11–20 of 47 posts
What about the radioactive waste? All nuclear reactors produce waste (finally when disassembled after the reactors' end of life). I find it strange to search for more efficient reactor styles, while the waste problem is not solved.
What about the radioactive waste? All nuclear reactors produce waste (finally when disassembled after the reactors' end of life). I find it strange to search for more efficient reactor styles, while the waste problem is not solved.
The idea of the liquid fueled reactors is that you can easily change the fuel composition, ideally constantly reprocessing the fuel of contaminates, while letting the unburned fuel stay in place. This would drastically reduce the amount of waste generated (by orders of magnitude), and the 'unburnable' waste left over actually has some uses of its own (molybdenum 99 and bismuth 213).
What about the radioactive waste? All nuclear reactors produce waste (finally when disassembled after the reactors' end of life). I find it strange to search for more efficient reactor styles, while the waste problem is not solved.
What about the radioactive waste? All nuclear reactors produce waste (finally when disassembled after the reactors' end of life). I find it strange to search for more efficient reactor styles, while the waste problem is not solved.
And the currently used alternatives (coal) produces way more waste (whole mountains of slightly radioactive, and slightly toxic dust leftovers from coal extraction build up near coal mines).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Pff. If 'molten salt' reactors are an inch closer in 10 years, I will eat my hat. The idea is only slightly more appealing than having the reactor fly around under it's own power. What makes you think The Economist is interested in probing the nerdosphere? Would Tesla, Apple, etc., be more effective? For sure, the '... adoption is 10 years away' thing is funny. Makes me reminisce for Popular Science. If I were to gue…
Ahem... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convair_NB-36H ... speaking of flying nuclear reactors
Quote: "Meanwhile, at the Pentagon, Pluto's sponsors were having second thoughts about the project. Since the missile would be launched from U.S. territory and had to fly low over America's allies in order to avoid detection on its way to the Soviet Union, some military planners began to wonder if it might not be almost as much a threat to the allies. Even before it began dropping bombs on our enemies Pluto would have deafened, flattened, and irradiated our friends. (The noise level on the ground as Pluto went by overhead was expected to be about 150 decibels; by comparison, the Saturn V rocket, which sent astronauts to the moon, produced 200 decibels at full thrust.) Ruptured eardrums, of course, would have been the least of your problems if you were unlucky enough to be underneath the unshielded reactor when it went by, literally roasting chickens in the barnyard."
The buzz for thorium reactors is made by people who want to sell thorium reactors.
Apparently there's also this talk[2] by Kirk Sorensen, but I haven't seen that one yet.
[1]: http://www.ted.com/talks/taylor_wilson_my_radical_plan_for_s...
[2]: http://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternativ...
> One or two 233U bombs were tested in the Nevada desert during the 1950s and, perhaps ominously, another was detonated by India in the late 1990s. [...] intense gamma radiation 233U produces fries the triggering circuitry
...this only shows that military use is possible! For someone less concerned about safety and more concerned about having a nuclear weapon at all costs, it might be even easier. That triggering circuitry is definitely a solvable problem... brrrrrr