OpenIDEO is an open innovation platform. Join our global community to solve big challenges for social good. Sign up, Login or Learn more

By 2020: Safe, Green, Affordable, Small, Liquid-Fuel "Nuclear 2.0" Reactors will Replace Fossil-Fuel Electricity Generators & will also "Eat" existing Spent-Fuel Waste, from earlier reactors. (Interested? Get app "Thorium" remix.)

By ~2020, Safe Liquid-Fuel "Nuclear 2.0" reactors will eat existing spent-fuel waste. We must study the differences between Safe, Liquid-Fuel "Nuclear 2.0" Reactors -vs- earlier (Fukushima-era) designs that use costly, inefficient Solid Fuel-Rods. While a Horse may look like a Mule, they are significantly different. We'll have -new- "nukes" soon, so: + Don't say "No Nukes" but + Begin to "Know Nukes" afresh! :-) Inherently-Safe "Nuclear 2.0" reactor-cores will be smaller, factory-built, truck-transportable, green & "energy dense" enough to help us significantly reduce our greenhouse-gas emissions & help us preclude more Climate Change disasters. Now, go Study, Debate & Understand the Safe, NEW "Nuclear 2.0" Energy option.

Photo of IVI Grupp
7 3

Written by

After viewing "An Inconvenient Truth" I sought out ways to cut our CO2 emissions.

Shai Agassi's talks on Electric Vehicles w/ Swappable Batteries ( & YouTube) convinced me that electric vehicles brought much more efficiency & also distributed power, eg, for emergencies, in battery swap stations; but his died.

I found David MacKay's TED-talk & book "Sustainable Energy - Without the Hot Air" (free in PDF, from, & I realised we need some Very High Energy-Dense, Green Energy solutions to preclude Global Warming.

Kirk Sorensen's 10-min TED-talk opened me to Safe "Nuclear 2.0" (although Kirk focused on a longer-term form: energy from Thorium, set to come after Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs)).

So, my passion is Safe, Green, Small, Liquid-Fuel "Nuclear 2.0" Reactors; in particular, Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs).

Very recently, I found a Canadian company - Terrestrial Energy - on YouTube channel "TerrestrialMSR"

Their CTO - Dr David LeBlanc - describes the technical features & why we need what I call "Nuclear 2.0" in some of the talks in that channel.

TEI's CEO has a short video - given at the Economy Club of Canada - that gives the business side of the story, as well as the challenges.

China, India, Taiwan & now Canada all have MSRs projects running, with similar goals. Oil-rich Norway (the smart country, that's been setting aside portions of their oil revenues in recent years) has created a Thorium R&D Lab.

I think we'll be enjoying the benefits of Safe "Nuclear 2.0" MSRs, Energy from Thorium, & Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (MSRs), soon enough to turnaround Global Warming, ie, if we take the time to study "Nuclear 2.0" & let energy-intensive Fusion research wait.

Don't take it only from me. Get & use app "Thorium" remix to view ~20 videos, of interviews, opponents, & those who aim to Make "Nuclear 2.0" So, perhaps be other names, as well as tours of lab's where MSR's were proven to work safely, eg: Oak Ridge National Lab.

If you find any reasons NOT to embrace "Nuclear 2.0" let us know; otherwise, help the world move away from fossil fuels, with Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) of some form.


Join the conversation:

Photo of Valerie Gardner

IVI Grupp, people who know about and support the development of "new" and better nuclear technology seem to me to be screaming from the sidelines. I am proposing that we bring this discussion to the mainstream, since there are ZERO better ideas for how to get from the nearly 33 Million Metric Tons of carbon emissions produced in the world each year down to a sustainable level using a safe, scaleable clean energy source. Would you like to join this team?

Photo of IVI Grupp


1. AU has had a Law, making it UNLAWFUL to use Nuclear Energy, since 1999.

(Cf Section 140A of AU's Environment & BioDiversity Conservation Act 1999.)

Kindly use any / all of your influence to help persuade the Australian Gov't to Remove that silly Ban on Nuclear Energy use in AU.

Also, at least one (in our view misguided) Nuclear Energy proponent, in AU, has seemingly focused on GE's rather old, complex & very costly (in our view) IFR / PRISM reactor-technology, which is STILL based on costly SOLID-fuel-rods.

AU should NOT IMO shackle itself to a huge investment in -any- SOLID-fuel-rod based reactor technology.

2a. USA's NRC is said to have inflexible regulations, which make it nearly impossible to win Approval for any "new" Safe type of reactor, that doesn't look like Old Light-Water Reactors ("LWR") - i.e. High Pressure Lower Temperature, SOLID-fuel-rod designs, like those of the Fukushima era.

