• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:51
CEST 07:51
KST 14:51
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall10HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16Code S RO4 & Finals Preview: herO, Rogue, Classic, GuMiho0TL Team Map Contest #5: Presented by Monster Energy6
Community News
Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation5$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced4Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles5[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China9Flash Announces Hiatus From ASL66
StarCraft 2
General
The SCII GOAT: A statistical Evaluation The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Firefly given lifetime ban by ESIC following match-fixing investigation Weekly Cups (June 30 - July 6): Classic Doubles Jim claims he and Firefly were involved in match-fixing
Tourneys
$25,000 Streamerzone StarCraft Pro Series announced FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament RSL: Revival, a new crowdfunded tournament series WardiTV Mondays
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response Simple Questions Simple Answers
Custom Maps
[UMS] Zillion Zerglings
External Content
Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava Mutation # 480 Moths to the Flame Mutation # 479 Worn Out Welcome Mutation # 478 Instant Karma
Brood War
General
i aint gon lie to u bruh... ASL20 Preliminary Maps BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ [ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall SC uni coach streams logging into betting site
Tourneys
[BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China [BSL20] Grand Finals - Sunday 20:00 CET CSL Xiamen International Invitational The Casual Games of the Week Thread
Strategy
Simple Questions, Simple Answers I am doing this better than progamers do.
Other Games
General Games
Earn Rewards for Every Prediction in the Game Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Nintendo Switch Thread Path of Exile What do you want from future RTS games?
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine US Politics Mega-thread Summer Games Done Quick 2025! Russo-Ukrainian War Thread Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative
Fan Clubs
SKT1 Classic Fan Club! Maru Fan Club
Media & Entertainment
Anime Discussion Thread [Manga] One Piece [\m/] Heavy Metal Thread
Sports
2024 - 2025 Football Thread Formula 1 Discussion NBA General Discussion TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NHL Playoffs 2024
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
The Automated Ban List
Blogs
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
Culture Clash in Video Games…
TrAiDoS
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 665 users

The Green Nuke - LFTR - Page 6

Forum Index > General Forum
Post a Reply
Prev 1 4 5 6 7 Next All
JonnyBNoHo
Profile Joined July 2011
United States6277 Posts
January 31 2012 04:38 GMT
#101
On January 31 2012 08:15 airtown wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 28 2012 21:26 enemy2010 wrote:
Two words: renewable energies.

I study energy ecomonics, and I personally thing this is the only way.


There's so much thorium in existance that it, along with uranium to a lessor extent, is the primary reason why the interior of the earth is hot enough to get energy from geothermal plants (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-the-earths-core-so).It's 500 times more abundant in the crust than gold but is so energy-dense you can hold a lifetime supply of it in your hand.

If you want to be give a convincing argument, at least link us to a paper or two you've written comparing the costs and benefits of "renewable" energies to alternatives including LFTRs.


No LFTRs have been built so it's impossible to say for certain how expensive power from one would be. Typically with a non-fossil fuel power plant fuel costs are relatively unimportant. Capital costs (construction, equipment, financing etc.) tend to matter the most.

Ex. Sunlight is free but solar power is expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

With a yet unproven technology LFTRs would likely produce expensive energy initially and only be worth it if they were committed to on a large scale (build many, many LFTRs). This could only happen if the technology could be proven to be economic and governments and citizens were willing to clear away most of the regulatory hurdles that would get in the way of their construction.

airtown
Profile Blog Joined May 2009
United States410 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-02-04 16:09:15
January 31 2012 23:11 GMT
#102
On January 31 2012 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 31 2012 08:15 airtown wrote:
On January 28 2012 21:26 enemy2010 wrote:
Two words: renewable energies.

I study energy ecomonics, and I personally thing this is the only way.


There's so much thorium in existance that it, along with uranium to a lessor extent, is the primary reason why the interior of the earth is hot enough to get energy from geothermal plants (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-the-earths-core-so).It's 500 times more abundant in the crust than gold but is so energy-dense you can hold a lifetime supply of it in your hand.

If you want to be give a convincing argument, at least link us to a paper or two you've written comparing the costs and benefits of "renewable" energies to alternatives including LFTRs.


