User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 1:45:59 PM EDT
[#1]
It's a China Syndrome alright, but not the one Jane Fonda stared in...
I wish my country would wake the fuck up and grow a pair of balls. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 1:46:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Good for China. I just wish we would follow suit.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 1:47:36 PM EDT
[#3]
Here's some info on LFTRs, they will be the biggest thing since in energy since the Drake oil well.
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/science/87/8746sci2.html Don't know much about thorium? Don't worry. You're not alone. Most people—including scientists—have hardly heard of the heavy-metal element and know little about it even though it was first identified almost two centuries ago. Yet in just the past few weeks, a handful of people in a small number of countries have been beating the thorium drum loudly. They're convinced that the element, which sits near uranium in the periodic table, could serve as a nearly inexhaustible fuel for commercial nuclear reactors, providing low-cost, inherently safe, and nonpolluting power to an increasingly power-hungry planet. And they're trying to tell the world all about it. Thorium's potential as an energy source isn't some classified government secret to be divulged only on a need-to-know basis. Far from it. A simple Google search will turn up a number of useful links. But although the information isn't hidden, details of thorium-fueled-reactor concepts aren't exactly common knowledge—not even to many seasoned nuclear power aficionados. CoC10....VA-gunnut |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 1:52:43 PM EDT
[#4]
I've got thorium TIG consumables in my shop.
Seriously, China is eating our lunch. We'eve got to get on the ball and quit pissing around with this subsidized, feel good, "green energy" crapola. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 1:58:33 PM EDT
[#5]
China needs cheap, plentiful power to grow their economy.
So do we. Unfortunately for us, misanthropic Gaia worshippers, Statists, and Fifth Columnists have banded together in an unholy allliance to choke off our access to inexpensive and reliable energy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:00:32 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
Seriously, China is eating our lunch. We'eve got to get on the ball and quit pissing around with this subsidized, feel good, "green energy" crapola. THIS. Seriously, we've known about this shit for a considerable time. We need to get on the ball and 'invest' in this. And by 'invest' I mean start removing all the regulatory bullshit barriers that make nuclear too gorram expensive to build in this country. The French get 80% of their power from it... the Chinese are about to kick our ass in that department, too. We're gorram smart and industrious enough to figure it out and get it done safely and efficiently. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:02:08 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
I've got thorium TIG consumables in my shop.
Seriously, China is eating our lunch. We'eve got to get on the ball and quit pissing around with this subsidized, feel good, "green energy" crapola. Its part of the Left's narrative. Soros smiles as Brazil drills offshore deeper than the Deepwater Horizon debacle... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:04:37 PM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: China needs cheap, plentiful power to grow their military machine. Fixed it for you...  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:05:47 PM EDT
[#9]
I think the US got the shit scared out of it way back when the S.R.E. just about melted. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_Reactor_Experiment The Sodium Reactor Experiment used sodium as a coolant so heat generated in the reactor was transported by liquid sodium through the reactor facility piping system. The pumps used to move the sodium were hot oil centrifugal pumps modified for use in a sodium system. A support system used an oil-like fluid called tetralin to cool the pump seals which prevented leakage of the hot sodium at the pump shaft.[6] In July 1959, tetralin seeped into the primary coolant system through a pump seal. The tetralin was decomposed by the high temperature sodium. The decomposed tetralin clogged several of the narrow cooling channels used by the sodium to remove heat from the reactor fuel elements. As the tetralin residues clogged the reactors internal cooling channels, 13 of the reactor's 43 fuel elements suffered overheating and were damaged |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:06:55 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I've got thorium TIG consumables in my shop.
