/sci/ - Science & Math

nuclear is useless because the environmentalist idiots won't ever accept it, even if its risks are nearly eliminated by now

>>4376029
>even if its risks are nearly eliminated by now
Are you an idiot? You must be.

>>4376036
You are one of them green fag

>>4376039
Tell me what happens in case something like Fukushima happens? Millions of profits lost, lands destroyed, people killed or homeless, etc.
We can't deal with emergencies with nuclear reactors, and if something bad happens, we're screwed

Nuclear by uranium won't work; the material just isn't there. Thorium might work, but it suffers from all the same problems uranium does, plus the lack of proven returns.

>>4376043
>Reactor design is safer today than ever before. The Fukushima accident happened because Fukushima's reactors are a very old design - as old as the oldest active American reactors. If the earthquake and tsunami that hit Fukushima had hit a modern reactor, the disaster probably would never have happened.
Have you even read the article? There's this, too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fukushima_Daiichi_Nuclear_Power_Plant#Warnings_and_design_critique

>>4376043
I work with nuclear reactors that are safe, proven, and ulike Fukshima, cannot explode or fail. In fact, the reactors I have worked with have had millions of hours of operation time with zero accidents.

Its pretty easy dealing with a Fukushima incident, if you are using a proper design, the reactor should automatically shut down, with coolant system using non electrical means to shut themselves down.

>>4376045
You are an idiot, please stop posting.

>>4376029
Again, they will accept it, or else realize that green energy simply isn't cost effective (see Germany spending money on buying French nuclear energy, turns out the trillions for Green Energy simply isn't there!

>>4376048
...and why was such an old reactor still in use? Because updating it was too expensive. That's how it always goes. It doesn't matter how good your newer designs are if they won't be implemented, or if the owners cut corners to maximize profits, which they will unless you're totally under government ownership. And even then...

>use solar, they said
>use wind turbines, they said
in the end, it's all shit
we have no choice, at this very moment, but to use nuclear if we want to go on, especially since we desperately need proper energy sources
unless something appears out of thin air, nuclear is the best solution. at this point it's also very safe, so it could be usable

We should use thorium as fuel instead, you know the drill.

>>4376054
>You are an idiot, please stop posting.

Oh, brilliant argument, you sure showed me!

Nuclear won't work, because it's simply not cost-effective. The millions (or even billions) it costs to build a reactor take a long while to pay out.

>>4376021
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors.

>>4376043
Are you fucking stupid? First of all, that reactor was old as fuck and needed to be upgraded long before the incident. Second, it was THE FUCKING TSUNAMI that killed people and destroyed property. But fucking idiots like you like to focus on nuclear because you're afraid of things you don't fucking understand. A grand total of 0 people died from Fukushima's reactor. Even if thousands of people had died from it, it would still be better than using coal or any other form of energy production which kill thousands of people every year.

It's people like you who are holding back progress. You clearly don't know fucking ANYTHING about what you're talking about, yet you're so god damned adamant in your position? Why would you have such a strong opinion on something you don't understand?

>>4376057
I work with a reactor thats fundamentally older than hat (MTS Daniel Webster, 1961), age isn't a factor per say.

Also.

>>4376061

Air cooled reactors are fundamentally unsafe for any operators and users, so you are pretty much saying "fuck you operators," and that is unacceptable in any condition.

>>4376045
>>4376065
Oh look, more people who have no idea what they're talking about. But think their opinion needs to be heard anyway. Fuck off.
Before joining in discussion about things, actually fucking educate yourself.

>>4376067
>>4376071
Lol, why are you so mad

1 ton of Nuclear Energy = 500,000 tons of Coal Energy

It's cleaner

It's safer with the right technology.

Short answer: Yes

Long answer: YEEEEEEEEES

>>4376071
see >>4376063

If we can convince the environmentalist nujobs and the religious nutjobs, it would probably be our best bet for clean and efficient energy. Of course, once the reactors are built.

>>4376074
I'm mad at people who don't know shit posting terrible shit.

>>4376063
The vast vast majority of successful reactors have been Uranium based. As the Soviet Union's terrible fucking submarines showed, non conventional reactors are screaming metal deathraps at best, BWR, as Fushikama showed, is a fundamentally insane design and shouldn't be used because its not inherently safe. Newer BWR reactors can be made safe, but the fundamentals behind it are insane.

