/sci/ - Science & Math

File: 52 KB, 768x537, OperationUpliftr.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon May 23 08:46:45 2011 No.3107113 [Reply] [Original]

I learned about LIFTRs about two months ago, and it seems like it's mentioned every half week by someone or other. As a Canadafag, I blew the chance to go in depth with a political elect from my province, and I'd like to make up for it with this little act.

Most of us know about what LFTR is, how it works, and what it can do. For those who don't, I'll provide the politically relevant stuff, and you can research the science at a couple of these links. Yeah, I know it's Wikipedia, but you can also click on the YouTube link as well.

For those who are still unaware, the LFTR or Liquid fluoride Salt reactor is the biggest tragedy in nuclear physics, and perhaps all of science. The technology was developed in the 70's during that Cold War, when they were trying to make a power source for long distance bombers, this being before the advent of ICBMs. The scientists knew that it was a stupid idea, but hey, funding.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHs2Ugxo7-8

Anonymous Mon May 23 08:46:45 2011 No.3107115

What they ended up with was this sexy beast of a machine. It is more efficient than a standard Light Water reactor by almost two orders of magnitude. The fuel that gets left behind will decay between a few centuries and a few millenia, a far cry from the ten thousand to hundred thousand year waiting period for today's wasted fuel. It can use such wasted fuel and "burn it up" for an economical energy gain. It is infinitely safer. It uses thorium to produce protactinium, which decays into Uranium 233. Thorium is at least four times more abundant on Earth than uranium, and barely needs any processing to be used as fuel. The fuel reserves are spread fairly evenly so that there's enough for everyone, or at least, enough for us to get a more long term solution in place. As in, millions of years. After all, this fuel source will "only" last for several thousand years.

"wow, Anon, this sounds like bullshit. Why hasn't it been used?"

It's all explained in the youtube video. The LFTR was so efficient, it produced very little usable waste fuel for use in bombs. And this being the Cold War, nuclear technolgoy was being evaluated based on it's military applications. So LFTR's were left in the dust while light water reactors were built instead. And because the Cold War lasted until 1991 (formally anyway),LFTRs were eventually forgotten, it's scientists and engineers cast off into obscurity. Uranium fuel ist he paradigm, and it's about fucking time we shifted it.

This thread is about discussing a plan of action. This main issue seems to be more about igonrance than actual malice, so I'm going to cry from the rooftops (metaphorically, of course) to those in power. Politicians like having trump cards, right? But I'd like to ask for your help in this endeavour.

Discuss!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 08:55:45 2011 No.3107145 File: 46 KB, 1229x537, OperationUpliftrn.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] bump

Anonymous Mon May 23 09:05:45 2011 No.3107184
File: 124 KB, 963x715, classic-vs-lftr-approach.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Yeah, we need to write letters and emails to politicians. Lets hope they have a bit of reason left and not all are brainwashed by antinuclear propaganda. I have already done it.

Also, bumping with relevant material:
http://www.thoriumenergyalliance.com/downloads/American_Scientist_Hargraves.pdf
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSzEjWz5T44

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 09:08:45 2011 No.3107197 This anon approves of this. Commence the operation!

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 09:08:45 2011 No.3107199 >>3107184 to your knowledge, has anyone written letters and made phonecalls en masse?

Anonymous Mon May 23 09:22:45 2011 No.3107257
File: 231 KB, 750x564, Thorium - LFTR Inherent Advantages - 750.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3107199

Nope, as far as I know. And in order to succeed this best be a coordinated en masse effort.

I say compose a letter/presentation outlining the benefits and potential of LFTR vs. traditional nuclear (and alternatives) in lay terms, which must not be longer than attention span of average corrupt politician.
d
Or technocracy revolution..

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 09:34:45 2011 No.3107293 >>3107257 Excellent. I'll make a first draft in table format and post it in roughly one hour.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 09:48:45 2011 No.3107322 File: 2.46 MB, 938x4167, 1305564993096.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] This is cool OP.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 09:54:45 2011 No.3107338 >>3107257 Errors: Thorium is not fissile, and the reactor does fabricate its own fuel. The reactor converts Th-232 into U-233, which is fissile.

Anonymous Mon May 23 10:03:45 2011 No.3107361

Lets list them the main advantages of LFTR:
- passively safe
- very efficient fuel utilization, temperatures allowing high generation efficiency turbines (45%)
- produces only very small amount of shortlived waste (300 years to achieve non-dangerous levels)
- thorium breeder reactor produces more fuel than it consumes, and there is much more thorium than uranium on Earth
- no need for expensive fuel enrichment and rods fabrication
- easily scalable from small submarine or carrier units to multigigawatt powerplants
- nuclear weapons proliferation resistant

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 10:17:45 2011 No.3107402 ITT, nobody knows the first thing about nuclear reactor engineering, everybody is ready to believe all claims made for some fringe technology, received third-hand from similarly ignorant enthusiasts.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 10:21:45 2011 No.3107410 >>3107402 Did you really expect anything else from the science fans in this thread?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 10:31:45 2011 No.3107434 >>3107322 I'm gonna print these out en masse and hand them out to hippies.

Anonymous Mon May 23 10:40:45 2011 No.3107467

>>3107402
>fringe
It's not fringe, it received funded research for years, has produced numerous working reactors, is under renewed interest by governments, has a clearly documented history of why it wasn't widely adopted, etc
But keep kneejerking about anything popular.

Anonymous Mon May 23 10:40:45 2011 No.3107468

Disadvantages of LFTR:
- reactor as originally described can not be started without initial preparation of weapons-grade material
- adulteration of fuel mixture with U238 (or starting reactor with low-enriched uranium fuel) to provide some measure of proliferation resistance increases production of long-lived radioactive wastes to normal levels, reduces efficiency, greatly increases minimum size of reactor, causes production of easily-extracted plutonium (suitable for use in nuclear weapons)
- reactor easily modified to rapidly produce weapons-grade material
- risk of high temperature liquid fuel mixture breaking down barriers, absorbing moderator material, leading to meltdown that doesn't necessarily stop even when the reactor is destroyed
- nasty chemistry of fluorine salts, including rapid production of hydrofluoric acid on exposure to moist air

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 10:42:45 2011 No.3107477 >>3107402 >>3107410 >>3107434 God damn, if I could strangle you idiots over the Internet I would. Click the fucking links before you type with your cum soaked hands.

Anonymous Mon May 23 10:45:45 2011 No.3107487

>>3107467
>It's not fringe, it received funded research for years
...and was abandoned by the people who saw the results of that research.

>has produced numerous working reactors
experimental reactors, not power plants

>is under renewed interest by governments
in backwards countries run by opinionated jackasses, as vulnerable to this stuff as /sci/entologists

>has a clearly documented history of why it wasn't widely adopted
a clearly documented conspiracy theory of why someone's pet project got cut

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 10:46:45 2011 No.3107490 >>3107487 >experimental reactors, not power plants If it works in experiment, it can work in production.

OPerator Mon May 23 10:48:45 2011 No.3107496

See this person? He actually has something to say, an opinion. Observe their post.

>>3107468

>reactor as originally described can not be started without initial preparation of weapons-grade material

There's no shortage of that, I assure you.

