It’s time to rethink Nuclear Power! Limitless Green Thorium Energy is coming

Errata:
13:43 - Spelling should be "Protactinium"

Chapters:
00:00 - Power for 1000 years Thorium
2:33 - Where does nuclear energy come from?
6:36 - How do nuclear power plants work?
8:59 - The radiation waste problem
11:28 - How is Thorium better than Uranium
12:48 - How Thorium reactors work
14:55 - The problems with Thorium
15:36 - Technical and political barriers to nuclear power
17:04 - See Arvin live!

Summary:
Nuclear power may not be as bad as you think. If we used Thorium instead of Uranium, we could greatly decrease dangerous radioactive by-products. There is enough Thorium in the world to meet all our energy needs for over 1000 years.

In this video I show you how nuclear power plants work, and how Thorium can change the game. I aim to shift your views on nuclear power.

This is how energy is created in a nuclear reactor: When you split some heavier atoms into two lighter atoms, you get a lot of energy. For example, if you hit an isotope of Uranium, Uranium-235 with a neutron at the right speed, it will split into two lighter atoms like barium-141 and krypton-92 & 3 neutrons. These neutrons then split other U-235 atoms, leading to a chain reaction, producing more and more energy.

The energy comes from the binding energy related to the strong nuclear force. Binding energy is the energy needed to break the bonds between the protons and neutrons in the nucleus of atoms. It takes a lot of energy to keep protons and neutrons tightly bound together. When you split the nucleus, this energy is released.

Each splitting of U-235 releases 173 million electron volts (MeV). For comparison, when you burn paper each carbon atom consumed in the burning releases 4 eV. So the nuclear process releases 40 million times more energy per atom than burning fossil fuels. 1 kilogram of U-235 is equivalent to aout 2.7 million kilograms of coal.

How do nuclear power plants work? Inside a nuclear reactor is a core containing fuel rods with nuclear fuel, like U-235. Inside the fuel rods, Uranium splitting takes place and heat energy is produced. The energy heats water into steam, whcih then goes into a steam turbine, which drives a generator producing electricity.

The chain reaction is controlled by control rods that temper how much heat the reactor produces by absorbing neutrons and keeping them from splitting more nuclear fuel.

There is no carbon emission from this process. The plumes you see from the cooling towers is steam not pollution.

Nuclear power isn’t renewable, because you do consume fuel. Also, the fuel, U-235, is turned into waste products like krypton, barium that are generally radioactive isotopes. So we have to be careful with this waste as it can be dangerous for humans due to radiation. However, this is not the most problematic part nuclear energy because the half-life of these waste products is generally short, from a few days to 30 years. So most of this waste turns into stable and safe isotopes within a few years.

The bigger problem is that the uranium fuel creates more dangerous waste products from transmutation, when an element absorbs a proton or a neutron, and turns into a different element. Most of uranium fuel in a nuclear reactor is NON-Fissile uranium-238, not U-235. U-238 absorbs neutrons, but instead of splitting it undergoes transmutation plutonium which is very toxic. And it can also be used for nuclear weapons.

This is the nuclear waste problem. But Thorium is different. Whereas Uranium fuel is 95-97% U-238 which creates Plutonium, almost all of the Thorium fuel reacts and only creates safer fissile by products, instead of producing Plutonium. This is because the brown ore, Monazite, that contains Thorium has higher concentrations of Thorium than does the equivalent uranium ore of Uranium. In addition, there is three times as much Thorium in the world as Uranium.

What are the problems with Thorium? First breeding reactors that creates its own fuel have to be used. The reaction: Thorium-232 absorbs a neutron to become Thorium-233. This decays to Protactinium-233. This transmutes to uranium-233.
#nuclearpower
#Thorium
Thorium is not fissile but U-233 is. Unlike with Uranium, there is little to no U-238 that turns into dangerous Plutonium. It also cannot be used to make nuclear fuel.

The reason Thorium is not being used is technical and political. Thorium nuclear power plant is expensive. Politically, people are averse to nuclear power because of Chernobyl and Fukushima disasters. And, since Thorium can't be used to make weapons, government funding has been scarce.

[ArvinAsh]

Corrections and video notes:
7:44 - Nuclear reactors can't actually become nuclear bombs because there is not enough fuel density to create an uncontrolled chain reaction. But since many people believe this is a possibility, I stated "atomic bomb" in the video to dramatize and answer this question. The worst that can happen is that they can overheat, and have a meltdown. However, even a meltdown is not a possibility in new modern designs of nuclear reactors.
13:43 - Spelling and pronunciation should be "Protactinium"

[thomasschlitt]

I agree with 98% of your analysis. Very thorough and informative without over-simplifying. However, there’s two slight issues to this presentations as it relates to the proliferation capabilities of thorium based reactors:
1) Operation Teapot MET was a U-233 based detonation for a U.S. weapons test. Nuclear weapons can, and have, been driven by U233. The process is slightly more complicated based on the inclusion of U232 which limits the fissile capability of the material as you mentioned. Same issue exists in weapons.
2) thorium reactors produce neutrons at high speeds (~1 MeV for generic fission events) these 1MeV neutrons are around the same speeds that cause neutron absorption in U238, which eventually transmutes to Pu-239 via double beta decay. One could theoretically put U-238 inside a thorium based reactor for the purposes of breeding Plutonium.

