not necessary - due the low operational temperature (below 300 degrees of C) and not such a harsh environment like molten salt at high temperature...
A lot of material reseach sould be done - and hopefully would be done. Without nuclear energy the real and reliable clean energy is just a wishful thinking - and a great opportunity to steel some money from any goverment. Sadly, the best example is Germany or California.
@@tiborkemeny8644 There is tensile and rupture life information on the Haynes website for Hastelloy N for welded plate samples. Tensile strength goes down a little for the welded material and rupture life reduces by half compared to the stress relieved sample, measured at 700C. Nothing on how the corrosion resistance changes though.
I stumbled across a paper looking at the microstructure of welded Hastelloy X for WAAM. Some molybdenum carbide precipitates formed in the weld bead although this is different to Hastelloy N, less molybdenum and more chromium and iron in the X alloy so it is not necessarily representative since different elements can affect soluability of others and formation of different precipitates.
Hi Tibor, I work with the metal fabrication industry in Israel. Are you aware of the qualitative advantages of laser welding of metal alloys ? Contrary to traditional TIG welding, laser welding can produce a weld bead that's actually stronger than the surrounding base material. I train and support customers in this type of application, it's well established and available in Europe and the USA.
@@trespire Hi trespire. Well, there is no easy answer for this. My main consern would be in this topic the Marangoni-flow during the welding and how could this cause some microstructural difference.
Basically the longitudinally welded pipes made from nickel-basis alloys are always solution annealed after welding. Welding points differ in composition and
structure (crystallinity, metallurgy) from the rest of the base material and could be more susceptible to corrosion -> This is the reason for a solution annealing - I even if it had been welded with laser.
Keep up the great work, being on SSDI prevents me from investing money, I invest my time by teaching people about LFTR and MSRE's in general.
You're not missing out on anything. I don't think anyone in the field is at the public investment stage, or even venture capital for that matter.
Absolutely need a thorium liquid salt reactors here in Minnesota
This is a very interesting video, thanks Kirk. Andy, it has been a while since A709 and it was good to see you.
Neat! More, please.
Thanks Gordon for the video, do you have any updates from Ed Pheil from Elisyum industries and their molten chloride fast reactor ?
Best video on this channel so far thank you for the details.
Does anyone know the actual date of the presentation? Looks like it was October, 2020.
I wonder why they don't try to use Lithium(7) Carbide Li2C2 as moderator. I know i know it melts at 550 C but is it actually a bad thing?
Kirk you're such a hero to me and many other's. No matter how many setbacks you may face remember you have a lot of people who've got you're back. People are finallny waking up as to how nuclear is in fact our ally in fighting climate change.
Viable operating temperature range of 150C, graphite confirmed as most viable moderator, and usable with Hastelloy-N, with a practical approach to capturing Tritium, top shelf work! The only major constraint being the availability of highly depleted Lithium, and of course legislature/licensing/public support. Otherwise very promising stuff, this is one area of research that gives me genuine hope.
@jomax clux Start by looking up the isotope Lithium-6 and its properties, you'll probably find some peripherally related data concerning the Castle Bravo project, which is a cautionary tale about knowing what different isotopes of Lithium can do in a nuclear situation.
@jomax clux And the second stage was a mixture of 30% Lithium-6, 70% Lithium-7. Separation of two different isotopes of the same element is where the problem lies.
@jomax clux Agreed, I would love to see it in Australia too, I'm learning everything I can about it, even looking at doing mechanical engineering so I can help build the things if that's what it takes!
@jomax clux MSRE was a uranium burner not a thorium breeder.
Is a thorium breeder possible? Sure, but more complex.
I'm more in the single fluid fast spectrum camp these days because of their potential simplicity (no moderator, cheap NaCl salt) and fuel versatility (breeds and burns just about anything as far as I can tell).
@jomax clux I didn't say it wasn't possible I literally said it was possible, but more complex than some other designs. Also, I'm not sure why you bring up fusion.
