I am pretty excited about Thorium after learning about a little of the history of LFTRs.
The thought that about 4 grams of Thorium in the right reactor could supply my entire energy consumption for an entire year is staggering.
Are you excited about Thorium?
Know anything about current progress on Thorium reactors?
What are some other non-carbon generating energy systems you're excited about?
LFTRs in 5 minutes - Thorium Reactors
>Quick intro video
The Thorium Molten-Salt Reactor: Why Didn't This Happen (and why is now the right time?)
Solar is temporary power, and current battery technology can not store the night time demand. The entirety of the world's batteries will be able to supply the world with power for just 10 minutes. Then they're all dead.
>This obviously will not solely support our current energy hungry society.
Solar is an alright form of energy during the day in regions that get a lot of sun, but it must be supplemented with other forms of power.
All the fuel salt has to be changed every 18 months. A good commercial size reactor would need 60 tons of the mix. The spent fuel is hazard waste and off gases large amounts of hexafluorides for 60 years and must be contained for 480-600 years to be considered "safe". So 4000 reactors pushing out that much waste salt is a logistical nightmare, and no where to put it.
It's a nice technology for space where you can just dump the 177 cubic kilometres of biannual waste wherever.
But, solar drains energy from the sun, soon there wont be any left
You're horribly misinformed about literally everything.
A single LTFR would be on the gigawatt scale of energy production, and it uses less fuel than current Uranium based PWR facilities. The waste from a LFTR has to be stored for about 400 years vs over 1000 years for a Uranium based reactor.
Like every single thing you posted is entirely a lie.
Actually great progress has been made in storing daytime solar energy in the form of molten salt that can go for hours after the sun sets.
>storing daytime solar energy in the form of molten salt that can go for hours after the sun sets.
That's a cool article, and thanks for sharing! The question is will the heat stored in the salts still be enough to meet energy demands for the global average of 12 hours when there isn't any sun to make solar a viable option on its own.
Not to mention it does take up a hell of a lot of space when you start scaling up energy production.
yeha it is. plus its reliant on having a sunny environment.
we have solar hot water heating which does really well, the only solar solution that makes any sense too. it does save alot of power
>The sun always has ~50% of the earth lit.
The earth perhaps but almost all of that is open water. Then factor in places that are almost always cloudy. Or uninhabitable. Or not suited to development.
It takes a couple hundred square feet of panels just to power the average home, if
is correct, fpr the space it takes solar to power 10 homes, we could power entire cities.
>How is solar not better?
>say tesla's wireless energy transmissions work.
Assuming that they do work, (and that is a big assumption) solar farms will take up significantly more space than LFTR reactors, along with other reasons stated by >>42626208
But it doesn't matter any way! As the sun ages the increase in solar temperatures is such that in about another billion years the Earth's water will evaporate and escape into space, rendering the planet inhospitable to all known terrestrial life! At least we don't have to worry about the sun burning out.
There had been a few test reactors through history, specially at the dawn of nuclear power, but development died because uranium reactors had higher priority due to the need for bombs
>SUSTAINABLE ENERGY SUCKS
Thorium sounds like the easy way out, so its probably what we're going to do.
patch one non-sustainable energy problem with another. Thorium just gives us more time to figure out solar. Why cant we do that now?
>Hey let's try out reactors for nuclear explosive fuel!
>Hey we came up with 3 general designs
>One makes Uranium Bomb fuels
>one make Plutonium Bomb fuels
>One doesn't make basically any bomb fuels we can find
>Oh well, scrap that design and get working on the other two!
>But sir they're immensely inefficient
>Nope, gotta make muh bombs!
We've built a couple fully functional LFTRs before, even put one of them in an airplane. China and India have both been stockpiling Thorium for over a decade in order to build LFTRs, I think China already has their first test reactor online. Either Norway or Finland just brought a LFTR derivative test reactor online as well.
Someone asked the head of the EPA in a committee hearing if they had considered Thorium based power, and it was swept under the rug.
LFTRs aren't just some thing reddit likes to talk about, they're literally the only safe future method of power production worth investing in, but the US is far too corrupt to embrace such a disruptive technology.
>but the US is far too corrupt to embrace such a disruptive technology.
The US Navy would be building these things by the dozen if they were actually economically feasible and inherently safe. But teh fact remains that thorium is a fucking pipe dream for space cadets.
Are you the same shill from before who got called out for lying? You sure seem dedicated to spreading disinfo and FUD.
The military works by committee approval just like the US government does because guess what? The military is part of the US government. Our nuclear based subs are Uranium PWR only because they're scaled down versions of larger reactors already in use. The ones already in use because the US government wanted to make nuclear bombs.
Part of the problem is that in the current era, very few people who have the funds to pay for all the R&D are actually willing to throw money at an idea and see if it would work, especially when we already have a "perfectly functional form" of the same kind of power already.
