Is it rude to point out she gained a lot of weight? This isn't good for her health. Elina if you're reading this, get in shape while you stil can. It gets harder the more you get fat.

In France, one of the reasons why we are interested into thorium is that it seems there are very large deposits within our country.

9:15 Actually, we do build small reactors in serial production. Many countries build nuclear submarines and ships in series. Some of them are even trying now to convert the already time-tested designs into civil power plants, like Rosatom and their Lomonosov power barge.

I greatly appreciate two different perspectives from qualified nuclear physicists.

It's like watching a debate between a theoretical physicist and an engineer ... Separated only by a common language.

The funny thing is in many ways the coal they use now is more radioactive then the nuclear power plants that keep that radiative contained .

Sabine in general is informative. But I think this highlights specialists can provide more of a deep dive. She does kind of ping pong on her opinions. But she's smart enough to admit when she makes errors, or changes opinion. Elina you're awesome. Thank you for the great content.

old nuke here, veteran of the US political war against nuclear power, and it's great to see a young person using her expertise to advocate for the proper use of the newer nuclear technologies to address the very real problems we face

I think you would really like the channel "Periodic Videos". They don't only talk about chemistry, but when they talk about radioactive elements they always speak about the applications. They have a video titled "Thorium Cow" in which they use thorium to create isotopes that are use in radiotherapy, and I'm guessing also for angiograms since you need contrast to see malformations or blockages in the circulatory system. If anything, I'm more of a physics guy, but I do really enjoy how they present the information in a very digestible way (and that's coming from someone who almost failed chemistry but passed biochemistry with flying colors ahah)

Thorium is much more common than uranium, and while it is easier to separate the Isotopes in a molten salt reactor, it would still be harder to extract from it materials for making nuclear weapons, because the reaction chain doesn't so easily produce such isotopes compared to the reaction chain of uranium. Sadly, that's why uranium was chosen in the first place, not because it was safer but because it was more dangerous, and some people wanted to make use of the damage they could use it to cause. Instead of saying that nuclear power is still dangerous, I think what Sabine should have said is that radioactive materials are still hazardous, or at least risky, but it seems to me her point was that people worry because they still don't fully understand, and of course it's true that there is not enough understanding out there because such things are not easy to communicate clearly and there's not enough discussion of them happening to compensate for that fact. Also, just to be clear, they are fission reactors, not fusion reactors. Such thorium based reactors are safer because they don't run the same risk of a runaway fission reaction that the uranium-based reactors do. The devices are designed to actively keep the reaction at a high enough level that power can be extracted from it, rather than having to actively prevent the reaction from reaching a dangerously high level. Also, the drain off system is passive, but preventing it from draining off is active, so if the reactor stops working properly the solid salt plug that prevents the molten salt from draining off will fail to be actively cooled and will thus get melted by the molten salt, which will passively remove the plug and allow the salt to drain off into storage tanks. There are of course experts out there who can explain this way better than I can, because I am not an expert on the subject, but I understand it well enough that I figured I could at least try to explain some of what I do understand of it. I hope you find it helpful. Unfortunately, as far as calling something dangerous that should have instead been called risky, the same thing is happening to artificial intelligence right now. It's not dangerous but rather there is a risk that dangerous humans might use such tools to do dangerous things or to guide its evolution in dangerous directions. If we teach an artificial intelligence to Value benevolence then we don't have to actively prevent filter what it's allowed to say, because the safety mechanism then does not need to rely on external activity, just as the drain off system in a molten salt reactor does not need to rely on being activated when it's needed, because if the reactor fails then the solid salt plug will fail to be cooled and the safety measure of draining the liquid salt will then happen without any outside active intervention having to take place. Thinking ahead is important, in both cases, and it's better to build a slightly risky system that minimizes its own risk automatically than to build a hazardous system that requires constantly actively preventing the hazard from causing damage. I hope I've stated that clearly enough to be helpful.

Sabine is one of the very few science communicators I actually really like and trust, so it's great to get your take as a nuclear expert on her take on (thorium) nuclear.

