Реклама - двигатель прогресса

LFTR in 5 Minutes - THORIUM REMIX 2011

Also on DVD: http://ThoriumRemix.com/dvd/ Help propagate LFTR, the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor! Thorium is readily available & can be turned into energy without generating transuranic wastes. Thorium's capacity as nuclear fuel was discovered during WW II, but ignored because it was unsuitable for making bombs. A liquid-fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is the optimal approach for harvesting energy from Thorium, and has the potential to solve today's energy/climate crisis. LFTR is a type of Thorium Molten Salt Reactor (Th-MSR). This video summarizes over 6 hours worth of thorium talks given by Kirk Sorensen and other thorium technologists. THORIUM REMIX 2011 starts with a 5 minute TL;WL summary, to hold you over until you find your Ritalin. To learn more about the Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor visit: http://energyfromthorium.com/ See http://THORIUMREMIX.com/ for full list of multimedia source material. Key YouTube video components: Kirk Sorensen @ TEDxYYC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw Kirk Sorensen @ Protospace - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSmf_qmkbg Kirk Sorensen @ MRU - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA Kirk Sorensen @ TEAC3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uxvSVIGtU Kirk Sorensen @ Dr. Kiki Science Hour #84 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEpnpyd-jbw After Fukushima: The Fear Factor - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVQ0NvEcyqw Robert Hargraves @ TEAC3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoBTufkEog Alexander Cannara @ TEAC3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUVq81kBKyk James Kennedy @ TEAC3 - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrDeB86YpV4 Q: What is thorium and what makes it special? A: Thorium is a naturally-occuring mineral that holds large amounts of releasable nuclear energy, similar to uranium. This nuclear energy can be released in a special nuclear reactor designed to use thorium. Thorium is special because it is easier to extract this energy completely than uranium due to some of the chemical and nuclear properties of thorium. Q: What is a liquid-fluoride reactor? A: A liquid-fluoride nuclear reactor is different than conventional nuclear reactors that use solid fuel elements. A liquid-fluoride reactor uses a solution of several fluoride salts, typically lithium fluoride, beryllium fluoride, and uranium tetrafluoride, as its basic nuclear fuel. The fluoride salts have a number of advantages over solid fuels. They are impervious to radiation damage, they can be chemically processed in the form that they are in, and they have a high capacity to hold thermal energy (heat). Additional nuclear fuel can be added or withdrawn from the salt solution during normal operation. Q: Are the salts safe? A: Very safe. Unlike other coolants considered for high-performance reactors (like liquid sodium) the salts will not react dangerously with air or water. This is because they are already in their most stable chemical form. Their properties do not change even under intense radiation, unlike all solid forms of nuclear fuel. Q: What is nuclear waste and how does a liquid-fluoride reactor address this issue? A: So-called "nuclear waste" or spent-nuclear fuel is produced in conventional (solid-core) nuclear reactors because they are unable to extract all of the nuclear energy from their fuel before they have to shutdown. LFTR addresses this issue by using a form of nuclear fuel (liquid-fluoride salts of thorium) that allow complete extraction of nuclear energy from the fuel.

Category: Tech
Author: gordonmcdowell
Published (on YouTube): 2011-10-04
Published (here): 2012-01-25
Rating: 4.966167; Votes:2601

Views: 150334; Favorites: 1606

Video duration: 120 min.
«LFTR in 5 Minutes - ...» screenshots:

00:59:59

00:29:59

00:59:59

01:29:59

Comments on «LFTR in 5 Minutes - THORIUM REMIX 2011»:

Zeus0Moose on 2012-01-25
@stathamajf Solar ...
@stathamajf Solar is a joke. Wind is a joke. THAT'S pie in the sky. They cannot sustain a society due to poor efficiency. You show poor foresight. The later we research it, the later it is put into effect. Thorium has a half life of over 14 billion years, with Alpha particle radiation. Such a slow decay rate means it is much safer to handle than other nuclear fuels. To add, Alpha radiation is nearly harmless from the exterior. This is a fact.

gordonmcdowell on 2012-01-25
Folks I [BLOCKED] @ ...
Folks I [BLOCKED] @stathamajf as he has not watched the video. I accused him 2x of not watching it. Then 10 minutes later he responded "Okay, watched it, now I'm even less convinced." It is of course a 2 hour video. For all I know it was anti-nuke troll Kevin Meyerson. If you come and troll the video content... ok at least you are debating VIDEO CONTENT. If you haven't watched the video and you're just spouting random anti-nuke arguments, THEN YOU ARE SPAMMING.

stathamajf on 2012-01-25
@Zeus0Moose Oh ...
@Zeus0Moose Oh please, when you're ready to talk about actual real world technologies for solving the current energy problems, then I'll discuss them. This is sky pie, nothing more.

stathamajf on 2012-01-25
@Zeus0Moose You act ...
@Zeus0Moose You act like you have any facts on the matter. This is at least 50 years from usage, and currently highly theoretical. And it already looks to be nothing like as good as you're saying, the half life you quote is utter b*llsh*t especially. This is going to hit too late to be any good even if it is as good as is said, by the time it appears we'll either have made it irrelevent or we'll be long since screwed.

stathamajf on 2012-01-25
@Zeus0Moose You're ...
@Zeus0Moose You're trying to act as if this is current technology, it isn't. I'm not arguing this any further, indeed I wouldn't have biothered at all if I'd realised how much of this was wishful thinking. Of course it's perfect, it's still theory.

Zeus0Moose on 2012-01-25
@stathamajf IT DOES ...
@stathamajf IT DOES NOT BLOW UP. IT CANNOT BLOW UP. This is why they stopped researching it because we were in the Cold War. Nuclear warheads were being produced, and Thorium reactors CANNOT PROVIDE THE FUEL TO MAKE THEM.

