Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors

And the mining and oil barons would lose their big, fat profits.

>>134301741
Precisely.

Why do you think cheap, ubiquitous power is a good thing? Have you considered all the ramifications?

>>134301872
When it first happened in the western world it ended legal slavery here. Clean energy would save the planet from a runaway greenhouse effect that we're headed towards, as well.

>>134301654
>unlimited power
>cure for cancer
>time travel
All exist but goys like you will never know.

>>134301970
Funny thing is some of the decay products unique to thorium are actually extra-ordinarily more-effective and less-harmful chemotherapy agents.

TLDR; thorium reactors' by-products might just cure cancer

I should also mention that because U232 is produced, the tiny amount of waste compared to today's reactors wouldn't be useful for nuclear weapons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kBCMEUuSNw

That channel has tons of info on it.
Please spread the word.

File: tumblr_inline_o4tp0sLPSu1qmgufv_1280[1].png (655KB, 740x720px) Image search: [Google]

655KB, 740x720px

>>134301654

WE'RE GONNA PUT A LOOOOT OF COAL MINERS OUT OF BUSINESS!

>>134302821
The chinks already have 400 full-time engineers working on developing these reactors. We have to beat them to the punch.

>>134302821
Also, this would open new fields of industry. It would make rare earth mining viable in the US. It would make chemical synthesis cheaper, it would make metal refining cheaper.

>>134301962

the runaway green house effect would take a much larger release of carbon dioxide than climate scientists would have you believe, But I still see the value in an infinite and clean energy source that doesn't pollute the environment such as Molten salt reactor technology. It would also be excellent for space based reactors and nuclear powered rockets in space.

>>134302072

Chemo therapy uses chemicals, you're talking about radio-isotopic therapy, which is where MSR's would help in their production of bismuth 213 alpha emitting isotope.

In the end of the day, it's about convincing big government to put up the money which would then convince big industry to put up the money, thus the dominoes would fall and we would fully unlock the potential of the atom, in a fissionable sense.

>>134304105
Thank you for correcting me before I'd said "chemo-therapy" to too many people.

To your point of convincing big-government, we need public out-cry for that. Which is why I'd like to get a more-viral campaign going for LFTR's here. 4chan has pulled off the craziest publicity campaigns ever heard of before, I'm sure we can do it again.

pls /pol/ let us make the do for the future or stuff

>>134304317

Energy is different in my opinion. If everyone were to suddenly be teleported to Africa or Bumfuckistan all of a sudden where they would have to burn cow dung to boil water and make their morning coffee or have sexual intercourse with a goat instead of having porn.. then you would easily get your public outcry to have a more powerful and convenient 21st century energy source.

With nuclear energy - the issue is necessity, people in the 1st world truly live far better lifestyles then before we had coal - thus, there isn't really any apparent need (in the eyes of normies, and those without any foresight) to have more sustainable living. Coupled with the fact that the whole global warming meme has kinda died out, there isn't even a strong push even in western countries for intermittent renewables (it could be way stronger).

Unfortunately, I believe that in order for everyone to uproar over the need for Molten salt reactors (mind you anything nuclear was shilled against for decades it's become subconcious abhorrentism in the minds of morons) we would have to run out of coal and oil and all of the industry around that would need to run out of supply.. for there to be a strong effect on the minds of 1st worlders.

This probably explains why countries such as india and china are pursuing nuclear, at least on the surface - because even though their nations are very collectivized (china= communism, india= caste system) there is still some awareness of the power that the strong nuclear forces have over standard chemical bonds. But please, i'm all for proving me wrong - 4chan surprises me all the time.

>>134305211

I meant to add the reason why china and india are pursuing nuclear on the surface - because the majority of the people there are living in 3rd world conditions and the elites of those countries understand that coal and oil are unsustainable to feed such huge numbers of people if billions of people are to progress into middle income workers energy needs.

>>134301654
not this crap again

Force the meme. Make the normies swallow our grand fore-seeing cummies.

>>134302217
Isn't the half life like a fraction of uranium's as well?

>>134305954
It's much longer, which means it's not nearly as radioactive, so sorta. It's safe to carry thorium around in your pocket for a few days, easily.

>>134301654
Can't tell if this is serious or 90% of /pol/ is retarded. Seriously, what do you idiots do for a living where you have no concept of how science works? Are all the people on /pol/ NEET tinfoil hat wearing neckbeards?

>>134305954
Also, liquid salt reactors don't have to be pressurized to work like with water reactors, so they essentially have no risk of exploding.

>>134306298
inb4 hurr durr we only use oil to power everything because evil corporations. There is literally nothing on this earth more abundant than oil to generate anywhere near the amount of power we use for the cost that we use. Its not that big corporations get hard-ons when they see polar bears die you fucking brain-dead nutjobs.

>>134306298
Except there already was a LFTR in the US in the 60's at Oakridge. The tech wasn't funded and pursued further because it didn't produce plutonium for nukes, and because it didn't put jobs in California, which Nixon wanted for re-election.

>>134302217

To be fair we never used plutonium made from today's "reactors" too. But this is a good talking point on the proliferation argument with MSR's.

>>134306460
No, we use oil and coal because they're cheap and abundant and because water-cooled reactors produce tons of useless waste. Thorium reactors produce waste that is easily converted into useful by-products.

Additionally, Thorium is stupidly abundant all over the earth and will be cheaper than coal once the tech is further developed.

>>134306298

The concept of a liquid molten salt and nuclear reactions are a true invention and were tested in the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in the 1960's - 1970's, the leader of the Project was Alvin Weinberg. This is true science, in fact, most of the science was put into practice, it is how we were able to make nuclear weapons and the plutonium required for them.

>>134306564
>thinking that processing uranium gives plutonium
>being this retarded

>>134306790
Yeah and this would be great if you could get any decent energy out of thorium.
>But muh superior half life

>>134306868

It does? Just not with thermal neutrons in a molten salt - leading part of the reason the project was cancelled. Fyi, you're not processing uranium, you're breeding it to produce the plutonium.

>>134307124
>breeding uranium
>being this retarded
>2017
>stop

>>134307008
You can breed u233, a fissile material, from thorium by using thorium-carrying molten salts as the inner-most layer of neutron shielding. You then harvest that u233 from the thorium blanket and run it through the reactor core, which in turn gives you massive amounts of heat and more neutrons than you started with, which turns more thorium into u233.

See where this is going yet?

File: niggerofpol.jpg (159KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1920x1080px

>>134307302

haha it's the [current year] meme

Go back to your show you limey motherfucker

>>134307431
>if i type lots of words maybe i'll eventually be right about something
>still 2017
>still stop

>>134307431
leave the idiot alone. anyone who is worth sharing the knowledge with can probably go look it up themselves.

>>134307517
>get caught being retarded
>respond with ad hominem

t...that'll t...t...teach h...him

>>134307431

It's too complicated for his brain, the bong hits have done their damage

>>134307719

attack with advertisments gets a response of homosapiens

Since you clearly don't have the terminology down, breeding fissile material means using neutron bombardment to make one atom into a larger one. Also, neutrons essentially decay into protons, for sake of simplicity, so by putting thorium near nuclear reactions, you can turn it into uranium, just like you can do the same to make uranium into plutonium.

Not even worth a (You).
You've made a lot of posts and said nothing substantial at all, fuck off if you're just here to shitpost.

>>134301654
The sooner we can move to a post-oil economy the better. Let the Middle East wallow in its own shit.

Renewables are nice, but entry-level thermodynamics will clearly tell you that (since all the "easy" coal and oil is gone) if we drop backwards away from nuclear, we'll NEVER be able to get back to it.

Every form of energy generation has begotten the next.
Nothing (human metabolism) --> Wood
Wood --> Coal
Coal --> Whale oil and hydrocarbons
Hydrocarbons --> Nuclear

Each has a higher energy-density, and each requires high energy levels to extract, refine, and utilise it. If we drop back with regards to baseload and output, we are physically UNABLE to move forward again. It will literally doom humanity, since this house of cards has grown quite high.

Too complicated? Ask yourself if a satellite or space ship will ever leave the planet on solar and wind. Nuclear or bust, kids.

>>134307642
Yeah I can look it up all i want, but what i can't find out is why you hippie shills think that thorium will produce nearly a fraction of the energy that is required to run the world.
>inb4 muh superior half life
>inb4 muh superior waste products
neither of those two are at all relevant.

Thorium reactors are the fedoras of the energy world.

>>134307642
Honestly, I'm just putting out the arguments against what he's saying so that anyone who IS worth the time can see the opposition being trounced.

>>134307886

U.S. Energy grid relies on 99 U.S. Reactor to produce roughly 20% of their grid.

It takes another 7000 other type of energy generators to make up for the other 80%.

So to power the world with nuclear power? quite doable.

>>134307866
I started the thread and have tried to get it rolling. No u.

>>134301654
Yes, please!
>Sandniggers, btfo by domestically produced cheap energy
>Global warming (i.e. making the planet livable for nigs and mestizos only) btfo
>Socialist oil hellholes btfo
>USA develops the reactors and sells the IP and reactors to Africa thus making shittons money for us.

>>134308031
I was referring to the Brit.

>>134308051

Also, bring the third world out of poverty, reducing their birthrates and stopping any need for (((migrants))) and wars for (((oil)))

>>134308081
Ah.

File: 1480843822558.jpg (59KB, 706x664px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 706x664px

>>134301872
-t Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud

>>134301872

There is already cheap ubiquitous power, nuclear power just makes it clean and sustainable for thousands of years.

>>134308011
Those are not thorium reactors though. I think bong is objecting to the claims that the energy produced in the thorium cycle will be enough to supply global demand.

>>134308011
Powering the world with nuclear is fine. Uranium is pretty great at holding down that fort.

The debate is over thorium though. Thorium is not a replacement for uranium nor will it ever be. Uranium on its own is not a replacement for oil.

Face it you shills, the only type of nuclear energy that has the potential to eclipse oil is fusion. Stop being retarded and funding all these dumb projects in the meantime.

>>134307875

This.

>>134308245
Now that I can see for sure that's what you're arguing for, I would tend to agree. I thought you were talking about the plutonium breeding from uranium.

Fusion is god tier energy.

>>134308245
Fusion may be one or two steps ahead. We need to treat fossil fuels as the puberty of energy development. Move forward to nuclear, and then we can move on to "sci-fi" territory from there. Uranium was sci-fi a hundred years ago. Nuclear might give us the power we need to get fusion going, or work something else out.

Unfortunately the quantum field has far too low an energy density, but it has one. Who knows what we could accomplish if we just fucked fossil fuels off?

>>134308217

A supposed thorium reactor, or even just using Molten salts is already 200-300 times more efficient in energy utilization than a typical generation II reactor.

It is that efficient because it can burn all the uranium it produces into fission products, where as PWR power plants can only burn 5% of the fuel in their rods whilst irradiating the other 95% of their U238 into unwanted materials. This is all thanks to the MSR using a liquid, not a solid.

>>134308051
>thinking that thorium will cure cancer, politics, mudskins, global warming, that thing on your balls that won't go away, famine, poverty, the fact that girls are repulsed by your smell, heart disease, autism, hair loss

>oh jeez guise better start funding

>>134308520
>being this gay

>>134308217
Every rare-earth mine on the planet, including those in africa have thorium as a waste product in massive quantities and you can harvest the stuff literally anywhere on the planet. In one cubic meter of any dirt on the planet there's about 2 cubic centimeters of usable thorium to uranium's 1/2 cc (only about 2 percent of which is the isotope we use for reactors today

In short, the stuff is so available it'll be cheaper than coal once the tech is fully developed.

>>134308245

Fusion is hard though, even harder than a Molten salt reactor concept. But if you are that interested in fusion, I recommend General Fusions liquid metal piston anvil reactor which is the only fusion concept I can actually see working.

Isn't it interesting how concepts from fission reactors make fusion reactors suddenly work? (Integral Fast Reactor uses liquid metal to slow down neutrons)

>>134308412
Fusion hasn't been proven to give a return and while I like the idea, it's isn't something we can prove we'll be able to harness any time soon. Where-as LFTRs are already a proven technology.

>>134308577
Yep. Monazite is fucking EVERYWHERE.

File: iDontKnowWhyThisIsAGif.gif (37KB, 600x391px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 600x391px

>>134308412
Fission barely compares to the levels of energy from fusion.

>>134308483
Liquid fuelled reactors can also use uranium salts. Solid pile reactors are garbage and were only chosen because of the simplified cross sections for early reactors.

>>134308567
>2017
>still using gay as an insult
kek

>>134308748
I know fusion is good. It's immensely more energetic and has virtually unlimited fuel in the oceans.

what's your point?

>>134308577
Literally not debating that it doesn't exist. It just won't produce the energy that you think it will.

>>134308761

Exactly, not sure why the bong hates the concept of thorium even though the reactor is technically burning uranium.

>>134308869
my bad. misread your post

>>134308955
As far as I'm aware, it burns a significant fraction of the energy released from uranium in converting thorium to uranium. I haven't seen energy release figures from thorium fuel cycle so I can't say.

>>134308748
Again, every attempt so-far at fusion has yielded less power than was put into it and no one has figured out and proven a method of achieving fusion that yields returns.

In regards to your argumentation over returns from LFTRs, liquid salt is worth pursuing regardless, and I strongly encourage you to look at ORNL's documentation regarding the thorium reactor they ran. They weren't even using the heat they were generating but they recorded exactly how much that was and you'll see the potential.

>>134309089

Yes, Basically you're burning Uranium fuel which is generated from the radiation (neutrons) irradiating thorium which transmutes thorium into uranium and the cycle repeats infinitum as long as you keep installing thorium and removing fission products.

>>134308791
>current year
It's not the year, nor the word we use. It's just what you are.

>>134309089
Not really. It runs the same way a uranium reactor does and just has fewer wasted neutrons, again, using the thorium as neutron shielding. It essentially delivers the same performance as a liquid fueled uranium reactor but uses waste neutrons to produce more uranium.

How do we social media this into headlines?

I think twitter.

Kirk Sorensen is a good source on this topic.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVSmf_qmkbg

>>134309247
>>134309356
Like I said, I want to see the energy figures for that cycle. I understand completely what you are saying, but I want to see how much of the energy you release from your uranium reaction is taken up by the transmutation from thorium into uranium.

In very simple terms, you are generating more fuel by consuming energy produced. While that means you have lots of fuel, it means your energy output is reduced. What I'm asking you guys is whether the energy consumed to make more fuel is low enough to make the whole thing worthwhile.

>>134309560

How are you going to get around the huge amount of shilling against anything nuclear honestly? there are so many morons and active shills who have shut down reactors in the past.

There was even a Jew named the meme name Chaim Nissim who shot a missile at a nuclear reactor in france.

These people need to actually die out of old age before we can shill for nuclear out there.

Did we already forget that Trump got elected because miners in denial thought their heavily automated industry was coming back?

>>134309735
If it helps, the Trump admin is actually trying to meme it
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/perry-wants-to-make-nuclear-energy-cool-again/article/2627250

>>134309811
You think that's why Trump got elected?

>>134309718

That's the thing, there shouldn't be an impact on the energy generated because the neutrons that are used to transmute thorium are wasted either way, i.e. they are the normal neutron flux generated even after 100% of the neutrons are used to produce criticality.

I'm not sure where to find what your looking for factually, but maybe you'll find something on the official documents: http://moltensalt.org.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/references/static/downloads/pdf/index.html

>>134309935
I know its why. Less than 100k vptes in the dirt poor, smack addicted rust belt put the current president in the white house.

>>134309811
Trump got elected because americans hate mudskins
Same reason we voted for Brexit

>>134309718
You aren't using the energy available to the core to make more uranium, though, so your effective loss of energy for the sake of making more thorium is 0. I don't have the figures off the top of my head but ORNL's documentation does. Sorry I can't give you a straight answer. I'll do better research so I have that as a one-liner when this thread dies.

>>134310184
making more uranium*

>>134309977
nice get
>>134310184

But that's where you're wrong. Neutrons are not totally wasted. As I recall, the majority of the energy in a nuclear reaction is in the neutrons. Heavy water and molten lead reactors derive energy from slowing the neutrons, which in turn heats them up, which they draw off through tertiary water evaporation in turbogenerators.

>>134309735
Only way to get around shilling is headlines. Which is why I was hoping to meme this onto twitter.

>>134309811
Yeah, they're an issue but only after they realize it's a serious risk, which is long after the development phase.

File: 1496323792327.jpg (49KB, 399x399px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 399x399px

>>134310183
Sure we do, client state.

And your country voted for brexit because stupid emotional people don't know what the hell they want. The snap election proved that.

>>134310366
You're correct, but only partially. The thorium catches escaping neutrons, ones which otherwise would just hit the giant concrete walls they have to build around reactors. A LOT of neutrons are lost in today's reactors, which is why it's dangerous to stand near one when it's running without those concrete walls between you and it.

>>134310366
>>134310574

Also since MSR's utilize 100% of the fuel disolved in the salt, the stray neutron flux that is already thermalised by graphite in the core is far higher than any current nuclear reactor - this is where the thorium comes in as fertile fuel AND shielding.

>>134310841
dingdingding!

>>134310574
I need to correct myself, the majority of energy is in fact from the fission fragment Ek rather than neutron.

for 235U you get 215 MeV, of which 17 is neutron energy.

I would put up a pic of the sorts of energy numbers I'm looking for, but my pc is being uncooperative.

>>134311249
From wiki:
"The fission of one atom of uranium-233 generates 197.9 MeV"

>>134311249
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

File: 1496419494791.jpg (32KB, 408x632px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 408x632px

>>134301654
oy vey
clean, cheap engery? whud aboot muh shekuls

>>134311581
I understand that, but an important part in all that is the energy of the products and how much of the resultant energy goes where. Since having looked at 235U energy figures, it'd be fair to say the majority of the energy of U233 energy goes into fission fragments.

But (we're not done yet) what I want to see is the min energy requirements for each stage of the thorium fuel cycle. If any of the transmutations require input energy, that'll be where you will lose out on your energy.

What you're ideally looking for is something like this:

233Th90 + 1n0 (11MeV) -> 233Pa91 (xxMeV)

This gives you the resulting energies at each stage of the fuel cycle, it'll also tell you where it's going and what it's doing.

>>134312053
Many shekuls to be made by investing in it and many shekuls to be made in still-developing countries that'd be bounced forward with the tech.

>>134312053

But my fellow kike an MSR makes lots of platinum, even worth more then shekels

>>134312140
I don't have those for you this time around but I've been digging through ORNL's research for it. I'll keep you posted if you add shummoner on skype. (not the one in miami)

File: image.png (428KB, 2732x2048px) Image search: [Google]

428KB, 2732x2048px

>>134301654
Plebbit and Lil John both approve. Do you really want to be part of that group?

>>134312321
nice to see a fellow science enthusiast

>>134311697
Yes, that's nice but it doesn't give any relevant energy figures, I've looked. It only has a few decay energies than don't pertain to the fuel cycle.

>>134301654
>implying the jews would ever allow anything to be cheap

It's the same reason Edison "won" over Tesla. Greed.

>>134312505
The difference is that, if you look at it on a larger scale, more energy means you can make more products for cheaper. Those products get jewed and you get to make more shekels. The offset of cheaper energy is in buying more products. The money always flows back to them, regardless of whether it's energy bills or a new iphone.

>>134312505
People stand to gain massively by the economic boom this could help to produce. It would be non-weapons-grade nuclear that could be used to desalinate water among tons of other useful memes, which then vastly improves the living conditions, and thereby productivity of developing nations.

With energy abundance people don't have food, water, and industry shortages, which makes those people into a useful work-force.

>>134312481
Seriously though, add me.

Make Bombs Not LGTRs

>>134312907
If I remember correctly, a large part of this is the regulations side of government. There are only one or two companies in the U.S. who can plan and construct a nuclear facility. This is partially due to the lack of construction which is derived from immense amounts of regulations and projects going over budget. My father worked on constructing the Comanche Peak Nuclear plant, and that project dragged out and went over budget due to so many changes... thanks to regulations driven by fear and public opinion...

Maybe you have addressed this already, but if you want to attack this issue, you need to go after all issues... Including this bear...

>>134313187
bombs r bad, m'kay

>>134313315
Right. A lot of the actual issues facing it aren't even financial. It's regulatory and fear-mongering, which is solved by making headlines and getting positive attention.

Which brings us back to the original reason for the thread. Let's try to make this shit viral. Any time you can, mention it. On /pol/ or otherwise. Once we swing /pol/'s opinion we can start a meme campaign.

>>134313522
Please condense the links to reputable websites (including journal articles) that you are using to form your opinions. I will take a look at the arguments for and against this method of energy generation and then form my own opinion. If it is alligned with yours, will shill.

Whenever someone mentions energy, food, water, or fuel shortages on the board, bring this up. Make it infectious. Whenever you think you can talk about it in thread about oil wars, do so. We here can start something by making a big enough stink.

File: 1499564963907.jpg (100KB, 688x456px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 688x456px

serious post this time.
i feel like i should point out that the reason coal and oil are currently the best energy products is for several reasons.
they're cheap to extract from the ground, they are easily converted into materials that can be used in cars plastics and power plants. and they produce massive amounts of energy.
where as this thorium stuff, needs to be researched further just to make sure it actually works, then you have to build this massive facilities and then maintain them.
chances are that using oil, natural gas and coal for another 30 years while other technologies are developed is by far the cheapest options.
but what evs i'm down to let a university or two research this crap, the US waste tons of money on stupid research projects every year.

>>134313522

It kinda went semi-viral but was ((shutdown)) mysteriously by the thorium car meme and the people like thundercuck who made a pretty good video destroying thorium car - it ofc naturally put people off the concept of thorium itself to be used in nuclear reactors.

Also Gordon Mcdowell on youtube has stopped making videos and some of his videos were getting millions of views redpilling on thorium and liquid reactors.

Maybe make some youtube account and pick up where those guys left off, but it will be tough, that gordon fellow did a really good job.

>>134314078
Coal and oil have much more valuable uses besides being burnt. Oil particularly since so many of its derivative products can be used in many applications elsewhere.

For example, we rely on the methane coming out of oil wells to provide us with hydrogen gas, which in turn gives us our ammonia and then our nitrate fertilisers.

there are many alternative uses for fossil fuels besides burning them away.

>>134301654
Physics grad here - LFTRs are a meme until we actually get the engineering issues worked out. The closest we came to developing a successful molten salt reactor was the Oak Ridge MRSE experiment back in the 60s and that only demonstrated half the concept of an LFTR. Just like with nuclear fusion - the concept works perfectly well on paper, but in reality there are a host of engineering obstacles that need to be overcome to make it work.