An excellent breakdown on this subject. Clear, understandable, and informative. Thank you for producing this content.

Thank you for the analysis!! It is good to have a variety of well reasoned view points on this topic.

I thought U233 is hard to make bombs with because it gives off so much gamma radiation, but maybe I have incorrect information. Edit: It's U232 contamination that gives off the gamma, thank you for correcting me.

hey elina thanks so much for the video! I really appreciate the edutuber community keeping themselves in check! It really make me feel like I'm getting informed the best way there is! :)

Thank you, great job explaining your perspective and filling the blanks from Sabine's presentation.

I think the negative learning curve on conventional reactors is a matter of lawfare. As the intervenors are actually prohibitionists on nuclear power, any cost increases and delays are a goal, not a thing to be avoided.

"Phasing out nuclear power was the dumbest mistake Germany ever made as a country..." The Polish corridor is giving you side-eyes right now.

Thorium in a molten salt reactor will feature uranium to get it started. The point is that right now it is largely tossed into mining tailing piles. Thorium's decay chain includes U-233 which is a hard gamma emitter - which i NOT useful for nuclear weapons, is hard to handle and is easily observable by most nations with the capable sensor systems. Thorium is best in a fast spectrum reactor to take advantage of its breeding cycle. In a thermal spectrum reactor you can just do uranium chloride for a molten salt fuel.

I just found your channel and subscribed. Thank you for your content!

Great video Elina!

One advantage of SNTR's is they can be co-located with existing manufacturing processes which are energy intensive which provides 2 significant benefits: 1. Substantially reduces the energy lost due to transmission from centralized power plants; 2. Increased reliability due to eliminating the impact of electrical power disruptions due to weather and centralized power generation disruptions.

The biggest advantage to a thorium reactor is PR. People who are afraid of nuclear power are also afraid of uranium and plutonium, so by saying "hey we use this thing called thorium" makes them feel better.

Sabine has one of the few channels that I have to listen at normal speed…love the content, love your enthusiasm!

Your videos are simply awesome! Informative, entertaining and well thought out.

Talking as a complete amateur I would like to raise some interesting historical background. The Light Water Reactor (LWR) was developed by Alvin Weinberg to provide propulsive power to The American Navy submarines ( it could be described as the first compact nuclear reactor). The United States Airforce decided they wanted a nuclear-powered aircraft design which led to the development of the Thorium reactor. The American Administration decided to scale up the LWR design to generate domestic power. This decision was challenged by Wienberg who preferred his LFTR design which proved to be inherently safe as it is not pressurized and will shut down safely in the event of a fault.

This is the first time I've head that Thorium used in a Reactor can directly produce Weapons Grade Materials. This is not the "safe" alternative it has been presented as. Thanks for your analysis of Sabine's video.

Love your work Elina! 👍

Hi! What a great video. I have subscribed. Thank you so much. I love how you explain things, your English and vocabulary are great! Thank you.

Sabine puts out a new video everyday it seems like, on a wide range of subjects. At this point, I’m suspicious on how accurate she is.

"Nuclear is dangerous", is just too general. any danger needs to be discussed in the context of a specific threat.

Always a pleasure to watch one of your videos. 🖖

Great analysis - thanks! Would love to hear more details about the proliferation issues with Thorium reactors.

Everything I've come across before about thorium power has said that it can't be used to produce material for nuclear weapons. I've even seen this cited as one of the reasons why the USA stopped research into thorium power after building the prototype molten salt reactor at Oak Ridge.

Great video X

This was an excellent explanation and video.😊

Sabine: phasing out nuclear energy is the dumbest thing the germans have ever done me: 😬

Sabine is a very smart lady, and when she speaks of "the dangers" of nuclear energy I think she's referring to the "perceived dangers." We've been conditioned by years of fearmongering to think that anything "nuclear" is dangerous to the environment and human life. Sabine didn't go out of her way to assuage those fears, but that wasn't really the point of this video. Perhaps if you, Elina, as a nuclear physicist were to suggest to Sabine she address those fears more deeply she would do so.

kinda amazing that the Closed Captions actually got most of the sped of talking correct.