What are the loop transport times and what is beta
I think the formation of tritium could be an asset in the future.
exposing carbon directly to fission product and fission fragments - any experience ?
How much thorium waa in the mix in the original MSR? I know there was some because we found U-233 during the cleanup.
None. Initial fuel was 33% enrichment U235 and later smaller amount of U233 was used. Thorium breeding blanket was not introduced. It demonstrated the feasibility of the Molten Salt Reactor engineering.
Note - if you have been watching Flibe/MSR/Thorium since the beginning, only the first 1-2 mins of this vid is stuff you probably already know. It gets interesting quickly. Feel free to use TH-cam's 2x or other speeds if in a hurry.
I have been listening to Kirk for many years now. I am retired MSc metallurgist, have been teaching for 30 years. I heard much nonsense about nuclear energy, but this guy knows what he is talking about. Using Thorium and all that depleted already collected Uranium.. Would yield all energy we need for the next centuries.
Thank you Gordon. I really appreciate your important role in this story. Is there any more material from the 2020 workshop coming up?
I have it captured but expect ORNL to be the ones sharing the talks. They have the server-side recording, this is just a client-side rip. During the conference they made repeated mentions of sharing online (asking if talks can be shared) so I'll inquire what the plan is. I'd rather see ORNL post to TH-cam, they have the better assets. I haven't watched the rest myself, except to sync audio+video. I'll be watching myself over the next week. This one talk is different because was already in conversation with Kirk and easy to get an OK.
@@gordonmcdowell How that turned out?
@@Brandon_letsgo 2020 are all released there should be a ORNL MSRW 2020 playlist. The 2021 was server-side captures by ORNL on MS Teams but are now waiting on ORNL to collect release signatures. I have a laptop capture of most of it, but I'm waiting on ORNL to release their server-side recordings as that's the optimal coverage.
how does flibe compare to the atrium reactor coming 2028
Thr next problem is that it is still steam age.
Can anybody come up with a solution how to directly move electron from cathode to anode, thus cutting the turbine out of the equation.
Is Kirk okay? I haven't heard from him in a couple of years.
Per James Fowler below - any new info on how the loss of Russian petro/coal products, puts a fire under the development of this? How could it not - especially for Thorcon and Seaborg ship-based reactors. Kirk needs to get his stuff on ships too, Korean-built ones.
Nice, I had not heard about Mr. Sorensen in a while.
I don't think Kirk has done many new videos in the last few years, which is interesting given that he had a huge influence on getting molten salt reactors into the public conscious in the first place. Nothing really new presented here, but i am glad to see Flibe still active.
Would love to see LFTR developed, but I am a bit pessimistic given the long term likelihood of rock bottom natural gas and solar prices. Shale has really changed the long term outlook for nuclear in the last decade. Natural gas is really taking over electricity production in the US lately. It looks like, for the time being, that trend is going to continue.
@@JO-mx3rz Sadly you are right but nuclear will still be relevant, especially when we run out of gas. Furthermore, nuclear reactors can be used for space exploration, which is something Mr. Sorensen was working on before (space exploration not nuclear applications for space exploration).
@@tommorris3688 Nuclear is a key component to addressing human-made global warming. And this technology can become cheaper, but innovation has to happen. And for that, failure has to occur.
@@tommorris3688 If that were true we would not be in this situation. Renewables and Nuclear must work together, not against each other. Renewables are too resource-intensive. Improvements are happening, but they cannot replace every energy source. It would require a major overhaul of our energy sector. Not all energy is used for electricity purposes.
@@tommorris3688 ok, it appears we have reached a deadlock because I do not agree with your last statement. Have a good day.
Great video!
I am hanging my hopes on the NuScale SMR being developed in Utah and Idaho because they have already cleared regulatory hurdles and it could be deployed by the late 2020s. These other advanced reactors won't come to fruition any time soon. Maybe some day.
