Usage of LFTR Reactors

They are if mining or drilling or earthquakes or whatever get them into the water table under the mine. That's the catch with a 10000 year storage system, how do you even know what'll be around 100 years let alone 1000.

what part of abandoned…
you put up a quarantine zone where you are going to dump the waste, make the mine off limits and light that shit up with warning signs.

Signs don't last 1000 years. Areas don't become settled and abandoned in long time stretches. If there was a nuclear waste site somewhere and then say a societal collapse happens and all that institutional knowledge is lost, then when people rebuild and resettle hundreds of years later the waste will still be cooking away.

Now why couldn't fukushima cover their issues with something like this.
Fucking nips.

if society collapses then its probably because the kikes won, if thats the case then shitskins will be the ones affected, I'm ok with this.

Because all current reactors use archaic solid fuel designs that are just terrible in just about every way except they produce isotopes useful for making nuclear weapons.

So the kikes won in 476 AD, and if the Romans had left a bunch of radioactive waste underground in Tuscany, that would still have been fine in 1500? Civilizations rise and fall, niggeranon. We must think of our resurgent posterity claiming the land back from 30th-century techno-Jews and cyber-niggers. It would help if the groundwater didn't make them sterile.

Seriously, if the reactors were foolproof then by all means.

But Fukushima was a wake up call. That plant is single handedly poisoning millions, if not billions, of people.
I drink desal water. I'm fucking dead by at least mid 2020's.

I was making a point, you are being retarded.
we should just stop advancing any technology because well fuck, what if we run into ayylmaos and then everyone fucking die cause we wanted to go into space.

The equipment and investment simply isn't there. Countries that don't have massive anti-Nuclear lobbies stopping any/all nuclear development and countries still developing and trying to find ways to compete with the 1st world will go towards Thorium instead.
It's a massive endeavor.

It really isn't, and you really won't. If the water had enough rads in it that it would kill someone drinking it, the fish would have all died very quickly. But they haven't.

Thorium salt reactors aren't used because fucking kikes like the eternally-wrong butterfly doctor Ehrlich say free electricity would
It's as simple as that.
Beyond that.
Fusion was first achieved in labs in the 1950's. Palladium-Hydrogen cold fusion is real and is being commercialized in Tel Aviv despite the muh anti-sciences bullshit.

I'm more worried about Pajeets shit from India. I live on the Indian ocean.

And I think the effects of fukushima are underreported. Plus it may take time to see the true effects - like chernobyl.

Yes it can.

archive.is/Q9kbV

Friendly reminder that the only reason we're burying nuclear 'waste,' instead of reprocessing it, or burning it in other reactors, is because of Jimmy Carter's faggot-ass.
>pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/reaction/readings/rossin.html

other reading: cybercemetery.unt.edu/archive/brc/20120621060037/http://brc.gov/sites/default/files/meetings/attachments/ipfm_research_report_8_breeders_web.pdf

You effectively answered your own question in the OP. Why aren't we using LFTRs currently?

"The fuel used in a LFTReactor, as the name states, Thorium is it's primary fuel source. Thorium, unlike Uranium, is virtually impossible to use in bomb making.

Not to mention, it can also use nuclear waste as a fuel source."

Gotta keep that Petrodollar up, Goy!

user:
1) Highly radioactive
2) Long half life
Choose only one of the above. Or are you one of those irrational people who prefers to increase the amount of radioactive waste in the atmosphere by opposing nuclear power plants, thus causing more coal to be burned and to release the trace radioactive isotopes embedded in coal?

I'm pretty sure that byproducts of the Uranium systems are recycled unto oblivion. 35tn waste is a misnomer.

spot on famalam

This information should be shilled on Holla Forums very frequently. It is the cure to many huge problems of society, specifically 1) fossil energy 2) ecological nihilism 3) renewable retards…need I say more?

The idea that humanity CAN innovate itself out of its plight will bring about a renaissance.

Does nature explain how if intelligence agencies around the world detect a thorium reactor powering off and on at frequently (this is monitored), then there will be sanctions and/or a cruise missile immediately in tow?

Of course not. The scientific community is absolutely to blame for the fostering this false dichotomy of 'climate change because of fossil fuels' and 'only alternative to fossil fuels is communist gobbledygook and rejewable energy'

Our carbon footprint in the USA should have peaked in the 1970s with the NRC's plan to roll out reactors. Apparently when whatever (((nefarious element))) siezed control in the 60s, this plan was put through the shredder. With fuel recycling like they have in France, our nuclear waste would be extremely small, enough to fit in a room instead of a football field like today.

I don't feel the need to go for thorium when we can build small, passively safe lead-cooled uranium reactors.

Thorium is more difficult to fission than the promoters make you believe, kind of like fusion but not as extreme by any means.

A more complete burn of standard uranium gives you similar fuel-efficiency, as well as high quality heat (meaning high temperature) which can be used to create chemical fuels like ammonia and gasoline from carbon dioxide, water and oxygen.