>adulteration of fuel mixture with U238 (or starting reactor with low-enriched uranium fuel) to provide some measure of proliferation resistance increases production of long-lived radioactive wastes to normal levels, reduces efficiency, greatly increases minimum size of reactor, causes production of easily-extracted plutonium (suitable for use in nuclear weapons)

>reactor easily modified to rapidly produce weapons-grade material

I don't understand you. This technology was originally ignored because it was BAD at producing bombs. Why would you bother adding a fission poison?

>nasty chemistry of fluorine salts, including rapid production of hydrofluoric acid on exposure to moist air

The molten nature of the salt means that any leak will solidify with air contact, so any contamination will be very short lived.

>risk of high temperature liquid fuel mixture breaking down barriers, absorbing moderator material, leading to meltdown that doesn't necessarily stop even when the reactor is destroyed

And just how likely is that? Realistically, you could pose the same problem with any technology ever invented.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 10:50:45 2011 No.3107507 >>3107487 I'd like you to actually provide a citation for your claims, as the rest of us have.

Anonymous Mon May 23 10:50:45 2011 No.3107509

>>3107487
>...and was abandoned by the people who saw the results of that research.

Because it was a military project and you can't make bombs effectively with it.

But it doesn't really matter. It's the US for the most part that can't move beyond the status quo, and their technophobia is rapidly making them less relevant in the global scene.

It's going to suck when China takes over everything.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 10:50:45 2011 No.3107510 >>3107490 Have you ever done a lab?

Anonymous Mon May 23 10:52:45 2011 No.3107513

>>3107496
>This technology was originally ignored because it was BAD at producing bombs.
conspiracy theory bullshit, completely at odds with the actual properties of the device

>The molten nature of the salt means that any leak will solidify with air contact
You clearly don't understand the concerns here at all.

>And just how likely is that?
Civilian nuclear power engineers do not share your casual disregard for reactor safety.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 10:53:45 2011 No.3107517 >>3107507 All you've done is post links to youtube videos and pro-thorium websites. They can hardly be considered reputable citations.

OPerator Mon May 23 11:00:45 2011 No.3107530

>>3107513

>Say that something is a conspiracy theory
>Don't actually explain the logic behind the statement

>Say that I don't understand the concern here
>Again, don't elaborate on what the problem is.

>Don't actually answer a question.
>Make accusations

You know, for somebody whose supposedly educated on the subject, you're really not representing yourself well.

Anonymous Mon May 23 11:03:45 2011 No.3107536

>>3107513
>You clearly don't understand the concerns here at all.

Your consistent failure to demonstrate said understanding makes your accusations laughable. Do you honestly expect to be able to bully people into silence over the internet with your hypocritical posturing?

OPerator Mon May 23 11:05:45 2011 No.3107542

Anyway, I've got to run, but I'll be back in about one hour. Please, take the time to actually elaborate your statements. Nobody is going to take the word of some random guy on the Internet.

Ah, here is the information sheet.

"Possible malicious code in the file"

Fuck you, moot.

Anonymous Mon May 23 11:07:45 2011 No.3107551

>>3107536
>Do you honestly expect to be able to bully people into silence over the internet
I expect dim-witted wishful thinkers to go on believing what they want to believe.

I expect the more casually interested to be reminded by my posts that this is a fringe movement largely unsupported by actual nuclear engineers, scientists, and policy-makers.

OPerator Mon May 23 11:07:45 2011 No.3107553

>>3107517

They're citations because they have internal logic and facts. You can't just wave your hand an dismiss something because of its source. By your twisted logic, I could say that evolution isn't supported because the sources are all pro-evolution.

Please, actually refute something instead of doing an ad hominem.

OPerator Mon May 23 11:11:45 2011 No.3107558

>>3107551

And I'm saying that you've done nothing but make nebulous statements about the nature of this subject while expending no effort whatsoever on its actual content.

Dim witted wishful thinkers indeed. A dimwitted wishful thinker and a dimwitted naysayer refuse to elaborate their claims, and unlike you, I've elaborated my claims. If you're too lazy to actually take part in this discussion, then kindly piss off, because you're less than a stem cell protestor as far as I'm concerned.

be back in an hour.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 11:12:45 2011 No.3107560 >>3107551 >Implying popularity has anything to do with validity

Anonymous Mon May 23 11:15:45 2011 No.3107572

>>3107468

There are enough neutron sources available to jumpstart many reactors.

Yes there exists some proliferation danger as with any prolific neutron source, but its far lower than with current reactors.

Considering experimental reactors ran flawlessly for years with 1960s technology and materials, I dont think molten salt resistance or HF production is a big issue in 2011.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 11:21:45 2011 No.3107596 >>3107572 Chernobyl-type reactors also ran flawlessly for years, on much larger scales. Until one didn't.

Anonymous Mon May 23 11:30:45 2011 No.3107631

Nobody needs to write a letter. I already wrote one and Nuka created a google doc with my rough draft and added some stuff. It's been in open edit for like a week and a half. Get with it people, it's been posted in every daily Nuclear Power thread since then.

Anonymous Mon May 23 11:33:45 2011 No.3107645

>>3107596

Ok seriously, fuck you.

Don't come in here all ignorant and spouting shit. Chernobyl was one of the worst managed reactors with the least number of safety measures ever built. The day of the meltdown the guys running it took the few safety measures they had off line to perform some kind of retarded experiment.

And you know what? Only 56 people died anyway. It wasn't a fucking mushroom cloud and there's no evidence of inter-generational genetic damage just as there isn't any in Japan where they actually dropped two fucking nuclear bombs.

Get your head out of your ass.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 11:40:45 2011 No.3107664 >>3107631 Funny, I've been on /sci daily and I've yet to see it. Can you link the thread? Besides, I hardly see why it isn't necessary to write letters. Surprisingly, politicians don't seem to go on the Internet looking for issues to solve.

Anonymous Mon May 23 11:42:45 2011 No.3107680

>>3107664

Yesterday's thread 404'd, as is usually the case since they tend to stretch on and reach the post limit faster than most threads.

Also we wrote the letter for emailing purposes so it's there if you want to send it to your congressman/woman.

If you see Nuka anywhere on the board just ask him to post the link.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 11:49:45 2011 No.3107712 File: 25 KB, 632x793, 1292335279046.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3107487 >in backwards countries run by opinionated jackasses, as vulnerable to this stuff as /sci/entologists >China >backwards country

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 11:51:45 2011 No.3107726 File: 838 KB, 1008x785, part1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3107680 Well, just to hold this thread over, here's mine.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 11:51:45 2011 No.3107727 >>3107712 >implying that China is not a backwards country, struggling to catch up to the first world due to decades of domination by incompetents

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 11:52:45 2011 No.3107729 >>3107113 Dude, google something about gaining uranium from seawater and using fast breeder reactors. The technology is there to power all the energy needs, we're just not using it yet.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 11:52:45 2011 No.3107730 >>3107596 Wind turbines also run flawlessly for years, on large scales, until they woke up and murdered everyone in Atlantis.

