/sci/ - Science & Math

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4092119]

i think it's go time for a serious grass roots LFTR movement. we can't really afford to let the chinese develop one, and they're well on their way. public attention to the benefits might just be our best bet.

over the christmas break i will be writing the scripts to those "introduction to nuclear power" videos i've been talking about. directed towards laymen, common knowledge, nothing too complex, it'd be done in an animatic format with a stick figure character drawn on a chalkboard.

are there any youtube voiceover artists who might be interested in dubbing it?

[Anonymous No.4092126]

>>4092119
I won't dub anything, but best of luck to the series.

[Anonymous No.4092133]

Use pastel colors, friendly graphics, and narration from a young British woman. This will target the ESFP demographic pretty well while conveying an open, likeable and intelligent message.

Any other format will probably just end up preaching to the choir.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4092142]

>>4092133
what's wrong with chalkboard stick figures?

granted, it'll be digital images made to look like chalk on a chalkboard (not difficult with custom brushes)
and of course there will be multiple colors of chalk, and i supposed they would be pastel by default due to chalk

[Anonymous No.4092163]

>>4092133
>british accent
>not horrible

[Anonymous No.4092190]

>we can't really afford to let the chinese develop one, and they're well on their way

bitch, the chinese will roll our several dozen gen 3+ reactors in the next few decades. you only need thorium on timescale of over a hundred years, the chinese already have their near term needs set.

good luck trying to convince suckers to not just buy natural gas plants or treasury bonds with their money instead of pouring fortunes into what to them will be one of a half dozen different poorly funded nuclear reactor startups. good luck crowdsourcing several billion dollars from /sci/ for development.

[Anonymous No.4092198]

>>4092119
>we can't really afford to let the chinese

Why, so long as someone makes them we'll all reap the benefits. I care not for your meaningless national pride.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4092203]

>>4092198
i guarantee you they'll find some way to corner the market on the technology and charge a boatload for it

they did it with rare earth metals, they basically monopolized them.

if you like foreign oil, you'll love foreign nuclear

[Anonymous No.4092205]

>>4092203
you're a retard

[Anonymous No.4092217]

>>4092203
Hey, Nuka, had any luck with that LFTR FAQ from all those postings I gave you in that pastebin?

I'll just go ahead and dump all my LFTR

[Anonymous No.4092218]

>>4092217

[Anonymous No.4092220]

>>4092218

[Anonymous No.4092221]

>>4092220

[Anonymous No.4092222]

>>4092221

[Anonymous No.4092223]

>>4092222
Kirk Sorensen, the man who rediscovered it all.
Now runs FliBe Energy as a corporate springboard for LFTR production. for military and civilian purposes.

[Anonymous No.4092224]

>>4092223

[Anonymous No.4092226]

>>4092224

[Anonymous No.4092227]

>>4092226

[Anonymous No.4092229]

>>4092227

[Anonymous No.4092230]

>>4092229

[Anonymous No.4092232]

>>4092230

[Anonymous No.4092233]

>>4092232

[Anonymous No.4092234]

>>4092233

[Anonymous No.4092235]

>>4092234

[Anonymous No.4092236]

>>4092235

[Anonymous No.4092237]

>>4092236

[Anonymous No.4092239]

>>4092237

[Anonymous No.4092240]

Oakridge Labs should have done a presentation for:

Tohoku Power Company
+None of it's NPPs had any problems, despite being closer to the epicenter than TEPCO. However I'm sure they'd rather sell their uranium type breeders for LFTRs.

Brazilian Power Companies
+HUE HUE HUEH UHE HUE

[Anonymous No.4092242]

>>4092239
And I'm out.
Feel free to add more.

[Anonymous No.4092268]

>>4092119
Oh god, you're still going on about this shit?

LFTR is not worth the effort and expense! Let the chinese spend their time and massive sums of money developing it, once they do it we can copy it easily without the inevitable massive headaches. We have better/more important shit to do.

Just one of the major problems, there's still no material to withstand the highly corrosive environment. What do you suggest?

[Anonymous No.4092275]

>>4092268
>Just one of the major problems, there's still no material to withstand the highly corrosive environment. What do you suggest?
What corrosive environment?
I haven't heard about this.

[Anonymous No.4092281]

Ahh, Thorium.

Really, Thorium itself is pretty useless as a fissile material -- 231Th is fissile, but the vastly more common 232Th isn't. It is, however, fertile -- if you fling another neutron at it, you get 233Th, which decays with a beta to 233Pa (plus an electron and antineutrino, it's a β- decay) and then, via another beta decay, to 233U.

You might have heard of that uranium stuff, and while 233U isn't quite as good as 235U in a reactor, it's more than good enough -- you could make a weapon out of 233U, if you had enough.

The good part of this. There's a *lot* more Thorium on the planet, and even better, the most commonly occurring isotope is the one we want, and even better, the isotopes we don't want decay so quickly that the ore is basically pure. None of that nasty "pull the 235U out of the ore" problem. Thorium Dioxide (most reactor fuels are in oxide form) has a higher melting point and a higher thermal conductivity, making meltdowns less probable. Finally, with that 233U comes 232U, which is a nasty gamma emitter and impossible to separate out by chemical means, which makes it much harder to use in nuclear weapons. Finally, there are less actinides after the fuel is consumed, so it's a bit easier to clean up.

[Anonymous No.4092283]

>>4092281
The bad part. You need something to make 232Th fissile. That's going to be one of the common fissionables. In open fuel cycles, you need to burn more of it, since you need to first convert it into a fissionable, then fission it, then deal with the fact that the half life of 233Pa is about 27 days, which is about 12 times longer than the half life of the final fission products. That means, during use, significant amounts of protactinium build up -- which is a neutron adsorber, which means you need more neutrons to keep the cycle going. This results in a very high burnup rate, and that's hard to deal with.

To really make it sing, you need a closed cycle where you're pulling out everything that isn't either 232Th awaiting activation or 233U fissioning, and letting the 233Pa finish decaying to 233U outside the reactor, then sending it back in. This is dicey work.

Finally, though -- it's radioactive fission. Anybody against U and Pu fission will be against this.

[Anonymous No.4092353]

>>4092283
Unless their brain works. Lots of people that oppose atomic energy as it stand now oppose shitty, stupid atomic energy, light light water reactors.

And.. hell, so do I. Light water reactors are the stupidest possible way to generate electricity.

[Anonymous No.4092367]

After reading some of this stuff I wonder why this technology isn't as widespread as it should be. Can anybody give me a condensed explanation?

[Anonymous No.4092379]

>>4092367
Can't make nukes

[Anonymous No.4092383]

>>4092275

Hot (fluorine) salts + radiation = corrosive nightmare

Also, how do deal with tons of radioactive and hardened salt that will get stuck in a lot of pipework.

[Anonymous No.4092389]

>>4092383
This is the biggest problem with LFTR and other MSRs, unfortunately.

[Anonymous No.4092390]

>>4092389
Or one of the largest, rather.

[Anonymous No.4092444]

I have some more

[Anonymous No.4092445]

[Anonymous No.4092449]

[Anonymous No.4092452]

[Anonymous No.4092457]

[Anonymous No.4092462]

[Anonymous No.4092463]

[Anonymous No.4092465]

>>4092203

How can they monopolise it?

[Anonymous No.4092476]

>>4092383

Hastelloy with tellurium solves that. Plus the salt chemistry can be controlled to limit its corrosive potential.

[Anonymous No.4092502]

>>4092383

>Hot (fluorine) salts + radiation = corrosive nightmare

Depends on how you look at it. For example, high reactivity of fluorine keeps radioactive atoms bonded.

Also, it is simply not true that no material can withstand the molten salts. Hastelloy can withstand it, as proven in practice by the molten salt reactor experiment, and there are schemes to make it even more resistant.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4093613]

>>4092217
no, i've been end-of-semester-ing

>>4092205
hey guy, look it up. china uses a very clever system of forcing all foreign manufacturers to set up shop within mainland china in order to use their rare earths, so they don't have to export them, and get all the jobs internally.

it's an incredibly brilliant system, and one which they'll probably improve upon once they have a working LFTR design.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4093616]

>>4092223
uh, kirk didn't discover anything, he was just at the right place at the right time, and happens to be a decent public speaker

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4093641]

>>4092268
>there's still no material to withstand the highly corrosive environment. What do you suggest?
there's a flurry of activity to find exactly this.
i'm personally looking at advanced ceramics. my university has like, one of the top three polymer science divisions in the country, and they do a SHIT TON of work with ceramics. super corrosion resistant, super stable in high heat, and probably super stable in high neutron flux over long periods.

Hastelloy-N is a good backup, since it's been proven to work, but it's pretty expensive and very hard to forge into specific shapes

>>4092283
it's not quite *that bad* if you're clever with core geometry. This is why i'm also a huge fan of the two fluid design, protactinium buildup isn't much of an issue due to the constantly circulating blanket salt. IF, in practice, it turns out to be a massive neutron sink, filtering is also a possibility using a liquid beryllium tower. just dump the protactinium+thorium at the top, and it'll sink over 27 days. grab whatever's at the bottom and slap it back in.

this is, of course, if you're doing continuous reprocessing. Lots of designs wait a couple weeks between reprocessing runs, but it's all on-line reprocessing, no shut downs.


there's a great presentation on LFTR design speculation, lots of hard data and graphs. I LIKE GRAPHS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8F0tUDJ35So&feature=relmfu

[Anonymous No.4093688]

I'd love to help but my town was involved in uranium mining and thanks to lax regulations now we all have lymph cancer thanks to the radioactivity that's irradiated our water supply.
Sorry.

[Anonymous No.4093726]

>>4093613
There's a very big difference in controlling real and intellectual property.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4093946]

>>4093726
they'll find a way, they're very good at that.

plus the whole "let's just wait for the chinese to do it" is extremely apathetic and irritating.

[Anonymous No.4095749]

[Anonymous No.4095811]

>>4093726
One way is to sell their knowledge and experience for cheap, so while companies in other countries might also build LFTRs, chinese ones could become the overwhelming majority. If they're smart about it, the C-LFTR could become the industry standard.

[Anonymous No.4095828]

>>4092119
http://38degrees.uservoice.com/forums/78585-campaign-suggestions/suggestions/2017457-uk-manufacture-
of-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors?ref=title

This is a petition to get LTFR off the ground in the UK. Vote guys!

[Anonymous No.4095845]

>>4095828
>mfw the second comment
>Carbon Targets are fraud and should be ignored. The greenhouse gas theory has been scientifically trashed. (It defies the proven theory of Thermodynamics and no evidence of human influence on climate exists.)

[Anonymous No.4095847]

>>4095845
I know, I read that one too and I had no idea what the fuck it had to do with anything and doesn't make sense. Just some bullshit that kind of sounds related until you actually read it I think.

[Anonymous No.4095873]

sage for viral marketing

[Anonymous No.4095881]

Hey OP, I don't want to start a shitstorm or anything but I think Rose might be a good fit for your voiceover work. She made a load of youtube videos about random shit as well as some vidya and tech related ones until she started getting stalked by some guys from /g/ who pretty much scared her off. She's English and is studying physics at Uni and has expressed an interest in doing voiceover stuff for audiobooks and physics stuff before.
Joke video sorta physics related http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRsg2Xc7iBo&feature=channel_video_title
Just voiceover of a game
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERaH2MPihbI&feature=channel_video_title
Blog post from a games site which is the only place she still appears online, excessively verbose and physics related
http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/63017/Good-Morrow-Physics-y-Miscellanea-Diamagnetic-Frogs

Polite sage for probably silly idea

[Anonymous No.4095882]

>>4095873
How is it viral marketing? It's completely related to the topic, and is not selling anything

[Anonymous No.4095901]

>>4092203
>i guarantee you they'll find some way to corner the market on the technology and charge a boatload for it

I recall reading that China has already bagsied most of the world's thorium. China already owns everything. Just give up.

[Anonymous No.4095904]

>>4092190
>chinese already have their near term needs set

I don't think so tim

[Anonymous No.4095907]

>>4092218
>two fluid reactor
Unworkable

[Anonymous No.4095916]

>>4095904
>2030
>near term needs
>crystal ball
>mfw the world has vast reserves of coal

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.4095927]

>>4092203
Actually it got so bad that we are re-opening our Rare Earth mines. We can always re-research our own reactors, and we have EXISTING SAFE CONVENTIONAL reactors from Westinghouse and other manufactures now.
>>4092119
The Chinese can't do anything original, if anything the Indians wil beat them to the punch, but >>4092224
every reactor built since TMI is walk away safe (most reactors now are very, very very old, and it is very hard to dismantle old reactors as the Triton shows).

