/sci/ - Science & Math

it's more like, when we GET fusion energy it'll be a big deal, but any fusion reactor will be monstrously expensive even if fuel is dirt cheap.
but once we actually get positive Q, as in meet breakeven, then the race is to make the reactor smaller and cheaper. that gradual downward slide in price and size is the really exciting part.

there's a certain point where fusion starts working literally everywhere at almost any scale except possible passenger vehicles, and your fuel source is essentially infinite and requires almost no processing/energy/infrastructure to prepare.
That's the really exciting cool bit

its time
post news, shitpost about your favorite method or reactor type, what is your reactfu, etc.
please do not feed the solar/wind/fukushimawasliterallychernobyl trolls

>>7050453

>End case: We don't process seawater for its uranium content since we're not willing to pay the x10 cost or more of getting that uranium, regardless of the much, much larger total supply of uranium in seawater over our proven reserves.

But we will be willing to pay that price. Uranium is very cheap, and nuclear energy is economically viable even if uranium cost increased ten fold. And at that point the supply is basically inexhaustible. There wont be any peak uranium.

wait, is that a nuclear plant?

quick, we need a nuclear energy thread to contract the /x/ spam
anyone else a little excited for general fusion's MTF prototype?

Heya /sci/

Could you smart guys clarify something for me please. It's about the Little boy.

I've read on wikipedia that the bomb contained 64 kilograms of uranium in which 700 grams were sort of used in the fission and the actual energy release came from approx. 600-860 milligrams of uranium.

Can someone explain to me why they put inside 64 kilos of which 700 g do something and then .6 gram actually explodes ? Thanks in advance !

+ good batteries
you make it sound like it hasn't already happened.
well, half of it anyway

damnit battery chemistry, why do you have to be such a bitch?

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/05/japan-again-getting-electricity-from-nuclear-energy/

>japan relies on nuclear power for about 30% of its energy needs
i did not know this

let's hope the japanese media stops hyping up "the next radiation scare" for a few months for the other reactors to go back online. remember that thing about tap water that could irradiate your baby? yeah...

thinking about building a miniature LFTR reactor in my backyard
minus the fuel
and minus the graphite core
and minus the hastelloy

mostly just to have fun and give credence to small scale nuclear feasibility.

how would /sci/ feel about this? assuming the FBI doesn't intervene erroneously

/sci/
how do we mend the world's shattered and nonsensical view of nuclear chemistry and nuclear energy?

the disparity of people who understand it vs those who do not is staggering. the evolution "debate" pales in comparison. and the strange thing is that it's very uniform across education levels (a well educated professor is just as likely to say "nuklers r bad" as a farmer in south dakota)

why?
and how to fix it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

/thread

Why would you do that? So called nuclear "waste" still has immense amounts of energy. Why not burn it in fast reactors or LFTRs, or reprocess it and burn it in LWRs?

have you spread the word of the holy church of LFTR today, /sci/? ignoring all its possible challenges and assuming it will solve all the worlds ills?

or have you actually been worthwhile and objectively examined it, while still trying to raise awareness and interest?

Confirmation bias is the reason some people are afraid to go on an airplane

Confirmation bias is the reason nuclear energy is feared and reviled

your turn

have you promoted understanding of nuclear energy and nuclear chemistry today, /sci/?

The objective;
to make 20% of the population of the united states aware of, and hopefully supportive of, liquid fluoride thorium reactor technology by 2015

gentlemen
how might we reach this goal?

doubtless we'd need something viral in nature, but trying to force a viral video (almost) never works. what other avenues do we have?

I'm still sort of working on a series of simple, introductory videos to the concept, as well as nuclear chemistry in general, using a little stick figure drawn on a chalkboard. however i'm not sure if that'll be nearly enough to catch on, even if i somehow pick up the best youtube freelance voice actors and get the uniformly best script ever

YOU CAME TO THE WROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG NEIGHBORHOOD NIGGA

this

That is bullshit. See here:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2011/06/21/are-babies-dying-in-the-pacific-northwes
t-due-to-fukushima-a-look-at-the-numbers/

http://uvdiv.blogspot.com/2011/06/guest-post-curious-case-of-cherry.html

i think it's go time for a serious grass roots LFTR movement. we can't really afford to let the chinese develop one, and they're well on their way. public attention to the benefits might just be our best bet.

over the christmas break i will be writing the scripts to those "introduction to nuclear power" videos i've been talking about. directed towards laymen, common knowledge, nothing too complex, it'd be done in an animatic format with a stick figure character drawn on a chalkboard.

are there any youtube voiceover artists who might be interested in dubbing it?

thorium threads on /sci/ tend to devolve into crazy futurism stuff too quickly.

can we just have a rule about not speculating on anything more than 15 years in the future?
things get silly too quickly otherwise

I herd you like nukes.

https://docs.google.com/open?id=0B0bOrygCWv7PODFmOTM0YzctZTFhOC00YTkwLWIxNjYtZDRiNjU3ZTdhMTQx

gentlemen
we must educate america about nuclear energy, and get them to care enough to do something about it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

with
-no budget
-no governmental assistance
-no private assistance

how do we do it