RSS iconTwitter iconFacebook icon

The Trek BBS title image

The Trek BBS statistics

Threads: 138,385
Posts: 5,357,695
Members: 24,626
Currently online: 620
Newest member: suryaprabu02

TrekToday headlines

The Gene Roddenberry Project Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Moore: No Deep Space Nine Regrets
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Pegg Star Wars Rumor
By: T'Bonz on Jul 30

Borg Cube Fridge
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Free Enterprise Kickstarter
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Siddig To Join Game Of Thrones
By: T'Bonz on Jul 29

Sci-Fried To Release New Album
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek/Planet of the Apes Crossover
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Star Trek into Darkness Soundtrack
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28

Horse 1, Shatner 0
By: T'Bonz on Jul 28


Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.


Go Back   The Trek BBS > Entertainment & Interests > Science and Technology

Science and Technology "Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known." - Carl Sagan.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 19 2012, 07:39 PM   #1
Kenbushway
Captain
 
Kenbushway's Avatar
 
Location: Georgia, USA
Safer Nuclear Technology

I have been reading into LFTR nuclear reactors lately and I must say I like what I see. From what I read about it, it can't be made into nuclear weapons, its waste stops being radioactive faster and there is much less of it, it can take conventional nuclear waste and use it as a fuel. It can't explode (which is a big plus) and it can shut itself off in the event of something going wrong. However whenever I mention it as a alternative to conventional nuclear power I always get that its impossible, a failure, will never work, etc. I know that it need more work still, especially for the design of the reactor and turbines but I don't know why there is so much hostility against it.
__________________
"The typical investor would be better off if his stocks had no market quotations at all, for he would be spared the mental anguish caused him by other persons' mistakes of judgement."
Benjamin Graham - The Intelligent Investor Chpt 8.
Kenbushway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2012, 12:16 AM   #2
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

The wikipedia page lists a large number of design challenges. One of them is that a completely new business model is required to make it profitable. That seems like a big one from a practical standpoint.
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 20 2012, 07:08 AM   #3
YellowSubmarine
Commodore
 
YellowSubmarine's Avatar
 
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

The business model can be fixed by making publicly-built reactors.

One question: Can these be made small and light enough to power planes?

There are also other reactor designs that offer passive safety, I know of pebble bed reactors, although I understand that they have some issues of their own. Is there a good online list of reactor designs with truly passive safety?
__________________
R.I.P. Cadet James T. Kirk (-1651)
YellowSubmarine is online now   Reply With Quote
Old August 25 2012, 08:09 PM   #4
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

Conventional reactors can be made safe enough by having their reactors float--with metamaterials to cloak them:
http://www.imaginationstationtoledo....roof-building/
http://www.technologyreview.com/view...ams-and-power/

This way, cracks don't propogate inside, allowing water to leak out.

Just having independant pumper trucks on station--and water glass to seal cracks on hand would have prevented the recent disaster:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...-nuclear-scare
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2012, 03:21 AM   #5
Kenbushway
Captain
 
Kenbushway's Avatar
 
Location: Georgia, USA
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

publiusr wrote: View Post
Conventional reactors can be made safe enough by having their reactors float--with metamaterials to cloak them:
http://www.imaginationstationtoledo....roof-building/
http://www.technologyreview.com/view...ams-and-power/

This way, cracks don't propogate inside, allowing water to leak out.

Just having independant pumper trucks on station--and water glass to seal cracks on hand would have prevented the recent disaster:
http://cosmoquest.org/forum/showthre...-nuclear-scare
What about the waste?
__________________
"The typical investor would be better off if his stocks had no market quotations at all, for he would be spared the mental anguish caused him by other persons' mistakes of judgement."
Benjamin Graham - The Intelligent Investor Chpt 8.
Kenbushway is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2012, 03:46 AM   #6
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

Kirk Sorenson is pursuing the military reactor route, which avoid a lot of the business and regulatory problems with a commercial reactor.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2012, 05:18 AM   #7
Gary7
Rear Admiral
 
Gary7's Avatar
 
Location: Near Manhattan ··· in an alternate reality
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

It's definitely possible to have safe nuclear reactor supplied energy. The trouble is that several past catastrophes tarnish its reputation to the point of driving coalitions to seek the banning of nuclear energy. At this point in time, it is the most efficient form of energy with minimal carbon footprint. It would be senseless to abandon it. This form of energy would be a transitional one, until wind, solar and thermal generated energy technologies are perfected enough to make households largely independent of a massive energy grid.
__________________
Remembering Ensign Mallory.
Gary7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 26 2012, 05:19 PM   #8
gturner
Admiral
 
Location: Kentucky
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

Winds and solar are pretty well perfected, and aren't very cost effective except in specialized cases. Even if solar cells were free, the mounting structures and frames would still leave them more expensive than conventional sources. Proofing them against hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and earthquakes isn't even on the drawing boards because the costs would skyrocket.

LFTR looks like the best low-cost, low-emissions option and is far, far safer than conventional nuclear where safety has to be grafted on at great expense. LFTR's continuously outgas their short half-life daughter products which makes seperation trivially simple while keeping the core clean of products that would produce dangerous fallout, unlike conventional nuclear reactor cores that have years worth of accumulated daughter products that get released during a meltdown.

It's a technology the commercial sector should've used since the 1950's, but as LFTR advocates point out, it wasn't useful for making bombs, and the US and the Russians wanted bombs above all else. Civilian energy production was just a way to slap a happy face on a weapons program.
gturner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 09:54 PM   #9
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

Terrapower loks to use the waste too. As it stands, we have a lot of already minded and refined fissile material. It would have to be buried at any rate--or placed on the moon. Now much of the enriched stuff isn't in Yucca Mt. It is surrounded by high explosives for the purpose of implosion--and sitting on solid rockets! So take the fissile material, place in in metal and concrete bunkers, separate with neutron moderation rods and keep it cool with water. But here--this storage media is 90% or what an atomic plant is--so you might as well add a turbine and a separate water pipe to wrap around self contained water pipes so only heat is transferred from once source of water to another.

Newe pepple beds aren't needed. Now, yes you need a lot of water--but Sterling engines could be placed to get more waste heat.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 10:08 PM   #10
MacLeod
Admiral
 
Location: Great Britain
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

I suspect quite a few people would oppose transporting fissile material to the moon, (of course when you said that I thought of Space: 1999)
__________________
On the continent of wild endeavour in the mountains of solace and solitude there stood the citadel of the time lords, the oldest and most mighty race in the universe looking down on the galaxies below sworn never to interfere only to watch.
MacLeod is offline   Reply With Quote
Old August 27 2012, 10:24 PM   #11
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

But a lot of folks don't want that down here either. What I want to see is Euranium mined to the point to where we run out--than left on the Moon. A perfect no nuke situation on Earth. Then beam power back from the moon. Forget helium 3--just have nuclear installations there. If it melts down on barren rock, who cares?
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 7 2012, 06:19 PM   #12
FordSVT
Vice Admiral
 
FordSVT's Avatar
 
Location: Atlantic Canada
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

If we could go through all of the risk and effort and expense to send nuclear waste to the moon, the extra effort to simply sling it into the sun would be minimal.
__________________
-FordSVT-
FordSVT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 8 2012, 07:17 PM   #13
publiusr
Commodore
 
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

It is actually very hard to get to the sun. We launch rockets on the earth rather near to the equator to get a boost from Earth's spin, right? The same applies to Earths orbit around the sun--that also gives you a boost. A probe to the sun would actually have to be sent to Jupiter to get a reverse version of Voyagers slingshot--then it would null enough speed to essentially free fall to the sun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_Probe_Plus

As the probe passes around the Sun, it will achieve a velocity of up to 200 km/s (120 mi/s) at that time making it the fastest manmade object ever, almost three times faster than the current record holder, Helios II

Trust me--the Moon is easier. In some ways, even easier than circularizing a perfect geostationary orbit.
publiusr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2012, 05:47 PM   #14
RobertVA
Fleet Captain
 
RobertVA's Avatar
 
Location: Virginia USA
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

It's a matter of aim. If a spacecraft is on a course near the sun it will whip past like a comet. It might melt or be vaporized by the sun's heat and some material blown free by the solar wind, as occurs with comets. If the trajectory crosses the sun's surface though, the molten remains would slam into the sun at high velocity, just like the early moon probes.
RobertVA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old September 10 2012, 06:02 PM   #15
Lindley
Moderator with a Soul
 
Location: Fairfax, VA
Re: Safer Nuclear Technology

Using old-fashioned propellant, it would take quite a lot to decelerate an object from the sun's orbit. Using a solar sail it might be a lot easier.
__________________
Lead Organizer for EVN: Firefly.
"So apparently the really smart zombies have automatic weapons!"
-Torg, Sluggy Freelance
Lindley is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.