I am extremely impressed by Elina's mastery of subject and communication. Wow!

I when I went to school I remember nuclear power being portrayed very negatively. Obviously my 10-18 year old self was very much of the same mentality. The "nuclear waste" problem was very much something that you heard over and over again ( I graduated school in 2013, so Fukushima was really fresh and everyone in my closer surrounding was really happy about the decision to shut down nuclear energy at the time- myself included. I also know my parents are kind of traumatized by the aftermath of Tschernobyl and with that I dont mean "real horrible stuff happening" but a very deep rooted fear of "dont go outside" "dont eat mushrooms" basically all the things that they were told as children. I have often talked to them in recent years on nuclear power and all arguments end whenever that fear surfaces. Its a bit sad, cause both are really open to new ideas in most regards, but nuclear power is like a demon that was finally banished to them. I doubt that I am the only one with this kind of expirience in germany and i believe this is a very typical relationship of my generation with nuclear energy. Most of my friends by now are very much for nuclear energy while 15 years ago I doubt a single one wouldve said so. Also I am really happy I found this channel!

For someone who comes from the nuclear industry it's all been so strange to me this weird push for thorium, especially all of the pie-in-the-sky language used about it. People don't realize that an entire fuel cycle, safety program, and multiple levels of engineering and operational practice has to be developed that all already exists for LWRs. I'm sure plenty of lessons learned can and will be incorporated into a Thorium reactor both design and operation, but there are going to be specific things that crop up that just aren't known about now and I really don't see the advantage of basically rebooting nuclear energy. In the 40s and 50s, the choice was between U-235 and Thorium, and they chose U-235. People can criticize that choice and often do, but it's a lot reset all the way back to that decision and basically start over without a solid answer to the question: Why?.

A very balanced and considered review of Sabine's presentation - thank you so much for the effort and dedication to education - as a very old person - I really appreciated the gentle approach to commentary - applaud you !!!

Nice video Elina 👍 Do you have any reaction videos to the ongoing advances in nuclear fusion science & tech? I caught your remark that it seems ambitious but are you generalizing or speaking to any one technology approach in particular?