No LFTRs have been built so it's impossible to say for certain how expensive power from one would be. Typically with a non-fossil fuel power plant fuel costs are relatively unimportant. Capital costs (construction, equipment, financing etc.) tend to matter the most.

Ex. Sunlight is free but solar power is expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

With a yet unproven technology LFTRs would likely produce expensive energy initially and only be worth it if they were committed to on a large scale (build many, many LFTRs). This could only happen if the technology could be proven to be economic and governments and citizens were willing to clear away most of the regulatory hurdles that would get in the way of their construction.



Right, I was mainly just going against the notion that thorium will run out while so-called "renewable" energy sources like geothermal, solar, and wind will not, (or at least that there will be a significant time-span difference).

I agree that capital costs and lobbying costs will matter the most for now.

As I understand it, Flibe Energy is trying to get the U.S. Military to adopt LFTRs for bases, which if successful, should pave the way for commercial use. As for getting the public to come along, this thread provides some evidence that there tends to be very little opposition among the those people who hear about it. However, there are some (exceptionally poorly researched) counter-attacks that some newspapers have published to try to be even-sided.

I've only seen one partially reasonable critique of LFTR, and even he, the author, makes many errors and seems to have a poor grasp on economics.
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/
Rebuttal 1: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/07/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
Rebuttal 2: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/08/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
Perdac Curall
Profile Joined June 2011
242 Posts
February 11 2012 01:17 GMT
#103
wow so many responses since I last checked this I thought this thread was dead forever.
If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell
Perdac Curall
Profile Joined June 2011
242 Posts
February 11 2012 01:19 GMT
#104
On January 31 2012 07:08 Asymmetric wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 28 2012 21:26 enemy2010 wrote:
Two words: renewable energies.

I study energy ecomonics, and I personally thing this is the only way.


What does that even mean.

No energy source lasts forever. Every star will burn out, every molecule will decay, even black holes will evaporate to hawking radiation in the end. Entrophy reduces all to dust.


And lots of new stars are created everyday. Don't worry about entropy the universe is self-sustaining and in fact is self-increasing. It is anti-entropic.
If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell
Chocolate
Profile Blog Joined December 2010
United States2350 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-02-11 01:25:00
February 11 2012 01:23 GMT
#105
On February 11 2012 10:19 Perdac Curall wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 31 2012 07:08 Asymmetric wrote:
On January 28 2012 21:26 enemy2010 wrote:
Two words: renewable energies.

I study energy ecomonics, and I personally thing this is the only way.


What does that even mean.

No energy source lasts forever. Every star will burn out, every molecule will decay, even black holes will evaporate to hawking radiation in the end. Entrophy reduces all to dust.


And lots of new stars are created everyday. Don't worry about entropy the universe is self-sustaining and in fact is self-increasing. It is anti-entropic.

That makes no sense... the fact that it increases in volume has nothing to do with its energy. Also, how is it "self sustaining"? Eventually, as he said, stars burn out. Sure their remains can create other stars and such but eventually all energy will be gone.
Perdac Curall
Profile Joined June 2011
242 Posts
February 11 2012 01:26 GMT
#106
On January 31 2012 07:46 Kupo wrote:
OP should include disadvantages with the technology as well. The general consensus among the reactor people where I study is that it is highly unsafe since it violates the fundamental defense-in-depth principle. Without the fuel cladding it's somewhat comparable to a PWR with a core meltdown. Because of this reason many consider the technology unrealistic.

Personally I wouldn't mind if more research is performed on molten salt reactors, since it would solve so many problems with generation IV (proliferation is a huge problem with other designs). But I'm not sure if the technology has a future.


Without the fuel cladding? What do you mean exactly? The fuel is a fluid, without the cladding what would contain it? Without the fuel cladding PWRs wouldn't do so well. Is that an argument against PWRs? No, but there are plenty of other ones that you can't make about LFTR.

The MSRE ran for three years without incident, proving it can be done safely. If you watch the Kirk Sorensen's ProtoSpace talk he talks about how they used to turn the test reactor off on Friday and start it up again on Monday, the thing was so simple.

