/sci/ - Science & Math

>>3986706
>If we threw more money at it, would it go faster?
Way faster.

>>3986759
Would it be possible to get a Kickstarter program up for it or something similar?

How much funding would they need anyways?

>>3986784
>How much funding would they need anyways?
500 million. As for a Kickstarter thing, until LFTRs become widely publicized, don't bother.

>>3986792
>500 million
THAT'S DIRTY FUCKING CHEAP.

>>3986802
(Assuming not sarcastic)
Yeah, which is why everyone should be firing off letters to their congressman, senator or general government official about how fucking awesome it is and how much they should support funding and research into it.

>>3986804
Not sarcastic in the least, bro.
This image will show you why.

>>3986804
Sadly we are too few in number, spread across too many countries to get any action from a government.

>>3986818
This fucking pisses me off.
All the people who know and care about the LFTR are people like us: unsocializing nobodies without any sort of media or corporate connections.
Fuck my life.

>>3986808
Haha, I used to post that exact image all the time.

>>3986818
Do you know how we make more of 'us' ?
Just by stating why a LFTR is superior. That's all you need. That's all I've ever required to make more Thorium converts.

>>3986827
Untrue. Through the use of Facebook (inb4 >Facebook) I've probably made at least 20 people very interested in LFTRs, and at least half of them bring it up in conversation at any time when energy-related topics pop up. And most of them are very extroverted, friendly people.

>>3986835
Alright then, teach me a few things.
Explain how the Thorium Blanket and Reactor Core work.
Also, how the thorium lifecycle and whatever else manages to make less radioactive waste.
That's all I can't understand.

>>3986843
The thorium blanket/reactor core I have no knowledge on how it works. Nuka Cola is the resident LFTR expert.
The thorium/U-233 fuel cycle generates less radioactive waste because the way the power is generated, it can get much of the waste and reuse it to generate even more power. Don't know specifics. As for less long-lived waste? I think it's just a matter of the isotopes involved. Unsure.

Usually I just link people to this, which is better because then you have someone who is actually running a new start-up company called FLiBe Energy entirely for helping the development of LFTRs, not to mention has gone to university for nuclear engineering.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4&feature=channel_video_title

>>3986835
>Just by stating why a LFTR is superior.
Last time I was telling someone about LFTR a complete moron interrupted to tell me 'the fukushima fuel rods were burning their way to the center or the Earth and nuclear power is extremely dangerous'

>>3986868
That reminds me: Even IF we had a classic meltdown, wasn't the big threat that it would irradiate the water table?
I don't get it, isn't water and the rock it flows through a majorly stable absorptive of radiation while being fucking cold? And wouldn't the meltdown pass right on through and below the water table?

>>3986865
>LFTR
>NRFS
>MFW

>>3986868
this describes every conversation ive had with anyone. whats funny is that my chemical engineering professor knows about this stuff, yet just doubts it all to hell and thinks it wont happen.

His daughter went nuclear engineering and couldnt find a job anywhere, so she had to PE in chemical and take some other job.

In other news, i have a class in conservation of natural resources that i'm going to take in junior year. I'm gonna love discussing thorium abundance and current reactor design theoretical energy efficiencies.

>>3986868
In that situation you should've immediately stated that the reactor design Fukushima Daiichi used was absolute shit, so much so that the inventor of the light water reactor himself came out to voice his concerns of a LWR melting down one day and how he would much prefer LFTRs be pursued instead because of their inherent, not engineered safety mechanisms.

And then you should've just said that the fuel rods weren't melting their way to the center of the Earth, and that nuclear energy is safe, it's just a matter of which one. Thousands of different ways to do nuclear energy. It's like asking 'Is a car safe?' Well, which one?

>>3986835
>>
Untrue. Through the use of Facebook (inb4 >Facebook) I've probably made at least 20 people very interested in LFTRs, and at least half of them bring it up in conversation at any time when energy-related topics pop up. And most of them are very extroverted, friendly people.

Whoa. You are... well, not my hero, but my model of internet user.

Keep up the good work

>>3986887
this is a side note, and i dont necessarily side with environmentalists on this issue, but Ric O'barry was the trainer for the dolphins on the Flipper series, and he would later go on to be one of the biggest advocates against dolphinariums and other sea world type places.

There is something amazing about how people cultivate certain ideas and then later go on to refute them and support something completely different and potentially better. [Insert philosophy reference about fixing the failures of our fathers.]

>>3986887
A better analogy would be "is that safe to eat?" - cars are inherently dangerous.

