Posts by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
(DIR) Post #B2ZZIJ6W3YF055M6IC by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@p @fluffy There are aspects of China that I find undesirable but their industrial capacity is impressive.
(DIR) Post #B2ZdKvVEf4QDZIQF2O by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@p @fluffy This may be generally true but the physics of a nuclear plant are not all that difficult to understand, the main challenges are material and chemistry and those have been mostly worked out by third parties (chemistry Kirk Sorensen), materials (Copenhagen Atomics), so not really any exotic problems.
(DIR) Post #B2ZfxLE3fk6EG7piKW by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@p @fluffy First, we built and operated one at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in 1965 and operated it for four years, during which time on experiment that was done was to pull the control rods for maximum reactivity and turn off the cooling. It was allowed to run in this mode for 24 hours, no damage resulted. So since it's already been done 60 years ago physically it is not that difficult. That said, this was a military test reactor and it was decided to pursue a uranium fuel cycle rather than thorium because we just didn't have enough plutonium to blow enough shit up quite yet. So to be clear it's already been done but not scaled up to commercial power levels, the Chinese will be the first to do that.
(DIR) Post #B2aNo5UFDRdap3nlpY by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @p @fluffy Regulation is a big issue but regulation that was appropriate for a boiling water reactor is not appropriate for a molten salt reactor because the former is an inherently unstable and only marginally safe by automation design with several explosive failure modes widely distribution radioactive material, where as a molten salt reactor is a reactor design safe by physics with no manual or automatic responses necessary and no explosive failure mode to distribute radioactives.
(DIR) Post #B2aQNFw6YbJfH4jMHI by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@p @fluffy You can believe whatever you like. I'm familiar with the physics and tech. I have no idea what your background is. Logically you only need one instance of something to prove it possible, we've got two so far.
(DIR) Post #B2aRcg1NxHcGTS7Luq by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @p @fluffy I am working on a website to bring information on this and other technologies that can take us into the future together in one place.
(DIR) Post #B2aSPNruEgSsMauQQC by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @p @fluffy When you consider Chernobyl, Fukushima, this is questionable. The emphasis is on the wrong things however. One of those is US regulations require radiation to be as low as possible, as low as possible trends towards infinite expense, but there is no indication that exposures to low levels of radiation is hazardous to human health. The cancer rates in Denver are not higher than Seattle. So one thing that would reduce expense considerably is if rules were re-written to allow low but non-zero radiation levels.
(DIR) Post #B2aTDqzuD13pBViUnw by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@fluffy @cjd @p This is another area where the risks for a molten salt reactor are totally different. In a boiling or pressurized water reactor, a large earthquake could break plumbing resulting in 300 atmospheres of pressure in the reactor instantly dropping to zero, all coolant flashing to steam and the reactor melting down. In a molten salt reactor, if plumbing breaks you spill some fuel / salt mixture on the floor, it solidifies and goes nowhere, and since fission products are continuously removed, without the chain reaction there is no heat and the radioactivity is much lower which means someone scoops it up, places it back in the reactor tank, repairs the plumbing and life goes on.
(DIR) Post #B2aTta8tGYOj4WohTU by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@fluffy @BowsacNoodle @cjd @p Yea I doubt we'll ever get fusion down to that size because confinement scales with size.
(DIR) Post #B2aUfDcmI3vT8MVlXU by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @p @fluffy That said I favor fast spectrum because although thorium will breed efficiently with slow spectrum most even actinides require faster neutrons, so to burn up existing actinide waste we need fast spectrum.Second advantage, fast spectrum doesn't require a graphite moderator, which is flammable and potentially a chernobyl.
(DIR) Post #B2aUgTuXDuTZw1Q32u by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@fluffy @cjd @p Can you be specific, which measurement are you referring to?
(DIR) Post #B2aVoSNwsZZHTSXn9s by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@fluffy @cjd @p You can measure in says deaths per million operation years, but you're talking hypothetical. To date nuclear power has fewer deaths per twh of any power source.
(DIR) Post #B2alvMwj6AIVtn83gO by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @p @fluffy Copenhagen Atomics has worked out metallurgy capable of surviving 600C molten salt environments with corrosion rates sufficient for a 100 year reactor lifetime so this issue is essentially solved.
(DIR) Post #B2aoMuPcyolDQ3uIaG by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@p @cjd @fluffy Problem with water reactors so called fail-safe it it doesn't work. The containment vessel is designed to contain flash to steam but won't contain a hydrogen explosion as in Fukushima, safety is active not physics, both of these problems are solved in molten salt reactors.
(DIR) Post #B2ap5hsMRAmzZLhxPk by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@p @fluffy Having one proves the possibility, getting to many is a function of investing in the necessary labor and materials and regulatory infrastructure. If your choice is make the investment or starve I hope we will make the wiser choice.
(DIR) Post #B2b2QlkYWl2J4OQmQ4 by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@fluffy @p In a boiling water reactor you have two sources of hydrogen, neutrons occasionally split water into hydrogen and oxygen, this is a minor source and a catalytic combiner keeps up with this source, but when you flash the water to steam it reacts with the zirconium cladding in the fuel rods and this was the source in Fukushima and a problem that can't be designed out of boiling water reactors.
(DIR) Post #B2b312A8yzE6OjgxP6 by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@p @BowsacNoodle @cjd @fluffy I extremely don't like modular designs, they are nearly all pebble bed designs in which fuel is encased in silicon carbide. The problem with this design is burn rate is low because there is no way to remove fission products, there is no way to recover actinides are reprocess them, and so you waste 99% of the fuels energy capacity and end up with a million year waste product.
(DIR) Post #B2b36qEAGoLf7SLFeS by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
1 likes, 0 repeats
@p @fluffy I follow the tech close enough to know the major issues are solved. We really don't have other good immediate options.
(DIR) Post #B2bQ4NtyuWkddThNke by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@p @fluffy I'm not suggesting worrying, I am suggesting if we can make it absolutely safe, and at the same time more fuel efficient, and at the same time eliminate a long term waste issue, and at the same time increase the available fuel by 5000+ times, we should do so.
(DIR) Post #B2bQLzJD5OBWZetR2m by nanook@friendica.eskimo.com
0 likes, 0 repeats
@p @fluffy I disagree, it just takes a consensus that we want to do it and we will get there when people get hungry enough.