/sci/ - Science & Math

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3094981]

daily nuclear thread.
don't forget your closed-cycle respirators, Geiger counters, bunny suits, and beer.

Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (LFTRs)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWUeBSoEnRk
www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw

Traveling wave reactors (TWRs)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIfMmqKYC6w
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ieX88nBFVS4&feature=grec_index

what else is everyone excited about?

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3094985]

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3094989]

>>3094985
oh; swanky edit, bro

[Anonymous No.3094992]

enjoy your cancer and irradiated wastelands, uncleanenergyfags

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3094994]

>>3094989
Ain't my edit

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095002]

>>3094992
troll count: 1

[Inurdaes !V1sPhobos. No.3095011]

>>3094992
>4x as common as Uranium
>Uranium needs to be processed as only 0.5% of it is fissionable/power producing
>No need for processing of Thorium
>CANNOT make nuclear weapons out of it
>Burns existing nuclear waste from uranium reactors
>Creates 1,000 to 10,000 times less nuclear waste
>87% of it is safe within 10 years, 100% within 300 years
>It is 300 times more efficient at power generation than traditional Uranium reactors
>Since it uses a liquid fluoride system instead of water the size is incredibly small in comparison and in the event of a 'hull' breach it will not explode everywhere like the 400'C 80 atmospheric pressures of water in usual reactors
>IT *CANNOT* MELTDOWN! If shit goes wrong it turns ITSELF OFF and arranges itself into a safe configuration
>One ton of Thorium produces as much energy as 2,500,000 tonnes of coal and 250 tonnes of Uranium
>It costs $10,000 PER YEAR to upkeep the reactor fuel in comparison to over $50,000,000 for uranium nuclear reactors
>Because of the small size and no requirement of large bodies of water, this can be used on areas such as the moon where other power sources just aren't possible or are impractical (one month day on the moon, two weeks of darkness so no solar)
>In a year the world burns nearly 7 billion tonnes of coal, 65,000 tonnes of uranium and a whole bunch of other smaller fuel sources.
>ALL OF THE WORLDS POWER CAN BE PRODUCED FROM ONLY 6,600 TONNES OF THORIUM A YEAR
>WHICH CAN BE MINED AT ONE SITE
>DID I MENTION IT'S FOUR TIMES AS ABUNDANT AS URANIUM, DOESN'T NEED PROCESSING, AND THE US ALREADY HAS A WHOLE BUNCH STOCKPILED AND SITTING IN A HUGE SHALLOW TRENCH IN NEVADA?

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095024]

>>3095011
>CANNOT make nuclear weapons out of it
you can, as a very persistent anon has made clear, but there are many many ways to make it very difficult for subversive parties to make them all while escaping the eye of watchful regulatory agencies.

>Burns existing nuclear waste from uranium reactors
also not necessarily true. It's better to stick stuff like that into a traveling wave reactor

>trench in nevada
3,200 tons, roughly. that would power the entire US for something like 3 years if we all converted to lftrs. at the very least it will last a decade or two as lftr plants become operational

here's a copypasta letter to congressmen that's being passed around. it's open edit, hop and on revise it as you see fit

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pLMBWV-pCk77mbfVESmIVFk62h25HjnW-WcRX8XEA84/edit?hl=en_US#

[Anonymous No.3095028]

Nothing can go wrong! We have fully analyzed the situation with all variables (because that is possible) and have concluded that this energy is the best!


Sound familiar?

[Anonymous No.3095030]

Would thorium nitrate be a good salt for a nuclear saltwater rocket? Also, would it need a kick from a neutron or gamma ray source to initiate a reaction or would it proceed on its own?

[Anonymous No.3095033]

I should did up my EE on LFTRs... I don't know if I can still find a copy though.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095034]

>>3095028
problem is, that last time was active safety
to make something like a LFTR have problems, you'd have to actually bend or break the laws of thermodynamics. good luck

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095036]

>>3095030
....what? no, what are you talking about? nuclear reaction != chemical explosion reaction

[Anonymous No.3095038]

Could somebody tell me why exactly this energy source isn't being used? From what I've read this seems very promising and the only reason I can think of as to why this is not being used would be political issues.