There is some really good technical information in this video. It answers a lot of questions I had. Particularly about Tritium. What causes it to be made, and what needs to be done to address it. (I remember Kirk asking Syd Ball and Richard Engle about this topic that "patio lunch" video you had posted some years ago and thought "What's that all about".) But also the question about "well why also Be2F?" We hear Kirk talk about "LFTR" a lot, which covers the L and F, but not the Be, so I always kinda wondered how that comes into play. Now I get it.
Great presentation, Kirk! Thanks for posting the video, Gordon!
Sodium 22 chloride salt reactor with a stainless steel vessel with fuel salt in a boron carbide tube or zirconium hydride tube could breed uranium 238 from waste to thorium with gravity for processing of waste, skimming for floating waste or out gassing. Chloride is cheap and abundant. Though iron boron aluminum alloy might work for lead bismuth reactors. Though beryllium chloride with thorium chloride with boron carbide may work.
Love your work, I keep wondering if it would work in zero G?
The MSRE needed a gravitational field (gas extraction, salt circulation, melt plug etc).
Just my opinion but I think zero G might be possible but would likely involve greatly added complexity. For the moment RTGs seem a more practical solution for space/zero G.
In addition to nuclear still being vilified as the third-rail in the energy sector, Thorium also represents a risk to the Petro-Dollar, which is an even bigger issue for the powers in the U.S. and other petroleum producing countries. Once the USD has been sufficiently decoupled from petroleum you will have an easier path. You'll know when its coming because the powers, politicians, etc. will be making their MSR investment moves.
So build Thorium nuclear plant, desalination facility and sodium ion battery plant and you have full cycle, no pollution? ?
"highly depleted lithium", does this mean battery waste will be of use, thus closing that part of the cycle??
It is irrelevant to battery recycling. For nuclear purposes this is extremely low-volume compared to battery waste. And "depleted" means containing a particular isotope not "used up" as in aged battery. You might have known that, but just making clear.
Mr. Sorenson, the conventional nuclear people have many vested interests in not wanting to change. The first is the multi billion dollar reactor facilities they now own , the second is not wanting to admit they undertook these not small investments without even looking to see if something else could do better. If the utility types had held off a bit, and out waited the government and it's defense capability biased (every conventional nuclear plant in the US, some more by design, produces fissionable nuclear material suitable for making a bomb) design decisions, we would be far ahead of where we are, and maybe accidents like Fukashima or Three Mile Island would have not happened or been as bad.Keep fighting the good fight- the relatively near term is going to need these solutions as we turn more and more of our total energy budget over to less and less environmentally disastrous means and technologies.
Could we filter that tritium? (Just for maybe future fusion)
Kirk Sorenson has plenty of hat, but are there any cattle? I'd love to hear from Terrapower, Thorcon, Copenhagen Atomics and Elysium. Thanks for your irreplaceable coverage, Gordon!
Canada's Terrestrial Energy, which was doing research on SMR (Small Modulare Reactor) at Ontario's Oakville Nuclear site, has been granted a $20 Million research grant from Atomic Energy Canada to hopefully progress the design into a fully functioning 195 megawatt SMR within the next 10 years.
They also presented at the MSR conference. Terra power is pretty far in development and recently was awarded a bunch of money from the DOD for reactor research. The others are about the same level of development as Flibe more or less
@@dsl145 Thorcon seems to have very imminent plans, and Terrapower and Copenhagen Atomics are AFAIK the ones with the most prototyping work on components. I hope Thorcon has similar prototyping work in hand, given their timeline, but...
Nothing against Flibe Energy really, they just don't strike me as one of the ones in striking distance. Sorensen's enthusiasm seems like it may have been very important to enabling this whole thing.
Welcome back. You are the man. Looks like you put on a pound or two. Keep up the good work.
Dang bruh
When can we just do!!!! this??? Been watching LFTR & Flibre for half a century now.... is there a crowd funding possibility?
The DOE is funding advanced nuclear R&D in a big way this year. Including building prototype reactors. Write to your politicians to make sure it stays that way. Spread the word. Advanced nuclear is on Biden's platform even though it started getting seriously funded in Trump's DOE, so it's hopefully here to stay unless someone kills it.
