Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:36:05 UTC No. 16301679

>>16301496
Is nuclear waste from medicine enough to build beta-voltaic battery?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 11:55:44 UTC No. 16301693

>>16301496
Currently building a fusor, does anybody have some ideas of where I could acquire a good neutron source for calibrating an SiPM sensor? This is an independent project so no access to any lab equipment, but I could probably get my hands on most things that one would find in a hospital so if there's any possibilities there that someone here knows about please let me know.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 14:55:05 UTC No. 16301874

>>16301496
How much kJ do I need to produce for 200g of deuterium to fuse?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:32:25 UTC No. 16301982

>>16301679
what waste isotopes were you hoping to use?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:43:45 UTC No. 16301993

>>16301874
What the fuck does this question even mean?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:46:59 UTC No. 16301998

Looks like china is getting around to building a Thorium MSR
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3271978/china-sets-launch-date-worlds-first-thorium-molten-salt-nuclear-power-station

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:55:16 UTC No. 16302012

>>16301993
Like how much energy I need to put to deuterium for it to explode.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 16:56:26 UTC No. 16302017

>>16301982
I hope for some with electron emission, is there some "tables" for nuclear isotopes, that are backed by some institution, where I can look it up?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:10:09 UTC No. 16302031

>>16302012
Deuterium Deuterium reaction ? You'd need to overcome the electrostatic repulsion of the positively charged ions. Done typically via large KE at extremely large temperatures (100 million kelvin ) to allow for the nucleons to come closer - overcoming the coulomb barrier and enabling fussion.

Long story short ; you'd need a metric shit one of energy to enable a D-D reaction

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 17:13:32 UTC No. 16302033

>>16302031
When I connect it to electron pump and pump electrons out?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 18:23:27 UTC No. 16302139

>>16302012
You're not going to have much luck making a fusion bomb without a fission step.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:14:57 UTC No. 16302244

Could you achieve fusion in a gas core reactor by just putting deuterium and lithium in the fuel misture in a similar way of what castle bravo did?

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 19:53:54 UTC No. 16302310

>>16302244
Fusion isn't really that hard, it's just that fusors tend to have a lot of inefficiencies when trying to use it as a power production source. Fission is just better for that.

Anonymous at Mon, 29 Jul 2024 20:39:51 UTC No. 16302386

>>16302244
Open Cycle Gas core NTR has to be the most insane rocket engine designs I've ever seen

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:50:22 UTC No. 16302806

>>16302244
Naw, a practical gas core reactor would still probably be too cold for fusion. If it was brought up to temperature for fusion it would probably quickly disassemble itself since the pressure needed to have the fission step go critical means there is a lot more gas to store heat energy than in a proper fusion reactor.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 03:51:49 UTC No. 16302809

>>16301693
How many neutrons per second are you thinking?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 08:58:18 UTC No. 16302973

>>16302139
Even if I had like 100m^3 of conventional explosives?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:01:55 UTC No. 16302975

>>16302973
Or(blue out right).

The art in the link I posted is 'amazing' and you should know what this means.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:03:12 UTC No. 16302977

>>16301679
>beta-voltaic battery
Why isn't NASA using this instead of MMRTGs

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:07:24 UTC No. 16302979

>>16302975
https://cubictimes.tumblr.com/


Study this one carefully. This is another one which goes deeper but it mustnt be taken lightly.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:08:35 UTC No. 16302980

>>16302975
PASSWORD: xxxxxx11

The picture of me I linked here also needs to be taken carefully. Think about it. It was the good of the bunch.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:10:12 UTC No. 16302982

>>16302975
And maybe the rhythm of my posting given I am an 'amazing' actor.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:11:33 UTC No. 16302984

>>16302975
Ghostlycutter.tumblr.com 1 year maybe 2 ago

The most recent. Don't know how to interpret it.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 09:17:01 UTC No. 16302988

>>16302975
Try he's got him wrapped around the tree

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:01:55 UTC No. 16303267

>>16302977
I actually discovered method, from NASA that produces radioactive material from Titanium deutride, and also something that when present in same x-ray chamber prevents formation of Radioactive titanium deutride. They could just use exact same principle to make tricium for batteries.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 14:17:16 UTC No. 16303282