Seriously, China is eating our lunch. We'eve got to get on the ball and quit pissing around with this subsidized, feel good, "green energy" crapola. Its part of the Left's narrative. Soros smiles as Brazil drills offshore deeper than the Deepwater Horizon debacle... ...and the way they package it up.....if you're again' it, then you want to destroy the environment. What "good citizen" wants to do that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:07:03 PM EDT
[#11]
meh let um get the teething problems sorted out
they don't give a shit about death and destruction |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:07:50 PM EDT
[#12]
Let China do the R&D on this one. Then we can copy, mass produce & sell it for pennies on the dollar yen.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:08:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seriously, China is eating our lunch. We'eve got to get on the ball and quit pissing around with this subsidized, feel good, "green energy" crapola. THIS. Seriously, we've known about this shit for a considerable time. We need to get on the ball and 'invest' in this. And by 'invest' I mean start removing all the regulatory bullshit barriers that make nuclear to gorram expensive to build in this country. The French get 80% of their power from it... the Chinese are about to kick our ass in that department, too. We're gorram smart and industrious enough to figure it out and get it done safely and efficiently. you get two internetz for using "gorram" twice in one post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:09:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Pfft!
While they do that, we are working on building a Tokamak that will be able to fill limitless energy, that doesn't pollute or anything like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:10:16 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Let China do the R&D on this one. Then we can copy, mass produce & sell it for pennies on the dollar yen..
We learned our lesson on back-up redundancy after 3 mile island. We have back ups for the back ups-back up. Besides, the Navy has been running nukes safely for decades now. This salt reacter should be even safer. It's all politics. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:11:01 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seriously, China is eating our lunch. We'eve got to get on the ball and quit pissing around with this subsidized, feel good, "green energy" crapola. THIS. Seriously, we've known about this shit for a considerable time. We need to get on the ball and 'invest' in this. And by 'invest' I mean start removing all the regulatory bullshit barriers that make nuclear too gorram expensive to build in this country. The French get 80% of their power from it... the Chinese are about to kick our ass in that department, too. We're gorram smart and industrious enough to figure it out and get it done safely and efficiently. you get two internetz for using "gorram" twice in one post. Gorram shiny! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:14:52 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seriously, China is eating our lunch. We'eve got to get on the ball and quit pissing around with this subsidized, feel good, "green energy" crapola. THIS. Seriously, we've known about this shit for a considerable time. We need to get on the ball and 'invest' in this. And by 'invest' I mean start removing all the regulatory bullshit barriers that make nuclear to gorram expensive to build in this country. The French get 80% of their power from it... the Chinese are about to kick our ass in that department, too. We're gorram smart and industrious enough to figure it out and get it done safely and efficiently. We built a molten salt reactor almost fifty years ago powered by U233... It wasn't pursued because it couldn't make plutonium for weapons. (considered a minus back then) LFTRs are high temperature, meaning higher efficiency. you could use a brayton-cycle closed gas turbine with one to get efficiencies of 45-60%, compared with ~33% for current PWRs with rankine-cycle steam turbines. Meaning that a 1GW nuke plant would only need 1.6-2.2GW in thermal power and 0.6-1.2GW in cooling, versus 3GW thermal and 2GW in cooling for a PWR. Brayton-cycle turbines are also physically much smaller than steam turbines. All of the components are small enough to be built on an assembly line, further reducing costs, and the fuel does not need to be processed. This all adds up to LFTRs built at less than $2/w, less than a coal plant, and half that of a PWR nuke plant if pursued, with negligible fuel costs. Thorium nukes could also be used to harvest oil shale (our reserves of oil shale are 4 times that of Saudi Arabia) or use Fischer-Tropsch to gasify coal, which we also have a shitload of (There is also thorium in the coal itself, more than enough to power the gasification process!) The could also be used for desalination, hydrogen production, nuclear powered boats, and they can burn our current nuclear waste! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:16:40 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted: meh let um get the teething problems sorted out they don't give a shit about death and destruction Ya look at the bottom of the Article the OP linked some miner pulling a basket of rocks out of a hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:17:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Pfft! While they do that, we are working on building a Tokamak that will be able to fill limitless energy, that doesn't pollute or anything like that. Tokamak, if it ever produces net energy, wont be ready for 50+ years.... The Polywell is a better design as far as fusion goes, but both are vaporware. We made a Thorium MSR on 1960s technology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:18:50 PM EDT
[#20]
I had posted about MSRs and thorium last week.............The world is eating our lunch while we're worried about moonbeams.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:19:21 PM EDT
[#21]
Chernobrl!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:19:25 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: Quoted: Pfft! While they do that, we are working on building a Tokamak that will be able to fill limitless energy, that doesn't pollute or anything like that. Tokamak, if it ever produces net energy, wont be ready for 50+ years.... The Polywell is a better design as far as fusion goes, but both are vaporware. We made a Thorium MSR on 1960s technology. From what I gather, we are about 20 years away from building a workable Fusion reactor. If and when we get one built, it would be worth the huge investment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:23:38 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pfft! While they do that, we are working on building a Tokamak that will be able to fill limitless energy, that doesn't pollute or anything like that. Tokamak, if it ever produces net energy, wont be ready for 50+ years.... The Polywell is a better design as far as fusion goes, but both are vaporware. We made a Thorium MSR on 1960s technology. From what I gather, we are about 20 years away from building a workable Fusion reactor. If and when we get one built, it would be worth the huge investment. A Tokamak would make solar power with batteries a deal in comparison in terms of economics. The ITER is only like 40MW and it's costing billions of dollars. If fusion works, it'll be the polywell fusor that does it. But fusion has been "20 years away" for the last 50 years... The LFTR can be built now, it just needs someone to do it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:26:25 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Not like we might be needing any of the above mentioned items... like maybe more potable water, more hydrogen for fuel cells, less nuke waste... nope - nothing there we might need. Quoted: We built a molten salt reactor almost fifty years ago powered by U233... It wasn't pursued because it couldn't make plutonium for weapons. (considered a minus back then)Quoted: <snip><snip> LFTRs are high temperature, meaning higher efficiency. you could use a brayton-cycle closed gas turbine with one to get efficiencies of 45-60%, compared with ~33% for current PWRs with rankine-cycle steam turbines. Meaning that a 1GW nuke plant would only need 1.6-2.2GW in thermal power and 0.6-1.2GW in cooling, versus 3GW thermal and 2GW in cooling for a PWR. Brayton-cycle turbines are also physically much smaller than steam turbines. All of the components are small enough to be built on an assembly line, further reducing costs, and the fuel does not need to be processed. This all adds up to LFTRs built at less than $2/w, less than a coal plant, and half that of a PWR nuke plant if pursued, with negligible fuel costs. Thorium nukes could also be used to harvest oil shale (our reserves of oil shale are 4 times that of Saudi Arabia) or use Fischer-Tropsch to gasify coal, which we also have a shitload of (There is also thorium in the coal itself, more than enough to power the gasification process!) The could also be used for desalination, hydrogen production, nuclear powered boats, and they can burn our current nuclear waste!  Have I mentioned a distinct dislike for progressives and enviro-wackos yet today? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:26:46 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Pfft! While they do that, we are working on building a Tokamak that will be able to fill limitless energy, that doesn't pollute or anything like that. Tokamak, if it ever produces net energy, wont be ready for 50+ years.... The Polywell is a better design as far as fusion goes, but both are vaporware. We made a Thorium MSR on 1960s technology. From what I gather, we are about 20 years away from building a workable Fusion reactor. If and when we get one built, it would be worth the huge investment. A Tokamak would make solar power with batteries a deal in comparison in terms of economics. The ITER is only like 40MW and it's costing billions of dollars. If fusion works, it'll be the polywell fusor that does it. But fusion has been "20 years away" for the last 50 years... The LFTR can be built now, it just needs someone to do it. A didn't necessarily mean Tokamak, per se. Also, I don't mind using this shit for current energy needs, but a fusion reactor is the holy grail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:27:49 PM EDT