>>	EK FAN CLUB Mon May 23 11:53:45 2011 No.3107736 File: 255 KB, 640x920, 1282319413902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3107727 >China >struggling to catch up to the first world

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 11:55:45 2011 No.3107747 The newest technologies of electrical engineering are actually being used in Asia and Africa. Eurofreaks are stuck with kyoto and that bullshit and the US, well, I have no idea, what you have.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 11:57:45 2011 No.3107760 >>3107729 Why? Why go through all the trouble to engineer something for a resource that's harder to get then thorium, when the principles and a prototype for this reactor are already in place?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:03:45 2011 No.3107771 >>3107736 Nice example of the sheer scale of the cluelessness of the thorium-boosters.

Anonymous Mon May 23 12:04:45 2011 No.3107775

Thorium news:

The 3rd Thorium Energy Alliance conference wrapped up in DC last week. Huge interest: hundreds of attendees compared to dozens two years ago. News that the military could provide licenses for LFTRs for ships and advanced bases while the NEA is dragging their feet granting civilian licenses.

Also Kirk Sorenson, the ex-NASA guy behind the most active Thorium blog (below) and youtube videos is starting his own company to develop the technology, Filbe Energy.

http://energyfromthorium.com/2011/05/22/teac3-theory-into-practice/

Anonymous Mon May 23 12:05:45 2011 No.3107779

>>3107760
Well this one has been used in ractice aswell. I don't know if Thorium can power all of the earths energy need fo the next couple of billion of years.

Also, thorium probably uses fast neutron reactors, or am I wrong?
If I'm not wrong, that is the main problem. According to the IAEA the fast neutron are a no-go for the west. Only acceptable by policies of Asia....

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:07:45 2011 No.3107782 >>3107775 >News that the military could provide licenses for LFTRs for ships and advanced bases God yes, that is an excellent way to start. Have all the power of a nuclear carrier or submarine but waaaay easier to refuel.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:07:45 2011 No.3107784 >>3107645 You can't deny that prior to the Chernobyl disaster, the Chernobyl-type reactors had far more testing and orders of magnitude more accident-free power generation than LFTRs have had to date.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 12:08:45 2011 No.3107793 >>3107779 No, it probably can't. I don't think thorium reactors use the same technology as fast breeders, but the end result is roughly the same.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 12:10:45 2011 No.3107800 >>3107784 LFTR hasn't had any commercial accidents because it didn't even make it past prototype before getting shot down for military strategic purposes.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:10:45 2011 No.3107802 >>3107775 *Flibe Energy, sorry (named after the salt elements: F, Li, Be)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:13:45 2011 No.3107813 >>3107800 >LFTR hasn't had any commercial accidents because it didn't even make it past prototype That is quite possibly the case. But I suspect this is not what you wanted to say.

OPerator Mon May 23 12:18:45 2011 No.3107830

>>3107813

Yes, I was reading over that. Hey, I did add "for military strategic purposes"

I don't think you appreciate just how ineffective the Soviet government was at the time. This is the government that couldn't invade Finland during the Winter War. I wouldn't trust them with an IKEA desk set, much less a nuclear reactor. Besides, there are theoretical concerns too. Do you know what a void coefficient is?

Anonymous Mon May 23 12:24:45 2011 No.3107856

>>3107830
I am simply making the point that the accident-free operation of a small experimental prototype, in and of itself, is not strong evidence of reliability.

If it turned out, in practice, to be as unreliable and dangerous as the Chernobyl-type reactor, it would still almost certainly have this flawless safety record.

OPerator Mon May 23 12:28:45 2011 No.3107872

>>3107856

Yes, this is true. Still, I consider this to be the "least dangerous" option out of all of them. And considering all the bullshit that people are willing to put up with for economic gain, I think the line between "very, very safe" and "absolutely safe" is thin enough.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:40:45 2011 No.3107929 >>3107726 Lol that looks written by a child. >Denmark is a first world country home to 5.6 million people.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:43:45 2011 No.3107940 >>3107929 But it's full of fascinating facts. For instance, I never knew that half a million kroner was equal to 1.54 TWh. Fuck thorium, we should be burning Danish money.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:49:45 2011 No.3107968 >>3107856 >implying that design has no effect on safety and reliability of nuclear plants >implying theres enough about physics and chemistry that we don't understand that LFTR plants could be the same as chernobyl

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 12:58:45 2011 No.3108015 So how do you handle molten salt and hydrofluoric acid?

Anonymous Mon May 23 13:06:45 2011 No.3108058

>>3108015
With materials that are chemically noble to them (like hastelloy-n+Ti), and also by not letting the acid form in the first place.

For further details about how you handle aqueous HF, consult semiconductor plants and the like. For further detail about how to handle molten salt, I believe there was a french plant that worked out the kinks for commercial scale in the mid 90s. For further detail about how to handle a big pile of salt thats been sitting around for a few decades (so a salt spill, but worse), consult whomever did the cleanup after the MSRE had been sitting around till the mid 90s.

OPerator Mon May 23 13:10:45 2011 No.3108075

>>3107929

It has to match the attention span of your "average corrupt politician." I wrote it like a child because a politician is likely to have a child's understanding of nuclear physics. Besides, a fact like that doesn't mean shit if you don't know how many people there are in Denmark.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 13:15:45 2011 No.3108090 >>3107771 Enjoy losing your freedom when China's technocracy makes you irrelevant and they call in your debt.

Anonymous Mon May 23 13:16:45 2011 No.3108098

>>3108075
>a fact like that doesn't mean shit if you don't know how many people there are in Denmark.
A fact like that STILL doesn't mean shit if you don't know things like Denmark's patterns of domestic and industrial use of electricity, what a Danish kroner is worth, or the demand-response of the thorium market.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 13:19:45 2011 No.3108117 >>3108098 Why the hell would someone pick a metric like "the electrical needs of Denmark over 14 days" in the first place?

Anonymous Mon May 23 13:21:45 2011 No.3108121

>>After shutdown the salt was believed to be in long-term safe storage, but beginning in the mid-1980s, there was concern that radioactivity was migrating through the system. Sampling in 1994 revealed concentrations of uranium that created a potential for a nuclear criticality accident, as well as a potentially dangerous build-up of fluorine gas — the environment above the solidified salt is approximately one atmosphere of fluorine. The ensuing decontamination and decommissioning project was called "the most technically challenging" activity assigned to Bechtel Jacobs under its environmental management contract with the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge Operations organization. In 2003, the MSRE cleanup project was estimated at about $130 million, with decommissioning expected to be completed in 2009.

Go go thorium, no waste here. That was from a single, low output test reactor, never mind full scale production country wide.

Anonymous Mon May 23 13:27:45 2011 No.3108150

>>3108121

People these days know better, and no form of nuclear power was free of dangerous misconceptions (and it's a shame some of the worst of them became what we have today). The salt isn't very reactive, but that fuel will still cause problems if you give it fucking DECADES to decay as a solid when we know full well how energetic that shit is for the first few decades. Full processing is required before any sort of long-term storage, and we are well aware of this.

>>	Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Mon May 23 13:28:45 2011 No.3108158 You're a little late to the party bro. But welcome to the fight against fear

Anonymous Mon May 23 13:29:45 2011 No.3108162

>>3108121
In 1998, they were still declaring it a huge success, predicting the cleanup to be easy and profitable (although even then they acknowledged that it is only by luck that a disaster was averted).