>>4376081
welcome to /sci/ - high school science

>>4376074
Because I'm so sick of idiots like you who are so blatantly ignorant about everything, yet think you're entitled to come in here spouting bullshit while expecting to be taken seriously.

>>4376076
Look, I've had to explain this shit to dozens of people already, I'm getting a little fucking sick of telling stupid fucks the same things because they're too god damned lazy to actually do some research before cementing their idiotic positions.

>>4376071

I support nuclear power, and the second guys post is actually pretty reasonable. A nuclear plant is a big investment. It's not cheap in the slightest.

>>4376078
>The vast vast majority of successful reactors have been Uranium based.

I'm not talking about effectiveness, I'm talking about fuel amounts. Uranium isn't sufficiently plentiful to replace fossil fuels using conventional plants. Please lrn2readingcomprehension before you go off on me next time.

>>4376084
>Look, I've had to explain this shit to dozens of people already, I'm getting a little fucking sick of telling stupid fucks the same things because they're too god damned lazy to actually do some research before cementing their idiotic positions.

I know the feeling.

That's was an interesting read, thanks OP.

>>4376080
spoilers: the newest nuclear reactors are being constructed in the American South in the heart of the Bible Belt (South Carolina, and now Georgia) because the south has a growing population, and coal plants are getting expensive with EPA requirements and coal costs slowly rising.

Again, why do you not know anything about this game?

>>4376089
Why are you agreeing with someone who is insulting you from the other side of the argument

>>4376099
I'm not agreeing with him, I'm sympathizing with the feeling of frustration that comes from always having to explain basic concepts to people who don't understand the subject.

>>4376095
If you know so much, share your knowledge, oh godly NavalAnon of the Gods.

>>4376089
We have so much waste from our own naval reactors alone literally sitting out in a field being guarded by marines, being casked and waiting for a final disposal point, that waste ALONE could power the country for 50 years, not to mention the various atomic weapons dismantling efforts and our own Uranium supplies in the country, through our allies in places like Australia, and in the Canadian shield.

>>4376088
Do you have any idea how much the world spends on fossil fuels every year? How much solar power would cost to effectively implement? Because the research and development of nuclear reactors is a fucking fraction of it. And the operation of said reactors? Not even worth registering the costs compared to other energy sources.

>>4376089
>I know the feeling.
Yeah, it's not a good one. And for the record, I was disagreeing with your stance on thorium, not uranium.

>>4376104
Read the thread, fucktard.

>>4376108
Hell, I haven't even started on potentials of the MAD SCIENCE of breeder reactors or reprocessing existing fuel supplies. The nuclear fuel chain isn't going away in my lifetime, your childrens lifetime, or their childrens lifetime, and that's just assuming mining alone!

>>4376109
>And for the record, I was disagreeing with your stance on thorium, not uranium.

What did you think to be incorrect with what I said about thorium?

>>4376109
>Do you have any idea how much the world spends on fossil fuels every year?

Doesn't matter.

http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/

>>4376117
>it suffers from all the same problems uranium does, plus the lack of proven returns.
Basically everything.
It really doesn't suffer from those problems(which are mostly a thing of the past with modern uranium reactors), and it was proven decades ago.

>>4376109

Are you like, a fucking retard? Do you understand the idea of sunk costs and how the infrastructure for fossil fuels is already there, but for each nuclear reacter it needs to be created?

If nuclear power didn't have such steep initial costs, we'd be using it. Don't kid yourself.

>>4376122
That's a pretty long read man. I'll read it entirely later, but care to give me a tl;dr for now?

>>4376126
Doesn't suffer from the problem of abundance, but it doesn't have proven returns financially. No one is making bank off it right now, which is what needs to happen for anyone to make big investments in this economy and political climate.

>>4376126
I work on applications where a thorium reactor in theory would be perfect (high energy output, very small size, minimal shielding) yet we have never found a thorium reactor that could be a proper equvliant for our submarine plants, because thorium's issues and radiation made it unusable, turns out that it requires precuations that make it unworkable in a production environment! (the slight ability to KILL EVERYONE THROUGH TOXIC GAS EMISSION is sort of a killer for a company trying to hire employees)

>>4376122
>In brief, the idea is that once we enter a decline phase in fossil fuel availability—first in petroleum—our growth-based economic system will struggle to cope with a contraction of its very lifeblood. Fuel prices will skyrocket, some individuals and exporting nations will react by hoarding, and energy scarcity will quickly become the new norm.

Not if we actually develop another infrastructure to get out energy from before petroleum runs out, using that very energy.

