/sci/ - Science & Math

[citation needed]

define define

Probably because the more research you do into LFTRs the more it seems to just make perfect sense.

decays into uranium, radium, and radon.. safer than mother's milk..

pull the other one, It's got bells on it.

>>3975453
This.

Also, as scandinavian, I believe we should all depend more on Thor.

>>3975425
It's edgy for /sci/. Their father doesn't like nuclear, so they do.

>teenage angst on /sci/

>>3975453
Thats like me and the Bible.

Because Norse Gods are better than Christian God.

>>3975453
I find it hard to believe it's as flawless as /sci/ makes it out to be.

>>3975474
>christian godS
they have multiple

Also, if the StarTram2 ever gets built, and if it does get built in antarctica, then LFTR would be an ideal energy source for it.

What I don't understand is why it wouldn't have been chosen as the dominant fuel in the first place?

>>3975482
Really?

You don't think the inhabitant's of /sci/ are acclaimed scientists with a long history and knowledge of nuclear energy generation?

>>3975501
Because you can't make nukes with the waste/biproducts.

>>3975482

Well no source of energy is flawless. However compared to contemporary sources it really does stand out.

>>3975482

Don't listen to us listen to the real scientists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uxvSVIGtU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eU3cUssuz-U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BOoBTufkEog
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA

>>3975501
Because the nuclear bomb required different tech, and when that was ready, people decided they'd made too much of a commitment to uranium to just up and change to a better alternative.

But china seems REALLY interested, especially since their rare-earth mines produce a lot of thorium as a by-product.

>>3975514
Nope. Only in fairy tale land where hipsters choose what to believe based on how ironic and or possibly unpopular it may seem.

>>3975524
>trollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLt
rolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLT
ROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollT
ROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLt
rollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltrolltrollTROLLtrollTROLLTROLLtrolltroll

Yeah, scientific facts often look like fairytales to idiots.

>>3975524

>>3975534
It's a scientific fact that thorium generators are useful, produce roses instead of shit, and would make the world utopia?

>mmm k, pass the bong bro.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-uxvSVIGtU#t=14m58s

>>3975548
Nice bullshit bro.

I doubt anyone has said anything like that. Except unless you happen to have a real short attention span and don't understand what is being said.

>>3975566
It's not bullshit, it's true.

But if you just want to masturbate to your oppression, go ahead. No one will stop you from thinking the world is against you.

>>3975565
If only you actually knew the cost of your 1000kg.

But you don't, just more fairytales.

>>3975573
So I take it even my post was too difficult for you to understand?

Okay, ignored, moving on...

>>3975584
No, the reality from which you derive science, technology and the future are confused.

We know, great, thorium looks good on paper.

GG. You proved nothing but numbers are awesome.

>>3975580

Thorium costs $371.00 for 1kg

This value was in September 2010 I suspect it has changed somewhat since then but I doubt that change has been substantial. You have to also remember the 100,000 tonnes of the stuff the US government as stored under the Nevada desert.

source: United States Geological Survey

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/thorium/

For 1000kg we can get about $540,000,000 worth of electrical energy as explained in >>3975565 when used in a LFTR.

So for $310,000 that could potentially be 540 million (ignoring the latter stages of the process which produce many more sellable resources with high value) if we had a LFTR. Of course this is ignoring purity of the ore and drop rates of power cables so it may be a bit less.

2/10 for making me reply

>>3975629
I don't see that price on google.

Good try though, I too, like numbers.

>>3975649
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/thorium/mcs-2011-thori.pdf

Thorium oxide at 99.99% purity 252 $/kg in 2009.

Lol, that's an oxide of thorium. You have to take the oxygen off to get the thorium!

>>3975688

anyone actually knows what type of thorium is needed here?

regular nuclear reactors also use UO2

also implying reducing a metal is a hard thing to do

>>3975629
>>3975671

Well funny you should mention that actually as I was doing more research on the price after my post and I found another article that quoted $5000 for 1 kg which is of course greatly higher than I just said, I looked at there source for this number but unfortunately the site is down which is a shame as I would very much like to see how they got that number.

>>3975688

LFTRs use thorium oxide

I'm pretty sure that it was thorium fluoride in LFTR's ??

Thorium oxide prices quoted by Rhône-Poulenc Basic Chemicals Co., f.o.b., Shelton, CT, were 99.9% purity, $88.50 per kilogram; and 99.99% purity, $107.25 per kilogram. Thorium prices quoted by Reade Manufacturing Co., a division of Magnesium Elektron, Lakehurst, NJ, at yearend 1995 were $330.69 per kilogram ($150.00 per pound) for thorium hardener (80%Mg-20%Th) in single drum quantities and $61.73 per kilogram ($28.00 per pound) for thoriumcontaining HZ-32 magnesium alloy ingot. The commercial magnesium-zinc-thorium alloy, ZH-62, was $47.91 per kilogram ($21.73 per pound). Thorium alloys were only available from Magnesium Elecktron stocks in Manchester, England.

http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/thorium/690495.pdf

I'll confirm. I reduce uranium in my laboratory.