>“We discovered a highly hazardous situation in 1994,” Rushton says. “The uranium in the charcoal beds was in an unfavorable geometry that could have led to a chain reaction. If the system had burped, the contamination would have been dispersed over a wide area.

>“The more studies we did, the more they showed that it could happen. There was a significant potential for disaster.”
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ridgelines/nov12/msre.htm

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 13:35:45 2011 No.3108183 >>3108121 >decommissioning expected to be completed in 2009 April 2010 report: "Molten Salt Reactor Continues to Test Skills and Patience" http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/Publications/Advocates/4-10.pdf

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 13:37:45 2011 No.3108190 >>3108162 Very clear example of how difficult these materials are to work with. >It was the commies that stopped LFTR, not technical difficulties.

Anonymous Mon May 23 13:41:45 2011 No.3108207

>>3108158
>fight against fear
flawless summation of this thread

i'd like to hijack for a moment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion)

the only reason we haven't made this already, is because of some shitty treaties that prevent nuclear stuff from being in space.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 13:46:45 2011 No.3108234 >>3108207 (and also because Project Orion was always intended for ground launch, releasing large amounts of radioactive waste into the environment on launch and during testing, not to mention the horrific potential consequences of a failed launch)

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 13:49:45 2011 No.3108243 >>3108207 Project Orion had great potential, and I'm all for Nuclear Pulse Propulsion, but using it as a ground-launch propulsion was retarded.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 13:52:45 2011 No.3108254 >>3108234 pffft. that shit don't matter any more, we've got space stations

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 13:57:45 2011 No.3108264 >>3108254 >Space Stations in LEO >Dropping 100m a day due to drag >Impressive

Anonymous Mon May 23 13:57:45 2011 No.3108265

>>3108243
>I'm all for Nuclear Pulse Propulsion
Take a look at nuclear salt-water rockets. They look much more efficient and easier to build.

It's just a straight-up rocket with continuous thrust. No ridiculous giant shock absorber.

Project Orion was conceived in the earliest days of nuclear technology, when bombs were the only useful thing they were totally confident of building.

Anonymous Mon May 23 14:02:45 2011 No.3108283

>>3108254
Project Orion spacecraft were always intended to be massive. They don't work on a small scale.

It would be incredibly expensive to launch enough material into orbit to construct a Project Orion vessel, and you'd still have to transport a large number of nuclear bombs into orbit on unsafe rockets.

And if you used the bombs to launch out of orbit, you'd STILL be blowing nuclear waste into Earth's atmosphere.

If you want to avoid the nuclear pollution problem, you're basically looking at hundreds or thousands of moonshots worth of extraorbital launch expense to set up your Project Orion vessel.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 14:04:45 2011 No.3108296 >>3108158 Nuka, there you are. Where's the link to the google doc?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 14:05:45 2011 No.3108299 >>3108283 >you'd still have to transport a large number of nuclear bombs into orbit on unsafe rockets You could always build more nuclear bombs and blast them into space, because that would be much safer.

Nuka-cola my cool trip is on another computer Mon May 23 14:36:45 2011 No.3108407

>>3108207
Please.....don't bring Orion in here..

Also, lots of craziness in here. Lftrites need to realize that it's not perfect, there are issues, its just the best option so far.

And anti-lftr people, I suppose....should critically analyze their criticisms instead of overblowing a minor issue or something.

Lets all be reasonable here

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 14:45:45 2011 No.3108442 >>3108407 >Lftrites need to realize that it's not perfect, there are issues, and you're not qualified enough in nuclear engineering and nuclear policy issues to compare them to other reactor technologies. fixed

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 14:47:45 2011 No.3108453 Sure is argument from authority around here.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 14:47:45 2011 No.3108455 >>3108407 Agreed. Hey, I can't help it when the only LFTR critics who showed up were mostly idiots. Btw, where'st he google doc?

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 15:01:45 2011 No.3108513

>>3108455
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pLMBWV-pCk77mbfVESmIVFk62h25HjnW-WcRX8XEA84/edit?hl=en_US#

>>3108442
well, the problem with the critics in here is that they suffer from that same problem of talking out their ass to some degree.

thankfully, LWRs are very well understood and their properties/designs are documented everywhere.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 15:07:45 2011 No.3108552

>>3107468
oh and here's the one sensible critic in this thread, he brings up some of the real glaring problems with lftr

>- reactor as originally described can not be started without initial preparation of weapons-grade material
this is true, U233 is essentially as a start up, but i can be breeded with a significant percentage of U232 (.5% or greater) to deter proliferation to a great degree. And of course initial start up would be _heavily_ regulated and policed.

>- adulteration of fuel mixture with U238 (or starting reactor with low-enriched uranium fuel) to provide some measure of proliferation resistance increases production of long-lived radioactive wastes to normal levels, reduces efficiency, greatly increases minimum size of reactor, causes production of easily-extracted plutonium (suitable for use in nuclear weapons)
also a good point. this would probably be restricted to only the very tumultuous nations for whom giving this reactor design wholesale would be too much of a security risk, but they still desperately need the technology. the vast majority of LFTRs would not do this.

>- reactor easily modified to rapidly produce weapons-grade material
not THAT easily. if you want to mitigate U232 production you'd need to do all kinds of crazy hyper-efficient breeding strategies which would drive the reactor efficiency through the floor. the hope is that a regulatory body could spot this easily......but nobody is really sure...

>- risk of high temperature liquid fuel mixture breaking down barriers, absorbing moderator material, leading to meltdown that doesn't necessarily stop even when the reactor is destroyed
this is a huge concern, and big engineering problem. this is why designs that use the salt itself as a moderator terrify me, because reactivity control goes out with window. Graphite moderator seems to be our best bet short term, but the brittleness and expansion/contraction/neutron elastic reaction problems aren't going to go away.(cont)

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 15:10:45 2011 No.3108565

>>3108552
>>3107468
>- nasty chemistry of fluorine salts, including rapid production of hydrofluoric acid on exposure to moist air

also true, but this can be very easily designed to deter, such as designing the fuel processing stations to be very efficient with fluoride ions, keeping a minimum level of "free gas" in solution. As far as i know, HFl production would be very low if water was introduced into the system, as the level of free fluoride ions would again be small. These are all engineering challenges though

Anonymous Mon May 23 15:14:45 2011 No.3108581

>>3108513

An excellent letter. I do think though that we should include a bit about its history. It lends credit to the fact that these things are proliferation resistant, and explains why they haven't been used yet. The idea of a technological gem being discarded for half a century might strike a few hearts.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 15:17:45 2011 No.3108593 >>3108565 engineering challenges But it's LFTR! It's going to be easy! Let's just leave the engineers to do all of the hard work! ...

Anonymous Mon May 23 15:21:45 2011 No.3108613

>>3108593

you know, the cynicism here is just fertile grounds for a political cartoon.

>Man is walking across a long stretch of broken glass in sock feet

>Oh look, a pair of shoes!

>Oh look, they're my size!

>Damnit, breaking them in will be too hard. I'll just keep on walking.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 15:26:45 2011 No.3108634 >>3108613 LFTR LFT - R Left - Right There's left and right shoes. Ha!