That it is a realistic viable solution was shown over 40 years ago. Many consider the technology unrealistic? Who are these people? And what are their arguments based on? Lots of people think that reptilians control the planet, should I listen to them? Of course not, they don't know what they are talking about.
If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell
Perdac Curall
Profile Joined June 2011
242 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-02-11 01:32:35
February 11 2012 01:31 GMT
#107
On February 11 2012 10:23 Chocolate wrote:
Show nested quote +
On February 11 2012 10:19 Perdac Curall wrote:
On January 31 2012 07:08 Asymmetric wrote:
On January 28 2012 21:26 enemy2010 wrote:
Two words: renewable energies.

I study energy ecomonics, and I personally thing this is the only way.


What does that even mean.

No energy source lasts forever. Every star will burn out, every molecule will decay, even black holes will evaporate to hawking radiation in the end. Entrophy reduces all to dust.


And lots of new stars are created everyday. Don't worry about entropy the universe is self-sustaining and in fact is self-increasing. It is anti-entropic.

That makes no sense... the fact that it increases in volume has nothing to do with its energy. Also, how is it "self sustaining"? Eventually, as he said, stars burn out. Sure their remains can create other stars and such but eventually all energy will be gone.


How do you know this? The universe is constantly creating new galaxies. If energy is never created or destroyed, then how will all the energy eventually be gone? This view is not backed up by the evidence we have about the universe. In fact if you really want to get into quantum theory we can get into multiverses and resonance and discuss more about how much there is out there that seemingly has always been and will always be that we can't even see.
If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell
Perdac Curall
Profile Joined June 2011
242 Posts
February 13 2012 17:29 GMT
#108
On February 01 2012 08:11 airtown wrote:
Show nested quote +
On January 31 2012 13:38 JonnyBNoHo wrote:
On January 31 2012 08:15 airtown wrote:
On January 28 2012 21:26 enemy2010 wrote:
Two words: renewable energies.

I study energy ecomonics, and I personally thing this is the only way.


There's so much thorium in existance that it, along with uranium to a lessor extent, is the primary reason why the interior of the earth is hot enough to get energy from geothermal plants (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-the-earths-core-so).It's 500 times more abundant in the crust than gold but is so energy-dense you can hold a lifetime supply of it in your hand.

If you want to be give a convincing argument, at least link us to a paper or two you've written comparing the costs and benefits of "renewable" energies to alternatives including LFTRs.


No LFTRs have been built so it's impossible to say for certain how expensive power from one would be. Typically with a non-fossil fuel power plant fuel costs are relatively unimportant. Capital costs (construction, equipment, financing etc.) tend to matter the most.

Ex. Sunlight is free but solar power is expensive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_electricity_by_source

With a yet unproven technology LFTRs would likely produce expensive energy initially and only be worth it if they were committed to on a large scale (build many, many LFTRs). This could only happen if the technology could be proven to be economic and governments and citizens were willing to clear away most of the regulatory hurdles that would get in the way of their construction.



Right, I was mainly just going against the notion that thorium will run out while so-called "renewable" energy sources like geothermal, solar, and wind will not, (or at least that there will be a significant time-span difference).

I agree that capital costs and lobbying costs will matter the most for now.

As I understand it, Flibe Energy is trying to get the U.S. Military to adopt LFTRs for bases, which if successful, should pave the way for commercial use. As for getting the public to come along, this thread provides some evidence that there tends to be very little opposition among the those people who hear about it. However, there are some (exceptionally poorly researched) counter-attacks that some newspapers have published to try to be even-sided.

I've only seen one partially reasonable critique of LFTR, and even he, the author, makes many errors and seems to have a poor grasp on economics.
http://daryanenergyblog.wordpress.com/ca/part-8-msr-lftr/
Rebuttal 1: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/07/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html
Rebuttal 2: http://nucleargreen.blogspot.com/2011/08/d-ryan-msrlftr-critique-not-ready-for.html



Yeah I wouldn't quote that guy too much his "critical analysis" is very poorly done, full of errors. About the only point of his that is entirely correct is the technical challenge with the hastelloy pipes which has to be overcome. Almost everyone involved in the LFTR community will admit this is the biggest technical challenge, no one denies it. But on a scale of 1-10 of insurmountable human engineering challenges this is only 3-4 max.
If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell
RickMaltese
Profile Joined April 2012
Canada1 Post
April 18 2012 20:18 GMT
#109
You know the LFTR is a good match for your website title "TeamLiquid"

The liquid concept is exactly why this radically different design to a nuclear reactor is so much better.
In a liquid state Fission gets more than one chance to get it right. Entropy is allowed to be maximized so that
most of the fuel gets used up. Conventional solid fuel reactors leave 99% unburned. LFTRs are so much better.
Read Superfuel by Richard Martin

If you want to keep up to date on trends in Nuclear Energy check out my blogs

http://thoriummsr.com

http://deregulatetheatom.com

also for updates and a reliable source on Fukushima
http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com
Perdac Curall
Profile Joined June 2011
242 Posts
May 14 2012 01:30 GMT
#110
On April 19 2012 05:18 RickMaltese wrote:
You know the LFTR is a good match for your website title "TeamLiquid"

The liquid concept is exactly why this radically different design to a nuclear reactor is so much better.
In a liquid state Fission gets more than one chance to get it right. Entropy is allowed to be maximized so that
most of the fuel gets used up. Conventional solid fuel reactors leave 99% unburned. LFTRs are so much better.
Read Superfuel by Richard Martin

If you want to keep up to date on trends in Nuclear Energy check out my blogs

http://thoriummsr.com

http://deregulatetheatom.com

also for updates and a reliable source on Fukushima
http://www.hiroshimasyndrome.com


Man oh man awesome, a Canadian as into Thorium and nuclear power as I am. Nice to meet you man. Definitely gonna be checking in on your websites often. All the best!
If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell
Bigtony
Profile Blog Joined June 2011
United States1606 Posts
May 14 2012 01:45 GMT
#111
I'm curious why this doesn't ever come up in the mainstream now : ( sounds too good to be true.
Push 2 Harder
Perdac Curall
Profile Joined June 2011
242 Posts
May 15 2012 23:27 GMT
#112
It does, though sadly not that often. Do a Google News search for Thorium, you will get some hits. Here is one of the links at the top of the search I just did:

http://www.npr.org/2012/05/04/152026805/is-thorium-a-magic-bullet-for-our-energy-problems

Russia Today also did a few spots on LFTR last year:

http://rt.com/usa/news/nuclear-energy-thorium-source-225/



If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-04 11:31:46
October 04 2012 09:32 GMT
#113
China has revealed their schedule and many interesting details regarding their molten-salt reactor program.

They are making a slat-cooled reactor by 2015.
If it goes well, then they expect a salt-fueled reactor by 2017.
Then they will take several incremental steps scaling this reactor up.
If every step is a success, commercial design will be available in 25-35 years.



Please have a look at this video for details (it's a new video that hasn't been posted here yet):





If it happens, it will be a revolution in Energy. If you haven't seen the following video, I think it explains it better than others (it has been posted in the thread, but I'd like to emphasize it once again):

This is not Warcraft in space!
opisska
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Poland8852 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-04 10:26:00
October 04 2012 10:25 GMT
#114
I am not sure you will like that, but I am honestly lazy to go all through the material and have not seen a simple answer.

So, Is there anyone willing to explain to me are you going to convince anyone that you actually can contain the liquid fuel in the case of physical damage to the facility? It gets already quite difficult in water reactors (because even the water is a significant issue, although it has a tiny fravction of the overall radioactivity), and that is just water involved, not a highly corrosive molten salt.
"Jeez, that's far from ideal." - Serral, the king of mild trashtalk
TL+ Member
Thenerf
Profile Joined April 2011
United States258 Posts
October 04 2012 10:48 GMT
#115
This post is full of so many technical and scientific inaccuracies I don't even know where to begin. I don't know why there is a childish bandwagon obsession of thorium based technology but this has to stop.

