/tech/ - Technology★

>>907952 (OP)

Good luck dealing with a meltdown when all that salt stays radioactive.

Here's another very interesting concept for an extremely simple and safe reactor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueous_homogeneous_reactor

>>907956

>t. brainlet

MSR's are much safer than current commercial reactors and the ones that use a single liquid for fueling and cooling are can't "meltdown" by definition. If the core does overheat the liquid fuel will leak out and stop reacting instead of going out of control like in a typical solid fuel reactor.

I don't know anything about reactors, but holy shit I love schematics like the pic in the OP.

More?

>>908042

quite a few in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor

>>907952 (OP)

Is it possible to legally own molten salt in USA or EU?

Nuclear power has never been anything more than an expensive boondoggle. Even if we switch to inherently safe (could still be subject to disastrous sabotage though) molten salt thorium reactors which have 3x more abundant fuel in the Earth's crust, estimates are that at peak production it wouldn't last more than 40 or 50 years before the fuel is exhausted. Why continue this route when wind and solar become more mature?

>>908157

Wind and solar are complimentary energy solutions and never meant for something like powering an entire grid. You will always need to depend on higher output energy solutions. Honestly you're better off using CHP compared to solar or wind

>>908084

Get some salt and melt it bruh

wtf

>>908157

>Nuclear power has never been anything more than an expensive boondoggle.

What? lol

Nuclear power is - by far - the cheapest source of power we have access to currently. This is why so many countries still heavily rely on nuclear power despite its inherent risks.

>could still be subject to disastrous sabotage though

How?? A sabotage of an MSR or other inherently safe reactor wouldn't lead to much more than some leakage.

>estimates are that at peak production it wouldn't last more than 40 or 50 years before the fuel is exhausted.

Hm I've never heard that claim before, mind quoting some sources? And don't we hear all the time that petrol is running out *soon*?

>Why continue this route when wind and solar become more mature?

Simple: will is miles cheaper than wind and solar will ever be.

>>908159

You could certainly use wind and solar for almost all your energy supply (some countries already do). It'd just be much more expensive.

>>907952 (OP)

Thanks to the internet salt is in abundance, and therefore it is a great option for nuclear power.

>>913777 appearently he is because trips

Don't forget that since thorium is so abundant in the earth's crust, it makes nuclear power even more in reach for the hobbyist that isn't a brainlet. Anyone care to explain how a LFTR plant works compared to OP's uranium molten salt reactor plant?

>>913781

>Anyone care to explain how a LFTR plant works compared to OP's uranium molten salt reactor plant?

LFTR plants are a type of Molten Salt Reactor.

>>907956

it makes no sense to make reactors that are too advanced if they are never to be made if it is not for essential research and development purposes.

Really reactors should be as cheap,safe and reliable as possible. it doesn't matter what cools or regulates it, it just has to work.

molten salt requires no water, and really since it keeps heat or air well besides most reactors only need to get to 100 degrees celsius or 200 degrees to turn turbines efficient that is all that is required, half output mst reactors don't run at full capacity because of the risk of any meltdowns anyway.

>>913771

because british nuclear fuels was bought outright by electricty de france along with their plants that's why.

Privatized to be bought by another country's national nuclear industry makes no sense. The reactor is called the European Pressurized Reactor (again linked to the eu).

really its so the eu has a foothold here and the chinese through their investment in the project.

finland told them to fuck off and built a reactor with the russians (again pwr) and we could do the same with the americans or the russians (the americans have lots of PWRs) but the british government seem obsessed with europe and the chinese for some reason.

there is nothing wrong with pressurized water reactors. they work very well and are very safe. the only drawback is with safety comes less efficiency.

t. navy nuclear operator.

>>907952 (OP)

"The stable salt reactor (SSR) is a nuclear reactor design proposed by Moltex Energy Ltd[1] based in the UK. It represents a breakthrough in molten salt reactor technology, with the potential to make nuclear power safer and cheaper.

Studies conducted by Moltex Energy show that liquid salt fuelled reactors are the only design configuration which have radically improved safety characteristics. These reactors do not need expensive containment structures and components to keep them in a stable condition. In the Chernobyl accident the two most troublesome by-products were caesium and iodine in gaseous form, which are harmful to land and people. This hazard is inherent with any water-cooled reactor, but in a molten salt reactor these elements do not exist in the form of a gas --- they are bound in nonvolatile salts, which cannot escape the plant in most accident scenarios."

A solution to the nuclear waste legacy[edit]

Most countries that use nuclear power choose to store spent nuclear fuel deep underground until its radioactivity has reduced to levels similar to natural uranium. Acting as a wasteburner, the SSR offers a different way to manage this waste.

Operating in the fast spectrum, the SSR is effective at transmuting long-lived actinides into more stable isotopes. Today’s reactors that are fuelled by reprocessed spent fuel need very-high-purity plutonium to form a stable pellet. The SSR can have any level of lanthanide and actinide contamination in its fuel as long as it can still go critical. This low level of purity greatly simplifies the reprocessing method for existing waste.

The overnight capital cost of the stable-salt reactor is based on an independent cost estimate[3] by a leading UK nuclear engineering firm. The result is $1950/kW. For comparison, the capital cost of a modern pulverised coal power station in the U.S. is $3250/kW and the cost of large-scale nuclear is $5500/kW.[4] Further reductions to this overnight cost are expected for modularised, factory-based construction.

This low capital cost results in a levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of just $44.64/MW·h with substantial potential to be yet lower, because of the greater simplicity and intrinsic safety of the SSR.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_salt_reactor

>>913820

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

>>913826

thats pretty cool

>>913826

>implying the USA hasn't had nuclear powered jets and submarines in secret for decades

>implying this isn't just a plot by (((them))) to normalize only allowing militaries to use nuclear power

>>913830

how would a nuclear powered jet be feasible?

>>913831

Think molten-salt on a ultra dense, yet small scale with the thorium reaction cooled by air. Combine that with liquid magnets to transfer the energy from the reactor to the propulsion of the jet and bam, nuclear powered jets.

>>913832

I'm a brainlet in this case, I don't full understand how it works, but these things do exist.

>>913832

the liquid magnets would transfer the heat?

>>913836

No the liquid magnets would produce electricity after being heated and stirred/pushed by a starter of sorts while also heated by the reactor. It is easier to move liquid magnets then it is a turbine on the inside of a building, or in this case a jet. I will be honest I don't know exactly how it would work because I couldn't be bothered to build one myself. I just like understanding some of the physics.

>>913837

ah okay i see how that could be used. but then where would the electricity go and how would it be used in a jet engine. thats where it would get confusing for me lol

>>907956

Wake up, Spectre and Meltdown already patched.

>>913839

actually i guess it would have to be a battery of some sort that can deal with shock and heat. the real question comes down to what engine could make use of that and propel a jet... that would be interesting to see

>>913839

A engine based on a magnet, such as those found in low powered starters for cars, would be the base of the design of said engine. You would essentially have the electricity/heat/energy in the liquid magnets turn around a magneto that either would be solid core like in normal generators, or liquid. That would keep turning faster and faster producing more and more electricity. The produced electricity would be fed back into the liquid magnets to make the magneto turn ever faster. With a solid core magneto just put a pole of metal on it and use gears and a clutch of sorts to keep transfering the energy into a higher state. With a liquid magneto you would have to have seperate engines for each turbine in the back of the jet. This would get you more power but would be heavier and more costly by reason of the two seperate engines in addition to the magneto/liquid metal/molten salt reactor power it all.

that makes sense. ive never really thought about nuclear powered jets before lol. thank you for teaching me anon.

