Thorium Reactors v. Green Hippie shit GO!

File: 19 KB, 352x345, 1300001135475.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:20:50 2011 No.3029544 [Reply] [Original]

Thorium Reactors v. Green Hippie shit GO!

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 03:26:50 2011 No.3029557 File: 67 KB, 750x600, 1264335536564.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Thorium is fucking brilliant until we have the necessary infrastructure to make space-based solar power economically viable. Bring on the Thorium revolution!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:28:50 2011 No.3029563 I am not familiar with thorium reactors, someone explain it in 1 sentence.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:28:50 2011 No.3029564 >>3029557 here here! or until cold fusion finishes up!

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:29:50 2011 No.3029567

Weapons-grade fissionable material (233U) is harder to retrieve safely and clandestinely from a thorium reactor;
Thorium produces 10 to 10,000 times less long-lived radioactive waste;
Thorium comes out of the ground as a 100% pure, usable isotope, which does not require enrichment, whereas natural uranium contains only 0.7% fissionable U-235;
Thorium cannot sustain a nuclear chain reaction without priming,[29] so fission stops by default.

Yeah, ok, Thorium wins this one.

Though I'd like to see a mix of both. Why not go with 2 good things instead of 1?

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 03:31:50 2011 No.3029573 it's all about education. at least something simple to get through how great thorium reactors are. pretty much all the claimed disadvantages to nuclear power are misconceptions, biases, or stuff that irrelevant in a thorium energy system

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 03:32:50 2011 No.3029577
File: 21 KB, 400x267, its-full-of-stars.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3029563
It is a different nuclear fuel that is hundreds of times more abundant than uranium, when you mine it you don't need to process it like Uranium to get the 0.2% of the actually usable fissile Uranium, and it creats 10 to 10000 times less nuclear waste, along with the fact that they're much smaller than uranium reactors, they don't require large amounts of water, you can hold the amount of Thorium you'd need to power your life in the palm of your hand, and you cannot create nuclear missiles out of it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 03:32:50 2011 No.3029579 >>3029563 not possible. just watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk and don't say TL;DW

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:33:50 2011 No.3029583

>>3029563

The waste they produce doesn't stay radioactive for 100,000 years and they can be built such that it is physically impossible for them to undergo meltdown.

Oh, and we knew how to build them 50 years ago but the industry passed on the concept since you can't make bombs with them.

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 03:35:50 2011 No.3029589

>>3029583
and they're kind of difficult to get going in the modern industry since modern nuclear power has a massive infrastructure around fuel fabrication.
also the NRC are kind of assholes about everything. it's like if a greenpeace movement ten times more stingy about nuclear power was the actual government body IN CHARGE of nuclear power

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:36:50 2011 No.3029591

My new tool to down-battle hippies:

Mad hippie: "Down with nuclear power! Down with nuclear power"

Me: "Yeah, down with Uranium, up with Thorium!"

Mad hippie: "...Thorium?"

Me: "Psh, you don't know about Thorium reactors? Get the fuck out and study!"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:36:50 2011 No.3029594 >>3029577 What's the catch?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:38:50 2011 No.3029598 >>3029579 That video doesn't really do LIFTR (or any other thorium molten salt reactor design) any justice I suggest you watch the whole vid http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AZR0UKxNPh8

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 03:39:50 2011 No.3029599 File: 12 KB, 202x208, sagan.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3029594 There. Is. NONE.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:39:50 2011 No.3029600 >>3029594 The catch is that you have to fight the established industry and public ignorance to get one running. Both are all but impossible tasks.

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:39:50 2011 No.3029601

>>3029594
The catch is that there's no incentive for anyone in power to create them.

They are basically useless for weapons production meaning governments don't care, and they are too cheap and easy to refuel for the manufacturers to profit from long term contracts meaning they'd rather build the current models for $$$.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:39:50 2011 No.3029602 >>3029594 There is no catch. This is a technology, not a sales pitch.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:39:50 2011 No.3029604 File: 13 KB, 223x223, nuclear no thanks.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Someone needs to make one saying "Thorium Reactors? Yes please!"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:40:50 2011 No.3029605 TIDAL HARVEST THE ORBITAL ENERGY OF THE MOON

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:42:50 2011 No.3029612 >>3029604 >that pic the irony

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 03:44:50 2011 No.3029616 >>3029594 uh.... i've actually been looking for one. well, it's still kind of on the drawing board, at least the continuous thorium breeding part is. the fluorinated uranium worked flawlessly in the MSRE. it's....uh.....got metal?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:44:50 2011 No.3029617 >>3029604 Is the irony in that image intentional or not?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:44:50 2011 No.3029618 >>3029605 the moon is already slowing the earths rotation down, harvesting tidal would accelerate that process also >dat eco-system destruction

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:45:50 2011 No.3029621 >>3029618 EXACTLY

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 03:47:50 2011 No.3029623 File: 25 KB, 281x291, albert-einstein.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] /sci/, email your congressman about the benefits of Thorium.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:47:50 2011 No.3029626 >>3029617 Nope, which makes it even more hilarious.

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:50:50 2011 No.3029633

>>3029601
>They are basically useless for weapons production meaning governments don't care, and they are too cheap and easy to refuel for the manufacturers to profit from long term contracts meaning they'd rather build the current models for $$$.

Seems like a prime target for internet activism. We just need a couple of nuclear experts and a reasonable number of people online willing to buy into a company tasked with developing a working model. Any takers?

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:51:50 2011 No.3029638
File: 153 KB, 400x450, exterminate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Starting up thorium power is only the first step.

The people responsible for pushing dangerous high-pressure uranium/plutonium technologies on civilians must also be made to answer for their crimes against humanity.

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:51:50 2011 No.3029640

>>3029623
>implying that does anything

the only political group in the US who was actually interested in Thorium was the McCain group, too bad they didn't get elected and lost to a liberal hippie who spent the last few years looking for a cave dwelling sand nigger to boost his ratings rather then actually trying to solve some of the bigger issues faced by the world

Islamic extremists should not take priority over securing the long term energy survival of the planet

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:52:50 2011 No.3029641 Both, though I know hydro-electric power works, you might want to get a commercially viable thorium reactor up and running first.

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:54:50 2011 No.3029650

There are several catches. they haven't really perfected the tech yet and good luck getting the first Thorium reactor approved for construction in the U.S. The Fed govt should be getting to you with that site construction approval right around the next ice age.

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:57:50 2011 No.3029657

>>3029633
Actually I am actually researching the legal issues of doing it in my country right now

And I am currently studying physics while also doing a few engineering papers, surprisingly in the 2 hours that the paper I am doing was talking about fission power, Thorium wasn't even mentioned once

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:57:50 2011 No.3029658 >>3029650 They perfected the tech about 50 years ago. We literally could have been building these for decades.

Anonymous Tue May 10 03:58:50 2011 No.3029662

You fuckers wanna know the catch to thorium reactors? Here's the catch to thorium reactors:
They are, by definition, breeder reactors. Breeder reactors essentially process fuel as they burn it, which is great in terms of reducing infrastructure and all. But this breeding cycle is a dual-use technology - it could be used to breed weapons-grade nuclear fuels, such as U-233 in the case of thorium breeders, and Pu-239 in U-238 FBRs. It was for this reason that Carter banned FBRs back in the '70s (a ban which has since been lifted); it's an issue of potential WMD proliferation. This is the single biggest reason the subject has remained taboo.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 03:58:50 2011 No.3029667 >>3029650 Why does it always have to in the US? We are one species and this is one planet. And France just ejaculates nuclear power. How would France react to attempts to build a Thorium reactor?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:01:50 2011 No.3029673 >>3029658 Right of course the human race ROUTINELY throws perfectly functional technologies that have been perfected and could solve all energy problems in the garbage. I totally believe it.

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:01:50 2011 No.3029674

>>3029662
>U-233 ... and Pu-239

Aren't they nuclear fuels in their own right? I understand that the majority of fissile nuclear fuel currently used is derived from spent nuclear weapons, this would just cut out the need for building the nuclear weapons in generating fissile fuel.