>>3986896
:3

>>3986902
I'm just waiting for some really high-level economist to come out saying that capitalism is absolute shit and x system would be superior.

>>3986904
Note taken.

>>3986843
>Explain how the Thorium Blanket and Reactor Core work.

Basic fundamentals as I understand it is that the thorium blanket acts as a neutron shield around the reactor core and in the process converts the thorium into U233(?). The U233 is then separated chemically from the thorium and injected into the core.

>Also, how the thorium lifecycle and whatever else manages to make less radioactive waste.

The reactor runs at higher temperatures but at lower pressures (due to using salt instead of water), this means a much large percentage of the fuel is consumed. That combined with the fission products of U233 simply having shorter periods of radioactivity means less radiation over the long run. Further because the thorium/U233 method is essentially self-enriching it requires less initial material, naturally resulting in less waste.

>>3986904
>cars are inherently dangerous.
Not as far as normals are concerned.
They can't stand being so aware of the world, so they generalize everything.

>>3986887
Worry not, I countered him hard and mercilessly. It's the principal of the matter though.

>>3986919
Alright. Now how does the nuclear elements get 'burned up'?
Is that something basic I ought to know already?

>>3986967
Right, this may not be entirely accurate but this is how I learned it.

Some isotopes are inherently stable, while others will split spontaneously, at the drop of a hat. U-235 is generally of the first kind, but if it absorbs a neutron it becomes very unstable and splits into two smaller atoms (iron maybe? dunno, it's been a while) and also releases two other neutrons (continuing the process, making it a chain reaction) and also some heat. The heat is what is transferred by the surrounding coolant to a bunch of water, producing steam which turns turbines and pow, electricity.

Interestingly enough, when the uranium fissions, some of the mass of its nucleic particles become energy, which is where the famous e=mc^2 equation comes in.

Keep in mind this is only a rough sketch from someone vaguely remembering high school equivalent physics lessons, so take it with a grain of salt. If someone else knows better, feel free to correct me.

The best thing we can do is simply inform people of the truth about LFTR, the main reason why nuclear is still shitty in today's world is mainly because there is such public opposition against it it stops any research helping to improve the technology. This is also a major reason why government subsidies are very low for nuclear and of course you have to consider that all that money gets pissed away on highly expensive LWB's for the most part.

>>3986876
Could someone answer this question?

>>3986876
>LFTR
>meltdown
Ok, do you know what the L stands for there? The core of these things is basically continually in meltdown, that's how it works. All a meltdown really is is when the fuel core melts together.

IIRC if the core managed to get breached in a LFTR nothing much will happen anyway because the core can actually be kept at a pressure BELOW ambient, meaning if any transfer occurs things will be going in instead of coming out (and poisoning water tables and whatnot).

>>3987070
I KNOW THAT.
I'm asking about your classic high-pressure reactor, i.e. Fukushima.

>>3987080
Ah, apologies for the condescending tone then. In that case, I have no fucking clue.

http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-
of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title

>>3986876
>>3987052
Biggest problem with a modern meltdown is the expense of cleaning out the reactor. So long as there's no cracks in the reactor nothing should get out of it even during a meltdown I would think.

If there are cracks then the fear would be the water table spreading radioactive nuclear material/by products.

>>3987127
>my face when I can have three votes for this

>>3987136

do eeeet faggot

this is on the 3rd page right now if everyone ITT votes we might be able to get to the 2nd or at least higher in the 3rd

>>3987155
I posted it on Facebook and there'll be at least five friends of mine that will add three votes apiece.

Who says social networking can't be science-related?

>>3987166

Awesome! Right now I'm revoting with all different email addresses hahaha

>>3987136
Been lurking in this thread since its conception, just voted. Thought you'd all like to know.

It's what you spend the money on that's what matters. Inurdaes' 500 mil figure is about right (it may actually be excessive if the plan is just to prove thorium is a competitive option) but someone like Inurdaes shouldn't be at the helm.

>>3987211
>Inurdaes' 500 mil figure is about right
Kirk Sorensen said it himself in the 2 hour LFTR video.

>but someone like Inurdaes shouldn't be at the helm.
Absolutely agree. I don't have a degree relating to the field at all, and am just plainly too young and green at the present moment for such an undertaking.

>>3987217
Alas, I am also too young and too green. Hopefully in a few years time I'll have a degree in physics, so I can start trying to get this thing going while working on a PhD or something.

>>3987127
Would it be alright if I spread this to the other boards who would be receptive?
The last time a board got its shit together, it was /v/ for a minecraft reddit thread: it hit 800 upvotes in a day.
www.reddit.com/r/Minecraft/comments/kq89v/cubic_chunks_increases_the_performance_of_the/

>no i will NOT be promoting this to /v/.

>>3987431
Post it on /v/ as well. State that the vastly cheaper electricity and vehicle fuel manufacturing from mass-produced LFTRs would lower the cost of living quite noticeably, lowering the cost of vidya games.

>>3987446
Will do. The following boards will be hit: /b/, /tg/, /m/, /pol/, /n/, /adv/, /k/, /o/, and /v/.

The image here will be the OP pic.
>pic related

The following OP will be used:
>http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufact
ure-
of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title
>Vote to increase awareness of the LFTR! It's the only safe and efficient nuclear reactor that is also immune to meltdowns, and is cheap as fuck to build!
>Read the OP image or watch this video to find out more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4
For more sciency details, watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk&feature=relmfu

Is this satisfactory?

>>3987481
>Is this satisfactory?
In my opinion, it is not. How about:
‎- Uranium needs to be processed as only 0.5% of it is usable U235 for normal reactors
- Thorium is 4 times more common than ALL Uranium isotopes
- Almost impossible to make nuclear weapons out of it
- Burns existing nuclear waste stockpiles
- Creates 1,000 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste
- 87% of said waste is safe within 10 years for resale, 100% within 300 years
- It is 300 times more efficient at power generation than light water uranium reactors (the dominant reactor today)
- Since it uses a liquid fluoride salt system instead of water the size is incredibly small in comparison and in the event of a 'hull' breach it will not explode everywhere like the 400'C 80 atmospheric pressures of water in usual reactors
- IT *CANNOT* MELTDOWN! It's already melted, If shit goes wrong the salt mix drains into a passively cooled tank, only stopped by a frozen salt plug which has air blowing over it
- One ton of Thorium produces as much energy as 2,500,000 tonnes of coal and 250 tonnes of Uranium
- It costs under $100,000 PER YEAR to replenish nuclear fuel in comparison to over $50,000,000 for uranium nuclear reactors
- Because of the small size and no requirement of large bodies of water, this can be used on areas such as the moon where other power sources just aren't possible or are impractical (one month day on the moon, two weeks of darkness so no solar)
- In a year the world burns nearly 7 billion tonnes of coal, 65,000 tonnes of uranium and a whole bunch of other smaller fuel sources.
- ALL OF THE WORLDS POWER CAN BE PRODUCED FROM ONLY 6,600 TONNES OF THORIUM A YEAR, WHICH CAN BE MINED FROM ONE SITE

You need to supply information on a OP that would encourage people to read the rest of the shit you wish to provide. I have found that the above text is usually a jaw-dropper for anyone scrolling by.

>>3987514
Alright, and I guess I can strap on the article to upvote on the end?

>>3987516
Do that, and also provide this link if they're interested.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4

Up to 52nd, lads! Good work!
Brofists all round.

Here's the list of threads currently.

>>>/b/361541762
>>>/g/20910556
>>>/v/115645782
>>>/pol/170575
>>>/co/31115697
>>>/n/314803
>>>/o/5465400
>>>/k/10050282
>>>/tg/16818802
>>>/m/7038835
>>>/diy/48353
>>>/int/4549954
>>>/adv/8344751
>>>/x/8935920

linked it on /chem/ at 420chan too.

i'm only thirty five minutes into the video, but im curious.

since U-233 is needed as a starter and "pseudo catalyst" as he stated, how much is actually needed, in comparison with respect to the thorium blanket, for start up?

>>3987724
I posted on a few of them.

>>3987762
WEll i'm gonna get lunch, so if you can keep an eye out with an autorefresher like 4chanx that would be nice. The /tg/ and the /b/ threads are dead, btu I'm storing copies of them all to take useful comments and mesh them into something cohesive, assuming I don't get banned.

http://forums.darklordpotter.net/showpost.php?p=395115&postcount=26

Disregarding name of that forum, has anything changed since that day?

They'll have to do it eventually, worldwide uranium stocks are running fucking low. WAY fucking low. It's either that or fusion.

>>3986706

Interesting, but I think the cost element is not as high as that.
Also, can we back this up with any other sources?

>>3987797
I was under the impression that gamma radiation wasn't particular dangerous

>>3987874

Uh... Gamma radiation is FUCKING dangerous. Alpha and beta radiations are even more damaging and can turn other materials radioactive but they're stopped by shit like paper or wood. Gamma radiation requires a sheet of lead to be stopped and is still extremely damaging.