Maybe we'll work out the problems with LFTR designs, maybe we'll work out the problems with fusion.. but we can't base our energy policy on what we MIGHT figure out 10, 15, 20 years from now. We need to work with what we've already got. Uranium fission is efficient, safe, and reliable and if we put as much money into subsidizing nuclear power as we do coal and oil, we could be breaking ground on five or six 3rd gen plants every year, and within twenty years we'd be producing enough nuclear power to start seriously phasing out coal power.

If liberals actually gave a flying fuck about fighting climate change, they'd be demanding an overhaul of nuclear power in the US.

>>134314078
That's literally all I'm saying. Let's bring it to politicians' attention and let it run. But thorium does have all the same advantages as fossil fuels after you get the tech developed, so let's fuckin' do it before the chinese become more butt-fuck rich off it.

>>134314180
Gordon just made a few more videos a couple months ago and has said he'll continue to do so every year. The thorium car did fuck things a little, but thunderf00t has thrown his support behind reactors made with the tech sort of passively. So all that's really needed is a second wind. and we get there by mentioning it in passing until enough people are passively on-board. Then we go for the throat with something like a thunderclap campaign.

>>134314078

Actually an MSR would be far less space consuming as it doesn't need a pressure vessel or steam turbine assembly, if it isn't using steam but rather helium closed cycle or supercritical Carbon dioxide turbine, which are far more efficient at turning heat into kinetic energy (you're nearing 50% with supercritical CO2).

>>134314807
I thought supercrit CO2 was higher.

>>134301741
>And the mining and oil barons would lose their big, fat profits.

Why? They'd just switch to mining and processing Thorium.

>>134314688
Agreed with the self proclaimed grad student. I took a couple of nuclear physics courses in college... Just enough to get my feet wet, but ended up in an electrical eng field. Most of our current reactors use 40+ year old technology. Uranium fission facilities could use a revisit and update.

>>134315207
Physics Grad*

>>134314688
Modern nuclear has a bad name and MSRE actually had everything but a turbine and large scale.

You market LFTRs as a shiny, new, safe nuclear and get further with it than modern nuke. Fusion's a bitch with engineering issues that are vastly more difficult to overcome than a LFTR. All you really need is valves that work at high temperatures and pumps that work with molten salt, but I'd hardly call that as difficult as making fusion energy-efficient.

>>134314688

Totally agree, I have nothing against the PWR's because they actually work and don't pollute - at least orders of magnitudes below any of the alternatives. It is totally in the hands of retarded policy makers. For example, building an AP1000 is illegal in australia, our policy makers some how thought that was a good idea, even though we could use the cheap energy to power our desalination of sea water projects.. which have now flopped due to their uneconomical outlook.

File: First politician.jpg (32KB, 433x312px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 433x312px

>>134301654
It seems to me it's about the money. If you want to get it done they need $300 million to build concept reactor and another $1 billion to build a plant. The only way to get that kind of cash will be investment bankers of Government funding . Tweet them, contact people with and interest and have them Tweet or contact their representatives.

White House has a petition page create a petition. Post link here see if if gets a windfall of signatures ( i will sign ). In concept it does sound like a good idea.

>>134315618
Two companies got 40mil each last year from the US gov to start manufacturing their concept reactors. Legislation is still an issue which needs public attention to be properly resolved.

Shameless further bumping..
Spread the word. I'll prolly start a similar thread once a month. Hopefully it catches some support.

File: Jew-toad.jpg (144KB, 1200x1156px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 1200x1156px

>>134312053
In a normal world some schmuck would come along and improve things, ya know... for the greater good.
These kikes have perfected the art of protectionism.

>>134301654
I've been writing the Trump administration to meet with Kirk Sorensen on this and rate Earth deregulation for months now. Pretty sure our greatest ally controls what he knows via their dial citizens, and LFTR isn't one of the things he does it ever will know about.

>>134315618
It seems to be to be about belief. If we BELIEVE in Thorium hard enough; it'll work. The issue is that not enough people have faith in this magical substance for it to work

>>134301654
Haven't read the thread.
Just telling you it will never happen due to nuclear proliferation treaties.

>>134317201
It doesn't have by-products that are useful for nukes. any bomb you tried to make with it would fry its own electronics before you finished manufacturing it because of U232.

File: 1456705911758.png (34KB, 450x367px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 450x367px

>>134314078
>the reason is for several reasons

>>134317367
yes your faith is powerful, you are enriching the god THORIUM. You are a high priest, well versed in esoteric knowledge, no?

>>134317104
You know full well that it's not about that and is about convincing our retarded politicians. You can't just poke someone with power and throw science at them. For this kind of thing, since there's already regulation in the way, you have to have an ass-load of people talking about it.

>>134317367
I really doubt the relevant treaties exempt breeding nuclear material just because "it's difficult to make a bomb with". That doesn't change that you're breeding dangerous nuclear materials.

File: 1500129976385.jpg (94KB, 1366x768px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1366x768px

>>134301654
>Thorium
Relax nerd.
Nobody needs this shit because it can't be weaponized.

Why would anyone in their right mind invest in a whole new technology, infrastructure, refineries and shit to get the same thing that Uranium gives but without defense application?

Are you a retard?
Nobody uses thorium because Uranium is better.

>>134317567
eylmao

You comparing me giving a shit about it to a religious person's fanaticism isn't stopping the chinese from being the first to put the shit on-market.

>>134317645
Except you aren't breeding plutonium. (aka not dangerous)

>>134317691
it's better than uranium because there's fucktons more thorium available than uranium and you don't have to isotopically isolate thorium like you do with uranium for it to be useful as a nuclear fuel.

