NASA Engineer: Virtually Unlimited, Cheap And Clean Nuclear Power Can Be Had Now With Thorium

[glamourmodels]

Kirk Sorensen, NASA-trained engineer, is a man on a mission to open minds to the tremendous promise that thorium, a near-valueless element in today's marketplace, may offer in meeting future world energy demand.

Compared to Uranium-238-based nuclear reactors currently in use today, a liquid flouride thorium reactor (LTFR) would be:

Much safer - no risk of environmental radiation contamination or plant explosion (e.g. Chernobyl, Fukushima, Three-Mile Island)

Much more efficient at producing energy - over 90% of the input fuel would be tapped for energy; vs <1% in today's reactors

Less waste-generating - most of the radioactive by-products would take days/weeks to degrade to safe levels, vs centuries

Much cheaper - reactor footprints and infrastructure would be much smaller, and could be constructed in modular fashion

More plentiful - LFTR reactors do not need to be located next to large water supplies, as current plants do

Less controversial - the byproducts of the thorium reaction are pretty useless for weaponization

Longer-lived - thorium is much more plentiful than uranium and treated as valueless today. There is virtually no danger of running out of it given LFTR plant efficiency

Most of the know-how and technology to build and maintain LFTR reactors exists today. If made a priority, the US could have its first fully-operational LFTR plant running at commercial scale in under a decade.

But no such LFTR plants are in development. In fact, the US shut down its work on thorium-based energy production decades ago. And has not invested materially in related research since.

Staring at the looming energy cliff ahead created by Peak Oil, it begs the question - why not?

As best Kirk can tell, we are not pursuing thorium's potential today because we are choosing not to - we are too wedded to the U-238 path we've been investing in for decades. Indeed, the grants that funded the government's thorium research in the 50s and 60s were primarily focused on weapons development; not new energy sources. Once our attention turned to nuclear energy, we simply applied the uranium-based know-how we developed from our atomic bomb program rather than asking: is there a better way?

This is an excellent and thought-provoking interview. I highly recommend you also visit Kirk's website http://energyfromthorium.com/plan/and its FAQs to familiarize yourself with the thorium cycle, as I predict we will be revisiting the thorium story again in the future.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/kirk-s...-energy-source

[freecartoonporn]

Ive been hearing about this for years, yet nobody in the world is doing it. You can blame the US gov for having other priorities, but you can't assign that to say Germany or Japan that don't have weapons programs. Why isn't Germany and Japan doing it? Both are modern economies with nuclear technology for decades. This makes me think that Thorium has much more problems than it's proponents say it does.

from youtube

[johnnyloadproductions]

Interesting.

Fact is we will burn fossil fuels until the end. There are over 2000 years of coal supply here in the US and coal can be converted into a liquefied form.
We will probably avoid coal however as it's too damaging.

If there were no fear of nuclear bombs or terrorism just using breeder plants would be the way to go.

[Bill8]

various people have been saying that about thorium for years. but, no one has built a prototype yet. so, we dont really know.

India is supposedly building one.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-nuclear-plant

The development of workable and large-scale thorium reactors has for decades been a dream for nuclear engineers, while for environmentalists it has become a major hope as an alternative to fossil fuels. Proponents say the fuel has considerable advantages over uranium. Thorium is more abundant and exploiting it does not involve release of large quantities of carbon dioxide, making it less dangerous for the climate than fossil fuels like coal and oil.

In a rare interview, Ratan Kumar Sinha, the director of the Bhabha Atomic Research Centre (BARC) in Mumbai, told the Guardian that his team is finalising the site for construction of the new large-scale experimental reactor, while at the same time conducting "confirmatory tests" on the design.

"The basic physics and engineering of the thorium-fuelled Advanced Heavy Water Reactor (AHWR) are in place, and the design is ready," said Sinha.

and china http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/c...h-thorium.html

If China’s dash for thorium power succeeds, it will vastly alter the global energy landscape and may avert a calamitous conflict over resources as Asia’s industrial revolutions clash head-on with the West’s entrenched consumption.


China’s Academy of Sciences said it had chosen a “thorium-based molten salt reactor system”. The liquid fuel idea was pioneered by US physicists at Oak Ridge National Lab in the 1960s, but the US has long since dropped the ball. Further evidence of Barack `Obama’s “Sputnik moment”, you could say.