>>4376134
tl;dr: shifting resources over towards building new infrastructure based on alternate energy sources (non FF) requires people to accept a drop in energy growth on the promise of greater growth later on. Despite the huge costs of FFs, no one wants to accept sucha a trade off. It's all short-term thinking.

>>4376130
I don't think you understand that the entire infrastructure is going to be WORTHLESS once the fuels run out. Yes, the initial implementation will be costly, but not as costly as continuing to use something which is simply not going to last much longer.

>>4376136
Well, hopefully China succeeds with its LFTR. Since no one else seems willing to take the plunge.

>>4376138
What type of reactor was this?

>>4376146
At the moment, yes. But I think soon people are going to wake up. Especially with the worlds ever increasing need for energy. Sooner or later, they are going to have to accept it.

Do new reactors still have to be decommissioned after 50 years? I thought I heard somewhere that this is what makes nuclear uneconomical as a long-term primary energy source.

>>4376152

Man, I get that FF infrastructure would be worthless. I'm agreeing that we should go nuclear. But you told some dude to fuck off because he brought up a reasonable point about the huge entering cost of nuclear power. Just blantantly ignoring economics because it doesn't fit into your world-view isn't going to get shit done.

>>4376152
>At the moment, yes. But I think soon people are going to wake up. Especially with the worlds ever increasing need for energy. Sooner or later, they are going to have to accept it.

Well, ok, you're clearly more optimistic about people than I am. I expect that people will allow their civilization to collapse rather than face facts; this is the historically popular option.

>>4376152
LFTR was a propesed alternate, but after our terrible experience with the old liquid metal reactor on Skate, non standard reactors became machines non grata.

>>4376152

>>4376152

>>4376173>>4376152

As long as you get a NRC permit, the reactor can last forever.

>>4376167
Nothing will change, but since there's already a simili-infrastructure for various energy forms, we might be able to still fulfill our energy needs, though for a short while.

>nuclear makes us lose money? fuck nuclear, go FF!
People tend to think short-term, it's natural.

>>4376172
>>4376176
having problems with quoting?

>>4376021
Nope, nuclear generates a lot of thermal pollution:
http://www.thebulletin.org/web-edition/columnists/dawn-stover/hot-water-the-other-global-warming

>>4376166
I don't really see it as a reasonable point. The potential for returns more than outweigh the initial investment. Not every country in the world focuses on short term profits. There is an ever increasing interest in the long term.

>>4376176
Except, that neutron bombardment pretty much degrades most materials, the reactors will eventually need to be decommissioned.

>>4376181
THIS is a huge problem with modern reactors (but its a problem of any conventional method of power), due to the nature of the method of TRANSFER THERMAL ENERGY TO WATER, WATER BOILS, SPINS TURBINES, PRODUCE ELECTRICITY, COOL DOWN WATER of every power plant, but a lot of older nuclear plants are bad about this.

>>4376185
that's what shipyard/refit cycles are for, replace worn out parts, and keep it going forever.

>>4376182
>Not every country in the world focuses on short term profits.
Name one that doesn't.

>>4376172
Ah, that's a shame. LFTRs show a lot of promise.

>>4376189
I misspoke. I meant to say "not every country is focusing on short term profits". China for one is looking seriously into alternate energy sources.

>>4376186
Except you don't get this problem with photovoltaic solar, wind turbines, or wave power, which do not rely on thermal processes.

Nuclear by it's very nature of being a heat engine based process MUST reject the heat somewhere according to the LAWS OF THERMODYNAMICS.

>>4376182
>I don't really see it as a reasonable point.

It kind of doesn't matter if you see it as a reasonable point. Investors see it as a reasonable point. Unless you have a few spare trillion dollars laying around, your rational decision making capacity isn't doing anyone any good.

>>4376193
Phovoltaics require massive toxic chemicals to produce, wind turbines aren't bad but require absurd numbers to produce anywhere near the ammout required (and because energy storage is a pain, they can't be used as base load), and wave power is infrequent, with only a few locations having strong enough waves to be tapped (England's North Sea region, several places off the New England/Pacific Northwest for example).

These sources simply cannot provide the energy required to maintain our civilization, and I assure you, you want civilization to remain, because shooting the shit on /sci/ is fun!

It could replace coal for electricity if there was an effort to create a consistent regulatory environment (US at least) and low interest loans to defray some of the high capital costs.

>>4376194
We aren't arguing whether or not the people capable of making it happen are prepared to make it happen. We're arguing whether or not the initial investment is a good reason to dismiss the implementation of nuclear, and it simply isn't. To say that it is is ludicrous.

>>4376196
>Phovoltaics require massive toxic chemicals to produce,
And selenium is insufficiently abundant for the purpose.

>wind turbines aren't bad
They also disturb weather patterns, which probably something better avoided.

>>4376203
They do, I mean it makes sense, they do act as massive artificial trees, and if they are anything like cities, (cities affect weather), they might cause some unintended conquences. Link to any information about this, because I think I vaguely heard it on a NPR show, but I don't remember this.

>2012
>not being pro nuclear
http://nextbigfuture.com/2011/03/deaths-per-twh-by-energy-source.html

>>4376201
>We're arguing whether or not the initial investment is a good reason to dismiss the implementation of nuclear, and it simply isn't. To say that it is is ludicrous.

Ok, that wasn't my initial argument, so now you're onto something different. I'd agree, incidentally, but again it doesn't matter in practical terms.

>>4376210
>Link to any information about this, because I think I vaguely heard it on a NPR show, but I don't remember this.

I'm hoping I still have the article in my bookmarks. I'll search for it.

Question: What would be more viable for the U.S. in the next few decades, tapping domestic carbon-based altrernatives, investing heavily in nuclear, or doing nothing differently?

>>4376218
Nuclear.

>>4376217
I quote: "Nuclear won't work, because it's simply not cost-effective. The millions (or even billions) it costs to build a reactor take a long while to pay out."
To me, that sounds like the initial argument.

I've had someone tell me with a straight face that we could tap geothermal energy from the San Andreas fault. wut?

To make this thread useful, let me ask a different question:
>How can you convince a green environmentalist to support nuclear power?

I'm thinking violence might work as a last resort, but I'm not certain. Needs testing.

>>4376228
And that's an argument about money, rather than necessity. You're right, the necessity of going nuclear makes the cost negligible in real terms, when looked at from some virtual future perspective. But practically, people are looking at this *now* and deciding that it doesn't pay.

>>4376241
Defending anything with extremism cannot end well.

>>4376241
It will be like convincing a fundamentalist to accept evolution

>>4376241
Show them that nuclear is the most environmentally friendly form of (practical)energy production. They will probably just shrug off your mountains of evidence and simply maintain that nuclear is evil and that the news told them it will kill everything.

>>4376196
>>Phovoltaics require massive toxic chemicals to produce
name these toxic chemicals.

>>4376241
>>4376254
>>4376255
Sounds like all of these require that you have to be there in person in a one-on-one conversation to convince them.
They must communicate solely through subconcious body language rather than words.

>>4376245
Some people are looking at it and deciding that it is worth it. And I think that the number of countries deciding that it is in their best interest is only going to increase as time goes on. Sooner or later the will have to accept that they are sinking more and more money into something that is going to be gone soon. Call me an optimist, but I just don't see them letting their countries collapse rather than adapt.

>>4376257
Lead, candium, various acids involved in micro processing.

>>4376266
Even then, they will probably just start getting angry and it will end up in a yelling match.

You truly can't reason with many of these people. People who are quick to adopt an(ignorant) opinion are often very fervent in the defense of their stance.

>>4376286
Assuming the nonverbal communication, then your assumption is incorrect.
It is not that these people are quick to assume ignorant opinions, it is that the sort of people who espouse and support ignorant opinions are the same sort of people who have powerful body language that directly communicates that idea into a position of high importance within the mind of the recipient, because these recipients communicate almost entirely through body language alone which is an unconcious (or semi-concious at best) experience.

tl;dr these people cannot defend themselves against charisma and become converted to another idea as soon as a stronger charisma comes along or the old one weakens, both of which requiring a personal presence of the chaacter.

We can't allow anyone on earth who isn't America to have nuclear anything or else we'll kill them. Iraq and Iran will be the first examples of many.

>>4376322
USA USA USA USA!

>>4376317
Interesting hypothesis. Good luck with your experiments.

>>4376350
I was just reminded by this post I saw down the list
>"BUT WHAT IF SCIENCE IS WRONG?!"
This sort of reaction is an indication that your charisma was not strong or forceful enough to replace the old idea that your statements negated, leaving that person without any single idea to hold onto and orient themselves by. A large majority of humanity is not capable or has not been trained to create their own ideologies and thus become unstable and frightened without a single theory or idea to act as a foundation of familiarity.