They are already invested in nuclear and it has been field tested a gorrillion times, there's really little to no reason to spend billions in developing new energy sources for their submarines/carriers
The military hardly ever changes stuff, because it costs a fuckton to test it and to replace the older stuff with the new stuff
LFTR's are feasible, proof is the Oak Ridge Molten-Salt Reactor Experiment, that archived all of the objectives of the experiment
>pic related, the MSR
>Our nuclear based subs are Uranium PWR only
Hey someone tell me what the cobalt turtle said after he at some plutonium
No im just hearing that you would rather settle with some non-sustainable, environmentally damaging, weapon grade uranium-232 producing energy procrastination than something which needs tons more attention like solar.
You're the same as the douchebags who drive H3's to me. It's like you really dgaf about our future generations.
Not that thorium reactors dont have a place, but obviously i think solar needs more attention, as it's lacking in progress. No. Im not saying solar roads are good.
>No im just hearing that you would rather settle with some non-sustainable, environmentally damaging, weapon grade uranium-232 producing energy procrastination than something which needs tons more attention like solar.
Are you literally retarded? Thorium can't produce weapon grade uranium, it simply can't
Solar has been in development for at least 50 years, the progress is slow because there's not much that can be done with the materials we have
Solar cannot produce enough power to meet demand. There is no tried and true way to store the power. The only efficient form of solar power is solar thermal, photo voltaic panels are horrendously inefficient and this isn't changing any time soon. Even if that were to change it will still take an absolutely massive amount of land to build a solar farm which will fail to meet the energy output of a nuke plant.
Investing in solar is like paying millions of dollars to turn a Prius into a formula 1 race car. You are backing the loser.
Retards like you who are literally terrified of an entire area of science are the reason why we're so far behind in energy production technology. If you hippy faggots would have been proponents of Thorium decades ago it could have been invested in, and replaced Uranium reactors already. YOU are holding back all of mankind. Literally.
>actually being this much of a disinfo shill
Posts like this actually make me wonder if the NSA has sock puppet shill AI that picks up on key words and just instantly starts trying to slide discussions on certain topics on any website it scans.
>When thorium is irradiated, or exposed to radiation to prepare it for use as a fuel in nuclear reactions, the process forms small amounts of uranium-232. That highly radioactive isotope makes any handling of the fuel outside of a large reactor or reprocessing facility incredibly dangerous.
Oh man i bet u sure feel stupid now.
Wanna follow more shilling and not even do a single google search puppet?
But anon.... That's why im saying we do more research into making things less
Retards like you who are literally solely focused on themselves and the present are the reason why we're so far behind in energy production technology.
Literally gasoline. Fuck you for ruining the planet and holding back all of mankind.
>Solar cannot produce enough power to meet demand. There is no tried and true way to store the power.
Hydrogen, methane, hydroelectric recycling, flywheels and pressure wells.
If you are going to spout shitty rebuttals at least try to be slightly informed on the subject.
That sure is a well thought out response, NSAbot.
The amount Uranium that is produced in the LFTR cycle is tiny. You could power the entire nation on LFTRs for decades and not have enough to throw into a centrifuge and produce a usable 235 core for a warhead. You dumb cunt.
>oh no I saw a scarry word!
>ban all Thorium for infinity billion years!
>I think radioactivity is scary so I'm going to say it ruins the planet and be totally serious about i
>think green lel
>shit eating retarded hippy faggot
Yeah. Keep wasting time money and resources on a method of energy production that is orders of magnitude less energetic than nuclear. Thats definitely a race worth running.
Take your own advice, retard. There is literally not a single method of effectively storing solar generated power. Thats why the liquid salt idea is such a big deal, because nothing else works.
You should really consider suicide.
Popular Mechanics is pretty retarded since the 2000's, if not maybe earlier
But for an americlap I guess shit's right
Anyways, the quantity of U232 that it's produced it's stupidly small, and would need certain reactor designs, and it can be easily avoided
Wikipedia is a much better source than bullshit boomer magazines
>inb4 Wikipedia and no citation
Here's citation fagget
>effectively storing solar
Please suck it fgt
> Keep wasting time money and resources on a method of energy production that is orders of magnitude less energetic than nuclear. Thats definitely a race worth running.
>The amount Uranium that is produced in the LFTR cycle is tiny.
It's apparently enough to cause problems with transport. How u gonna get all that fuel to them reactors?
Sure is short term thinking time huh?
>"Thierry Dujardin, deputy director for science and development of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s Nuclear Energy Agency takes a middle of the road approach to concerns over proliferation with thorium. "It’s probably as wrong to claim there is no proliferation concern as to say it’s worse than other fuels," Dujardin says.
>Responding to Ashley’s Nature article, O’Hagan says proliferation concerns are overstated. "There are proliferation issues with anything nuclear," he says. "But if you are out to make a bomb, you go after plutonium rather than thorium and uranium-233. It’s too difficult to handle."
>Direct from the article.
You seem to have chosen an article that argues more strongly as to why it's not likely to be a problem, than why it is a problem anon. Whoopsie.
