LFTR (Thorium-MSR) - Kirk Sorensen of Flibe Energy @ University of Tennessee, Knoxville 

The targeted Alpha therapy is a Godsend that the fluid fuel makes readily available.

Once again Gordon - thanks for your continuing efforts for TMSRs. We in Jakarta are eagerly awaiting our first ThorCon 500MWe TMSR due for delivery from the Korean double-hulled bulk-carrier shipbuilding yard within 36 months...but hopefully sooner as announced at the COP28 Conference last week.

always worth listening to, thank you so much , again. Don't stop.

In effect, you are wishing us all that success, if I may. I sometimes imagine what would happen - not as in a movie but in very real terms - if someone were to come up with a low-cost, high-efficiency, reliable, clean, scalable energy system. It is the stuff of movies (and conspiracy theories), too, of course, but I imagine a bullshit-free demonstration of something like this working, and the screams and gnashing of teeth in the biggest energy companies and stock market.

He is going up against people who want energy to remain pricey.

@@kayakMike1000 Research remains pricey and comes with many unknown ups and downs.

Exactly, me too.

yes - a meaningful progress report would have been most interesting.

we always want to know where Flibe has progressed to. seems like a very slow moving horse.

@@MrZoomZone Kirk is speaking at a colloquium for students, relaying information about the benefits of the thorium fuel cycle and MSRs. It would be very odd for him to sit down a bunch of students and just talk about company updates.

Here's a link to my Thorium playlist: ru-vid.com/group/PL6JjafE5gsb9nSmudoj5MUKxX8LTKO0-J&si=p1u0Dy3L05nKVN_d

I'd like to see this is it on youtube?

No proof or even evidence it’s lost or hidden. You’d think we would find even one clearly artificial and possibly even remotely functional power plant with the remains of thorium or other fusion/fission products able to be identified in the area. There has never been any technology like this discovered and proven to be fusion or fission capable.

that is all it will ever be...a dream

Burned the funds for a yacht and crashed.

​@@goiterlanternbase Blasphemy!

when you see / hear people like this, one wonders how / why the top job could go to the likes of trump and co

Gordon might be a naive liberal, but I am happy to stand with him to bring about a better world powered by Nuclear energy. He has done outstanding work.

Kirk talked about an SNF burning MSR with a thorium blanket, the very reactor you are describing in the video. It’s a very appealing option both for reduction in waste profile and for the potential to build LFTR’s later. Unfortunately, a number of plants and utilities I am familiar with have said they arent looking to do anything about their waste problem because no one is making them do anything. You should encourage your nephew to reach out to Flibe if there is genuine interest in a waste burning msr.

Exodus Energy is specifically focused on recycling Slightly Used Nuclear Fuel from LWRs, CANDUs, & thermal MSRs, SFRs, LFRs, or open cycle MCFRs, like TerraPower's. Just not TRISO, since it is not economically recyclable, yet only reaches 10% burnup at most, leaving 90% unused.

any adoption of molten salts is beneficial

China has a small water reactor at the CAEA, designed for installing in hospitals with fast & thermal neutron & boron alpha therapy at hospitals. This reactor was in use treating patients when I saw it.

Obvious question. Do ceramics have graphite as a reinforcement mechanism?

Ah you like to prey on idiots eh?

I don't think there's much influence at all over how much Xenon is produced per-fission, but with liquid fuel we have a choice between keeping it all in the flux and deliberately letting it absorb neutrons, or to move it from out of the flux and retain all the Xenon which is created.

@@gordonmcdowell thanks for the reply, my personal experience was as a system operator that provided transmission for a nuclear BWR. Often had to deal with limitations on plant due to xenon and the need to remove it prior to increased loading on the plant. Have been an avid fan of various forms of power generation including space technology amongst others. Recently watched an interview with Elon Musk in which he said Nuclear really wasn’t an option in space since you still need a propellant that it can’t provide. And me thinking is there more than one element called xenon? Seem to remember seeing it as a possible propellant in electric rocket engines and that it’s also made in nuclear reactors. Curious that I know something that Elon either doesn’t or doesn’t mind pretending not to know.

Wish I had some strontium-90 batteries in my golf cart :)

But how much of it would you need to run something reasonably useful? Seems to me that a battery like that would be on the scale of nanobots.

That kind of battery already exists / has been in development for quite a while. Not sure if it uses Sr-90 but it works by beta decay. Very small current though, about 0.1 milli-amps at 2 volts.

Strontium-90 has been used previously in Soviet Russia, with tragic results. Look up Lia radiological accident.

Understatement, five years elapsed, same hype, grossly disappointing.

@@MrZoomZone some of the biggest videos on this channel are over 10 years old.

Look up the Chinese Gobi desert thorium molten salt reactor ... also look up Copenhagen Atomics

We in the U.S. broke ground this year (2023) on our first LFTR since the ORNL experiment. The Dutch are working on one with EU support. Regulatory authorities are actively slowing the pace of progress.