>>3987899
Damaging to bombs etc. It requires a sheet of lead to be stopped... so it passes neatly through the human body. Radiation is only dangerous when it gets "trapped" in the human body. Very little gamma radiation can't make it through flesh - most of it goes off on its way through the universe.

>>3987919

Look, you think you're right, but you aren't, okay? Gamma radiation is bad. Cancer bad. Your children will be horrible mutants bad. Holy shit my skin is melting bad.

The radiation around Chernobyl? That was Gamma radiation. The Alpha and Beta radiation never made it out of the damn reactor, it was just gamma radiation.

Nukes? Gamma radiation. The alpha and beta radiation are minimal, it's all Gamma.

Get it through your head: Gamma radiation is a bad thing. I know you heard otherwise, but what you know is wrong. Deal with it.

>>3987919

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_radiation#Health_effects

All ionizing radiation causes similar damage at a cellular level, but because rays of alpha particles and beta particles are relatively non-penetrating, external exposure to them causes only localized damage, e.g. radiation burns to the skin. Gamma rays and neutrons are more penetrating, causing diffuse damage throughout the body (e.g. radiation sickness), increasing incidence of cancer rather than burns. External radiation exposure should also be distinguished from internal exposure, due to ingested or inhaled radioactive substances, which, depending on the substance's chemical nature, can produce both diffuse and localized internal damage. The most biological damaging forms of gamma radiation occur in the gamma ray window, between 3 and 10 MeV, with higher energy gamma rays being less harmful because the body is relatively transparent to them.

>>3987925
Wow, calm down. Maybe I'm wrong. Can you cite me some sources to convince me?

I'm aware that it can cause cancer, but Gamma radiation is passing through us ALL THE TIME - we live in a universe of atomic decay. The only really damaging Gamma rays occur between 3 and 10 MeV, the stuff at the higher frequencies just goes right through us.

>>3987919
While going trough living body, isn't it breaking shit up it passes trough (causes cancer)? To pass harmlessly it needs to be immense, like from some.. quasar or so?

>>3987936

Look, if you want sources, go to Chernobyl without protection, stand next to the reactor's sarcophagus for about a year and then check how well you're doing.

>>3986706
finally a good use for all that fluoride.... better than having it in your brain... all for it

>>3987941
>>3987931
>>3987925
Look, I'm willing to accept I may have been hugely misinformed about this, but I'm going to need some sources that aren't wikipedia.
Also, it would be good to know the MeV of the Gamma radiation produced from the Thorium reactions in question.

http://debatepedia.idebate.org/en/index.php/Debate:_Thorium_based_nuclear_energy

>The Alpha and Beta radiation never made it out of the damn reactor, it was just gamma radiation.
See, that's mighty goddamn bullshit.
The problem with every nuclear incident ever is always particulate radioactivity matter, that gets dispersed into the environment.
Chernobyl worst consequence, several thousand additional cases of thyroid cancer, where due to I-131, which is highly volatile, and rained down on farmland eventually, and entered the food chain.

>>3987899
>beta radiation
>stopped by wood
NOPE
you need metal sheets for it, too. but they can have a smaller thickness than metal sheets to protect from gamma radiation.

Regardless of whether Gamma radiation is dangerous or not... Thorium reactors are significantly less likely to go Chernobyl on us than Uranium reactors, and even if they did, the radiation they would produce is less damaging than that of a Uranium reactor.

It's never going to be perfect, but it's a damn sight better than what we've got at the moment.

>>3987979
While safer, it's far from safe. And, well, it doesn't work yet, so its hard to judge. 'Sides, how many chernobyls happened in the lastt 50 years?

Fusion is safe /well, two kinds of it, and some are almost-safe/, and that would be a far better thing- but it's also way harder to do.

The gamma radiation of U-232 is actually a good thing. It makes it nearly impossible to use thorium reactors in weapons production because the 'good' U-233 will be mixed with 'bad' U-232.

>>3987979
It's not 'significantly less,' it's NO CHANCE of having a Chernobyl. Much of the radioactivity from Chernobyl was a huge buildup of Xenon which could be continuously removed in a LFTR by the gas simply bubbling out of the mix.
Also, any spill of the radioactive fuel mix would quickly cool and harden, leaving only a slightly positively reactive rock sludge. Nowhere near the clusterfuck of a LWR that's lost pressure and needs immediate cooling.

