[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 63 KB, 630x420, billgatesthoriumdream.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5930153 No.5930153 [Reply] [Original]

So /sci/, how does it feel to finally be vindicated:
http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/bill-gates-is-beginning-to-dream-the-thorium-dream

I've been seeing those damn thorium reactor threads for years now, and it's apparently finally panning out. So, anybody have some of those info pics to share?

>> No.5930155
File: 2.46 MB, 938x4167, LFTR.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5930155

>> No.5930180

MUH THORIUM

>> No.5930218

Not Op but can we get an energy density equation that backs up the assertion or something?
I'm not a nuclear physicist alright. I just see "It makes as much energy in one ton as 200,000 tons of uranium" and I'm like "huh.. interesting, prove it?"

>> No.5930237

based gates

>> No.5930241

>He believes the men with the iron grip on energy distribution would allow something more efficient to truly blossom and destory their business.

>> No.5930260

>>5930153
very good news! The LFTR efforts need someone with the political and financial clout to get the ball rolling again.

>>5930218
I don't think anyone made that claim. The LFTR does get a couple magnitudes more burnup from its design though. You do realize that the bulk of nuclear waste is unsplit uranium, right? Only a few percent is actually fissioned before a fuel rod becomes unusable. That is an advantage of both liquid-fuel and traveling wave reactor technologies, near 100% burnup.

>> No.5930265

>>5930218
>It makes as much energy in one ton as 200,000 tons of uranium
Never saw anyone claiming that. It is more efficient though, only couple of percent of uranium ore is actually fissile isotope.

>> No.5930287

>>5930218
The ratio is 1:200, not 1:200,000.

Though that's just from reading the infographic in the thread. I don't really know.

>> No.5930431
File: 72 KB, 537x585, 1366773571817.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
5930431

bill gates confirmed for thoriumfag

>> No.5930464

>thorium isn't naturally fissile
>needs to enrich thorium before you can use it
>which means you need breeders, and a more complicated logistic line
There is a reason the murricans dismissed it as "not that interesting".

If you're going to say "but we're going to run out of uranium", you need to shut your mouth and open a book.

>> No.5930474

>>5930464
there is a reason why the germans decided to stop their nuclear program...
fucking ecologists are going to destroy this planet by the lack of clean energy, and all that because of "security".
at least thorium doesn't have that issue.

>> No.5930475

>>5930464
>There is a reason the murricans dismissed it as "not that interesting".
Because it's harder to turn the byproducts into weapons.

>> No.5930480

>>5930475
Nope, because the more complex breeding system and transport makes it not really cheap.

>>5930474
What do you have against 'ranium, son?

>> No.5930481

>>5930431
but muh thorium

>> No.5930490

>>5930475
>implying the americans need civil reactors to make weapon
It's funny how you have no idea what you're talking about. Civilian reactors are a mean to create weapons for countries that are normally not allowed to own any.

It is AGAINST american military interests to have uranium reactors everywhere. They have all the interests in the world to see uranium replaced by another technology.

Yet they determined it wasn't so lucrative.

>> No.5930500

>>5930480
I don't have nothing about uranium. Au contraire.
But apparently, the masses don't agree (see, tchernobyl and fukushima were scary for them), so politicians are more prone to eliminate nuclear energy in order to remain in command.
I thought angela merkel or the japanese were smart, never have I been so wrong.

If thorium is as safe as it is claimed to be, no one would ever be able to complain, and we would have a lot of energy available.

>> No.5930503

>>5930500
>But apparently, the masses don't agree (see, tchernobyl and fukushima were scary for them)
Quite frankly, the backlash against nuclear after fukushima was way, way below what I feared.

Afaik, it' didn't change much.

>> No.5930512

>>5930500
Considering Chernobyl-era reactors were still used even after that shitshow, public reaction doesn't really impact policy.

>> No.5930579

AW YISS
if gates spend 2 of his 70 billion personal fortune or whatever it is, we'd have a working prototype in a decade

>> No.5930583

>>5930241
>he thinks those men aren't going to pump money into it to make their own patented designs
they aren't stupid. they have seen what happens to industries that try to stand still in a moving market.

hell, i'd by a Shell brand backyard eco-actor or whatever they call it.
don't buy a BP though, i hear they get leaky

>> No.5930774

I think an easier way to increase nuclear power efficiency is to get congress to remove bans on enriching uranium instead of getting support for thorium reactors, which are still experimental.

It baffles me that the DOE spends money disposing of perfectly good nuclear fuel because of the threat that it could possibly be recycled. Why are they so worried when every milligram of uranium is accounted for anyway?

>> No.5930805

>>5930503
it didn't change much?

Are you fucking blind? Japans wanted to stop nuclear energy (but it's not that fucking easy), and Germany, the first economy of europe doing as much.

If this isn't populism, then what is

>> No.5930831

>>5930805
>Japans wanted to stop nuclear energy
Yeah no, not really.

>Germany, the first economy of europe doing as much.
Are you fucking stupid? German ecologists had been blocking nuclear for years before Fukushima.

>> No.5930843

>>5930831
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/14/us-japan-nuclear-idUSBRE88D05520120914


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13592208

both decisions because of fukushima, overall a minor event.

>> No.5930853

Norway here
Thanks for giving us another industry to base our entire economy on now that the oil is dying down

>> No.5930857

>>5930843
>promise concerning year 2030
Sure thing.
>Germany blabla
Again, it's been like that for years now.

>> No.5930858

Too bad Bill Gates spent all his money on other projects and doesn't have enough to self fund the glorious thorium future.

>> No.5931054

>>5930774
because turrists.
mind you, that's not an idle concern. even without directly fissile material, a dirty bomb is a fucking horrible way to kill lots of people and scare the fuck out of everybody

>> No.5931095

>>5930500
>tchernobyl and fukushima were scary for them
Those lesser minds, being afraid of the death of thousands and the radiation of huge parts of land.

Maybe those lesser masses would take you more seriously if you were to actually offer solutions to the problems instead of acting like these catastrophes aren´t a big deal.

>> No.5931115

>>5931095
well, fukushima really wasn't that bad at all
two years later, the only lasting effects have been a few funky plants and some butterflies with weird eyes. that's it.
the exclusion zone has dropped down to like 5km around the plant, or maybe it's down to 1km by now?

it's a big expensive mess but it's not really a health hazard anymore.
however the japanese media makes it sound like every can of soup in the nation contains plutonium or whatever, i think that's the major galvanizing factor over there.

>> No.5931547

also, i dont feel anything about it right now
i'll feel something when he puts money directly towards something in the field, instead of just mentioning it