>>913848

yeah im uneasy with israel. the part that concerns me the most is why theyre our "greatest ally" literally gained access to nukes they shouldnt have owned, then they just threaten the world with "if we get taken down youre all coming with us" that really bothers me

>>913848

>da jooz are hiding muh magical energy source

>>>/pol/

>>913855

i would say thats a gross oversimplification of what he was saying

>>913862

i thought the energy created from nuclear bomb was the splitting of an atom, not fission? i could be wrong though.

>>913865

Splitting of the atom IS fission you brainlet of brainlets

t.brainlet

>>913866

oh yeah sorry no sleep lol. i was mixing up atoms and their sub particles lol.

>>913866

so prompt criticality in a moderator-less core would not produce the effect of atom bomb. i agree. ill look more into this

>>913862

God, this is some bad bait, thanks for derailing a comfy thread with brainlet tier conspiracies.

Sage this shit

>>913875

>brainlet tier conspiracies

If it is so, then refute it. It should be easy since its brainlet tier if you speak the truth.

>>913823

>This low capital cost results in a levelised cost of electricity (LCOE) of just $44.64/MW·h with substantial potential to be yet lower, because of the greater simplicity and intrinsic safety of the SSR.

Wow I didn't know it was this cheap to make electricity. I wonder why no one does this yet?

>>913820

Where does the tradeoff for pressurized water and a submarine's safety come in? I realise just by having the water pressurized you put more stress on the pipes carrying it. But I mean real world concerns. Like having rust in a liquid metal is a no no for jets. Would water purity effect the reaction in a submarine at pressure then?

>>913777

If you stopped trying to be a smug faggot and actually did a tiny amount of research on thorium reactors you'd know they're much more complex than U²³⁵ reactors, we're still far away from producing ones for commercial applications and even when we do they'll still not be able to compete with current gen reactors in the commercial market.

>>913883

>If it is so, then refute it. It should be easy since its brainlet tier if you speak the truth.

How about you straight up lied in your post? Any idiot knows nuclear bombs use highly enriched uranium. This is the fucking basics of nuclear physics.

Not only that but you also lied about the control rods in Fukushima and Chernobyl (which is now in Russia ig). They both had their control rods inserted (and that's actually what set off the explosion in Chernobyl).

You speak as if you are the bringer of great truth yet fail at establishing basic facts. stfu and stop acting like an annoying kid that thinks he knows it all cuz he reads retarded conspiracies online.

>>913820

They're not safe enough, and their usage results in nuclear weapon proliferation.

>>913883

>would

yes chemistry is kept in strict bands to keep our materials tip top for the 30-40 years of operation of a vessel

>>913903

why are they not safe enough?

>>913900

>>market this, market that

Wtf are you going on about you fucking schizo? How did you confuse me stating that thorium reactors are merely in experimental stage and may not be commercially viable as "appealing to authority, the market"

I'm certainly no expert in thorium reactors but simply reading wikipedia gives a pretty good picture of the current state of thorium reactors:

>The irradiation of 232Th with neutrons, followed by its processing, need to be mastered before these advantages can be realised, and this requires more advanced technology than the uranium and plutonium fuel cycle; research continues in this area.[26] Others cite the low commercial viability of the thorium fuel cycle

><Any idiot knows nuclear bombs use highly enriched uranium.

>I didn't deny this you fag.

Oh yes you did:

<why didn't the nuclear reactor at japan, and the one in russia, explode like a nuclear bomb when it lost control? It had the exact same conditions, no moderator for the reaction, after the control was lost.

You didn't directly mention enrichment at all in your retarded rants, I'm guessing that's because you know that's what separates a nuclear bomb from a nuclear power plant.

<Not only that but you also lied about the control rods

>No you faggot, I am not talking about control rods.

See quote above for clear proof that you did lie about the control rods.