>>4093641
Its funny, but when I was talking to my immediate section leader, he was saying ,"All these fucking LFTR people are idiots, Rickover even rejected it because there was no possible material that could handle it and still be able to provide huge amounts of energy [for a submarine], and as our experiments showed, it backfired when we tried sodium back in the 50s-60s.


And mind you, this is from the pro nuclear Navy, where nuclear power = AOK, so how will you handwave thoughts like this?

[Anonymous No.4095942]

>>4095907

why?

[Anonymous No.4095944]

>>4095927

Why wont hastelloy-N with a bit of tellurium work?

[Anonymous No.4095945]

>>4095927
What do you mean "no possible material that could handle it"?

[Anonymous No.4095947]

>>4095927

>Indians wil beat them to the punch

Indians are not researching LFTR, they are researching solid-state thorium reactors

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.4095977]

>>4095945
A big problem was our superheaters leaked, and repairs are a fucking pain for LFTR (and most metal cooled designs in general) because you have to find a way to not have the sodium cool and become a plug
>>4095944
most likely high cost concerns when combined with the cracking, pitting induced by the tellurium products. The other big concern is the fluorine produced, which is you telling all the Technicians "FUCK OFF AND DIE".

[Anonymous No.4095981]

>>4095977
>because you have to find a way to NOT have the sodium cool and become a plug
Isn't that kind of the whole point of the LFTR?

[NavalAnon !!jz5JQZ1dN2Q No.4096823]

>>4095981
>>4095981
You have made it hell to do any sort of maintenance or checks to make sure the reactor works during downtimes.

[Anonymous No.4096867]

I'm a law student, not a scientist, but good luck with this. I have always been fascinated (and often frustrated) by the intersection between science and public policy/politics.

Overcoming the general public's irrational fears about radiation and nuclear power is a Herculean task, even when you are presenting this kind of stuff to an "educated" audience.

[Anonymous No.4097474]

>>4095977
> and repairs are a fucking pain for LFTR. . .because you have to find a way to not have the sodium cool and become a plug
LFTR and other molten salt reactors don't use liquid metal.
>The other big concern is the fluorine produced
Not really an issue, the chemical environment is corrosive, but nothing that can't be dealt with (and is, every day in the chemical industry).
>>4095927
>and we have EXISTING SAFE CONVENTIONAL reactors
Which have horribly inefficient fuel use, and monstrous fuel reprocessing costs(solid fuel is a bitch)
>Its wasn't suitable for a sub, so its not suitable for anything!
derp
>it backfired when we tried sodium back in the 50s-60s.
Again, no metallic sodium in a MSR.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4098136]

>>4095927
>Rickover even rejected it because there was no possible material that could handle it and still be able to provide huge amounts of energy

hastelloy-n?
i guess he wasn't aware of it when he made that statement.
also a LFTR in a submarine isn't a good idea, the hard gamma is too high, you need hueg shielding. great for a stationary installation

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4098167]

>>4095881
might work...

[Anonymous No.4098270]

Hastelloy-N isn't good enough, even with tellurim. They were able to reduce cracking but not eliminate it completely. Cracking in under 1000hrs is a long way from being acceptable for a full scale power plant.

Interested in realistic ways ceramics can be implemented.

http://moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/ORNL-TM-6002.pdf

[Anonymous No.4098273]

>>4095927
>>4095977
>>4096823

Fucking this x10²³

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4098283]

>>4098270
was this before they tried again with higher molybdinum content? that mostly knocked the problem out

as for ceramics, there's probably some obscure ceramic made in the past few years that could do it, but was shelved for one reason or another, there we too many damn ceramics

[Anonymous No.4098330]

>>4098273
see:
>>4097474

MSRs DON'T FUCKING USE LIQUID FUCKING SODIUM.

[Anonymous No.4098468]

>>4098330

Same problem, it solidifies when it cools.

[Anonymous No.4098489]

>>4098468
How is that a problem? During normal operation it's hot enough to not solidify, and electric heaters can heat it up. Of all of the problems of LFTR, this is off the radar.

[Anonymous No.4098529]

>>4098489

In a full size plant that will be a lot of heaters that will no doubt be in the way. You're going to have to be changing a lot of pipes because of the corrosion and that salt will be a real cunt. It's radioactive, wants to create HF gas and gets stuck in stuff, all makes maintenance difficult. Let the chinese deal with these headaches!

