Benefits of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors
A short video of Kirk Sorensen taking us through the benefits of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors, a revolutionary liquid reactor that runs not on uranium, but thorium. These work and have…, perhaps,…maybe,..the future energy that can be sustained for a long period of time to come.
Video Rating: 4 / 5
34 comments
No ping yet
Peep THIS Out! says:
March 18, 2015 at 12:31 pm (UTC 0)
Lol! Awesome blooper reel at the end of this one, J! This was a great
review! Loved the perspectives from each of you guys on these along with
the “chemistry experiment” with the red and blue! Gotta Iove the co-host
format… ‘Ya never know what you’ll get! Excellent work on this one, my
friend!
Dilluded says:
March 18, 2015 at 12:52 pm (UTC 0)
Great video! I loved how you were clowning the guy on the left.
Sahil Jamal says:
March 18, 2015 at 1:11 pm (UTC 0)
Where are the niggers at?
Eddie says:
March 18, 2015 at 2:00 pm (UTC 0)
So who sucks whose dick? Or is it a circle jerk with mayo
AwesomeKid009 says:
March 18, 2015 at 2:38 pm (UTC 0)
Great vid! Your channel is great and I can predict you getting at least
1000 subs by the beginning of the year…
Andrew Rust says:
March 18, 2015 at 3:36 pm (UTC 0)
Yo Jairouz. Where the reviews at boss man?
Sahil Jamal says:
March 18, 2015 at 4:14 pm (UTC 0)
Hey buddy
Jairouz Food Reviews says:
March 18, 2015 at 5:11 pm (UTC 0)
Enjoy!
PolishTwinkie says:
March 18, 2015 at 5:27 pm (UTC 0)
virgins squad up!
Ross Clements says:
March 18, 2015 at 5:37 pm (UTC 0)
+Uwe Reese can you actually watch the video please before you make more
comments…
There are no fuel rods. It’s a liquid fuel. Hence the name. Liquid fluoride
thorium reactor.
And Fukushima is nothing like a LFTR. Two completely different types of
reactor with 2 different standards of safety.
Tom Swinburn says:
March 18, 2015 at 6:35 pm (UTC 0)
My only question is if everything is as was stated, why are we not building
the plants to utilize this amazing fuel NOW? THE answer. Plainly. Since it
isn’t happening, I question the veracity of these claims.
Casey Woodruff says:
March 18, 2015 at 7:33 pm (UTC 0)
“It can’t melt down because it’s already a liquid.”
This is very misleading. I’m certain he knows the dangers of a melt down
but he’s misleading those who don’t. Guess what? The danger of a melt down
is because you get uncontained dangerous radioactive material, it
contaminates everything. There’s a million points he makes in here that are
misleading like this. Melt downs aren’t dangerous because the material
melts, melting is a…byproduct, a secondary symptom of the real
problem…which is the fuel getting far too hot.
Furthermore, we have similar safeties in today’s nuclear reactors. Today’s
reactors simply can’t go critical unless they are decimated. Think of how
to kill the last terminator: you have to fucking annihilate that bitch –
that’s what happened in Japan recently, the reactor was cut up by the Earth
by an astonishing earthquake…know what? Same shit would happen to a
like-prepared thorium reactor, even an LFTR.
Matthew C says:
March 18, 2015 at 7:51 pm (UTC 0)
“Nuclear power, so cheap it wont be worth metering”. “Safe endless power”.
The same sort of fellas are now presenting “facts” with nothing to back
them up.
Are we to believe scientists, assuming that is what they are stating comes
straight from the establishment who hired speech writers to better decieve
us?
We have seen and heard lies hundreds if not thousands of times through the
media eminating from these mens lips. There is even a noble English woman
in on the act too.
Thorium reactors melt down too.
However the reality is that amateurs like this can be hired because in all
likelyhood countries will need nuclear power plants to supply the ever
increasing requirement of modern cities. So why hire the best talent to
spin a tale? No need.
With a bit of luck a great discovery, that nuclear power was not, except to
fry humans if thats what you like to do, will be made and the secret will
get out and we can be free of these exceptionaly greedy people.
At the end of the day some time in the future a stock pile of nuclear waste
will be forgotten, along with stockpiles that have been “lost” already by
the US, Russia, China, France etc. and if it is unwittingly unearthed then
god help our future generations.
Liars, the lot of them.
Denise Ward says:
March 18, 2015 at 8:41 pm (UTC 0)
The part about civilized people is rather laughable. And that we’re no
longer engaged in slavery. What rock is he under?
samann95014 says:
March 18, 2015 at 9:08 pm (UTC 0)
So, why aren’t we using Thorium LFTRs then?
Marco Maltese says:
March 18, 2015 at 9:54 pm (UTC 0)
Nuclear reactors can only be promoted by lobbies, ignorants and demented
people.
The future is in solar and wind.
There’s no reason to invest money in such a risky technology as nuclear
reactors anymore, even more with all the last discoveries in nanotechnology
and physics that will help these green technologies get on par with price
production. Even though they really ARE ALREADY on par, if you consider the
death penalty to pay when a reactor becomes old and must be dismantled, but
nobody ever tell you anything about this.
Nuclear is simply a wrong choice.
Nuclear promoters know it, but they won’t drop, because it’s their market,
their job.
Ross Clements says:
March 18, 2015 at 10:53 pm (UTC 0)
Alvin Weinberg is the creator of the molten salt reactor. Google him,
amazing chap
Sad Man says:
March 18, 2015 at 11:10 pm (UTC 0)
I am not gonna lie, my understanding of energy sources is rather moderate.
