Warning: file_get_contents(/home/www/settings/mirror_forum_db_enable_sql): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /var/www/html/content/Forum/functions.php on line 8
if we can get past the political stigma and look at the science this vid focuses on copenhagen atomics and their tech
solar is generally good for residential and peak shaving or peaker plants
nuclear? industrial and commercial benefits (chemical processing, ammonia and hydrogen, etc)
i think there is a space for both solar and nuclear
peace
I'm all for small modular reactors. The space is still viable. But they really need to get products to market ASAP, the time was 10-15 years ago. Solar and battery have been maturing for decades and in the last 10 years, batteries have made major steps in performance, while solar panels have made major steps in cost. Solar and battery simply makes more sense for a large number of installations.
Telsa has nearly 10 million vehicles produced. A vast majority of them are still on the road. Many that are off the road have already donated their batteries to off grid power - the Southern Outpost has ~ 30KW of tesla cells as supplemental power for when we need air conditioning overnight or extended cloudy days with limited solar. And Tesla is 13% of the global electric car market.
I generally don't click through to videos and one from the tesla space doesn't encourage me to do so. I know you have been a thorium fan for quite a while but stepping back, I'm more sceptical than ever, basically because the old baseload paradigm is obsolete except for the case of powering AI.
TL:DR with sufficient storage, renewables are a viable alternative to almost all our baseload and peak load needs. And reactors are particularly poor at supplying peak load - you just end up having to burn away the power generated other times or, well, develop enough storage. My system is being installed today (yea!) and my hope is that my use of grid power will be minimal and much of the grid power will be from the huge solar farms being built elsewhere and from an over-budget hydro project (another story). For an increasing number of people here, the grid is essentially an expensive subscription for backup power where the supply charge outweighs the actual kW supplied. And I opted for a larger battery because I want to be able to keep power through more hours of power outages from that unreliable grid.
Sure it's a bit of a gamble and the full payoff period is many years, but I'm excited to see how it works out. I take that as part of the entertainment budget.
if we can get past the political stigma and look at the science this vid focuses on copenhagen atomics and their tech
solar is generally good for residential and peak shaving or peaker plants
nuclear? industrial and commercial benefits (chemical processing, ammonia and hydrogen, etc)
i think there is a space for both solar and nuclear
peace
The YouTube video "Why Thorium Is About to Change The World" by The Tesla Space provides a detailed breakdown of how thorium-based molten salt reactors (MSRs)âspecifically focusing on Danish startup Copenhagen Atomicsâaim to solve the traditional pitfalls of nuclear energy.
The Science: How Thorium Breeding Works
Conventional nuclear power relies on Uranium-235, which is naturally fissile (easy to split) but rare and produces long-lived waste <04:47>. Thorium-232, by contrast, is three to four times more abundant but is fertile, meaning it cannot be split directly <07:52, 08:16>.
To harvest its energy, the reactor must breed it into fuel <14:49>:
A starter amount of Uranium-235 initiates a chain reaction <15:24>.
The excess neutrons fly out and hit the surrounding Thorium-232 <15:42>.
The thorium absorbs a neutron and rapidly decays over a few months into Uranium-233 <13:19, 13:56>.
Uranium-233 is filtered back into the core, acting as a highly efficient, energy-dense fissile fuel <14:17, 16:13>.
Tech Breakthrough: The Molten Salt "Onion Core"
Copenhagen Atomics replaces solid fuel rods with a liquid mixture of high-temperature molten salt that flows with the consistency of running water <09:58, 10:23>.
The Design: The reactor uses a concentric "Onion Core" <14:55>. The inner layer contains the uranium fuel salt, surrounded by a heavy-water moderator, which is wrapped in a "blanket" layer containing the thorium salt <15:18, 16:01>.
Continuous Filtering: Because the fuel is liquid, the system constantly filters out broken fission products (nuclear waste) while it runs <11:52, 16:29>. This keeps the core highly efficient, unlike traditional fuel rods that must be discarded prematurely when waste builds up <12:18>.
