161–170 of 182 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it's absurd to consider that there will be any large-scale violation of thermodynamics in the indefinitely far future. Literally, nothing is less probable.
Literally nothing is less probable? Alright then. I don't know why we bother with science any more since you've apparently got this one in the bag.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I got from the first article you linked is that Thorium reactors produce less radioactive waste but are unproven technologies.
Don't stop at the first sentence. Read the whole article. It answers the propaganda claim of "less radioactive waste": "Less" is only if need thorium would magically materialize out of nothing, that is, if you ignore the whole process. In reality, thorium inevitably has to be prepared with uranium rectors: "Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material t…
"The weak beta emission is stopped by the walls of laboratory glassware. Soft X-rays are emitted when the beta particles are stopped, but as long as the body is kept more than 30 cm away these should pose no problem. The primary hazard when working with technetium is inhalation of dust; such radioactive contamination in the lungs can pose a significant cancer risk."[1]
Laboratory glassware, safe distance 30cm. Hardly a "pretty deep hole"!
While researching a comment for another thread I discovered an interesting fact: the US has now spent approximately as much money on fusion research ever (since 1955) as it did on the Manhattan project, alone. Perhaps we shouldn't be so surprised that progress is so slow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It continues like this though: > The low power outputs occurring inside the fusion core of the Sun may also be surprising, considering the large power which might be predicted by a simple application of the Stefan–Boltzmann law for temperatures of 10 to 15 million kelvins. However, layers of the Sun are radiating to outer layers only slightly lower in temperature, and it is this difference in radiation powers between…
> So if a m^3 of sun core was moved to a powerplant it would generate a lot more energy. Yes, for a tiny fraction of a second as it exploded. Its pressure would far beyond what any material could withstand (and magnetic confinement does that change that, as the outward pressure has to eventually be carried by the magnet support structure).
This is probably another ignorant question, but why can't we "aim" and shoot protons at each other to make them smack together without requiring all that heat and pressure?
I've wondered, aren't there any fusible elements that can be solids in vacuum? Then shoot pellets at each other at a sizable fraction of c. Way better density than a particle beam. For instance, lithium-6 is a stable solid metal with the right nucleon composition and binding energy to fuse into carbon-12. I have no idea if it actually would to a useful degree.
Would zero gravity be helpful in order to make it easier to get fusion working?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't stop at the first sentence. Read the whole article. It answers the propaganda claim of "less radioactive waste": "Less" is only if need thorium would magically materialize out of nothing, that is, if you ignore the whole process. In reality, thorium inevitably has to be prepared with uranium rectors: "Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material t…
Remember, the longer the half life, the less dangerous the waste as it dumps its energy more slowly. Consider technetium-99, for instance (from Wiki): "The weak beta emission is stopped by the walls of laboratory glassware. Soft X-rays are emitted when the beta particles are stopped, but as long as the body is kept more than 30 cm away these should pose no problem. The primary hazard when working with technetium is i…
"Protactinium separations provide a pathway for obtaining highly attractive weapons-grade uranium 233 from thorium fuel cycles. The difficulties of safeguarding commercial spent fuel reprocessing are significant for any type of fuel cycle, and thorium is no exception."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Literally nothing is less probable? Alright then. I don't know why we bother with science any more since you've apparently got this one in the bag.
Non sequitur, and rude.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've wondered, aren't there any fusible elements that can be solids in vacuum? Then shoot pellets at each other at a sizable fraction of c. Way better density than a particle beam. For instance, lithium-6 is a stable solid metal with the right nucleon composition and binding energy to fuse into carbon-12. I have no idea if it actually would to a useful degree.
Solid in a vacuum at what temperature?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So if a m^3 of sun core was moved to a powerplant it would generate a lot more energy. Would it? Or would it expand into basically normal hydrogen and helium?
Provided you could keep the plasma contained in magnetic fields, it would certainly generate plenty of free neutrons to provide heat for substantial power generation.