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:01:50 2011 No.3029675
File: 593 KB, 3000x1000, LFTR_2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3029633
i'm building one in my backyard, partially because it seems like a fantastic way to set my electic bill to zero, because i can, because it's a challenge, and because it will probably go viral as shit and put LFTR on the fast track

speaking of which, any chemical engineers here? i got some questions

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:01:50 2011 No.3029676 >>3029662 >U233 >weapons grade lolwut Also good luck getting all the trace 232 out of it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:02:50 2011 No.3029678 >>3029662 Also, while we're on the subject, Fast-breeder reactor > thorium reactor

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:03:50 2011 No.3029683 >>3029675 You want funding?

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:03:50 2011 No.3029684 >>3029638 actual modern gen III reactors are pretty damn safe on their own. this is just the next step

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:03:50 2011 No.3029686 >>3029640 >doesnt realize that McCain's proposals involved massive subsidies >calls other people liberals lol...you dont even know what a simple word means, you are nobody to be saying anything to anybody about any topic at all. Go to the library.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:03:50 2011 No.3029689 >>3029662 Yea but WE already HAVE nukes. So who cares if they give us the ability to make nukes!?!? Fuckin Carter.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:04:50 2011 No.3029692 >>3029678 >FB I hope you like burying transuranics for half a million years.

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:06:50 2011 No.3029699

>>3029662
>u233
>for bombs
niggah you trippin
the U232 in there has a lot of nasty decay products. if you try to make a core out of the stuff, your bomb will be bleeding gamma like a woman on her period. you'll be easily detectable by BIRDS rather than actual geiger counters

also, those same hard gamma rays will induce random little currents in your electronics. you run the risk of the bomb basically arming itself or fissling.

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:07:50 2011 No.3029706

>>3029683
not before i have a legit design and know EXACTLY how EVERYTHING will function beforehand.

this stuff is safe, but not quite weekend warrior safe

but i'd love to fit the entire thing in a shipping container, i think i could pull it off (with the core and drains tanks underground of course)

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:08:50 2011 No.3029709

>>3029662
>it could be used to breed weapons-grade nuclear fuels, such as U-233

do you have any idea how difficult and dangerous extracting U233 from a thorium reactor is?

While U233 is a fissile isotope its VERY short half life (~22min IIRC) makes it very unsuitable for weapons, as you would have to separate it then detonate the weapon within about 10 minutes to even be remotely effective, and good luck with that, the intense radiation of U233 pre-detonates explosives (in a nuke all the explosives need to be detonated at the EXACT same time, detonating at one end makes it not initiate a chain reaction), ruins electronics, and generally delivers a fatal dose to anyone who handles even a small amount of it

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:08:50 2011 No.3029712

>>3029674
Yes. Unlike U-238 and Th-232, they are actually fissile. By breeding U-238 and Th-232 into Pu-239 and U-233 respectively, you can PRODUCE burnable fuels from relatively abundant non-fissile heavy elements, and then use them to fuel your reactor (or siphon some off for your country's secret nuclear weapons program). It's worth noting that, while Th-232 is easier to breed into U-233 than U-238 is to breed into Pu-239, U-238 is more abundant and more potent after being bred into fissile plutonium. Of course, the complication of producing the fast neutrons to breed U-238 brings it's own engineering challenges, and Pu-239 is rather more likely to be used in a successful WMD than U-233 (although they both have the potential for it).

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:09:50 2011 No.3029716 >>3029709 my bad, its 160,000 years but compared to U235 its still very dangerous and useless for a weapon

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:12:50 2011 No.3029724

>>3029716
and i'm going to be fluorinating it.
time to make some remote fuel fabrication robots!

actually if would be fantastic if ORNL could synthesize some and send it to me (or i could road trip for it) already mixed with the carrier salt. you only need .16% U233F4 in your salt mixture for criticality if you moderate it enough

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:13:50 2011 No.3029726 >>3029706 Hey! Do you have AIM or MSN? I wanna talk to you and learn from you.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:14:50 2011 No.3029729 >>3029712 >siphon off U233 for nuclear weapons program >u232 trace contaminant sets off your bomb in storage Frankly I think it would be hilarious if someone tried.

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:14:50 2011 No.3029732

>>3029675
Nice, what country you live in?

I live in New Zealand, and while we are considered anti-nuclear we haven't actually banned nuclear power (just nuclear powered ships and nuclear weapons). But the law is kinda vague about who can do it so I need to be sure that what I am doing (building a small nuclear reactor in my garage) is actually legal

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:19:50 2011 No.3029741 >>3029724 perhaps you could build a fusor to transmute the Th to U? not sure what kind of energies the neutrons would require though or if the fusor could actually produce enough

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:20:50 2011 No.3029745

>>3029726
bad idea, i'm still learning as i go along. i'm still not quite sure what the chemical reaction process for the uranium hexafluoride -> uranium tetrafluoride is. vacuum distillation will get the waste out of the carrier salt though......soon as i figure out how to build a stable continuous vacuum distiller.

>>3029729
that would be pretty god damn hilarious, but tragic if it was a legit country like france or something
Iran?
>experts are baffled about a sudden low yield nuclear explosion within the industrial district of Tehran, near their new and highly publicized LFTR reactor
>"oh wow, they actually tried it"

>>3029732
US of A baby. mississippi to be exact. The NRC will be a very interesting ally/adversary in all this

>>3029741
if i really wanted to breed my own (which i believe is more illegal than actually owning it) i'd just make a ghetto neutron gun from some radium, aluminum foil, and a lead pipe. it would take a while though.

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:23:50 2011 No.3029750

>>3029745
Woah now, I'm smart too! I'm sure we can learn together.
And our states are right next to each other! At least alphabetically.

Anyways, I want to at least be able to talk to you if you do figure it out. I wouldn't mind putting on in my car and never paying for gas again.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:23:50 2011 No.3029754 >>3029750 *putting one

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:26:50 2011 No.3029761

>>3029750
>>3029754
car's waaaay too small bro. the core would probably take up the front two seats

better idea; get a pure EV car with a gas power trailer for long trips. power your house with a LFTR. no more electricity bills or gas price worries

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:27:50 2011 No.3029766 File: 642 KB, 3000x1000, LFTR_cores.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] actually shit, i'm still not sure about how to handle the core geometry. confound my lack of necessary equations and modeling software

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:28:50 2011 No.3029770

Biggest technical disadvantage of LFTR that I can think of is the fluorine. If you leave the fluoride salts sitting around in solid form for decades they tend to produce elemental fluorine, and if you add water they tend to produce hydrofluoric acid. Nasty stuff, but entirely containable. HF is used in the production of CPUs, for fucks sake.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:29:50 2011 No.3029773 >>3029750 >>3029754 >>3029761 Surely you could do what people with solar panels do now and hook it up to the grid? Or would you not want to publicize your possession of ghetto nuclear reactor?

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:29:50 2011 No.3029774 >>3029770 the MSRE actually had that problem. the cleanup operation was rather costly since they didn't realize the salts would destabilize over time. i think it's been like $130 million to dispose of it all, yikes!

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:31:50 2011 No.3029780

>>3029773
i suppose.
i'd actually be gimping the reactor hard so i don't brown out my damn house. If i wanted to i could hook up to the grind and possibly output 10 megawatts (35,000 homes worth) and 10 megawatts is pretty tiny. wonder if the electric company will give me much of a bonus for it...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:31:50 2011 No.3029781 >>3029773 Of course not. It'd be nice to go on a long roadtrip and impress my friends by never stopping to get gas. Ever.

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:31:50 2011 No.3029783

>>3029770
and frosted lightbulbs

>>3029761
you could use the reactor to power a synthetic fuel setup (removing atmospheric CO2 and reforming it into a burnable hydrocarbon), so that way you don't have to buy expensive batteries which actually damage the environment more then what they help through the processing of the component materials

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:32:50 2011 No.3029784 >>3029732 Careful man. Remember what happened to that guy who built a cruise missile in his garage?

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:33:50 2011 No.3029788 >>3029783 i'm not really too butthurt about the environmental damage, it's just free power to make my car go vroom around town. also, you're thinking of DME, which is a fuck ton of steps to produce sadly

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:33:50 2011 No.3029791 >>3029780 >10 megawatts is pretty tiny I'm pretty certain that exceeds the output of a hundred solar panels.

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:35:50 2011 No.3029800 >>3029791 for a LFTR its tiny. 12 foot long 6 foot in diameter cylindrical core can power a fucking GIGAWATT, a thousand megawatts. 10mw doesn't seem farfetched here given the size difference

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:35:50 2011 No.3029801

>>3029783
>you could use the reactor to power a synthetic fuel setup (removing atmospheric CO2 and reforming it into a burnable hydrocarbon)

Is such an industrial process established? I thought people often talked about hydrolysis of water to store, for example, solar energy.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:36:50 2011 No.3029807 >>3029784 Yep, a GPS (he actually used a NavMan or something like that) guided pulse jet powered cruise missile as far as I am aware the guy who built it only live about an hours drive from my house, but his exact address is unknown

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:39:50 2011 No.3029816

>>3029780

The electric company is required by law to pay you for any excess you produce at their going rate.

So if they're selling to you at 16 cents/KWh then 10MW of output means they'd have to pay you $1600 per hour.

Obviously this isn't going to fly. Least of which is because it will ruffle the feathers of men far more powerful than you, but practically your local part of the grid will not be able to handle the excess without necessary infrastructure being put in place.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:40:50 2011 No.3029819 >>3029801 You be talking about algal fuel.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:40:50 2011 No.3029821 >>3029801 It can be done, its just not economically viable due to the high energy requirements (although they are slowly getting the efficiency of the process up), which wouldn't be a concern to a person who owned a working nuclear reactor

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:42:50 2011 No.3029826
File: 16 KB, 470x336, 1259131915489.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3029816
>So if they're selling to you at 16 cents/KWh then 10MW of output means they'd have to pay you $1600 per hour.

my face

Also you could setup an off-grid community with a single reactor (if it works). The technocracy is one step closer guys.

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:42:50 2011 No.3029827 >>3029816 feathers will indeed be rustled i'd probably get a few inspectors at my door going "what in the sam hell do you have running back there?" i'll have a camera take a shot of their faces when i say "a nuclear reactor"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:43:50 2011 No.3029832 >>3029819 they can also break apart CO2 into CO and combine with H2 (this is known as SynGas), from there it can undergo a few processes involving high temperatures and pressures and what comes out is whatever basic hydrocarbon you want

Anonymous Tue May 10 04:44:50 2011 No.3029839

>>3029801

I know there's a process that involves cracking water for H and combining it with CO2 to make dimethyl ether.

Nobody does it because it requires a lot of energy. First we need to solve the problem of not having enough cheap, abundant energy. Then this would work great.

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 04:45:50 2011 No.3029843

i'm seriously considering making a blogspot for the project

but on that same token, i'm curious of additional attention could be bad. i would stay within legal limits AT ALL TIMES, but the nrc might pull a fast one. i need an expert in nuclear law

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:46:50 2011 No.3029846 >>3029843 Do it. Or maybe have a /sci/ blog.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:48:50 2011 No.3029856 >>3029843 Dude, post a fucking blog. Don't advertise it anywhere but in this thread tonight. Allow it to spread only with word of mouth from us in this thread. Anyone else would ruin it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:51:50 2011 No.3029864 >>3029843 "pull a fast one" would be an understatement of what will happen to you. You're American, which means you don't actually have a right to due process. You folks lost that in 2001.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:54:50 2011 No.3029875 >>3029864 Yep, Americans do something even REMOTELY suspicious and its off to G-Bay for you! No trial No rights No phone calls

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 04:54:50 2011 No.3029876 File: 41 KB, 533x534, theyshouldvesentapoetIhadnoidea.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3029843 Godspeed fellow citizen.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 04:58:50 2011 No.3029889 >>3029875 Doing shit with nuclear materials goes far beyond "remotely". They're going to show up at his door, and if he tries to rub their noses in it like he's been alluding to, nobody's ever going to see him again.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 05:01:50 2011 No.3029904 the legal limit for conducting nuclear experiments in your backyard is zero. Your ass will be hauled to jail faster than you can say "it works". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 05:02:50 2011 No.3029912 >>3029889 >rub their noses in it oh no, that would be for the power company inspectors also, the NRC operates pretty legit-ly. And i plan to keep up extensive dialogues with them to reiterate that i'm not doing anything illicit

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 05:03:50 2011 No.3029914 Yeah, i'd imagine any type of backyard nuclear energy is going to get shot down right away. This thread is prolly being monitored right now anyways lol.

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 05:04:50 2011 No.3029922 >>3029904 his only real arrest was for stealing smoke detectors. not a good idea in any right

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 05:06:50 2011 No.3029934 File: 11 KB, 321x263, 1267794832826.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3029904 >After dropping out of community college, Hahn joined the Navy, assigned to the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS Enterprise

>>	Deerp Thought !3PmlUNUKEM Tue May 10 05:08:50 2011 No.3029938 >>3029912 >NRC The NRC have cockblocked everyone trying to license new reactor types for the last 20 years. The nuclear regulations in the US is fascist grade and probably infiltrated by crazy enviromentalists to the deepest levels.

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 05:10:50 2011 No.3029948 >>3029914 >in b4 >iammonitoringthisthread.jpg

Anonymous Tue May 10 05:13:50 2011 No.3029952

All this talk of being thrown in jail makes me want to just wait until I have sufficient knowledge then just move to a country which is actually researching Thorium and work there rather then risk getting thrown in jail or your every move watched like Bruce Simpson (the guy who built the cruise missile in his shed)

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 05:14:50 2011 No.3029959 The Nuclear Boy Scout http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8HTm_qhSBo&feature=related

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 05:15:50 2011 No.3029961 File: 33 KB, 400x330, 6815-1272476069.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3029948 >pic related

>>	Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 05:20:50 2011 No.3029971 >>3029959 ...tried to make plutonium in his back yard. plutonium. wat.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 05:36:50 2011 No.3030001 Bump for awesome thread. Nuca-Cola, when is that blog gonna be up?

Nuca-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 05:56:50 2011 No.3030062

>>3030001
no idea, probably not for a week or two. i want to make a few more calls to the NRC and ORNL. i'm gunna ask if teaming up with a university might speed up the timescale from 30 years to 3 years. university team up means they could also fabricate the fancy parts and send them to me.

i'd gladly test whatever they wished to in return. i'm already planning out an Arudrino powered sensor and safety system for the thing. lots of relays and shit

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 05:58:50 2011 No.3030068 File: 22 KB, 400x324, 1304572254676.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3030062 Good luck, I really hope you succeed in this endeavour

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 06:07:50 2011 No.3030088 >>3030062 only just realized my name is fucked up. it's nuka-cola, not nuca cola. also taking suggestions for better names. this one if kind of eugh

Anonymous Tue May 10 06:12:50 2011 No.3030103

>>3029557

What exactly is the advantage of space-based solar power over Earth-based solar power? It is ridiculously more expensive and any efficiency gains would probably be more than nullified by beaming the power down.

As for thorium power, thats some shit. It could power our civilization for thousands of years. Look up liquid fuel thorium reactors. Basically, even if oil runs out and fusion proves to be impractical, our energy needs are still safe.

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 06:18:50 2011 No.3030118 >>3030103 >Look up liquid fuel thorium reactors looks like someone missed most of this thread

Anonymous Tue May 10 06:48:50 2011 No.3030200

>>3030088
Arco was the first town serviced by electricity from a nuclear power plant. Thorium reactor experiments were done at Oak Ridge. Kamini, Cirus, Dhruva, Kaps, and Raps are some of the names of currently-running Indian thorium projects (all are acronyms, but I'm assuming you didn't want an all-cap name).

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 06:59:50 2011 No.3030226 >>3029557 Space-based solar power is a ridiculous idea, the losses through the 200mile power cords would be immense

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 06:59:50 2011 No.3030227 >>3030062 >>3030200 >>3029952 http://french-news-online.com/wordpress/?p=5381 Apparently China is the place to go for implementations, and France for research.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 07:01:50 2011 No.3030230 >>3030226 power cord wut? I believe proponents of this idea desire a diffuse microwave beam to transmit power to the ground.

Anonymous Tue May 10 07:22:50 2011 No.3030299
File: 63 KB, 504x439, Levelized_energy_cost_2011_Report1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Practically zero commercial interest when uranium infrastructure already exists and designs are proven.

Chemically processing inert spent fuel rods is one thing, processing fresh out of the reactor 800 degree liquid fuel is another kettle of fish.

Basically just academic interest and "look how safe nuclear COULD be!".

Nuclear ain't even that cheap per MWh delivered, about the only advantage it has over rapidly advancing renewable is providing baseload power without pumped storage, grid upgrades or more exotic technology.

EK FAN CLUB Tue May 10 07:27:50 2011 No.3030304

>>3030299
>Practically zero commercial interest when uranium infrastructure already exists and designs are proven.
>designs are proven

Have there not been a handful of incidents which would call this into question?

I know there are more modern designs than Fukushima (which was a 60s design if I'm not mistaken) but the fact that they are modern means they are NOT proven because they haven't been implemented yet.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 07:33:50 2011 No.3030309 File: 30 KB, 292x300, AP600PassiveContainment.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3030304 Gen III+ reactors like the AP1000 have passive cooling that should last 72 hours without external aid.

>>	EK FAN CLUB Tue May 10 07:36:50 2011 No.3030320 >>3030309 Not being very knowledgable about nuclear energy, the only argument I can make is to the abundance of thorium fuel, and that it can produce fuel for other processes. I believe LFTRs are also more scalable.

Anonymous Tue May 10 07:54:50 2011 No.3030357

>>3030299
So, thorium power is cheaper, safer, more efficient and more abundant than uranium. Nuclear in general also has a vastly smaller physical footprint than anything renewable. Smaller environmental footprint too in many cases. And you say theres only academic interest?

Ok then.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 08:05:50 2011 No.3030369 >>3030357 You underestimate how ignorant people are

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 08:17:50 2011 No.3030398
File: 14 KB, 476x373, 1282038056020.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3030226
>>3030103
Earth-based solar has a few major pitfalls:
Baseload power: For about 12 hours, no sunlight. Batteries to store excess energy are impractical.
Weather: Clouds fuck your shit up, yo
Location: It would be nice if everywhere got the same energy as the Sahara. Unfortunately most of civilization seems to be located around the 40 degree latitude mark.

With space-based solar, the benefits are grand. Since there is no atmosphere, the panels receive 4 to 10 times more power than Earth-based ones do. No weather either. Since the panels are in geosynchronous orbit they stay direct sunlight 99% of the time.
And the transmission of electricity to the surface can be done with microwaves that interact with the atmosphere very little, making the efficiency losses about 2%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

The reason why you live, the reason why we have oil and coal, the reason why Earth doesn't have a frozen landscape covered by frozen nitrogen and carbon dioxide over rock-hard ice fields encompassing the planet, is because of our sun. Our sun that is also 150,000,000 kilometers away. The yellow dwarf that is literally dwarfed by the supergiants we have discovered.

Don't even try to say space-based solar isn't the main power source of the future.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 08:17:50 2011 No.3030399 some reasons for thorium being neglected: 1. very cheap fossil fuels, who cares we have fossil Chernobyl every week? 2. cheap uranium reactors and technology already in wide use 3. anti-nuclear craziness 4. hard to make weapons from

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 08:21:50 2011 No.3030402

>>3030399
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium#Thorium_energy_fuel_cycle

Thorium can be and has been used to power nuclear energy plants using both the modified traditional Generation III reactor design and prototype Generation IV reactor designs. The use of thorium as an alternative fuel is one innovation being explored by the International Project on Innovative Nuclear Reactors and Fuel Cycles (INPRO),[37] conducted by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 08:26:50 2011 No.3030409 >>3030398 The two longest lasting and most reliable power sources are nuclear and solar.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 08:27:50 2011 No.3030416
File: 19 KB, 285x243, 1286326894346.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3030409
And of course geothermal where applicable and fusion, but fusion is just doing what the sun does artificially and geothermal is just utilizing nature's fission.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 08:29:50 2011 No.3030421 >>3030398 >Don't even try to say space-based solar isn't the main power source of the future. The power source of the far future. The power source of the immediate future is nuclear.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 08:34:50 2011 No.3030435
File: 115 KB, 600x600, 1261464451596.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3030421
>The power source of the far future.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-11128_3-10408897-54.html
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article4799369.ece
http://techland.time.com/2011/04/06/spacexs-falcon-heavy-most-powerful-private-rocket-ever/
http://www.universetoday.com/73536/nasa-considering-rail-gun-launch-system-to-the-stars/

Possible main sources of power
Thorium - 2011 -> 2040
Space-based solar - 2035 - xxxxxxxx AD

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 08:39:50 2011 No.3030449 Would Thorium Reactors have prevented the Fukushima apocalypse?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 08:43:50 2011 No.3030469 I think that maybe the elite are scared that once breeding reactors start to become mainstream some sandniggers will get a hold of one and blow the shit out of the usa and israel

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 08:44:50 2011 No.3030473 >>3030449 They cannot have a meltdown.

Anonymous Tue May 10 08:48:50 2011 No.3030489
File: 10 KB, 191x196, wikiwhore.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3030435
Stop being overly optimistic and diverting research funding towards white elephants. Ignorant fucks like you are holding science back.

Most advances are due to 100s of boring tiny technical details which you will never understand, not amusing science fiction ponderings.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 08:49:50 2011 No.3030493 >>3030435 IF you think we could realistically build solar collecting infrastructure AND a 200km^2 colecting area for microwave energy then you need to get your head looked at.

>>	Care to ACTUALLY make an argument? Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 08:50:50 2011 No.3030496 File: 120 KB, 306x280, feecharmicel.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3030489 Nice to see a thought-out comment that isn't just a ad hominem. Oh wait

Anonymous Tue May 10 08:53:50 2011 No.3030514

>>3030299
>processing fresh out of the reactor 800 degree liquid fuel is another kettle of fish

You're trying to make it sound negative when it really isn't. It's not like anything vulnerable to the heat is going to be exposed to it. Also processing has to be done in a liquid phase, even for the solid fuel. The fact that it's already liquid makes that easier.

>>3030309

That still would not have been good enough.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 08:55:50 2011 No.3030519

>>3030493
Now? No. Within the next 50 years? Most probably.
We need to be able to deploy robots on an asteroid, have them set up infrastructure for mining and refining of metals and so forth, and then have them pump out lightweight solar panels and microwave transmitting dishes. I believe the manned mission to an asteroid that will take place in 2025 has the intention of prospecting the rock. The AI required for such an operation is either possible now or will be within the decade. If a small plasma arc waste disposal unit was shipped up and modified for asteroid regolith, the shit could be up and running relatively easily.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 08:56:50 2011 No.3030527 >>3030519 Then what? build a shittonne of solar panels and 'beam' the energy to earth or use batteries or a cable?

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 08:59:50 2011 No.3030532 File: 334 KB, 450x398, mordin%20solus[1].png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3030527 Beam. Could use microwave or infrared laser. Don't personally know. Looks good on paper, needs to have real world tests.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 09:00:50 2011 No.3030534 >>3030527 Microwaves pal. Are you even paying attention? Here I'll make it easy for you: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 09:01:50 2011 No.3030536 >>3030532 I am the very model of a 4chan scientarian~ I deal with faggotry and pursue arguments contrarian~

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 09:02:50 2011 No.3030544 >>3030534 Yeah like I said, you need about 200 square kilometers to collect it all Just so you know thats a fucktonne of infrastructure for power generation

Anonymous Tue May 10 09:03:10 2011 No.3030549 [DELETED]

>>3030496
>>3030519
>hurr durr giant lazers and robots by 2025
You just directly reinforced my "ad hominem" a few minutes after accusing me of lying.

There are serious problems with how you think, you do indeed concentrate on all this amusing popsci stuff without addressing the technical details like I said. Your first challenge is to admit you are wrong and shed your bullshit.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 09:03:50 2011 No.3030547 >>3030536 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-HgVM6JSIY

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 09:05:50 2011 No.3030551 >>3030544 You make it sound as if it's going to be in one area. Improved technology and spreading it over hundreds of sites eliminate this problem.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 09:05:50 2011 No.3030552 >>3030549 >2025 You can't even get your facts straight when you're trying to get your facts straight.

Anonymous Tue May 10 09:13:50 2011 No.3030564

>>3030496
No, it's a logical inference based on facts, such as this...
>>3030519
I am stating now, directly in front of your face, your whole popsci approach to colonizing space is unproductive. Unless you are willing to meticulously study the technical details you won't accomplish anything.

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 09:18:50 2011 No.3030571
File: 57 KB, 646x536, 3333333.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3030564
>Unless you are willing to meticulously study the technical details you won't accomplish anything.
I intend to complete masters degrees in both astrophysics and aerospace engineering. I'd probably pick planetary engineering if it existed and if I could do anything with it right now.

