/sci/ - Science & Math

they're having a sale on Thorium at The Thorium Store (TM) until October 15. Up to 30% off if you order in bulk online.

>>3899961
Cool

>>3899961
>on 5mg of focalin and learning nuclear physics atm

very hard to come by, extremely expensive

and no, you should not try to make one in your backyard. the hastelloy alone would probably eat through your budget, the nuclear-grade graphite core will cost about as much as your car, and the fluorine will probably kill you and ruin your equipment

trust me
i tried it

>>3899985
Try again? With me?

>>3899985
Not to mention if the NRC (or equivalent regulator) ever caught wind of it they'd shut OP down faster than he can blink.

>>3899985
Now I'm interested. What happened?

>>3899989
no
the U232 contamination will kill you as well unless you've got a multi million dollar breeder setup with robotic handling equipment

on an enterprise level, a LFTR plant is a bargain. on a backyard level? way too expensive and deadly

>>3899995
actually the biggest problem is the breeding setup for the initial U233 stock. that shit could _easily_ be used to breed sub-weapon's grade plutonium

>>3899999
>>3900000
>dem pents!

>>3900002
And what if I said I had access to what you needed?

>>3900000
nice qints
you don't remember this? it's half the reason i got a trip in the first place

i even made some crude diagrams for fun. this was before i realized for much fuel salt i would need, and that the critical mass of U233 was actually kind of big, the smallest i'd be able to make would be like a 100Mw plant

i didn't actually spend any money or anything, but i spent a solid month planning things out. Made a call to the nrc about how it would legally work out, they basically require 20 years to start any kind of nuclear reactor (before any construction), mostly design approval and shit.

a few people had tried to do it on the down-low. one of them blabbed about it to friends and got arrested by the fbi (thought he was making weapons material). another guy got horribly radiation poisoned because he didn't know about u232, and the third guy got arrested as well.

it's not worth it. Advocacy is the way to go

>>3900028
also that design kind of sucked since it keeps the Pa233 flying around, which can undergo a parasitic neutron reaction and breed MORE U232, which makes your fuel salt mix hideously gamma radioactive

>>3900021
i'd say invest in that startup company, FLIBE energy, who will put it to good use

>>3900036
how can someone with very limited knowledge of physics learn nuclear physics in, say, 4 years? Just text books do you think?

>>3900049
you absolutely need to go to college for that. go all the way for a phd

Considering that the original LFTR project was shut down, shouldn't all of the original research material be available under the freedom of information act?

>>3900053
I'm in college but don't feel like taking a third major. Maybe the professors will let me sit in on their classes . . .

>>3900047

I wish FLIBE would come to Australia

>>3900059
it already is, you just kind of have to dig for it.
>>3900065
once they get a solid reactor design, i'm sure we'll share it with our awesome Ausbros
Germany doesn't get one though, they banned everything nuclear remember? heh

>>3899999
i really don't like that image, it's sort of misleading and doesn't give any solid reasons for the bullet points listed
for instance "air cooled" is sort of misleading, they mean compressed helium.

i know they're trying to keep it easy to understand, but you lost so much information when you do that. better to take a little more time to explain the underlying concepts so people really get why it's awesome

>>3900073
please respond to
>>3900060

>>3899999
This makes it seem like Thorium is GOD and has no faults whatsoever and we are stupid as fuck for NOT using it.

It can't be that good, if so, why aren't we using it?
What is this leaving out?

>>3900085

Because the Military Industrial Complex didn't want to keep funding something that wouldn't provide them with useful waste

>>3900085
China have already started.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/02/china-thorium-power/

>>3900085
There was never any demand for it in the past. Light water reactors were already a proven technology while LFTR was still in the experimental stage.

>>3900107

Not too mention the guy behind the LWR was fired when he said he preferred the LFTR

>>3900085
it's kind of hard to get something like this started, since it's one of those "disruptive technologies" that changes the game

it's been virtually off the map from the late 70s until 2006

there's no conspiracy or anything, it's just that energy companies don't want to take the risk, and traditional nuclear is very very well established and a safe bet.

also the public hates the word nuclear in any context so good luck getting the NIMBYs on board.

basically a really well funded upstart needs to make a prototype reactor in some other country so the NRC cant cockblock it, and then generate public interest from the prototype's success.