Thanks for your video. I actually did a long response to Sabine's video that explained a lot of things she did not understand or got wrong (I'm was a nuke plant engineer); but its buried back towards the beginning of the comments (Best to search for it using "oldest 1st" and its posted in 2 parts as its that long. However, is are some of the key points. There is absolutely no evidence that SMRs will be cost competitive to large central stations; and tons of evidence to the contrary. The SMR idea is not new - it was first proposed in 1955 and the first planed SMR was in Elk River Minnesota a 22 MWe BWR which went online in 1964, and was shutdown in 1968 due to technical issues. However, by then it was known that it would never be economical due to the cost of the required staff. The same is true today as you have to have a security staff to protect from terrorism threats, a radiation protection staff to respond offsite to any leaks of radiation offsite beyond regulatory limits, a dedicated training staff, etc. well above just an operating and maintenance staff. It also takes about 40% more in materials and construction cost to build a plant twice the size, which will likely not require any staff increase (and when they get large enough to require a staffing increase - its just a modest staff increase). As a comparison NuScale had a NRC approved design and had a NRC approved site for 6 50 MWe SMRs (300 MWe total). The construction quote, with anticipated inflation adders of $1 Billion, came in at about the likely same cost for building a single AP1000 (~1150 MWe: we've learned a lot very time consuming and expensive lessons at VC Summer and Vogtle that significantly reduces the next construction project in the USA - assuming we use the same contractors and key staff that built Vogtle) and the plant staff size for the 6 units would be about the same as 1 AP1000 well. So both the construction and operating cost would be not quite 4 times a large central station on a cost per KWhr basis. It's been known since the late 1970's that large central stations are far more economical than a series of smaller plants. Dozens and perhaps up to 100 SMR sized plants world wide that were built in the 1960's - 1980's have been shut down due to their uneconomical cost. The concept that SMRs will be mass produced is nothing more than wishful thinking for the following reasons because to mass produce and bring down the cost of anything you need a standard design, a proven design, and enough volume for many years to justify building the automated manufacturing facility. Standard designs cannot exist as nuclear power plants have to be designed for the local earthquake and other factors. A slight change in seismic design conditions can result in a major change in piping, structures, tanks, and many components. No one want to pay for a "worst case" plant for their location as it would be vastly over priced for their site. A reality is that none of the SMR designs have been proven to be long term economical and reliable. The worldwide nuclear industry has hundreds of plants that were shut down earlier than they could have been, and in some cases very early in their plant life, because some design idea that looked so promising did not work out - and it was too costly to modify the plant to a better design. The reason we can build reliable light water reactors today is because the USA built 104 power plant reactors using something like 76 different designs for various components, systems, etc. Europe and the rest of the world add a good number of unique design ideas to that list. After 40-50 years of operation we can look back and pick out for each system, component, and control strategy, which design ideas worked out best for long term reliability and cost. Thus, plants like the Westinghouse AP1000 geneartion 3+ passive safety are very reliable. While some of those design concepts can be applied to some of the proposed SMRs, others cannot and SMR designers are left to guess at what will work... It will take decades to know for sure once their design starts up; and if they are wrong in a major way... At this point we have no proven long term reliable commercial SMR (and naval reactors are far too expensive). Then you have to have the quantity to justify automating production. Airplanes are still largely hand assembled which is why they cost so much. They have an advantage in that there are standard designs and many of the parts can be produced with automated techniques. I estimate that you would likely need 500 units a year for at least 10 years to justify automated construction equipment that could dramatically lower the construction cost. However, even with the smallest SMR we don't need that many. As far as truck mounted nuclear power plants. Totally laughable. Have you even visited any steam cycle power plant - they are huge for a reason. You would be able to fit the reactor for a 40 MWe plant on a truck (we can fit a 1400 MWe reactor on a specialized truck). But not the reactor and the steam generators combined, much less the turbine, condenser, generator, feedwater heaters, and all the piping, pumps, valves, and other things like a control and locker rooms. Add in that for radiation safety inside the containment building, and radioactive system rooms in the "auxiliary building" will be a lot of space and concrete shield walls. They are just talking nonsense about the size of these plants. In reality the components will be transported to the site - and piping, wiring, etc will be field built to connect it all. Same as has always been done. Have a great day,

@Elina - Hi, did you know that before they decided to shut down all nuclear power plants, they were already building gas and coal plants OUTSIDE of Germany through multinational energy companies, to supply THEM with power. All the benefits, and the pollution pressure is on others. There's one on the Dutch Maasvlakte, built around 2009.

I love this format of scientific discussion made available for those of us, without specialized knowledge in the field. Thanks Elina!

Thanks, you gave a good critical review and information

Nuclear power is the only true "green" solution for global power demand. We need more and better reactors! We need more people getting into the field like Elina! Keep up the good work!

14:05 Elena , I'm a nuclear engineer too who has more than 15 years of experience in a PWR power plant. I happen to have studied a thorium cycle in a much greater detail. Yes, it is possible to create U233 bomb with Thorium cycle, but it is more difficult to do so compared to producing Pu239 bomb with a Candu or RBMK. Also, Pu239 bomb is safer to handle than U233 bomb. U233 will always be contaminated with U232. There is no practical method of eliminating U232 impurity. LFTRs or general, Molten Salt Reactors can be designed in such a way that they don't have online reprocessing system. Same safeguard systems installed in PWRs to prevent fissile materials from being diverted to weapons programmes can also be installed in MSRs like Thorcon or Terrestrial MSR designs. The unprocessed material can then be sent to weapons nation for reprocessing like how things are done with LWR fuel.

@ around 12:00 Elina, please note that Sabine has already said it's a Thorium SMR. As far as I'm aware LWR SMR is struggling to be cost effective at the smaller size, ie. to simplify the statement, efficiency and cost per kWh is inverse proportional to size by some factor.