I saw this thread and was glad to see something likes is on /sci for once instead of all the non-science threads. I would like address a few issues listed here and state some properties about nuclear power. Also I am not an expert. I am a junior electrical engineer student that has work experience with a nuclear ultility. I have read up on nuclear power a fair amount and have taken course on and related to nuclear power. I would like to address some concers or cons of nuclear power some annons listed here.
~"The cost of building new power plants is too great!"
This is both somewhat true and somewhat false. This cost is know as a capital cost or upfront cost. The typical cost of building a PWR (pressurized water reactor) plant is typical along the lines of 8 billion dollars for a 1GW plant such a the Westinghouse AP-1000. How ever this they make a significant amount of revenue each year. Using the McGuire Nuclear Power Station as an example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McGuire_Nuclear_Station
this station will generate 17,620 GW-h of electrical energy sold at 0.072 dollars per KW-h to a total of 1,268,640,000 dollars per year. This means the it would take about 16 years for Duke Energy to repay the cost of these two unit if it were to build them again today. This plant were designed to run for 60 year or 80 years with extented maintaince.
How ever the O&M cost of running a nuclear plant today is cheaper than any other energy source. Duke Energy will spend about 60 million dollars on fuel assemblies every two years and nead to to employ around 1000 skilled worker to run this plant. That seems pretty resemable to me. The main cost of nuclear is not O&M costs such as worker or fuel but capital cost that are inheirent not to nuclear power but to PWRs. I will explain this next.

>>4376407
The high capital cost of a PWR are the result of two design flaws:
~Using water as a coolant and the need to pressure the reactor vessel and its the cooling loops for it.
~The need for a large concrete containment building to contain the possible event of a rupture of the reactor vessel and its piping and the resulting steam explosion that will ensue..

A PWR opperates around 158 ATMs of presussure or 2,250 pounds per square inch. This results in the reator vessel and its cooling loops needed to be around nine inches in thick. This is very costly. The cost of the concrete required for the containment building is also very expensive. If the PWR were to opperate using a coolant that had a larger liquid range of temperatures that would allow it to have a low pressure mode of operation then it could significantly reduce these cost construction.
Unfortunately the reactors we are building today are still outdated PWR. They have improvements over old PWRs and BWRs but still suffer from these desing flaw. For nuclear energy to really take off new reactor designs need to be used. Dr. Alvin M. Weinberg the god father of the PWR even stated in his autobiograhy "The First Nuclear Era" that he believed there were better design than the PWR.

>>4376525
Fuck it. No one cares. I should know better than to try and have a rational conversation about this topic on 4chan.

>>4376538
fuck you, I love this shit, even if I am a gigantic lover of PWR because of its proven safe design vs the BWRs inherent risk to operators via the transfer of radioactive steam, vs the less radioactive secondary in the PWR design (a minor breach in the secondary isn't a crisis, while a breach in any part of a BWR means a bad bad day. Also, I can't comment on MY numbers, because of OPSEC and the nice contract, but its fun reading this and comparing it to my own numbers.

>>4376538
>>4376525
>>4376407
I care.
I simply have been splitting my attention.

>>4376547
>Also, I can't comment on MY numbers, because of OPSEC and the nice contract, but its fun reading this and comparing it to my own numbers.
I've always wondered, how would they know it was you if you leaked info?

>>4376563
They could supenoa 4chan, and I like my job, and not being in a jail like Manning, and money. money is nice.

>>4376538
Easy man, I think most people just left already. I know I did. I just saw this again on the front page.
I agree, PWRs and BWRs aren't ideal, but they're better than anything else we have available at the moment. Hopefully Thorium reactors(LFTRs in particular) are going to be viable in the near future.

>>4376574
What kind of money are you making? 300k starting?

>>4376547
>>4376548
Sorry I didn't think anyone was still here. Here are some of the design flaws of PWR and BWR that need to be addressed.
~Both PWR and BWR require emergency cooling.
After shut down the fuel assemblies in the reactor will drop to a zero power level (in terms of fission) in less than 60 seconds. They will still produce power in the form of radiation and heat from the decay products. If this heat becomes to great the result will be what is know as a cladding failure. A cladding failure occurs when the Zircaloy tubing contain the fuel pellets losses its strength and mechanical integrity. This will result in the fuel assembly losing the ability to contain radioactive material and a contamination of the reator vessel. This is what happend in Japan. The tidal wave knocked out the backup generators and the earthquake knocked out the grid. Those are the two long term (>24-48) sources of emergency power plants use. The reactor operators were then left with 8 hours of battery back up. This can be aviod by using a fuel assembly with high melting point or a non solid fuel assembly. The most successful reactor to not use a solid fuel assembly was the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment that ran at ONRL in the sixties.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor
This is also a good site about the subject:
energyfromthorium.com

>>4376579
They paid for college, but they own me for years, and my pay is public, O2 pay is suffering (not really).