>>134317725
I've been following Thorium research long enough to be very skeptical. It all just comes off as Popular Science quackery

File: Gas Schumer.jpg (620KB, 700x840px) Image search: [Google]

620KB, 700x840px

>>134301654
OK I did not just talk about it I did it. I created a White House petition.
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/administration-take-policy-fund-and-explore-building-liquid-fluoride-thorium-reactors

Now how many of you will sign it

>>134318002
What bit seems far-fetched to you?
inb4 all of it

>>134317104
I would say the big issues with this this type of reactor is heat and how to contain it. That salts are corrosive to piping and pumps. The creation of some isotopes that are highly radioactive in the GAMMA spectrum.

>>134317996
>there's fucktons more thorium available than uranium
There's enough Uranium for god knows how long.
And if we ever use it all up we probably switch to fucsion anyway.
Also
>isotopically isolate thorium
Breeder reactors.
We dont even use U238 because we have so much U235 it's just cheaper to stockpile it and use it as a cheap tungsen alternative.

>>134317996
From WIkipedia:
>The second proliferation resistant feature comes from the fact that LFTRs produce very little plutonium, around 15 kg per gigawatt-year of electricity (this is the output of a single large reactor over a year).

Just one plant would produce 15kg of plutonium a year. We currently have 99 power reactors in the US. It takes only 60 of them running Thorium to produce a ton of plutonium a year.

As I said, I don't know anything about the treaties, but I'd imagine that's a lot of plutonium, even if it isn't immediately usable in nuclear weapons, which I am assuming the treaties don't specify.

>>134317080
I've been writing the Trump administration to meet with Kirk Sorensen on this and rare Earth deregulation for months now. Pretty sure our greatest ally controls what Trump knows via their dual citizens, and LFTR isn't one of the things he does or ever will know about.

*Fixed typos.

Also my undergrad was in nuclear engineering from a prestigious school. I can confirm these reactors are proven technology both in theoretical terms and real world tests.

Anyone interested should first watch the original documents here: https://youtu.be/P9M__yYbsZ4

Watch many of Gordon's other channels. Kirk Sorensen is active in his own forum and can be reached there.

There is a lot of ignorance about MSR/LFTR and a lot of disinfo and shilling against it. It's a huge elephant in the room for all competing energy tech. If it broke free in America no other country would be able to compete, which is why it is meeting such resistance.

>>134318432
eeeeeehhhhhh?

we have to isolate 235 because it occurs in low percentages in uranium ore. pile reactors can use both 235 and 238 uranium, although nuclear weapons can only use 235 because it's less stable and can maintain a chain reaction.

tl;dr 235 is valuable and not common senpai
0.72% of naturally occuring uranium

>>134316959

Nuclear General it should be

>>134318920
>General
No, fuck you, I'm tired of you idiots ruining boards with this cancer. If you need a circlejerk about X topic just use reddit.

>>134319105

but reddit is for fags and this is an anonymous cancer treatment website

>>134318868
>pile reactors can use both 235 and 238 uranium,
U235 gives you the chain reaction on slow neutrons that it produces itself.
U 238 has to be fed fast neutrons from some source to react.

They are applied in different reactors and using U235 is so much cheaper that U238 is oftern treated as garbage or waste.
Burgers even call it "depleted uranium" and use it for tanks and projectiles.

Not that it can't be used for energy, we just have all we need and more from U235

>>134301741

The oil and mining barrons would absolutely kill it if they led the initiative. LFTR'S can power refineries that suck carbon out of the air and water. The ocean is a carbon sink - it is packed with carbon. With sufficient energy, you can turn water and carbon into hydrocarbons. Not gasoline, but replacements for common diesel fuel and kerosene.

You might say, well we have power plants and can do that now. You would be right, but it isn't practical. Uranium is too rare to use it for anything other than direct to grid energy. You wouldn't use gas or coal, because using that energy to create more hydrocarbons isn't even a 1-1 trade.

Big oil could lead the charge on LFTR's, using them exclusively as hydrocarbon production sources. The mining barrons are already pulling of hundreds of thousands of tons of thorium a year. There is just no demand for it. They would make a killing if LFTR's took off.

>>134319298
No, this is /pol/ - Politically Incorrect.
This "general thread" cancer didn't even exist until a few years ago and now it's taking over boards left and right.

>>134318363
High-nickel steels. Also, it's fluoride salts, which are vastly-less corrosive. And you bond the fluorine to lithium or beryllium so the environment is strongly reducing, which protects the metal components. Gamma shielding is the same as in modern reactors, namely ~7 feet of concrete.

>>134318432
Your argument depends wholly on water breeder reactors, which are proven to be less efficient than isotopically isolating the U235/8 beforehand when you're talking about solid fuel.

If you're proposing a liquid fueled uranium breeder reactor, why not simply decrease your fuel cost by using thorium, what with its availability? Even if you disagree on using thorium, you have to admit liquid salt fuels are more efficient.

>>134318572
I'm getting too sleep deprived to double check his math, but something looks off with that.

>>134319401
I thought they mixed 238 in with significant (25%?) percentages of 235 so the 235 would sustain the reaction while the 238 would transmutate into plutonium and then be burnt off. You can't easily get 239Pu or 241Pu from 235U and that was why nuclear reactors have proliferation issues.

>>134319607
1 US ton is about 907 kg, divide that by 15 to get about 60 plants needed to produce a ton of plutonium in a year.

File: china.jpg (20KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 480x480px

>>134319517
Do you no understand that we're talking about trying to change the political landscape of the US? How is that not political? Tardboi, chill yo nards and quit being a 'purist'


>>134319788
is every plant a gigawatt year output? if I'm not mistaken that's a big ol no.

Either way, FUCKING CHINA

>>134301654
As öf yet there are two problems.

-The different elements that are produced inside the reactor that needs to be removed. This is too costly and time consuming.

-The pipes that need to carry liquid fuel for reprocessing. Even graphite gets toasted after a single year

>>134315310
>MSRE actually had everything but a turbine and large scale.
The bulk of MSRE's runs were using U-235 and all of the U-233 runs it did were from Thorium-bred U-233 produced in external devices. A molten salt reactor is only half the concept of the LFT design model, the other half is IN-SITU production of U-233 via the Thorium-cycle.

Oak Ridge only demonstrated half the concept - you need a proof-of-concept for the full design before you can sell people on the whole package. Otherwise it's like if an inventor showed you their "self-cleaning rat trap" and only demonstrated that it kills rats before asking you to buy a million units. He's only demonstrated half the concept and you'd be a fool to invest in him before he's proved the whole package.

>>134301654
You need to rename it, Molten salt reactors will scare the children.

>>134319607
>why not simply decrease your fuel cost by using thorium, what with its availability?
Cost of new infrastructure and facilities and cost of solving technological difficulties diminish any returns.

I'm not saying thorium is bad, i'm saying we dont need it yet.

>>134319760
Do they really widely use it?
It sounds too complex to bother with.

>>134320225
MOLTEN SALT sounds metal
I instantly imagine volcanos and red hot lava

>>134320103
>is every plant a gigawatt year output? if I'm not mistaken that's a big ol no.
Hey, where did that goalpost go? And for the record, I'm not against it at all. I'm just saying it will never happen.
Back to the topic at hand... It's true that many of the reactors are old, and some plants use more than one reactor. Even so, the output of the current 99 reactors in use today probably match at least the output of 60 of the theoretical reactors.

>>134319513
No they wouldn't. It's far too common and way over mined. There are mountains of Thorium sitting doing nothing because it's regulated as a nuclear waste. It would take from decades to hundreds of years just to burn existing stockpiles.

If you assume that a massive increase in energy availability at lower prices would lead to astronomical increases in energy demand then you may have a point. But that would require a true Thorium grid and a total societal embrace of Thorium energy, which would take a long time.

>>134320103
Most 3rd gen reactors average about 1 GW capacity and modern plants usually have 1-5 reactors.

The bulk of US nuclear reactors are 2nd gen IIRC, so most are in the couple hundred MW per reactor range. Back in my homestate (Iowa) we've got a single BWR plant in Palo... I think its capacity is like 500-600 MW. Works well enough, still provides almost 15-20% of the state's grid power. We had a chance to build a new plant a couple years ago but it fell through

>>134320455
>Nuclear waste
I meant radioactive material.

>>134320296
I thought it was standard. The potential of plutonium burning makes it much more worthwhile because plutonium cooks nicely, although that's only the 239, 241 and 243 Pu. 238, 240 and 242 Pu don't fission.

>>134320982
The standard is enriched uranium reactors because they are still around and are being maintained rather than replaced.

Reactors you're talking about do exist but there isn't a whole lot of them.

>>134320296
yeah, just had a look, commercial power reactors use 3% 235 and use 238 breeding to produce plutonium through this process:

238U92 +1n0 -> 239U92 -> (B- decay) 239Np93 -> (B- decay) 239Pu94

>>134321429
enriched means 3% or so. higher percentages are mil spec reactors like in nuclear subs.

>>134320108
Look into the reactor "kidney" that the ORNL reactor had. It resolves the issues with removing the by-products.

Reactor-grade graphite burns at around 800C in the presence of oxygen, which you don't have when the whole core is submersed in lithium flouride. Also, the ORNL reactor ran at around 700C, so that's not an issue anyway.

>>134320144
The other half of the product is an outer shell that holds the thorium enriched salt which just by being there breeds U233.
That works out simply by the math, and you're mistaken if you say they never bred u233 in the reactor, even with their first and half-realized design they had more u233 at the end than what they originally put in if that hadn't intended for the reactor to passively breed, they never would've put any thorium into the thing to begin with, though it is true you need U235 to get it started the first time around.

>>134320296
uranium is currently stupidly expensive compared to just breeding the thorium on-site because breeding u233 is stupidly easy compared to isotopically isolating useful uranium.

>>134320417
The goalpost is FUCK CHINA

>>134321673
I thought zirconium alloys were the promising material of LNR

File: 1499550986321.gif (2MB, 270x188px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 270x188px

>>134301654
I demand all your sauce. Always heard about thorium, but no proofs.

>>134321862
I was talking about the graphite moderator for the core.

Again, sleep deprivation is fucking me up, but I think it was high nickel zirconium steel for the core casing and for pipes. Id' have to look back at it. Either way it's not the primary engineering challenges by a long shot.

>>134322222

>>134322101
Start here: https://youtu.be/P9M__yYbsZ4

>>134322221
Ah my bad I was thinking of AHR, not LNR

File: i-am-monitoring-the-situation-thumb.png (150KB, 302x227px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 302x227px

>>134322263
Will investigate, thanks.

>>134322101
Go watch GordonMcdowell's youtube channel. He's got assboats of material on the subject. Also, I highly encourage looking through ORNL's documentation.

https://www.youtube.com/user/gordonmcdowell

http://moltensalt.org/references/static/downloads/pdf/ORNL-5047.pdf

>>134301654
>>Throrium reactors
The truth is, the material science is decades away from a viable reactor. Sure you can run one for a couple of days, but if you can come up with a material that contains a molten, corrosive, radioactive soup for longer then well done. There's some promising results with n-haste alloys but it's still a long long way away

File: 1500350095837.png (28KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 500x500px

>>134322731
Thanks, resources are always appreciated.
Do you happen to know the name of these lenses/mirrors that are excellent at focussing light too? They're so intense that everything goes up in flames after being under that for 1-2 seconds. I saw some renegade using these to power turbines directly. I also like static electricity, just put some carpets between continental plates or use the energy released by the collective rubbing of thighs by the americans.