When we can't afford uranium we can spend significantly less on development in the future and reap the benefits then.

[Anonymous No.4098607]

>>4098529
>wants to create HF gas
Except no. You can control the levels of fluorine to prevent the formation of HF.

>gets stuck in stuff
What? You keep saying this without any real foundation. Of all of the problems, this really likely isn't one.

>When we can't afford uranium we can spend significantly less on development in the future and reap the benefits then.
Current light water reactors are too expensive compared to coal. We need an energy source that will last a long time and which is cost competitive with coal.

[Anonymous No.4098626]

>>4098330
I thought LFTR's use unsubstantiated optimism.

[Anonymous No.4098675]

I have a question.
How well do things like Carbon nanotubes stand up to heavy irradiation?

[Anonymous No.4098708]

>>4098626
Want to bring up some legitimate complaints? I'm listening. He responded to an idiot talking about sodium. That is the proper reply to such an idiot.

[Anonymous No.4098784]

>>4098529
>You're going to have to be changing a lot of pipes because of the corrosion
No.
http://www.moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/ORNL-TM-6002.pdf
>As a result of these studies, we have found that Hastelloy N exposed in salt containing metal tellurides such as Li(x)Te and Cr(y)Te(z) undergoes grain boundary embrittlement like that observed in the MSRE. The embrittlement is a function of the chemical activity of tellurium associated with the telluride. The degree of embrittlement can be reduced by alloying additions to the Hastelloy N. The addition of 1 to 2 at. % Nb significantly reduces embrittlement, but small additions of titanium or additions of up to 15 at. % Cr do not affect embrittlernent. We have found that if the U(IV)/U(III) ratio in fuel salt is kept below about 60, embrittlement is essentially prevented when CrTe(1.266) is used as the source of tellurium.

>wants to create HF gas
Hastelloy N doesn't even give a fuck.

>When we can't afford uranium we can spend significantly less on development in the future and reap the benefits then.
The world only has about 130yrs of coal, ~100yrs of natural gas, and 80yrs of oil left, and all of these are going to start getting very expensive very soon(~20yrs).

We don't need two or three or twenty gigawatts of reactor capacity, we need 3000GWe of reactor capacity. Production volumes we can't even dream of reacting with current designs.

Do you really want to be a decade or more behind the Chinese when SHTF?

[Anonymous No.4098832]

No one has asked the real question: will LFTR support nuclear warhead development/maintenance?

If it doesn't, good luck pushing it through in the US

[Anonymous No.4098840]

>>4098832
>No one has asked the real question: will LFTR support nuclear warhead development/maintenance?
No, but the USAF wanted it back int he day for nuclear planes.
Now they can get what they always wanted, especially since the Army is all about cheaper power sources small enough to be transported to overseas bases and such.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4099028]

>>4098529
again, we're not going to reap any benefits, we'll be financially forced to buy reactors from them, possibly even the thorium, and cause further debt. oh boy.

on the reverse scenario, we're the ones making the reactors and everyone buys them from US, which probably isn't any better for other countries through.. hrm


>>4098529
most of the fuel is still sort of active as it travels around from the core to the reprocessing systems, so it maintains its molten state from decay heat. It'll snap freeze in open air but in the pipes it'll take a while to clog up

as for the sodium? you don't need it, you can run straight up helium through the core, and the massive heat difference actually makes the energy conversion more efficient.

as for uranium usage, you're thinking of seed material for reactors. that's going to be a bit of a problem starting up with the first few prototypes, but converting them into U233 breeder configurations to provide seed for other LFTRs isn't too much trouble

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4099030]

>>4098832
actually the current administration sees large nuclear stockpiles as a liability, they're rather dismantle them for other uses, but keep some on hand.

[Anonymous No.4099810]

>>4098784 We don't need two or three or twenty gigawatts of reactor capacity, we need 3000GWe of reactor capacity. Production volumes we can't even dream of reacting with current designs.

We can get that easily with current reactors. We authorise funding and build a lot more reactors from the fully developed working plans we already have.

Being the first to develop something is always much more expensive and if it's as reliable and simple as you guys rattle on about (I think you're overly optimistic) then it shouldn't be a problem to make the transition later on.