>>4376594
Man, I'm still shocked, because the plants that I know pretty much.. that can literally not happen. I mean even with TORPEDO HIT, WE WW3 NOW, but its because our designs have... well the Old Man designed them to handle war, vs these civilian grade plants (using electricity as a backup, really?) seem so inane sometimes. It should never get to the point when a cladding failure happens, because an automatic SCRAM + non electric cooling mechanisms should have kicked in ages ago.

>>4376563
I just want to specify that the figure I quoted are public knownledge. I pulled this from the wiki page and Duke Energies page dedicate that particular station. I at no point broke any binding agreement with Duke Energy. Also these posting our of my own opinion and do not represent Duke Energy in any way. I just thought I should point that out. Any way back too it.
Next Design Flaw
~ A typical PWR will only with around 0.5-0.7% of the fissile material in the fuel assembly the rest is disguard with the spent fuel assembly.
There are two reasons for this. The first is the build up of fission products with the fuel assembly. These fission products act as what are known neutron poisons. This poison with stop the reaction by absorbing neutrons produced from fission. This eventually leads the neutron economy to below one (sub-critical) and then to zero. A core will have to be replaced about every two years with around 2/3 new fuel assemblies.
The second reason is damage done too the fuel assemblies from regular operation. This damage is the result of high radiation flux (especially neutron flux) and a VERY large delta in temperature between the fuel pellets and the coolant. This detla temp means for the normal 381 degree celcius operating temp the center of the fuel pellets with be slightly over 2000 degrees celcius. The fuel pellets with eventually crack and shartter and the ends of the fuel assembly tubes might break and vent radioactive gases.

>>4376612

Next design flaw. By the way I am a proponent of nuclear power I am just listing these to show why we need better reactor designs like the LFTR.
~ A PWR & BWR can not perfrom load following (varying it out put with respect to the grid).
This is a result of the nuetron positions I mentioned eariler. One poison in particular is very nasty the dreaded Xe-135. In order to increase power you must increase fission. By increasing fission you will produce more of this Xe-135. This clauses a temporary drop in power after about five minutes after the change in power. Once the Xe-135 decays the power level will go back to normal. A plant will usaully take a week or more to go from zero power to full power to aviod and minimize this. This prevents nuclear power plants from varying their output. Instead they operatre by what is know as "base loading." This mean operating at 100% power and provide the bulk of the power for the grid. This xeon poisoning issue was one of the reason Chernobyl happend. The opperators did not prepare for this phenomena. Naval reactor opperators can circumvent this by means that are not avaible to commercial reactor opperators.

>>4376674
Well good night. I would post more but it is late. I hope someone found my post informative and interesting. If you want more information about the LFTR check
www.energyfromthorium.com they have a bunch of cool material.
Thanks and good night.

>>4376674
If LFTRs are not seriously funded or researched in say 50 years, will newer Generation IV reactors be satisfactory?

>Live in Georgia
>Two new nuclear power plants being built and will be online in 6 years
>Listening to NPR today
>Apparently environmentalist groups are suing the state because they claim it's negligently unsafe to build nuclear power plants after Fukushima
>MFW

I wish I could kill these people to death.

>>4376737
The hypocrisy of greenies makes me rage more than creationists.

>>4376730
Nope the LFTR addressed EVERY and I mean every problem and difficulty that PWRs and BWRs had. Also using the terms Gen X or what ever generation you want to lable it as is point. The LFTR is would be considered a GEN 5 or 6 reactor but the first one was build in the mid to early sixities. The two big problems with encountered with the LFTR were corrosion and the degrading of the carbon moderator from intense netron flux. The corrosion was addressed with a Hastelloy-N alloy. The moderator issue can be overcome with different moderator shapes or just simply not having a deicated moderator medium and just using the fuel salts as the moderator. Most of the technical difficulties encountered with the LFTR are pretty mute compared to cladding failures of fuel assemblies and fucking 158 atm or greator reactor pressure.
I would love to find work on building a LFTR but the only company I know working on it is Filbe Energy and they just started and are not hiring engineers at the moment. So I don't know what to do. I am would love to work on this but I am not sure how much competition there is for this. I think I am in a reasonable position since only a limited people know about this and even fewer have a engineering back ground like me. I am currently getting my BS in physics and electrical engineering and will presure a masters in either electrical engineering or nuclear engineering but I am not sure if I have even the slightest chance of landing a job involving this. I sure Filbe Engery gets hunders if not thousands of emails and letter from people like me begging for a change to work on this. I would even work minimum wage for a change like that. Feels batman.

