Notices
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree1Likes

Thread: The future of Nuclear Power? LFTRs

  1. #1 The future of Nuclear Power? LFTRs 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY

    Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have the capabilities to provide low cost and clean energy from a safe source, yet we still don't use them?

    Just thought i'd see what you thought of it


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    10
    very interesting. i think fusion will soon be our future.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have the capabilities to provide low cost and clean energy from a safe source, yet we still don't use them?
    Disadvantages: 1)Requires advanced chemical engineering and on-site fuel reprocessing which is expensive and needs farther researches.
    2)Fuel is not renewable.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Kerling View Post
    The main reason why we aren't massively swapping to nuclear power is twofold.
    1) people are afraid for the very notion of the word 'nuclear'. Why you might ask, well the crude but true answer would be that people would rather believe a loud person that doesn't know anything that to look up sources for themselves. People are sheep, and sheep are scarred. They don't seek the time to understand the actual dangers of radiation and thus just ignore everything with the word nuclear, just to be safe. In short this could be called dumb. But it is something as a scientist you are confronted with on a daily basis. Take MRI, the only reason it is called MRI and not NMR (which it is) is because NMR has 'nuclear in it'

    2) The long term expoitation of nuclear power (as Uranium-235 is also depletable) requires more advanced reactors that allow breeding of fuel from thorium or other heavy ions. This requires quite a high infrastructure, advanced society to support. As, it isn't all that simple. It is safe and clean, but not easy. This makes it expensive and hard to do. Yes, it will give you a practical infinite source of energy, but getting there is a long and difficult way.

    Also, Fusion in my opinion has only a small future. People say it is 'clean' but that isn't entirely true. The Tokamak will absorb the inevitable radiation that occurs. And so will some of the water, though this isn't a problem. At decommission you are however left with a highly radioactive reactor the size of a Jumbo Jet, not the best prospect.
    Aha brains Its a shame really that people don't see this and go ummm lets do it. People (mainly those with power) are just so dam lazy, and they like money unspent rather than spent on things like this :P
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have the capabilities to provide low cost and clean energy from a safe source, yet we still don't use them?
    Disadvantages: 1)Requires advanced chemical engineering and on-site fuel reprocessing which is expensive and needs farther researches.
    2)Fuel is not renewable.
    Renewable? Does that matter? There is A LOT of thorium? Renewable sources kind of suck (ish) because they're so expensive and extremely land intensive. They're okay for short term supplies of energy but they're inconsistent and cannot supply the energy we need. And no, fusion is not renewable.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    The Tokamak will absorb the inevitable radiation that occurs.
    Tokamaks are almost certainly a dead end of fusion power.They are just too expensive
    to be competitive with other power sources.If fusion power ever will work it probably
    will be some kind of inertial fusion.In this case there is propositions to construct chamber
    from materials with very low induced radiation.For example carbon fiber.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    England
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Stanley514 View Post
    The Tokamak will absorb the inevitable radiation that occurs.
    Tokamaks are almost certainly a dead end of fusion power.They are just too expensive
    to be competitive with other power sources.If fusion power ever will work it probably
    will be some kind of inertial fusion.In this case there is propositions to construct chamber
    from materials with very low induced radiation.For example carbon fiber.
    Well the tokomak reactor in the UK has recently his a sustained level of energy neutrality, energy in = energy out. And they have managed to harness more energy out than in, but only for a short period of time (really really short). Fusion looks hopeful, probably more so than LFTRs
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    Well the tokomak reactor in the UK has recently his a sustained level of energy neutrality, energy in = energy out.
    This is not only important factor.You also have to take in account price of reactor itself and maitnance costs.ITER which is projected to have 500 MW power will cost $ 10 bln. A coal power plant of the same power will cost $ 500 mln. Wind power of the same magnitude $ 700 mln. Even if ITER will produce power as easy as coal or wind it is still to uneconomical to be commercial.Inertial fusion looks much cheaper.Proposed HiPER reactor suppose to cost $ 100 mln. Dense plasma focus devices cost $ 300 thousands.
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    1,136
    It doesn't really matter what kind of containter you use with this problem. You'll have neutrons scattering all around. And they need to be absorbed.
    You may read about inertial confinement fusion project and their Sombrero and other reactor designs.
    Inertial confinement fusion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Antislavery
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Nuclear Fusion - The Future Energy Source?
    By Riddell in forum Physics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: January 24th, 2011, 02:34 PM
  2. Replies: 9
    Last Post: November 12th, 2008, 11:13 AM
  3. Nuclear power
    By Djagkho in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: March 13th, 2008, 07:55 AM
  4. Does solar power have a future?
    By (In)Sanity in forum Physics
    Replies: 27
    Last Post: May 3rd, 2006, 07:05 PM
  5. Nuclear Power
    By Spenna23 in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: July 9th, 2005, 07:36 PM
Tags for this Thread

View Tag Cloud

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •