«

»

Mar
18

Benefits of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

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

Related eBooks

34 comments

No ping yet

  1. Peep THIS Out! says:

    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!

  2. Dilluded says:

    Great video! I loved how you were clowning the guy on the left.

  3. Sahil Jamal says:

    Where are the niggers at?

  4. Eddie says:

    So who sucks whose dick? Or is it a circle jerk with mayo 

  5. AwesomeKid009 says:

    Great vid! Your channel is great and I can predict you getting at least
    1000 subs by the beginning of the year…

  6. Andrew Rust says:

    Yo Jairouz. Where the reviews at boss man?

  7. Sahil Jamal says:

    Hey buddy

  8. Jairouz Food Reviews says:

    Enjoy!

  9. PolishTwinkie says:

    virgins squad up!

  10. Ross Clements says:

    +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.

  11. Tom Swinburn says:

    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. 

  12. Casey Woodruff says:

    “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.

  13. Matthew C says:

    “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.

  14. Denise Ward says:

    The part about civilized people is rather laughable. And that we’re no
    longer engaged in slavery. What rock is he under?

  15. samann95014 says:

    So, why aren’t we using Thorium LFTRs then?

  16. Marco Maltese says:

    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.

  17. Ross Clements says:

    Alvin Weinberg is the creator of the molten salt reactor. Google him,
    amazing chap

  18. Sad Man says:

    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.

  19. Nicolavs Iohannis Eīganvs says:

    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. 

  20. Aaron Reichert says:

    Cool stuff!
    Lets hope it takes off soon and is as good as they say.

  21. allen holmes says:

    Ok, so someone please tell just why these are not replacing our U-235
    reactors as we speak. What’s the catch?

  22. Paul Makinson says:

    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.

  23. Bee Well says:

    LFTRs in 5 minutes – Thorium Reactors: 

  24. sixmagpies says:

    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. 

  25. ☢ ᴅᴠᴅ ᴘʟᴀʏᴀ ☣ says:

    So, what’re they waiting for?

  26. Christine Horner says:

    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.

  27. Taras Tereshchak says:

    I guess it explains why oil producers are trying to sell off oil at any
    price as quickly as they can

  28. Helder Pinheiro says:

    This is very important for humanitária. LFTRs in 5 minutes – Thorium
    Reactors: https://youtu.be/uK367T7h6ZY

  29. stopdemockery says:

    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. 

  30. Geo K says:

    Thorium reactors can’t be used to make plutonium for nukes… That’s why
    they were shit canned for uranium reactors…

  31. Streety101101 says:

    what happens if you drink it?

  32. Gabriel Odebrecht says:

    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.

  33. kapullas says:

    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.

  34. Neal Tomlinson says:

    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. 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

*