Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
5
LastLast
  1. #41
    Is this real? LOL, when I read the title here I thought it was some World of Warcraft engineering stuff! Isn't thorium a mineral in game as well? Don't remember anymore.
    English is not my main language so grammar errors might happen.

  2. #42
    Merely a Setback Adam Jensen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sarif Industries, Detroit
    Posts
    26,228
    They're nuclear reactors that use thorium.

    Which is an element made of high density Chris Heimsworths.
    3.6 roentgen . . . not great, not terrible. - Comrade Dyatlov

  3. #43
    Pandaren Monk roboscorcher's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,758
    Let's just cut all the BS and get to building a Dyson Sphere. :P

  4. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by Nefastus View Post
    Is this real? LOL, when I read the title here I thought it was some World of Warcraft engineering stuff! Isn't thorium a mineral in game as well? Don't remember anymore.
    Yes Thorium is a real element and yes, it appeared in WC3 as the final weapon upgrade and in WoW in spite of probably being a terrible metal to make weaponry from lol.
    The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.

  5. #45
    Quote Originally Posted by Nefastus View Post
    Is this real? LOL, when I read the title here I thought it was some World of Warcraft engineering stuff! Isn't thorium a mineral in game as well? Don't remember anymore.
    It was the penultimate metal to mine in vanilla WoW - the stuff you made the really high end prestige stuff from. It's also element #90 on the real world periodic table and an actual material.

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by Medium9 View Post
    It was the penultimate metal to mine in vanilla WoW - the stuff you made the really high end prestige stuff from. It's also element #90 on the real world periodic table and an actual material.
    Ah, yes, the one where we got the arcane crystals, remember it now!
    English is not my main language so grammar errors might happen.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by Nefastus View Post
    Ah, yes, the one where we got the arcane crystals, remember it now!
    A friend of mine spent several weeks to get those fuckers for his beloved arcanite reaper. He was completely obsessed and did almost nothing but circle ungoro crater evening after evening. Total mad man.

  8. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by Afrospinach View Post
    I would just love to see a more productive attitude to all things nuclear period.
    I am completely oblivious to electricity and energy but if we don't have meltdowns and the like on submarines, why isn't nuclear more prevalent? As much as there's people against coal, isn't there just as many people scared about nuclear? I don't get "why".

  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Medium9 View Post
    It was the penultimate metal to mine in vanilla WoW - the stuff you made the really high end prestige stuff from. It's also element #90 on the real world periodic table and an actual material.
    Next you’re going to tell me iron is a real element too. /s
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Got to earn his turnips.
    Quote Originally Posted by freefolk View Post
    Okay. I'll stop sharing my views.

  10. #50
    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?


  11. #51
    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

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilist74 View Post
    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?

    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.

  13. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by Vegas82 View Post
    Next you’re going to tell me iron is a real element too. /s
    Or neodiddlyum.

    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    I am completely oblivious to electricity and energy but if we don't have meltdowns and the like on submarines, why isn't nuclear more prevalent? As much as there's people against coal, isn't there just as many people scared about nuclear? I don't get "why".
    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.

    The 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...ear_submarines

    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by jaksan View Post
    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
    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.

  14. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by Afrospinach View Post
    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_submarines

    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.
    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.

  15. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Afrospinach View Post
    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_submarines

    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.
    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.

  16. #56
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    16,207
    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilist74 View Post
    I was under the impression that a thorium reactor used thorium for the fission reaction instead of uranium.
    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 mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    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.
    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
    "Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom." -- Ghostcrawler
    Q: Why was the anti-vaxxer's 4 year old child crying? A: Midlife crisis.

  18. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by alturic View Post
    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.
    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 - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by breadisfunny View Post
    i would like to know people's opinion on antimatter fuel sources in rockets.
    I really appreciate the number of people taking this post seriously.

  19. #59
    Quote Originally Posted by Kharadin View Post
    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.
    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
    "Almost every time I have gotten to know a critic personally, they keep up with the criticism but lose the venom." -- Ghostcrawler
    Q: Why was the anti-vaxxer's 4 year old child crying? A: Midlife crisis.

  20. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Ihavewaffles View Post
    Waste of monies, all funding should go towards development of fusion reactors.
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •