"Thorium REMIX 2011" Complete!

Gordon McDowell has completed his epic work and released “Thorium REMIX 2011”!

Gordon states in the comments that he is looking for broadcast opportunities and is licensing this under “CREATIVE COMMONS” which means that there is no commercial restriction. Anyone can broadcast this, and I think that is exactly what Gordon wants.



23 Replies to ""Thorium REMIX 2011" Complete!"

  • Gordon McDowell
    October 14, 2011 (2:02 pm)

    Yes, Kirk I'm hoping people can take this and "run with it".

    There's also a series of remixes at http://thoriumremix.com/act/

    In particular I'd like to draw people's attention to…

    LFTR vs Global Warming – Thorium can address climate change

    …because I think the "master" edit… the feature length edit does NOT appeal to anti-nuke environmentalists. There's a barrier there… the 120m edit is designed to appeal to people (like myself) who aren't terribly scared of nuclear power. And upon hearing about a BETTER nuclear solution don't immediately dismiss all nuclear as inferior to solar/wind.

    Please check it out. In fact, please recognize there are 4 custom edits already available.

    – LFTR vs Cancer
    – LFTR vs Global Warming
    – LFTR vs Nuclear Waste
    – Thorium, Heavy Rare Earths, China & the Loss of Manufacturing Jobs

    If you're trying to use video to communicate LFTR to a specific individual, it may be more effective to use one of the custom edits.

    All of these custom edits can be remixed to suit your needs (as can the 120m master). Click YouTube's [Remix this video!] button. You will have COMPLETE control over your custom edit!

  • Kirk Sorensen
    October 14, 2011 (2:12 pm)

    Thanks Gordon–this is incredibly good work!

  • Craig
    October 14, 2011 (3:01 pm)

    Maybe this is good for the younger generations with short attention spans but all the edits give me a headache. I think this would be very hard to follow and make sense of if you never heard of thorium and knew little about nuclear energy. I thought it was going to systematically go down that list from the woman speaking as an environmentalist/green but then it seems to fritter away like an old pinball machine going a dozen different directions and never settling down into a narrative arc. All the effort is appreciated but definitely needs a lot more work in the hand of professional film maker and editor before it is suitable for a naive audience.

  • Ross
    October 14, 2011 (4:10 pm)

    I very much enjoyed this video and the story that is being told is important. I think at times you are a little too hard on the existing reactor technology. I think I understand why this flavor exists, but it does undercut a lot of the people that would most likely be your easiest and earliest supporters.

    I support LWR technology because I believe nuclear power is the best way to supply clean affordable power to the inhabitants of this planet. Not because I think LWR’s are the pinnacle of nuclear technology. But your presentation at times characterizes these plants as unsafe which is in my opinion untrue and ultimately counterproductive to your goal.

    The discussion on radiolytic decomposition of water (~50 min point) and how it played into the event in Japan is wrong. The hydrogen came from high temperature reactions between the water and the zirconium in the cladding. I also do not believe that it is an issue for normal operations, in fact most PWRs add hydrogen on purpose during operation.

  • Andrew Jaremko
    October 14, 2011 (8:50 pm)

    Thanks again Gordon and Kirk – and hey, I'm actually visible in the background at Protospace! Everyone should definitely check out all the remixes at thoriumremix.com/act/. And there's a longer version on DVD there as well. I've got to see that one.

    I've been pumping the videos on AtomicInsights and Brave New Climate as well. "Go thou and do likewise!"

  • John
    October 15, 2011 (9:38 am)

    Please read the following as word of constructive encouragement;

    I appreciate the effort, and think it's a great start — but it needs allot of refinement.

    Some thoughts:

    1) The first five min. lead in needs to be honed to attract attention rather than bring one to the verge of seizure.

    2) The remaining content would be aided by a consistent, calm, narrative voice — using clips from talks with Kirk and others more sparingly to reinforce and add credibility to the narration. This, of course, requires writing an engaging script for narration, and finding a voice actor.

  • Zac Kaczanowski
    October 15, 2011 (11:18 am)

    Dear Kirk,

    Your doing great work out there, an expensive initiative Thorium,(U-233) but worth the costs. LFTR's will be the future for safe nuclear energy eventually solving the worlds energy crises/need and maybe global warming-(if its real?, still debated among some, but I've seen glaciers melting in China I know climate destabilization is real), but hopefully long term cheap and abundant electricity won't deter humanity's chance for sustainability; of both the planet's finite resources and biodiversity of its natural landscapes. This I worry, moderation, self restraint will be a thing of the past, every nation state now races for progress through the consumption of all known materials, now the talk is about thorium but eventually it will only be about food and clean water. Lets hope the LFTR's come with a manual about redefining world values and the consciousness of humanity for the greater good. Keep up the enthusiasm Kirk, I'm young but a true believer in multiple solutions. All the worlds problems are man-made and can be solved by man, thanks to your work the world will eventually have safer nuclear. Lets hope the French take thorium to heart, if they get on board it will be popular to really invest into the R&D side of things. But if not, China and India will lead the way.

  • TerjeP
    October 15, 2011 (6:36 pm)

    To gather audience numbers I think there needs to be more of a human interest story woven into it. Who is Kirk? What lead Kirk to this venture? What have been the hardships and setbacks during the journey? What have been the triumphs and the breakthroughs? What gives Kirk hope moving forward? Kirk is a natural story teller so all that is needed is a good set of questions and a set of interviews woven into the mix.