@@sealpiercing8476
Cheers, but I’m in 🇳🇿.. NZ.., interfering in US politics is kinda going against the last 80 years😂... and a touch sensitive at the mo...🤔 lol too funny👍
@@tigertiger1699 Apologies. Still, I'd consider it a favor if you yelled at any US friends to vote.
Anyway, Thorcon might be the earliest option for an MSR in NZ. They're one of the highest-readiness groups; they've got a deal with Indonesia, and I think they're doing non-nuclear prototyping right now. Their reactor's thing is that the whole power plant is built into a barge that you deploy by towing it over from the shipyard in South Korea and filling it full of concrete to ballast it down where you want it.
So, write your own government about that one if you want an MSR ASAP?
@@sealpiercing8476 Agree Thorcon for early start, they solve uncertainty around degradation problems by regular reactor can replacement. It seems to me once we better understand the technology in service, it should be possible extend service life of the reactor vessels through incremental improvements.
@@jimgraham6722 I have researched this issue. Thorcon intends to use SS316Ti (maybe Ni clad) for most salt-contacting components. It can be made work. They may not succeed, but it won't be because of that salt-facing materials trouble.
Thorcon reactor is also a good option for NZ I think because it is ship-deployed. It wouldn't be held back by lack of domestic nuclear infrastructure.
We're working on the small modular concept for bases and off-site field installations. While still in the concept stage we have 2 models built on the MSRE concept. The most promising is a small modular Fast reactor.
the little danger with fast_MSRs, in my opinion, is that by mismanagement, ignorance, or geological-disaster-event (super-volcano), water could get near the fast-core and start maliciously moderating the neutrons! Chernobyl had two explosions, 3 seconds apart, one of that was quite certainly a supercritical event! See Scott Manley on TH-cam
Is there any economical means of storing the tritium and selling it to the fusion guys before or after it decays to helium 3?
I don't think the challenge is containing the majority of it, rather that tiny quantities frequently escape and can't be segregated from normal hydrogen (or then water). From a sell-the-stuff perspective it should be fine. (Anyone feel free to correct me on this.)
long time follower Kirk, keep going.. your answers will be the answer
Will this technology be using Enriched Li6 , Li7 and if so how will that cost be approached and more Importantly Its Title as a Weapons Grade material.
hey Gordon, any word on the MSR in development in Wuwei, Gansu Province in the PRC? I haven't seen anything lately.
I'd suggest following ConradKnauer on Twitter he's monitoring SINAP as best he can. Or a Twitter search: "(from: ConradKnauer) TMSR" here's my latest result using that: twitter.com/ConradKnauer/status/1368828739988070403 "CAS researcher Li Zhijun (李志军) profiled, following an award. That looks like the LF1 vessel he's securing."
@@gordonmcdowell heck yeah will do, thanks!
Would tritium be a useful propellant in ion drives? I know, cart in front of the horse, but plan ahead. If you're ok with a charged storage tank you could strip off the electrons to make it denser?
They usually use heavier gasses for ion propulsion. My guess is they'd use something even heavier if they could, to get more mass for each molecule pushed out of the thruster. Equal and opposite reactions. A heavier molecule = more thrust
I thought Xenon was "the thing" for ion propulsion.. and I'm pretty sure Xenon is produced as a fission product and could be captured as it gasses off from the salt. Thought KS touched on this in a video or two.
You go Kirk! Never give up!
Great job Gordon :)
Why not use chalk instead of salt
about 1/2 the ocean water is at a frigid cold 4°C, all the saltwater below 1800 m (even in the tropics; in the waters around Iceland You need not go to such depth!). If Fission MSRs could use this for cooling water You would get more than 43% efficiency!
There is a lot of "cold" left over from the last ice ages, down under the waves!