Overcoming Corrosion: To prevent hot salt from destroying the plumbing, the company purifies the salt to eliminate oxygen and water, demonstrating almost zero structural corrosion over a multi-year testing window <11:03>. They also engineered a custom pump utilizing frictionless magnetic bearings to survive the 700°C operating environment <11:32>.
Safety and Waste Improvements
Passive Safety: Traditional meltdowns occur when a loss of coolant water causes solid rods to overheat <09:40>. In this MSR design, there are no control rods; if power fails, freeze or dump valves open naturally, allowing gravity to drain the liquid fuel into safety tanks where the reaction instantly stops <16:35>.
A 200-Year Waste Cycle: The video notes that the reactor generates up to 1,000 times less waste volume than old-school plants <17:13>. Furthermore, because it burns the fuel so cleanly, the remaining waste decays down to safe, non-radioactive elements in roughly 200 years instead of 20,000 years <17:31>.
Industrial Scaling: The Shipping Container Model
Copenhagen Atomics is completely discarding the traditional model of building massive, bespoke nuclear facilities <18:16>.
Plug-and-Play: The entire reactor, pump system, and insulation loop are engineered to fit inside a standard 40-foot shipping container <18:22>. It can be delivered anywhere via boat, truck, or train, requiring only a hookup for cold water and a way to export the high-temperature steam <18:43>.
Gigafactory Production: Modeling their assembly line after a Tesla Gigafactory, the company intends to mass-manufacture one reactor container per day <20:22, 20:37>.
The 5-Year Lifespan: Because the core components become intensely radioactive, the containers cannot be manually serviced <19:24>. Copenhagen Atomics plans to run each unit continuously for 5 years, after which they will drain the reusable salt fuel, ship the container back to be recycled, and drop a brand-new reactor unit in its place <19:42>.
Road to Commercialization
Copenhagen Atomics has already constructed two full-scale, non-nuclear loop prototypes to test the plumbing and magnetic pumps <20:56>. The video indicates their upcoming roadmap involves testing liquid thorium and uranium salts at 600°C without fission, followed by their first critical nuclear test, aiming to deliver the first 10 commercial deployment units to the market toward the end of the decade <21:03, 21:15>.
also related - the Ezra Klein podcast is also touching on this. Basically solar and battery are getting cheap and revolutionizing power everywhere except the US.
also a footnote that desalination is prohibitive mostly due to the cost of power.
which is ironic since AI data farms aren't prohibitive due to the cost of power, even though they don't really produce anything. Around 15 or so years ago Melbourne Australia built a desal plant, right at the end of the millenium drought that lasted oh, the previous 10 or so years. Now they are paying a huge amount of money every year to keep it on standby. Old news and no one talks about that anymore. They probably should have fired it up one year, but there had been a change of government and the new one would never admit the thing could be useful. I don't know exactly how it is engineered but could be a good use for peak power if you can cycle it. Where I used to work, there was a reverse osmosis plant we had to start periodically.
As an aside to this aside, Australia has an abundance of saline groundwater that is less concentrated than seawater so would be more efficient to purify. Especially since you wouldn't be pumping in that algal crap that makes them have to replace the membranes more frequently.
also related - the Ezra Klein podcast is also touching on this. Basically solar and battery are getting cheap and revolutionizing power everywhere except the US.
also a footnote that desalination is prohibitive mostly due to the cost of power.
If a technology is stifled long enough, an alternative will emerge. We will eventually get off of oil, but we may have to just pay for all of it first.
I generally don't click through to videos and one from the tesla space doesn't encourage me to do so. I know you have been a thorium fan for quite a while but stepping back, I'm more sceptical than ever, basically because the old baseload paradigm is obsolete except for the case of powering AI.
TL:DR with sufficient storage, renewables are a viable alternative to almost all our baseload and peak load needs. And reactors are particularly poor at supplying peak load - you just end up having to burn away the power generated other times or, well, develop enough storage. My system is being installed today (yea!) and my hope is that my use of grid power will be minimal and much of the grid power will be from the huge solar farms being built elsewhere and from an over-budget hydro project (another story). For an increasing number of people here, the grid is essentially an expensive subscription for backup power where the supply charge outweighs the actual kW supplied. And I opted for a larger battery because I want to be able to keep power through more hours of power outages from that unreliable grid.
Sure it's a bit of a gamble and the full payoff period is many years, but I'm excited to see how it works out. I take that as part of the entertainment budget.
I'm still big on the technology, but I don't think it will make it. There is a good use case for it - basically a baseload for higher density areas where the solar/renewable footprint is harder to support. In a perfect world, we would have a mix of inputs to a diverse/widely connected grid.
But generally you (and I) are on the right track with simple storage making big enough gains that it makes a lot more sense to just do solar and a wind. The use case is still there for thorium, but without scale there isn't enough profit for the entrenched powers to embrace it. And without profit the easier/already moving market of solar will just run it over.
My southern outpost system is basically paid for now (I've saved about the system cost in reduced power bills), mine was DIY and I have several advantages in materials and engineering that helped make it a couple of year ROI. Most of the systems like this I put together wind up with about 8 year ROI. Considering equipment life and likely power rate increases, I comfortably tell people it's well under half price electricity, probably closer to 75% off. Plus 'backup' power, and some green credibility.
With peak pricing in some places, I've seen it make sense (especially for businesses) to put in an inverter and battery system with no solar just to load shift (charge when rates are cheap and use battery when rates are high). Things like this and the soon to be saturated market of somewhat depleted but still useful EV batteries hitting the hobbyist market, will make new generation even riskier, one or two utility bankruptcies and you won't be able to get bonds for new plant.
I generally don't click through to videos and one from the tesla space doesn't encourage me to do so. I know you have been a thorium fan for quite a while but stepping back, I'm more sceptical than ever, basically because the old baseload paradigm is obsolete except for the case of powering AI.
TL:DR with sufficient storage, renewables are a viable alternative to almost all our baseload and peak load needs. And reactors are particularly poor at supplying peak load - you just end up having to burn away the power generated other times or, well, develop enough storage. My system is being installed today (yea!) and my hope is that my use of grid power will be minimal and much of the grid power will be from the huge solar farms being built elsewhere and from an over-budget hydro project (another story). For an increasing number of people here, the grid is essentially an expensive subscription for backup power where the supply charge outweighs the actual kW supplied. And I opted for a larger battery because I want to be able to keep power through more hours of power outages from that unreliable grid.
Sure it's a bit of a gamble and the full payoff period is many years, but I'm excited to see how it works out. I take that as part of the entertainment budget.
I'm all for going completely solar - the entire planet. It's cheap, scalable and zero-emission (except for its manufacture and installation).
copenhagen atomics is diligently working on this...
if i were you i'd watch the entire video
I generally don't click through to videos and one from the tesla space doesn't encourage me to do so. I know you have been a thorium fan for quite a while but stepping back, I'm more sceptical than ever, basically because the old baseload paradigm is obsolete except for the case of powering AI.
TL:DR with sufficient storage, renewables are a viable alternative to almost all our baseload and peak load needs. And reactors are particularly poor at supplying peak load - you just end up having to burn away the power generated other times or, well, develop enough storage. My system is being installed today (yea!) and my hope is that my use of grid power will be minimal and much of the grid power will be from the huge solar farms being built elsewhere and from an over-budget hydro project (another story). For an increasing number of people here, the grid is essentially an expensive subscription for backup power where the supply charge outweighs the actual kW supplied. And I opted for a larger battery because I want to be able to keep power through more hours of power outages from that unreliable grid.
Sure it's a bit of a gamble and the full payoff period is many years, but I'm excited to see how it works out. I take that as part of the entertainment budget.
A bit technical but here's a response to the myths about thorium power. TL;DR benefits are often overstated and incorrect - it is no panacea
i may have posted from his what is nuclear page before and i appreciate his skepticism
however, here's all you need to know from his disclaimer
Disclaimer
Thorium is absolutely a viable and capable fuel, and some advanced nuclear reactors that use it are among the most exciting designs out there. This page does not debunk Thorium as a good energy system, it simply debunks a small fraction of the hype from a nuclear engineer's (who is tasked with designing and implementing these kinds of systems) perspective. Hype about Thorium and advanced nuclear in general is quite justified! To learn more about Thorium, we feature a page about Thorium as nuclear fuel, as well as a big page about the fluid fueled molten salt reactors (MSRs) that are good at using it.
Seaborg Technologies is ready for the next step on the journey towards a next generation of nuclear reactors.
A total of DKK 300 million will be spent. euro to reach the target.
For five years now, Seaborg Technologies has been working on a completely new type of liquid salt reactor. It can be a big win in the fight for climate, because the reactor is quick to scale and at the same time it produces 100 per cent. CO2 neutral energy. Here it is Trols Schönfeldt, co-founder and CEO of the company. Photo: Stine Bidstrup
Although nuclear power is not on the drawing board in Denmark, a small company in Nørrebro has one of the world's most promising nuclear power technologies in the mold.
Seaborg Technologies is well ahead in its efforts to develop a new type of liquid salt reactor that can be in a 20-foot container. It will significantly reduce the price of nuclear power while increasing security.The unique technology has attracted so much attention in Asia, in particular, that Seaborg has now landed a huge deal with a major South Korean energy company whose name is not yet public.
The agreement is a partnership where Seaborg and the South Koreans will build 7,500 of Seaborg's nuclear reactors in Southeast Asia until 2040.“It is a very big step on the road to the next generation of nuclear power. The South Koreans want to provide all the infrastructure to build the reactors, and then we just have to concentrate on developing the reactor itself, ”says Troels Schönfeldt, co-founder and CEO of Seaborg Technologies.
Seaborg has been in existence since the end of 2014 and has already collected a double-digit million from among other things. six different Danish founders of so-called unicorn companies - startups with a value of more than DKK 1 billion. dollars.
Following the big deal in South Korea, Trols Schönfeldt has now gone in search of the next capital injection of a three-digit million. “We hope to have the funding in place shortly. Probably only a month or two. This is money to be used to build a laboratory so that we can complete our reactor development, ”he says.
Seaborg expects to have their first reactor running in 2024, if all goes according to plan. But before it is ready, according to Troels Schönfeldt, 300 million have been spent. euro - equivalent to approx. 2.25 billion kr. "Half will go to development, and the second half will produce the first reactor, which is much more expensive than the next," he says.
Seaborg currently has 28 employees, but the goal is to create a new Danish export success - especially to Southeast Asia, where the climatic conditions mean that solar, wind and water energy do not have optimal conditions. One of Seaborg's reactors can supply energy to a city of 50,000 inhabitants, including all industries.
“The goal is to replace much of the coal power with nuclear power. Our technology will be able to supply Southeast Asia with energy one-third cheaper than coal power. But the most important thing is that nuclear power can save the climate, ”says Troels Schönfeldt.
Professor of nuclear power at DTU, Bent Lauritzen, calls the next generation of nuclear energy vital if we are to overcome the massive climate challenges on the planet.
“Unless we can produce cheap nuclear power in the form of small reactors on assembly lines, the amount of fossil energy sources will simply increase. We simply cannot solve the climate crisis in Asia and Africa without the technological breakthroughs in nuclear power, ”he says. Worldwide, nuclear power fills approx. 5% of the world's energy supply, while fossil fuels such as coal, oil and gas occupy 80 per cent. That has not changed in 25 years.