Zeus0Moose on 2012-01-25
@stathamajf In 10 ...
@stathamajf In 10 years, most of the waste is safe and able to be put back into the market for re-use. The rest is only there for hundreds of years as opposed to the thousands of years in current reactors. And "too good to be true"? That's just a cop-out. All that we know of thorium and all the tests done in the 20th century point to it as being highly viable as a fuel. You act like this is a traditional reactor, and it is not.

Zeus0Moose on 2012-01-25
@stathamajf LFTRs ...
@stathamajf LFTRs cannot melt down. This was what happened at Fukushima. LFTRs do not have nearly as much radioactive waste. You only need 1 ton of thorium for 1 GW, compared with 250 tons of Uranium for 1 GW. So if something DID go wrong and there was a leak, the aftermath would be far, far, far less devastating. No where near Fukushima, which was leagues less severe than the disaster at Chernobyl. You can put a small amount of the thorium that would be used in these in your pocket. It's safe.

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@gordonmcdowell Not ...
@gordonmcdowell Not to mention that you're still producing a massive amount of radiation in basic operation that again is a big problem if something ever goes wrong.

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@gordonmcdowell ...
@gordonmcdowell Okay, watched it, now I'm even less convinced. This is future tech, not proven, not well tested. and it sounds far too good to be true even if we can get it operational this century. And say we do, it's still producing nuclear waste, it's still a serious problem if a containment breach or disaster occurs and it still requires the same transport networks and inefficiencies that we have now. Why do people try to rejig a system when starting over is better?

gordonmcdowell on 2012-01-24
@stathamajf I do ...
@stathamajf I do not believe you watched the video.

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@gordonmcdowell ...
@gordonmcdowell Also if 'huge fires' didn't tip you off that my consequences for the last two were purposefully tongue in cheek to lighten the tone and save space...well then I'm unsure how you talk to people.

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@gordonmcdowell You ...
@gordonmcdowell You assume watching means I have to agree with you. It doesn;t work that way, which is my exact point. On paper the tech is great, and I have no problem with much of it. I still prefer solar etc, but not enough to get iffy. But off paper is a different story, you seem to believe that every single facility will be perfect, and all the staff will be too. And nothing will ever go wrong. That's fantasy, plain and simple. Nuclear is too risky given other clean options.

gordonmcdowell on 2012-01-24
@stathamajf No. ...
@stathamajf No. This does not risk "nuclear mushroom cloud". I do not believe you have watched the video. If you have not watched the video, please refrain from commenting.

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@therealericmeyer ...
@therealericmeyer Because have information from more then just this video perhaps? Maybe I think with my brain? Stop spouting propaganda, I;m not feeble minded. a) There's more energy available from current renewable sources then we're ever going to use, by orders of magnitude b) LFTR is nice on paper, in reality things aren't so neat and it still blows up when someone screws the pooch. Murphies Law my friend, add human nature to the mix and nuclear is a seriously bad idea.

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@gordonmcdowell ...
@gordonmcdowell Look, let's be clear on this. The world is not perfect, things do not always go right. So I think creating anything that can go nuclear when things go wrong is a bad idea. Sure it won't happen much, but the risk is simply too high to be worth it. The technology is great, until someone messes something up, or something unforeseen goes wrong, then; solar-property damage wind-maybe personal damage oil-huge fires nuclear-mushroom cloud

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@motim92 You have ...
@motim92 You have an interesting view of statistics. I did that, the blog wouldn;t go straight to the page, however I managed to find the right bit and frankly I was unimpressed.

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@littleheadspin ...
@littleheadspin Perhaps, however I maintain disagreement with your point. Fukushima was preventable, but that's the entire point. People screw things up, and solar etc has a lot lower cost from those screw-ups.

gordonmcdowell on 2012-01-24
@stathamajf How far ...
@stathamajf How far did you watch into the video? There's some pretty compelling arguments against the effectiveness of solar&wind. (Bill Gates has lots to say on the subject if you want to look beyond my own video.) And Fukushima is examined in contrast to North American nuclear deployment/operation. Everyone's thinking about nuclear power post-Fukushima, but I don't think we're all coming to the same conclusions.

therealericmeyer on 2012-01-24
@stathamajf I don't ...
@stathamajf I don't understand how you could have watched this documentary and still take your position. Solar and Wind simply can't keep up with the world's energy demand as the population continues to grow.  If we don't embrace radical breakthroughs, we'll keep picking up with slack with fossil fuels until the climate is trashed. Forget everything you know about Nuclear, LFTR is a game changer.

littleheadspin on 2012-01-24
@stathamajf I agree ...
@stathamajf I agree that we should put effort into improving alternative energy sources. My disagreement was with Fukushima as a argument against Nuclear power, as Nuclear power is safe if maintained correctly. I think by the time we go futher into space Nuclear will be long gone.

stathamajf on 2012-01-24
@littleheadspin ... ...
@littleheadspin ...huh? Well that's certainly never happened before, are you new to the internets? ;) Well in that case would you also agree that developments in nuclear power will likely be incredibly useful in the future for space programs and such where fallout and explosions are a lot less of a collateral risk?

littleheadspin on 2012-01-24
@stathamajf I ...
@stathamajf I completely agree!

motim92 on 2012-01-24
@stathamajf If the ...
@stathamajf If the energy of Fukushimna had been generated by Biomass there were around 10000 death. With the LNT-Hypothese you would calculate around 100-1000 death in 30-40 years, the problem is, that there could be hormesis... (delete the cabs in the link)