Let me put it this way.
To do fission with thorium you have to have a breeder reactor. Whether it's an older design or some new liquid salt or whatever, it's going to be a breeder reactor.
But you could just use normal fertile uranium as well as thorium. You're just entering the fuel cycle a few neutrons early.
Literally the only reason anyone gives a shit about thorium is because some rich people with mines have been marketing it.
And anyway, solar is making incredible progress. Historically, cheap fossil fuels and anticompetitive moves by the fossil fuel industry have suppressed investment, but even over the past few years prices have come way down.
Really the only missing piece is grid storage, and there's a lot of promising technologies for that that are in the pilot stage.
So you've done enough to get paid, shut the fuck up and go away, shill.
>Thats why the liquid salt idea is such a big deal, because nothing else works.
Molten salt is a big deal because it allows heat to be densely stored and used to generate steam for spin turbines on site. Thanks for listening.
"liquid salt", oh man keep going. Let that anger power you, soon after some more fact slapping your ass will be so heated we can blow helium up your ass and create fusion.
>According to the study's lead author Charles Barnhart, a postdoctoral scholar at Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project, the embedded energy contained in grid storage in batteries could be reduced dramatically by increasing the number of discharge cycles the batteries can deliver. Typical lead-acid batteries can be charged and discharged about 7700 times, and lithium ion batteries about 6,000 times. To store energy in an energy-effiicient way, says Banhart, we'll need to produce batteries capable of as many as 18,000 cycles. That would mean batteries that could charge and discharge once daily foor almost 50 years.
So we just need to improve batteries to three times their capacity? Just like there has been literally no improvement in them for the last decades
It's much more pipedream than Thorium
>It's apparently enough to cause problems with transport. How u gonna get all that fuel to them reactors?
From where the fuck are you seeing this? It's way, like in much less fuel than actual nuclear
>posting easily disproven lies
>hurrr people only care about Thorium because its a 1%er conspiracy!
and shut the fuck up with the rest of the greentards. Literally having to lie through your teeth is the mark of a shill, shill.
>has literally no idea what hes saying
It is the only effective way to store solar power. There is nothing else that doesn't result in a huge loss of the power captured.
Solar is a pipedream. Thorium isn't. We have built working Thorium reactors. Other nations are building Thorium reactors.
We're behind the curve and faggots like you are a huge part of the problem.
For the third time, it's just a breeder reactor, you're just closing the fucking fuel cycle, this is not a feature of thorium.
This kind of intentional ignorance is proof you're a shill.
>It's apparently enough to cause problems with transport. How u gonna get all that fuel to them reactors?
The entire thing about LFTRs is that they make the fuel within the reactor in a homogeneous mixture. Thorium literally turns into the fuel. It is VERY difficult to remove a product from the Thorium reactor using that kind of design, if not possibly impossible.
>butthurt shill still trying to throw people off his scent by calling others a shill
Oh boy. This is every bit as transparent as when a bunch of green energy companies that big oil had invested in were given giant government grants because the oil companies knew these businesses were bound to fail.
Already did, retard.
You do realize nobody believes you, frankly I'm starting to think you're just a troll.
>"The difference in the state of development of thorium versus other sources of fuel is so vast and the cost of developing the technology is so high, it’s really questionable today whether it’s worthwhile to spend a lot of money on the development of thorium."
Ok, so its an overly-expensive endeavor twards non-sustainable fuels that allows us to "lessen" the amount of damage and strain nuclear power has on the environment.
How is solar not a better long-term option. Wireless energy is not that far away, even if you disregard tesla's towers.
Solar panels in the upper atmosphere would always have sunlight except at night.
Boom. Thats better than destroying the environment with the justification that it's "less damaging" than the last nuclear alternative.
>It is the only effective way to store solar power
So you are saying that storing energy in molten salts for hours is more effective than having water pumps recycle downstream water from a dam by pumping it back up into the reservoir for that hydroelectric system. Cus that water's potential energy isn’t going anywhere, for like ever unlike the heat in the salt diffusing away.
There are at least two promising grid storage techs on the horizon, liquid metal batteries and flow batteries.
Plus, batteries and solar both can go a long way with incremental improvements to manufacturing techniques. That's what we've been seeing in solar.
It's like we know how to do solid-state chemistry, or something...
Basically, I was a nuke guy for a while, but at this point I'm "optimistic" that we can just skip it, since we're already transitioning away from fossil fuels so late.
>Ok, so its an overly-expensive endeavor twards non-sustainable fuels that allows us to "lessen" the amount of damage and strain nuclear power has on the environment.
Are you kidding me? One of the test reactors they ran had 1% more thorium in it when they turned it off than when they turned the thing on! Even ignoring that fact, will literally never run out of this stuff. It is just too common.
That, combined with the fact that simply producing solar panel technology creates a lot of toxic waste, is why solar is not the better long term option.
>shill still posting
If you want anyone to believe you're an actual adult and not a 15 year old little girl tumblr activist stop using bullshit buzzwords and phrases.
>he amount of damage and strain nuclear power has on the environment.
Massive problem number one. This is meaningless, dishonest, and fallacious. Properly storing nuclear waste doesn't harm the environment. The constant mining of precious rare earth metals used in electronics however does. Mining puts radioactive particulate directly into the atmosphere, and it will settle down in any nearby body of water. Destroying a small ecosystem for the sake of stripping it of one particular type of mineral is a reality of manufacturing, and you are suggesting that solar power is somehow all smiles and sunshine. It isn't.
The reality of what you suggest, not even counting putting solar arrays in orbit, is literally a small scale ecological disaster that will be drive by what amounts to third world slave labor.
Grow the fuck up, and get educated.
>That, combined with the fact that simply producing solar panel technology creates a lot of toxic waste, is why solar is not the better long term option.
Solar is not -just- photovoltaic panels.
>Solar panels in the upper atmosphere would always have sunlight except at night.
And how do you anchor them? And how do you transmit the energy without completely fucking wireless communications? And how do you not deprive plants from the light they need to live?
That's a total pipedream, off planet solar arrays are more feasible, though the problem of transmitting energy would still persist, and the costs would be stupidly high
And before the technology to do that is developed fusion will be in commercial use
The problem and need for thorium it's that we need the energy now, petroleum it's almost past it's peak, and carbon has and will never be sustainable and damages the environment much more than anything else
We need a replacement ASAP, that's why thorium it's the most possible solution
The mirrors used in giant solar farms are coated in rare metals. Those metals have to be dug out of the ground, they have to be refined in factories. Other factories have to use special ovens to make those metals adhere to the mirrors.
"Green" energy is a pitfall for emotional thinkers, not rational people. Just like LED lightbulbs more often than not there is a massive footprint for the production of the materials used, and it is entirely ignored by people. They don't care if what they're doing is actually a net loss in energy, they just care about their feels, and that describes you to a T.
Once a reactor is up and running they are remarkably efficient because the energy density of the material is astounding. With how common and plentiful Thorium is it doesn't even require extensive strip mining operations to produce large quantities. It is constant around the clock energy production for what is basically only the cost of the fuel.
>Green" energy is a pitfall for emotional thinkers, not rational people
That's the problem with Green™, it's so much of a buzzword nowadays, with people totally ignore the total cost/impact of whatever they're selling as the final solution to environmental impact, most people totally ignore the impact made by the manufacture of this things
>The mirrors used in giant solar farms are coated in rare metals
Aluminium is rare. Oh shit you better get to the dump and make your fortune by plucking pepsi cans out of the trash pile. You'll be a rare earth billionaire magnet of industry!
>Properly storing nuclear waste doesn't harm the environment
>Hannes Alfvén, Nobel laureate in physics, described the as yet unsolved dilemma of high-level radioactive waste management: "The problem is how to keep radioactive waste in storage until it decays after hundreds of thousands of years. The geologic deposit must be absolutely reliable as the quantities of poison are tremendous. It is very difficult to satisfy these requirements for the simple reason that we have had no practical experience with such a long term project. Moreover permanently guarded storage requires a society with unprecedented stability."
GE GUYS I SURE HOPE THIS GIANT STORAGE OF RADIOACTIVE POISEN WERKS?!?!
>Thus, Alfvén identified two fundamental prerequisites for effective management of high-level radioactive waste: (1) stable geological formations, and (2) stable human institutions over hundreds of thousands of years. As Alfvén suggests, no known human civilization has ever endured for so long, and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period.
> and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository
> and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository
> and no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository
Yeah im not even gonna read further.
Fuck you shill
>thinks a solar mirror is literally just a polished aluminum surface
I bet you think the mirror used in an observatory telescope is just polished silica glass too, you hippy faggot.
You get the same results burning normal waste in a breeder reactor. All the "advantages" are in comparison with a once-through uranium system. It's not a thorium thing.
>The mirrors used in giant solar farms are coated in rare metals.
What the fuck are you even saying? They can make mirrors out of mylar for fuck's sake.
Industrial pollution is generally pretty easily contained and/or remediated, especially compared with radioactivity or carbon dioxide.
>I bet you think the mirror used in an observatory telescope is just polished silica glass too, you hippy faggot.
Fuck you asshole those mirrors are made of the rare space element called pyrex or it's Russian cousin sitall.
>oh no somebody some day might blow something up
This is called fear mongering.
>What the fuck are you even saying? They can make mirrors out of mylar for fuck's sake.
This is all the proof I need that you're a little tumblr twat child. If you think mylar has the ideal reflectivity and thermal properties of the mirrors they use, then there is no point in talking to you.
You're literally just an emotional little lefttard hippy who only cares about feeling good, not caring at all about facts.
>You get the same results burning normal waste in a breeder reactor. All the "advantages" are in comparison with a once-through uranium system. It's not a thorium thing.