Anonymous Tue May 10 09:22:50 2011 No.3030582

>>3030399
>>3030357
Commercial reactor designers don't really care about something that is at least 15 years away (sure the science is there but the engineering needs work) from being commercial reality unless a shitload of government funding is dumped on them.

And generally Gen 3+ is considered "safe enough" and uranium "cheap enough". Companies are run to benefit shareholders, not advance humanity.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 09:30:50 2011 No.3030606 Does anyone else see the flaw in the logic of "collect the sun outside Earth, beam it back into Earth"? Why not just let it come naturally? Fucking idiots.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 09:36:50 2011 No.3030631 fuck you all you faggots this is thread #185306542938594209542 about THE EXACTLY FUCKING SAME TOPIC ALL OVER FUCKING AGAIN YOU LITTLE WORTHLESS FAGGOTS

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 09:38:50 2011 No.3030640 Posting in a LFTR thread

Anonymous Tue May 10 09:47:50 2011 No.3030661

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space-based_solar_power

So let me get this straight.. about 10-20 km2 of solar collectors + 1km2 big antenna in geostationary orbit, and 10 km wide rectenna on Earth, all for a lousy 5-10 GW?

Nope.jpg.tga.bin

Not technologically feasible for at least a century, and even then, our AI overlords will just laugh at the idea as not technologically effective and commence building more nuclear plants, IMHO.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:00:50 2011 No.3030690 >>3029770 >it makes some acid >can be used by other industries, already is >disadvantage wat.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:05:50 2011 No.3030706 >>3030631 >this is thread #185306542938594209542 >>3029544 >thread # 3029544 u fail

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:08:50 2011 No.3030711 File: 2.46 MB, 938x4167, Final-Thorium 50.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Tue May 10 10:18:50 2011 No.3030736 >>3030711 That's pretty awesome.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:26:50 2011 No.3030749 >>3030711 >>3030711 >>3030711 Now we just need to spread this

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:28:50 2011 No.3030752 >>3030690 The point is that you don't want it to turn into acid. The fluorine is serving a perfectly good purpose carrying the nuclear fuel around.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:34:50 2011 No.3030773 Are there any commercial LTFR planned in a near future?

Anonymous Tue May 10 10:38:50 2011 No.3030780

All of this is fucking middling around anyway until we have the technology to build a Dyson Sphere. But I think we really need to be making innovations in solar panel technology, because it's inevitable that solar will have to power our planet.

Basically we have to get our energy from fusion: We can either get it by doing it ourselves (somehow), or taking the fusion-generated radiation from the sun.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:47:50 2011 No.3030806 File: 117 KB, 300x400, thoriumplate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] THORIUM!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:48:50 2011 No.3030808 >>3030606 >The atmosphere cockblocks you. But we need to build Thorium reactors. That's actually possible within the next 20-30 years. Hell, if we really cared we'd have several full-scale reactors up in 10.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:50:50 2011 No.3030815 >>3030711 Why is Thor an orc? Also, it destroys the credibility of the poster. Makes it look like a comic book. Should've gone for a more classical, romantic illustration.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 10:56:50 2011 No.3030840 File: 151 KB, 1000x1000, THORIUM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] viva la revolution!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 11:00:50 2011 No.3030853 >>3030808 That'll never happen. Fukushima has killed any kind of nuclear energy plans for a good long while.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 11:17:50 2011 No.3030932 File: 39 KB, 656x600, 1303662294587.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3030853 mfw people can't just log on to the internet and access the virtual library of Alexandria at their fingertips. They have to remain ignorant.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 11:30:50 2011 No.3030979 Fucking interest groups. Your the ones responsible for fucking over generations of Japanese.

Anonymous Tue May 10 12:36:50 2011 No.3031307

>>3029544

Thorium reactors

PROS

1. Thorium is great for a variety of reasons already mentioned in this thread. We don't need to go over them again.

2. All the problems with getting thorium reactors built are political and economic, not technological. Apparently most of the technical hurdles have been surpassed, and if we really really wanted to we could build them en masse in like a wartime mobilization sort of economy.

3. We will almost certainly be using it as a major energy source eventually.

CONS

1. All nuclear power plants of every type require a buttload of subsidies to survive financially. Yes, all energy production does at the beginning, but nuclear is especially bad. There is no indication whether thorium reactors will follow the same pattern.

2. This is the strangest thing, but nuclear power has a NEGATIVE learning curve. It gets more expensive as time goes on. And yes, France can do it way cheaper than the Americans, but even with in that most favourable environment, costs have ballooned in the past few decades.

3. Given the very low price of uranium, thorium reactors cannot compete economically with current nuclear reactors.

4. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe thorium plants are like normal nuclear plants in that they can't wind down their electricity production. Excess production is essentially wasted. So nuclear (and thorium plants, if it has the same problem) can't provide more than baseload power, and must rely on other sources to make up the difference.

5. Historically it took roughly 30 years for any new energy technology to achieve 1% market penetration, and 50 years for 20% penetration. Thorium is so new that it will not arrive in time to fix the big problems (peak oil, climate change) that we are confronting.

6. Fukushima and ingrained fossil fuel interests is a powerful political disincentive to pursue thorium energy.

Anonymous Tue May 10 12:40:50 2011 No.3031329

>>3031307

"Green hippie shit"

PROS

1. Shit's green yo

2. If you factor in externalities like air pollution, water pollution, mining fatalities and taking care of disabled workers, and other environmental damage, wind power is currently cost-competitive with even coal, and beats nuclear hands-down.

3. If using a wide mix of sources (solar, wind, hydro, tidal, geothermal) across large areas then there are many orders of magnitude more usable energy than current and projected energy demand.

4. Less maintenance downtime than any other energy source.

5. Already commercially available and the industry is growing fast.

CONS

1. Nighttime/no wind = wat do. Large geographic spread, HVDC lines, pumped water hydroelectricity, compressed air storage, molten salt storage, plug-in hybrid/electric cars, etc. are all solutions, but this will require major upgrades to the current infrastructure.

2. Electric utility companies will be very upset at having to deal with huge changes in electric demand AND unpredictable changes in electric supply. Smart grids, overcapacity, energy storage, and large geographic spread would help, but also make things more expensive.

2. Wind turbines chop up birds or something apparently. Not really sure why people care, cars, cats, powerlines, windows, and so forth already do a number on them.

3. Concentrated solar thermal (CSP) is really fucking expensive at the moment.

4. Political hurdles keep renewable energy sources from gaining more ground, namely opposition by fossil fuel interests and the Republican Party.

Anonymous Tue May 10 12:42:50 2011 No.3031354
File: 63 KB, 685x481, cienci151.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3031329

>5. Already commercially available and the industry is growing fast.

It's funny because you also complain about "interest groups", when the Greens have the most fucking crazy interest groups in all the world.

Leave "green" power for the next century, when it's actually economically viable.

Anonymous Tue May 10 12:45:50 2011 No.3031370

>>3031354

Green interest groups are almost a non-entity politically, despite lots of media coverage

As you're probably well-aware, nuclear interest groups are even worse off than green interest groups, and scarcely get any attention at all, in Washington or from mass media

Fossil fuel interest groups, on the other hand, dominate Washington, and they have the GOP by the balls

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 12:45:50 2011 No.3031378 >>3031370 >As you're probably well-aware, nuclear interest groups are even worse off than green interest groups, and scarcely get any attention at all, in Washington or from mass media And this is the problem we have to solve.

Anonymous Tue May 10 14:34:50 2011 No.3031948

>>3031370

Green interest groups are a serious threat, however much you want to marginalize them.

Green Peace is a huge organization and their goals include banning Chlorine world wide. I'm serious. They want to ban an element on the periodic table. One that purifies the drinking water of the world, no less.

>>	Hamish !LDrfaggOtQ Tue May 10 14:37:50 2011 No.3031963 BROTIP: Thorium Reactors- Possible, technology already existent D-T, T-T or He3-He3 fusion- Possible, technology not already existent Cold fusion- Not possible.

>>	Siam le King Tue May 10 14:42:50 2011 No.3032001 posting in thread for greatness.. and also stressing the fact that i am NOT a hippie in the general sense! just saying. captcha: "hipraot logicians"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 15:23:50 2011 No.3032219 >>3030711 >Four of its electrons are valence electrons >Only 2 electrons shown in outer shell What? Can someone explain this madness to me?