The part where you said fluoride is less reactive than sodium is a red flag to a chemist let alone a physicist that this is total bullshit con job.//(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume fluoride salts because liquid fluoride is literally the most reactive substance known to man. You can torch ice with it)

For those who ACTUALLY want to lean something the reason why we are not pursuing thorium based technology is three-fold.
1) It's more difficult to produce energy from however the ore is cheaper. This might change if a market developed.
2) The waste and implementation are exactly the same for all nuclear material.
3) We don't want to add another source of fuel into the world that needs to be regulated.

Even though I spent 7 years in the research of theoretical space-time geometries, the degree I'm pursuing is in Nuclear Engineering. Why NE? Because it's the highest paying tech job in the world so why the fuck not. Physics is physics.
Every atom in your body was forged in a star. Quit being a pussy.
opisska
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
Poland8852 Posts
October 04 2012 10:59 GMT
#116
On October 04 2012 19:48 Thenerf wrote:

3) We don't want to add another source of fuel into the world that needs to be regulated.



And this is another thing that makes me wondering thorough this entire topic. Is this really so important? There are all these sorts of argument about profiliteration and so on, but should we be really basing our technology sources on that? People/countries who want to obtain mass destruction capabilities will do it either way or another, why should we limit our energy technology because of that? And this argument is even weaker, there are so many regulated things, one more will not hurt anyone.
"Jeez, that's far from ideal." - Serral, the king of mild trashtalk
TL+ Member
Alex1Sun
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
494 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-04 11:39:18
October 04 2012 11:04 GMT
#117
On October 04 2012 19:25 opisska wrote:
I am not sure you will like that, but I am honestly lazy to go all through the material and have not seen a simple answer.

So, Is there anyone willing to explain to me are you going to convince anyone that you actually can contain the liquid fuel in the case of physical damage to the facility? It gets already quite difficult in water reactors (because even the water is a significant issue, although it has a tiny fraction of the overall radioactivity), and that is just water involved, not a highly corrosive molten salt.

If you don't use huge reactors with a lot of fuel, in smaller reactors in the case of physical damage to the reactor itself (for example a terrorist act) salt will cool down very quickly and crystallize. Then it's equivalent to solid fuel that just stays in one place.

There will also be no explosions, since nothing in a molten-salt reactor design has a large pressure differential (unlike current pressurised-water reactors).

If physical damage applies to anything else in the facility (not the reactor itself), than it does not matter at all, since in molten slat reactors you don't need any active cooling or any other engineered safety systems to prevent a meltdown. Molten slat reactors are passively safe even if you destroy all the facility but the reactor containment vessel and the drain tank itself.



On October 04 2012 19:48 Thenerf wrote:
This post is full of so many technical and scientific inaccuracies I don't even know where to begin. I don't know why there is a childish bandwagon obsession of thorium based technology but this has to stop.

The part where you said fluoride is less reactive than sodium is a red flag to a chemist let alone a physicist that this is total bullshit con job.//(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume fluoride salts because liquid fluoride is literally the most reactive substance known to man. You can torch ice with it)

For those who ACTUALLY want to lean something the reason why we are not pursuing thorium based technology is three-fold.
1) It's more difficult to produce energy from however the ore is cheaper. This might change if a market developed.
2) The waste and implementation are exactly the same for all nuclear material.
3) We don't want to add another source of fuel into the world that needs to be regulated.

Even though I spent 7 years in the research of theoretical space-time geometries, the degree I'm pursuing is in Nuclear Engineering. Why NE? Because it's the highest paying tech job in the world so why the fuck not. Physics is physics.


I agree that the OP is not very good and has quite a few mistakes.

Thorium seems to be just a hype word to calm down those who fear uranium and plutonium. The real goal in this research is a molten salt reactor (powered by whatever nuclear fuel you want to use). The only real advantage of thorium over uranium in breeders is that it's harder to make nuclear weapons from thorium (since U232 [that is difficult to separate from U233] is a strong gamma emitter). For the near term I believe that the focus in this research should be on uranium/plutonium-powered molten salt reactors. The design is just very nice: it's passively safe (no meltdowns possible, no cooling required), reduces waste through simple in-situ reprocessing, does not need thick steel walls or huge containment buildings etc.

p.s. Do you think NE really has a future outside of China and some other developing countries, or are you planning to move there after you get a degree? It seems to me that a lot of countries (quite probably US in the near future as well) are looking towards gradually excluding nuclear energy from their energy portfolio.
This is not Warcraft in space!
Thenerf
Profile Joined April 2011
United States258 Posts
Last Edited: 2012-10-04 15:52:54
October 04 2012 15:51 GMT
#118
@Alex1Sun

The funny thing is lots of money is being spent on developing nuclear power everywhere. The Obama and Bush administration have already allocated money for research and construction of new nuclear plants here in the US. Europe is always looking for a way to "appear" high tech and the east is looking for cheaper safety mechanisms. There is an emerging and current strong market right now for QUALIFIED engineers.

I also like to add that I don't believe sodium reactors will ever gain popularity for the same reasons MERCURY reactors failed in Russia. On paper, when everything is going according to plan, they seem efficient only to find out that when anything goes wrong you have a destroyed, highly toxic reactor. Water based cooling is just fool proof assuming the country (/cough.....Russia) doesn't take fool to a whole new level.

I'm looking over the designs for these theoretical reactors and they don't seem to have a good way to control the nuclear reaction, to assume that the reaction will sustain ITSELF....well goes back to bringing fool to a whole new level concept. One of the advantages of the current reactors is the ease at which we can make them go hot and cold while at the same time the initial fuel is safe enough to handle while the reactor is being set up. According to my research these reactors would be dangerous 24/7.
Every atom in your body was forged in a star. Quit being a pussy.
Perdac Curall
Profile Joined June 2011
242 Posts
October 04 2012 16:04 GMT
#119
On October 04 2012 19:25 opisska wrote:
I am not sure you will like that, but I am honestly lazy to go all through the material and have not seen a simple answer.

So, Is there anyone willing to explain to me are you going to convince anyone that you actually can contain the liquid fuel in the case of physical damage to the facility? It gets already quite difficult in water reactors (because even the water is a significant issue, although it has a tiny fravction of the overall radioactivity), and that is just water involved, not a highly corrosive molten salt.


The molten salt is not held at pressure, like the water is in PWRs, so if there is a leak/malfunction the molten salt would spill on to the floor and be contained by the steel walls. It would be messy, but it would be 100% containable and would not affect the surrounding neighborhood. And in real life the odds of this happening are about zero, since there are numerous safety considerations for the molten salt to drain safely into the drain tank in an emergency. But in the very small chance that it leaks out of the machine, it would not escape the containment walls.

On October 04 2012 19:48 Thenerf wrote:
This post is full of so many technical and scientific inaccuracies I don't even know where to begin. I don't know why there is a childish bandwagon obsession of thorium based technology but this has to stop.

The part where you said fluoride is less reactive than sodium is a red flag to a chemist let alone a physicist that this is total bullshit con job.//(I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume fluoride salts because liquid fluoride is literally the most reactive substance known to man. You can torch ice with it)

For those who ACTUALLY want to lean something the reason why we are not pursuing thorium based technology is three-fold.
1) It's more difficult to produce energy from however the ore is cheaper. This might change if a market developed.
2) The waste and implementation are exactly the same for all nuclear material.
3) We don't want to add another source of fuel into the world that needs to be regulated.

Even though I spent 7 years in the research of theoretical space-time geometries, the degree I'm pursuing is in Nuclear Engineering. Why NE? Because it's the highest paying tech job in the world so why the fuck not. Physics is physics.


FLOURINE is more reactive than Sodium, but FLUORIDE, in this case a Fluoride salt with Beryllium and Lithium, is very stable.

Waste management and disposal for a LFTR would be radically different than the current method of storage pools, or re-processing in places like France. Almost all the fuel would be burned up in the reactor over time. You would not have only 1% or so of the fuel used before it becomes too brittle like the solid fuel in current reactors.

On October 05 2012 00:51 Thenerf wrote:
@Alex1Sun

The funny thing is lots of money is being spent on developing nuclear power everywhere. The Obama and Bush administration have already allocated money for research and construction of new nuclear plants here in the US. Europe is always looking for a way to "appear" high tech and the east is looking for cheaper safety mechanisms. There is an emerging and current strong market right now for QUALIFIED engineers.

I also like to add that I don't believe sodium reactors will ever gain popularity for the same reasons MERCURY reactors failed in Russia. On paper, when everything is going according to plan, they seem efficient only to find out that when anything goes wrong you have a destroyed, highly toxic reactor. Water based cooling is just fool proof assuming the country (/cough.....Russia) doesn't take fool to a whole new level.

I'm looking over the designs for these theoretical reactors and they don't seem to have a good way to control the nuclear reaction, to assume that the reaction will sustain ITSELF....well goes back to bringing fool to a whole new level concept. One of the advantages of the current reactors is the ease at which we can make them go hot and cold while at the same time the initial fuel is safe enough to handle while the reactor is being set up. According to my research these reactors would be dangerous 24/7.


Water based cooling is fool proof (at 150 atm of pressure, Fukushima anyone?) while molten salt held at normal pressure would be dangerous 24/7? Where are you getting this from? I am currently doing a B.Eng in Electrical and plan on doing a Masters in NE as well.
If a Black Death could spread throughout the world once in every generation, survivors could procreate freely without making the world too full. The state of affairs might be unpleasant, but what of it? -Sith Lord Bertrand Russell
LaSt)ChAnCe
Profile Blog Joined June 2005
United States2179 Posts
October 04 2012 17:59 GMT
#120
now, how can we take this beautiful idea... and make it into a bomb?
Prev 1 4 5 6 7 Next All
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 10m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft551
Nina 254
StarCraft: Brood War
Leta 605
PianO 228
TY 73
Noble 43
Dota 2
XaKoH 242
ODPixel39
League of Legends
JimRising 740
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K764
Other Games
summit1g8235
shahzam867
monkeys_forever393
ViBE32
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick40101
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH321
• practicex 93
• Hupsaiya 63
• Kozan
• Migwel
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• sooper7s
• intothetv
• IndyKCrew
• LaughNgamezSOOP
StarCraft: Brood War
• Diggity7
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
League of Legends
• Rush1336
• Lourlo872
• Stunt378
Upcoming Events
The PondCast
4h 10m
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
10h 10m
WardiTV European League
10h 10m
Jumy vs NightPhoenix
Percival vs Nicoract
ArT vs HiGhDrA
MaxPax vs Harstem
Scarlett vs Shameless
SKillous vs uThermal
Replay Cast
18h 10m
RSL Revival
1d 4h
ByuN vs SHIN
Clem vs Reynor
OSC
1d 7h
Replay Cast
1d 18h
RSL Revival
2 days
Classic vs Cure
FEL
2 days
OSC
2 days
[ Show More ]
RSL Revival
3 days
FEL
3 days
FEL
3 days
CSO Cup
3 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
3 days
Bonyth vs QiaoGege
Dewalt vs Fengzi
Hawk vs Zhanhun
Sziky vs Mihu
Mihu vs QiaoGege
Zhanhun vs Sziky
Fengzi vs Hawk
Sparkling Tuna Cup
4 days
RSL Revival
4 days
FEL
4 days
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
4 days
Bonyth vs Dewalt
QiaoGege vs Dewalt
Hawk vs Bonyth
Sziky vs Fengzi
Mihu vs Zhanhun
QiaoGege vs Zhanhun
Fengzi vs Mihu
Replay Cast
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

Proleague 2025-07-07
HSC XXVII
Heroes 10 EU

Ongoing

JPL Season 2
BSL 2v2 Season 3
Acropolis #3
KCM Race Survival 2025 Season 2
CSL 17: 2025 SUMMER
Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
Championship of Russia 2025
RSL Revival: Season 1
Murky Cup #2
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25
BLAST Rivals Spring 2025
MESA Nomadic Masters
CCT Season 2 Global Finals
IEM Melbourne 2025

Upcoming

2025 ACS Season 2: Qualifier
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CSL Xiamen Invitational
2025 ACS Season 2
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
K-Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
SEL Season 2 Championship
FEL Cracov 2025
Esports World Cup 2025
Underdog Cup #2
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.