>>4376773
Where do I look to learn what you know?

note: I am a graduate student in molecular bio, I'm not looking for another degree, but what's a good book?

>>4376773
*is pointless
Sorry for the typo.
Also I can't fucking stand most god damn envirormentalist. I have never and I mean never run into any that had a clear and measureable definition of what "green" was. By every metric there is, carbon emissions, land use, power density, sustanibility, abundance, cost, practicality... fucking wind and solar come up motherfucking short. But this feel good hippie dipshits don't care becuase solar pannels are the hip new thing and wind turbines look cool and make people feel good about themselves. But nucelar is SCARY because of the word RADIATION. These dipshits don't know that they are more likely to die from FUCKING SKIN CANCER caused by sunlight than any radiological impact a nuclear power plant with have on them. And yes I AM MAD. These faggots vote. These faggots are also taken more seriouly than engineers who actually know what they are taking about. Every time I see a politicain standing next to a fucking solar pannel I just want to ask them about the said evirormental and egineering metric mention before that every other energy sourse is judged by and ask them is them even know what they are talking about.

>>4376782
I learned at the Nuclear Power School myself. that's just me.
>>4376737
They hate Freedom, and Democracy, because nuclear power defends AMERICA from its enemies, proving us the ability to strike anywhere, at any time, at speeds that no convential power source can provide. Its literally UNLIMITED ENERGY. Also, try and find DOE manuals, they are open and purchasable, its what I use!

>>4376804
Don't knock solar power. Eventually we will need solar power... for when we exhaust the resources of the planet, and we need more energy than the Earth can provide. Solar Energy will be our eventual final source of power, unless they can ever get fusion working (I seriously doubt it will happen before I am old and have grandkids talking about what I did in the Navy)

>>4376821
You mean this?
http://www.militarymanual.com/military_construction_engineering/doe-handbook-catalog/department-of-e
nergy-doe-handbooks-library.html

>>4376782
I would first start with some of the video lecture the by the guy how founded Energy From Thorium . In particular these two first.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3rL08J7fDA
then
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8
Also you might want to check out the document repository on engergfromthorium.com they have free copies in pdf of thise book "Fluid Fuel Reactors". It is the bible of fluid reactor design therory and operational. They also have copies of the reports detailing the experiments that were performed on the is experimental reactor and the findings from them.
To be honest a lot of what I know is from school but don't let the prevent you from doing some research on your own. I did that too. There a ton of stuff online about nucelar engineering.

>>4376836
those are the fuckers, but let me tell you. They are dry. They are meant to be referred to for problem solving and training, and not casual reading in any way.

>>4376847
Sweet my library has a copy of that book, I'll pick it up on Tuesday. ty kind anon.

>>4376821
>thorium
>run out any time soon
I can't remember where, but someone calculated that there's enough on Earth alone to power the entire planet for tens of thousands of years or something like that. I'm not sure if it took into account increase power consumption, but regardless, it'll last a fucking long time. By the time we would be at risk of running out, we'll be able to get more from other planets/asteroids. Solar in its current state is basically worthless. In the far future, when were capable of building Dyson Spheres, solar will be viable.

>>4376859
> can't remember where, but someone calculated that there's enough on Earth alone to power the entire planet for tens of thousands of years or something like that.
That's largely because much of the earth's terrestrial heat is from decaying thorium.

>>4376862
which would make for a good Greenie argument, eh?

>>4376866
Not really. Using the same logic you could say that the sun is bad.

>>4376873
Greenies wouldn't say that, would they?

