https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQKT4axR6RU

NotSoLuckyGaming 4 months ago
The best way in getting rid of nuclear waste is just to reuse
 ·  
Hide replies 
Max Green (Eclipse) 4 months ago
+NotSoLuckyGaming That's right, burn it in an IFR or LFTR!
 ·  
NotSoLuckyGaming 4 months ago
+Max Green no reuse it in nuclear power plants
 · 
Max Green (Eclipse) 4 months ago
That's what I meant!Fission it in an Integral Fast Reactor or LFTR. Today's American nuclear waste = 1,500 years of energy for them, and the UK has 500 years.
 · 
NotSoLuckyGaming 4 months ago
+Max Green i know the united states needs to also use thorium reactor they are 10 times better then uranium and plutonium
 ·  
Max Green (Eclipse) 2 months ago
LFTR's are my favourite, but IFR's are also pretty good and passively safe and waste-burning. But LFTR's can also desalinate salty water after producing all the electricity you need.
 · 
MrJason005 1 month ago
+NotSoLuckyGaming You do know that ALL thorium reactors fission Uranium, don't you?
 · 
Max Green (Eclipse) 1 month ago (edited)
As long as you're admitting it is a different, harder to weaponise uranium that is actually a decay product of thorium, then yes, I'm happy to agree with that statement. And the statement that they are already a liquid reactor, so 'melt down' is impossible, and they need power not to cool but to work, and the moment there's a power failure the frozen plug melts, the reactor core drains away to a passive drain tank that is designed to leech and redirect heat so the material cools to a crystal solid quickly. Yeah, thorium reactors fission uranium, but are a completely different type of reactor, one Homer Simpson couldn't break!
 · 
Dim Fre4kske 1 month ago
+NotSoLuckyGaming Many plants are already doing that in a way. It's called mox fuel, it's just we need weapons grade plutonium to make the mox. So you can already see the problem there.
 · 
Max Green (Eclipse) 1 month ago
Except the plutonium in IFR's doesn't have to go through the weapons-grade process, and the whole plant can be configured so that it is impossible to get the plutonium to that grade, ever, unless radical changes are made. Changes that would show up in the regular inspections of the IAEA to belong to international fuel banks.
 · 
kwasi sosoo 1 week ago
I don't know won't we get radiation poseing :\
 · 
Max Green (Eclipse) 1 week ago
From what? Did you know coal plants currently emit 100 times as much radiation as a nuclear power plant? How much radiation is naturally in your town or suburb from decaying uranium in the soil... eventually turning into radon gas that you breathe in?
 · 
Jordan Filipovski 5 months ago (edited)
We really, really need to get into nuclear waste but not the idiotic current version. We need to use liquid sodium (Or is it liquid fluoride, I'm not entirely sure) and thorium for nuclear power and almost all of our energy problems will be solved. - Nuclear waste becomes safe in about 300 years (The alternative is roughly 10,000 years) - It generates about 5% as much nuclear waste - More efficient at generating electricity - It's immune to meltdowns - Cheaper - Sounds more professional than (Water and uranium nuclear reactors) It's the ultimatum of sustainable and ecologically friendly energy.
Show less
 ·  
Hide replies 
aotearota new zealand 2 months ago
a proof of concept or small scale working example would be useful. conspiracy theorists quote the same figures as you have often but never provide any peer reviewed scientific evidence
 ·  
Jordan Filipovski 2 months ago
+aotearota new zealand That's too much effort. I forgot what I was even talking about in this comment.
 · 
Soteriology101 2 months ago
Not to mention that the fuel is almost as abundant as dirt, that it can be used to burn up other nuclear wastes, the energy conversion efficiency can be nearly 1/3 using CO2 Turbines, that there is enough thorium in coal ashes to run a nuke plant along side every coal burning plant, that it is almost useless to create nuclear weapons & at the end of the 300 years that the waste takes to decay there are many elements left over that are useful in every industry.
 · 
pheonix028 2 months ago
+Jordan Filipovski Good idea but how are you going to convince the selfish stinking rich Jews to pay for all that new expensive nuclear reactors (that they can easily afford) when there already have uranium plant everywhere and cant be stuffed doing anything more because they already would make way more money from burning fossil fuels?
 · 
Fangoros 1 month ago
+aotearota new zealand Oak Ridge National Laboratory Thorium Reactor (1960s)
 ·  
leerman22 2 weeks ago (edited)
+Fangoros That experiment really just proved it was the safest design (besides tritium). It never bred more fuel than it burned. They wanted a new one with a thorium breeding blanket and in-situ reprocessing (and probably tritium management) but their funding was cancelled.
 · 
RobLikes 3 days ago
+Fangoros Yeah man spread the word Thorium is the Future!
 · 
Ike Evans 5 months ago
Whenever we try to talk about the HUGE problem that nuclear waste is, there are a bunch of nuclear engineers out there who are collectively rolling their eyes. The problem with nuclear waste has nothing to do with whatever technology is available.  We have figured out many feasible solutions to the so called "problem" more than 30 years ago.  We know how to handle and dispose of it in such a manner that nobody will ever get hurt by this stuff.  All of this is old news. The problem lies with Congress and pundits who make a comfortable living for themselves by hyperventilating into a microphone.  Get the uneducated bloviating idiots out of the way, and let the men and women who know what they are doing do their job.
Show less
 ·  
Glen Cychosz 1 month ago
Coal plants dump the waste in to the air for everyone to breath.
 ·  
Hide replies 
Ion Hunter 2 days ago
+Glen Cychosz Newton's 3rd law!
 · 
TPV Productions 1 month ago
Coal and current batteries create more waste than nuclear. The coal industry was the #1 spread of the hippie nuclear will kill you crap in the first place.
 ·  
Seth Apex 7 months ago
a different type of nuclear reactor running on thorium and designed around molten salt for its heat transfer. it's safer, more efficient, and produces less and less toxic waste with a shorter half life than uranium breeder reactors.
 ·  
Hide replies 
aotearota new zealand 2 months ago
source?
 · 
jacob piekarski 1 month ago
+aotearota new zealand I think look up a Thorium Reactor
 ·  
leerman22 2 weeks ago (edited)
+Seth Apex U233 can still make bombs, but the odds of that are exaggerated by hippies and coal lobbies. If a government is denying international investigators (IAEA) then just use massive sanctions. Thanks Obama!
 · 

Comments

Post a Comment

Comment here.

Popular posts from this blog

Short Story Idea

        I could feel an invisible presence, like a stand of human hair touching my skin... Ever there, but ever unseen. I blew it away with a single exhalation. Nevermind. What was that anyway?
Read more

Luckiest Guess in the World by me.

Image
Let the function   be defined by   and  , what is one possible value of  ? 1 Correct! Explanation Difficulty: Hard      Since  , substituting   for   into the function yields  , or  , or  . Therefore   or  . Since  , it follows that  , or  . Therefore   or  . Another way to solve the question would be to use a dummy variable  . For example, let  .  . Since  , it follows that  . So  , and therefore,   or  . Since  ,   or  . This question asks for  one possible  value of  . Either   or   (not both) satisfy the question being asked. Choose only one correct answer to enter in the grid. When there is a range of possible correct answers, your  gridded response  must lie within the range. For example, consider a problem for...
Read more