LFTR Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor question to President Obama
The world population is growing and so is energy demand. It has been suggested that a fundamental solution is needed to stop climate change, stabilize population growth, and satisfy an energy hungry world. It is physically impossible for solar, wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and biomass to generate enough power to meet even our current energy needs without destroying the environment in the process. A technology that is gaining popularity called the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor will cost 50% less than current reactors manufactured today. This reactor is also impossible to melt down, does not require expensive fuel fabrication, is proliferation resistant, generates 1/1000th the amount of waste our current reactors produce, and this waste lasts only 300 years instead of 10,000. As of 2007 a large group of nuclear physisists and engineers have created the Thorium Energy Alliance which seeks to build a $600 million liquid fluoride thorium reactor proof of concept which can then be mass produced by corporate entities and sold worldwide. This technology is also being actively pursued in France and Japan which expects their first reactor of this type to come online in 2014. Why is the United States government not funding this kind of groundbreaking technology that has the potential to bring cheap, clean, safe electricity that will stop climate change and power the entire world for thousands of years?Category: News
Author: hallezb
Published (on YouTube): 2010-01-29
Published (here): 2012-05-23
Rating: 4.806452; Votes:62
Views: 5173; Favorites: 12
Video duration: 2 min.
«LFTR Liquid Fluoride...» screenshots:
00:00:47
|
00:00:23
|
00:00:47
|
00:01:10
|
You need Flash player 8+ and JavaScript enabled to view this video.
Comments on «LFTR Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor question to President Obama»:
fireofenergy on 2012-01-23
Thanks for ...
Thanks for supporting LFTR! All those who oppose have been lulled into thinking that "it's baaaaad" just because it's nuclear, but it's not really their fault. When I was (as old as) 30, I hated it too because I couldn't (er, didn't want to) understand the fundamental differences between a light water reactor and a molten salt (or metal) reactor. Media manipulation still has a strong foothold across the nations. Thus we have to be ardent in proclamation yet patient in explanation.
catandpiddle on 2011-10-01
You're the idiot, ...
You're the idiot, sport. Take a few English lessons before you post next time ...
catandpiddle on 2011-10-01
good post. thank ...
good post. thank you!
Dubious07 on 2011-09-28
u an idiot ... if ...
u an idiot ... if just the persian gulf area had 50 sq mile of turbines we could power the whole planet in just one hour a day lol u stupid shit stop listening to bull shit ... check in to nicola tesla , steve mayer or any of the free energy enthusists of the planet !!!!!
bjggjb on 2011-09-17
Don't you know, ...
Don't you know, that COLD FUSION will save us! (That, and wind/solar helped along with a good healthy dose of conspiracy-suppressed Atlantean Crystal Power and Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Magick... or whatever else the anti-nuke crowd believes in.)
bjggjb on 2011-09-17
I suspect the ...
I suspect the global elites are very aware of the potential of thorium nuclear power; and they will implement it AFTER the coming fossil fuel crunch (and resulting famine, pestilence and war) cause a 50%-to-90% dieoff of the world population. No need for investors then; governmental decree will suffice. The perpetrators of the biggest holocaust in human history will be able to pass themselves off as saviors to a desperate and suffering world. The lust for power corrupts totally, and always will.
BeaveHolio on 2011-09-05
You don't ...
You don't understand how competition works.
BeaveHolio on 2011-09-05
Get it funded by ...
Get it funded by private industry.
superbong69 on 2011-07-09
Sorry they are ...
Sorry they are putting all the flouride in our water to make sure we don't think too much... They already have free energy and are suppressing the technology.. search magnetic motor...
drright71 on 2011-06-25
Write every ...
Write every politician you can. Demand LFTR now!
migkillertwo on 2011-06-12
This is an old ...
This is an old comment, but I think he meant phase changes when he talked about energy conversions. Boiling water reactors boil steam, which itself boils water in a heat exchanger to turn a turbine. This is extremely inefficient. Boiling water twice wastes energy. LFTR negates this because, from the core to the turbine, there are no phase transitions. Molten salt goes to a heat exchanger which heats gas, or gas is bubbled through the core and turns a brayton turbine.
constant137 on 2011-04-22
@hallezb: as Kirk ...
@hallezb: as Kirk Sorensen observed in his blog (commenting a very funny video from Jon Stewart on "Energy Independence and the last 8 Presidents"), none of the Presidents, in their numerous speeches (about "energy sources to get us off foreign oil") ever pronounced "a certain word" (Kirk S. meant of course "Thorium"). I am curious to know if you got any comment from the White House, even a routine acknowledge from a staffer or so; or just silence.
kbs1138 on 2011-04-18
ECD Ovonics => ...
ECD Ovonics => solar films or to use your game, "a very inefficient way to convert the energy from large fusion reactor into electricity" , you can believe what you want, still doesn't make you fantasies reality.
kbs1138 on 2011-04-18
a liquid fuel is ...
a liquid fuel is impossible to meltdown since it's already a liquid and designed operate as a liquid. If power is shutdown and the liquid were to heat up, it would expand causing a loss of criticality (neutron density necessary to maintain reaction) and shut itself off, essential a self-stopping system. The of course assumes that you didn't have the simple system passive shut-off using a frozen plug of salt that was tested and used routinely in the 60's test reactor.
kbs1138 on 2011-04-18
that's incorrect. ...
that's incorrect. it doesn't use pressurized water/steam cycle. and that's exactly the point, it operates at atmospheric pressure so no need for the expensive massive containment structure and no risk of explosion or meltdown. The design is able to use almost twice as efficient gas turbine to create electricity.
fuckystoat on 2011-04-11
suck on this one.. ...
suck on this one........try using LESS power
TheGoalSetter on 2011-03-17
Preach it brother. ...
Preach it brother. To answer your question about why thorium isn't pursued...it would destroy the revenues of too many influential people (coal, oil, current nuke, etc. execs would loose revenues...so they bribe politicians, media, etc. to oppress thorium).
fireofenergy on 2011-03-04
The only part I ...
The only part I didn't like is the "it is physically impossible (for RE)..." Thorium has got to be the way as long as there is some supervision (to make sure that the chemical (as well as nuclear) part of the operation is carried out safely. Again, Yucca would be obsolete, and LFTR wastes halflifes down to safe level 1,000 X faster than conventional (LWR) wastes!
fireofenergy on 2011-03-04
As for solar. it ...
As for solar. it needs to be "done" by competing companies that own the dirt, own a lobby, own ALL the equipment, including big rigs, mining and millions of robotic arms. They have to own the framing division, and of course, hire the installers... Only in this way could solar ever power billions of people at the Western standard. It would also take about 1/50th TOTAL EARTH's lands pace to do so! LFTR is like 1,000,000 X that!
fireofenergy on 2011-03-04
Awesome! This ...
Awesome! This video needs to be on TV!
sbergman27 on 2011-01-05
In fact, the only ...
In fact, the only reasonable way to do a solar power plant is solar-thermal. PV get's all the press, despite dismal efficiency. Aside from people who put PVs on their roofs as a fashion statement, *real* solar is also a steam or other Carnot Cycle engine. A well designed combined cycle steam engine can achieve ~50%-60% thermal efficiency. I know of nothing that can match that. User "Tazru333" was talking out his ass. His real purpose was to make a mindless antinuclear statement.
TheShockmister on 2011-01-02
His honest answer ...
His honest answer is NO, because then people will be free from our TYRANNY, we can't have that now can we!.
bigstiggerNo1 on 2010-12-05
They're funding ...
They're funding ITER for a start. And the Combined Lazer Beam Fusion device research too. I would be asking why they are spending billions on fusion and restricting the scope of the fusion projects to sub ingnition of overunity power. Whereas Russia and Italy are in joint colabouration to build a compact type toroildal device that achieves sellf sustaining fusion power! It seems lead or nickle can be used just like Thorium as a fuel for the ASDR fission reactors, with even less polution.
brickandfanal on 2010-12-01
@hallezb CANDU, ...
@hallezb CANDU, have you ever hear about it. Candu=Canadian Deuterium Uranium reactor. It can burn many different nuclear fuel; MOX( mix oxide of Uranium an Plutonium), depleted Uranium up to 0.5% (natural Uranium is 0.7%) and even Thorium without modification. The only reason it dosen't burn Thorium right now, is because there is no significant production of the Thorium metal, so price are high at $1700/Kg. But price should go down if volume was there ($50/Kg). And Candu is very safe up to now.
Butmunch666 on 2010-11-01
Ok people, anyone ...
Ok people, anyone who says this is just a glorious steam reactor should wake up to the reality. So far almost every mainstream way of producing power except solar or some chemical reactions is based on the electric dynamo. So our society bassically produces all of it's electricity in the same way, spin a big metal thing inside a big magnet thing. Sad but true, so almost all our electricity is being produced by a different version of a steam enging.