Chinese scientists claim that hazardous waste will be a thousand times less than with uranium. The system is inherently less prone to disaster.


“The reactor has an amazing safety feature,” said Kirk Sorensen, a former NASA engineer at Teledyne Brown and a thorium expert.

but, thorium reactors, IF they work, do still have the same endgame result as most of the alternatives to fossil fuel - we all have to switch to an electricity economy, rather than our current liquid fuel economy. and that's a slow and multi-trillion dollar switch.

[Gerco]

Do some searching on Thorium plasma batteries... have been invented, prototyped etc... all inventors killed in the last few years.

[Sunny Day]

I have a machine that runs on ONLY air. Send me all your money and hopefully I can get it to the people before THE GOVERNMENT & BIG OIL find out.


Are you people really that fucking stupid??

Yes.

Just send me all you're money

See, I just saved you from a rambling 20 minute video, of how you'll make money & get energy Independence, only to be billed $29.95 for life.

[keysync]

Originally Posted by Gerco

Do some searching on Thorium plasma batteries... have been invented, prototyped etc... all inventors killed in the last few years.

This....

[Vapid - BANNED FOR LIFE]

[livexxx]

water fusion

[AllAboutCams]

seems like a good idea

[Freaky_Akula]

A thorium plasma battery the size of a shoebox could power an entire house for a year. Prototypes have been built. The U.S. government has been using eminent domain to take over patents and applications. Several scientists have been killed after talking about these batteries. If thorium plasma batteries became available on the market, clean energy would be abundant, but the U.S. government does not want that. They get over 35% of their income from taxing old energy technologies.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Gerco

Do some searching on Thorium plasma batteries... have been invented, prototyped etc... all inventors killed in the last few years.

its just never a good sign when you do a search on what should be a science topic and the first few hundred results are all political or pop culture websites.

thorium as a reactor fuel is not theoretical, they are sure enough that it will work, but it has it's problems, like needing a bit of plutonium to trigger the fission, and what may be a challenging reactor design.

the article about india is kinda interesting, they want to make little reactors, 300mw, and india has lots of thorium so they will sell the fuel and reactors to electricity hungry emerging countries.

all that depends on perfecting a reactor that doesn't use plutonium as the trigger.

[pornmasta]

I'm not sure, i'm waiting for paul markham's opinion on this topic...

[Si]

Originally Posted by Gerco

Do some searching on Thorium plasma batteries... have been invented, prototyped etc... all inventors killed in the last few years.

Originally Posted by Bill8

its just never a good sign when you do a search on what should be a science topic and the first few hundred results are all political or pop culture websites.

thorium as a reactor fuel is not theoretical, they are sure enough that it will work, but it has it's problems, like needing a bit of plutonium to trigger the fission, and what may be a challenging reactor design.

the article about india is kinda interesting, they want to make little reactors, 300mw, and india has lots of thorium so they will sell the fuel and reactors to electricity hungry emerging countries.

all that depends on perfecting a reactor that doesn't use plutonium as the trigger.

Any links to this? The Science sounds interesting. And anyway, I don't see why any of the big power companies couldn't just purchase the technology and keep power bills flat if it is true.

[duk75]

http://peakoil.com/alternative-energ...ing-regularly/

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Si

Any links to this? The Science sounds interesting. And anyway, I don't see why any of the big power companies couldn't just purchase the technology and keep power bills flat if it is true.

which part?

I didn't find any legitimate links to "thorium plasma batteries".

There are a lot of potential problems with thorium reactors, which in theory will work, but in practice have a number of problems yet to be solved.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ar-renaissance

Fears of such a uranium shortage led India, which has limited natural supplies of the nuclear fuel, to explore another fissile element, thorium, as an alternative. Wrapping highly fissile plutonium in a thorium blanket could produce enough nuclear fuel indefinitely, according to the vision laid out by the architect of India's nuclear program, physicist Homi J. Bhabha, in 1954. The Indian government is currently building such a prototype fast breeder reactor, despite limited success with a precursor, said Princeton physicist M. V. Ramana during the IPFM call. "The cost of electricity is 80 percent higher than from heavy-water reactors," he added. Uranium prices would need to increase 15-fold from current levels of roughly $80 per kilogram to make it economically attractive.

so far, we can only start the thorium fission with plutonium as a trigger - and there are huge problems with plutonium, even tho one of the possible future energy systems is a plutonium economy with breeder reactors, the risks of plutonium are pretty major.

some extra links

http://www.americanscientist.org/iss...t-with-thorium

Given the commercial failures of the thorium-based high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) and the demise of the thorium-based Shippingport light-water breeder reactor (LWBR), however, I don?t envision the liquid fluoride thorium reactor concept playing a central role. The developmental, technical, safety, regulatory and financial challenges are probably insurmountable.

http://www.popsci.com/science/articl...-thorium-dream

http://www.forbes.com/sites/williamp...fire-possibly/

?
Although not fissile itself, Th-232 will absorb slow neutrons to produce uranium-233 (U-233)a, which is fissile (and long-lived). The irradiated fuel can then be unloaded from the reactor, the U-233 separated from the thorium, and fed back into another reactor as part of a closed fuel cycle. Alternatively, U-233 can be bred from thorium in a blanket, the U-233 separated, and then fed into the core.

?
In one significant respect U-233 is better than uranium-235 and plutonium-239, because of its higher neutron yield per neutron absorbed. Given a start with some other fissile material (U-233, U-235 or Pu-239) as a driver, a breeding cycle similar to but more efficient than that with U-238 and plutonium (in normal, slow neutron reactors) can be set up. (The driver fuels provide all the neutrons initially, but are progressively supplemented by U-233 as it forms from the thorium.) However, there are also features of the neutron economy which counter this advantage. In particular the intermediate product protactinium-233 (Pa-233) is a neutron absorber which diminishes U-233 yield.

[Freaky_Akula]

Power companies rely on limited competition to increase their profits. Thorium plasma batteries eliminate the need for a power grid. This leads to more competition and also screws up their plans to sell telecom services based on smart meters and collect data on consumer habits using smart meters.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by duk75

http://peakoil.com/alternative-energ...ing-regularly/

lol, links like that just really dont help your argument.

it's a weak pop culture website, and the sources referred to are all other pop culture websites. jesus there's even an angelfire link referenced.

really. bad article, bad source, bad references. you should look for better.

I went to a couple of the bigger better regarded popular science sites like phys.org and scientific american - not a thing. That suggests there is not enough reality to it for scientific commentators, always looking for things to write about, to even debunk it.

especially with science stuff, you have to consider the quality of the source.

[F-U-Jimmy]

Ive been working since 1995 on a Palladium based cold fusion reactor.

I have created a small electrolysis device using heavy water with deuterium and a palladium electrode

And the results aren't that bad. The deuterium in the water is attracted via the electric current running through the water to a paladium/tungsten/platinum electrode, which sucks the deuterium into the electrode at a molecular level. This results in a compression so hard that the individual deuterium molecules fuse to the electrode. "Fusion".

The main issue now is to make it a stable reaction - to somehow ensure that you get a stable excess heat out of the process.

It will be called "The ARC Reactor" catchy name ?

[Rochard]

What does Paul Markham have to say about this?

Originally Posted by duk75

http://peakoil.com/alternative-energ...ing-regularly/

Yes, because I trust a website promoting the concept of peak oil production. They must be trust worthy.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes, because I trust a website promoting the concept of peak oil production. They must be trust worthy.

it's a crap website, but the idea of peak oil is not in question, so you invalidate your argument with the rhetorcal fallacies of straw man and false equivalence.

[garce]

Originally Posted by F-U-Jimmy

Ive been working since 1995 on a Palladium based cold fusion reactor.

So you're the only smart guy on the NASA channel. All respect to you, broski! I knew I saw you somewhere...

[JFK]

Originally Posted by pornmasta

I'm not sure, i'm waiting for paul markham's opinion on this topic...

I'm sorry, he's busy in his lab right now

[glamourmodels]

hmmmm

[Bat_Man]

Well, got something different here.......I just wanna say, good luck to NASA................

[Bill8]

the problems of thorium are pretty significant, but, if it can be made to work, it's product, U233, would be far safer than the plutonium produced by standard fast breeder reactors.

