Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[10ebbor10]

So yeah, I just decided I'd start this discussion for the sake of it.

Different types of reactors:

-Conventional(Second and third Generation of reactors)
The most commonly used types of nuclear reactors. Nothing really special about these.

-Thorium reactors
Nuclear reactors based on Thorium rather than Uranium. Advantages of these reactors are that they can't melt down (Thorium's melting point is higher than that of uranium), produce less radioactive waste (it degenerates in about hundred years) and that they can't be used in the production of nuclear weaponry. Another advantage is that thorium reserves are way larger then uranium reserves.

-Fourth generation reactors
Reactors using waste from third generation reactors. These come in all shapes and sizes, from semiconventional ones to reactors with a particle arcelerator attached to have the material decay faster. One negative point is that the same technology is used in enriching uranium for the production of nuclear weaponry

-Pocket reactors
Fully automated, smallscale reactors. Designed to power small isolated villages. Maintenance should only be needed every thirty years. In case of a problem, these will shut down automatically.

-Pellet reactors/ others
Conventional or other reactors which have special made fuel rods. When these reach dangerous temperatures, the metal casing around them will expand and shut down the reactor before a meltdown can occur.

[miauw62]

Isnt there a HUEG amount of uranium left? I dont think it'll run out before we invent nuclear fusion.

[10ebbor10]

Isnt there a HUEG amount of uranium left? I dont think it'll run out before we invent nuclear fusion.

At the moment there's quite a large stockpile of uranium left. It's not infinitive though, from the statistics I found we're already running short, and have been for quite some time. (But that's more a problem with a shortage of mines rather then a shortage of resources).

I believe the graphs said that supply is going to reach demand somewhere around the 2050's.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

-Thorium reactors
Nuclear reactors based on Thorium rather than Uranium. Advantages of these reactors are that they can't melt down (Thorium's melting point is higher than that of uranium), produce less radioactive waste (it degenerates in about hundred years) and that they can't be used in the production of nuclear weaponry. Another advantage is that thorium reserves are way larger then uranium reserves.

There is just an ever so small issue in that thorium is highly corrosive and has thus far destroyed all the attempts to use it for nuclear fuel.

-Pocket reactors
Fully automated, smallscale reactors. Designed to power small isolated villages. Maintenance should only be needed every thirty years. In case of a problem, these will shut down automatically.

Since when is this a thing?

I don't think it'll run out before we invent nuclear fusion.

We invented nuclear fusion in the 1950's. The issue is not the invention of fusion power, it is sustaining the reaction in such a way that we make a net gain of energy. That is what ITER and DEMO are hopefully going to solve.

[Urist Imiknorris]

I don't think it'll run out before we invent nuclear fusion.

We invented nuclear fusion in the 1950's.

The universe invented nuclear fusion billions of years ago, so shut it, rookies.

[10ebbor10]

1. Thorium reactor have been working since the 60's . Even now multiple reactors are using it(in conjuction with plutonium), and norway had plans to switch all their energy production to thorium

2. Most space projects use them (When they don't use solar pannels). Curiosity has one, and designs are made for slightly larger ones. (Note that pocket in this case means the size of a large garden shed)

3. Also, we've been saying we'd get fusion working in 40 years since the 50's. While I'd like to see them to get it working, I don't think we're going to have large scale fusion power production before the end of the century.

[miauw62]

Predictions of when we will get what technology are dangerous tough.
Mayby we'll have a huge breaktrough just tomorrow and have the first fully functioning fusion reactor in 5 or ten years.
Or mayby not.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Also, we've been saying we'd get fusion working in 40 years since the 50's. While I'd like to see them to get it working, I don't think we're going to have large scale fusion power production before the end of the century.

There weren't any experiments running in the 50's. Now there are and we have a handle on how long this is going to take.

Predictions of when we will get what technology are dangerous tough.
Mayby we'll have a huge breaktrough just tomorrow and have the first fully functioning fusion reactor in 5 or ten years.
Or mayby not.

Our fusion reactors are fully functioning, they just aren't practical for generating power yet.

ITER is coming online in 2019, and that will be a serious indicator of how fusion development will go.

[10ebbor10]

Also, we've been saying we'd get fusion working in 40 years since the 50's. While I'd like to see them to get it working, I don't think we're going to have large scale fusion power production before the end of the century.

There weren't any experiments running in the 50's. Now there are and we have a handle on how long this is going to take.

First experiments where in the 60's I believe.

And yeah, Iter kinda determines everything. If it works, we can start working on DEMO. If it doesn't because the whole things melts or something, we're going to have some serious problems to get it working.

[ChairmanPoo]

And if it gets scrapped due to the Eurozone crisis, well... at least there's still that Ignition Facility in the US, right?

[MetalSlimeHunt]

ITER won't get scrapped. There's already been too much investment to end it right before it starts to pay out. Plus, it is the International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor. Even if Europe is financially annihilated, Korea, Japan, India, the USA, the PRC, and Russia all have vested interest in seeing ITER completed.

Speaking of fusion projects in Europe though, the Joint European Torus made a major stride in improving plasma containment that ITER should be able to benefit from.

[Loud Whispers]

So yeah, I just decided I'd start this discussion for the sake of it.

What are we discussing about nuclear fission?

Because right now it appears we've derailed into nuclear fusion.

*UGH* you guys are soooo off topic....
^{naaaaah ;p}

[miauw62]

Nuclear fusion is way more intresting and less DDOOOOODODODOOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!!!!! >:C then "normal" nuclear energy generation.

[darkrider2]

If I remember correctly we only chose to use uranium instead of thorium to begin with because the cold war was going on and thorium doesn't produce plutonium as a byproduct.

[Loud Whispers]

well, I'm all for nuclear power (so long as it has the appropriate failsafes)

fun fact: an average person gets more radiation from medical X-rays than from nuclear power

Meh, modern power plants are practically bunkers at this point. You'd probably need a crane, another nuclear power plant and a giant copper pick just to crack one open.