Thinking the same

He also has the sufficient IQ ability not to die a ridiculous death that would have most of us scratching our heads

Energy companies only care if something good actually happens, this company is just another competitor who may or may not take a piece off of their pie... TLDR: He is one of them...

Google Atlasjet Flight 4203 and Professor Dr. Engin Arik.

Found in his hotel room unalived the next day after seen speaking to a man in black the day before.

AMEN!!! It's always about the money trail that leads to the politicians pockets. Just look at DMSO. A fantastic, natural, vital and effective medical solution that has been suppressed for decades. Because nobody can make billions off it like they did the Covid Vaccines.

"How is this going to let us put a tax on Carbon!???! We can't scam the population with this! Shut it down!"

you also have the issue of being in the crosshairs of foreign governments

Even biology is nuclear powered.

Is disgusting. I do not consent to the national security state!

Hydrogen energy needs to be brought into this as well...

@ellipsisomega9387 Which is exactly what we along with partners intend. See more here: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/m6p1h9l0yN7bfnU.html&ab_channel=CopenhagenAtomics

@@ellipsisomega9387there is no such thing as „hydrogen energy“.

​@@walterrudich2175 um what!?!? You don't get out much huh?

@@vlatepes1901 LOL! You aren't a physicist - are you?

LOL! Thorium and Fusion! If idiots like you had a say we all would have to do without electricity.

Not scalable.

​@@BOT_0x76DE45AB yuh huh

Look up radium tubes

Ah! A conspiracy moron.

You mean the optimism Elon Musk spreads during his snake-oil presentations only without the stammering?

@@walterrudich2175 The kind of optimism that reverse engineers and develops better products. "I am sure that we can produce transistors for radios."

@@jooch_exe well - then build a reactor that runs on optimism because this Thorium nonsense will never work.

No reason to. They can purchase the molten salt and would still be the producer of electricty

@@ProblemChild-xk7ix But that would take effort and investment and they're extremely set in their ways. It's like that everywhere, even though thorium reactor technology have existed for literally decades.

@@ShamblerDK From my limited understanding, while this technology has existed for decades, the hard nut to crack was the corrosion issue of the salts, which only recently has been cracked (allegedly).

The people who will and are fighting against this cheap power source are the existing power suppliers plus the private and government sectors they may have bought off . Remember , without energy absolutely nothing happens ( unless we go back to the horse and buggy days and before oil )including making money and wealth.

@@justinw1765 And yet we've had MSRs running for decades at this point. Doubt that the corrosion issue is that big of a deal.

And we will be in an energy crisis forever. The people who make money from this will make sure of that.

Which is better than what we have now, at least this is a chance, and should not be ignored. All of this runs on someone filling their pockets, that's the incentive. But, there is always...hope. Just have to wait and see.

The crisis has and will continue to be manufactured/self Inflicted because no one wants to take a pay cut even said pay cut would dramatically improve production capacity/capability in literally every sector overnight.

If we didnt export industry to china and didnt import the third world we would have abundance and not a energy/housing/wages crisis but then the lords would not be making money.

‘We” have not . Oil n gas cheap af

Good point try becoming one. No specific education is required.

It is true, that is why we are getting technologies like these, main investors into green energy are Eu parliament participants.

@@VERUMSINEMENDACIO where? Project name and time frame? 🤔

​@@arkaroy7531working beta model by 2025

​@@arkaroy7531 Yipp..greed & self enrichment stands in the way..❗

We are not currently, and don't plan on, receiving government subsidies. Nonetheless, profit probably won't be there until the mid 2030s anyway as the first many years after a commercial reactor we will be ramping up production capacity, sort of like Tesla didn't have a profit because they needed to ramp up. But we will be sure to make an update

@@CopenhagenAtomicsif you have a working product you should be seeking government subsidies. If not I could see why you’d avoid it.