I like how you think it's possible to just take out a permit and build something of this nature. There's 50,000 hoops to jump through, even without the government agencies throwing more hoops at you every day of the week.

Agreed. They should be perfecting fast breeder reactors to use U238 that has far fewer complications, no protactinium removal and storage issues... Then they can start messing with thorium.

Gates is funding Terrapower.

They don't think it is viable.

Those frontmen are decoys of the army set against us all. The J#$U|T$. they have everything to lose if Thorium works.

that's because nuclear anything in the USA is so politically entangled that nothing can happen except on glacial time scales. Wouldn't surprise me if this idea still hasn't been given a fair shake even after all this time.

@@lexpox329 Really? Westinghouse AP1000 fully NRC approved for construction and operation but these projects FAILED due to cost over runs. NuScale SMR fully NRC approved for construction and operation, $2 billion in taxpayer money and government land on which to build free of charge but the project was canceled due to ballooning construction cost. Nuclear projects are complex and too costly and politics has NOTHING to do with that

@@clarkkent9080 You can be sure, as it was already proven to be true, that if the USA needed a more powerful and rapid killing machine, a 2nd Manhattan project would already be underway. Even though cheap clean energy might be a byproduct with waste reduction and medical use at the forefront, there are enough lobbyists and politicians willing to sell us out, to assure the existing energy industry is not threatened by a Thorium-MSR.

My back of the envelope calculations determine that “burning” nuclear waste in a thermal reactor is painfully slow. The transmutation percentages of the 7 long-lived fission products in a CANDU going full blast (neutron flux of 10¹³ n/cm²/s) for 20 years are: 27% for selenium-79; iodine-129 17%; technetium-99 13.8%; pallad­ium-107 5.67%; caesium-135 5.10%; zirconium-93 1.4%; and worst of all tin-126 0.06%. The neutron flux in a LFTR may be higher, increasing the rate of processing.

Simple: Westinghouse and GE. They have all the fuel contract for the current nukes and they make bundles off them. They take every opportunity they can to delay and obstruct new nuclear technology for fear of the world discovering that there's a much better.safer and tremendously cheaper alternative. And they have LOTS of lobbying power & influence. When your business is buggy whips manufacturing, you don't want cars on the road. IMHO.

Yes, as I understand it that what is going on. The acoustic monitoring is interesting though, because that would let you know when a part is reaching end of life without having to take it apart to look. Then once its past tolerance, then shut down the system and rebuild the requisite components and start it up again. If the downtime can be infrequent like once a year or something then it could be viable.

@@lexpox329 I agree the acoustic monitoring is like an ultra sound very non invasive no need to break the system open. but does the system need to be shut down because of heat issues while doing the acoustic monitoring? or can they do it while the system is running @ normal operating temps? 600 to 800 C seems a bit hot for me to get to close with an acoustic monitoring device, I'd hate to have to wear a baked potato suit to get the sampling done.

Why salt? Can something less cerosive be used?

technical issues and cost plain and simple

@@clarkkent9080 nope. No.plutonium. Military won.again

@@Oliveir51 Where do people keep coming up with this BS that Thorium was abandoned and Uranium based PWR/BWR were chosen so we could make bombs? Hanford Wa. has been making weapons material, at their 9 reactors, since 1944, 12 years before the first U.S. commercial nuclear plant became operational and their weapons production reactors are very efficient graphite moderated reactors and DO NOT produce any electrical power. Savannah River site SC. Has been making weapons material since 1955 and their 5 production reactors are very efficient low pressure heavy water moderated reactors and DO NOT produce electric power. Thorium was tried at Shippingport and Indian Point commercial reactors in the 1970s and abandoned as too costly compared to Uranium. Weapons production reactors are NOTHING like U.S. commercial PWR or BWR power reactors and commercial power reactors have NEVER been used to produce Pu239 for weapons, since there has never been a need beyond what the efficient weapons production reactors could provide.. The U.S. currently literally has hundreds of TONS of Pu239 (takes less than 20 pounds per weapon). The U.S. has so much that 34 tons of weapon grade Pu239 is being treated so it can eventually be disposed of at a cost of billions. Your comment is like saying automobiles use gas engine because the military wanted jet fighters. God help us that people base their knowledge on social media and YT videos.

@@Oliveir51 If it can kill in great numbers, government will give it a Manhattan project like approach. If it can only give energy, waste disposal, medical miracles, not so much.

"...and we'll deploy some gamma detectors-" "No. Nope nope nope. I'm thinking more along the line of... noise detectors... and motion detectors." "We're not really playing to the strengths of..." "...and if any sound or motions is detected, then we release neurotoxin!" "That's now how fissile security works." "THEN MAKE IT HOW IT WORKS!!!" (And I have no idea how fissile security works.)

Don't think thermal-spectrum neutrons do as much good as fast-spectrum when trying to transmute waste.