[Anonymous No.3095044]

>>3095038
Pretty much sociopolitical issues.
Although LFTRs are amazing in terms of cost per unit energy, it would cost a fuckton to actually produce many of them and establish them across the world. They would be very good sources of energy, but you're going to need to convince many people with money and/or power to support them, but sadly people don't take kindly to anything with NUKULAR in it.

[Anonymous No.3095045]

>>3095036
here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_saltwater_rocket

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095056]

>>3095045
....wait, you want to launch one of these in your backyard or something? lolEPA

>>3095038
as of this moment, there are two primary obstacles
1) nobody knows about it
2) anything with "nuclear" in the title is almost instantly thrown out, fukushima left a bad taste in everyone's mouth, to the point where they aren't even willing to listen to the proposed safety of the design. nuclear power will be a congressional punching bag within the year.

[Anonymous No.3095066]

>>3095056
no i want to do future research on nuclear-class propulsion though. clearly you can't answer my question so don't reply.

[Anonymous No.3095086]

>>3095056
Yeah, Fukushima really made a lot of people a bit too afraid of nuclear power. If I recall correctly, Germany shut down a bunch of nuclear power plants after the incident, and they're planning to replace the power using wind farms. I don't get why they're would do this, because even though some protesters will stop complaining, wind turbines produce very little power (or so I've heard) compared to other energy sources. Wouldn't this mean that Germany would have to import power from other nations? Please correct me if I'm wrong though, as I'm not too knowledgeable regarding this.

[Anonymous No.3095097]

>>3095086
If they used A LOT of wind turbines they wouldn't need anything else to replace the power source... but that does sound dumb, considering they area they would have to cover.

[Anonymous No.3095104]

>>3095086

They'd be better off using their money as combustible fuel. Wind doesn't work. Probably never will. And that's not so much a technological challenge as an environmental one. There simply isn't wind blowing at the times of day it's needed.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095108]

>>3095066
oh! thorium for nuclear propulsion? i....suppose...? better to just breed some U233 from it, assuming you can deal with U232 and the hard gamma emitters thereafter coming out the exhaust

[Anonymous No.3095114]

>>3095104

Also, if there's no wind the turbines must be supplied with power to keep them turning. They can't simply be allowed to stop.

[Anonymous No.3095133]

>>3095086
what would happen if every country went wind power
>everyone broke
>blackouts when the wind isn't blowing
>world climate changed because of disrupted air currents
>ugly fucking wind turbines everywhere
>DAT ANNOYING HUM EVERYWHERE
>eventually most wind currents stop completely
>everyone back in dark ages
>mfw
facepalm.jpg

[Anonymous No.3095139]

>>3095086
I believe they already import a lot of power from France.

[Anonymous No.3095141]

>>3095139
But isn't France one of the most pro nuclear nations in Europe?

[Anonymous No.3095142]

>>3095139
Speaking of France, how have they handled the whole outcry against nuclear power after Fukushima?

[Anonymous No.3095144]

>>3095139
lol, most of the power in France is nuclear IIRC

but then again, France just ejaculates new nuclear technology everywhere, so its no surprise that they use it

[Anonymous No.3095145]

>>3095108
yeah that's why I'd want to look into thorium because it has safer decay products, i think.
aw who knows, sort of a spontaneous question so I'll go ask my atomic physics professor about it

[Anonymous No.3095148]

>>3095133
I wasn't saying everyone should go 100% wind power (in fact I was saying how I've heard that it wouldn't work) but rather that Germany seems to be heading in that direction.