>>3900107
I forgot to mention everyone thought nuclear fusion was just a few decades down the road anyway. Fission was always meant to be a stopgap before fusion plants could be built.

>>3900121
Liquid Fluoride Thorium reactors are what fusion wanted to be.

>>3900116
If he was fired by Admiral Rickover for saying that I wouldn't be surprised. That man wanted something that was guaranteed to work and didn't have the time or patience to get sidetracked by alternate ideas.

>>3900126
it's fun to posit this logo to nuclear energy antagonists, and then follow up with "what does the sun do?"

>>3900136
Rickover was kind of dick. He basically built the nuclear navy which i have great respect for, but he was bullheaded and had a bad habit of using his influence to remove opponents or dissenters.

>>3900126
LFTR technology is nowhere near the miracle solution we've been promised with fusion. Of course what people don't often talk about is how we're still going to be stuck with dirty D-T fusion instead of the much cleaner reactions that are unfortunately much harder to sustain.

>>3900149
i still masturbate to the thought of boron-boron fusion
mmmmmmm, dat pure thermal output and basically no waste

>>3900118
So the only reason its not in use in most of the industrialized world is greedy energy companies who don't want to make all their extant plants obsolete?

>>3900163
First, coal plants have been obsolete for decades but you don't see energy companies stop making them. Second, the up front cost of a LWR plant are intimidating enough, never mind what is effectively an unproven technology.

>>3900163
>greedy
more like cautious
LFTR is a bad bet currently. Sure the MSRE worked well, but nobody really knows how well this thing would work in real life.

and again, public opinion is against any and all nuclear, except fusion because it gets such great press from everyone forever

i think a lot of posters on this board have taken the LFTR koolade. i support the fuck out of it, i think it's the future, but it has a lot of work cut out for it.

>>3900163

And you can't make material suitable for bombs, which was a much higher priority at the time because of dem evil reds

>>3900091
China can't even keep substances out of baby formula. Why do they think they have what it takes to regulate a nuclear power plant?

>>3900177

They also thought testing anti-satellite weaponry was a good idea and wound up increasing the amount of debris in orbit somewhere around 10-fold.

>>3900174
Neither can a LWR. There's a reason why no one uses power plant waste to build bombs.

No info, but I have one hell of a story.


>Be law student at a Southern law school
>Be in local "rationalist" group (read: atheist)
>Have meeting at local beer garden
>Old Nuclear Engineer from Oak Ridge National Lab is there
>He worked on the original MSR experiment, he was the youngest engineer there
>I was a Thorium skeptic
>He converted me
>Fucking awesome guy
>From poor ass town in Mississippi
>Got PhD in nuclear engineering
>Did work
>Relatively wealthy old guy now
>Invests in my company, wrote a straight out $70k check

I can't believe I know one of the original pioneers of the energy of the future.

>>3900177
they don't
they'll build one lickety split, then get the designs stolen by tons of countries who then use it as a breeding plant. china doesn't give a flying fuck but we do.

>>3900181

LWR is based on bomb-producing tech, though. MSRE & LFTR aren't.

>>3900182
holy shit, i remember your thread about that a few months ago!

but
>thorium skeptic
>skeptic
don't use that word, this isn't like evolution or something, it's just a power plant design

>>3900188
Yup.

I should qualify that.

I'm not a nuclear engineer. I'm a biochemist by undergrad training and a lawyer by current training. This thorium business is largely beyond me, and I understand that.

Meeting a true expert with actual experience, I'm convinced. This element is the future of energy until we can figure out fusion or space-based solar.

By the way, it's tremendous fun drinking with the old timers. A few of the newer guys are good fun. I have a law professor that does space law with whom I drink and I had evolutionary biology and immunology professors with whom I drank during undergrad. Seriously, I don't know why scientists aren't more well-known as awesome people.

Another Oak Ridge old-timer from our group is a master cave diver and licensed pilot. He's also an Argentine Tango instructor and regularly dates women less than half his age. Extremely impressive human being.

People often underestimate scientists, but you realize something when you meet enough of us:
We're some of the most competent, fulfilled, multi-faceted, and downright interesting people on the planet.

This aspie bullshit is merely a /sci/ meme. The true "mold" of the scientist is far more in-line with the 1950's type of the bold, daring, brave, and desirable omni-competent man.