However, every time we say “Why are we not using this?”, or “This is going
to change the world into a better place”,
there is always a catch. I may seem ignorant, but i believe that something
is not quite right.
Why weren’t we using this in a first place? Why has no one taught of this
before? I am a bit skeptical about all this.
There must be a catch.
Nicolavs Iohannis Eīganvs says:
March 18, 2015 at 11:24 pm (UTC 0)
This video is shit. He is either ignorant or intentionally dishonest. He
knows full well that you cannot get anywhere near the total energy content
of an element, not Uranium, not Thorium. He knows fission will only get a
very small percentage of the energy stated whether it’s Uranium or Thorium.
Not to mention that while Thorium can be more efficient you still have to
use Uranium or Plutonium no matter what as Thorium is not fissile, it can
neither start nor sustain a nuclear reaction. You have to “burn” Uranium
whether you use Thorium or not. The only way to get the the energy he says
that is available in Thorium is with a matter antimatter reaction but
creating the antimatter would use far more energy than would be created
even getting all the energy stored up in matter. I could hold up a ball of
Platinum the same size of the ball shown and it would contain more energy
than the Thorium ball that was shown. I could even do that with Uranium!
Uranium is more “energy dense” than Thorium. He talks about the energy used
in fission when talking about uranium but the total energy when talking
about Thorium. Seems like he just wants ignorant people to go “oooooohhhh
that sounds so much better, way ain’t we doing that.” Maybe in a country
where less than 50% of the population believes in evolution you have to do
that to the funding that will make the world a better place.
Aaron Reichert says:
March 19, 2015 at 12:06 am (UTC 0)
Cool stuff!
Lets hope it takes off soon and is as good as they say.
allen holmes says:
March 19, 2015 at 12:07 am (UTC 0)
Ok, so someone please tell just why these are not replacing our U-235
reactors as we speak. What’s the catch?
Paul Makinson says:
March 19, 2015 at 12:13 am (UTC 0)
Actually, our present reactors derive from military ones that were
researched in the 1950s. The military needed something compact to put on
board a ship or a sub, they dont really care about the environment. To save
money on R&D, that military model was scaled up for civillian use. Once you
have a big nuclear industry, uranium mining companies, refining equipment
(and those centrifuges sure cost a bundle) you have a vested interest in
keeping your previous investment going and not spending more money on
developing a new type of reactor. Actually, you dont want anybody else to
do the research.
Bee Well says:
March 19, 2015 at 12:18 am (UTC 0)
LFTRs in 5 minutes – Thorium Reactors:
sixmagpies says:
March 19, 2015 at 12:24 am (UTC 0)
Its amazing how all Sorensen’s lecture videos etc. on Thorium technology
are always, ALWAYS ‘professionally lambasted’ by long winded, pseudo
intelligent but, self-evidently, misleading and dishonest comments. ( See
the long one’s below for instance.) It would seem that the establishment
oil interests already have an army of these paid creeps out there
determined to keep us firmly addicted to their sticky product.
☢ ᴅᴠᴅ ᴘʟᴀʏᴀ ☣ says:
March 19, 2015 at 12:46 am (UTC 0)
So, what’re they waiting for?
Christine Horner says:
March 19, 2015 at 1:26 am (UTC 0)
From what I heard Thorium sounds great. A life time supply held in one
hand, awesome ! sounds safe enough, but we heard that in the 50’s, about
the nuclear stuff. and does anyone think that the oil people are going to
just step aside.? I don’t think so, they have blocked gas free cars for
decades, and I’m sue other things as well. I think I would like to see a
conversion to thorium, for safey sake, and so the planet will live on for
quite a long time.
Taras Tereshchak says:
March 19, 2015 at 2:15 am (UTC 0)
I guess it explains why oil producers are trying to sell off oil at any
price as quickly as they can
Helder Pinheiro says:
March 19, 2015 at 3:00 am (UTC 0)
This is very important for humanitária. LFTRs in 5 minutes – Thorium
Reactors: https://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZY
stopdemockery says:
March 19, 2015 at 3:39 am (UTC 0)
In the beginning of the nuclear age, the banksters and bleedership knew
that thorium could be used to safely fuel reactors much cheaper. But, they
decided on uranium, because it produced fuel for nuclear bombs and the last
thing they cared about was Our safety. And, to top it off, they built
most nuclear plants on fault lines or near bodies of water as ticking time
bombs.
Geo K says:
March 19, 2015 at 3:43 am (UTC 0)
Thorium reactors can’t be used to make plutonium for nukes… That’s why
they were shit canned for uranium reactors…
Streety101101 says:
March 19, 2015 at 3:49 am (UTC 0)
what happens if you drink it?
Gabriel Odebrecht says:
March 19, 2015 at 3:55 am (UTC 0)
For those asking about this system’s “achilles heel”:
It is impossible to make thorium nuclear weapons.
Yep. You heard right. The “catch” is that a thorium reactor cannot be
repurposed into a weapons factory. That is why we do not use it.
kapullas says:
March 19, 2015 at 4:17 am (UTC 0)
Smarter people than him made the first shitty nuclear reactors and the
first shitty nuclear weapons but they died anyway. And the most important
thing…….. they never got a dinosaur.
Neal Tomlinson says:
March 19, 2015 at 4:31 am (UTC 0)
Why are these reactors already in use? There must be a reason. Don’t give
me any conspiracy bullsh_t. If it were that awesome, the US Navy would have
them powering subs and aircraft carers.