Small lead-cooled also leak less neutrons thanks to the neutron reflectivity of lead, and can be buried into the ground to prevent any wannabe nuclear terrorist from getting to it (a theory proven in Africa, where roaming armies steal your grain crops but can't be bothered to dig up your potatoes).

Uranium is pretty cheap as well, in fact it is so cheap that no nuclear waste recycling scheme has ever been economical since you can just mine more uranium instead.

My nigger.
Anyway, there won't be any issue finding uses for these since they are so versatile and retard proof, it can desalinate water, purify waste water, incinerate LWR waste, produce synthetic fuels, whatever you think of, thge LFTR can do it. The big difficulty is getting it greenlit because guess who owns the uranium mines and the related processing plants. Yes, that's right, It's always the Jews. This reactor would hurt (((their))) profits, so they shill against it like Monsanto shills do against people questioning the long term impact of glyphosates.

Why do you think is """green energy""" shilled? Because Leibowitz Kikenstein can make huge money by producing thousands of their inefficient windmills or solar panels and even more because you need an overabundance of these windmills producing electricity perhaps 30% of the time.

Holla Forums also might not be the best place to discuss new reactor designs because many here drink the "nuclear power will kill us all" koolaid.

Wait, you do know there are two isotopes of uranium, right?
U-235 is the fissile stuff, while U-238 is merely fertile. You can't mine them separately, and U-235 is 1.5% (I think) of the total uranium you dig up.
That means natural uranium and thorium are somewhat similarly "hard" to get going, they need to be bred before they are fissile. You cannot induce fission in Th-232, it has to get transmuted into U-233 first.
This "difficulty" to get power out of Th-232 (which is much more abundant than uranium and is mined in every rare earths mine already) is easily solved by core design and a small initial blanket of any fissile isotope. Pu-239 out of a decommissioned nuclear warhead, Pu-239 contaminated with Pu-240 (cannot be used for a nuclear warhead because 240 fissions spontaneously, but that's absolutely fine in a power reactor), Np-237 from reactor waste - as long as it produces more neutrons than it consumes, it will work.

LFTR is qualitatively better because you have to mine a lot of rare earths in the process of extracting thorium. We don't have to cuck out to china anymore.

If you let niggers overrun you and steal the nukes you deserve it tbh

Also,
Explain then why Japan was so big in recycling nuclear waste?
It doesn't get recycled in the US because McCarthy decided to cuck the US because he feared other countries might get a Np-237 bomb. And look where we are now, everyone we didn't want to have nukes fucking has them.
sage for triple post

Doesn't matter. Nuclear is dead for the foreseeable future. It died at Fukushima — just ask Westinghouse, who just declared bankruptcy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rokkasho_Reprocessing_Plant
You mean this piece of shit? It isn't up and running, years behind schedule.

I know that. Lead-cooled reactors need a lower level of enrichment to work due to the better neutron economy. They burn a higher percentage of the total fuel as well.

LFTR is great if it works, but it is dependent on stuff that reacts violently with atmosphere, if nothing else it creates a chemical hazard. I do like that it, just like lead-cooled uranium, is passively safe and has cheap fuel inputs.

That's why you bind the fluoride chemically silly ;)

Because all liquid reactors have problems with latency(ie even fission of their core fluids) when the designs are tested. Also breeding thorium into usable fissionables isn't cheap. Even mining fissionables isn't cheap.

Hydrocarbons are both and energy source and a medium with high energy density. Very time you turn energy from a source into a medium say electricity from the plant into electricity in wires into electricity in a battery into electricity powering a motor you lose part of the energy to the inefficienty inherent to all machines(85% theoretical maximum efficiency according to thermodynamics and nowhwere near that in reality). Oil and Gas are already liquids so they can be moved by pipeline. And they are fuels which can be burned when and were you need them, like in an engine so there is no transfer of energy. There is one release of energy into a form which does work.

Also fissionables have an energy return(the energy you get back for the energy you used to get it) of about 400%. Solar a mere 115%. And wind 140%. A poor oil well has an energy return of 1200% and a good one up to 10000%. Natural as wells have an average return of 50000%. You get far more energy far more cheaply. The limiting factor is that energy source isn't available in all places and must be shipped elsewhere while a fission plant can be build in any location with a sizable body of water to use as coolant.

Regarding that image, this doesn't take into account how much it takes to keep up each type of power.

If the wind turbine costs significantly less for the power that it produces, it would be a better option.

That is a very poor infograph, and you need more information on it.

What the fuck are you talking about? all you need is an initial fissile blanket, then the breeder breeds the thorium into uranium, the uranium fissions and releases more neutrons to fission more bred uranium and to breed more uranium from the thorium while producing significant thermal energy. Are you a shill for hydrocarbons or something?

Dude, David Hahn made a fucking breeder reactor out of old watch parts and some smoke detectors. This is not difficult technology. The difficult part is engineering SAFE controls and waste-disposal processes. I've been a molten-salt reactor fan for awhile, but if LFTR is even safer, let's run with it, see what happens. Much better than our current "lol, let's use graphite and flammable hydrogen-oxygen as neutron adsorbers with muh concrete" that we've been using.

OP did you just samefag your own thread? You know we have user IDs, right?

nothing wrong with bumping an important thread. That's how it used to work on /new/ and Holla Forums

Yeah but he could've just done an honest bump instead of pretending to be someone else, acting as a strawman of the opposition and calling himself a dumbass.

Not saging because I'm interested in energy politics of the future, but I just had to call him out on his newfaggotry.

Yes, sure, but bumping isn't done by effectively samefagging. The OP did create a fake reply to himself. I agree with OP's message but that's just a shitty move.

Because the US dollar is tied inextricably to oil. If you find a cheap, renewable and safe form of alternative energy, congratulations, you just sank the entire world economy, ruined capitalism, and collapsed the world pyramid power scheme. Do not pass go, do not skip to Star Trek post-scarcity future.
Controlling energy flow is controlling the masses. To lose control of the energy monopoly is to lose control of the masses, plain and simple.

what if i told you our plan was crashing the plane with no survivors?

It isn't cheap to make iron into steel either.

Nice moving your goalposts, faggot.

Also, it's no argument to say it needs refinement. That oil you love so much needs refining too, BP ultimate diesel doesn't exactly gush out of the earth.

Is this true or is it a meme? I mean the Earth isn't even a million years old :^)

And honestly, places we've nuked using uranium-payloads have recovered despite the fact that some of the waste can never be completely removed from the terrain and soil and whatnot.

true, it needs some context. I found a few others. Nuclear is MUCH cheaper than wind, especially when you factor in that nuclear is on all the time. Wind and all rejewable energy is basically a joke.

If you had an efficient recycling stream for the used fuel, or better yet reactors that burned nearly all the fuel that got put in, you could quite realistically propose to see energy 1/2 the price of coal. Then we can start talking about viable replacements for petroleum fuels like dimethyl ether. aboutdme.org/index.asp?sid=1

This is the kind of Jew bullshit that is keeping us from having a great society, and the fact that your basic-bitch environmental hippie doesn't have the faintest clue about this is proof enough of the size of the conspiracy in place in the West.

You have to remember how overcrowded Japan is. No place to store it unless they just airdrop it on a chink village or something.

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima had 120 lbs of Uranium, the Fat boy had 24 lbs of Plutonium, all of which got vaporised in the detonations and many particles didn't get back to the ground with fallout.
When you need to store the spent nuclear fuel you have to store metric tons of it, and with isotopes with half-lives over 40 years those stabilize very slowly, especially in great quantities.

It will only take off in places that don't have easy access to Uranium.

The entire point of thorium, the original nuclear reactor was thorium mind you, is that it doesnt' go critical. The only reason we went with fuel sources that do is because you can make weapons off of the byproduct; can't do that with thorium.

It really smells of kike conspiracy.

sup Holla Forums, actual nuclear engineer here (academic research) - the Emperor's proposed budget seems to take a big chunk out of funding for nuclear R&D. If you guys could meme nuclear into the God Emperor's mind I'd really appreciate it, thanks.

(I work on fast reactors which have similar benefits to thorium, but Th is good too)

do you work for govt or for private company like Westinghouse? What do you think of the private startups like Terrestrial Energy, Terrapower, Flibe, etc.

I seriously desperately desire advanced reactors to be researched and implemented.
I think if we're going to convince Trump, who obviously wants to do something great his fast track of NASA to Mars makes it completely obvious he's geared towards greatness
we've got to reframe the move towards nuclear as an earthbound space race. China is our great competitor, who frankly is way ahead using technology they took from us!
We must win and lead the world into a new, clean, energy-abundant future.

This is actually WAY more important than the average Holla Forumslack realizes.

Long term channer and an inventor for two nuclear startups here, one fast molten salt and one evolutionary LWR.

I would like for you all to recognize that while advanced reactors hold great promise for sustainable fuel cycles, nuclear waste is not a sufficient problem to justify further commercialization at this time.

The nuclear equipment and power conversion system are less than 20 percent of the overnight cost of a plant. The financing and horrible bureaucracy of international project management accounts for almost half the cost of recent new plant builds. EPC firms have consistently failed to deliver on time and on budget, partially due to regulators changing key rules that induced significant redesign efforts after construction had commenced.

Until we get intelligent white males with 1960s attitudes to regulate, contract, and execute the construction of new nuclear plants… We will continue our decline. Asians are already gearing up for mass production of nuclear plants. We have less than a decade to become competitive or the wealth of the world will finish it's transfer to the judeo-sino new world order.