We still have the resources to muddle on with what we have for another 30 years by which time it will be even easier to implement an advanced thorium reactor.

Better things to spend our money on.

[Anonymous No.4099836]

>>4098607 What? You keep saying this without any real foundation. Of all of the problems, this really likely isn't one.

This molten salt mix is going to be messy and when it freezes it doesn't take a genius to tell working with it will be a pain in the ass. Have you ever had to do maintenance to anything?

[Anonymous No.4099958]

>>4099836
>Have you ever had to do maintenance to anything?
Not him, but I'm gonna say no, personally.
Though Now that I think about it, it must be like trying to find remove the clog in your plumbing, except this time you can't use a simple 'snake' tool to get it out.
I guess you't have to superheat the whole section of pipe and then stick something in to essentially 'scoop' it out.
Eeesh.
It wouldn't really be a problem for a land reactor, they would just remove and replace the whole pipe section, but on a sub you wouldn't exactly have room for that.
How much power does a modern nuclear submarine use? I can't find a number for that.

>>4099810
>advanced thorium reactor
How would you 'advance' the engineering technology of an LFTR?

[Anonymous No.4101311]

>>4099958 How would you 'advance' the engineering technology of an LFTR?

Take fully functioning chinese design, build it yourself and put your own label on it.

[Anonymous No.4102724]

Why are we messing with thorium? A molten salt breeder mix of uranium and plutonium will have a much higher yield. The safety factor is very high and even higher with new designs. On site fuel recycling would make waste negligible, weapons grade byproduct would be used as fuel. Laser excitation extraction can separate isotopes at very low cost, although it does have some space requirements. The US has one of the largest supply of uranium and we can also use our weapons as fuel. It is a less dramatic step as it uses mostly current technology. Properly breeding could theoretically power us till the sun goes out even with demand growth. I do not see any benefits to thorium or the micro reactor plan. I fact I see a lot wrong, that why this idea was scrapped back when we started nuclear power and the issues to my knowledge have not changed. Now fusion on the other hand...

[Anonymous No.4102739]

>we can't really afford to let the chinese develop one, and they're well on their way

Why not? Let them be the guinea pig. If it works, America/EU will adopt it quite readily.

If you are worried about Chinese dominating the world economy, don't worry; their bubble is about to burst. Their economy is centered around our consumerism. The U.S. economy will just get worse--and the Chinese one will experience an even more drastic decline in result.

[Anonymous No.4102745]

>>4102724
Because we've got a test run already done of the LFTR's predecessor.

It costs less to further the R&D of something already R&D'd in the past.

your uranium/plutonium salt mix will be the next step up in advancing this type of reactor.

[Anonymous No.4102754]

>>4092119
Sir, I would be more than happy to VoiceOver something for you to be posted on YouTube, it would be great to add to my reel regardless of content. I have a professional home studio and am not a regular on /sci/ leaving me perfectly unbiased. If you are serious about this, please contact me at [e-mail]. Thank you

[Anonymous No.4102800]

>>4102745
It is true no real world reactor has done this, but we have actually studied all the parts a lot more. The mix is also less corrosive which is one of the main problems with thorium. The R&D costs will need to be done one way or another, may as well get it done and use the money on a higher yielding system. Either way the current thorium is a sunk cost.

[Anonymous No.4102829]

>>4102800
> Either way the current thorium is a sunk cost.
Yup. Doesn't change the fact it's got the most social and media force behind it.
It's humanity's gateway drug to the Nuclear age.

[Anonymous No.4102883]

>>4102829
But it cost them so much more because of all the problems, especially with this small reactor plan. And when these thorium reactor start messing up, and they will thanks to lowest bidding, less regulation, and other reasons. Everyone will cry for the ban of nuclear power again.

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4102888]

honeslty, detractors of the technology need to realize what's the real chokepoint for development, which will be fuel reprocessing. it hasn't really been done on full scale in a continuous sense, they messed around with vacuum distillation at oakridge, but not much.

the concerns about maintenance and salt freezing? not really a problem according to the old MSRE papers. they had some problems with lubricating machine oil polymerizing when met with the intense neutron flux inside the piping system, it started to clog shit up a little.

[Anonymous No.4102926]

>>4102888
The reason why reprocessing is so far behind is it has more or less been banded for fear that it will lead to nuclear proliferation. In fact outside of some very special conditions it is against the law to reprocesses fuel in the US. France actually had a large program decades ago till they had safety issues and shut it down as it was not managed properly. Most of the costs are legal, as you are reprocessing something with a higher purity so it is actually easier. From an engineering standpoint it is easier then mining more and refining the low grade ore.

[CapitalistBastard !!l4dbpZTi+Kq No.4102942]

>we can't really afford to let the chinese develop one

Economic illiteracy.

I have no problem with the Chinese developing LFTR.

If they have economical reactors resulting in very low cost electricity while simultaneously burning old nuclear waste, I don't see how that would in any way hurt the cause in the US.

[Anonymous No.4102953]

>>4102942
The issue is that they would become more powerful and influential than us in short order.
That is not a good idea, i think.

BTW, what will happen to the middle east once their oil becomes less important?

[Anonymous No.4102960]

>>4102953
>what will happen to the middle east once their oil becomes less important?

who cares?
the only reason we go to so much trouble to manage what are essentially third world theocracies is because they have oil. Once it's gone we can let them kill each other in peace.

[Anonymous No.4103312]

>>4102960
>Once it's gone we can let them kill each other in peace.
That makes me happy.
Though I'm thinking that America will still keep supporting Isreal, if only as a VERY useful distraction.

[Anonymous No.4103535]

>>4102739
>105 median IQ
>thinks their growth is a bubble

[Photon !g2Boson6mM No.4103556]

The fact is that LFTR's still produce radioactive waste and have a tiny (but present) chance of a meltdown. The public isn't comfortable with that. Fukushima did not help the nuclear cause at all.

What does need a good grassroots campaign is Fusion energy, where the waste product is Helium and the fuel is renewable.

That being said, I'm still an LFTR supporter and will help out any way I can.

[Anonymous No.4103566]

>>4103556

>have a tiny (but present) chance of a meltdown

They don't, though.

Abso-fucking-lute worst case scenario, the entire system gets corroded and pipes burst all over.
The immediate containment area gets irradiated salt over the floor and it cools down over the next few days because it CANNOT achieve a continuous reaction like LWRs.

[Photon !g2Boson6mM No.4103581]

>>4103566
Then my sources are shit, sorry.

[Anonymous No.4103588]

>>4102953 The issue is that they would become more powerful and influential than us in short order.
That is not a good idea, i think.

The chinese are already powerful and influential, a LFTR reactor won't change any of that.

[Anonymous No.4103594]

>>4103556
>>4092119

Stop using the term "grass roots" you fucking niggers.

[Anonymous No.4103607]

>>4103566 The immediate containment area gets irradiated salt over the floor and it cools down over the next few days because it CANNOT achieve a continuous reaction like LWRs.

How many tons of salt are in a full scale LFTR? Scooping that shit up sounds like a whole lot of fun.

Modern LWRs don't suffer from continuous reactions because control rods automatically drop into place in the event of potential danger.

[Anonymous No.4103623]

>>4103607

>Modern LWRs don't suffer from continuous reactions because control rods automatically drop into place in the event of potential danger.

Those are only the most modern, and even failsafes can fail.
Unfortunately we still have a lot of first and second generation LWRs in operation.

[Anonymous No.4105382]

>>4103623 Only the most modern

Well we're not going to be building any more of the old ones again. We'll be seeing the Gen IV reactors in the next 30 years and the LFTR is likely included but they all have unforeseen problems so it's best not to rush ANY of them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

[Nuka-Cola !dbLFTRZqOI No.4105990]

>>4102960
>who cares?
other countries
i'd very much rather china NOT have control over this technology first, and dictate the market price on it.
My displeasure is based on their incredibly shady buisness tactics in all things, and almost no regulatory oversight on whatever they do. Them owning any market is probably bad news


>>4103607
honestly? LFTR cleanup would probably be a cakewalk compared to traditional reactor cleanup, what with the crazy decay products riding the outventing steam from the core and the plutonium getting everywhere

this is why i really fucking like continuous reprocessing two fluid designs. even if there's a CATASTROPHIC failure, you don't have many bad fission products mucking about in the fuel salt at any one time. you'll get a nasty ass fluorine-gas producing gamma-intense puddle on the floor, but you can just use robots to clean it up and decontaminate them. Also that salt is still good. pack it up and slap it in another reactor.