>>16302806
Heat is brute force, try some smarter method, like a lot of current from deuterium volume into some deutride in metallic lattice. Or maybe some way to achieve ion flux of deutride, when they don't have an electron. Maybe specific frequency and phase would also help.... Maybe pumping electrons would also help, that's what happens in lattice, there are electrons on paladium or titanium or whatever, so deuterium is more freely available. Using heat is not galactic standard for fusion power, I'm telling you.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:29:09 UTC No. 16303383

Could someone make a bomb that ignites the atmosphere on purpose?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:32:09 UTC No. 16303384

>>16303383
Not really since the the chance that a nuclear bomb would cause sustained Nitrogen-Nitrogen fusion was nil as not even the core of a bomb would get hot enough to do so.

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 15:43:48 UTC No. 16303388

>>16303384
I farted. You farted. Who farted? No go on, what is the conglomerate fart total?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 17:56:50 UTC No. 16303460

Why can't I use a neutron reflector to make an arbitrarily small critical mass?

Why do small nuclear reactors (<100kg) have terrible mass to power ratios?

Anonymous at Tue, 30 Jul 2024 19:54:16 UTC No. 16303605

>>16302806
Yeah, but temperature is the average energy, that means that could be hotter and colder particles in the mix, the neutrons produced by fission are energetic enough start a combination of reactions that end with D-T fusion, thats what the jetter cycle is, is what happen in castle bravo.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 08:19:38 UTC No. 16304407

>>16303460
Theoretically I think you could, there just isn't a good enough neutron reflector and you also would probably want moderation. Smallest critical mass I have heard about is low hundreds of grams of material.

Anonymous at Wed, 31 Jul 2024 17:18:29 UTC No. 16304773

>>16303460
what's a neutron deflector

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 01:32:55 UTC No. 16305266

>>16304773
Fission emit neutron, neutron cause fission. Neutron fly out of uranium chunk, no fission. Trampoline to bounce neutron back into uranium chunk, fission again :)

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 09:52:44 UTC No. 16305676

>>16305266
thanks for the good explanation

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:11:25 UTC No. 16305690

got awfully quiet around w7x. Any1 know what they are up to?

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:30:02 UTC No. 16305703

>>16305690
looks pretty complicated

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:35:57 UTC No. 16305708

>>16305703
I mean its a hollow moebius band, not incredibly complicated topology wise but I'm sure it's hard to engineer
theoretically that reactor geometry can maintain plasma longer than any tokamak ever could, making stuff like ITER absolete before it was even finished
thats the latest news I know at least, but that was already a few years ago

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:48:01 UTC No. 16305718

>>16305708
give it to me straight. When will be have a fusion reactor that will be able to produce net electricity at least for a few minutes.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:53:08 UTC No. 16305723

>>16305718
no idea, not in our lifetime. Also the question is not really that important because for me it's still unclear if it's even possible to produce net energy. But advances in this field seem more and more serious and consistent, also the implications are huge, that's why I still believe in the potential. I'm ignoring all hypes though and I don't have the expectation that I will see the finished reactor.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 10:58:38 UTC No. 16305726

>>16305723
BTW there's this video where a former fusion scientist explains all the technical reasons why fusion is currently not feasible
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JurplDfPi3U

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:04:37 UTC No. 16305730

>>16305726
I don't like when "having fusion in 30yrs" and "Net energy production is provably possible" get mixed up.
I just clicked through the video, seems hes only talking about Tokamaks.
Working with fusion doesn't automatically make your predictions correct.

Anonymous at Thu, 1 Aug 2024 11:18:21 UTC No. 16305736

>>16305726
Crazy video that ignores upcoming private designs. This is the same as listening to some NASA fuckhead gibbering about how SLS is the only way while Falcon 9 Is about to rip their shit open.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 07:00:48 UTC No. 16306687

>>16305736
SLS and falcon 9 are just improvements of tech that already exist, private sector can't always magically brute force its way past physics

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 15:04:33 UTC No. 16307109

>>16306687
Moreover SLS and Falcon 9 are built for different purposes, SLS being a deep space launcher and F9 being optimized for medium lift to LEO.