Which Software besides "JANIS" from the NEA website would you recommend as a learning tool for the Elements or for a Virtual Nuclear Reactor to learn how to operate it and also learn about fission products, Xenon poisoning and other things for example some decay calculations while "operating" a Nuclear plant simulator on the PC in a safe way in this software. The MIT course about Nuclear engineering is very fascinating. However most of us don't have a reactor at home (like for example the MIT reactor). So in order for being able to learn "hands on", is there a software or website you can recommend, where it's possible to (learn how to) "operate" a virtual reactor?

First view from Kashmir❤

The SMR concept is a boondogle, because it presents a false narrative to the public that CONVENTIONAL reactors are not already modular, THEY ARE. The critical machinery that runs every part of a powerplant is already built offsite and delivered, the reactor vessel, the turbines, the generators etc etc. The only thing we do at a construction site is connect them with pipes. The reason nuclear power plants take forever to build is the CONTAINMENT STRUCTURE, a massive reinforced concrete bunker able to withstand a plane crash from the outside, and a release of all the pressurized steam inside. Your not going to get around the regulatory demand for containment which means the whole claim of rapid cheap manufacture is a lie.

I've been following thorium cycle MSR tech for a few years, since seeing a talk by Kirk Sorensen. Depending on how the reactor is configured, whether you use heavy water as a moderator, or graphite moderator, or you design a fast reactor or a breeder, will all determine what your fission products are. Using it as a waste burner only requires processing once, whereas solid fuel must be reprocessed many times to make new fuel. The ability to process out fission products has to be designed into the system, this is the only way to extract proliferation material, some designs don't have in-line processing of the fuel, and are just swapped out and refurbished. So the big pluses for me with thorium cycle MSR in general is the ability to burn waste and breed it's own fuel. As well as being able to refuel online. Look at what Copenhagen Atomics is doing, they are on track to have a waste burner up and running in 2028. I also like the idea that this reactor type can supply 550C heat for carbon free process heat for industry, imagine all the industries that would impact.

I love Sabine's delivery. There's no wasted time. She gets right to the point and explains things clearly for a general audience. She's doesn't sugarcoat the truth and still has time to poke fun every once in a while, especially at herself. Very entertaining and informative overall. On the other hand. in her quest to be direct, she has left out context, as she's done here.

1:15 IDK, I think Germany has done some dumber things than that! (whispers: "no one mention the war")

Great video Elina! What about Old vintage lenses from 70s with Thorium oxide on optics? In some lens the Thorium on the lens had 500cpm.

Thanks Elina. I've been subscribed to Sabine's channel for some time and had seen the video but you gave an interesting perspective, I've now subscribed to your channel. As Sabine said somethings in physics (or geometry) use less resource when bigger, in which case economies of scale will not help, is this true?

I don't like Sabine. But she's completely right on that one thing. Phasing out nuclear was a huge mistake.

I think part of the reason they want to use Thorium is PR! It doesn't sound as scary; nearby and anti-nuclear nation, like Germany, could be more willing to open up to its use. Also, I am not familiar with EU legislation on Uranium vs Thorium which could effect how readily the fuel can be transported between the France and the Netherlands.

I love hearing takes from subject matter experts on other scientist's opinion.

two knowladgable youtubers building on eachother's content, great work keep up the great work!

Google's speech to text changed Elina's spoken "fission" to text "fusion". That suddenly makes SMRs sound a lot hotter! 🤪😜

Thanks for adding context. Your explanations help me understand the issues. So SMRs would be used in applications such as manufacturing, for example, to provide power locally if they are not connected to the grid?

My father was a civil engineer in the United States and remodeled nuclear power plants. The problem was they were leaking then through cracks in the foundations and leaching into the water tables causing people to get thyroid cancer. Nuclear power is a problem when not properly maintained and greedy people will decide the lawsuits are cheaper than the repairs

Regarding SMRs, do you have any insight regarding staffing on these reactors vs modern grid systems?