Anonymous Tue May 10 15:42:50 2011 No.3032316

>>3031307
>Given the very low price of uranium, thorium reactors cannot compete economically with current nuclear reactors.

lol wut

I think you might want to check those figures for fuel processing again.

>Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe thorium plants are like normal nuclear plants in that they can't wind down their electricity production

Thorium plants are self-moderating. They wind down on their own if you aren't actively removing heat from the core fast enough. Hell, you can even shut them down entirely overnight if you want to.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 15:47:50 2011 No.3032343 >>3032219 "valence" often just means "participates in chemistry". The shell model is a simple approximation.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:02:50 2011 No.3032442

space based solar panels? err. good luck setting up the infrastructure and getting startup captial.
at least with LFTR, most of the components and technologies have been field tested to some degree.

also doing industrial chemical processing on salts at 600-800 degrees C is apparently not that hard to do. MSRE did some on several different kinds of fuel

>>3030200
hmmm

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 16:02:50 2011 No.3032445 >>3032343 I'm aware of orbitals and such, but I thought that valence electrons referred to electrons in the highest energy shell?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 16:07:50 2011 No.3032478 >Thoritards vs. the only future energy sources that even have a remotely possible chance of being implemented. fix'd proceed

Anonymous Tue May 10 16:14:50 2011 No.3032525
File: 46 KB, 640x480, construction1-5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3029544
Thorium reactors or any new nuclear reactor designs have to be NRC certified before they can be used in the US, this takes around 10 years. No exceptions. Currently thorium reactors are not one of the nuclear reactor designs being NRC certified. This puts thorium reactors at a major disadvantage compared to "green hippie shit."

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:18:50 2011 No.3032555 >>3030773 china is dumping 2 billion a year into building a working plant as of January of this year trust me, we do NOT want to be buying this off them

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:21:50 2011 No.3032578 make sure to modify the /sci/ wiki article on this when you have a chance guys, right now it's just a skeleton http://sciref.wikispaces.com/Liquid+Fluoride+Thorium+Reactor

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:27:50 2011 No.3032611

>>3032525
get enough of the press behind it and the NRC will do just about anything you want.

also, most of those restrictions and such are because of the current dangers and safety needs of pressurized water reactors. build it wrong and you get a meltdown scenario

with LFTR. you literally cannot make it melt down. the fuel salt just expands with the heat and slows itself down. and if it contacts air it freezes almost instantly.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:29:50 2011 No.3032631

also fuck arduino, i'm powering the safety system and sensor array with this shit
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/google-announces-android-open-accessory-standard-arduino-based/
although it might be better to work lower level rather than java-on-a-board

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 16:41:50 2011 No.3032702 >>3032611 The NRC does not work that way. >>you literally cannot make it melt down. And the Titanic was unsinkable.

>>	Colonel Coffee Mug !phJ7yIcs.Q Tue May 10 16:42:50 2011 No.3032708 >>3032702 There is a difference between a physical "It can't happen" and a probabilistic "It can't happen".

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:46:50 2011 No.3032726 >>3032702 the laws of physics prevent this from exceeding a certain temperature the laws of advertising was all that held the titanic up

Anonymous Tue May 10 16:46:50 2011 No.3032731

>>3032631
Is such a system nuclear reactor rated or at the very least radiation hardened. Most electronic components have terms of service which explicitly state they are not to be used in nuclear reactors. Why don't you just use some PLC's or other stuff they use in SCADAs.

Oh and don't forget to use radiation hardened electronics.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:48:50 2011 No.3032745

>>3032731
i'd do a fuck ton of radiation computation tests beforehand, the sensor hubs will be properly shielded against the occasional hard gamma as well as neutrons.

Arduino and relays are appealing since they're easy to interface with, code, and very adaptable

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 16:49:50 2011 No.3032748 >>3032708 >>There is a difference between a physical "It can't happen" and a probabilistic "It can't happen". what is the difference then?

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:51:50 2011 No.3032761 >>3032748 watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk#t=7m15s at the 7 minute 15 mark

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 16:53:50 2011 No.3032768 >>3032761 and again at the 9 minute mark

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 17:00:50 2011 No.3032813 >>3032761 >>3032768 I've watched the video before, and I still don't see the difference between a physical "It can't happen" and a probabilistic "It can't happen".

Anonymous Tue May 10 17:20:50 2011 No.3032963

Just to crush your fancy hopes:
Uranium is cheap, dirt cheap to be exact, the costs of a reactor or pretty much building cost and maintenance.
Now, guess what is more expensive to maintain?
A reactor where you periodically put stuff in and out that costs next to nothing, and throw the old shit away, or a reactor where you HAVE to continuously clean of fission products by several complex chemical steps, or otherwise your reaction stops.
Guess which is easier to handle, a hot pressurized, completely nonreactive liquid, that is usually only mildly radioactive, or a hot, corrosive, radioactive as fuck salt?

There's a reason no commercial LSR was built, because in the end it would be just way more expensive.
Thorium will probably be used some day, but then it will most likely be in a PHWR, similar to CANDU.
The simple fact that your primary loop contains 100% of the fission products is a security risk so blatantly huge that it overshadows any meltdown or similar scenarios.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 17:24:50 2011 No.3032988 >ctrl + F >"artificial leaves" >0 Results /sci/ I am ashamed with how uninformed you are

>>	ewssou_seem Tue May 10 17:26:50 2011 No.3033006 >>3032988 >>3032988 I know of it, but why bring it up here? It can't produce major power yet.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 17:26:50 2011 No.3033009

>>3032963
>several complex chemical steps
not really
>Guess which is easier to handle, a hot pressurized, completely nonreactive liquid, that is usually only mildly radioactive, or a hot, corrosive, radioactive as fuck salt?
pressurized is your problem. the fuel salt acts at atmospheric pressure and is so dependent on liquid state that if it ever breaches containment, it freezes back.
whereas solid fuel just keeps being hot no matter where you put it, even with control rods in, and needs constantly cooling WHILE shutting down

>The simple fact that your primary loop contains 100% of the fission products is a security risk so blatantly huge that it overshadows any meltdown or similar scenarios.
try making a bomb with U233 in a fluoride salt mixture. i'll be chuckling when it prompt critical's on you while you're assembling it, or it fucks your electronics up with hard gamma emissions.
this isn't even accounting for some pretty simple emergency systems which could dump the thorium blanket into the U233 fuel salt all at once, completely destroying the reaction as well as any proliferation potential

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 17:27:50 2011 No.3033021 >>3033006 uhm, probably because this thread is about alternative energy...

Anonymous Tue May 10 17:40:50 2011 No.3033105
File: 59 KB, 500x400, 500px-ThermalFissionYield.svg.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3033009
Judging from your third answer, you don't even know what fission products are.
They are the elements that are produced by the Fission reaction.
They are a big happy family reunion of the periodic table, you'll literally have like 30 different elements in your salt, all with widely different chemical properties. Getting them out of your salt will be easy to near impossible, and getting them ALL out selectively will require several complicated chemical separation steps.
That some of them get out really easily is the second problem
As soon as you have a leak anywhere, Caesium, Iodine, Technetium, and all Noble gases, which make a pretty big chunk of the fission products will say goodbye to the salt and start to roam the place freely. All those Elements have extremely high mobility, especially at the elevated temperatures of the salt.
THAT is the centrally problem of any non-solid fuel, any leak will always result in a major release of fission products, even minor ones.
A solid state fuel, as long as it isn't melting down, will only release Nobel gases to the Primary loop.
This is a tremendous fucking security risk, a simple broken pipe will inevitably lead to a shutdown of the plant for months, as a best-case scenario.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 17:51:50 2011 No.3033186

>>3033105
except those fission products are not allowed to build due to vacuum distillation and continuous reprocessing. they are constantly either pumped out in gaseous form (liquid fuel = gaseous fission products automatically remove themselves). the fission products removed from the salt are constantly put into storage areas so they can decay (thankfully they have extremely short half lives most of the time).

also
a broken pipe at pretty much any NPP leads to a shut down for a month currently anyway.

you haven't really read much into LFTR have you?