NRC must change their regulations, to embrace & encourage Safe, Small, LIQUID-fuel Molten Salt Reactors (MSRs) to be prototyped, but & used.

2b. By contrast, Canada's Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) has regulations that enable designers of "New Nukes" (e.g., Canada's Terrestrial Energy Inc.) to argue the Safety aspects of their designs (e.g., Molten Salt Reactors), in order to reduce time to Approval.

3. There's NO "lack of Federal funding for Nuclear Reseach" - Rather, TOO MUCH of it is going to to Fusion R&D, i.e., rather than "bootstrapping" on the shoulders of smaller MSRs, e.g., for Fusion R&D's energy requirements.

R&D on Fusion Reactor needs to be DELAYED, until MSRs are the source of the very large amounts of Energy which Fusion research requires.

I really don't see Fusion becoming a practical solution, except for those businesses currently (& in past) selling Fusion research labs all the energy used to perform their experimental work.

4a. After Fukushima, Germany shut down all f its Reactors, leading to very high energy costs for home & industries in the country.

4b. By contrast, France's reactors were NOT shut down, allowing France to sell energy to other countries (e.g., UK & Germany, etc.)

4c. Nuclear Energy continues to provide the LOWEST death rate (per TWH of energy), while Coal has on of the highest.

Photo of Valerie Gardner

You didn't point out that about 63% of all "emission-free" energy used in the U.S. comes from nuclear energy. What I believe is known as "4th Generation" nuclear is coming from a new generation of young nuclear physicists who are motivated by climate change to re-think nuclear. Kirk Sorenson and others are working to solve multiple "hazard" problems associated with traditional nuclear (melt-down and proliferation risks, in particular, but also cost and waste issues). These all need funding. Because of lack of federal funding for nuclear research, we are literally still using 1960's-era designs—which are our biggest source of "clean energy." Yet, despite understanding the urgency of reducing carbon emissions, there are environmental groups that are actively working to shut nuclear power plants operating at maximal efficiency before their life-span is over. This increases demand for fossil fuels. How does that make sense?

Photo of IVI Grupp

When will include Safe "Nuclear 2.0" Energy, eg, as one of the Energy options for authors to choose, for their Contributions, Ideas, etc.?

Photo of OpenIDEO

Hi there, interesting post! Any chance you could find an image to go along with it? Images help grab attention and tell a story with higher impact. You should be able to use the Update Entry button on the right of your post and follow the instructions to add images from there. We know occasionally people have issues uploading images so let us know by hitting the Feedback button at the bottom of most pages of our site if you face any problems. Looking forward to seeing more of your inspiring insights on OpenIDEO.

And check out our Anatomy of an Amplify Idea visualisation: + some tips on adding visual goodness to your idea:

Photo of IVI Grupp

I tried to add both images & videos, but - sometimes - my texts disappeared(!).

I've "settled" for just 1 intro video. (View the rest in app "Thorium" remix.)

Photo of IVI Grupp

The Molten Salt Experiment (MSRE) was done at Oak Ridge, when Alvin Weinberg was head of the Lab. They got funding - from the US Air Force - who said they wanted a Nuclear-powered bomber(!)... a silly idea, but it got the MSR proven...

Now, Terrestrial Energy say they may be getting funded by some of Canada's Fracking miners, so they can use heat from the MSR, instead of burning Natural Gas (quite a cost & CO2 emissions improvement!)

I - for one - consider Fracking "the silly idea of our generation" second only to war...

So, it pleases me to no end, to think that the Fracking miners are essentially "committing suicide" ie, by funding the development & approval of a much more Safe & Green energy source, that will almost certainly "kill" off their own companies' need-to-exist, after folks discover the MSR's features. ;-)

Maybe some (Canadian) Fracking company heads have applied enough "Practical Wisdom" to see the folly of their Fracking projects, as well as the optimism & opportunities that Safe, Green "Nuclear 2.0" can bring us. :-)

PS November 11th is "Remembrance Day" in places like AU. In addition to remembering military dead I suggest folks remember Japan's Fukushima disaster, of 2011.

Instead of shivering with fear, however, I encourage people to demand & expect that Scientists & Engineers FIX WHAT WAS BROKE in Fukushima-era (ie, Pre-"Nuclear 2.0") nuclear reactors.

In a nutshell, it's mainly the costly, old ideas of SOLID fuel-rods & Cooling by WATER, that are wrong.

"Nuclear 2.0" MSRs will use LIQUID fuel (insuring nearly 100% fuel-utilization & far LESS spent-fuel wastes) AND will be cooled by MOLTEN SALT (allowing HIGHER operating Temperature heat output (for more Efficient electricity generation)) AND much LOWER operating Pressures (for increased Safety), compared to earlier Fukushima-class reactors.