Once details are worked out, China will be rolling small thorium reactors off the factory line. Expect 12 new reactors per year per factory. Expect turn key support including quick installation and waste pick up.

Elina, I have two questions concerning the non-proliferation issue you mention. I suppose with the weapons-grade materials you are referring to the (fissionable) U-233. The standard argument is that it is not possible to do this covertly, or move the uranium around, because it always will contain traces of U-232, which has a decay chain that quite readily starts to emit very hard gammas that can be detected, even through shielding. 1.What is your response to that argument? 2 Why would only countries that already have a nuclear weapon be interested in this? (Or are you saying that other countries won't allow nations to become nuclear powers this way?) Thanks for answering! Edit: also see the article "Proliferation protection of uranium due to the presence of U-232 decay products as intense sources of hard gamma radiation*" (2022, Kulikov et al.)

In the late 1980’s I read a document by the US Department of Energy discussing how to make nuclear energy palatable to the general public. The two main objections to nuclear power are safety and cost. They pointed out that in order to be acceptable as “safe”, nuclear reactors were regulated to have x10,000 the safety levels as coal powered energy plants, and that this high safety requirement was largely responsible for their high costs.

I'm curious. Regarding that cartoon boxing scene about 10 minutes in, was that meant as a sort of visual pun poking fun at the fact that the word "heating" and the word "hitting" can sometimes sound quite similar to each other?

Wait what? Your comment about the weaponization via U233 I didn't know. I just went down a Google rabbit hole to learn more! Th232->Pa233->U233 😳

Although the video did mention the idea of using the heat output of a thorium reactor it didn’t really go into this enough. A standard uranium pressurised light water reactor runs at about 300 deg C. A thorium reactor can run at 800 deg C Which is hot enough for industrial process heat for several industries - leading to significant efficiency gains. It’s the use of molten salt and not only causing that for cooling, but dissolving the fuel into the salt that allows for much better fuel burn up, as well as complete equilibration of the fuel. Separate cooling loops inside heat exchangers separate the radioactive side from the external side. Mention was made of safety, although the freeze plug method was not mentioned specifically.

My understanding is that Thorium requires a breeder reactor, but breeder reactors can change the waste to isotopes that are safer ( or more dangerous), and that breeders can also use the waste reactor fuel that is stored as waste from earlier generation reactors (10 pct efficient) and use 90 percent of the remainder. (90 pct of 90pct). I've read that there is roughly enough existing reactor waste to last 100 years or more.

The major advantage to using thorium reactors is that no one else uses them, so we can still make believe that it will not have any problems (yeah, that’ll happen ;-).

The energy density of any nuclear fuel is enormously high relative to chemical fuels that release energy through combustion. However the conventional large scale light water nuclear reactors can only use a fraction of that energy before the fuel pieces become mechanically unsuitable and need to be replaced. Hopefully MSRs using thorium or uranium can increase that utilization and reduce the waste problem, as well as having shorter-lived radioactive decay products.

You added a comment that the dumped thorium fuel salt would have to be actively cooled for a long time. What would happen if the dumped fuel was NOT cooled?

Great video.

Imo, the reason to use thorium is much more political and social than because of sound engineering. People are less scared of thorium and drives home the point that it is new technology that cannot fail the way previous designs have. Thorium may be critical to getting people back on board with nuclear.

Thank you so much for this content. I appreciate listening to your valuable experience and perspective. I also hope that people and countries will wake up to a diversified approach, including nuclear energy, to more effectively and holistically remove fossil fuels from our energy consumption systems.

Sabine’s sense of humor is fantastic 😂

Thank you Elina. Nicely done. Any thoughts on Australian position of banning the technology ? Maybe a short vid would be great .

Awesome video Elina, Sabine is a great commenter on nuclear energy as she is so critical of Germany's mismanagement of energy production, I think as well people assume thorium and smr's are the same when as you stated it can still take the form of the gen 2 and 3 reactors just on a smaller scale.