[#26]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:28:54 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Seriously, China is eating our lunch. We'eve got to get on the ball and quit pissing around with this subsidized, feel good, "green energy" crapola. THIS. Seriously, we've known about this shit for a considerable time. We need to get on the ball and 'invest' in this. And by 'invest' I mean start removing all the regulatory bullshit barriers that make nuclear to gorram expensive to build in this country. The French get 80% of their power from it... the Chinese are about to kick our ass in that department, too. We're gorram smart and industrious enough to figure it out and get it done safely and efficiently. We built a molten salt reactor almost fifty years ago powered by U233... It wasn't pursued because it couldn't make plutonium for weapons. (considered a minus back then) LFTRs are high temperature, meaning higher efficiency. you could use a brayton-cycle closed gas turbine with one to get efficiencies of 45-60%, compared with ~33% for current PWRs with rankine-cycle steam turbines. Meaning that a 1GW nuke plant would only need 1.6-2.2GW in thermal power and 0.6-1.2GW in cooling, versus 3GW thermal and 2GW in cooling for a PWR. Brayton-cycle turbines are also physically much smaller than steam turbines. All of the components are small enough to be built on an assembly line, further reducing costs, and the fuel does not need to be processed. This all adds up to LFTRs built at less than $2/w, less than a coal plant, and half that of a PWR nuke plant if pursued, with negligible fuel costs. Thorium nukes could also be used to harvest oil shale (our reserves of oil shale are 4 times that of Saudi Arabia) or use Fischer-Tropsch to gasify coal, which we also have a shitload of (There is also thorium in the coal itself, more than enough to power the gasification process!) The could also be used for desalination, hydrogen production, nuclear powered boats, and they can burn our current nuclear waste! The very last thing you said... I think I was just slapped in the face by Jesus...
So what is the downside? Everything has a downside, What are the leftovers? What are the consiquences of an "incident"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:33:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pfft! While they do that, we are working on building a Tokamak that will be able to fill limitless energy, that doesn't pollute or anything like that. Tokamak, if it ever produces net energy, wont be ready for 50+ years.... The Polywell is a better design as far as fusion goes, but both are vaporware. We made a Thorium MSR on 1960s technology. From what I gather, we are about 20 years away from building a workable Fusion reactor. If and when we get one built, it would be worth the huge investment. That's what they said 20 years ago. Never put off what you can build today that will completely change the game as far as technology go's just because you think that tomorrow, you "might" have something. This concept applies to women as well. Never turn down a "sure thing" just because tomorrow you might get lucky with some hot babe that you have been dreaming about... Chances are that tomorrow, you end up with nothing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:39:08 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
meh let um get the teething problems sorted out they don't give a shit about death and destruction Not a bad idea either. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:47:24 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: Quoted: meh let um get the teething problems sorted out they don't give a shit about death and destruction Not a bad idea either. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile It's a horrible idea, we overcame the 'teething' problems in the 60s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:53:42 PM EDT
[#31]
I heard a Gerald Celente interview where he said that the Italians have developed a fusion reactor, but they are facing patent problems with the US. Our own patent office is standing in the way of progress and our own potential to rebuild our selves.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 2:55:55 PM EDT
[#32]
There is ZERO fucking practical reason why 100% of our electrical production should not be nuclear based.
It disgusts me that other countries are eating our lunch while we sit and fiddle with solar panels and windmills (both mostly made in China BTW). China is gonna be awash in cheap electricity while we suffer from a degrading standard of living caused by self inflicted shortages and skyrocketing prices. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 4:22:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
If that is the case, our patent system isn't stopping progress. It is stopping their ability to make money off of it. I heard a Gerald Celente interview where he said that the Italians have developed a fusion reactor, but they are facing patent problems with the US. Our own patent office is standing in the way of progress and our own potential to rebuild our selves. 
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 4:34:34 PM EDT
[#34]
 We'll meet again, Don't know where Don't know when. But I know we'll meet again some sunny day. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 4:36:22 PM EDT
[#35]
Those rascals ! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 4:41:51 PM EDT
[#36]
I
Quoted: There is ZERO fucking practical reason why 100% of our electrical production should not be nuclear based. It disgusts me that other countries are eating our lunch while we sit and fiddle with solar panels and windmills (both mostly made in China BTW). China is gonna be awash in cheap electricity while we suffer from a degrading standard of living caused by self inflicted shortages and skyrocketing prices. It's simple, solar/wind requires either diesel or NG backup, oil companies are THE LARGEST sponsors of "Green" tech. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 4:41:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: I heard a Gerald Celente interview where he said that the Italians have developed a fusion reactor, but they are facing patent problems with the US. Our own patent office is standing in the way of progress and our own potential to rebuild our selves. that is interesting |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 4:42:58 PM EDT
[#38]
Thorium reactors would drastically reduce the cost of nuclear fuel.