>>3900186
Here's what you don't get. Just because a technology is based on something doesn't mean it's the same thing or has the same capabilities. The LWR was originally designed to power a submarine with fuel that was already enriched to the same level as bomb fuel. They were basically wasting bomb fuel to power something that wouldn't be refueled for an entire decade. Power plant LWRs are designed to run for as long as possible because refueling requires a long shutdown where no money is being made, and a large amount of Pu-240 is produced which is bad for bombs.

If you want a design that is ideal for making bomb fuel, look no further than Canada's CANDU reactors. Now that design is scary.

>>3900204
the most interesting man in the world is based on an ex-fermilab researcher from texas

Get a quote from several wholesale suppliers, they mail small samples all the time for various reasons.

>>3900206
>Just because a technology is based on something doesn't mean it's the same thing

No, here's what YOU don't get.

The LWR exists because we pursued making bombs, and not electrical power. Nobody's trying to say it's the same thing (or at least I hope not).

The point being made is that bombs are the main reason we have what we have now, and the designs stemming from that are further from the ideal as a result.

>refueling requires a long shutdown

Just as a side note, liquid reactors tend not to have this problem.

>>3900180
The US thought that as well, twice

Australia should spend all of its Carbon Tax profits on LFTR research

>>3900228
>The LWR exists because we pursued making bombs
You have no sense of history. The LWR exists because Admiral Rickover wanted a submarine that wouldn't have to surface for weeks or months at a time. At no point did he give one damn about making bombs. The design his team created actually destroyed perfectly good bomb fuel and all civilian designs are worthless for producing bomb fuel.

>>3900289
THIS, FUCKING THIS.

>>3900188
>don't use that word, this isn't like evolution or something, it's just a power plant design
He's probably using that word because that's what he was, that's what most people would be.
One look at >>3899999
and anyone not knowledgeable in nuclear reactors first response would be, "bullshit, what's the catch? Why aren't we using it right now." It would fucking pay itself off nearly instantaneously and provide so much extra energy for so little cost it's stupid.
When something that good come along and it's not in use, people are skeptical. Especially since it's been done in the 70s... It brings out the, wait, we've produced working unit of this shit and we're not using it as a primary source of energy? You'd have to be stupid not to implement it. There's gotta be something wrong with it.
Hence the word skeptical.

>>3899999

I ask this is pretty much every thorium thread, but I never really got a legitimate answer:

Why the hell aren't we building these things? They look a lot more cost-effective, less hazardous and more efficient in general. Everyone should be all over these things, so there has to be a pretty good reason

>>3900755

Everything looks better on paper. Remember in the 50's they thought uranium fission would give infinite power because it was a self-sustaining chain reaction. They didn't consider things like atomic displacement (which caused additional material stress) and the fact facilities had to be scrapped every few decades due to radiation buildup.

The devil is in the details.

>>3900755
Cold war.

No really thorium is shit at producing weapons grade material, thats why they opted for uranium based reactors since you could make bombs out of the fuel.

>>3900760

But still, they actually tried Uranium.

Even if there are some crippling details in the LFTR design, the basic principle is theoretically very sound, and even if it didn't work as well as it should, it would still be miles ahead of any other form of power generation

I wouldn't even know about these things if it weren't for /sci/, you never hear anything about it on the media or even in scientific journals

>>3900772
Thats because thorium based reactors suffered a lock-out in the industry due to uranium desgins dominating, and only recently have had a resurgence due to the declassified research being rediscovered.

>>3900755

because LWR's were finished first and LFTR's got their funding cut. Advocating Nuclear Power and funding research for Nuclear projects is political suicide. No matter how safe LFTR's are

>>3900785

I fucking hate politics

>>3900789
>No this shit cant produce nukes, were cutting this project.

Later:
>NUKES ARE BAD DOWN WITH ANYTHING NUCKLEAR! RADIOACTIVITY BAD!

>>3900789

Semi-related fun fact: The Outer Space Treaty, which prevented the weaponization of space, also prevented the development of nuclear-powered space craft. They would have been, in theory, much more efficient than chemical thrusters (at least on the larger rockets; nuclear propulsion would have an minimum size threshold, where as chemical does not).

So thanks to the OST, we may have just set back interplanetary travel by a matter of a few to several decades.