The reason for making the statement that Thorium cannot be used for making nuclear bombs is that natural which is mostly thorium 232 contains a small amount of Thorium 231, which when hit by a neutron turns it into uranium 232 instead of uranium 233 which is the fissile nuclear material used to fuel the nuclear power station. Uranium 233 produced in the reactor is a potential nuclear material, but the small amount of uranium 232 in the bred nuclear fuel is highly radioactive emitting high levels of gamma rays. This makes the fissile uranium 233 difficult to steal or hide, and nuclear weapons that use this fissile uranium would be easy to locate from space due to their gamma ray signature. The gamma ray radiation level would also cause electronics in the missile or plane carrying the warheads malfunction. The way around this is to stockpile the fissile uranium for say 50 - 100 years to allow decay of the uranium 232.

Thanks 🙏🏻 Elina for clarifying. You have the power 💪 off truth.

The risk is minimal in a molten salt reactor because the reactor vessel has not only a drain tank but a basin that say there is a breach in the reactor because of a terrorist RPG attack or missile strike or something that the material will end up in the basin and then into the drain tank. The drain tank will contain heat sinking so it can passively radiate. The thorium salt mix will be separate from the solid graphite moderator channels and so the reaction will stop. It will be hot, but should cool relatively fast in the right design of tank without active cooling.

I love your accent and the fact that you took the time to address Sabine.

Are there restrictions related to what country such reactors would be installed and operated at (as opposed to built) related to whether or not the country has nuclear weapons? Specifically: can any country buy and operate a French produced reactor?

8:48 So Thorium reactors produce energy by fusion not fission? When did that breakthrough occur?

Is it possible to use a Th/U combo that can make fissionable isotopes in-situ?

One of the reasons I've heard that thorium is a really popular idea in some countries is that there are loads of places where we aren't allowed to dig, because we aren't allowed to isolate the thorium, but we also aren't allowed to leave "thorium contaminated waste" behind, so there just huge parts of other ore seams where mining is illegal. There is a huge amount of thorium that has been dug around, awaiting easy exploitation. At least that's how I've understood the legal stuff around thorium.

One of the promises of Thorium reactors or Salt reactors was that It might be able to burn some of the existing waste. Upon looking into this a Second time it looks more complicated as Thorium turns into Uranium 233 and some other complex stuff before the fissile process , and there is still some radioactive waste but with much less of half life. Any comments?

I wonder how these small and especially very small Thorium reactors will be started. I would not be surprised to learn that weapon grade Uranium has to be used.

One thing about these small reactors I would like to have discussed somewhere is how difficult would it be to safeguard them against terrorism. I worry that if they are located here and there, all around the world, then it will be very expensive to guard properly. Of course, you could install them side by side in one site and still get benefits from cheaper construction, but then you could not get benefits from having the reactor close by, for example, to provide local source of heating in cold countries.

A lot of industry needs process heat for chemical or mechanical processes, a MSR is capable of producing heat at the temperatures needed for a lot of these process directly by using a molten salt heat exchanger.

I have been following thorium LFTRs since 2011. I think they will be THE energy source for mankind for many thousands of years on Earth. Also there are deposits known on the Moon and Mars, so we can use those here, but also maybe to use them in space for running everything but propulsion. I am interested in hearing what Sabine has to say about them. I know of all the advantages, and I know that the piping is damaged over time by the U-233, such that spares need to be on hand from time to time.

Great to hear of your interest in Thorium Molten Salt Reactors..♡♡♡

did I missed part, where You explain that smr runs on higher density of neutron flux, and thus their dimensions they leak a lot more of them to surrounding equipment than bigger cousins? if I remember correctly, thorium is running on fast neutrons - and this is the reason for unique capability to deal with nuclear "trash" that are ussually neutron hungry scavengers: and we can wait them out, burn out with neutrons, or separate them

I believe the arguments around “melting the core” is bad things happen when this occurs with a light water reactor. The inherent safety of a well designed LFTR reactor is that once the molten salt melts the drain plug and drains into reservoir the reaction stops as the geometry of the container is not conducive to producing neutrons and the reservoir is built of a material that traps neutrons.