@@gordonmcdowell i know. Cross section is much higher

EXCESS? Breeder reactors already "waste" neutrons to convert Th232 into usable U233 and are from the start inefficient. Now you wanna divert more neutrons from producing power from U233 fission to waste irradiation?

Not sure what you mean by "scale it up." Also the term "project." There are a couple of different kinds of "projects". All kinds are based on actionable objectives (rather than "goals" which are not actionable). All projects have different levels of achievability and realism...and hence are managed with different methodologies. Projects are defined as, "...a series of structured tasks, activities, and deliverables that are carefully executed to achieve a desired outcome. They are temporary efforts to create value through unique products, services and processes." For example, consider an ice cream shop that wants to start selling Gelato. This objective is completely realistic and achievable. The solutions are well-defined and the tasks, durations, and budget to achieve the outcome are well-known. Hence, the project can be tracked with the classic method where tasks are performed an a certain order ("waterfall" or "critical path") along with tasks that can be performed in parallel at any time during the critical path execution, the duration of which,defines the total project duration. We see in this presentation that Kirk has defined the desired outcome exceedingly well, however the achievability and realism of certain deliverables are not known...so they are defining solutions that must be put in place to get to the desired outcome. This kind of effort is known as "agile" where discovery must be done through experimentation...trial and error, essentially. On a basic level Agile method defines a certain periods of time given to the scientists to achieve a particular aspect of the solution known as a "sprints" or "iterations." Hopefully each iteration results in positive outcomes....however they may not. The team then evaluates the progress of a sprint and defines the research tasks for the next one. So when you ask for a "time frame" this may not be known...and there may be a multitude of these iterations going forward...which take time...and a helluva a lot of money and resources. Maybe what you mean by "scale it up" is finding more money and resources. Some government funding would be nice. But the only government funded LFTR effort in the world is underway by the Chinese.

@@timmundorff2354 So Tim, what is the "time frame" for "your solution" to be "scaled up" for a viable "project" or potential "iteration": or would that be "sprints"? Moving on, and slightly sideways purely for example because I am not a fan of Gelato: It seems that team evaluation towards the progress of a sprint associated with fusion can be elusive. It is not uncommon to hear statements covering a multitude of iterations going forward that fusion is 8-10 years away. It is always 8-10 years away. For those involved; data is good. Research, iterations, trial & error are to a large degree removed from real world everyday markets. Some might give credence to the geo-political military-industrial influence directed at certain areas of scientific endeavour. There is a need for the achievability and realism of fusion and fission. Those global points are patently obvious. Thus the use of "scale it up and have a workable . . . ." seems to lack some sort of clarity for you. A better description could have been; when will the sum total of agile methods presented in this specific vid as outlined by Kirk result in a economically/financially viable power plant delivering energy to the national grid ? There have been very few experimental reactors and even less power reactors using the Thorium fuel cycle. Some individuals involved in nuclear research & development think Thorium of good, others do not. I congratulate all individuals working towards improving energy supply via next generation nuclear research. The hope is that SMR designs can be part of the energy mix sooner; rather than perpetually viewed as iterations going forward.

@@timmundorff2354 hey Tim; no scaled up goals, achievable realisms, methodologies, deliverables, well defined solutions, critical path executions, classical methods, agile efforts, sprints, iterations and presentations you might be wanting to bang on about ???

I've always thought this, he'd be great on Lex Friedman too. Something like that happening would create a lot of extra grassroots support for MSRs which might help with its development and adoption.

Graphite moderator is essentially sheets of graphene

@@StarlessSky2000 so I wasn't that off the mark. Thank you there

Go on back. When countries popped off nukes left and right. Well, all kinds of tritium was released. We're sill here bro!!

First principles Kirk understands. Less fizzle in Kirk's v Ed's reactor. Negative reactivity propensity for both is claimed. But Ed's has all kinds of fizzle in that fast reactor of his. There are no absolutes. Only trade-offs. Liquid fuel salts done right - and I'm OK.

A hell of a lot of gamma yes, that's why the idea of someone stealing it is so unlikely.

@@bobthebomb1596 So the containment during this stage would have to be somewhat excessive, I guess

@@upresins He does talk about being able to handle it, so "excessive" might not be the word. It would certainly ruin your day (all of your few remaining days in fact) if you tried to remove the material without proper shielding though.

@@bobthebomb1596 🙂 Thanks

Pa 233 -> U233 is the result of beta decay.

Because the overall system is much harder to do than they first thought and the regulators don't have a clue how to regulate it.

According to John Madden, "When the question is why, the answer is usually MONEY."

@@markfinley3703 Flibe chose to develop its reactor in the US, so they are working under the NRC regulations. If the NRC approves a reactor design then no one will be able to afford it. NuScale just proved that.

xe convieniently bubbles out of a liquid fuel reactor! another "magic" advantage of molten salts, that and the near 100% burn-up of fuel! and atmospheric pressure, the unique property of uranium of being removeable as a gas [ uf6] form blanket salt , and .....