And, there are much much larger amounts of thorium than of uranium.

it really could be the basis of a fairly long lasting electricity economy - if the current bugs in the reactor designs can be worked out.

There are two problems - first, you need to perfect the thorium breeder reactors that use "trigger" plutonium to convert thorium into fissionable uranium 233.

Then, you need to perfect reactors that can use the U233 as fuel.

So far all the test reactors ended up producing electricity that is significantly more expensive than reactors using U235.

So it's not starting out as the next 'killer app' of electrical generation. Wind and solar are cheaper.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Bill8

it's a crap website, but the idea of peak oil is not in question, so you invalidate your argument with the rhetorcal fallacies of straw man and false equivalence.

I disagree. Figures on peak oil is based on data that is ten years old. Methods more commonly used today didn't factor into their data. Improvements in fracking has greatly improved in the past ten years and opened up entire new fields of oil. Then factor in that electric cars are becoming more common and the entire concept of worrying about peak oil will be pointless. Before we reach peak oil our oil usage will start to decline.

[mikesinner]

Originally Posted by johnnyloadproductions

Interesting.

Fact is we will burn fossil fuels until the end. There are over 2000 years of coal supply here in the US and coal can be converted into a liquefied form.
We will probably avoid coal however as it's too damaging.

If there were no fear of nuclear bombs or terrorism just using breeder plants would be the way to go.

In 15 years it will be cheaper to use solar panels than to remove the coal from the ground and burn it for energy. Even then the panels will probably not be %100 efficient. I'd say we will stop using fossil fuels somewhere between 20-30 years from now but by then average temperatures globally will be up substantially.

Add to this the new nuclear reactors that are x100 safer than what we use now that are being developed by the Chinese. They aren't thorium though.

[Bill8]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I disagree. Figures on peak oil is based on data that is ten years old. Methods more commonly used today didn't factor into their data. Improvements in fracking has greatly improved in the past ten years and opened up entire new fields of oil. Then factor in that electric cars are becoming more common and the entire concept of worrying about peak oil will be pointless. Before we reach peak oil our oil usage will start to decline.

you are either confusing, possibly conflating, peak carbon and peak liquids with peak oil, and social activist positions with geology.

understandable, you dont really care about the geology, your position is political.

peak carbon is pretty far away. Most people expect peak liquids around 2040, but, like you just said, those curves seem to be based on projections that we will just start to use less, so who knows, it could be 2080, thats what I expect personally.

As for peak oil itself, that is, peak crude petroleum, geology and industry opinions vary, some say it has already happpened, for example here(sciam, natire, and petrogeologists) and here(eia.gov, government economists),. Personally I think when the iraqi fields are finally brought online it may happen soon enough that the declines in other fields is matched, so we might see it in another 10 years.

But, the EROI on liquids (bitumen distillates, synthetic crude from oil shale kerogen) is much lower than the EROI (energy return on investment) from petroleum with current technologies, so, the energy profit margin is much lower. So, the available energy profit to drive our economy is going to be lower. Maybe we can adapt to that, we shall see.

Anyway, peak oil, that is peak petroluem extraction, is a matter of geology. It will happen. We will be able to turn coal and bitumen and kerogen and natural gas into liquids, but petroluem extraction will hit a peak and will decline. It's a finite supply and a finite supply gets extracted at a rate that will give us a bell curve pattern, (or maybe a sawtooth curve, we dont know), and such a curve means there will be a peak.

Peak oil is not in question, only what it will mean, and when we will know the decline has actually begun.

[brandonstills]

I'm glad people are becoming aware of this. I've been saying this for years. Clear, safe, and abundant nuclear power.

[brandonstills]

Originally Posted by Rochard

I disagree. Figures on peak oil is based on data that is ten years old. Methods more commonly used today didn't factor into their data. Improvements in fracking has greatly improved in the past ten years and opened up entire new fields of oil. Then factor in that electric cars are becoming more common and the entire concept of worrying about peak oil will be pointless. Before we reach peak oil our oil usage will start to decline.

Fracking involves using huge amounts of energy and potable water. It is much less efficient and has much smaller margins of utility when resource costs are taken into account. Same with biodiesel.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Bill8

...

I didn't find any legitimate links to "thorium plasma batteries".
...

Neither could I. (Another Internet legend?)