Liquid metal reactors are more efficient, but more complex. Combined, you could really increase the efficiency and fuel cost of nuclear reactors. Gotta watch out for that Coablt-Thorium-G though... |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 4:45:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
It's a China Syndrome alright, but not the one Jane Fonda stared in... I wish my country would wake the fuck up and grow a pair of balls. Is it still the 'China Syndrome' if it the melt down starts in China and burns through to Peoria? Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 5:07:05 PM EDT
[#40]
Yeah, but china doesn't have tree huggers like we do. Good for them.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 5:07:33 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: Quoted: It's a China Syndrome alright, but not the one Jane Fonda stared in... I wish my country would wake the fuck up and grow a pair of balls. Is it still the 'China Syndrome' if it the melt down starts in China and burns through to Peoria? Chris That's deep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 5:15:31 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Let China do the R&D on this one. Then we can copy, mass produce & sell it for pennies on the dollar yen..
I wonder what kind of espionage assets we have in China. They've been doing it to us for so long, why not do it back to them? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 5:48:30 PM EDT
[#43]
Hah! Well, while China is working on a so-called long-term,, supposedly inexpensive, supposedly "high-output" energy solution, we're using our own food supply to make an expensive fuel that produces more pollution than oil and creates a net energy deficit! So there, China! Haha!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 6:00:18 PM EDT
[#44]
Each ton of coal we burn up contains 13 times as much energy as that liberated by combustion of the carbon in Thorium. We could thus receive the same electrical energy we gain by burning the coal through extracting the Thorium and using the nuclear energy to produce power. With the rest of the energy, the other 12/13ths, we could then extract hydrogen from seawater (which we have lots of) and convert the remaining coal to either diesel fuel or gasoline. To put a not-fine-point on this, we throw away more than 100 billion gallons of gasoline (after conversion losses) in thorium tailings alone. That is damn close to all of our existing gasoline consumption - with ZERO oil being drilled. (PS: Those are conservative estimates - mathematically, it's 200 billion gallons!)
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?singlepost=2139398 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 6:09:44 PM EDT
[#45]
Tag for further study.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 6:09:58 PM EDT
[#46]
Tag for further study.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 6:22:57 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Pfft! While they do that, we are working on building a Tokamak that will be able to fill limitless energy, that doesn't pollute or anything like that. DPF > tokamak. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 6:36:32 PM EDT
[#48]
So, has anyone really solved the pump seal cooling problem with a MSR? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 6:38:13 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Pfft! While they do that, we are working on building a Tokamak that will be able to fill limitless energy, that doesn't pollute or anything like that. Tokamak, if it ever produces net energy, wont be ready for 50+ years.... The Polywell is a better design as far as fusion goes, but both are vaporware. We made a Thorium MSR on 1960s technology. From what I gather, we are about 20 years away from building a workable Fusion reactor. If and when we get one built, it would be worth the huge investment. A Tokamak would make solar power with batteries a deal in comparison in terms of economics. The ITER is only like 40MW and it's costing billions of dollars. If fusion works, it'll be the polywell fusor that does it. But fusion has been "20 years away" for the last 50 years... The LFTR can be built now, it just needs someone to do it. +1 Tokamak is a scam, a never ending bullshit scam of never ending cost over-runs and problems. I'd be stunned if they actually got it to work i my liftime (gives them another 50-ish years). The polywell could be working within the next 5-10, and would not be expensive to build (relatively speaking). This thorium deal has my interest though, as I've been reading about it over the last month. -ZA |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/30/2011 6:38:33 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Let China do the R&D on this one. Then we can copy, mass produce & sell it for pennies on the dollar yen.. We invested billions on various nuclear research reactors. The Chinese will get that knowledge for free and commercialize it. Sort of like Japan did. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