Except that they are, most of the advantages can't be achieved with the use of pure uranium
>What the fuck are you even saying? They can make mirrors out of mylar for fuck's sake.
Maybe research mirrors, but commercial mirrors are made from other materials, though AFAIK they aren't bad for the environment
>Industrial pollution is generally pretty easily contained and/or remediated, especially compared with radioactivity or carbon dioxide.
The problem it's that industries hardly ever take care of them, radioactivity is managed with great care, and overseen by governments
>ideal reflectivity and thermal properties of the mirrors
You don't need ideal reflectivity and thermal properties you dumbshit, you need to focus the light on the tube of working fluid.
It's obvious you're confusing the mirror used in solar collecting with photovoltaic cells, which do use rare-earth elements. Just go away and kill yourself.
I was hoping you would focus more on the
>We have no idea if storing nuclear waste is safe or not
>no geologic formation of adequate size for a permanent radioactive waste repository has yet been discovered that has been stable for so long a period
but wotever m8. go back to your radioactive ocean floor dispersal and such
Here is another reason why solar alone just won't cut it. (See image.)
And you're right, it's not just photovoltaic panels, but touting solar as the end-all-be-all and completely ignoring the benefits of any other system is short sighted and counter productive,
The earth's energy demands have for a very long time been far greater than the world's ability to store power. Energy storage technology is fighting through an uphill race to try and catch up to ever increasing energy demands, and it may never catch up. I hope it does, but it probably never will.
You might want to stop embarrassing yourself.
Even smaller telescopes have lenses put in giant vacuums with a precisely measured amount of metals that are heated and turned into a aerosol to adhere and make a perfect surface.
>complete and utter retard
I'm not confusing anything, you just have no fucking clue what goes into the production of anything.
>fear mongering tumblr cunt
Oh wow, you better go tell the entire manufacturing industry that. They'll be really shocked to find out. Some retarded hippy cunt on the internet figured out that they were wasting all this money when they really didn't need to.
You really have no idea what you're talking about
WHY THE FUCK WOULD THEY USE GOLD?
It's expensive, rare, and cheaper silver works better, like the one the use on most mirrors
Aluminum is almost as good, but they're still in research by NASA, and no anon, it's not just a fucking piece of aluminum, shit needs a special composite
That's what makes it expensive and rare retard, the high costs of producing it
Also, it's much cheaper to just make them out of silver or aluminum, even though the latter is still in research
>That's what makes it expensive and rare retard, the high costs of producing it
Listen man; there is a difference between the spot price of 99.9% gold in a coins and industrial grade 97% gold that come inside a vial in sponge form, a bucket of gold dust or a bag of Hershey kiss shaped pellets.
To all of you solar-thumpers in this thread, the problem with Solar-power-only is that all of the world's ability to store energy today is only around at most 127,866 MW of electricity.
>Sourced from this image in a 2013 presentation on world electricity storage.
In 2001 the Total Fuel Consumption of the world was 8,917.53 Mtoe.
>Sourced from: http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/KeyWorld2013.pdf
Convert that to MWh you get 103,710,874,000 MWh.
The math is obvious, all of the worlds energy supplies would be used up (theoretically) in 0.004 seconds if we relied only on energy storage.
With our current energy capacity being 800 THOUSAND times smaller than our energy demand, there is no way to have a purely solar energy delivery system with existing or even near future energy storage capability when the sun passes over the Pacific Ocean, placing the majority of the planet's land mass in shadow.
>This is why we need non-carbon constant-energy generation like Nuclear. >>42627975
>The math is obvious
Obviously makes no fucking sense at all. If that's what you mean.
>hurr here we take the energy of entire total FUEL consumption in le world for a year and compare it to our current solar situation
Of course it doesnt add up you idiot. How the fuck would it?
Are you going to power cars with your thorium? I changed my mind about solar in the thread previously, but top kek. You cant be serious.
I bet that 8,917.53 Mtoe 70% heat or some stupid not-recorded shit.
Right, but the pannels are already in existence and are being mass produced. Thus I see no diss-benefit from using solar during the day while it is viable and switching to nuclear at night. Unless nuclear will pump out electricity at a rate cheaper than free over a given time, why shouldn't people supplement nuclear during the day, meanwhile transmitting the excess back to the grid then using the accumulated excess to power their homes at night via nuclear energy? I'm open to criticism of this idea but it sounds pretty solid to me.
Ok, and suck on this a little. You mentioned the ocean. What about the energy there?
We can generate 80k TWh in a year from waves
We can generate 50k TWh in a year from marine currents.
That, along with solar, seems like a MUCH better alternative than fucking thorium
Honestly I'd be worried about the climate change impacts of ocean-based energy.
If you're against thorium you're retarded, and if you believe that anyone for thorium is like "We must use ONLY THORIUM BECAUSE EVERYTHING ELSE SUCKS AND IS BAD" then spending your time banging your head against a wall would be a more productive use of your time.