    Also I think it is too long. The material is all good but once you add commercial breaks etc the stretch is too far. I'd trim it to no more than one hour.

    Having said that it is still great work and I watched the whole thing.

  • Ray Van De Walker
    October 18, 2011 (12:05 am)

    Loved it.

  • Kent
    October 18, 2011 (12:46 am)

    Gordon, it is great to have something to show to the uninitiated and get them interested, if not enthused.

    Great idea TerjeP about the human interest angle. Can you imagine a NOVA documentary of this whole thing. The story of ORNL, Wienberg and his dissing by the AEC. Finally the rediscovery by this unkown engineer at NASA. It's got everything except romance.

  • Captain Obvious
    October 19, 2011 (8:30 pm)

    I like the idea of a thorium reactor; it is a good, safe an econmoical source of power.

    But I (and I suspect a lot of people) choke on the "Eco/Green/Enviro/Save the planet" propaganda. If you want to be taken seriously, you should pursue thorium as an option that is cost effective, safe (from meltdown and from terrorists) and independant from foreign sources.

    People are distancing themselves from radical environmentalists and the global warming crowd, and with good reason. It would be a shame if thorium went down with that ship.

  • Maslo
    October 21, 2011 (5:35 am)

    Why is it called LFTR in 5 minutes when its 2 hours long?

  • Gordon McDowell
    October 23, 2011 (2:28 pm)

    Maslo, the title includes "LFTR in 5 Minutes" because that is how long the summary at the start takes. I'm trying to overcome people's hesitation to start watching long YouTube videos.

    That's why I cut to a count-down clock thru-out the first 5 minutes, to show the summary isn't long.

    LOTS of people make this comment. I assume even if some people feel mislead by the title, that more people choose to start watching because they think it is 5 minutes long, and probably watch the (most important) first 5 minutes.

    Can't really say if that is the right approach… just going with my gut.

  • Bill Hart
    October 29, 2011 (10:11 am)

    This is fantastic! Thank you.

  • Rick Chuba
    October 29, 2011 (8:40 pm)

    We need some brave men and women to step forward at this critical point in the history of mankind and provide the capital and influence to help these scholars to achieve something that will benefit all people.

  • Chris.Monahan
    November 29, 2011 (8:53 am)

    Dear Gordon,
    Thank you for your excellent presentation regarding Energy from Thorium.
    As you point out, a source of neutrons is required to initiate the Thorium nuclear reaction. You have pointed out that Plutonium can be used to provide the neutrons. This has the double benefit of producing energy as neutrons are captured by Thorium nuclei (initiating the nuclear reaction sequence) and removing the Plutonium from use in nuclear weapons.
    It might also be worth including discussion on the use of Accelerator Driven Systems (ADS) which use a linear accelerator to produce a proton beam that is played onto lead and results in spallation neutrons that initiate the nuclear reaction sequence. If anything goes wrong, the accelerator is disabled and the nuclear reaction sequence terminates as it would be operating in a subcritical mode.
    This method of using Thorium produces no Plutonium for use in nuclear weapons and, potentially, could be used on a much smaller scale than the nuclear reactors we generally discuss.
    There is, however, a need to carry out the reasearch and development necessary to bring this kind of reactor into practical use.

  • Josh
    December 19, 2011 (8:29 pm)

    Thank you for making this video. It was so interesting I could not stop watching it so I bookmarked it and watched it at work!
    Please keep up the good work and I would love to do anything to help further this endeavour.


  • Ricky Dyson
    December 28, 2011 (1:06 pm)

    Great presentation — watched it all through. I suggest that this is a project that should be brought to the attention of "Founder's Funds" VC group. They are looking for disruptive technologies for power production. Also, they fund SpaceX, which needs the long term clean power source. I have been a proponent of Thorium power production for years now, even though I have worked on fuel cell research for a long time. I work with a wind power/hydrogen storage/fuel cell group which solves the intermitent wind problem. Still, Thorium really is the long-term solution

  • Day Brown
    January 14, 2012 (10:36 pm)

    We are not going to get anywhere without a new national political party taking control of congress. Those elected now, will not admit they were not on top of this, and are too beholden established energy elites. "Not invented here" would be bad enuf, but we see it was, only they dont even read history either.

    I wouldnt bother posting this, but this screen mite be the tool we need to create a new party with a more realistic mandate. Occupy & the 99% would be very receptive to a new energy source to compete with the established elites.

  • Felipe Arango
    January 16, 2012 (10:49 am)

    great presentations
    there is only one more concern that you do not adress. Assuming a 2 degree world climate warmup and a two-fold increase in energy consumption efficiency by 2050 we will need in all about 32TWh per year. Could you sketch a road map of how to achieve this with thorium, including political lobbying, tech development, powerplant building, etc. things of which you apparently know more than anyone else out there?
    very promising technologie and champions!!

  • Kurt Kammerer
    February 4, 2012 (3:13 pm)

    How much money would be needed to build a working Thorium Power Plant?

  • L. Rutherford
    February 17, 2012 (1:31 pm)

    I'm curious about Thorium and have read lots of good things about its potential. However "Thorium Fuel: No Panacea for Nuclear Power" by Arjun Makhijani and Michele Boyd with Institute for Energy and Environmental Research and Physicians for Social Responsibilty argue against its use. Does anyone have any answers to their claims against it?

  • Kirk Sorensen
    February 18, 2012 (8:08 am)

    L. Rutherford, read this:

Leave a Reply