On the plus side, we never had to worry about being nuked from space.

>>3900792

Last I heard SpaceX is looking into Nuclear Rockets

>>3900792
So wait they banned ALL nuclear devices? even peaceful ones? wtf man.

>>3900792

God fucking damn it.

This is just like that thread yesterday. Apparently since erlenmeyer flasks are used to synthesize drugs, they are banned in Texas

fuck this gay earth

>>3900800

That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard

>>3900805
Welcome to politics, where education does not matter

>>3900797

The reasoning was that a space-dropped nuke could reach a target up to 2/3rds faster than an ICBM on a standard trajectory. Also no need for big rocket thrusters, making sneak-attack first strikes much easier (early warning systems usually relied on detecting the thermal signature from the rocket engine). So less time to react and harder to detect. A recipe for disaster.

>>3900796
Wouldn't be legal in the US -- plus since 9/11 getting your hands on nuclear material is harder than ever, driving costs up further than they need to be (yellowcake prices have fucking tripled).

Could theoretically be done off-shore on some Carribean island outside US jurisdiction, but would generate a lot of bad press and controversy. No way a small start-up company would run that risk -- at least not with what the price of nuclear fuel is.

You dissappoint me /sci/.
Still talking about generating energy with ways which requires fuels.

There are people out there which are making devices that have a higher energy output than their input.

I'm not talking about making energy out of nothing, this energy is comming from somewhere.

>>3900834

Well sir I'm intrigued

Do continue

>>3900834
>inb4 perpetuum device

>>3900834

You know what SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN mechanism generates more energy than what you put in initially? Nuclear fission (self-sustaining reaction, derp).

The problem isn't generating more power. It's generating power in such a way that the energy received outweights the cost and maintenance of the supporting equipment/materials.

>>3900834

Does anybody know what this thing is? Looks pretty cool

>>3900843

It's Denaerde's pyramide model.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8sGqXqC4cY

Quick question for nuclear scientists (or let's be real here, armchair nuclear scientists...).

What are the cons to thorium power? Is thorium more expensive compared to uranium? Is the energy obtained considerably lower? Why wasn't this a huge success back when it was being tested? Claiming because of weapons grade isotope production is...well...a little shortsighted in my opinion.

If this was such a great technology and ready for energy production on large scales, I can't help but to think at least a few scientists would have started companies under this technology and made millions of dollars.

>>3900834
>not fair, magnets included

>>3900856
>The 12 flywheels represent the (matter) spin in 12 universes. The magnetic flux in one axis represents the alternating time flux in a time axis. Two flywheels on one (time) axis represent our universe and our anti-time universe.

>It represents the driving force behind all creation, syncing all atoms in a universe in an iron grip.
6 time axes (12 universes) are needed to form a closed loop and to keep the nothing in tact. This is the model as was given to Denaerde by the Iargans.

>Visit www.theory-of-god.nl for detailed explanations and physics of the model.

>>3900879
I fucking called it

>>3900877

Why does that make it unfair?

I tried to make an LFTR thread in Krautchan...Didn't go well at all

+Typical hippie German posters and irrational fears
+Typical European denial and decadence
+General luddites and non interest in physics and the thread went to page 15 within the day. More interested in CP, Russian rape porn, and Finland v. Sweden threads.

Europeans cannot handle a rational LFTR discussion unless it has drum and bass, dub step with 1000 strobes and Putin memes. It's not coincidence Russia has had a thriving space program while even combined EU is actually behind China or Japan.

>>3900882
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-agl0pOQfs&t=1m52s

>>3900885
The enviromentalist attitude doesent help, personally the biggest fault i find in green parties is the total anti-nuclear hardon they have wich is fucking absurd. Liberals i guess.

>>3900000
>>3900000
>>3900000
>>3900000

INURDAES YOU DIRTY FUCKING NIGGER

>>3900885
>even combined EU is actually behind China or Japan
No. Just no.
The modern EU space program is more advanced then even the modern Russian program. Just because we're not too interested in sending people into a vaccuum, doesn't mean we can't into space.

>>3899946
>Does anyone on know where thorium can be purchased or obtained?
Yeah I'm just gonna stop you right there. Don't do this. Don't try to do this. Don't even think about doing this.