[adultmobile]

You guys forget piezonuclear fusion:

http://www.e-catworld.com/2012/07/it...tion-research/

For conspiracy theorists: government is cutting funds to researchers saying it is bullshit:

http://www.nature.com/news/italian-s...search-1.10823

http://news.sciencemag.org/sciencein...s-brakes-.html

By the way if China+India+Russia will NOT make a working alternative reactor, then USA+West Europe can NOT make either.
Math olympiads winners ranked by country:

http://www.imo-official.org/results_...rds&order=desc

1) China, 2) USA, 3) Russia, trend is: China wins all next years (a specific school in shanghai wins all). China produces more new engineers per year than rest of world's universities conbined. China govt is full of cash.

About India: phisics olympiads is win by them often, see this indian girl:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/cities/m...rom=rightpanel
"Akanksha Sarda knows how precious this medal is and she refuses to take it off."

Don't forget the greatest auto-didact mathematician of all times, Ramanujan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srinivasa_Ramanujan

Born in a poor Brahmin familym he demonstrated a natural ability, and was given books on advanced trigonometry written by S. L. Loney that he mastered by the age of 12; he even discovered theorems of his own, and re-discovered Euler's identity independently.

About Russia that's obvious as they sent man in space before of NASA, but just a recent example Grigori Perelman (obviously Jew surname):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Perelman

"On 18 March 2010, after solving the Pointcare Conjecture, it was announced that he had met the criteria to receive the first Clay Millennium Prize [US$1,000,000 prize] for resolution of the Poincaré conjecture. On 1 July 2010, he turned down the prize."

TV news was made because he refuse 1 million dollar cash, not because math, but ok:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=06Q3G2XNYeU

He's a local hero now, even there's t-shirts "Perelman: We don't need your money":
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0jO9Ai9ECUQ
https://youtube.com/watch?v=NEVWCBOBIXM
https://youtube.com/watch?v=9Y8Wtt8xwnw

Songs about him being made LOL:
https://youtube.com/watch?v=_ntro_P0RNc

Anyway I think it is possible to get energy from other dimensions (you may know there's a few extra dimensions out there), but I will not elaborate now.

[Konda]

The government would never allow this to happen even. The whole world economy is based on OIL. They will not allow any of these things until the oil has run out.

[adultmobile]

Originally Posted by Konda

The government would never allow this to happen even. The whole world economy is based on OIL. They will not allow any of these things until the oil has run out.

Well Oil = war and assassination for sure
To the dismay and displeasure of the Seven Sisters (the principal oil multinationals), Enrico Mattei of italian petrol agency, in 1950's expanded his operations also into the Middle East and Africa, leaving 75% of profits to the local arab countries, eventually too much (more than Seven Sister), so since he was independent from Italian government (power powerful than, at the time) he was assassinated with help of Mafia via a plane "accident" in 1962, form Sicily to Milan (sabotage taken place in Sicily airport).

More:
http://annalsofunsolvedcrimes.blogsp...co-mattei.html

There's a very good (an unknown) movie about this story:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068346/

One of the journalists who searched information for the movie it was assassinated too:
http://www.lagazzettadelmezzogiorno....Notizia=421738

And this is not conspiracy theory, this is actual deaths

[ninavain]

Originally Posted by brandonstills

I'm glad people are becoming aware of this. I've been saying this for years. Clear, safe, and abundant nuclear power.

equals...no profit or social and class division....even if it is true.. you will never see it

[VIXEN ESCORTS]

Crock of shit, talk to Bob Lazaa or Bob Lzaar or Bob Lazaar

[VIXEN ESCORTS]

Hi, I'm Bond......James Bond.......... well get you fucker....I'm Robert..........Robert Lazer !

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by Bill8

you are either confusing, possibly conflating, peak carbon and peak liquids with peak oil, and social activist positions with geology.

Not at all.

Again, the problem with the entire concept of "peak oil" is that we are still discovering more oil and new methods of getting to it. How can you predict when we've peaked out when we continue to discover more oil, and now with new methods of oil collection all of stats about peak oil are completely off. While oil consumption continues to rise, in our lifetime we'll see it drop off dramatically. Electric cars are coming on line and once that because main stream - and we aren't too far away from that - our oil consumption will drop to nearly nothing.