This film sets about exploring the potential that Thorium has for being a safe means to produce an abundance of energy. Thorium itself is easily found but requires a very different type of nuclear reactor then the ones commonly used today. We don’t use see the use of solid fuel rods and pressurised water as a coolant in this reactor but rather it is one which is kept in a liquid state and uses stable molten salts.

Even though Thorium is an amazingly abundant energy source, the construction and maintenance of these Molten Salt Reactors present a unique set of challenges which make them a poor fit for conventional use. The fuel itself must be repeatedly reprocessed, resulting in a very inefficient process. However the benefits of using Thorium as an alternative type of nuclear energy make it very appealing. The coolant used is extremely stable and given thee appropriate reactor/fuel combination, a Molten Salt Reactor can operate whilst no long-lasting nuclear waste.

From The Web
Join The Conversation
  • gordonmcdowell

    See TR2016 was just added to the catalog here. If anyone has technical questions I’ll try answer them best I can.

  • Scott Medwid

    One can speculate that a thorium to U233 fuel cycle could have technical challenges. The same could be said of space travel in early 1957. Twelve years later people were standing on the Moon. Molten Salt Reactors can run on other isotopes of uranium and companies on several continents are working to produce prototypes. Let the technology develop and observe how the test reactors perform. LFTR is a challenge for engineers so… let them solve the problems. Watch TR2016. There is a ton of info here. It is learnable with some time and study. Gordon Mcdowell’s channel is a wealth of information on the growth of the second phase of MSR technology.

  • Brett Durci

    While I do like the idea of Thorium reactors and their space applications, as well as some of the utility here on earth, why is it that nuclear proponents ALWAYS want to mock and spit on wind and solar? “We get so much more energy with nuclear for so much less work!” Okay, well, are you getting that energy for free with no waste? No? Didn’t think so. Nuclear power may be efficient and have no carbon footprint, but not even coal makes radioactive waste. We don’t really have a way to deal with that waste short of “Bury it deep… in lead… and hope it doesn’t break…” It’s just a smaller, more toxic landfill. It’s still by definition a “fossil” fuel because it is a material that needs to be mined and could theoretically run out.

    That being said, it should DEFINITELY be a part of Earth’s transition to truly renewable energy. In space, it would become the ideal energy type for exploring terrestrial planets and some extraterrestrial moons. We certainly need this technology to be developed and expanded. We’d be stupid not to. We just need our nuclear engineers to stop acting like solar doesn’t work, lol.

    • Janice Lindegard

      Brett, coal does produce radioactive waste. In fact, the waste produced by coal plants is more radioactive than that produced by nuclear power facilities. See Scientific American.

    • Mark Bodle

      Did you watch this documentary they said no waste from thorium and it can even use spent fuel rods from the reactors we currently use getting rid of the waste we have already created. You stated Okay, well, are you getting that energy for free with no waste? No? When in fact Yes there is no waste. watch this again dude!

  • pwndecaf

    When? Let’s get busy! This has been ignored for too long.

  • guest

    I think i am going to change my major