>>3900918

Too bad they can't even compare with the Australian Space Program

>>3899946
>Does anyone on know where thorium can be purchased or obtained?
The ground outside your home at ppb/ppm levels.

>>3900923
Australia is part of the european union.
Go back to your basement with bitches.

>>3900928
0/10

>>3900928
I'm from Australia and I can vouch that we are more like Americans than the Europeans. So basically we're a country of faggots.

>>3900945
>Country of lederhosen wearing half-germans.
>More like americans.
3/10

>>3900865

>What are the cons to thorium power?

It's still like 5-10 years from being marketable.

>>3900945
>Australia
>British Penal Colony

That confirms why you're like Americans.

>>3900951
>It's still like 20-30 years from being marketable.
fixed

>>3900964

Well no.. They've already build demonstrators. All it needs is funding and there could be commercial LFTR's in the next 5 years

>>3900967
All that's been built is a short lived experiment back in the 60's. That's not a demonstrator.

is my ISP still abusing 4chan?

>>3900970

Short Lived? they ran an LFTR for a couple of years

>>3900967

No. they won't. But if you get enough people to invest in your Thorium speculation, you won't care.

>>3900834
>Why is there a Quadrotor sans blades in picutre?
>mfw i realise it's to make the picture look more "Sciency"

>>3901134

Elaborate

>>3901134
You make a goiod point, please continue.

>>3901140
>>3901148

  

>>3901159
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>
<div class="math"> </div>

>>3901168

intredasting I have never thought of it like that before.

Here are places where you can find some twhorium.

http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_green
er_nuclear_option.html

>>3901179
gods fucking dammit

>>3901180
Article mentions India

>India
>LFTR

Pick one

>>3901214
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/08/indias-thorium-nuclear-reactor-and.html

blow it out your ass

>>3901180

>>3901218
>"This is a vertical, pressure-tube-type, heavy-water-moderated, and boiling-light-water-cooled natural circulation reactor"

Faggot.

>>3901180

>it is not renewable or sustainable and cannot effectively connect to smart grids. The technology is not tried and tested

Like renewability is longer relevant when there's literarily enough thorium to power mankind's growing energy needs for thousands of years.
Technology has been tested and it worked like a charm, even though that was over 40 years ago.

Yet another Thorium video was just released.

http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/10/14/thorium-remix-2011/

>>3900924
10 ppm actually, it's comparatively abundant and evenly spread out

>>3900967
>in a country that isn't the US
the NRC has a 20 year waiting period on the construction of _any_ commercial power plant. and that's 20 years from idea to breaking ground

>>3901180
>http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/952238/dont_believe_the_spin_on_thorium_being_a_g
reen
>er_nuclear_option.html

i need to break this down piece by piece
>article immediately uses india as an example. Wrong, india's using solid thorium, which is way way messier since it has a much higher propensity to make gamma-hot U232. You'll get some U233 for additional fuel for sure, but a shit ton of waste

> it is still a next generation nuclear technology – theoretical.
it's just a theory, a guess

>rely on extensive taxpayer subsidies; the only difference is that with thorium and other breeder reactors these are of an order of magnitude greater, which is why no government has ever continued their funding.
i like the cost benefit analysis he quoted here, it really makes this guy's claims not seem lik-ohwait

>In his reading, thorium is merely a way of deflecting attention and criticism from the dangers of the uranium fuel cycle and excusing the pumping of more money into the industry.
what, i don't, what, how could, that doesn't, what.
what.

>Oliver Tickell, author of Kyoto2, says the fission materials produced from thorium are of a different spectrum to those from uranium-235, but ‘include many dangerous-to-health alpha and beta emitters’.
i have a feeling he doesn't know what alpha and beta emissions means

cont

>>3901937
>Tickell says thorium reactors would not reduce the volume of waste from uranium reactors. ‘It will create a whole new volume of radioactive waste, on top of the waste from uranium reactors.
this is actually true, U233 has some similar fission products to U235, but its usually the very long lived stuff, like 10 billion year half lives. that's really not much of a health risk to be honest. Thorium has a comparative half life, and that shit is EVERYWHERE

>and cannot effectively connect to smart grids.
now that's just a straight up LIE

>0 cited sources.
seems legit.

he does have some accurate information, but it seems buried under this sense of "the nuclears are bad and its subsidies are preventing research into wind farms so they can make 2% extra electricity! My waifu wind power will be market viable some day!"

