#Login Register


  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
Home 


CRIKEY !!!!!
01-09-2013, 11:40 PM #1
ocker1 Member
Posts:2,099 Threads:810 Joined:Mar 2011
01-10-2013, 12:17 AM #2
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,814 Threads:651 Joined:Feb 2011
hmm.gif


He certainly makes it sound good.

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
01-10-2013, 12:27 AM #3
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,238 Threads:1,478 Joined:Feb 2011
No wonder we can't have that.

spock.gif
01-10-2013, 04:28 PM #4
yankees skier
Posts:5,894 Threads:215 Joined:Feb 2011
damned.gif

Biere.
01-10-2013, 06:23 PM #5
JayRodney ⓐⓛⓘⓔⓝ
Posts:31,483 Threads:1,442 Joined:Feb 2011
They are already building them in China. This is the tech that could free people from the grip of all traditional energy sources, therefore; most of the world will never see it.
What great Captains at the helm we have eh? All for them, none for you. coffeetime.gif

wonder.gif
01-10-2013, 07:57 PM #6
Accidental Stoner Member
Posts:8,976 Threads:73 Joined:Feb 2011
01-10-2013, 11:31 PM #7
ocker1 Member
Posts:2,099 Threads:810 Joined:Mar 2011
d'ya reckon the men in black suits will be payin this boke a visit uhoh.gif
01-10-2013, 11:35 PM #8
Octo Mother Superior
Posts:43,238 Threads:1,478 Joined:Feb 2011
You and everyone who watched that video. agent_smith.gif

chuckle.gif
01-11-2013, 12:44 AM #9
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(01-10-2013, 11:35 PM)Octo Wrote:  You and everyone who watched that video. agent_smith.gif

chuckle.gif


I've been pushing LFTR for a while now.

1. Simplicity. There is no core. The fuel rod assemblies and the core design is a significant amount of the design and analysis cost of a nuclear reactor. There are uranium pellets which fill zirconium tubes which are grouped into fuel bundles which are grouped into fuel assemblies which are loaded into the core.

There is no core in a thorium reactor. The reactor is a large metal can filled with a soup of thorium and fluorine salts.

2. Passive safe. Uranium oxide is an insulator. Areas of the core can overheat because thermal conduction of uranium oxide is lousy. The core of a light water reactor operates at over 2000 psi (the pressure of a scuba tank). That is why the walls are 6 inch thick steel. Overheating causes the Zirconium cladding to react with the water to form hydrogen. Cooling failure boils off the water and results in a meltdown, with Iodine 131, Cesium 134, Xenon 133, and Cesium 137 being released in the steam.

The can the thorium soup sits in (at room pressure) is bigger than it needs to be. If the reactor overheats, the soup expands, becomes subcritical, and cools (it is always about 830°C). The fuel is mixed with the coolant so there are no hot spots.

And with LFTR there is always the freeze plug that goes to a subcritically shaped container.

A light water reactor achieves safety with complex backup systems. LFTR uses a larger can.

3. LFTR temperatures are high enough to use the Brayton cycle not the Rankine cycle of a light water reactor (you can drive gas turbines). This is 50% more efficient with only 1/2 the waste heat (those big cooling towers).

4. Fuel Efficiency. LFTR is 90 times more efficient. Much less radioactive waste to dispose of.

5. Fuel availability. Much less of a much more common element (Thorium) is needed.
01-11-2013, 01:14 AM #10
Kreeper Griobhtha
Posts:10,814 Threads:651 Joined:Feb 2011
(01-11-2013, 12:44 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(01-10-2013, 11:35 PM)Octo Wrote:  You and everyone who watched that video. agent_smith.gif

chuckle.gif


I've been pushing LFTR for a while now.

1. Simplicity. There is no core. The fuel rod assemblies and the core design is a significant amount of the design and analysis cost of a nuclear reactor. There are uranium pellets which fill zirconium tubes which are grouped into fuel bundles which are grouped into fuel assemblies which are loaded into the core.

There is no core in a thorium reactor. The reactor is a large metal can filled with a soup of thorium and fluorine salts.

2. Passive safe. Uranium oxide is an insulator. Areas of the core can overheat because thermal conduction of uranium oxide is lousy. The core of a light water reactor operates at over 2000 psi (the pressure of a scuba tank). That is why the walls are 6 inch thick steel. Overheating causes the Zirconium cladding to react with the water to form hydrogen. Cooling failure boils off the water and results in a meltdown, with Iodine 131, Cesium 134, Xenon 133, and Cesium 137 being released in the steam.

The can the thorium soup sits in (at room pressure) is bigger than it needs to be. If the reactor overheats, the soup expands, becomes subcritical, and cools (it is always about 830°C). The fuel is mixed with the coolant so there are no hot spots.

And with LFTR there is always the freeze plug that goes to a subcritically shaped container.

A light water reactor achieves safety with complex backup systems. LFTR uses a larger can.

3. LFTR temperatures are high enough to use the Brayton cycle not the Rankine cycle of a light water reactor (you can drive gas turbines). This is 50% more efficient with only 1/2 the waste heat (those big cooling towers).

4. Efficiency. LFTR is 90 times more efficient. Much less radioactive waste to dispose of.

5. Fuel availability. Much less of a much more common element (Thorium) is needed.


Safer, cheaper and more efficient? That settles it. We will never see them in this country...


13.gif

Politicians hide themselves away
They only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to poor
01-11-2013, 01:29 AM #11
オタマジャクシ Member
Posts:1,310 Threads:32 Joined:Nov 2012
(01-11-2013, 01:14 AM)Kreeper Wrote:  
(01-11-2013, 12:44 AM)オタマジャクシ Wrote:  
(01-10-2013, 11:35 PM)Octo Wrote:  You and everyone who watched that video. agent_smith.gif

chuckle.gif


I've been pushing LFTR for a while now.

1. Simplicity. There is no core. The fuel rod assemblies and the core design is a significant amount of the design and analysis cost of a nuclear reactor. There are uranium pellets which fill zirconium tubes which are grouped into fuel bundles which are grouped into fuel assemblies which are loaded into the core.

There is no core in a thorium reactor. The reactor is a large metal can filled with a soup of thorium and fluorine salts.

2. Passive safe. Uranium oxide is an insulator. Areas of the core can overheat because thermal conduction of uranium oxide is lousy. The core of a light water reactor operates at over 2000 psi (the pressure of a scuba tank). That is why the walls are 6 inch thick steel. Overheating causes the Zirconium cladding to react with the water to form hydrogen. Cooling failure boils off the water and results in a meltdown, with Iodine 131, Cesium 134, Xenon 133, and Cesium 137 being released in the steam.

The can the thorium soup sits in (at room pressure) is bigger than it needs to be. If the reactor overheats, the soup expands, becomes subcritical, and cools (it is always about 830°C). The fuel is mixed with the coolant so there are no hot spots.

And with LFTR there is always the freeze plug that goes to a subcritically shaped container.

A light water reactor achieves safety with complex backup systems. LFTR uses a larger can.

3. LFTR temperatures are high enough to use the Brayton cycle not the Rankine cycle of a light water reactor (you can drive gas turbines). This is 50% more efficient with only 1/2 the waste heat (those big cooling towers).

4. Efficiency. LFTR is 90 times more efficient. Much less radioactive waste to dispose of.

5. Fuel availability. Much less of a much more common element (Thorium) is needed.


Safer, cheaper and more efficient? That settles it. We will never see them in this country...


13.gif


If we diverted 10% of one year of the renewable energy subsidies (35 Billion), we could have a LFTR prototype.

How much are the Federal Fuel Subsidies?
http://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/sub...ubsidy.pdf
The Wind subsidy is 52.48 ¢/kWH
The solar subsidy is 775.64 ¢/kWH.

Electricity in the US is generally 5¢ to 10¢/kWH.

For every $1 a NEXTERA customer (wind energy) spends for electricity - the US taxpayers pay $7.10. This is why NEXTERA customers brag about the good deal they have for clean energy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_of_ele..._estimates
2017 cost projections show new Nuclear and hydro as being the cheapest energy sources for the US.



Home 




 



DISCLAIMER / Terms of Service (TOS):
Kritterbox.com - Socialize anonymously, commentary, discussion, oddities, technology, music and more!  This website is provided "as is" without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied. kritterbox.com shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including, without limitation, those resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether or not advised of the possibility of damage, and on any theory of liability, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of this site or other documents which are referenced by or linked to this site.
This website exists solely for the purposes of exchange of information, communication and general entertainment. Opinions from posters are in no way endorsed by kritterbox.com. All posts on this website are the opinion of the authors and are not to be taken as statements of fact on behalf of kritterbox.com. This site may contain coarse language or other material that kritterbox.com is in no way responsible for. Material deemed to be offensive or pornographic at the discretion of kritterbox.com shall be removed. kritterbox.com reserves the right to modify, or remove posts and user accounts on this website at our discretion. kritterbox.com disclaims all liability for damages incurred directly or indirectly as a result of any material on this website. Fictitious posts and any similarity to any person living or dead is coincidental.
All users shall limit the insertion of any and all copyrighted material to portions of the article that are relevant to the point being made, with no more than 50%, and preferably less of the original source material. A link shall be visible in text format, embedded directly to the original source material without exception.
No third party links, i.e. blogs or forums will be accepted under any circumstances, and will be edited by staff in order to reflect the original source of copyrighted material, or be removed at the sole discretion of kritterbox.com.
Fair Use Notice:
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Users may make such material available in an effort to advance awareness and understanding of issues relating to economics, individual rights, international affairs, liberty, science, and technology. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for educational and/or research purposes.
This Disclaimer is subject to change at any time at our discretion.
Copyright © 2011 - 2017 kritterbox.com