Anonymous Tue May 10 18:02:50 2011 No.3033256

>>3033186
JFYI Thorium rectors produce the same Fission products as any other Nuclear rector
Also, many of the Fission products have at least one very long lived isotope in their decay chain, 15% of them have a half-life of millions of years, 35% more than a year

>vacuum distillation and continuous reprocessing
Yeah, and that's some pretty complicated shit, no matter how easy you think it is.

Again, instead of having do deal with all that, PWR use a once-through-cycle, which has no such hassle, and that's why they are way cheaper.

>you haven't really read much into LFTR have you?
You obvioulsy have no real understanding of nuclear physics, and especially not of chemistry

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 18:12:50 2011 No.3033320

>>3033256
i'm getting a little bit of "hurrdurr" from this
LFTR doesn't have quite the same fission products as a normal reactor, simply because the fuel is only really critical when it's cycling in the core, and it's constantly on the move. the really bad fission products only really happen way way up the neutron absorption chain. in a solid fuel reactor everything is a stationary target in the core, so the chance of successive neutron absorptions is very high, which results in the nasty transuranics.

in a FLUID reactor, everything is a moving target, so successive absorption probabilities are almost miniscule. Also U233 is, obviously, lower mass than 235, meaning it has a much longer way to go in order to become anything nasty.

again, refer to the video. most of the fission products are down to either background levels or transmute into useful elements within about 10 years. the rest have a max of 300 before they're harmless.

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 18:17:50 2011 No.3033353 >>3033320 also also the actual percentage of pure fuel vs carrier salt is something like .16%, at least it was in the MSRE. and that thing was putting out 70 megawatts thermal

Anonymous Tue May 10 18:24:50 2011 No.3033390

>>3033320
Transuranics are NOT Fission products. Jesus Christ, that's not goddamn rocket science, it got FISSION right in the name. Fission products are only produced by Fission. Jesus.
Fission products are the greatest source of radioactive material in every reactor, since TWO of them are created every fission, transuranics are created way less (expect in a dedicated fast breeder) and are usually just icing on the cancer cake
>the rest have a max of 300 before they're harmless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technetium-99
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caesium-135#Caesium-135
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iodine-129
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium-93#Zirconium-93
Here, have some delicious fission with half lives of millions of years that are totally getting produced in your reactor
And if you didn't notice, Zirconium is part of the original salt, have fun vacuum distilling a component of your fluoride salt away.
Once again, 15% of all fissions lead to a fission product with a half life several million years, no matter if you are fissioning Pu239, U233 or U235

>i'm getting a little bit of "hurrdurr" from this
Yeah
Seriously, you completely lack even the most rudimentary understanding of how a Fission reactor works, especially NOT ACTUALLY KNOWING WHAT A FISSION IS.
Are you sure you want to built a fucking reactor, because judging your competence from here, it might turn out not so well.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 18:29:50 2011 No.3033416

>>3033390
the question becomes, if this is all true, why is it that this is all never mentioned in any of the MSRE papers, and never brought up in all these presentations that 15% of the waste is exactly the same as current solid fuel reactor waste?

and where are you getting Zirconium as part of the salt? they used FLiBe with lithium 7. i still think you might be confusing solid fuel with fluorinated liquid fuel dynamics

Anonymous Tue May 10 18:34:50 2011 No.3033435
File: 20 KB, 426x304, 1284408438207.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

If this is so cool safe and easy, why don't I live in a utopia, having one of these babies purring in the backyard already?! Since this concept is obviously several years old already.

Anonymous Tue May 10 18:34:50 2011 No.3033437

>>3033432
It still requires a multi-million dollar budget, and an OK from the government, which tends to keep a tight lid on rogue nuclear power projects.

tl;dr it's political, and the first time around we went with the reactors that let us build weapons.

Mad Scientist !!Q11PG81nz2n Tue May 10 18:38:50 2011 No.3033448

"Versus"? Do you NEED thorium reactors to be something hippies don't want in order to feel good about supporting them?

I'm an environmentalist and I love thorium tech. It's just that there's no reason not to also exploit every other clean energy source available to us. Nuclear reactors are fucking expensive. They make sense for baseload power as a replacement for coal plants, not as a magical be all, end all solution for everything. We can't afford that many plants. The most likely solution is a mixture of thorium nuclear, uranium nuclear (make use of what we have until the uranium runs out) and renewable in places that make sense (wind turbines offshore and in the mountains, aka places with constant wind. Hydro turbines in the gulf stream, geothermal anywhere we can get at it and so on.)

Anonymous Tue May 10 18:39:50 2011 No.3033456

>>3033416
>if this is all true, why is it that this is all never mentioned in any of the MSRE papers, and never brought up in all these presentations that 15% of the waste is exactly the same as current solid fuel reactor waste?
Either you didn't read them right, or they intentionally left it out., to make their reactor look better.
There are very small differences in the actual yield between U-233 and U-235, and it also makes small differences if the neutron is thermal or fast
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zr-93#Zirconium-93
You can look it up for each fission product in the table on Wikipedia, usually.
http://nucleus.iaea.org/CIR/CIR/NuDat2.html
Nudat has more numbers, but is harder to navigate
But the difference is again, very small.
Funnily enough it seems, that for U233 there are actually slightly more long-lived fission products.
But seriously, just because you have a liquid salt doesn't suddenly change the very physics behind a nuclear fission.
Fission Products will inevitably be created, and inevitable a significant portion of them will have very long half-lifes. If anybody claims that through some magic, his reactor wont have them, he is simply lying to you.

>and where are you getting Zirconium as part of the salt?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment
>The fuel for the MSRE was LiF-BeF2-ZrF4-UF4

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 18:45:50 2011 No.3033488

>>3033456
oh! that's for the single salt design. that's actually REALLY difficult to deal with. the single fluid design is still floating around, but the general movement is toward the two fluid design, with FLIBE or some other derivative as the carrier salt for the thorium and uranium loops, but they're always kept separate.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 18:47:50 2011 No.3033502

>>3033488
also vacuum distillation is pretty well understood, and re-introducing carrier salt after distillation wouldn't be too crazy

these fission products having enormous half lives is an issue though. i'll run this by the energy from thorium site to see what's going on

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 18:48:50 2011 No.3033509 >>3032813 If something is physically impossible, it literally cannot happen. If something is probabilistically impossible, it is extremely improbable that it would happen, but still technically possible.

Anonymous Tue May 10 18:50:50 2011 No.3033522

>>3033488
Well, if the Zirconium is gone it will at least be possible to actually completely separate the fission products.
Doesn't it bother you in the slightest, that you had some really big gaps in your knowledge about what materials are created in the reactor? Or that the proponents of said reactor sugarcoated the facts or straight up lied about it?
Again, you reactor will produce all the same waste as any other reactor, only minus the Transuranics (which Fast reactors usually don't have either, since they all get fissioned).

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 18:54:50 2011 No.3033549

>>3033522
>Doesn't it bother you in the slightest, that you had some really big gaps in your knowledge about what materials are created in the reactor?
why do you think my entire design is speculative at the moment? did you think i was going to be building this thing this weekend or something?
>Or that the proponents of said reactor sugarcoated the facts or straight up lied about it?
not quite prepared to assume that. there might be something else going on, or the fission product waste was simply assumed and thus not mentioned as an issue.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 19:10:50 2011 No.3033644 >>3033549 >did you think i was going to be building this thing this weekend or something? /sci/ probably hoped you were

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 19:41:50 2011 No.3033763 >>3033644 oh, well, too bad for them i'm not buying anything or putting a single screw in until i know _exactly_ how everything in the reactor will work, and have the safety system completely built and tested for exposure and reliability

Anonymous Tue May 10 19:59:50 2011 No.3033851

Sorry I'm late guys, what'd I miss?

>>3029766
Hey, Nuke, it's that NE from yesterday that recommended the pure helium cycle over the liquid flouride. On that note, if you need a completely good reading, pick up "Nuclear Reactor Analysis" by Duderstadt, et. al. It will tell you how to do multigroup fast flux calculations based on geometry and a basic algorithm to program software to do the same. One addition since 1976 and they still use it to teach NE at most schools.
>>3029952
Next stop: India. No seriously, they're building a few thorium reactors right now.

Anonymous Tue May 10 20:07:50 2011 No.3033888

>>3033763
>i'm not buying anything or putting a single screw in until i know _exactly_ how everything in the reactor will work, and have the safety system completely built and tested for exposure and reliability

That just means you can't science and can't engineer

What else is new.