>>3901644
>is nuclear energy safe?
>well, is a car safe? which one?
ok, that was pretty nice

>>3901900
>the NRC has a 20 year waiting period on the construction of _any_ commercial power plant. and that's 20 years from idea to breaking ground
No. That's just wrong. There is a 10CFR52 licensing effort that must take place. The time that takes depends on how well you design, document, and present your SAR and how quickly you can answer their questions.

You make it sound like an idea is there and you have to sit around for 20 years with your thumb up your ass.

>>3901959
this is information based on an actual phone call to the NRC about these kinds of things. the two or three people i talked to all mentioned a 20 year minimum waiting period. it can be longer if your design has to be further approved

>>3902008
>this is information based on an actual phone call to the NRC about these kinds of things. the two or three people i talked to all mentioned a 20 year minimum waiting period.
It's not a waiting period. It's a licensing effort that may take that long. Look at the AP600.

>>3902020
i keep referring to it as a waiting period, when indeed it's a licensing period
i just refer to it as a waiting period because i hate the NRC with a burning passion and it might as well be a waiting period

>>3901939
Uh, wind actually is HIGHLY useful for one thing, and thats turning the ocean into free energy, and installing backup grid ability. THAT is the best use of wind I think.

>>3902031
that's true, Tide looks kind of interesting
it's just that everyone and their mother supporting wind power seems to assume you can just plop down ten windmils and power a city, and the only thing preventing that from happening is that wind doesn't get enough funding or something

>>3902031
Wind has shit availability.

>>3902037
On the ocean it.. well there is a reason why its a pain in the ass to have to plan sailing trips, there is absurd amounts of wind free. Wind is a good alternate source and a great way to get new HVDC grids up and online.

>>3902027
You still miss the point. It may take 20 years, it may take more, or it may take fewer. That number is something that was pulled out of your ass.

>>3902052
again, not out of my ass, out of the mouths of three nrc consultants (even though they probably weren't quite that official) over the phone

>>3902056
I would love to know more about your phone call.

>>3901217

Schematics.

>>3902065
this was back when i was trying to build my backyard lftr, this is where i learned about the other couple guys who tried it and either got busted by the FBI or badly irradiated

i had a nice chat with them, but the last guy i talked to laid it down straight that it'd pretty much impossible to build a reactor in your backyard under any circumstances due to licensing waiting periods and fees and whatever.

>>3902138
Really, the LFTR concept has such a high startup cost that it should be developed as a well-funded government research project, just like the competing LWR was back in the 60s. The only reason Flibe, a private US company is doing it is because the government is too conservative to start new nuclear research programs. All the other thorium efforts are government programs (China, Japan, UK, India). And Flibe is probably only going to be allowed to bend metal for the military, since that bypasses the NRC.

Makes me sick.

>>3902583
well, FLIBE isn't necessarily US based so i'm very much hoping they'll build their prototype reactor in something like france, which is way more nuclear lenient and encouraging of innovation.

once they have an honest to god 20-30megawatts electrical plant running smoothly, the NRC might loosen its anus a little

>>3902595
Where did you hear that? The only plans I've heard from Flibe (besides general internet publicizing) are to build mobile nuclear plants for the US military. Their staff and board members are American, and they are incorporated in Delaware, and the contact address is in Alabama (probably Kirk Sorensen's home!)

>>3902622
oh, i have no idea if this is their ACTUAL plan but this is what i HOPE they do

>>3899985
There's this new molecule (you probably don't know about it) that stops radiation

>>3902873
is this that weird thinly polythene stuff that is a good nuetron filter but doesn't do much else?

or something different?

because the biggest problem with a lftr is gamma decay from u232, and that shit blasts through _everything_

>>what are the cons to thorium power?
Assuming you're talking about the LFTR and not solid thorium fuel like India is trying to do (since that's what the thread is centered around) It's a (relatively) newer and under-developed type of reactor. There is a lot of work to be done before it's implemented, but it's potential is great.
>>Is thorium more expensive compared to uranium?
No, the currently used Enriched Uranium we use for fuel is much more expensive, and most of the energy in the fuel is not 'burned up'. That's why there are efforts to reprocess the waste instead of storing it in Yucca, but Yucca has been Presidentially Cockblocked, and The reprocessing was Congressionally Cockblocked before that, too.
Is the energy obtained considerably lower?
No, it's much higher. Pic related, apparently that's the mass of a lifetime's supply of energy.
>>Why wasn't this a huge success back when it was being tested?
It was. It was also purpose built for the first Nuclear Powered aircraft, and when the Air Force finally realized ICBMs would work, the funding for the project was cut. Alvin Weinberg was correctly quoted though saying "A High Temperature Reactor could be useful for other purposes" since now the Army is looking at ways to deploy power efficiently to bases, and reduce risk of transporting fuel in combat zones (think Command and Conquer power plants) and who knows, maybe they could use that extra energy for weapons systems in the future too.

>>3902933

>>I can't help but to think at least a few scientists would have started companies under this technology and made millions of dollars.

No one knew about it. It was literally tucked away in file cabinets at ORNL and it wasn't until Kirk Sorensen made PDFs of it and put them on the net that he was able to increase interest.
Think of the last time we had a major shift in energy usage during the Industrial revolution. We started with coal, that was great for steam power, but when it came to liquid fuels, we started with making Kerosene and then realized the lighter stuff we were dumping into streams was a better fuel, and we've used and improved upon gasoline ever since. Is it only coincidental that developing newer generations of reactors using different fuels would also be a good idea?

>>3899985

There was proof of concept design that was discussed at the end of that protospace talk that was posted on youtube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSmf_qmkbg&feature=player_detailpage#t=7494s

Hell, you could demonstrate the proof of concept design and probably make press just from that alone.

>>3902622

Last I heard was Kirk was petitioning in the UK to turn the Sellafield reprocessing site into a LFTR power site, and using the waste for fuel, but even with five posts on his site he doesn't talk much about the real hurdles that Flibe has to go up against in the UK or with the NRC. Everyone knows the NRC is has put up too big of a barrier to entry to try and develop a new type of reactor in the US, especially if you're trying to do it in a faster timetable than China (within the next ten years or less as far was we know) but I don't think he Flibe is seriously considering pursuing a political approach. Kirk is no Neil DeGrasse Tyson, but he's still entertaining.

>>3903038
i was considering that, setting up a reactor with EVERYTHING except the fuel salt

even then, it'd still be outside my price range unless i just weld aluminum together. Hastelloy is the only thing that can take the fuel salt, and you need nuclear-grade graphite (boron scarce graphite) in the core, which is also super expensive.

the rest of the parts probably aren't that bad though, the vacuum distiller would be kind of pricey maybe.

way outside my budget, sadly

>>3903062

I'm watching that bit again at the moment, but IIRC he was discussing using steel for maybe a few hours of operation. Hastelloy IS super expensive.

I seriously wish some state government or university would sponsor even a small working prototype of this. I'm in no position right now to advocate it (enlisted military) and I don't have the space to even consider working on it. Makes me sad, considering that new(er) alloy that was developed to convert heat into electricity.

http://www.gizmag.com/alloy-converts-heat-into-electricity/19025/

seems kinda hokey, but then again, it's probably just untested. LFTR could use it if it was more efficient than the closed cycle Brayton turbine system that's been talked about.

>>3901644

>mfw Kirk Sorensen

>>3903231

>AndthenIgotthethoriumspopularandsavedthe world.png

Lol'd heartily

>>3903131
>http://www.gizmag.com/alloy-converts-heat-into-electricity/19025/
that actually sounds pretty ballin', i'd like to see some conversion efficiencies and the specific properties of the metal itself

hastelloy is really good mostly because it takes fluorine corrosion like a champ, and can also take the intense neutron flux without becoming brittle

>>3903334

Did you come up with a cost estimate for the 10-25kw reactor? How much Hastelloy were you planning to use?