Nuclear waste doesn't affect the climate. Look how well chernobyl is doing- nuclear waste affects people. The red forest in pripyat is teeming with life, it's a nature reserve. I think we should dump our nuclear waste into national parks. The beauty of nature preserved, and people will definitely stay out and stop wrecking it with litter, hunting, and whatnot.
By pulling energy out of the gulf stream, you're stopping warm water from circulating, which could destroy northern europe's agriculture.
>Nuclear power is too dangerous
>lets steal energy from the jet streams in the ocean
>that won't have any long term effects on the climate at all as we're entering another grand solar minimum
Wow. Brilliant idea there, hippies. Almost as genius as wanting to spray the atmosphere with coolants to stop global warming.
>>makes sense for places with a lot of waves, sorta
the light-green to red are those places
enuf 4 u?
Pardon me for my ignorance. Is there a better way to generate electricity from nuclear sources other than using steam with turbines? That's the best we can do?
To be a bit more clear:
fission (atomic/subatomic particles + electromagnetic radiation) -> mechanical energy -> electricity seems terribly inefficient, no?
>Are you going to power cars with your thorium?
Are we going to power all of the world's cars with solar? Obviously not, duh. But if we want to create a carbon-neutral cycle where the solar plants produce the fuels needed to run our cars, the global solar network would have to exceed fuel energy demand due to losses in the production of those fuels. Which is impossible with near future technology.
>why shouldn't people supplement nuclear during the day
I never once said that. I'm talking about solar-only schemes being unrealistic. I agree that we should supplement with solar, but a total-replacement is impossible.
>We can generate 80k TWh in a year from waves
>We can generate 50k TWh in a year from marine currents.
[sarcasm] Yeah, let's just slow down the ocean currents, and build massive structures in the ocean. I'm sure that's not going to impact the environment in any way. [/sarcasm] Have you even looked at this? >>42626305 Seriously, go read it.
>I never once said that. I'm talking about solar-only schemes being unrealistic. I agree that we should supplement with solar, but a total-replacement is impossible.
We agree on this, but for some reason you replied to me with the non-viability of pure solar so I elaborated my point.
Uranium reactors, while stable if kept properly cooled, are not efficient. They are also susceptible to failure if the cooling methods are immobilised. Thorium reactors on the other hand use all of their fuel, proving them to be more efficient, and cannot melt down as the fuel used is already liquid, and as such does not need to be cooled. They also do not operate using water at high pressures, which can result in the creation of Hydrogen and combust, causing Thorium reactors to again be safer.
Thorium is 4 times more common on Earth than Uranium, and is so abundant we throw it away while mining other minerals. Uranium on the other hand is almost as rare as Platinum. Thorium has hundreds of times the energy potential of Uranium, and million more than coal and other fossil-fuel sources, and on top of that it is so dense that you could hold a lifetime’s supply of it in the palm of your hand. Thorium could replace all power sources in the world, using far less material to do so.
fast breeders, are susceptible to meltdowns if the cooling systems are immobilised. Meltdowns occur when the cooling system fails, resulting in the nuclear fission reaction creating essentially unlimited amounts of heat. This melts through the neutron absorbing Boron, causing the reaction to occur at uncontrollable rates, until eventually it explodes much like a nuclear bomb. This happened at Chernobyl, and partly at Fukushima which resulted in a widespread of radiation as the reaction went out of control. However, the Fukushima incident was caused by an earthquake that killed 15,000 people, knocking out the diesel powered cooling system generators in the process, none as a result of radiation from the reactor, showing living in an earthquake zone is a far greater hazard than living next to a nuclear reactor. Two of the three major disasters occurred in reactors designed before man even walked on the moon, and the Three Mile Island reactor was built without a Hard Containment Vessel, an essential part in the containment of a meltdown.
All energy conversion systems will have losses. I do not personally know more efficient methods of converting nuclear energy into generally useful energy. From what I have learned LFTRs can be designed with a 50% thermal-electric conversion efficiency, and I don't see why a portion of the remaining heat could be used in a productive manner somehow.
Every post regarding nuclear energy on reddit is packed full of comments claiming that Thorium will end all concerns about nuclear energy and that Uranium is only in use due to some dark dark conspiracy. Example:
"So why did they go down the Uranium path? Because it was the military running the program, and Thorium reactors aren’t weaponizable."
Misleading and half false! Yes, Uranium fuel was certainly developed because it was the easiest path to weapons at the time, but these days, the owner of a thorium reactor could certainly make a bomb from it. So they are weaponizable. The internet has become an echo-chamber for this kind of thing and we need to stop it.
Check out this kid: Taylor Wilson - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HL1BEC024g
Designed small modular reactor. Between 50 and 100MW. A ton of power. Powers 25,000 to 100,000 homes on average power use.
Build on a production line, trucked anywhere in the world, plop them down, and they produce electricity.