LFTR at 31;57 in this video "THE NORTH AMERICAN AVIATION STORY 1950s PROMOTIONAL FILM 77794"
What is the concern about toxicity issues of beryllium compounds in your production/handling of flibe salts?
arbejde i sammen med Seaborg Technologies? eller er i konkurrenter?
at 9:05 the blanket salt is mentioned as a neutron barrier that protects the reactor outer shell (its function to carry the thorium that absorbs those neutrons to breed uranium is not mentioned). Does anybody know what separates the blanket and fuel salts?
A duvet?
It circulates in separate channels in the structural graphite matrix.
The blanket is separated by the moderator channels. In the original MSBR that's all that separated the fuel salt from the blanket salt. They were intended to combine the two streams in the online fuel reprocessing "kidney" and not the core.
Thanks both.
He talks the talk.. but where is it ?????
Would the tritium be useful in fusion reactors?
The salt research for MSRs is identical to fusion research for just that reason. One use wants to maximize it (fusion) while the other wants to minimize it. But in both cases its a molten FliBe salt
Tritium would be a valuable resource. Check out the cool tritium vial light sources sold on Amazon.
Omg omg omg it's my man Kirk!
Sorensen, sir you stand up there with similar people like N. Tesla. I hope the environmentalist can see past the world “Nuclear”.. This can save the planet from CO2
Just curious, what happens if salts leak out the reactor (or some water/air somehow enter the reactor) ?
A dump tank if there is an issue.
As far as I knows, and is not much, in case the salt leaks out of the reactor it will solidify and could be recovered taking safety measures, but for what I know there is no risk of filtration to underground water or mixing with the floor...
I don't know about water/air entering de core sorry.
Cheers
@@picanexus well, I meant a flooding from for example a nearby river, sea, etc...
@@babyelian77 Yes molten salt reactors need to be kept well away from water. Whereas PWRs need lots of water to cool core in case of pressure loss, so must be by river or sea, MSRs are unpressurized and in the unlikely event of overheat the drain plug melts and the fuel is dumped into cooling tanks. They are better suited for dry or even desert environments as they can be designed not to need any cooling water (the MSRE was air cooled). Any MSR installation would need to be built well away from flood prone areas.
@@jimgraham6722 Having to be water cooled is a big drawback which LFTRs avoid. Tsunamis for one, heating and cooling of
water with cycles affecting water inhabiting life is another.
What if you fill th gap between th cladding with thorium that will capture neutrons and become fuel?
If you mean solid thorium then you are creating the same problems as we have in today’s reactors. If you mean in a liquid (dissolved form) then in what salt. Also you see they have a blanket to absorb most neutrons. It just never gets them all
From what I understand of the LFTR design, the intent is to have Thorium tetrafluoride in the blanket salt to absorb spare neutrons, which is then separated out and left in a decay tank to be converted into protactinium, then decay into uranium. You can then fluorinate it and add it to the fuel salt. Breeder reactors for the win!
@@AximandTheCursed they are leaving it to decay in the blanket for protection in the last review as it is more protected that way.also how do you fill the gap between the cladding(what cladding in this design) if he means the vessel wall then you are protecting the outer wall with a blanket but there has to be a wall that separates the blanket from the fuel and this wall is still getting a high flux
@@brianwild4640 Decaying in the blanket salt for protection? How do they intend to eliminate the possibility of the protactinium absorbing more neutrons? If it becomes Pa-234 then it is useless. Decaying from Th-233 to Pa-233 to U-233 is done by shedding Beta particles, they would only need a small amount of aluminium shielding for that.
@@AximandTheCursed they reckon if they have enough of a blanket this will be minimal. And I was on about the shield from the core to the blanket that still has to be able to survive the high flux no matter how much blanket
WAIT a minute, what is the deal with highly depleted lithium is it the the leftovers from used batteries???? Please explain.
I believe one of the problems with having Li-6 present is that it will eat neutrons. Li-6 has a neutron capture cross-section about 5 orders of magnitude higher than Li-7. The neutron budget to sustain the Th232->U233 process is already pretty low. You want to reduce neutron capture in anything else to an absolute minimum.