​@@Playingwithproxies once you start depending on the government's money you'll also have to take orders from them

It's not. This is 99% PowerPoint and fantasy to rid governments and rich idiots off their money.

LOL! Better wait for fusion. Like this thorium nonsense it’s always only 20 years away - at least for the last 60 years…

All true, except that I think when you say fast fission you mean unmoderated fast neutron reactor? Most reactors and all commercial reactors are moderated, with neutrons in the thermal spectrum.

We’re smart enough it’s just the corruption and greed that keeps it from happening.

@@rheuss1 proliferation concerns used to be much more political. Liquid fueled reactors, especially Th/U233, can provide weapons grade bomb material easier than solid fueled reactors.

Yep good old dumb politicians you can always trust them to cock things up. All they had to was listen and learn but they never do. I also so that the Chinese were working on this over 10 years ago or longer.

Chinese already built a LFTR in the Gobi desert. But meanwhile Orange man bad and gotta send billions to the Ukraine slaughterhouse.

Thank you kindly!

A brilliant presentation! Just like Elon’s fever dreams - only without the stammering

So do we!

If it's a possibility to make it work as they say (which I highly doubt), "allowed" is definitely the issue. I can't see corporations worth 10 times the US national debt just stepping aside from their current station.

Nah the whole idea is not practical. Was tried several times by way more capable people

this guy is either lying to you or knows nothing about how a thorium reactor works. its called a breeder reactor for a reason, you breed HIGHLY radioactive U233 which is 100s of times more radioactive than U235 with a consequentially 100 times shorter 1/2 life so your only storing it for 300yeears, but you need 10-20 times thicker storage vessels and reactors walls need to be like 8m thick instead of 1-2m thick to contain it. i dont know where people think you could ever get a safe micro reactor from it, the walls would need to be 10x the thickness of a regular 235 reactor/10x bigger than a regular reactor core. of all the nuclear options it takes the most space because of how unstable U233 is. theirs a simple rule in radioscience the more unstable it is, the more reactive it is the shorter its 1/2 life is the more radioactive waves it lets off per second & the more material you need to use to contain its energy

@@hamasmillitant1 no, the waste doesn't last only 300 years because of the isotope of uranium used. It lasts only 300 years because it has a short half life, being composed of fission products. These are roughly half the size of uranium, a mixture of elements from about atomic number 35 through to atomic number 55. These elements should have about an equal number of protons to neutrons go be stable, whereas heavier elements use more neutrons to be stable. As a result, when heavy uranium (of any type, or plutonium or whatever other heavy element you can get to split) is split, the over-abundance of neutrons makes it highly radioactive, meaning it finds a stable, less radioactive state rather quickly.

@@driverjamescopeland That industry won't step aside in the short term. There are still thousands of uses for petrochemicals where the oil and gas industry is involved. Additionally, unless someone finds better energy storage for the transportation sector, I don't see gas powered cars, airplanes, or trucks suddenly disappearing overnight.

Certianly still things to do before we can start our 1MW test reactor in late 2025. But stay tuned!

What locations?

Which they never will. This is a scam.

@@BogenmacherD The moment he said nuclear is not dangerous compared to coal, I would like to have him exposed to nuclear material as we were to coal. IT IS DANGEROUS but we are not going to expose it to the untrained hands. but comparing Reactor to coal tells a lot about his presentation logic.

@@BogenmacherD - And you know this how?

Thank you for your kind words. Your background certainly sounds interesting. There is a position that might suit your background. Have a look: copenhagenatomics.com/careers/safety-case-manager/

Hi. I sent you my resume and look forward to hearing from you.@@CopenhagenAtomics

It's not just Copenhagen Atomics that need to succeed with building a great reactor. We all need to support nuclear power so it does not get stuck in politics

In Australia yesterday roof top public solar pannels caused the whole sale energy cost to drop to 'minus' $65 dollars a megajoule, so during the day so much energy was pumped into the network that they had to shut down coal fire plants... Us here in Australia just need more storage like hydro, & heat batteries to store all that energy.

