I looked into the LFTR reactor,I think it's good,what do

>>7893666
It's good. Also look at IFR and ThorCon.

File: 6a00d8341c091653ef01543860df54970c-500wi.jpg (34KB, 468x363px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 468x363px

Why the second cooling loop?

Also,

>Solid core reactors must be shut down to remove waste

Bitches don't know about my AGR.

>>7893874
>34 KB
> Why the second cooling loop?
I assume tritium control and for additional safety margin.

>>7893892
How would they get tritium out in a heat exchanger?

Safety I can understand though PWRs seem to manage with just two.

>>7893892
Because if one leaks, they are still isolated? The one on the left is radioactive.

>>7893897
IIRC, neutrons in water produce tritium. Having extra loops keeps neutrons away from the final water loop, which keeps tritium under control. IIRC. Not entirely sure.

can nuclear power plants use things besides water for coolant?

>>7894017
Oh, I know. I remember. It is because tritium is also produced from the lithium (assuming one is using lithium), even if it's highly enriched / depleted. Having the extra loop allows the tritium to stay in the first few loops and away from the turbine. Keeps the radiation away from the turbine equipment. Also makes it easier to contain the tritium for regulation reasons. I think.

Check out energyfromthorium.com forums. They're good. I'm a rank amateur.

>>7894057
>can nuclear power plants use things besides water for coolant?
Yes, LFTR does that. The standard LFTR design still uses a final water loop for the turbine. That's because steam turbines are already built and finely tuned. There are other turbines, some more experimental, such as CO2 and Helium. It's not "coolant". It's what works well as a working fluid for a turbine, reheater, etc.

>>7893666
czecked

what does lftr stand for? Little faster than right?

It looks expensive.

>>7894086
it stand for liquid fluoride thorium reactor

>>7893666

fusion > fission

stop clinging to this outdated, dangerous and wasteous practice and look at the future

fusion has no waste.

>>7894149

economical fusion also doesn't exist yet

this is kind of a problem

>>7894149
>fusion has no waste.
Yes it does. It might be less bad, but a ridiculous neutron flux is always going to transmute some materials into radioactive waste.

Also, there is no waste problem.
http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf

Also, we can do fission right now and save the world from global warming and overpopulation. That's not true for fusion. Not even close.

>>7894156
Alternatively, we know that there are spots on the ocean floor that have not been disturbed for millions of years. Dump the waste there. Even if it leaks, because it'll be so diluted, it will never harm anyone. Nuclear waste is not finitely harmful, and diluting it does make it less dangerous, and the volume of ocean to the volume of existing waste makes this a no-brainer.

>>7894155

We'll talk abut that in a few years ok? W7X is pushing fusion to the top at mach speed.

>>7894156

W7X architecture allows for very precise plasma containment, using the assymetric supercooled magnets to produce self stabilizing flux vortices (plur. fluces? fluxi?)

pic related man

>>7894149
Yeh well,present a way to do fusion generators then.this thread is created for nuclear related stuff

File: zoom.jpg (132KB, 700x531px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 700x531px

>>7894265

look >>7894168

I don't have to m8 Planck Institute did it for me
inform yourself first.

also I forgot pic related.

>>7894160
Well if it isnt our friendly neighbourhood full time paid nuclear shill again.

>>7894160
>we know that there are spots on the ocean floor that have not been disturbed for millions of years. Dump the waste there.
This is why no one listens to nuclear shills. Tip: even if you're technically correct, that statement is so callous and tone-deaf that you'll never get traction with it. Take a PR class sometime

>>7894160
You heard him everybody.

He's a scientist.

The solution to radioactive nuclear waste pollution is dilution.

Let's do it!!

>>7894304
he's being honest

File: 250px-Wendelstein7-X_Torushall-2011.jpg (28KB, 250x211px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 250x211px

>>7894288
I know about stellarators,I'm talking about how to do stellarators economically.

I say it's by doing fission generators while develioping fusion generators.