Buried below ground to protect for security reasons.
Good at burning Uranium 233.
Also down-blended Uranium and Plutonium, not usable for weapons. Can use waste from Cold War devices. Molten core salt reactor, heat exchange like LFTR. Doesn’t turn turbine however, which are only 30% efficient, due to lower temperatures. Higher temperature = higher efficiencies due to thermodynamics.
This reactor uses gas. Helium. Makes it 45-50% efficient. More fuel is used, producing less waste. Can burn fuel for 30 years before needing refuel.
Also safer than traditional Uranium Reactors. Doesn’t operate at high pressure, just like LFTR. Can’t melt down because it’s already molten.
Will drain fuel to dump tank in event of failure. Tank will absorb neutrons, stopping reaction. Carbon Free electricity. Combats climate change, innovative, cheap, can be put in rockets.
Deal. Ill manage from here if you can go find investors.
Do the wind turbines slowdown the wind enough to cause problems?
So yeah. No research (or results?). Maybe it's still in progress or somethin.
Great source of easy to digest factual information, and setting the record straight. Thanks!
Impressive, I'll definitely look more into his designs. Thank you for sharing.
And what do you guys think about this?
Genuine enthusiasm. I haven't seen what Reddit has to say about Thorium, and after watching the youtube videos referenced in the first post and doing some cursory research, I decided to ask what 4chan had to say about it.
So far I've learned that it's been severely hyped with loads of misinformation floating around without actual discussion of benefits/obstacles facing the designs of the reactors. At least on popular sites of the internet. I've also learned that there are some very pro-solar, anti-nuclear people on the internet that don't seem willing to engage in rational discussion without name calling.
I've been enjoying the sources providing information about Thorium reactors this thread has brought to my attention.
The first thing I notice is that their device uses Boron-11 as the fuel.
>"Because boron is produced entirely by cosmic ray spallation and not by stellar nucleosynthesis, it is a low-abundance element in both the solar system and the Earth's crust."
This means that fusion that runs on Boron-11 faces fuel limitations, assuming the reactors do not themselves produce Boron-11. Good technology to investigate, but the question remains if it is sustainable.
But why does the entire solution have to be dumped somewhere and replaced?
Are you saying it's impossible to chemically separate fission products and add more fuel to the solution? Can you please cite a source for this?
I don't think anyone who promotes LFTRs want to get rid of solar panels, and certainly not stop research. It's the solarfags who are too narrow-minded and insecure to compete with another technology, and there has even been a movement to ban nuclear research.
If in a few centuries or even decades solar and battery tech blows LFTRs out of the water, then fine, we switch to that. Progress is what we want, and if it happens sooner than later, that's a good thing. I have no personal vendetta against one particular technology or its supporters.
Any data to back that up? Surely someone must have studied the prevalence of cancer among apex predators in the Chernobyl exclusion zone, that would be really interesting to know.
>There is nothing else that doesn't result in a huge loss of the power captured.
Solar is a pipedream
Are you mentally ill?
IBM have just released solar technology that is 80% efficient.
is totally wrong.
Read this: http://www.whatisnuclear.com/reactors/msr.html
>Online refueling -- Where normal reactors have to shut down to move fuel around or put new fuel in, MSRs can do all this while at full power. You just dump in a new chunk of fuel into the vat (carefully, of course). This allows high capacity factors, improving economics. The reactors may still have to shut down to do maintenance, but they likely will have better uptimes.
>No chemical reactivity with air or water -- The fuel salt is generally not violently reactive with the environment. So where LWRs have hydrogen explosions and SFRs have sodium fires, MSRs do well. Of course, MSR leaks are still serious because it’s not just coolant... it’s extremely radioactive fuel.
>Complex chemical plant -- Some of the fission product removal is simple, such as the gas sparging to remove Xe and Kr, and noble metal plateout. But to do the more serious fission product (or actinide) separation, complex processes are required, such as the liquid Bismuth reductive process, volatilization , or electoplating. These have been studied in detail, but are complex enough to be a disadvantage. Don’t make us post a process flow diagram.
That's some pretty nifty small-scale solar technology they have going. Put those on top of skyscrapers everywhere.
Granted, it won't make much of a dent in the utility bill of the skyscraper. A modern green building on the scale of 2 million sqft draws about 6MW. Their 100 sq-m dish would only generate about 0.75 MW. But it's a start.
Transfer losses. Must rely on others more than necessary. Of course a shitton of solar power plants in the Sahara would be awesome. But disregarding thieves in an out of the various corrupt governments, there is always the issue of sand.
>must be contained for 480-600 years to be considered "safe"
Still better than the half-life of plutonium; 23 460 years. (Also, were is my breeder reactor?)
The superconducting cables are cheaper than the current (excuse the pun) high voltage cables we already use.
Yes, they are cheaper.
(let that sink in).
Super-cooled power lines get really expensive the longer they get. It's more energy efficient, and probably cheaper, to make many small hi-output power plants.