@@dodgygoose3054 "just need storage" Yeah but storage of energy is expensive. Especially if you have to store for a few weeks of cloudy weather, or for the dark season (in Australia I guess your summers are the dark season)

Pumped hydro & heat storage is still cheeper & faster which has nothing to do with weather. @@migBdk

​@@dodgygoose3054you "just" need storage? Like the global lead and lithium reserves times a thousand to store a few minutes of your grid? Maybe Gandalf to conjure up some mountain ranges to dam? Maybe some gas peaker plants to ramp up and down quickly, and keep pumping out carbon for ever? The truth is these nuclear are dispatchable energy, so don't need storage, and molten salt can ramp quickly and even load follow, stabilizing the grid.

Ding Ding Ding, correct! Finally someone has a brain in the comments section. We could all have no electricity bill with the amount of energy Thorium produces or at the most maybe 50 dollars a month. Those conniving scheming little hats are always enslaving the planet through suppressing inventions for healthcare advancements, energy production, travel and ect.

And that is the reason why Torium was never use - it cannot be used for weapons!!!!

I know, the story about Former Pres Nixon talking to the Defense guys was an interesting read. We'd be swimming in clean nuke power today with LFTR and Molton Salt reactors had it not been for Nixon knuckling in to the pressure from the MIC. Such a shame.

Also plutonium production. These are the only reasons really that Uranium was chosen over Thorium for nuclear fission, for weapons production.

Their was a documentary called thorium I watched about a decade ago now, can’t find it anymore though,it had the scientists in it who actually worked on these programmes and they knew it produced more energy,cheaper to mine, more abundant all over the planet and way safer in terms of heat and meltdowns etc.. of course they were shut down , we are ran by an evil that has no equal.

Thanks for confirming this is indeed a sales pitch. The hands that hold the waste material is irrelevant. Once you have made it, it's gotta be managed. The ability to separate the material does not diminish the waste - it just converts it. One serious failure in the MANY safety systems required, and your company goes bust... then what? The spin does not stand up to reason.

​@@frogmatt33I think Copenhagen atomics needed to be clearer on this point. This machine uses nuclear waste (the transuranics part) to start up. Then breeds u233 from the thorium blanket. That means existing and generated waste is dangerous only for 300 years, and the longer-lived transuranics in the current nuclear waste is actually used up to generate much more energy than was generated in the original reactors.

I'd add to your list that they should emphasize more that it's a waste burner, and gets rid of long-lived nuclear waste (transuranics)

That's a lie you told about solar panels. They can and are being recycled and they are not "full of toxic heavy metals", they are mostly aluminum and glass.

@@JRP3 Maybe so, I hope so... my info may be a bit out of date and I sure hope I'm wrong about the recycling. While I might accept that the CdTe and CIGS don't contain the cadmium, indium, gallium and selenium that their names suggest, or that the solder used to build them is lead- and tin-free, a consumer-grade solar panel still only produces enough energy in its whole lifespan (something like 30 MWh) to displace about 6g of hypothetical thorium msr fuel. The volume of waste produced would be orders-of-magnitude more miniscule than any other generation technology I've ever seen (except fusion), if it develops to anywhere near its potential.

No we still need fossil fuels because we still need plastic but the Government of the world would put a stop to this.

Sounds like all talk and hype. If you aren’t allowed to start a chain reaction in Copenhagen, take your rig to somewhere else and prove it works without exploding.

@@amyntazoe9831 We don't need to burn fossil fuel for everything. It's just the cheaper option right now and the fossil fuel industry is hellbent on keeping it that way, damn the environment, as long as they can. Most plastic components can be made by recycling what we already have, but it's cheaper to throw used plastics in the garbage and make new.

India is on working on third stage in thorium nuclear energy, leading the world in thorium nuclear energy and also content 25% of thorium.

India for the win!! Got some bright minds over there. ​@@amitbhuriya1561

If we accomplish a closed thorium fuel cycle using molten salt reactors, there's very little reason to go to fusion. It offers all the benefits of fusion with none of the problems. Virtually unlimited, co2-free fuel. No possibility of a meltdown, explosion, etc. No nuclear proliferation risk. But it's also an already-proven technology (at least the MSR part, from the 60s), no insane capital costs, and a much more rapid timeline to roll out to commercialization (if fusion even ever could!).

Di China sudah dibangun di daerah gurun pasir energi Thorium, juga Saudi Arabia juga sedang dibangunin oleh China

@@MrGottaQuestion They're stalling by using fusion as some excuse for "cleaner" energy, when in reality the powers that be(you all know who they are, they have big noses) want to keep on on a grid that their corporations control and so they can keep pushing the green energy agenda onto the world whilst passing legislation to strip away our freedoms and rights and cutting down all the trees for their wind turbines increasing the co2 further pushing their agenda.

No, it doesn't. Thorium reactors have never worked for more than a few days. One key problem is the lack of a material that withstands the insanely corrosive molten salt.

The main issue with fusion and/or thorium is the same. People were scared into oblivion with the three major accidents, some rational, most irrational. Basically most nuclear research ground to a halt when Chernobyl happened, Fukushima sealed the deal. But we still burn coal, use airplanes and drive cars, which on their own are responsible for soooo many more deaths. But thanks to this halting of research, we did fall behind 20 years, but actually 40 years. All research from the past has been largely invalidated and has to be reinvented again, just to get back to the point we need to be. Nuclear research is also responsible for many many cancer treatments using ever increasing more advanced isotopes. Yet over 90% of all these medical isotopes come from three reactors spread over the entire globe, all of them aged beyond reasonable. Politics doesn't allow for new reactors, because nuclear is bad. We can't decommission them, because which politician wants to be responsible for ending the medical isotope supply? And repairing reactors is cost prohibitive. We need some long term vision on nuclear research and we need it fast. SMRs are a good development, but lack of funding is really holding them back. We basically need a Elon Musk person for nuclear research, because when he came around for space, things really rocketed ahead.

That's the big advantage, not the thorium.

That's the strongest counter-argument for all the cries about nuclear safety problems.

@@chapter4travels those big advantages are pretty much unique to molten thorium salt reactors

@@maolcogi they have nothing to do with thorium and everything to do with the reactor design. A much cheaper/simpler uranium based MSR has all the same advantages.

Thank you! Stay tuned

solve the key problems of demo country + weapons grade byproducts --- and KICK ARSE guys --- WHY IS DENMARK NOT STEPPING UP and being the country ???????? if they don't want to play ball go to the Netherlands -- maybe they are smarter geo-politically ---

We are working on it every day! And we are still positive that we will have a 1MW test reactor ready by late 2025. Stay tuned

​@@CopenhagenAtomicscan we invest to help move it forward? I think many that haven't filed taxes and owe , would hold filing this year And put the amount into this. If I did, I would

Sadly the powers that be have all their money and attention in uranium but i agree - go Thorium!! The country that starts these and proves their worth will be made.... but watch your backs guys 'they' wont like others p*ssing in their pond so to speak..... Remember - money talks.....

Buy Bitcoin now before it's too late

yes, it has a massive potential but is almost as rare as U and equally difficult to extract. The largest deposit is in India in Monazite sands

No, is has no potential unless someone has proven that it actually works, which it doesn't, just like nuclear fusion energy.

​@@janami-dharmamThere's approximately 5.5 million metric tonnes of identified uranium resources which is more than enough fuel for thousands for years, and Thorium is over 3 times more abundant that uranium. The problem isnt quantity by any means

Hmmm, i think at this time we are going into antigravity engines direction ;-) IMO this is ecxactly what is needed... with mercury in cooperation? :) idk

@@sparkie996 the Wonder Boy, why didn't I think of that?

No They can't. And I doubt they actually even mean it. They are looking to acquire venture capital from people with too much money and too little understanding of physics and chemistry and then hope to bail out with a golden chute once that money is burned.

When and where will it happen and costs and construction times

The construction time should be quick, once the final design is ironed out and tested. They want to put it on an assembly line

And I can't wait for the 100th production reactor

that'l be a long wait, pal. Or maybe not, because like all similar projects before, this will fail soon enough. There won't be a single buyer for such a reactor, because it will never be competitive with wind and solar. Besides, they will never get one up and running anyways.

It will start operation just one day after Tesla’s fully autonomous car will hit the market.

Hi @runedahl1477. 1) It will weigh less than 40 tons and can therefore easily be transported by normal lorries. 2) Once a reactor is started there won't be maintenance. After five years the reactor box will be swapped for a new, the fuel salt, blanket salt and moderator will be reused in a new reactor box. The used reactor box will be decomissioned and subsequently recycled. 3) If you are reffering to maintenace, refer to the previous answer. The decomissioning will happen on site. 4) If the pump stops the fuel will instantly drop into the drain tanks due to gravity. 5) refer to question 2. 6) Yes, after decomission and storage it can be remelted. 7) Yes there is. Nonetheless, we do expect that scaling up supply will for a long period be our main hurdle.

@@CopenhagenAtomics Thanks for the reply to my questions. The weight of the unit is important because not everywhere in the world have roads that can take heavy loads even if it is on special multi wheel carriers. If the reactor box is swooped ever five years the need for maintenance should be covered. The project looks very promising and realistic and will most likely be a great success once you have your first reactor running and the general public and politicians wakes up. Then there will be a demand that is far more than you are able to cover. Your biggest problem at the moment is slow working regulators and public fear of nuclear power plants. A lot of people here in Scandinavia are not aware of the reactors that were in the towns of Stockholm and in the Norwegian town of Halden. I don’t know but Norway might still be making heavy water.

Agreed, imagine where we could be then.

Considering that the man who developed the first thorium molten salt reactor is the same person who invented the uranium light water reactor, the USA should have continued to develop this technology back in the 70’s. One of the many reasons I feel very disappointed with my country’s history and the choices our politicians have made. Glad to see that other countries are taking advantage of this research that the American people paid for but was ignored for over three decades. Oh, and my grandpa was a Larsen and I still have cousins in Denmark so yay!!! ❤ 🇩🇰

By Thomas Jam: I was co-founder of an energy storage company many years ago. I did the calculations! If you can make power at $20 / MWh then storage is a bad idea. It is better to make enough base load capacity to cover peak demand. Yes, grids with a lot of wind and solar has a problem. But it is not our problem.

Solar & wind isn't the problem which you know, its the intelligent movement of energy away from the old model of a single energy producer controlling the whole network.... In Australia they are looking at suburb solar networks to a battery for that suburb, so each suburb can work independently but also connected to surrounds to pass energy intelligently to the states network to Australia's network... But hey I understand that your main focus is SELLING!! your own product which makes you totally bias. @@CopenhagenAtomics

​@@dodgygoose3054so you think the problem isn't intermittency, but that the grid isn't "intelligent" and needs trillons in investments globally to even begin to handle the intermittency of renewables.... and then you think the third world will adopt this? Nope, DOA.

​@@dodgygoose3054 Batteries are suitable for small applications eg. single buildings but installing them en masse is a big waste of wealth. Just build some reliable power stations (like these thorium ones) and job done. These western green movements have been another method used for reducing stability and extracting wealth. Another output from the engine of perpetual crises used to sustain global control.

As long as the sun shines, should work great!

They are a different company, using a fast spectrum reactor. They have a TED talk too.

As the "green" energy policy fails, it's become a bit more obvious. We need to drive consciousness about not only the cost of renewables, but also how expensive and carbon intensive storage will be to put online, and this will become ever more important with higher rates of grid penetration of renewables. And then 3rd world countries, where the vast majority of future energy demand will be, will have to pay for this? Yeah right, they will burn coal and the earth will cook. Co2-free energy, cheaper than coal, is absolutely a requirement for saving us from excessive levels of climate change.

@@MrGottaQuestion B.S. The Fluoride Worked Well On You MSM Fooled You .... Earth Cycles Hot Or Cold Its The SUN

France has been running atomic creators safely for decades

What is "green policy?" "and this will become ever more important with higher rates of grid penetration of renewables." -@@MrGottaQuestion . See examples in South Australia and Western Australia...no new nuclear needed for "Co2-free energy."

WEF doesn't want nuclear energy, so we won't have nuclear energy, simple as that.

Yep, wannabe scientists like Sabine are literally promoting this garbage and not going into further details like maintenance, operation , waste depositing/recooking costs.

Much appreciated!

It's right there at 5:30 - "measured as deaths per terawatt-hour of electricity production"

@@kaboom083 Yes! I stand corrected. Thank you. Good pickup.

Thanks. We cannot save the planet. People need to embrace love and save each other, we just provide the energy to make it a bit easier.

Designs for thorium reactors have been around for decades, they weren't unable to bring them to market, they were prevented from doing so.

​@@stewartanderson6560What changed?

@@gmw3083 Politics and regulation. We have the reactors we have today because Regan funneled the vast majority of federal research money towards that technology, as it was being developed in California labs where he was Governor. That, and it was used in nuclear subs. Because of this, none of the regulation were built for Thorium, so it's incredibly difficult to move forward with it. The generation who originally created that walled garden are either retired or dead now, so things are slowly starting to change.

@@semosesam Sounds good, but that's America. What was everyone else doing? I get that DC has been calling the shots for Europe and many other countries for decades.

Stay tuned!

Better wait for fusion. It’s only 20 years away - at least we’re hearing this for the last 60 years

Yes, the problem is not that we don't want nuclear power, the problem is that we need the plant producing electricity by next year. And then more power every year after that so if the permits, surveys and construction take long enough that one plant you are building won't be enough and we are back at square one. It would be nice if we finally get working thorium reactors but that is no reason to stop building renewables and especially energy storage, we needed that back when the grid was all powered by coal and we will need it even if we had fusion. If we were fine with building oversized power plants and wasting base load power then we could just build that base load power with renewables: No need for energy storage if any calm and cloudy day will still produce more power than the grid needs at peak demand hours.

@@AnalystPrimewith this logic we would never develop or build anything new. This is also the logic that Hittler used to dismiss the USA as a serious threat to his war plans. They will never be able to manufacture the ships, airplanes and tanks they need to quickly enough, but we did and that type of thinking has already been proven wrong in lots of different examples.

Hi! That is a fair point, and he should perhaps have said something else. What is meant is that it is an energy source that can last for the next at least 1000 years, even with significant growth in energy production. So maybe he should have said we won't run out of thorium for the next 1000 years, and a lot can happen before then, we will most likely have an even better energy source that no one can even imagine today by then.

It would indeed be nice if we could test it in our home country.

If anything has held back cheap, clean energy, it’s also capitalism. “Big Energy” are making some nice money on the energy crisis.

Wrong, @@sliver37 . What helds competition is not a company, but a crooked government tied in with a company. Capitalism is God's given gift to Humanity to rise itself from the mud into the skies. Capitalism fosters cooperation, honesty, moral and ethical values and everything good Humanity has. Capitalism is ending poverty at a breakneck speed, being held by only by governments around the world.

@@fabiodesalles2732 and keeps the have nots boots on the plebs necks. Do ppl really think EVERY person can become a millionaire) billionaire?

There was No Money to be made, No Nuclear Potential.

And nobody is working on this kind of reactor. All they do is play on their computers and create spreadsheets and sketches and PowerPoint presentations.

​@@BogenmacherDif you actually watch this video it shows the onion core they have built, they are yet to start it up however

@@nzoomed Yep, they have built a big funny steel box. I am so exited, the reactor is almost finished, yey, but you know they have to show at least "something" to their investors. And then they have their "Pump" but all they show on their website is a big can with some stuff on. No cutaway, not even an explanation what type of pump it is.

​@@BogenmacherDhe seemed to indicate they are not "allowed" to start it up yet but have been testing the system with molten salt. Wait and see what I guess

I'm 1/16 Danish! Maternal Great Grandmother. I still feel pride in Denmark. Of the European Capitals, Copenhagen alone makes me feel like I'm home again. I really hope CA can jump the tough hurdles to release thorium energy. Change the world.

Maybe Elon Musk will use this nonsense on his Mars colony. Stay tuned

yep

We are always looking for talented engineers

Well, think of it this way. You really don't need to get the protactinium out of the breeding blanket. Just run that thorium through the blanket, then store that salt for a few months and you can pull U233 for use in your reactor core with a fluorine gas sparge, uranium hexafluoride, Then you have a thorium fluoride salt that has a wee bit of protactinium still in it, just top that off and put it back through the breeder blanket.

Though... You're going to get a lot of other junk in your fluoride salt in the core... Fission. Ash is going to build up quickly.

@@kayakMike1000 Most fission products will react with the fluorine and remain in the salt. Ash? The salts need to circulate to loose some of the heat, needs cleaning, and needs new uranium to keep things going. That is one of the properties keeping this thing safer than a conventional nuclear reactor.

@@kayakMike1000 I've read protactinium can absorb yet another neutron (undesirable) and it should best not decay in the reactor mantle.

Indeed. If we continue to electrify in the rate we do now, we will need a lot of additional power.

We are in dialog with the authorities in Indonesia. No approval or power plant yet.

There are many videos in our youtube chanel which explain how thorium molten salt reactors work and there are even more all over the internet if you google it. No one disagree about the big picture, but some people debate some of the details. Please also watch some videos by Kirk Sorensen for a different view.

@@CopenhagenAtomics Great, thanks.

the tl;dr is that you yeet a bunch of neutrons at throium 232, and then it degrades through a chain eventually into u 233 which is a good material to be used for fission.

My question. Can U233 also be used to make bombs, like U 235?

@@janhemmer8181 from some quick reading on wikipedia, verifiable nature debatable, but. Theoretically yes, however there are a couple problems, notably it's not as nice to handle as plutonium. It's the same level of difficulty to create really, Any standard reactor running on uranium will produce weapons grade isotopes, though the amounts and accessibility of it are not obvious. That and the fact that there is very little information on u233 in bombs. And how to properly handle it being a bit more involved. Realistically we would likely focus on plutonium as it's more understood, easier to handle, and nicer to deal with. Frankly i think the proliferation risk is overblown, people have nuclear weapons, so be it.

none of that is required as this reactor is load-following and can quickly ramp up or down energy production.

We will be sure to. Supply of thorium is definitely there.

China's world first commercial thorium reactor has already started operations and undergoing tests.

If it sounds too good to be true then it actually is.

hhmmmm... yes we need geotermal. But where is the steel plant, aluminium plant, ammonia plant that run on geothermal? I trust there will be 100 times more ammonia plants running on thorium than on geotermal by 2040.

Geothermal has massive problems with corrosion, also with changing "hot spots" that could render a geothermal plant useless in a short amount of time. I agree, we should invest in them, but NEW NUCLEAR energy technology is much more reliable and extendible.

modern gen iv reactors particularly fast reactors tend to be much simpler than previous gen iii and gen ii reactors

LFTRs are not pressurised reactors, which makes them hugely cheaper and simpler to make.

​@@CopenhagenAtomics400C and you ask how a steel plant runs on geothermal energy?? Ever heard of a steam turbine?

