LFTRs .. yes or no?

Post Reply New Topic

is it time for the world change to LFTR energy in the aftermath of Fukushima?

have a look at LFTR evangelist kirk sorensen:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2vzotsvvkw[/youtube]

and read more about it…

there are several interesting youtube movies available explaining LFTR technology.

and also:

http://energyfromthorium.com/

I need more than a video I can't watch to incite me to look up an acronym i don't recognize.

Look up thorium reactors in wikipedia.

understandable and wise.


EDIT:

why can't you see the video? it's a youtube link…. so it should be available...

From Wikipedia:

> Click this link to read the rest of the article. <

Do I get extra credit for doing someone else's homework for him?

Thank you. A hint to the scholarly sufficeth. But we need that hint.

Oh, it's available. And any time I am in a mood to watch the grass grow I can use Youtube.

But between our web connection - hundreds of times faster and cheaper than the long distance dial-up connection we had, but hardly blazing - and my computer - I upgrade as often as I can and have to, but some of us do not have unlimited funds for things other than heat, shelter, food - it would be easier to walk to the road, witch a ride to town and watch on my brother in laws machine.

Okay.

With a little help from my friends, I can now even say something:

to wit:

There have been flaws with the old technology since the days of the hand axe.


Some of which flaws are annoying, some of which are outright dangerous [I will bet you before goggles were invented a lot of careless trainees caught flint chips in the eye - dangerous enough for me. "No, Ngrol, put the point against the nodule BEFORE applying pressure and remember to flake AWAY from your body!"

New technology can eliminate those flaws. It can also give us thalidomide, DDT, a dead Marie Curie.

A new technology is an old technology waiting to happen, and you do not know what its drawbacks and dangers are untill they step out of the alley and leer at you.

Festina lente.

Separately - human nature being what it is, I do not see it coming soon.

If thorium reactors are so compact and unbulky why didnt either the Soviets or the USA put them into nuclear submarines?

I think the answer there is obvious, but though I love submarines and their ways I will let the submariners speak.

Because the Uranium technology was developed first.

ruveyn

Uranium is also easier to transmute into plutonium, which is a prime ingredient in nuclear weapons.

Which makes it valuable for military purposes and dangerous for commercial purposes.

ruveyn

Thus the post-WWII push by the U.S. military-industrial complex for uranium reactors over thorium reactors.

the part that makes it compact is the sodium cooling which has been used in several moels of nuclear sumarine.

USS Seawolf (SSN-575)

is american but the soviets pioneered the technology.

sodium is also used in solar power plants of the single collector large array type.

i am all for using nuclear power as it is the only true short term solution possible today, also remember that with 1 design change (moving the backup generator away from the wall keeping the saltwater at bay) fukushima wouldnt have been more than a minor incident, all major dammage came from lack ofcooling.