>>3903403
when i learned a sheet of the stuff would cost like $1k, and the cost to forge it into the specific shapes and configurations would be ten times that, and it'd need a shitload of it, i sort of gave up calculating an exact cost

also, 10-25kw is not possible, you can only have a bare minimum fuel salt of something like five tons thanks to needing less than .03% u233 in your fuel salt by volume, and the bare minimum critical mass of u233 sitting at like 16kg
the absolute smallest you can get is like 2.5 megawatts, which is what MSRE was.

but still, 2.5 megawatts is about 2 thousand homes worth of power, which could supply a decent sector of a town

>>3903334


also, I just read this

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aenm.201000048/full

that Ni45Co5Mn40Sn10 alloy would achieve an efficiency of .004%, and .057% if they could convert the latent heat. Brayton cycle apparently does 30-50% so apparently it wouldn't be useful at all with an industrial application.

>>3903438

How thick of a sheet? Those guys at protospace mentioned getting pre-shaped Hastelloy from other industries, but they had the ability to acquire it in their University's name.

Either way, I think you'd have to give up hopes of profit from electricity production with a small reactor, just do it for the SCIENCE.

>>3903463
>Either way, I think you'd have to give up hopes of profit from electricity production with a small reactor
i'd also have to give up hopes of ever having money ever again

this thing could easily cost more than a house, even at small scale

now, it ight be fun to make a mock up, but one with actual materials is a no.

>>3902138

I remember we all tried to tell you this numerous times from the very first post you made on the subject.

Nuka: "Best way to build a backyard lftr?"
Anon: "Don't."

>>3903589
indeed, and anon was right
anon didn't really have any good reasons why not though, but i eventually found quite a few

making a mockup might be cool though, like lay everything out and set up the safety systems and whatever, but not use any of the expensive materials or actually put fuel in there.

>>3903901
>anon didn't really have any good reasons why not though

No, I do believe you were told about impending assrape by the authorities, material costs (rather, that the cheap construction you initially had under consideration was woefully inadequate) and the danger to your person and the people around you. But especially the regulatory assrape.

All of this in your very first thread.

Making a mockup would probably still get your shit slapped just on principle, though.

>>3903932
>Making a mockup would probably still get your shit slapped just on principle, though.
i sort of doubt it, since that would have a rather high chance of going into the newspapers as "university student accused of being a terrorist after making harmless model". Regulatory bodies do not like bad pr

>>3903943
>university student accused of being a terrorist after making harmless model

I thought you lived in the USA? You know that this is not how the media works there.

More like "terrorist captured after building possible nuclear device."

>>3903949
Faux news might swing it that way, but most of the other media organizations are (luckily) critical of authoritative action.

and of course i'd be asking the nrc if this is okay before doing anything

>>3903958

They'd say no without hesitation.

And I'm not just saying this. Actually ask them.

>>3903966
He did, havent you read the thread?

>>3903966
if the nrc says no to making a completely non functional mockup of a LFTR without any fuel or nuclear components of any kind...

it's probably time to leave the country

>>3903969

He did not ask them about building a reactor mockup.

>>3903971

They're anal-retentive like that. It's kind of their job.

>>3903978
there's
>it's their job
and then there's
>stifling innovation due to examining the worst case scenarios and assuming they will always happen, which is normally a good idea, but the nrc takes it far far far beyond what is sensible.

>>3903990
They don't have much choice considering that even as one of the strictest regulatory bodies they still get criticized as being lazy and supposedly being in bed with the utility companies.

>>3903971
Your thoughts have been reported to the Thought Police.
While waiting for incarceration, please think about kittens and butterflies.
Thank you.

>>3903995
well i fully suspect the people criticizing them for being lazy have no idea what they're talking about, but that's sort of par for the course in american news media

>>3903990
>and then there's

No, those sound like pretty much one and the same thing.

I wonder if any components in a hypothetical LFTR would make a suitable undergraduate thesis project?

>>3906202

Depending on your major I don't see why not. Hey, it might even be a useful thesis project for a change

>>3906202
can't really be a nuclear engineering major project because, again, FBI and NRC

maybe if your professor is a good buddy with one of the nrc higher ups you might get some kind of license for breeding, like, a gram of u233

>>3906229
Thats why I said "component". For example, maybe it would be useful to prove out the turbine technology, or test out various turbine working fluids, or the salt-salt and salt-fluid heat exchangers, or do some neutron flux lifetime experiments on critical plumbing. There should be a host of little engineering problems like this that don't require actual nuclear material to prove out.

>>3906249
true that, and the neutron exposure testing could be very useful for selecting appropriate materials. the only problem is that you'd have to do heavy neutron bombardment for several years to get an accurate result