/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3536423
i had no idea he did that.

>>3536345
at least he sticks within his area and doesn't try to overstep
>unlike michio

>>3536137
i think the straw which broke the proverbial camel's back came when he acted as a news adviser for fukushima.
his first words
"it's a second chernobyl!"
made me turn the television off

he was performing his experiments very, very unsafely. science is not obligated to fuck up everyone else nearby.
it's nice that he was checking on regulations, except he did it afterwards

he's more knowledgeable than michio kaku
I
really
do
not
like
michio kaku

>>3527631
well, everyone says that until they start having to pay for it
>hey! that costs too much! it's taking away parts of my livelihood!

also because requesting unlimited funding will get you all kinds of nowhere

>>3530184
eh, debatable. i like the idea of pebble bed but i haven't come across a good implementation yet

it's that time again

that crazy asshole kirk sorenson's making a company for deployment of LFTR reactor technology. more power to him
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uxvSVIGtU

>>3527099
godly power-to-weight ratio, like, you cannot physically have a better fuel source

>>3527047
i was talking about the AM production. good luck getting a solid gigawatt hour from solar panels

>>3527010
that looks like a lot of heavy material constructed in a very specific way
i.e; expensiiiiiiiiiiiiiive

what's the dimensions on that thing anyway

i'm going to be "that guy" and suggest a small lftr reactor as a potential power source for this thing

>>3526912
so the satellite will basically just produce a very large magnetic field as a "net" to catch the naturally produced antimatter?
again, mite b cool

sounds interesting but expensive

also, i assume they mean a very small particle accelerator, and that this device would be one satellite instead of several.

in which case; mite b cool but it'll cost more than the ISS easy

>>3524897
this begs the question if thorium is too radioactive to legally ship. i don't think so though

>>3524878
that would be great actually

found a neat thing, this particular presentation focuses on the waste-to-riches model
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uxvSVIGtU
specifically Bi-213

>>3524785
i was talking about a professional molten plastic pour or something
i'd rather not have even slightly exposed thorium, it's perfectly fine when sealed

it's that time again

anyone know of any services that will cover something in transparent plastic in order to make custom paper weights?
i want to get a .5kg ball of thorium and encapsulate it

>>3517680
wait, nope.
for Pa231 he's talking about thermal neutrons. it's a parasitic reaction on Th232
>Two major protactinium isotopes, 231Pa and 233Pa are produced from thorium in nuclear reactors; both are undesirable and are usually removed, thereby adding complexity to the reactor design and operation. In particular, 232Th via (n,2n) reactions produces 231Th which quickly (half-life 25.5 hours) decays to 231Pa. The last isotope, while not a transuranic waste, has a long half-life of 32,760 years and is a major contributor to the long term radiotoxicity of spent nuclear fuel.[22]

however this is a great incentive to make protactinium removal a major focus in lftr design

>>3517680
oh fuck i didn't catch that

>>3516310
>solid brick wall
meant steel reinforced concrete, probably a polyethylene layer for good measure

another thing to keep in mind, the concentration of actual fuel in the salt is .03%, so fission product buildup in the salt isn't going to cause too many problems during a breach scenario, barring the fact that the salt would freeze very quickly in that case.

but concentration of fission products during reprocessing could get very very dangerous, i suspect the entire thing will be done behind a nice solid brick wall and in a highly positive pressure environment.

i'm far more worried about deliberate attacks against a plant. if your containment isn't up to snuff, it's like a dirty bomb in a pretty little bow. yikes

>>3514535
i think the primary driving force is that lftr waste is generally less in the "fuck this stuff is annoying range" of over 1000 year to couple hundred thousand year half lives. still dangerous enough to require storage but incredibly long term in human terms.

and no, it doesn't make fairy dust

>>3513855
>>3513857
incoming facts
>They got the same Fission products like a normal reactor
indeed, but the really bad shit like plutonium or the really high atomic number stuff is produced at very low volumes
most of the fission products are either very short term of very long term. the really long term stuff isn't really avoidable, but BECAUSE it's so long term, its radiation risk is mitigated significantly.

>The Fuel being "already melted" only means that any breach will result in a guarantied massive radiation release, of "fresh" Fission products, all still there
yes and no, a breach for the lftr is intensely localized and basically no risk of explosion, and impossible to run away. as opposed to a steam explosion which spreads everything everywhere, you have a glob of solid reactor fuel on the ground, still inside the primary containment wall, and thus no danger to the outside.

>We have no idea how to process a fuel salt, especially how to remove the fission product and breed fuel from it.
yes we do
oakridge did it very well actually.

>>3513857
now you're in the nuts and bolts of it.
Fluoride contamination is a pretty big problem actually, hence why the entire thing probably needs to be lined with hastelloy or better, which is almost fluorine damage proof. i don't think anyone wants a lftr with non online refueling, that almost defeats the purpose.

but yes it's a significant engineering challenge. but 25 years? that's a little cynical