>>69833420

seems safer, which is good

problem is they don't supply as much power as conventional nuclear, so in terms of heating entire cities/regions, it's not plausible nor cost effective

>>69833420
It's doable, but it would require a significant investment in R&D. Those kinds of up front costs have already been paid for with existing nuclear technology.

Whatever we do with nuclear, it would be a good idea to develop reactors that have a complete fuel cycle. The waste is much shorter lived if you do that.

>>69833420
More nuclear reactors in general.

Nuclear energy produces low emissions, the waste can be tossed in a hole in the ground, Also, nuclear energy is statically and logically the safest form of energy generation, in terms of both deaths per GW and all time, including Chernobyl.

Chernobyl was a terrible failure in design and safety procedures, but modern reactors basically can't fail the way that Chernobyl did. If you build them somewhere safe - such as the UK, which gets little in the way of environmental disasters - it's going to be incredibly safe. It's retarded greenies who look at nuclear bombs and think that reactors are basically that. It frankly infuriates me.

It's a meme green energy. The technology, just like solar energy, is not efficient enough to profit with replacing what we have now.

>>69835567
>the waste can be tossed in a hole in the ground
That's kind of what humans are doing right now. But the "hole in the ground" is at certain locations that nuclear waste as to travel to. I honestly don't like the idea of trains full of nuclear waste traveling through our cities, especially with ISIS around.

I'm not against nuclear energy so much as I am against the storage of nuclear waste. Obviously, there is no alternative currently but I hope future technology finds a way to dispose of it in a more efficient manner.

Wasteland: The nuclear graveyard under New Mexico
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zDgBUwhUAVE

>>69834587
>problem is they don't supply as much power as conventional nuclear, so in terms of heating entire cities/regions, it's not plausible nor cost effective
They are 99 times more fuel efficient and can operate at much higher temperature giving better electrical efficiency production and don't need massive pressure vessels.

So you are wrong on every point.

>>69836412
>But the "hole in the ground" is at certain locations that nuclear waste as to travel to
In reality any salt cavern is more than safe enough to store our fuel for the rest of human civilization.

But we can use that waste as feed stock for fast neutron breeder reactors that can consume all our light and heavy water uranium power reactor fuels.

>>69838454
>99 times more efficient
No, they aren't. Thorium reactors are a meme. They cost way too much for too little benefit.
>Operate at a higher temp
Then won't it have the same problems as fusion?

>>69836412
>I honestly don't like the idea of trains full of nuclear waste traveling through our cities, especially with ISIS around.
why? the cars could crash all on their own and it would be the same result

>>69836412
We can burn that "waste" in breeder reactors though. Then it only needs to be stored for less than 100 years (mostly on-site) before it's safe enough to entomb permanently underground.

>>69838864
>>99 times more efficient
>No, they aren't. Thorium reactors are a meme. They cost way too much for too little benefit.
A uranium fueled non breeder reactor gets to use 0.03% of it's fuel before the cadding on the fuel pellet starts to bulge and crack because of the production of decay gasses that raise the pressure and make a void space in the center.

A breeder reactor, either thorium or uranium can process the fuel and keep using it.

The LFTR does it by a liquid process of separation and reuse, while a fast breeder reactor will disassemble the fuel chemically sort it then make a new fuel element until their is no fuel left.


>>Operate at a higher temp
>Then won't it have the same problems as fusion?

No?

The water reactors use high pressure water as both a coolant and neutron moderator. You can't heat water liquid past 374C because even at 22,000 kPa because the latent heat of evaporation is 0, or it becomes steam without any more energy input. No liquid water = no heat transfer = your reactor melting. Even if the steam also doesn't a terrible job at slowing neutrons (which stops the nuclear reaction).

With the LFTR you use a fluoride salt that won't boil until 1430C even at standard pressure.

This means you can build a reactor that's able to handle 800C internal temperatures at atmospheric pressure. Saving on construction costs by the difference between pumping a sewer and building a high pressure water/steam line. It also makes all the pumps and valves last decades longer.

You then connect that 800C heat to a turbine input and can run that turbine in the range of a natural gas turbine, collect the still hot exhaust and use that in a HRSG that can then run a standard steam turbine.

With that design you can run underrated "gas turbines" that run on 800C reactor heat until you need more power than "afterburn" by adding natural gas to meet peak demand:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zD0m_ci-oo