>But the nuclear moderator which causes the neutrons to refract back into the reaction chamber

Oh so you don't understand the real purpose of a moderator either. A 10 sec google search would tell you that the moderator is there to slow down the neutrons, not really to reflect them (or "refract" as you call it). This is why you'll almost always have a moderator in between the fuel.

>it was like in the scenario for pic related, just a bunch of fuel and heat/little/no coolant with some force

No, no it wasn't. Again, the uranium in those bombs was highly enriched (often above 95% while most power plants run below 5%) and they were forced together at great speeds instead of being separated by control rods.

The high enrichment is why they don't need a moderator, if that wasn't clear enough.

I'm just going to stop responding to you if you fail to make any decent arguments. You're either schizophrenic or a very retarded kid.

>>913910

<a retarded kid

>understanding nuclear physics

Nice ad hominim you have there

>research continues in this area.[26] Others cite the low commercial viability of the thorium fuel cycle

Care to explain to me the understanding of this "research" all that wikipedia article used was weasel words. What's making this not cost effective to build? Is it the thorium, is it the high quality metal for build materials, is it the lack of physicists that understand this topic, and etc?

<A 10 sec google search would tell you that the moderator is there to slow down the neutrons, not really to reflect them (or "refract" as you call it). This is why you'll almost always have a moderator in between the fuel.

https://archive.fo/Wb5dw http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_moderator

>While a nuclear bomb working on thermal neutrons may be impractical, modern weapons designs may still benefit from some level of moderation. A beryllium tamper used as a neutron reflector will also act as a moderator

>The probability of scattering of a neutron from a nucleus is given by the scattering cross section. The first couple of collisions with the moderator may be of sufficiently high energy to excite the nucleus of the moderator. Such a collision is inelastic, since some of the kinetic energy is transformed to potential energy by exciting some of the internal degrees of freedom of the nucleus to form an excited state. As the energy of the neutron is lowered, the collisions become predominantly elastic, i.e., the total kinetic energy and momentum of the system (that of the neutron and the nucleus) is conserved. Given the mathematics of elastic collisions, as neutrons are very light compared to most nuclei, the most efficient way of removing kinetic energy from the neutron is by choosing a moderating nucleus that has near identical mass.

The whole point of it slowing down is to maintain elasticity and to keep it refracting on the moderator back into the reaction instead of escaping the chamber. You stupid faggot a moderator is made to refract neutrons to sustain the reaction. A nuclear bombs doesn't even have that though.

<No, no it wasn't. Again, the uranium in those bombs was highly enriched (often above 95% while most power plants run below 5%

What does this have to do with anything? So it isn't highly enriched and has atoms of another type in the reaction, so what? The moderator is made to refract uranium not iron or whatever else would be in there. But the problem entirely is that nuclear bombs don't have moderators.

>>913918

>>understanding nuclear physics

>Nice ad hominim you have there

You clearly don't understand even the basics of nuclear physics and this is 8ch, stop being a faggot.

>What's making this not cost effective to build? Is it the tho

I'm not expert but I believe that even if research wasn't a problem, thorium reactors would still be more expensive to run simply because of how cheap uranium is compared to thorium. Just because thorium is common doesn't mean it's easy to extract.

>The whole point of it slowing down is to maintain elasticity and to keep it refracting on the moderator back into the reaction instead of escaping the chamber. You stupid faggot a moderator is made to refract neutrons to sustain the reaction. A nuclear bombs doesn't even have that though.

God, you're such a fucking schizo. None of that made any sense.

Nuclear moderators don't "refract" (I sure want to know how you'd refract a particle) neutrons, they slow them down to facilitate absorption by the fuel. Some nuclear moderators can also act as reflectors, but then you call them that - reflectors.

>A nuclear bombs doesn't even have that though.

<The high enrichment is why they don't need a moderator, if that wasn't clear enough.

You're completely incapable of reading aren't you?

>What does this have to do with anything? So it isn't highly enriched and has atoms of another type in the reaction, so what? The moderator is made to refract uranium not iron or whatever else would be in there. But the problem entirely is that nuclear bombs don't have moderators.