>>134323654
ORNL ran one for 5 years before their funding was cut by Nixon. It runs for more than "a few days"

>>134323812
much funny, kiddo

g'night

>>134323654
I'm always astonished at the way totally ignorant people with zero knowledge of the topic will make blanket, blatantly wrong statements in the most matter-of-fact manner. Somehow you just never get used to it.

>>134324063
I'm actually serious about those lenses.

>>134321673
>if that hadn't intended for the reactor to passively breed, they never would've put any thorium into the thing to begin with
Read the actual publications from the Oak Ridge experiment Thorium was NEVER put directly into the device, all of the U-233 used as fissile material in the apparatus was bred by other, external devices.

>>134324063
>>134324335
Found them, they're called Fresnel lenses. Super shilly channel but good demonstrations.
https://youtu.be/drE54ctrHBY
I made blueprints for a seawater desalination plant using these a few years ago.

>>134323916
Again - the Oak Ridge MSR successfully demonstrated that molten salt reactors could work with uranium fission, it successfully did U-235 and U-233 runs.

It did NOT demonstrate that a self-contained thorium fuel cycle could work with the same configuration. It works on paper, yes, so does sustainable fusion, but neither have been experimentally demonstrated in whole.

>>134324304
>Please educate this degree level physicist

>>134324335
Any convex will work to concentrate light, but you're prolly thinking of a Fresnel lens. I really have to sleep now...

>>134324467
Even if I'm wrong the rest of what I said still works fine.

>>134324717
5 years is more that a couple days
#educated

>>134324939
Did they have a working throrium reactor for 5 years, or did they have a molten salt breeder reactor that had no throrium in it?

>I feel less educated just by talking to you.

>>134324717
My undergrad was in actual nuclear engineering, but seeing as how there are plenty of links here already for you to educate yourself and I'm on a phone I'll let you do the work. Maybe research before spewing bullshit next time.

Also
>The ORNL reactor ran for five years without issue

>>134324795
>even if I'm wrong, I'm right
Demonstrating a concept in part is not the same as demonstrating a concept in whole.

Fusion works, we can fuse light elements with (relative) ease nowadays... but that's only half the concept of fusion power, the reaction needs to be sustainable, and that's a whole host of extra obstacles to overcome. Likewise, LFT works in the sense that we understand the reaction and we know the molten salt concept is viable... but that's only half the concept, you have to prove that the design works as expected with the in-situ fuel cycle

No one's saying it's a stupid concept or that it isn't worth exploring... but so many of the people who support LFTR are under the misconception that we've had a fully working viable reactor design for decades and the only thing stopping it is some government/corporate conspiracy. The engineering isn't there... yet.

>>134325385
Do you know how I know you're utterly full of shit?

That reactor never had an ounce of throrium in it you fucking gobshite plebian. It was a salt breeder sure, using u235.

>>134325511
Was my impression too, they're very eager to switch globally without starting small.

>>134314807
What it's coupled too is less important.

With the 800C output temperature you can actually use that for gas (jet) turbines without the gas. Or with the gas when you need an output boost. Then capture the exhaust for a HRSG ended the whole cycle off with a condensing steam turbine and cooling tower.

The compression of a gas turbine puts about 500C of heating into the air which means you can't use that with a light water reactor due to the critical point of water being only 374C. With the LFTR you can run in the 800C range which does add useful energy to the compressed air. The benefit of this cycle is that when you need a spike in output you can turn on natural gas and greatly boost the output near instantly.

The HRSG and condensing steam turbine are just efficiency. You could as easily use the (non condensing steam) turbine waste heat for local heating, other industry applications or for any number of projects that need large amount of mid temperature heat.

>>134308245
Am I too late to point out

Energy density:
Uranium: 80,620,000 MJ/Kg
Thorium: 79,420,000 MJ/Kg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density

Yeah, have a lot of hopes for the Thorium cycle. With any luck, they can solve the residual issues to increase efficiency without a lot more investment. Combining both nuclear and chemical sciences in a process as complex as this can be quite a challenge. Well worth it, however, especially if we can burn off our current waste stockpiles. Hopefully the Chinese won't beat us there.

That said, nothing wrong with coal plants at present. The ecosystem has been a bit carbon starved for a long while, and industry has contributed to global greening. It would be beneficial if this trend continued, and all the carbon wasn't diverted into carbon fiber, nanotubes, or steel products.

>>134301654
How about you or your organization actually create a working prototype and prove it's viability. Then, you work to sell it to people. That's how the market works.

This would be a boom for the carbon industry, not destroy it.
Mineral Carbon has a shit ton of Thorium on it, one of the main reasons why you get cancer by inhaling carbon plant fumes is the thorium in the carbon.
Also the carbon can be used to produce gasoline and diesel through the fischer tropsh process and the heat you can obtain from the thorium reactor process itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fischer%E2%80%93Tropsch_process

>>134301654
Do you know why tobacco is legal and marijuana isnt? Even tho tobacco is alot more dangerous to health?

Marijuana is a weed and grows everywhere. You cant control the supply of it. Anybody can be supplier.

So you make marijuana illegal and then you take all the profits of tobacco.

The same shit applies to thorium. If anybody can control it, then its not good. The global corporate elites cant profit of of it.

Why do you think solar and wind energy are still decades behind where they should be? Because people controling the oil are losing their profits. So they are postponing and doingt anything to slow the process so they can find a way to go around it or take control of of it.

Allways remember that the problem isnt the will of the people. Its the will of the elites.

>>134308917
Even if it doesn't, it will still be a massive leg up on EVERY form of energy generation out there.

>>134320399
They run about that hot 700'C