I'm asking your opinion on that subject

>>7894168
Protip: Neutrons do not respond to magnetic fields. It's going to transmute the surrounding material, which is going to produce radioactive materials.

And I simply do not believe your claims that fusion is close. Let me know when they actually get an energy positive reactor running.

>>7894304
I agree that I'm bad at PR. I'm bad at dealing with Dunning-Kruger fools.

>>7895610
D-He3 FRC plasma fusion devices are the final solution

>>7893666

>molten salts
>molten, liquid nuclear fuel
>"totally saef xdd!"
>"but old designs are even worse!!1!"

Kill you're self/10.
Any impartial engineer will tell you that this is extremely dangerous.
Stop falling for the thorium cartel agenda. Or if you want to stay in denial, go back to (R)eddit's circlejerk.

>>7894160
This is a bad idea.Ocean currents are highly unpredictable, its also going to be very hard predicting the effect on ecology. The problem with this idea is if something goes wrong, it would be very expensive or impossible to relocate the waste. A much safer and simpler option is to dig a pool and keep the wastes there.

>>7894160
one of the stupidest things i've heard on /sci/ or anywhere on 4chan for that matter

>>7895957

this

thoriumfags need to go. sick of you lot posting this horse shit every where on the internet.

>>7895957
whats wrong with molten salt?

>>7896106
not that guy but theyre corrosive, and depending on the salt, have varying levels of reactivity with air. and lithium molten salts may introduce positive temperature and void coefficients of reactivity which are not allowed by the NRC

>>7896114
>have varying levels of reactivity with air.
What? The elemental constituents would be reactive, but salts like fluorine-lithium-beryllium are quite stable. They have already reacted, so to speak.

>>7896019
>>7896044
It's really not that bad. Your fear response is based on ignorance and public hysteria.
http://www.phyast.pitt.edu/~blc/book/chapter11.html

>>7896114
Also, I think the source of the confusion is that you are confusing molten salts with molten sodium, which is highly reactive with water and air (specifically the water in air). Fluoride salts are totally different, and quite stable.

Don't worry, this is a common confusion. I see plenty of people who should know better, like popular blog authors, newspaper articles, etc., making the same mistake, confusing liquid sodium and liquid salts.

File: shit.jpg (2KB, 218x23px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 218x23px

>>7896169
>Your fear response is based on ignorance and public hysteria
not quite. even one spent fuel pool load is millions of curies of highly radioactive material. yeah it disperses, but that shit is bad for any environment.
>>7896174
under normal conditions yes, salts like FLiBe are generally mostly stable, but he non-stoichiometric mixture produced during neutron irradiation can cause it to become reactive with air, and water vapor

>>7896188
also, the NRC dose rate limit on tritium uptake through drinking water is based on contamination of 2E-8 curies per liter
to take the world's high level waste (not including anything related to weapons programs) and assume it's equally distributed throughout the entirety of the water in all the oceans combined, you'd be left with water poluted to 3.12E-5 curies per liter. 3 orders of magnitude higher than allowed for drinking water by the NRC and that's just based on tritium the weakest beta emitter. considering you'd have cs-137 and all that nasty shit and other transuranic and heavy metals, it's not a good idea. and no, i'm not saying we'll be drinking this polluted ocean water, but all the seafood we eat will be, and we'll get radioactive rainwaters that will pollute the lakes, rivers, and water table. think before you start talking some nonsense crackpot bullshit

>>7896247
Could I see some calculations or citations for how you arrived at that number please?

>>7896262
estimation of global HLW:
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1591_web.pdf

NRC information regarding tritium:
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/tritium-radiation-fs.html

information regarding allowable limits for other radionuclides in water
http://nepis.epa.gov/Exe/ZyPDF.cgi?Dockey=30006644.txt

>>7896271
Odd, I get different numbers. What numbers are you using? Or are you citing someone else's calculation?

According to some numbers that I obtained, there is in the neighborhood of 1000 tonnes of Cs-137 and Sr-90 in the world at any one time from nuclear power plants.

