Nuclear power

What is the best gen IV reactor proposal and why is it the Molten Salt Reactor?
LFTRs fucking when?

Attached: 600px-Molten_Salt_Reactor.svg.png (600x440, 83.74K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueous_homogeneous_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_salt_reactor
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

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: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aqueous_homogeneous_reactor


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?

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

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

user, I...

Attached: [HorribleSubs]_Sword_Art_Online_Alternative_-_Gun_Gale_Online_-_04_[720p].mkv_snapshot_23.32_[2018.04.29_10.22.25].jpg (1280x720, 64.09K)

molten salt? Sure, I don't see why they'd stop you.
molten salt with enriched uranium? Yeah, you might need a license for that one.


Seriously tho, all of those research is limited to qualified universities, tech giants and government agencies. Not only is the red tape around this stuff huge but the cost of the tech and the R&D behind it doesn't make it feasible for "hobbyists".

Simple gen II reactors like the RBMK (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBMK) might be feasible for a very rich hobbyist since they don't use any controlled material (just natural uranium, graphite, silver and light water) but they're extremely dangerous and would most certainly be immediately confiscated.


David Hahn aka Radioactive Boy Scout (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Hahn) is a good example of just how easy it is contaminate your whole neighborhood while trying to LARP as a nuclear engineer.

Attached: Brian-Shul.jpg (1684x1900, 1.54M)

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?

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

Get some salt and melt it bruh
wtf

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.

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

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*?

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


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

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

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinkley_Point_C_nuclear_power_station
>french owned Nuclear power plant under construction on Anglo territory since 2014

Attached: why indeed.png (944x753, 498.35K)

Were you born stupid?

Attached: 8ac8cbc0fffed47ea82450e5a731661d5c3ee8ce047d55da7367dc52717859ed.png (1050x930, 112.97K)

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?

LFTR plants are a type of Molten Salt Reactor.

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.

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.

"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.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stable_salt_reactor

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_floating_nuclear_power_station

thats pretty cool

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

how would a nuclear powered jet be feasible?

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.

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

the liquid magnets would transfer the heat?

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.

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

Wake up, Spectre and Meltdown already patched.

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

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.

My point being that the kikes have already known and created this technology for decades already. America has it, russia is appearently getting it/has it. China may or may not have it though. The kikes in (((israel))) obviously have it already.

Attached: dea438ca6b6b44bd90730a085083f3c66a14af33428f797960e8126f13c43ce0.jpg (550x512, 31.06K)

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

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

>>>Zig Forums

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

Well let's get some things straight. First off, even though nuclear power plants are possible as this thread avidly describes, nuclear weapons are fake lies invented by (((israel))) and (((their people))) who (((invented))) nuclear weapons.
Look at this diagram of a nuclear bomb supposed dropped upon japan. If you inspect closely, you will see for however much reaction material there is, barrium, uranium, and the explosives to propel it but yet there is no moderator for the reaction. Without a moderator the reaction can't keep going because the neutrons will just escape elsewhere. At the very least the bombs dropped on japan were lies, the firebombs did more damage and did the damage of the supposed nuclear bombs.

Now that said, 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. So why was there no explosion? It just became a molten heap of radioactive material. That's because nuclear bombs are fake and kike lies to decieve the entire world into thinking that the kikes in (((israel))) don't control the entire world, that politics is just entertainment to distract people and kill them should people do something (((they))) don't like, and is a great sorcery.

Attached: 1b8b776ebbeda42aa4a12e64d2f5af52e6a5060c0868f87f5240505c5de207ef.png (735x789, 65.17K)

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

Splitting of the atom IS fission you brainlet of brainlets
t.brainlet

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

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

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

Sage this shit

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

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

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?

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.


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.

Explain to me the differences in their complexities, I do not pretend to understand it fully. But appealing to authority, the market, does little for your arguement.

Attached: ddd2d500f7f9ff91c3f3765ea722174f9098726b058dfe7a7c67664227887e2b.png (735x675, 44.01K)

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

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

why are they not safe enough?

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:

>

...

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

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.

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.

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

>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?

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

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

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.

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.

AH, its (you). I just realised it. Have a smug since all you can do is ad hominim.

Attached: 3d9cc3497285cadfe53d682f3116de6c3c19749ca782940ef7660565199a2c3a.jpg (736x621, 59.13K)

I present you your average half-chan retard:

Attached: 1e0b9ba091366b276ef294956377656411d73af938fa5c812ffc75ab7205498e.gif (350x233, 348.82K)

Such uncivilized and unfunny arguing seems slightly atypical of this here cambodian bone carving BBS, especially the fact that both Anons were gutting down each other's "bait" as if someone instructed them to.
(((Who))) could be behind all this, I wonder?

Attached: CIA niggers.mp4 (1280x720, 468.32K)

Then why is one saging and one is not? Wouldn't the one not saging want this to be seen, but a cianigger to slide it entirely?

Attached: 67815415710a357c24220d492f091dbd9fa41559b88ffc854155a6db5fcee861.jpg (200x303, 16.34K)

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

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

W-will commercial Fusion reactors ever be considered feasible?

Attached: Wendelstein7-X-beim-Aufbau.jpg (800x533, 262.21K)

This is Zig Forums you fucking faggot, it's called an imageboard.

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.

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