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 15:30:45 2011 No.3108656 File: 192 KB, 504x376, untitled.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3108634

Anonymous Mon May 23 15:36:45 2011 No.3108686

>>3108552
>>- reactor easily modified to rapidly produce weapons-grade material
>not THAT easily. if you want to mitigate U232 production you'd need to do all kinds of crazy hyper-efficient breeding strategies which would drive the reactor efficiency through the floor.
Covered this before. Why can't you remember this stuff from thread to thread?

All you have to do is run some pipes through the core, or preferably around its borders, or in its shielding, and run the same type of thorium-containing fluorine salt through it, using the same chemical methods to promptly separate the protactinium out of it and store it away from the neutron flux.

The only difference is, you keep the fertile (thorium) fluid separate from the fuel (u-233) fluid. Transfer of bred uranium fuel is an optional one-way process from the fertile fluid to the fuel fluid. That way, your bred u-233 doesn't get the u-232 contamination from parasitic (n,2n) reactions which is unavoidable in the fuel fluid (that it doesn't get a problematic amount of u-232 contamination from protactinium transmutation by neutrons is a given). And more to the point, this entirely circumvents the anti-proliferation measure of mixing u-238 into the fuel fluid.

You don't have to change the operation of the entire reactor, you can still add thorium to the fuel fluid and breed fuel there too, you just have to add a pipe or coil for a secondary breeding fluid, which is properly segregated from the fuel and chemically processed in a similar fashion. It wouldn't significantly affect efficiency.

A similar strategy could be used to breed top-quality plutonium (the ideal material for nuclear weapons), too, albeit at a slower rate.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 15:36:45 2011 No.3108687 >>3108613 >implying building a new nuclear reactor to a standard ready for widespread implementation is on the same difficulty level as stealing some shoes

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 15:39:45 2011 No.3108707 Someone do an actual sketch of what the inside of a LFTR reactor has to be like instead of these silly flow diagrams.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 15:45:45 2011 No.3108737 >>3108686 I'd just like to attack the theory behind all this. How is this any different from the proliferation concerns we have with current nuclear reactors? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nirvana_fallacy

Anonymous Mon May 23 15:50:45 2011 No.3108759

>>3108552
>not THAT easily. if you want to mitigate U232 production you'd need to do all kinds of crazy hyper-efficient breeding strategies which would drive the reactor efficiency through the floor. the hope is that a regulatory body could spot this easily......but nobody is really sure...

What's wrong with using conventional fast breeding for 233 and 232 materials?

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 15:53:45 2011 No.3108772 >>3108759 And if creating bomb fuel was this practical, then why was the experiment at ORNL cut?

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:01:45 2011 No.3108810

Just so you now:
1. A Thorium reactor has the exact same waste as a Normal reactor, expect the Transuranics, which, incidentally, is also exactly the same waste a fast reactor produces. From a waste and fuel efficiency point of view, the LFTR has no advantage or disadvantage over a fast reactor, all Fuel is eventually used, and only Fission products remain. Some of those waste products still have half-life of millions of years, and are still quite unhealthy, so a long term geological deposit is still needed for them.
2.You still totally need a containment, since the Fission products and all the other shit is in liquid form, any breach of any piping would result in a massive radiation release(way bigger than a similar accident in a LWR) without a containment.
3.The current recoverable Thorium ores are not all that large, at the current rate, Thorium could only power our civilization for about 150 years, granted we don't discover significant more deposits, or reduce our energy demand.
Otherwise, it's awesome

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:01:45 2011 No.3108812

>>3108737
Why is it that you're looking for ways to attack this, rather than seriously considering whether it's true?

You should recognize at this point that you've lost all objectivity and are emotionally committed to the belief that LFTRs are some kind of clean, safe energy panacea.

All nuclear reactors pose a proliferation threat. However, most have poor neutron economy, which makes them bad at breeding new fissile material.

Breeder reactors are generally recognized to pose a special proliferation threat. Thorium reactors are necessarily breeder reactors.

LFTRs are are not only breeders, they are designed around the concept of active, continuous chemical processing of the fuel, fertile material, and breeding intermediates to support breeding of very clean, pure materials. Everything that's supposed to make them especially safe to operate and efficient would also serve to make them especially easy to modify and good for weapons production.

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:03:45 2011 No.3108823

I'm confident that none of the LFTR cheerleaders have ever had to actually design and build something.

Typically every project runs into difficulties, expensive difficulties especially if it's dealing with new technology.

Just reading this report about the clean up at MRSE and I can just imagine the headache from working with this stuff.

Radioactive molten crap that likes to solidify when it gets too cold, getting stuck in places you don't want it stuck.

Like it or not billions have been spent on current nuclear reactor technology that has been proven for 50 years. People are familiar with exactly how water reactors work, how the power plants are laid out and what to do with spent fuel.

No one is going to cough up the money for a whole new type of reactor, not right now at least. If the need arises they will.

>April 2010 report: "Molten Salt Reactor Continues to Test Skills and Patience"
>http://www.oakridge.doe.gov/em/ssab/Publications/Advocates/4-10.pdf

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:04:45 2011 No.3108832

>>3108812
>

LFTRs are are not only breeders, they are designed around the concept of active, continuous chemical processing of the fuel, fertile material, and breeding intermediates to support breeding of very clean, pure materials. Everything that's supposed to make them especially safe to operate and efficient would also serve to make them especially easy to modify and good for weapons production.
This, you would only need to insert a small amount of U-238 in the secondary loop, since it's continuous reprocessing, you could easily obtain weapons grade plutonium in any amount you wish.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 16:08:45 2011 No.3108851 >>3108810 A Thorium reactor has the exact same waste as a Normal reactor, expect the Transuranics, which, incidentally, is also exactly the same waste a fast reactor produces i thought a thorium reactor could run on the waste from regular reactors?

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:08:45 2011 No.3108853

>>3108772
Did you even notice the horrible time they've had trying to clean that little experimental reactor up, due to unforeseen complexities of the novel chemical engineering aspects of the reactor? There were several posts in this thread about what a fortune it cost and how it was an acknowledged near-disaster.

The people running that experiment (the Americans) already HAD perfectly good and efficient ways of making top-quality nuclear weapons, using the far cheaper and more readily available uranium, and without mucking about with a whole slew of complex and unfamiliar engineering challenges in an extremely dangerous field.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 16:09:45 2011 No.3108857 >>3108851 >i thought a thorium reactor could run on the waste from regular reactors? Actually, i don't think so, at least not without prior reprocessing. Some Heavy water reactors, like CANDU can run on waste from other plants

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 16:13:45 2011 No.3108885 >>3108823 >>3108853 >let highly energetic fission products irradiate the containment for over 50 years because you fired the people who knew how and why you need to take care of it before storage I seriously hope none of you do this...

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 16:18:45 2011 No.3108903 >>3108885 The sad thing is that you're probably not even trolling. You really believe that's an accurate description of what happened.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 16:19:45 2011 No.3108911 >>3108903 >implying you're not the biggest troll on this board

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 16:24:45 2011 No.3108929 >>3108823 >The concept never really worked out, and the project was shut down in 1969. Heh.

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 16:25:45 2011 No.3108936 >>3108593 >It's going to be easy! uh, who said that? it's not going to be easy, but it's not going to be crushingly difficult to the point of impossible. at least that's what all the data seems to be saying.