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 20:09:50 2011 No.3033897 >>3033888 wait wut would you rather i dove right in and started putting pipes together? sounds safe

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 20:18:50 2011 No.3033948 >>3033897 Neg. Just saying you lack the expertise to do it safely. So don't do it.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 20:30:50 2011 No.3034011

>>3033549
ah, the reason why those fission products aren't really mentioned is that they're not that radioactive. mostly just low energy beta and gamma decay, and extremely low rate at that. this is assuming you don't go around eating or breathing the stuff

Anonymous Tue May 10 21:03:50 2011 No.3034227

>>3033105
>all with widely different chemical properties
>near impossible to separate

Motherfucker, do you even know how chemistry works?

>>3033256
>JFYI Thorium rectors produce the same Fission products as any other Nuclear rector
>implying every fuel has the same decay chain

So not only do you not know chemistry, you're bullshitting about nuclear too.

>vacuum distillation
>complicated

Yeah okay there.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 21:06:50 2011 No.3034245 Is the Thorium turned in to Uranium(which is of course possible), or is it used directly in the nuclear fission?

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 21:08:50 2011 No.3034259

>>3034227
he's right about the fission products, it's just that most of them are gone within 300 years. the really long lived stuff just isn't all that dangerous, mostly just radiotoxic to some degree.

>>3034245
the fission of the uranium 233 produces a few extra neutrons, which impact the Thorium 232. The thorium transmutes into thorium 233 for a few minutes, then decays into Protactinium 233, which hangs around for about 30 days before it decays again into uranium 233, which you shove right back into the reactor

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 21:11:50 2011 No.3034277 >>3034011 >>3033522 Don't mind the faggot. He clearly doesn't understand that the longer lived an isotope is, the less radioactive it is. Once you get beyond half lives of 200k years or so, shit gets pretty safe.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 22:10:50 2011 No.3034655 File: 50 KB, 750x500, kardashev_scale_type_1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Thorium reactors -can't move us up the Kardashev scale Green Hippy shit(solar power) -can move us up the Kardashev scale

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 22:17:50 2011 No.3034692 >>3034655 >hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 22:21:50 2011 No.3034748 >>3034259 You don't know what your talking about. The thorium is converted into plutonium after fission. lrn2chemistry

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 22:29:50 2011 No.3034807 >>3034748 >herp derp

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Tue May 10 22:43:50 2011 No.3034943 >>3034748 >thorium into plutonium wut

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 22:47:50 2011 No.3034988 File: 123 KB, 631x537, I_can_see_forever.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >thorium into plutonium >lrn2chemistry >thorium + chemistry = plutonium

>>	Anonymous Tue May 10 23:22:50 2011 No.3035300 >>3034748 out of what orifice did you pull that

Anonymous Wed May 11 00:02:50 2011 No.3035505

>>3032963
>Uranium is cheap, dirt cheap to be exact, the costs of a reactor or pretty much building cost and maintenance.

wut? A typical reactor spends $50M a year for new fuel rods! And that is completely ignoring the deferred cost of disposing of the spent fuel and other nuclear waste. The cost of the thorium used in equivalent sized LFTR reactors is estimated to be around 20K! Three fucking orders of magnitude!

really, folks here need to read the documents archived on energyfromthorium.com

(That said, this ain't a backyard project. But we should be lobbying our government to include LFTR in its Gen IV reactor research. Or else be prepared to pay China to build LFTR plants for us in 20 years.)

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 00:04:50 2011 No.3035518 >>3034943 Magnets.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 02:29:50 2011 No.3036214 >>3033851 Aren't the Indians mostly building solid thorium reactors?

Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed May 11 03:00:50 2011 No.3036361
File: 139 KB, 517x1541, thoriumfacebook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Bumping awesome Thorium thread
Seems like if you list all the benefits of Thorium people will absolutely love it. Mr. Green is actually a hippie that went to his city's protest against nuclear power after the Fukushima disaster.

Scientist !!ThFjnJh4EkH Wed May 11 03:01:50 2011 No.3036363

>>3035505
>wut? A typical reactor spends $50M a year for new fuel rods! And that is completely ignoring the deferred cost of disposing of the spent fuel and other nuclear waste. The cost of the thorium used in equivalent sized LFTR reactors is estimated to be around 20K! Three fucking orders of magnitude!

>really, folks here need to read the documents archived on energyfromthorium.com

That is amazing if true. I've been asking for citations on this shit for a while now. Thank you sir. I'll go peruse.

>>	Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. Wed May 11 03:25:50 2011 No.3036447 File: 12 KB, 472x472, 1301038965883.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] One last bump for glorious Thorium

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Wed May 11 03:52:31 2011 No.3036538

>>3036214
yup
they aren't pursuing anything liquid at the moment

>>3036363
double yup. there's a problem here though. nuclear fuel fabrication and waste disposal is big business. with thorium that is completely replaced by simply dropping solid rods of thorium metal into the reactor every year or so to keep it running. and the long term storage isn't that long term (300 years is rather short in nuclear times)

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 05:02:52 2011 No.3036806 This thorium thing seems pretty cool, although I'm still kinda unsure on how it works.

Anonymous Wed May 11 05:12:16 2011 No.3036849

right now, anything nuclear is going to be way more cost and energy efficient than green energy technology and I support it wholeheartedly. But at the same time, I find it foolish not to continue research into so called "green" energy. Not because of the environment or other such nonsense, but because I feel that we should have as many viable options for power production as possible.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 05:33:04 2011 No.3036909 >>3036849 Wind power is honestly kinda crappy, considering how inefficient it is, given the (lack of) reliability and relatively low power output.

Anonymous Wed May 11 05:39:16 2011 No.3036920

>>3036909

The other thing is that, most people believe that wind power is infinite.
This always ticked me off, the energy comes from somewhere and it will have an effect.
Remember reading somewhere that some guy predicted it would have noticeable effects on our air currents and shit. No idea about that, but the fact people think that the only cost is putting the ugly ass things up annoys me.

Solar power to me is the only real renewable source of energy that'll be viable for a long time.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 05:45:12 2011 No.3036938 >>3036920 I seriously doubt that windmills are going to have that huge an effect on air currents.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 05:51:08 2011 No.3036961 >>3036909 with improved energy storages more darn-cheap wind energy could be made available

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 06:03:16 2011 No.3036993 >>3036909 well that's assume green = wind power while wind power is certainly considered "green" I was more referring to solar, tidal, geothermal etc etc etc

Anonymous Wed May 11 06:38:55 2011 No.3037112

>>3036363

Thorium is typically found in the earths crust amoungst rare earth metals. Because Thorium isn't being used by anyone it's a by product of rare earth mining and because it's radioactive it has to be disposed of safely (which costs money).

Now considering China mine 97% of the worlds rare earth elements and have recently announced they will be investing heavily in molten salt reactor research, expect them to have Thorium reactors up and running soon.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 08:55:51 2011 No.3037558 >>3037112 China is growing on me. I kinda like them.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 08:56:51 2011 No.3037562 >>3037558 Shame theyre kinda authoriatan and their economy is starting to overheat, otherwise theyre pretty cool

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 08:59:20 2011 No.3037569 >>3037562 I don't mind the authoritarian thing that much. It seems to be efficient.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 09:02:48 2011 No.3037581 >>3037569 Until the police come trough the door due to political dissent

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 10:15:36 2011 No.3037772 >>3037581 If the police comes in China, it's because you're in the way of efficiency. Hive minded people over thurr. So if you accept that way of thinking and agree with it, then it's a good thing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 10:49:16 2011 No.3037889 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_n4pTMJLnE If you haven't seen the documentary "Brits get rich in China" you should check it out. Its an eye opener.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 10:55:28 2011 No.3037904 >>3037889 can you summarize it for me rather?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 10:57:12 2011 No.3037909 >>3037889 Basically foreigners are fair game, and they will fuck you over any chance they get. But you can get things done if you know what you are doing.

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Wed May 11 13:35:57 2011 No.3038556 solar is probably the ultimate endgame, but i really would not be seriously considering it until it passes the 50% efficiency mark, and that's going to take a while. and even then, it's still cost inefficient for grid power vs. LFTR

>>	Anonymous Wed May 11 16:28:16 2011 No.3039436 bump

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/sci/ - Science & Math