China is building a thorium reactor. - Polidicks

[IMG]http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2013/03/12/science/12GILL/12GILL-articleLarge.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]t a legendary but secretive laboratory in California, Lockheed Martin is working on a plan that some employees hope might transform the world’s energy system: a practicable type of nuclear fusion. Some 900 miles to the north, Bill Gates and another Microsoft veteran, Nathan Myhrvold, have poured millions into a company developing a fission reactor that could run on today’s nuclear waste. And on the far side of the world, China has seized on discarded American research to pursue a safer reactor based on an abundant element called thorium.[/QUOTE] Sadly, there's not a whole lot more info on this in the source. It's a good read though. [url]http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/science/in-search-of-energy-miracles.html?pagewanted=all&_r=1&[/url]

but what will we do with this reactor's waste? will we build a never-ending chain of reactors that consume each other's waste? a reactor centipede, if you will

meh china can build a thorium reactor, its not solving the problems with nuclear power overnight, the research has been out there from more than just U.S. labs, also there are some reasons why uranium is the current chosen fuel over the thorium, 1. its the devil that we know, we've experimented and had failures with it since the late 1930s and early 1940s , we know how it works and we know how to prevent further catastrophys 2. thorium doesn't fissile on its own so you still need some uranium or plutonium added which increases the complexity of forming the rods or fuel pellets 3. there is very little research on recycling the spent fuel as opposed to uranium which while politically gets gridlocked, we understand what we need to do to store it indefinitely

china will grow larger ect ect

china will glow larger

Old news, heard about this ages ago [QUOTE=Sableye;39883518]meh china can build a thorium reactor, its not solving the problems with nuclear power overnight, the research has been out there from more than just U.S. labs, also there are some reasons why uranium is the current chosen fuel over the thorium, 1. its the devil that we know, we've experimented and had failures with it since the late 1930s and early 1940s , we know how it works and we know how to prevent further catastrophys 2. thorium doesn't fissile on its own so you still need some uranium or plutonium added which increases the complexity of forming the rods or fuel pellets 3. there is very little research on recycling the spent fuel as opposed to uranium which while politically gets gridlocked, we understand what we need to do to store it indefinitely[/QUOTE] The reason we use uranium/plutonium is it's easier to make nuclear weapons with the waste, for no other reason.

[video=youtube;uK367T7h6ZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY[/video] (Video tags broken, help?) For those who don't know a ton about LFTRs.

We will live in prosperity.

Why aren't we building cool shit like this?

[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;39883853]Why aren't we building cool shit like this?[/QUOTE] capitalism.

[QUOTE=tyanet;39883600][video=youtube;uK367T7h6ZY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY[/video] (Video tags broken, help?) For those who don't know a ton about LFTRs.[/QUOTE] remove the s in https. Also, I've said it before, and it bears repeating. This video is absurd. There is no attempt to even cover possible drawbacks to the technology. It feels like a piece of propaganda. I'm reasonably sure that LFTR tech is the way of the future (definitely not indefinitely, but for quite a while), but at least try and present it like it is instead of dressing everything up and claiming that it's the second coming.

[QUOTE=tyanet;39883600][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY[/media] For those who don't know a ton about LFTRs.[/QUOTE] Gotta remove the s in https://

[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;39883853]Why aren't we building cool shit like this?[/QUOTE] Long story short, we developed this tech back (And had a working, full scale prototype) in the 50s/60s in conjunction with the Plutonium Fast Breeder. The Plutonium reactor won government favor as it had bomb-material output compared with LFTR. Its a real shame the cold war interfered that way, we would've had a [B]MUCH[/B] better power generation situation and wouldn't have to worry about alot of resources (See this: [URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P9M__yYbsZ4[/URL] )

[QUOTE=tyanet;39883600][video=youtube;uK367T7h6ZY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uK367T7h6ZY[/video] [/QUOTE] Cheers. Wow, that's really cool. I'm not too knowledgeable on the subject, but could this, if used worldwide, solve the world energy crisis?

[QUOTE=laserguided;39883866]capitalism.[/QUOTE] I presume this was a joke, but I still will point out that for once, it's not capitalism who causes the shameful nuclear limping of USA this time - it's public misinformation and anti nuclear scare.

Fucking finally...

This is what Germany should be doing. Frankly, this is what every industrialized country in the world should do.

[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;39883853]Why aren't we building cool shit like this?[/QUOTE] Few wants to stick their necks (and millions of dollars) out. It's also likely that the bad public image that nuclear energy has attained since Fukushima (no need to be preaching to the choir on that one) is also making investors and politicians avoid it.

[QUOTE=Tucan Sam;39883853]Why aren't we building cool shit like this?[/QUOTE] Spiderman 2.

China is making a lot of progress in technology, if only they could do the same for human rights!!