OPerator Mon May 23 16:26:45 2011 No.3108941

>>3108812

Because the debate doesn't end with technology. It also involves the actual likelihood of something like this happening. Nuclear Proliferation isn't even a sure thing, and I just wanted to remind you of that.

>>3108823

The need is already arising thanks to increasing oil prices, scientists are beginning to pursue reactors such as the pebble bet reactor which fairly different from your standard LWR, and now countries like India are working on thorium technology outside of LFTR. The material world we live in has no regard for waiting until "we need to do it when it's convenient", otherwise disasters would never happen.

>>3108851

You're basically contradicting most of the links in this thread without a citation or explanation to stand on. Come on now.

>>3108853

Are you implying that thorium is harder to find than uranium? Are you also implying that the problems with an experimental reactor will be inherent in a commercial reactor?

And where the hell did Nuka Cola go?

Shit, g2g

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 16:28:45 2011 No.3108954 >>3108925 You're basically contradicting most of the links in this thread without a citation or explanation to stand on. nuka said it

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 16:33:45 2011 No.3108984

>>3108810
also good points
>1. A Thorium reactor has the exact same waste as a Normal reactor, expect the Transuranics, which, incidentally, is also exactly the same waste a fast reactor produces. From a waste and fuel efficiency point of view, the LFTR has no advantage or disadvantage over a fast reactor, all Fuel is eventually used, and only Fission products remain. Some of those waste products still have half-life of millions of years, and are still quite unhealthy, so a long term geological deposit is still needed for them.

true true. it's unavoidable in any fission reaction, but no actinides or TRUs are produced from this, or at least very very little. the "true" fission products out of a lftr are not that much by mass, and the best thing about million year half lives is that their decay energy is minuscule by virtue of...well...having million year half lives. I mean, it's not like you could plant this stuff, but you probably wouldn't need a crazy yucca mountain installation for it. burying in isolated areas with no nearby water tables could work.

>2.You still totally need a containment, since the Fission products and all the other shit is in liquid form, any breach of any piping would result in a massive radiation release(way bigger than a similar accident in a LWR) without a containment.

oh course you need containment. the difference between this and a LWR is that containment can be incredibly close fitting, like, within feet of the reactor wall, making the entire facility much much smaller. and the containment doesn't need to hold a steam or hydrogen explosion, just the radiation (comparatively easier to do).
also, spills from the reactor aren't whisked away and distributed by steam all over the place, they sit in a puddle for a second, solidify, and wait patiently for cleanup. It's fantastic.
(cont)

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 16:34:45 2011 No.3108988 >>3108954 Smashed. Assholes. Sorry, I meant to say >>3108810

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:35:45 2011 No.3108999

>>3108936

Those little challenges you talk about == billions in development.

I'm failing to see benefits over our current reactors. What I'm seeing is taking massive steps backward for more complicated technology that has no significant gains for the immediate future. There's plenty of uranium now to deal with our needs so who cares?

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 16:36:45 2011 No.3109001

>>3108810
>3.The current recoverable Thorium ores are not all that large, at the current rate, Thorium could only power our civilization for about 150 years, granted we don't discover significant more deposits, or reduce our energy demand.

it's actually a biproduct of rare earth mineral mining, these days it's seen as waste and just discarded. The problem is, it doesn't cultivate in veins, but then again you don't need that much of it at one time.
Since the Chinese government put in an edict in January for all its rare earth mining operations to set aside and purify any thorium they find, they've accumulated something like 9,000 tons of it. and that's in 5 months.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 16:37:45 2011 No.3109009 >>3108999 >More complicated technology >Simplicity of LFTR is an often cited advantage

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 16:38:45 2011 No.3109011

>>3108812
actually, U233 breeder guy, i have a proposition;

make a google document and state your case in as many words as you want. imma bring this before the thorium energy council as it were (the guys on the energy from thorium forum) for open forum discussion.

you're bringing up some solid points

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 16:41:45 2011 No.3109026

>>3108954
>>3108851
never said that. waste from a lftr and waste from a LWR are different in a lot of ways. you can't really cook down bear bones fission products any more. waste burning is talking more about TRU, plutonium, and u238 burning

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:42:45 2011 No.3109030

>>3108984 oh course you need containment. the difference between this and a LWR is that containment can be incredibly close fitting, like, within feet of the reactor wall, making the entire facility much much smaller. and the containment doesn't need to hold a steam or hydrogen explosion, just the radiation

I don't see a benefit in having a slightly smaller facility. You don't want to squeeze a reactor to within feet of a wall, remember you're going to need all that room for equipment and machinery anyway.

Radiation + highly corrosive gas.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 16:45:45 2011 No.3109045 >>3109009 >decommissioning small test reactor >approaching 20 years >simple

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:45:45 2011 No.3109048

>>3109011
>imma bring this before the thorium energy council
It's not really complicated, LFTR can be converted with relative ease into a Plutonium facility.
You only need to completely or partly replace the Thorium breeding salt with depleted uranium. Instead of breeding U-233 you would breed Pu-239, and since all the extraction and reprocessing facilities are already in place, you could continuously extract it, keeping Pu-240 impurities to a minimum and producing weapons-grade-plutonium for a bomb.
For from being "proliferation-resitant" it's in fact perfectly suited for proliferation.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 16:53:45 2011 No.3109089

>>3109030
>slightly smaller
more like several times smaller.
the core is small, containment is small, your turbines are small

>>3109048
you're still mucking about with U232. and simply removing the Pa233 from the mix isn't going to fix that.
again, you assume no regulatory bodies or intelligence agencies would be able to pick up on any of this. describing your scenario to a CIA agent would probably get you a punch in the face from the insinuations towards him

>Radiation + highly corrosive gas.
fast neutrons and gamma. bad but not unmanageable, and again, it's all in one place. The fluorine doesn't really like to leave its salt partners due to fuckhuge electro negativity.

OPerator Mon May 23 16:56:45 2011 No.3109109

>>3109048

Then what happened to the ORNL experiment? From what I can gather....

"During the 1960s, one of the great nuclear scientists, and lifelong proponent of nuclear power, Alvin Weinberg, was asked by the AEC to do safety assessments of LWR type reactors. What Weinberg and his team found in their assessments caused them some distress. The LWR designs indeed had very serious safety deficiencies. Weinberg then began attempting to warn the industry and the AEC about the shortcomings in the designs.

Eventually, Weinberg was sidelined. US Senator Chet Holifield, a proponent of the "Plutonium Economy", famously said: "Alvin, if you are concerned about the safety of reactors, then I think it might be time for you to leave nuclear energy."

http://red-anti-state.blogspot.com/2011/03/risks-of-nuclear.html

America didn't really give two shits about safety. So if retooling is as simple as you describe, and safety wasn't an issue, why wasn't this picked up instead?

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:58:45 2011 No.3109116

>>3109089
>you're still mucking about with U232. and simply removing the Pa233 from the mix isn't going to fix that.
At this point, I've got to conclude that the problem here is that you're just not smart enough to understand this stuff.

This has been explained to you repeatedly, in detail, and you still fuck it up at the most basic level.

Anonymous Mon May 23 16:59:45 2011 No.3109120

>>3109089
>you're still mucking about with U232. and simply removing the Pa233 from the mix isn't going to fix that.
You didn't understand it in the slightest, did you?
You are breeding Pu-239, from U-238, not U-233 from Th-232.
The Plutonium is easily chemically separated from the Uranium, there's no difficultly about any Uranium isotope.
You are completely bypassing that Problem by changing the breeding salt, from Th-232 to U-238, which is widely available.

>again, you assume no regulatory bodies or intelligence agencies would be able to pick up on any of this
the whole point is, that since you already have to have all the reprocessing plant in place, slightly altering their workings would not raise as many eyebrows as building them from scratch.

Anonymous Mon May 23 17:02:45 2011 No.3109128

>So if retooling is as simple as you describe, and safety wasn't an issue, why wasn't this picked up instead?
Because your plant isn't the magical gift from heaven that you think it is. Also LWR came first and worked perfectly for 2 decades before the LFTR came along

Anonymous Mon May 23 17:04:45 2011 No.3109138

>>3109089
>fast neutrons and gamma
It's a thermal reactor, goddamnit, no fast neutrons
this is probably the fifth time, i saw you being blatantly ignorant about the most basic physics behind nuclear reactors in this thread.
Serious question, did you complete high school?

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 17:05:45 2011 No.3109140

>>3109116
or you're forgetting your problem isn't just excess neutron capture, it's higher energy neutrons striking your thorium in the first place. Again, this can be mitigated by a more powerful moderated, but holy shit is that going to kill your reactivity and look REALLY OBVIOUS to any inspecting body.

like i said, voice your stuff in a google doc. If you're going to just sit around and (sort of)troll these threads as they pop up, people will take you less and less seriously.

Anonymous Mon May 23 17:06:45 2011 No.3109148

>>3109140
>or you're forgetting your problem isn't just excess neutron capture, it's higher energy neutrons striking your thorium in the first place. Again, this can be mitigated by a more powerful moderated
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about, at all.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 17:07:45 2011 No.3109149

>>3109138
outside the core they're not. that's what the moderator is for. this is again assuming you aren't going with a salt-as-moderator design. U233 fissions are fast neutrons by default, and dispersed to .16% in your salt flow with no neutron deflection or moderation, it's not going to be making much heat

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 17:09:45 2011 No.3109162 >>3109148 tell ya what, guy, go to this page http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Nwfaq/Nfaq6.html use control-f to find "U-233" and look for the 10th instance of that term. start reading.

Anonymous Mon May 23 17:12:45 2011 No.3109170

>>3109149
>outside the core they're not. that's what the moderator is for
The Neutrons leave the core as thermal neutrons, they can't get "fast" again. Once they loose their kinetic energy, it's gone.
Also, U-233 and neutron capture of Th-232 only really work well if the neutrons are thermal, if they aren't other elements will capture too many of them to have a decent neutron economy

Seriously, you literally have a grade schoolers understand of nuclear physics, using terms you obviously don't understand, confusing simple concepts.
i really begin to understand why you ACTUALLY believe you could build a reactor.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 17:12:45 2011 No.3109171 ...so.... Whens the big letter writing campaign start?

Anonymous Mon May 23 17:19:45 2011 No.3109197

>>3109162
You STILL don't understand it
You use U-238 to breed Pu-239 which is a Isotope of Plutonium, which is not Uranium which is therefore easily separated from Uranium.
It is not that hard, a child could understand it. Since you didn't understand it yet, i'm going to try it again.
You replace the secondary thorium salt partly with an Uranium salt, U-238, to be precise .
Instead of using the neutrons from fission to produce U-233 from Th-232 you use them to produce Pu-239 from U-238. The Pu-239 is chemically separated from the rest, and used to built a nuclear bomb. there's no U-232 there, because it was separated by chemical means, which is easy, because it's Plutonium and not Uranium. Please understand it.
It's extremely easy, and all the necessary facilities of reprocessing are already there.
See? Easy Nuclear bomb.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 17:20:45 2011 No.3109201 Nuka can you give me a quick overview of your qualifications and experience level? Not trying to single you out but you're a tripfag

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 17:33:45 2011 No.3109260

>>3109170
http://www.kayelaby.npl.co.uk/atomic_and_nuclear_physics/4_7/4_7_1.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_temperature

i'm not quite sure where you're getting that U-233 fission emits thermal neutrons by default

>>3109197
i'll concede that it is indeed a good neutron bath for U238 breeding. but you were talking about U233 breeding for bombs earlier and i had to stop you there.

it's pretty easy to design the reactor itself to be an isobreeder instead of a true breeder. any neutrons lost to breeding plutonium in that case will slowly kill your own fuel. all of this can be watched for by watchdog agencies.

and again, hovering above all of this, is that china will have one of these at some point, and you better believe they won't care nearly as much about proliferation. better to develop one, and thus be more informed of the potential proliferation risks

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 17:35:45 2011 No.3109269

>>3109201
junior level comp sci major, i have 0 official qualifications in nuclear energy or engineering, but i have been long married to nuclear power through independent study and following the industry from a distance. I'm minor in it, if it was available

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 17:36:45 2011 No.3109280 >>3109269 junior in college that is

Anonymous Mon May 23 17:38:45 2011 No.3109290

>>3109260
>i'm not quite sure where you're getting that U-233 fission emits thermal neutrons by default
They are fast, but get moderated quite quickly while still inside the core.
No even remotely significant quantity of fast neutrons can leave the core

OPerator Mon May 23 17:41:45 2011 No.3109301

Just like to point something out here.

>nuka cola on Anon
>One sensible critic
>You have some good points

Anon on nuka cola
>it's not that hard, a child cuold figure it out
>you have literally a grade school understanding

This indicates anger, and therefore emotion in the subject matter.

>Anon on myself

>you should recognize at this point that you've lost all objectivity and are emotionally committed

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 17:44:45 2011 No.3109317 >This indicates anger, and therefore emotion in the subject matter. It took me like 4 posts to explain to him the concept of Plutonium breeding. You are correct, that this infuriated me a little.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 17:46:45 2011 No.3109326

>>3109290
They are fast, but get moderated quite quickly while still inside the core.
by the moderator (graphite, the salt itself in some designs)
left to its own devices, the fast neutrons aren't going to hit very much since U233s cross section on the fast spectrum is fucking tiny, hence why a solid U233 core doesn't immediately melt from thermal neutron bombardment. I don't think the core salt moderates as much as you think it does.
>>3109317
you were talking about plutonium breeding while i was still talking about U233 breeding, i think we were both talking to trees

OPerator Mon May 23 17:47:45 2011 No.3109332

>>3109317

With the advent of nuka cola's daily thorium threads, you're going to deal with this kind of aggravation more often. I suggest compiling these facts into a Google doc. It will save you a lot of trouble in the long run. After all, no person wants their countries policy's dictated by ignorance.

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 18:04:45 2011 No.3109400 wait, where'd he go? I'm not sure if he was mistaken or highlighting something i was simply missing. either way he kind of needs to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Uf9rsBbhc#t=2m22s

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 18:05:45 2011 No.3109410 >>3109400 >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4Uf9rsBbhc#t=2m22s Wait, what?