[Anonymous No.3095153]

>>3095148
yes, but if one country can go all locally produced power from wind while importing most of it from France, then people will ignore the fact that they import a large amount of power and claim that 100% wind works, then everyone is wanting all power to be produced from wind

[Anonymous No.3095166]

>>3095141
Yep
>>3095142
How do you mean? Like, domestic protest? I'm not certain, but I believe the government has by and large ignored it. They get something like 80% of their energy from nuclear, so it's not like there's anything else they could do.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095190]

>>3095141
yes
and so completes the cycle of "hurr"

[patachu !LULZISTwQI No.3095197]

>>3095141
yes it is. but controversy : the ecolofags wants us to close all reactors and downgrade to thermic/fuel instead or windmills. they live in a different world - they may not understand this one.

they also did everything to break/counter the construction of ITER, the first commercial/production nuclear fusion reactor. it was supposed to be operational in 2009 first, pulled back to 2011, now 2014,15 now and more.

disregard the catastrophe they called japanese retards for hosting nuclear timebombs on their own land and all that shit.

nothing can really evolve, it's like explaining that to dinosaurs, most of them still believes it generates CO2.

also yeah; thorium reactors should make it.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095198]

>>3095142
french people saw the news reports
looked outside, saw the cooling tower of the power plant they've lived next to problem-free for decades
shrugged it off and went on with their day

[Anonymous No.3095209]

>>3095197
please go away patchu

[patachu !LULZISTwQI No.3095213]

>>3095198
'cept when they throw the medias, dramatizing the situation like "THERE'S A NUCLEAR COMPLEX IN YOUR REGION, ARE YOU AFRAID? WHAT DO YOU THINK OF CHERNOBYL OR FUKUSHIMA? IF IT EXPLODES WHERE WILL YOU GO? WHY DONT YOU PROTEST AGAINST NOOKLEAR"
basically.

[Anonymous No.3095255]

>>3095197

>fusion reactor

[Anonymous No.3095292]

>>3095114

I've been looking and looking and I can't find out why this is... Anyone know?

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3095314]

>>3095292
probably a momentum thing. if they come to a complete stop it's hard to get them moving again, but they easily "coast" at a certain RPM.
at least that's what i'm guessing. they're fuckhuge afterall

[Anonymous No.3095316]

>>3095255
What? Never heard of them?

[Anonymous No.3095321]

>>3094981
Everyone in ITT should see
>>3095307

[Anonymous No.3095352]

>>3095314

This is why composites (carbon-fiber blades) companies are making an absolute killing right now

[Anonymous No.3095442]

>>3095314

This was my assumption too but as I'm sure is the case with you as well I prefer to know exactly why something is rather than assuming something is a certain way simply because it makes sense to me. As such, the amount of bullshit put out by wind energy advocacy groups, which serves only to distort the whole picture and cloud over the actual information, has me rather annoyed.

[Anonymous No.3095905]

>>3095292
> I've been looking and looking and I can't find out why this is... Anyone know?

It's either a joke or a troll. There's no problem with allowing wind turbines to stop. They'd have to be stationary for months at a time before you'd have to worry about them seizing up.

[Anonymous No.3095923]

>>3095038
> Could somebody tell me why exactly this energy source isn't being used? From what I've read this seems very promising.

In theory, theory and practice are the same. In practice, they're not. Just because something looks good on paper, that doesn't necessarily mean that it will be good in practice.

The thorium fuel cycle is significantly more complex than uranium or plutonium and, unlike those fuels, it can't piggyback upon an existing infrastructure which was developed for nuclear weapons (it's no accident that the first countries to develop nuclear power were the ones with nuclear weapons).

No-one has actually built a large-scale thorium reactor. Most of those advocating it have a vested interest in nuclear power (i.e. either the same people who once claimed that power from uranium fission would be too cheap to meter, or others in the same mould).

Nothing that complex goes according to plan. There will always be teething troubles, unknown unknowns, etc. Uranium/plutonium fission is only barely viable economically. The capital costs (and thus interest on them) are huge, and those costs will be a lot worse for an untested technology because of the increased commercial risk.

Also, while thorium is more abundant than uranium, there aren't many "rich" deposits of it, so you have to mine a lot more earth to get a comparable amount of thorium.

[Anonymous No.3095964]

many fingers in many pies. there is no single solution, and neither should there be. the world should have a diverse portfolio of energy production technologies, updating and add/culling as needs be.

[Anonymous No.3096908]

FAGS

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.3098654]

bump
>>3095964
i don't think anyone's suggesting that there should be, and in fact i like solar power a lot...but as a small scale off-the-grid producer. nuclear is fantastic for huge power output without much fuel.

i'll just sit here wavin' that atomic flag