[QUOTE=Zeemlapje;39885740]China is making a lot of progress in technology, if only they could do the same for human rights!![/QUOTE] I'd honestly live in China than North Korea any day, plus a lot of their citizens knows what's up they just don't really care

[QUOTE=Sableye;39883518]meh china can build a thorium reactor, its not solving the problems with nuclear power overnight, the research has been out there from more than just U.S. labs, also there are some reasons why uranium is the current chosen fuel over the thorium, 1. its the devil that we know, we've experimented and had failures with it since the late 1930s and early 1940s , we know how it works and we know how to prevent further catastrophys 2. thorium doesn't fissile on its own so you still need some uranium or plutonium added which increases the complexity of forming the rods or fuel pellets 3. there is very little research on recycling the spent fuel as opposed to uranium which while politically gets gridlocked, we understand what we need to do to store it indefinitely[/QUOTE] Which is why china are also currently building 28 other nuclear reactors, they're not only making a cool thorium reactor, they're making advanced as fuck breeder reactors(Make fuel out of waste equaling minimal waste) and heaps of good old uranium 235 reactors. [IMG]http://images.bwbx.io/cms/2013-02-21/econ_china09__01__405inline.jpg[/IMG] You can't give China any shit about this, they're the first country to truly suffer the consequence of fossil driven expansion, and they're the first country to man the fuck up and do something about it. 1) All nuclear powerplant disasters has been duo to the human operators, no single man will willingly face the responsibility of having destroyed a multibillion dollar reactor by flushing it, duo to a premature 'warning', this has prevented one man from flushing his core when his control rods where literally caught on fire(we hadn't thought of that problem back in the 50'ies) The Fukushima plant was warned that their tide walls where too low months in advance of the tsunami, and the exercise that led to Chernobyls demise was performed by the wrong crew(the tired nightcrew) and the list goes on. All of these modern generation reactors has learned from the past and most if not all problems are mitigated. 2) That makes absolutely no sense, look into the LFTR design 3) I'd rather have heaps of stored toxin waste, than the toxic waste all over the planet we're accustomed to now.

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;39885761]I'd honestly live in China than North Korea any day, plus a lot of their citizens knows what's up they just don't really care[/QUOTE] That's like saying you're rather claw your eyes out than meticulously shave pieces of your testicles off with rusty barbed wire.

[QUOTE=Pierrewithahat;39886136]That's like saying you're rather claw your eyes out than meticulously shave pieces of your testicles off with rusty barbed wire.[/QUOTE] but in china you're allowed to get onto the internet and use a proxy to bypass the firewall, you can import movies and shit because china is the biggest leader in piracy and NK smacks you down if you do (but people bribe the inspectors anyway)

[QUOTE=kaskade700;39885956] You can't give China any shit about this, they're the first country to truly suffer the consequence of fossil driven expansion, and they're the first country to man the fuck up and do something about it. 1) All nuclear powerplant disasters has been duo to the human operators, no single man will willingly face the responsibility of having destroyed a multibillion dollar reactor by flushing it, duo to a premature 'warning', this has prevented one man from flushing his core when his control rods where literally caught on fire(we hadn't thought of that problem back in the 50'ies) The Fukushima plant was warned that their tide walls where too low months in advance of the tsunami, and the exercise that led to Chernobyls demise was performed by the wrong crew(the tired nightcrew) and the list goes on. All of these modern generation reactors has learned from the past and most if not all problems are mitigated. [/QUOTE] Pretty much. Chernobyl was extremely outdated reactor that was designed and built in the 1950s for fuck sake. Fukushima was an old (1960) design that didn't account for local conditions. Despite being hit by an earthquake and a tsunami, it only had a partial meltdown. In some ways you can blame Greenpeace. Their constant protesting of new reactors means that older reactors are required to stay in service for longer, posing a risk

[QUOTE=fruxodaily;39886216]but in china you're allowed to get onto the internet and use a proxy to bypass the firewall, you can import movies and shit because china is the biggest leader in piracy and NK smacks you down if you do (but people bribe the inspectors anyway)[/QUOTE] Yeah and it's still a shit country regardless of those facts, it's a better country than NK but that doesn't mean it's a good country, thus clawing eyes out over testicle shaving.

[QUOTE=laserguided;39883866]capitalism.[/QUOTE] You're wrong and about as slimy as any politician.

[QUOTE=download;39886327]Pretty much. Chernobyl was extremely outdated reactor that was designed and built in the 1950s for fuck sake. Fukushima was an old (1960) design that didn't account for local conditions. Despite being hit by an earthquake and a tsunami, it only had a partial meltdown. In some ways you can blame Greenpeace. Their constant protesting of new reactors means that older reactors are required to stay in service for longer, posing a risk[/QUOTE] I sort of have a vision for Greenpeace. They are to embrace nuclear power and use all their influence to its advantage, this will eventually lead to heaps of nuclear waste because errybody listens to greenpeace(nope) and makes nuclear reactors. All these storage facilities and then made into natural reserves where wildlife would be allowed to thrive, and gradually adapt to the increasing local background radiation. All would be good in the world.

I just want to point out that the "[I]all nuclear accidents was a result of the human factor[/I]" is a terrible argument in support of nuclear power, because the human factor can never be eliminated. On one hand it proves that nuclear energy isn't inherently dangerous in itself, but at the same time it suggests that the consequences of an accident due to human error makes nuclear power altogether too risky for us to dabble with. I.E, a wind turbine park doesn't have the same capacity to cause a disaster when a human fucks something up. So like, just don't go saying that when trying to win an argument against a treehugger or something

Anyone heard of ITER? [URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iter[/URL] It's a fusion research reactor starting construction this year, it will be finished in 2020. For whatever reason they will only use normal hydrogen until 2027 for testing, then they switch to hydrogen isotopes. It's planned to output ten times as much energy as it requires to operate.