Anonymous Mon May 23 18:10:45 2011 No.3109435
File: 24 KB, 502x391, 1284753817149.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I like how the /sci/entards are, as usual, getting hyped up about a method of incredibly controversial (however undeserved) energy generation as if they can just pop up nuclear power stations like tents.

Take a seat while I shit a great big turd of reality into your gaping mouths:

1) Thanks to Chernobyl, Sellafield and Fukushima, the public now dislike nuclear more than ever. Our planning systems are balanced towards the public interest and the public interest is expressed as FEAR. The UK, for example, *HOPES* to get its first new nuclear power station online by 2020! Let me tell you now - it won't fucking happen. It took 10 years for a local housing development near me to get built because it was next to a small nature reserve.

2) Nuclear, in 10-20 years time, will be completely redundant as an energy source. Solar, which is incresingly efficient (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/21/ray-kurzweill-climate-change)), is actually expected to be perfectly sufficient within this time period. As a decentralised energy source, it will be far more secure, cheaper and environmentally friendly than nuclear, plus there won't be ANY planning problems whatsoever.

Nuclear is dead.

You may now resume your hopelessly myopic textbook wankathon.

Anonymous Mon May 23 18:14:45 2011 No.3109461

>>3109435
are you really trying to say that solar will be able to replace the current AND growing energy demands in the future??
I find that an awful joke, and im not some pro nuclear guy, i really dont care, I wish solar could be that effective it would make some things soo much easier, but honestly the only way to cover the energy demands is with nuclear.

OPerator Mon May 23 18:16:45 2011 No.3109472

>>3109435

Why thank you. I don't know where the world would be without upstanding men of science such as you who are above pettiness and/or self pleasure.I feel safe knowing that knowledge will now be distributed by such fair and approachable chaps as you.

/sarcasm

Anyway, that's quite outstanding news. I still feel like we've wasted a shitload of money with LWR though.

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 18:20:45 2011 No.3109486 >>3109472 hey, LWR is pretty damn good, and a comparatively excellent safety record. it's just showing its age

>>	Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 18:21:45 2011 No.3109493 >>3109435 pushing any one power source exclusively will end in failure. it always has. i very much hope all the lftr fans aren't thinking there will be one on every street corner and it will completely eclipse everything else. god no

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 18:22:45 2011 No.3109501 >>3109493 Mwell, it sounds like a shitty residential fuel source, but with industry and city supply? Definitely.

Anonymous Mon May 23 18:25:45 2011 No.3109518

>>3109461
Solar and geothermal are all you need. In fact, if you need more energy than they can give you together, you're going to be dumping so much heat into the environment that it seriously fucks with the weather.

We haven't even scratched the surface of those resources.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 18:30:45 2011 No.3109547 >>3109518 Wait, wouldn't that many solar panels change the albedo of the earth? I mean, more than what roads have already done?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 18:35:45 2011 No.3109572 >>3109547 Yes, at some point, you have to start controlling for that. But white paint is cheap. It's not hard to make albedo-neutral panels.

Anonymous Mon May 23 18:37:45 2011 No.3109580

>>3109518
yes but its not really practical, unless solar panels get WAY more efficient its just too much money, and you dont just need enough for an average day, you need enough for the worst case day (rain all week etc). Geothermal is too geographic specific.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 18:38:45 2011 No.3109585 File: 39 KB, 219x265, wat.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >It's easy to buy white paint >for solar panels

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 18:40:45 2011 No.3109596 >>3109580 Solar Panels can supply vast amounts of energy. Right now scientist are looking into the magnetic component of light at high intensities, and it looks promising from what I understand.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 18:42:45 2011 No.3109607

>>3109580
actually there are some interesting developments in deep crust geothermal that works by injecting water into the hot spot and recapturing it after it circulates and heats. there are a fuck ton of plumbing problems but it shows some promise

>>3109596
there are some efficiency ceiling issues with solar panels, i believe around 40% you need to start cooling the back of the panel lest the atomic structure of the panels degrade. Solar is better for load offset and decentralized power, but not good for baseload

Anonymous Mon May 23 18:42:45 2011 No.3109608

>>3109585
Your stupidity really knows no bounds, you know that?

Black collector, white border. Making a white border is not expensive. You don't paint the collector.

You should take a moment to reflect on how your profound mental defects disqualify you from taking any meaningful role in a discussion of energy policy.

OPerator Mon May 23 18:46:45 2011 No.3109622

>>3109608

Well I considered that, but decided that if a border is going to be made wide enough for that to make any significant difference, then something was wrong with the design. not everyone is bound to the thought processes you assign them, so stop projecting.

>>	ohai !!g4DbZEOxyeC Mon May 23 18:47:45 2011 No.3109628 candu ftw

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 18:51:45 2011 No.3109638 >>3109622 >I considered the possibility that works, but then dismissed it for no real reason. >I'm not actually an idiot, I just like to look like one.

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 18:53:45 2011 No.3109645 >>3109638 >no real reason >I'm not a complete asswipe, I just derp

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 18:58:45 2011 No.3109664 CANDU's a pretty cool guy, might as well stick with it

Anonymous Mon May 23 19:01:45 2011 No.3109677

>>3109645
Fine. It is an insurmountable challenge to solar power to avoid increasing the Earth's albedo to the point that we all die fiery deaths.

White paint is available and cheap, but it is too absurd to contemplate, even as an existence proof, the strategy of applying it to things other than the solar collectors themselves to balance the change of albedo resulting from the construction of solar collectors.

Truly, you are the genius of our age.

OPerator Mon May 23 19:03:45 2011 No.3109680

Whelp, here's what we accomplished today.

Thread started out as a punch up with a couple of douches.

Then we started talking to that one guy who knew what he was talking about.

There's was a lull until nuka cola arrived.

Then we started arguing about proliferation resistance until that one guy gave up and left, or at least, gave up on cola.

Then it's represented to us that solar power is probably going to be used anyway.
:\

>>	OPerator Mon May 23 19:04:45 2011 No.3109685 >>3109677 Would you believe me if I told you I had realized that like, midway through reading your second post? Tbh, I couldn't be assed into responding to you in full.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 22:25:15 2011 No.3110592
File: 38 KB, 400x324, 1306203918558.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3109664
i like candu a lot actually.
mostly because of the name, and it's ability to use pretty much anything you shove in it.

>LWR waste? CANDU!
>plutonium? CANDU!
>low enriched uranium? CANDU!
it sounds like one of those as seen on tv commercials

>>	Anonymous Mon May 23 22:33:12 2011 No.3110627 >>3109269 comp sci junior You are in way over your head, I'm not suprised you're so ignorant with the technical details.

Anonymous Mon May 23 22:40:12 2011 No.3110661

>>3110592
Fuck the CANDU reactor. Worst fucking design for nuclear weapons proliferation ever.

That single design is responsible for not one but TWO massive fuck-ups of countries getting nuclear weapons: India and Pakistan.

Civilian reactors can just not have neutron economy that good.

Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI Mon May 23 22:43:45 2011 No.3110671

>>3110627
i'm not sure what details i'm ignorant of. I never said lftr couldn't be used as a breeder, i just said it would be horribly difficult to avoid suspicion while doing so, and even more difficult working with the resulting material.

you're ad-hominim-ing all over the place

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 ]