I criticised them on the same misdirection last time. But on the other hand they are building a thermal spectrum breeder reactor. Thorium is a given no matter what if that's the type of reactor you want. I would have preferred a brief overview of thermal vs fast and breeder vs burner types of reactor as context before talking about thorium vs uranium but on a talk like this I guess there's just no time to do that.

@@MrRolnicek Regardless of whether it's a thermal breeder or fast, the reactor will be more complex, more expensive, and harder to get licensed. In the near term, cost and versatility are the most important factors to consider. For that, a simple once-through MSR makes the most sense to me. Cheap, easy, and versatile due to its high-temperature output. It looks like Terrestrial Energy out of Canada is doing just that and will most likely be first to market. If Copenhagen can be just as cheap as Terrestrial Energy's IMSR and get licensed, I will be their new biggest fan.

@@chapter4travels Well not really. fast breeder is EXTREMELY simple if you're doing molten salt. Look at what Elysium is doing for their reactor ... It's a vat of salt with fuel in, large enough vat that it heats up and expands up to a point of equilibrium until you remove the heat. Thermal breeder on the other hand is the complex thing although should be easier to get licensed because it's thermal and as such doesn't have much hard radiation leaking out of the reactor. (although I have not much real idea about licensing) Whether it's more expensive ... well. There's a LOT less material both radioactive and otherwise because it's thermal spectrum and it's small enough it can be made in a factory. That could make it MUCH cheaper potentially, Not something you can realistically do with a fast breeder.

@@MrRolnicek Any type of breeder is going to be more complex in the eyes of the regulator and take much longer to license if ever. Look how long Elysium (now Exody) has been trying, they are no further along than 5 years ago. They are at a dead end compared to a simple burner MSR like Terrestrial Energy's IMSR.

@@chapter4travels Well ... I guess the licensing side of things is something that I REALLY don't understand much of. I am really more on the technical side of things. But on the technical side, you have to admit the Elysium (didn't even know they're Exody now) is litereally the simplest possible nuclear reactor that could ever exist. On the other hand any THERMAL breeder is going to be necesarily complex even on the technology. They freely admit it requires on-line chemical processing. And doing any such thing on a very hot radioactive salt is a nightmare just to think about before you think about fitting it inside the same shipping container as your reactor.

They are working on it. Time for the west to step up to the task.

The reason why it did not happen yet, is because the people who tried did not get enough support. Over the same 10 years I have met 100 people who work really hard to make it happen and 100.000 people who sit and wait not even offering a few $

Fossil Fuel companies hate it, so they influence officials and spread lies to the public to prevent it.

The technical problem is that molten salts are incredibly corrosive, and want to eat whatever they touch. The physics is sound, the materials science to keep the salts contained, not so much.

Or, ie, it couldn't compete with wind, solar, hydro, pumped hydro, offshore wind, geothermal, HVDC, biomass, demand management, PWR nuclear which all exist, or even with dirty fossil fuels. Is there something that has changed now? Also, the title should be revised to the "Worlds cheapest fuel," as energy sources which do not use fuel are currently cheaper.@@CopenhagenAtomics

@@jeffholman2364 Everything green is hemorrhaging money while those dirty fossil fuels make out like a bandit. Maybe in another hundred years when material-science gatekeeping patents expire we'll see some progress. The system doesn't want dependents to have cheap & abundant energy, regulations will always be a hinderance.

Great summary!! Perhaps, you should write them from now on :D

News flash, the world population is not growing so fast anymore and in about 20 years is actually going to start dropping. This is a great solution for the 1st and 2nd world countries.

One small correction - he said it was $1/yr, for a total of $100 for the size of the ball to meet your lifetime. Also, while not in the vid, thorium is technically a waste product from rare-earth mining, if anything you could make money by offering to take away their thorium. That $100 is basically the cost to refine the waste into something usable by a reactor, the raw material is free (or less).

You could actually just look it up. It's all facts that were presented. If you doubt a claim, do your research.