Let's just cut all the BS and get to building a Dyson Sphere. :P
Let's just cut all the BS and get to building a Dyson Sphere. :P
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
I think they made a test reactor a long time ago at that test lab in Oakridge Tennesee. Watched a documentary on it. They called it a molten salt reactor but they were using uranium. I was under the impression that a thorium reactor used thorium for the fission reaction instead of uranium.
As long as we have people like Rick Perry running the department of energy I would not get your hopes up for innovative ideas like this. When Obama was president, he had a guy who had a Ph.D. in theoretical physics?
Jesus Christ, I mean it is an interesting question but I doubt even 0,00001% of people here have any sorts of merit at all and knowledge to speak about the subject, including me. Sure I can do what everyone else does and look it up on wikipedia or whatever but comeon, This place needs to die if this is the topic that comes up
I watched so many ducu's and read so many papers on this. I think they tested the NERVA for 10,000 hours even and was ready for the Saturn Mars project sleighted for the early 80's under Von Brauns ideas. This is currently on the drawing board again by NASA and a company in my state of Ohio for Nuclear Propulsion Tech. The Thorium LFTR as it's called is completely viable, completely safe, and 10x more energy dense and 10x more resource available than Uranium. It's insane we burn, use rare elements for energy. Use things that are abundant. Like Hydrogen......
We can do it, we're just lazy, don't want to spend time and money. It can be done.
Or neodiddlyum.
A shocking amount of nuclear ordinance and the like has been lost at sea. I don't know about reactors. I assume the military just does not have to ask your permission is most of the reason(no red tape), which is what appears to be the big hamstring factor to nuclear deployment. They don't offer enough benefit to overcome that yet.
As for meltdowns? I have no idea. I think the biggest is 500mw on one of the US aircraft carriers but specifics are probably classified as I can never find out what but that would be a small reactor. Really, if they can do it why can't a land bound civilian plant do it? It is not like they can't melt down.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ear_submarinesThe United States is the main navy with nuclear-powered aircraft carriers (10), while Russia has nuclear-powered cruisers. Russia has eight nuclear icebreakers in service or building. Since its inception in 1948, the U.S. Navy nuclear program has developed 27 different plant designs, installed them in 210 nuclear-powered ships, taken 500 reactor cores into operation, and accumulated over 5,400 reactor years of operation and 128,000,000 miles safely steamed. Additionally, 98 nuclear submarines and six nuclear cruisers have been recycled. The U.S. Navy has never experienced a reactor accident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lear_accidents
I am not sure if this is there or not, but legend has it a spy monitoring station(nuclear powered, of course) was lost in the Himalayas. Still don't know where it is but they know it is up there because of the small amounts of isotopes they can find in various snow melts lol. I assume that was actually an RTG(like a satellite) but I really cannot remember lol.
Then don't base your thesis on anything provided in the thread. Information can't hurt you.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
Yea, that's kinda what I'm getting at. Military has been using ("harnessing" muahahaha) nuclear things for a while, knowing I said I don't have the first clue about nuclear bombs vs energy but knowing there is nuclear reactors in subs and the like, why isn't nuclear a bigger thing for power on the mainland? Isn't nuclear like super-clean, unless there's a meltdown? Is that people's concern with nuclear, meltdowns? If so, why is there never any talks about the poor sailors if their sub's reactor melts down.
Hell, maybe it's not really the meltdown specifically that scares people, but government "taking care of things properly" vs "private companies only caring about profits" that scare people.
But then the issue is that the information here has to be taken as completely useless unless backed by multiple sources and an even bigger problem is that some people may take what people say as fact even though it might be bullshit. A discussion like this has 0 place on a MMO forum.
It does, indirectly. Thorium-232 (which makes up practically all natural thorium, because it's pretty stable, with a half-life of about 14 billion years) isn't fissile, so it can't sustain a nuclear fission chain reaction. But it is fertile, meaning it can be turned into something (this process is called "breeding") that is fissile.
A thorium reactor would use some uranium, either U-233 (from another thorium reactor you've already got running) or U-235 (the kind used for uranium reactors and/or bombs) to jumpstart the fission reaction in the reactor. This reaction will generate a ton of neutron radiation.
The thorium-232 is exposed to that radiation, which cause its atoms to capture an extra neutron, which will turn it into thorium-233. That then decays into protactinium-233, which then decays into uranium-233, which is fissile and is the actual fuel used to sustain the reaction. This keeps on pumping out the neutrons, to turn more thorium-233 into U-233 so the entire thing self sustains.
The MSRE skipped that breeding part and just used some U-233 directly at the fuel to prove that the reactor would work and measured the neutron radiation to say "Yup, there's enough neutrons here to turn th-233 into U-233".
Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mindMe on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW charactersOriginally Posted by Howard Tayler
A "thorium" reactor would use 233U. Not to jumpstart the reactor; that would be the isotope that would sustain the actual chain reaction. Thorium is just what would be used to breed that 233U.
From a practical point of view this is just like breeding plutonium from 238U. And given the price of 235U, it's just as useless.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
It's profits. No one's willing to put up the initial investment for more nuclear power (same reason there's not as much investment in renewables), because it's cheaper to keep drilling and burning oil. On top of that more nuclear power means less reliance on oil, means lower prices of oil, means people who sell oil (the people with all the money) won't be happy. Can't be having that in our wonderful capitalist utopia.
- - - Updated - - -
I really appreciate the number of people taking this post seriously.
Nuclear is just too expensive now, compared even to renewables. This is a new state of affairs; even ten years ago it wouldn't have been true (compared to renewables, that is.) But renewable prices have just collapsed, and short term storage prices are collapsing as well. Unless the cost of nuclear can be dramatically reduced it cannot survive except in very niche markets, or perhaps at all.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
Difference being we are reasonably close to having access to all the required technology (if we don't already, I'm not entirely up to date) to build/operate Thorium reactors. Throw all the money in the world at fusion reactors and we're probably still a decade (at least) from having it be a feasible source of energy.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
Sounds reasonable. Renewables are the way to go anyhow. It's just too bad that we're in this grey zone between 100% renewable being feasible despite knowing the stupidity of continued reliance on oil. Nuclear would be a nice stop-gap if the people with money actually gave a shit about cooking the planet.
- - - Updated - - -
Yeah I thought it'd err on the side of optimism, I know we can net energy gain very short term (don't think we actually convert it to usable energy, though) but I'm not read up on the current bottlenecks. Also the laser array they use to start the reaction uses the same amount of power as the entire US for the time it's turned on. That shit's crazy.
We are past the point where it makes sense to build new nuclear power plants. There's more bang from the buck from alternatives.
People confuse "reaching breakeven" or "reaching ignition" with "having practical fusion". But fusion power plants will have horribly low power density (the thermal power density of the ITER reactor is 400x worse than a PWR primary reactor vessel, for example), and this is very likely an insurmountable economic obstacle.Yeah I thought it'd err on the side of optimism, I know we can net energy gain very short term (don't think we actually convert it to usable energy, though) but I'm not read up on the current bottlenecks. Also the laser array they use to start the reaction uses the same amount of power as the entire US for the time it's turned on. That shit's crazy.
Fusion is interesting in this thread because the argument for it (fuel is cheap, and also it's safe) is the same fallacy behind thorium hype. Neither fuel costs nor safety are what has stymied nuclear; cost is. And fusion would make that real problem worse.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
Sure, but because cost is the issue now doesn't mean that cost will be the issue forever. I don't think I'd term the arguments for thorium and fusion to be fallacious, the arguments are good, it merely poses the problem, if we want access to safe/clean energy, how do we make it cost effective?