>>4376821
Sorry I don't mean to disrespect other people's opinions especially people like you that actually took the time to imform themselves instead just being ignorant like most people these days.
I am simply knocking solar for two reasons. First it fails every measure of envirormental neutrality and sustainability. To replace just one of the nuclear units of the nucelar power plant I mentioned above it was calculated by some of the engineers I worked with at Duke Energy to cost around 157 billion dollars and take up the amount of land equivalent in size to the county that the reactor was located in, Meckenburg North Carolina. That is just not practical. Plus solar photovoltaic cells have a short lifespan. They will only last 25 years but they lose their ability to produce power quickly. The same egineers also told me that in 5 years they would be unsuitable for base loading and would have to be replaced.
Plus with all the aviable fissile and fertile nuclear material we have it would take us billions of years to use it all.
Also you can not vary the output of solar panels. From a electrical engineering stand point these is awful.
Solar is great for small scale but that is about it.

>>4376859
>Solar in its current state is basically worthless. In the far future, when were capable of building Dyson Spheres, solar will be viable.

It doesn't take a fucking Dyson sphere to make solar energy viable. Moderately competent space-based industry for producing and recycling the panels is all that's required. Even if this industry were very slow to develop, ten thousand years is a long time.

>>4376910
It's simply not worth it when we can use LFTRs. The amount of power production isn't even comparable.

>>4376904
Solar voltaics are a fucking dumb thing for mass scales, all the ultra-large setups are solar steam/super hot liquid metal setups, using mirrors to drive heat to a liquid, which drives turbines you know the drill. This can pretty much serve as base load, but the problem with this setup is that its land consuming (and potentially water consuming for the condensors) but it does have the ability to scale up absurdly high and it has been proven.

I'm still an orbital solar fan, just for the idea of getting Earth off of Carbon, so we can let the planet restore itself while we work on carbon capture technologies to help return the planet to some sort of ideal state.

>>4376927
>orbital solar fan
Easier then that.
Stratosolar: floating solar panels sitting pretty right above the tropopause, with double efficiency and channeling electricity right through cables instead of dissipating beams without any weather or wind to worry about, and longer days for it's height as well.

Only thing is the company behind it still hasn't released much anything besides two proof of concept vids.

>>4376935
You can't possibly think that's a good idea. Why is everyone so obsessed with solar power?

>>4376910
>>4376917
I think we're talking about different time scales and capacity scales. I was talking about the extreme long view for a very energy demanding civilization capturing a significant portion of solar radiation (maybe around 5 times what strikes the Earth).

>>4376939
Because photovoltaic power is as automated and low-maintenance as you can get.

It's making physics do the work for you.

>>4376943
No. Please read the thread. It's already been said many times why solar simply isn't viable.

>>4376942
I said at that point we can use Dyson Spheres.

>>4376927
>>4376935
Once again, no disrespect. But The problem with solar thermal farms is that that they need to opperate in very hot climates not just those that are sunny. The reason for this is the salt/metal mixture will freeze if it gets to cold and damage the device. In fact just about all of the solar thermal farms in the desert in the Western United States rely on natural gas to keep the working fulid liquid at night when it gets cold at night. Most greenies would hate to hear this simple fact.
Also the technical issues with flying solar pannels and orbital solar pannels are monumental in comparison with the issues facing nuclear. We could much more easily develope the LFTR and produce it on a large scale in a much shorter time frame. We needed this yesterday but we have not even started research up on it yet. Anything that does not have a timeframe of less the 20 years might be too late. Just saying.

>>4376977
>We needed this yesterday but we have not even started research up on it yet.
China has. I hope you're all ready to do some groveling at Chinese feet.

>>4376982
China has pledged to do it but I am skeptical. Right now they import there nucelar power plants from other countries such as Cannada, The United States, and France. Hopefully someone will get this done. I just hope it is the United States since we orginally started it.

>>4376995
>USA
>doing anything useful
I wouldn't hold your breath. Anyway, this isn't the time for nationalism. I don't give a shit who does it, as long as it gets done.

>>4376998
>I don't give a shit who does it, as long as it gets done.
I share your sentiment whole-heartedly.

>>4376998
I completely understand that. This is too important to wait for America to get off it ass. I was just hoping it would be done in the US so there is at least a chance of me getting a job working on it.

>>4377006
You could always move to China. Abandoning the sinking ship that is America wouldn't be a bad idea anyway. No offence.

>>4377011
I am afriad that they may not take me. I have the credentials and resume for it but I don'y speak chinese. Plus they might be suspecious of a someone from the west. They might think I am a spy or some shit. Plus the culture shock might be too much for me. I would stick out like a sore thumb. I have reddish blonde hair with blue/green eyes and I am pale as shit. That is not exactly fitting in. But if were given the change to work on a LFTR project backed by the entire People's Republic of China I would take it in a heart beat.