I also found the following numbers:
12 mg of Cs-137 is 1 curie
7.2 mg of Sr-90 is 1 curie

I also found the following for volume of the worlds oceans: 1,347,000,000 cu km.

Let's assume it's all Sr-90 for the sake of argument.

Amount of curies of waste
= (1000 tonnes of Sr-90) (1 curie / 7.2 mg Sr-90)
= 1.38888889e11 curies)

Curie density assuming even distribution
= (1.38888889e11 curies) (1 / (1,347,000,000 cu km)) (cu km / 1e12 liter)
= 1.0310979e-10 curies / liter

Did I make a mistake in my math somewhere? What number are you using?

>>7896271
Your source includes:
http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/publications/PDF/te_1591_web.pdf

>Consequently, using 30 to 50 MTHM with 5.0 to 8.3 E6 TBq per GWe yields an estimate of annual generation in the year 1999 of about 10000 MTHM, with an initial activity of 1.7 E9 TBq.

So, that's 10x more mass than my estimate, but my estimate also focused on the big hitters, the strontium and the caesium, so my estimate seems about right.

I'm still not sure how you arrived at your numbers.

>>7896188
You can just put it in an abandoned salt mine and put concrete over it. Can't you?
We're planning on doing so with our CO2 waste, which is gaseous, not stable rock/metal.

>>7896277
>>7896291
it includes all high level waste, not necessarily just power related

>>7896296
the waste problem is a political problem, not a technical one. they've spent billions on yucca and it's gone nowhere. other countries are investigating geological repositories as well

>>7896291
Oh, it continues:

> Applying the same generation rate to the integral of nuclear power generation, that is, 4650 GWe-years, yields an estimated total amount of spent fuel generated by the year 2000 of 140000 to 233000 MTHM with 2.4 to 3.7 E10 TBq.

3.7e10 TBq is equal to 1e12 curies. Only 1 magnitude higher than my number of 1.4e11 curies, and the previous number doesn't take into account that the older stuff has decayed for a while and become less dangerous, so I think I like my number better still.

>>7896298
Still not seeing it. Your paper gives a total high level waste amount of 1e12 curies (see above). That comes out to:
(1e12 curies) (1 / (1,347,000,000 cu km)) (cu km / 1e12 liter)
= 7.423905e-10 curies / liter

>>7896298
Oh, I'm sorry. That didn't register the first time. You're talking about something other than nuclear power. You're talking about the waste from nuclear weapons manufacture. We're having different conversations.

>>7896313
>to take the world's high level waste (not including anything related to weapons programs)
Nope. I'm back at square one. No idea what you're talking about. I have no idea what numbers you are using. If you are not going to share your numbers, I'm going to write you off as wrong and as a troll.

>>7896302
lets say for the sake of argument that it's closer to your number, it's still an order of magnitude above the allowable contamination levels for alpha emitters in water.
>>7896313
no, i explicitly stated two different times that I did not include any waste related to weapons testing or manufacturing or disposal, or related to weapons programs in any capacity.

>>7896315
i had google convert cubic km into L and it gave me the conversion for cubic m into L, so my number is high, as i said >>7896317 even with your numbers, it's an order of magnitude above allowable levels for contamination by alpha emitters.

>>7896317
>lets say for the sake of argument that it's closer to your number, it's still an order of magnitude above the allowable contamination levels for alpha emitters in water.
Seemingly true. Suppose I was wrong, and I'll have to revise my rhetoric.

Still, it seems amply true that putting it in glass to decay for a few hundred years makes this random ocean dumping plan incredibly safe.

>>7896328
and that's when its assumed to be evenly distributed amongst all the water. it's not very safe, and it certainly would never get public support

>>7896328
Although, come to think of it, I would want to explore those limits. I would not be surprised if they're a thousand or even a million times too cautious.

>>7896332
A few hundred years in glass will take down the levels by many orders of magnitude.

As for public acceptance, the public won't accept anything, because they're stupid and hysterical. I hope to change that, in order to build out nuclear, in order to save the world. Obviously I cannot do that by myself, but I try to do my part.

>>7896333
Seemingly 3 orders of magnitude, approx, for 1000 years of storage (in glass) (at the bottom of the ocean).

Further, this would be (pseudo)random dumping, in deep water. We know about places on the ocean floor that are never touched, nothing lives there. With the way that ocean water circulates and mixes, it may well be a long-ass time before it even mixes enough to reach the surface, which means that your negative (a non-flat-distribution is worse) is actually a benefit (a non-flat-distribution means it stays in the bottom ocean layers, in areas where nothing lives).

Of course, to be a little more serious, I would want a little more study on this, but there are several papers that are seriously pushing for this, and it may be the best proposal in the end.

Still, I have nothing against beep bore hole disposal, and that might be safer and more politically acceptable. Again, let me share a "paper" that lays out that plan:
http://thorconpower.com/docs/ct_yankee.pdf

>>7896328
>Seemingly true. Suppose I was wrong, and I'll have to revise my rhetoric.

There is no way to convince a fanatic who is paid to post opinions supporting bankers' interests that they are wrong about anything. They'll just "revise their rhetoric" and keep on going.

>>7896333
>As for public acceptance, the public won't accept anything, because they're stupid and hysterical. I hope to change that, in order to build out nuclear, in order to save the world. Obviously I cannot do that by myself, but I try to do my part.

The arrogance of this post...

The public is right to be cautious of door-to-door vacuum salesmen telling people that technology that has the potential to radically alter life on earth is perfectly safe. Charlatans are the ones who got us where we are today, afterall.

Curious, how much are you paid to "save the world"?

You're the same guy who wants to spurn economic growth in the 3rd world so they stop "overpopulating", right?

Basically, you want to get the 3rd world consuming as much as the west. Somehow this is supposed to save the world.

You want to sink the nuclear waste in the oceans.

You are completely mental.

>>7896360
Whatever dude.

Also, I really can't be a fanatic and also being paid by bankers.

Wait - bankers, not energy companies? How much of a conspiracy nut are you? Please don't tell me that you think the Jews are behind it all.

>>7896360
Also, I think the following boards may be more your style:
/x/
/pol/

>>7896365
who do you think provides the loans to the energy companies? the banks

no, not the jews.

some jews though, definitely.

>>7896365
i know for a fact there are more jews working against people like you than are on your side...

but just out of curiousity, since you brought it up, you are jewish right?

>>7896384
Wow. Gotta be a troll. Or just a miserable human being.

Door's to your left. Please let it hit you on the way out.

>>7896390
>you're a devout jew, aren't you? or a baptist maybe.
lol

>>7896392
so tell us you're agnostic, or aetheist then

>>7896365

are you an actual scientist? what do you do?

>>7896332
>>7896325

I bet that those numbers you cite are not actual estimates for human health standards. Rather, they're the result of the policy known as "as low as reasonable possible".

http://www.physics.isu.edu/radinf/natural.htm
According to that link, there's about 1.1e9 Ci from uranium in the ocean, and uranium generally decays by alpha emission. So, we're 3 times higher on pure alpha rates.

I honestly don't know what a safe dose is.

Of more importance is the effect of bioaccumulation.

Over all, it is a non-trivial problem. Man, I suppose I need to stop using it altogether and just advocate for deep bore hole disposal. Meh.

>>7896460
>there's about 1.1e9 Ci from uranium in the ocean
well then according to that number, the concentration is 8E-13 Ci/L and the allowable limit for uranium is 30 micrograms per liter. 8E-13 Ci/liter of uranium is about 2.4E-18 g/liter uranium. its far below the limit by over 10 orders of magnitude.
and the limits are set based on acceptable increased risk of death from cancer

Test

>>7896478
Sorry, let me say that I was wrong. Because of this conversation, I'm going to advocate for deep bore hole disposal. I'm not going to advocate for ocean disposal anymore.

>>7899028

I enjoyed reading this thread,almost everyone was civil