>>3987752
almost no one here knows details such as this because they haven't actually done much research about it. many of them are thinking thorium is some miracle solution to energy problems because some guy in a sensationalistic and little known video said so and want to very significantly change a humongous country's nation-wide infrastructure based very largely just on this. other breeder reactors have been built in the past that have a lot of the benefits of these LFTRs (reuse of fuel, use up much more of the fuel that is put in, smaller than some others, etc.), but you don't see them saving the world or anything. it might be helpful, but by the time reactors could be built it's not clear how well easier-to-create, cheaper, and more easily replaceable and fixable technology will have come along which could be as or more preferable to this in many situations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_breeder_reactor#Breeder_reactor_development_and_notable_breeder_re
actors
http://www.thesciencecouncil.com/george-stanford/195-the-ifr-vs-the-lftr-an-exchange-of-emails.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_reprocessing
www.nirs.org/factsheets/lovinsonifretc.pdf
http://skirsch.com/politics/globalwarming/ifrQandA.htm

>>3988020
>NO CHANCE of having a Chernobyl
See, that's retarded. The primary loop still contains a lot of radioisotopes, assume some outside explosion (plane, bomb, etc), all that would still enter the environment in case of a breach.
>Much of the radioactivity from Chernobyl was a huge buildup of Xenon
And that's even more stupid. Xenon is a minor radioactivity hazard (as it's a noble gas, it will not actually enter any food chain or accumulate, it will simply drift of into the atmosphere), but it has a huge neutron cross section, which hampers the fusion reaction.
>which could be continuously removed in a LFTR by the gas simply bubbling out of the mix.
And then? Even with continuous reprocessing, the waste has to be stored somewhere, no matter how brief. There's always a chance of a catastrophic release of nuclear material.

>>3988050
>fusion
fission, that is.

>>3988050
Okay, copping that I don't know what I'm talking about. My information is from that two hour LFTR video and my recollection is probably garbled as hell.

But I stand by the fact that 'significantly less' is a massive understatement.

>>3987997
we will get no where near commercial fusion power within hundreds of years. even if we get it to work, its just that one of these things will cost so fucking much that it wouldn't be worthwile for a company to build one, because it would take years until they get only the money they spent on building it back.

>>3988073
Personally I think fusion will become commercially viable within the next 100 years, but by the time it happens we'll be between LFTRs and mass adoption of space-based solar.

>>3988050
Even with a bomb exploding outside the reactor you would just have molten salt splashing around and quickly solidifying. This is nothing compared to Chernobyl.

>my face when the /diy/ thread was deleted by a mod

>>3988098
>just have molten salt splashing around and quickly solidifying
Nope, the some of Fission products and especially the Fluorides of the Transition Metals are highly volatile.
Also, you don't seem to quite grasp the scale of this. A Gigawatt scale power plant would have hundreds, maybe thousands of tons of salt in the primary loop alone. That just doesn't solidify at a moments notice, significant amounts of Fission products would leave the still hot salt, not to imagine what would happen if it comes into contact with water.

>>3988124
what did you expect?

>>3988250
To be stickied.

>>3988261
Only if we posted the schematics for the LFTR and step-by-step instructions on how to make your own...
We DO have the schematics, right?

>>3988473
I certainly don't, though Kirk Sorensen might.

There's probably some kind of law against publishing blueprints for nuclear reactors online though.

Hey Inurdaes, how does staring up a steamgroup or something similar for /sci/ sound?
I don't like the idea of not being able to get in contact with each other.

>>3988567
>how does staring up a steamgroup or something similar for /sci/ sound?
A few years of using Steam regularly and I don't even know how to do that. Let me Google it and do so.

>>3988589
Should it be LFTR specific or for what purpose?

>>3988589
>>3988594
Just /sci/ is fine.

http://steamcommunity.com/groups/scimath

>>3988630
Error 503 - Service Unavailable. Sorry Inurdaes, doesn't look like it's up and running just yet, but keep us posted. A great idea.

>>3988727
Same here, error 503.

>>3988050

>assume some outside explosion (plane, bomb, etc), all that would still enter the environment in case of a breach.

This is quite literally the dumbest fucking thing I've ever read on the internet.

>Guys. GUYS. IMAGINE THEY PUT A BOMB UNDER A NUCLEAR REACTOR AND SET IT OFF. GUYS. THIS IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM.

>>3988727
>>3988736
Yeah, but I've been getting the same error for many Steam Community things, so I think it's just Valve's servers glitching out.

>>3988803
Gentlemen, we're in.

>>3988868
No luck here.