Omg wtf am I reading here? Iron? Nuclear refractors?

Let me lay this out very clearly for you kiddo:

Uranium doesn't need a moderator to react, but a moderator helps massively increase the change of fission by slowing down the neutrons. Another way to increase the change of fission is to simply enrich the uranium, this is why nuclear bombs don't need moderators. If you have sufficiently enriched uranium it's simply a matter of getting enough together to go critical.

You could certainly run a nuclear power plant without any moderators, but that would be much more expensive than just making use of moderators. Here's an article on naturally occurring nuclear reactors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_nuclear_fission_reactor

Notice how water was a sufficient moderator to get them critical?

Water is a pretty shitty moderator but it was enough in those situations because the uranium ore in that area was enriched enough that it didn't need much to go critical.

>>913925

>thorium reactors would still be more expensive to run simply because of how cheap uranium is compared to thorium.

So this is something (((they))) caused by regulating the fuck out of the proccess of simply mining and refining minerals out of the earth.

>You could certainly run a nuclear power plant without any moderators

<Notice how water was a sufficient moderator to get them critical?

You defeated the purpose of your example.

<Uranium doesn't need a moderator to react

It needs a moderator to keep the reaction going you fag. Otherwise the neutrons escape the chamber and are not split.

>increase the change of fission

What does this even mean? Are you talking about the atoms splitting off at a faster rate?

<Omg wtf am I reading here? Iron? Nuclear refractors?

>more ad hominim, the post

What do you think the other parts of the uranium are if it is not 100% pure? The material varies and I just used iron as a throwaway example.

>>913933

>So this is something (((they))) caused by regulating the fuck out of the proccess of simply mining and refining minerals out of the earth.

You're a fucking schizo. I'm xenophobic af but I'm not retarded enough to jump to blaming the jews when the truth is much simpler. Uranium is widely available as big chunks of uranium ore. Where are you gonna get your thorium?

>You defeated the purpose of your example.

Not really, I showed that a reactor with higher enrichment only needs a tiny amount of moderation to go critical.

>It needs a moderator to keep the reaction going you fag. Otherwise the neutrons escape the chamber and are not split.

What? lol

Since when is nuclear fission about splitting neutrons you fucking retard?

>>increase the change of fission

>What does this even mean? Are you talking about the atoms splitting off at a faster rate?

It's pretty fucking clear what I mean. Moderators slow down the neutrons, this makes it so it's more likely for them to fission an atom of uranium when they hit it.

>What do you think the other parts of the uranium are if it is not 100% pure? The material varies and I just used iron as a throwaway example.

No no no, you specifically mentioned "The moderator is made to refract uranium not iron". This makes no fucking sense. How does one "refract uranium" and how would that differ for iron?

You're a nonsensical schizo.

I present you your average half-chan retard: >>913943

>>913962

I was the guy that kept the thread alive at the start before you came here with your 4chan quality bait.

>>908157

>wind and solar become more mature?

because they're shit now and doing more damage to the environment than nuclear

wind power requires dumping power into the turbines to keep them spinning when wind current isn't strong enough, migratory birds get fucking rekt by the blades and then to repair the blades is extremely costly and time consuming, so you have all the down time to compensate for and then dumping power into it again to start it up

production of solar panels creates hilarious amounts of toxic waste, the conversion rate of radiant energy is fucking shit, then you have to replace them in a few years because the materials degrade and the conversion rate further drops, nevermind that if you do not have a decent sine wave regulator it's going to fuck up everything powered by it

>>913956

>cambodian bone carving BBS

This is 8chan you fucking faggot, it's called an imageboard.

>>914204

It won't be feasible until it gets the development funding it deserves. It will never get the funding it deserves therefore it means commercial fusion reactors will never be viable.

>>914042

Far more birds get killed by the domestic cat than they do by windmill turbines.