>It's more energy efficient, and probably cheaper, to make many small hi-output power plants.
I agree, a distributed power network is a good thing, and something we should strive for. Thorium is a great candidate for powering such a network, but can be integrated into a renewable system too.
The longer the cables are, the more coolant is needed, which will need to be replenished.
$21,000,000 per-mile  super-cooled power lines are cheaper than the current high voltage cables? I need to see a source on that, that doesn't make sense at face value. If true that is incredible.
How is superconducting cable cheaper? You need special alloys e.g YBCO which is more expensive than aluminium plus you need liquid nitrogen constantly pumping through the cable to keep it cool.
The only savings are due to lower energy loss and you'd only see that after like 50 years.
why build an expensive facility which requires very expensive oversight and STILL produces toxic waste (even if it's very small) vs modern solar/geo/tidal which has none of said drawbacks?
The nitrogen is in a closed loop system; nitrogen isn't expensive, anyway. To cool nitrogen doesn't take a great deal of power, and the cables themselves are well insulated.
>super-cooled power lines are cheaper than the current high voltage cables?
Yes, they are.
>superconductor cables – despite needing a flow of liquid nitrogen to cool them – would be cheaper both to install and run over a 40-year period than conventional high voltage lines, which require high levels of maintenance as well as the additional network infrastructure.
Gonna need a source on that- but I will accept that they are of comparable cost at least at the ~1 mile length, since they're being installed.
I presume it's somewhat economically feasible.
Pretty good I think, it really does open up a way to transport power long distances.
Because it produces many orders of magnitude more power than solar/tidal, produces constant power, has significantly smaller footprints, and can be engineered to require very long periods of time before needing to be refueled, among other benefits. It is true that there are challenges inherent in developing the technology, but the same goes for any energy producing system.
Thermal should be used where available, and solar where it is efficient. Same thing with tidal where it won't impact the environment.
I'd rather have fusion reactors. Mostyl because they're so compley that the reaction instantly fails as soon as the tiniest problem arises.
I wonder how the cable does under load with the failure of coolant, say a breach in the casing. Would it explode? Hmmm.
No, it'd just leak.
Coolant leaks--> cable heats up ---> Temperature sensors detect it's getting too warm ---> Electricity shut off to prevent overheating.
so long as you don't put all your eggs in one basket cable wise it should be fine, reserves of coolant, the ability to quickly patch it.
It shouldn't really be less durable than a traditional wire. If a tree falls on a cable you're going to get a blackout no matter what it's made from.
The liquid nitrogen isn't a particularly large hazard either- outside it's not really a hazard at all. But very large spills can be dangerous.
Still, High voltage electricity is fucking dangerous.
Interesting question. Dunno what testing has been conducted, but these cables have been installed in two cities, Essen and New York. I can only assume they've passed safety tests...
Of course you have to know what the cloud means. if you want to see what a liquid nitrogen leak looks like just watch some videos of people pouring and playing with liquid nitrogen. It doesn't explode. You can stick your hand in a dewer of it (briefly) and it won't do damage. A dry hand. If your hand is wet it'll sting like fuck.
I used to pour little droplets of liquid nitrogen onto my palm and have it move around. The temperature difference is so great that it makes an air cushion between the liquid and the hot surface- like water on a hotplate. If you want to see the effect, sprinkle a little water on a hotplate and it'll form little spheres bouncing on the surface
To echo >>42630783
The ideal system would be comprised of a backbone distributed network of many small high-output high-efficiency continuous-power generators that include inherent fail-safe designs, supplemented by low-impact solar/wind/thermo. Right now, assuming they manage to overcome the difficulties of R&D, Molten Salt Reactors seem like the best candidates due to the laundry list of benefits from what I have learned. Of the fuels to power them, Thorium seems like a very good choice for a fuel. That said there are significant stumbling blocks that need to be cleared before we can start installing a Thorium MSR on the edge of every city.
I for one am quite excited to watch this technology grow, and hope it pans out. Fusion would be nice to achieve, but I'm not about to hold my breath. I will say that inherently fail-safe designs make me feel much more relaxed compared to designs relying on engineered safety.
I still find is bizarre some people choose to cling to the fossil fuel economy and dismiss any other technology as "hippie shit". Why hey have such an aversion to solar, I do not know.
I'm amazed they don't realize fossil fuel is also solar energy.
If you look at it from a certain perspective, all sources of energy are a form of "solar" energy. The differences is how that energy was stored through nature and for how long.
I'm waiting for the point when we can produce enough energy to start generating liquid fuel cheaply like methanol, ammonia, and Dimethyl ether.
don't worry goy, there's plenty of oil left, look at all the reserves we have
No need to panic and start developing alternative sources of energy, we can just frack it right out of the ground! More oil everywhere!
The LFTRs that have already been made aren't even prototypes yet though, they're only research reactors. And the thorium reactors built in India are fast-breeder reactors which does create a lot of plutonium