All in all, thorium’s super promising due to its abundance, higher burn up rates, and cheaper feed supply chain. But it’s slightly short sighted to think that thorium based reactors can’t be used for weapons. Rather, the good should be seen with the bad and regulations should be mindful of the potential issues of weapons as the technology develops over the next decades.
Great video still 4.75/5 stars 🙂

[mikeall]

I work as an engineer in nuclear power plants. After several years in this career and after seeing many many plants, it still amazes me how much power can be derived out of such a small amount of fuel. 1 rod of low enriched uranium can provide 6 years of electricity for several thousand homes and commercial reactors have hundreds of rods in their cores, providing up to 1.5GWe.

We have learned a lot about how to run these plants safely and efficiently. Nuclear power could easily provide all of our base load electrical needs, in the US and Europe, if folks would get over the stigma. If folks are truly worried about carbon emissions and have a basic understanding of why wind and solar can't provide base load electricity, we should be building plants like crazy right now.

And I don't care what you read on buzzfeed or in the NY times... wind and solar can't be replied upon for base load electricity due to inherent physical limitations, grid/voltage stability and logistical shortfalls. You need large synchronous machines to provide baseload electricity, unless you like brownouts during hot summer days.

[W-H-O]

It's nice to see more people talking about thorium reactors, it's way overdue.

[mmotsenbocker]

the best part of this was teh review of different transmutations and their significances. Not found in other presentations but very clarifying

[universalspirit]

Great explanation 👏👏👏
I still can't believe that US and India, especially India, are not investing in R&D in developing Thorium
Thorium would significantly reduce their dependence on oil, which will be both economically and politically good for them.
Hope the leaders are listening to this 😊

[zemborato]

This video is incomplete without a discussion of molten salt reactors and their inherent advantages, especially safety.

[adastr]

We apreciate Arvin soo much. We really appreciate Arvin, his explanations in the field of physics are easy to understand.Keep on Arvin!

[renanokten]

I am living in Germany and between the 11. and 12. Class you have to write a scientific document about 20 pages on a topic you like. Well I decided for a month ago to write about this topic and I think I learned a lot of new informations about it and I want to put this video on my sources. Just want to mention it, thanks for the video.

[jasonkelley]

Man, I forget sometimes how great your videos are. You are so much more thorough and complete with your ideas and information than most other people. On top of that your pace is so good. Densely packed with information, but presented in a very digestible way. Just absolutely nailing it. Thank you!

[petpaltea]

Great explanation! I knew about Thorium reactors and had general idea why they are better, but not as clear as you explained it. Thanks!

[rtutkhg]

The waste from uranium still is barely a problem compared to other methods of generating electricity. We know exactly how much waste there is and exactly where it is and it is essentially doing nothing and harming no one.

[mindlessmrawesome]

Dude this guy explains stuff in a way that is so incredibly easy to understand. Well done 👏

[miketully]

Arvin, I see an awful lot of neutrons coming off those reactions. What effect does that have on any of the steel exposed to bombardment by those neutrons? In school we were taught that neutron bombardment of steel causes "nuclear embrittlement " of the steel exposed to it. Such steel was loosely compared to precipitation hardening of steel where the steel hardens over time due to carbon being forced to diffuse into the steel's lattice structure causing distortions in the lattice that prevent cracks from progressing very far, thereby making the steel more martensitic (i.e.harder, but much more brittle). We were taught that because of nuclear embrittlement things like pipes, pressure vessels, fittings, and even entire pump assemblies MUST be replaced periodically due to the fact that they get so brittle they can no longer be counted on to safely perform their functions. Obviously steel that has undergone such neutron bombardment is quite radioactive. And yet I have never, ever, not even once, heard of such waste steel talked about in relation to the problem of nuclear waste? Is that because such steel has such a short half-life that it really isn't a significant problem? Or is this a dirty little secret of nuclear power that just isn't spoken of? And to bring it more on topic, wouldn't this still be a reasonably serious drawback regardless of what fuel you use? I mean, just how do you get rid of something with the shear size and mass of a reactor's pressure vessel? You can't cut it up with a torch. You can't cut it up with a saw, or worse a grinder? And these things are BIG, and they're HEAVY. Could you do a video on nuclear embrittlement and it's associated issues, or, perhaps, NON-issues?

[davetelling]

I really liked the detailed explanation as to how thorium is actually used. It is quite a process! It is amazing how much energy can be had from such a tiny percentage of the mass of the atom.

[vauchomarx]

Really looking forward to the event with you and Sabine Hossenfelder You two are some of the best science communicators out there!

[ricardodelzealandia]

Definitely a better breakdown of the thorium process than other videos on this topic. Good job.

[GururajBN]

Wonderfully informative video.👌

In India, Kerala coast has almost all the thorium deposit. Indian government is rather secretive. I fondly hope that the government of India which is committed to reduce reliance on fossil fuel is working on a thorium reactor.

[mmotsenbocker]

I would like to see another, more detailed video on the fine structure constant. ISnt this a major mystery in physics? I dont remember Sabine H ever talking about this. Isnt this a clue to the relationship between electron and photon? I dont think anyone understands this, yet it goes to the heart of the wave/particle duality,

[greggb]

Nice video Arvin. A couple of points: 1. Some power from commercial reactors is produced from fast neutron fission of U-238. In addition, as U-238 absorbs a neutron it can be converted via Beta minus decay to Neptunium 239 and via another Beta minus decay to Plutonium 239. Plutonium 239 is fissile and its build up elongates the life of the core as up to 40% of its power comes from Plutonium fissions near the end of its operating cycle.
2. Proliferation is not a problem in US/Russian/Chinese reactors due to the governments already having access to vast amounts of fissile material.
In either case your argument is correct that Thorium would make a better fuel.