If we can make enriched uranium in centrifugal enrichment with u238 and u235 imagine how much easier it would be to enrich lithium 7 and lithium 6. Compared to the difference between u235 and u238, imagine how much easier would be from 6 to 7 compared to u238 and u235. Much much easier to go from 6 to 7 and u235 from u238..
The way for industries to make the right choices is to make the system honest in representation of costs, including costs to the environment and future generations (opportunity costs).
If we charge fees proportional to how much pollution is emitted, resources are extracted or habitat is destroyed, then those harmful impacts will automatically be avoided by producers and consumers as a matter of course.
The policy will be fair if fee proceeds are shared to all people.
The market and economic system will embody a respect for Truth as a primary value when prices are honest.
A respect for Fairness is shown, is manifest in reality, when (a monetary representation of) natural wealth is shared to all people. (Or to all adults. The portion of natural wealth that might be claimed by children could be awarded as tokens that they might use to purchase educational experiences from a menu of options, visits to museums, health care and other services that most people agree promote the healthy development of children and a healthy society in decades to come.)
The policy will embody in practice the idea that we have a shared right to define limits to overall impacts, if we raise fees until random polls show that impacts of various kinds are within limits that most people think are acceptable.
An honest economy would favor those solutions that meet basic needs and wants at the least cost to the environment.
How viable would it be to start the move to MSR's using uranium burner reactors? I understand the excitement for thorium and breeding, but we probably shouldn't put the cart before the horse. As a layman I might be completely getting this wrong as to what mixture MSRs need to function, but it seems like erecting uranium burners as a baseline would perfectly well fit into current nuclear supply chains and could be done immediately. Again, tell me if I'm full of crap and getting the chemistry completely wrong.
Keep your good work!
LONG TIME? WHAT YOU SHOULD SAY IS, A LONG LONG LONG TIME KIRK
The main reason for the slow developing of the Thorium Molten Salt reactor is most likely the influence from the oil and coal companies, both producing the most pollution in the world. They see this development as a threat to their business. And the many people who work in those industries and the shareholders will do everything in their power to stop or at least slow down this development.
Three mile island didn’t kill anyone and the water wasn’t contaminated
Fukushima didn’t kill anyone from radiation the deaths were caused by the trampling of people trying to evacuate
Chernobyl the only nuclear accident in history to kill people from radiation
Meanwhile oil spills regurlely contaminate water and cause more damage than Cheryobyl
And just being near a coal plant can give you lung cancer from air pollution
Damn, Kirk, This Is Taking Forever!!! WTF???
Right? For ua dummies, why dont big California invest in this like they do in solar (takes to much.... environmental space)
Interestingly, you can do one thing, and not leave the other - when it comes to T capture :)
what happens is the reactor fails in some way and the salts cool down in the pipes? How do you restart the reactor or find and fix a problem in the pipes or valves? I am a strong supporter nuclear power, and get stronger when I look at the reality the planet faces ... but we cannot afford more nuke designs that are going to have problems or create catastrophes
I believe the pipes would have an external heating mechanism. That's required to fill the system with liquid salt in the first place. So if the salt freezes it could damage the pipes if it doesn't dairy effectively, but assuming the drainage system works even a loss-of-power scenario should have enough salt drained to keep the pipes from being damaged. This is not an expert opinion, it was just my general opinion that a electricity-based pipe-heating system would be required for the system to be viable in the first place.
@@gordonmcdowell
Thanks for your reply. Just my gut feeling, and no expert opinion from me either, but the complexity of that and the failure points I could imagine, something like Fukushima, makes me feel in my gut this is not a good technology to implement on a large scale. Is there any long term experience with this reactor technology? The Light Water Reactors are something we have a lot of experience with and the appeal of the relatively simple and walk-away safety has a simplicity that I think the public is more likely to accept. Because if something goes wrong, troubleshooting a complex technology in the middle of a possible nuclear catastrophe is something I don't think anyone would want to see, and would cause the anti-nuclear people to raise hell and doom the industry worse than it is now. The chemical reactivity and toxicity of the salts seems like a red flag to me - even worse at high-temperatures. The scale of the global warming problem and the importance of nuclear to its solution, to me, seems to scream safety and simplicity, and having a lot of experience with, especially in light of the "stupidity" of the humans in operation and design of Chernobyl and Fukushima. Will be watching more of your videos, thanks.
@@justgivemethetruth The point of the salt is lack of reactivity. I think it is pretty clear in the video the failures we have experienced is because current reactors do allow the coolant to become separated from the fuel, and that liquid fuel ensures the coolant and fission-products (what continues to produce heat once reactor is turned off) are one-and-the-same. All the complexity of online chemistry is to keep the reactor operating, not for safety. Safety is passive. The reactor has many ways to potentially become inoperative (billion dollar repairs) but none of those paths result in release of radioactive material. That the salt is toxic shouldn't be a concern... the battery in your phone is toxic. The gasoline in your car is toxic. This is an industrial process, and our realistic concerns should be does the process RELEASE toxins, not whether toxins are involved. The output of an efficient Th-MSR is fission products. The salt is recycled. The actinides are recycled. It is all valuable stuff we don't want to throw-away, not just because it would be illegal, but because it represents very expensive material that would need to be re-created for the reactor to continue operating.
@@gordonmcdowell
My understanding of the LWR is that they use water as a moderator, so when the water drains or boils off the reaction is halted - that is a pretty simple and does not require complicated failsafe mechanisms. That is what we should be aiming for.
> That the salt is toxic shouldn't be a concern... the battery in your phone is toxic.
While true, that logic does not convince me of anything. My cellphone battery is not a nuclear reactor. And as for gas in a car we have had a century of all kinds of experience with gasoline - moving to something new for no real major benefit because someone thinks it's cool and a company can make money off it when the future of the whole nuclear industry is at stake .... not a good idea.
> The reactor has many ways to potentially become inoperative (billion dollar repairs) but none of those paths result in release of radioactive material.
That should not be the criterion for a good reactor design.
@@justgivemethetruth Stopping fission is not a challenge. Controls rods can drop in due to gravity when power is lost. Reflective material (beryllium) could be moved to make the core sub-critical. These can all be passive mechanisms. Really, only fast-spectrum reactors present any additional considerations because the introduction of moderator to a fast-spectrum reactor could make it super-critical. Stopping fission hasn't been a concern since Chernobyl or (fast-spectrum) Fermi-I. It has been the dissipation of decay heat that is the challenge, and every single meltdown or severe accident has ALSO been due to decay heat. Dissipation of decay heat CAN BE a concern for LWR since water can AND HAS fled the scene during TMI and Chernobyl and Fukushima.
You are concerned about chemical "toxicity" of nuclear fuel salt? I suggest you steer clear of any and all industrial processes. No one (including myself) cares about what circulates inside a closed-loop industrial process. People care what is released into the environment. And the best way to not release toxins of any sort (radioactive or chemical) is to avoid accidents in the first place. The best way to avoid accidents with nuclear reactors is to have passive mechanisms for dissipating decay heat.
Billion dollar repairs: "That should not be the criterion for a good reactor design". Lots of criteria to consider. I wish you the best of luck with LWR. We do need them, as they're proven statistically safe and are ready to be deployed. Please go try build some and tell as many people as possible how clean and safe they are.
Another excellent presentation by Kirk Sorensen. His dedication is commendable, as MSR is the only viable energy option that I am aware of. Wind and solar only work if heavily subsidized and supplemented by other technologies. I am 100% behind transmuted U233 fission reactors using molten salt in the reactor core. What annoys me the most is that not everyone else is 100% behind this technology. To me this seems rather insane. THIS IS THE ANSWER WE ARE ALL LOOKING FOR. I don't know how to express this fact more clearly and I am quite frustrated by this. Cheap and abundant energy equals prosperity for everyone.
Where would one apply for a grant to go to school for reactor technology?
Woot Woot!!
Kirk Sorensen, Robert Zubrin, ( and many others) must periodically look into their Whiskey, Brandy or Coffee cup and ponder, so little is stopping our ideas from being realised in our lifetime. A toast, here's hoping !!
Cant the surface corrosion be solved with some kind of surface treatment or protective layer? Im thinking a gold protective layer would work pretty well. It doesent melt, it doesent crack, it doesent flake. Its relatively simple to apply either chemically or with sputtering. In the grand scheme of things it isnt even that expensive since the layer is thin and also not proprietary
Transmutation might be a problem, though.
@@caav56 you might be right. it might just be the case that corosion is a fact of life, and you have to treat the reactor vessel and salt loop as a consumable.if you have several reactors in one spot you could pump the salt from a spent core to a fresh core and treat the empty tank on its own.
How does the Flibe design eliminate the higher actinides? Fast reactors fission them directly, but a thermal spectrum doesn't do this. So how are the long-lived guys like Americium, Neptunium, etc. addressed?
IANANP but my understanding is that this is not a question of the molten salt design, but of the Th-U fuel cycle. ²³³U is a lot farther away from those higher actinides than ²³⁸U, so in practice, not a lot of the fuel will ever absorb enough neutrons to get to the "bad" actinides.
What is happening now in 2022? Obviously, Thorium is not going to take away pain at the pumps today.
News is VERY EXCITING!
How much do we need??? Its been a while....
What exactly is the issue with Tritium production? I don't understand why this is such a problem in terms of energy production.
Tritium is hard to contain, and the creation of Tritium costs precious neutrons. LFTR is extremely neutron-tight, and everywhere neutrons can be saved they need to be saved so they'll hit U-233 or hit Th-232.
@@gordonmcdowell ah, ok. Is this production happening in the core? I thought he said it was in the turbine and steam but I am probably not understanding correctly. I'm a software guy, not chemical/nuclear guy 😅
@@aaronely759 FLiBe salt is both in core salt and blanket salt. So that Li will produce Tritium. Kirk is hoping to use a CO2 turbine which will make it easier to catch any Tritium which might escape the reactor (as compared to H2O in steam with Tritium getting mixed up with normal hydrogen). Isotopic separation of Lithium is a thing in Russia and China but no longer USA. Kirk has ideas how to do it, as do some other folks that are trying to fly under the radar presently. Worth doing for battery tech and medication not just for Li6 vs Li7 in FLiBe. (Or just pay China for Li7. Yikes, but probably doable.)
@@gordonmcdowell using co2 seems like a brilliant idea. Did USA outlaw isotopic isolation? Asking because you said 'no longer'. Very curious to hear why this is the case.
@@aaronely759 They had it for the original MSRE (which used FLiBe salt) and probably for weapons? I think Li6 had some utility in hydrogen bombs? Was never outlawed, but people poking around at starting it up got some pushback. That was before MSR were taken seriously, and I've not heard of any pushback in the past 5 years.
Rather than dissolving the fuel into the flibe, could you suspend oxide fuel particles?
Kirk Is Definitely One Of My Top Heroes. It's Up To The Industry.
Just Like Space. Color Me Not Surprised.
Kirk you have disappeared ... please keep us informed ... we are all praying for your success and your family and team...
@@tommorris3688 hi, tku for your comment... can you be more specific... how can one be more familiar with this comparison... after all, oil business is the most subsidized industries off all... if all these prices were imposed on the oil industry it would not be profitable...
please, where can we see a fair comparison
Material Science has come by leaps and bounds to the present day. We can move around atoms, one at a time, lay down a film just atoms deep, and build materials that were once incompatible to each other. In chips alone we already layer dozens of materials in tiny places. With petabytes of data still to be assessed, perhaps true AI can be our test bed.Tritium as a waste product? That Element is profoundly expensive. Future Fusion needs Tritium.