Dom (6 years ago) Your CUCK of a president would never have allowed this and that's why this timeline is the absolute best https://www.nei.org/News-Media/News/News-Archives/Trump-Puts-Nuclear-First-on-America-s-Energy-Agend?utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=NEO_energywk&utm_content=tweet1&1541a254=23378585

thethoriumcultist (6 years ago) So there's still debate, 60 years after the discussion started, about which is a better solution, plutonium or thorium?
The real answer is both. They aren't mutually exclusive, just as coal and oil and biomass aren't mutually exclusive; they have different strengths. Thorium is four times as common as natural uranium (effectively Uranium-238) and doesn't need to be reprocessed due to being dissolved in a molten salt; there is no expansion to worry about. [part 1]

thethoriumcultist (6 years ago) The problem is that we have a lot of uranium-238 and daugher fissile isotope plutonium-239 that comes out of our Gen-3 PWRs. Our current solution to that is incredibly wasteful; instead of reprocessing, due to fears of proliferation, we've resorted to encasing this fuel in concrete glass and burying it until it turns stable. [part 2]

thethoriumcultist (6 years ago) However, it's not that simple. Pu-239 can't be burned in a thermal-spectrum reactor, meaning that only 6 of our modern day reactors can burn it efficiently. It is fissile, but it won't reliably give off enough neutrons to sustain a chain reaction. G3 reactors are water-cooled, so neutrons are slowed by the water and Pu-239 is a bad choice. [part 3]

thethoriumcultist (6 years ago) But if we do end up realising as a species "Oh wait, the gov't can make atomic bombs anyway and don't rely on power plants", and we decide that nuclear reprocessing (and replacing PWRs with MSRs) is the best method of waste reduction, then we push back the energy crisis by decades, or even centuries. There's not a lot of uranium/plutonium comparatively, but even what we have is enough to last us well past our grandchildren's deaths. [part 4]

thethoriumcultist (6 years ago) The best fast reactors I know of currently are the integral-fast and molten-salt fast reactor. The MSFR needs no introduction, it's an MSR without the graphite, but the IFR is interesting. It was demonstrated for 30 years in Tennessee, so they know a lot about it. When it was told to melt down twice so they could study the effects, it decided not to. Several times. And it had reprocessing on-site, so it could make new fuel on the fly. [part 5]

thethoriumcultist (6 years ago) I think reprocessing is obvious. It's the best, most efficient choice. Why would you willingly waste clean energy? It just doesn't make sense to me. We have centuries of power in the ground and in barrels just waiting for reprocessing, but because everyone can't understand that the government didn't rely on NPPs the first time around and don't need to now, we're letting it go to waste. [part 6]

Fuck (6 years ago) I'm fucking against fucking bombsm so fucking yes I'm anti-nuke, fuck yes.

KnotSnappy (6 years ago) Google translate isn't helping on your comment. What did you say? Or at least in what language?

KnotSnappy (6 years ago) RE: your comment on my channel breaking video

No, vidlii just always gets the time wrong. It's the timezone jan is in I think