Anonymous at Fri, 2 Aug 2024 22:12:06 UTC No. 16307719

i keep my girlfriend(s) at atomic energy so that won't mishappen anymore

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 14:14:22 UTC No. 16308475

>>16301496
30 under construction in China
I think they have now broken their own record for number under construction at any one time

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 14:15:24 UTC No. 16308477

>>16308475

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 18:24:58 UTC No. 16308741

For those interested, /sci/ plays /d/ in the 4cc today >>16308739

Anonymous at Sat, 3 Aug 2024 19:21:54 UTC No. 16308803

China's first project for industrial use of nuclear steam, called Heqi-1, went into operation recently. Tianwan NPP units 3 & 4 will supply 4.8Mt of 240C steam per year through 23.4km of overground pipe to Lianyungang petrochemical plant, equivalent to burning 400,000 tonnes of coal (= 3.3TWh) per year.

http://www.news.cn/fortune/20240619/7ede33328a7245818f1951489b3e270c/c.html
https://www.zgjssw.gov.cn/shixianchuanzhen/lianyungang/202406/t20240620_8339388.shtml

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 11:59:38 UTC No. 16309660

>>16308475
As an amerimutt, what are the odds I see some nuclear construction in my country in the next 15 years? I think it would be neat.

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 17:16:24 UTC No. 16309921

>>16308741
/sci/ made it to final day of the 4cc >>16309917


>>16309660
We already had a reactor in Georgia get finished up earlier this year

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 19:25:05 UTC No. 16310124

>>16309660
TerraPower recently broke symbolic ground on the non-nuclear part of Natrium
Kairos recently began construction on the (non-power) Hermes demonstration reactor
TVA seems to be seriously interested in the BWRX-300

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 19:27:02 UTC No. 16310126

>>16309921
>We already had a reactor in Georgia get finished up earlier this year
It's unlikely to be followed by any more, considering that Vogtle and Summers were financial Chernobyls

Anonymous at Sun, 4 Aug 2024 19:29:21 UTC No. 16310128

>>16310126
Then I guess SMRs are the only thing to look forward to for the time being unless that Blue Castle proposal out in Utah goes through.

Anonymous at Mon, 5 Aug 2024 14:33:57 UTC No. 16310923

>>16308803
Sanmen NPP will have an even larger nuclear steam supply project, 1800 tonnes of steam per hour to Rongsheng petrochemical, by the end of 2026

https://cpnn.com.cn/news/nyqy/202306/t20230629_1613655.html

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 00:29:04 UTC No. 16311598

>>16310128
If some smaller nuclear construction projects and enough large LWR's are successful in other western aligned countries they might go forward with some. Especially now since the government seems like it wants more nuclear power the economics might change the economics after a few years

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 00:40:39 UTC No. 16311610

>>16311598
>after a few years
I think its going to be longer than that given how badly atrophied the western nuclear industry is at this point.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 04:22:15 UTC No. 16311778

>>16311610
If they keep selling AP1000's to cuntfuckistan wouldn't that build it up?

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 04:36:55 UTC No. 16311793

>>16311778
It might get the ball rolling, but I also have no idea how well westinghouse's shit is together after coming out of bankruptcy a few years ago

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 09:38:10 UTC No. 16312011

>>16310923
how hot can they make steam by recovering waste heat off a reactor?

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 10:48:29 UTC No. 16312044

>>16311778
Not necessarily. In case of export, most of the work will be done by non-Americans. I think the biggest risk is in EPC, and the EPC contractor and most construction subcontractors will probably be local, depending on the terms of the deal. Most of the workforce will be local. So whatever success you achieve abroad does not then necessarily translate to a similar result at home. Just look at the AP1000 and EPR built in China compared with the AP1000 and EPR built in America and Europe.

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 11:31:04 UTC No. 16312082

>>16301496
Hey, a Fallout 2 location map

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:34:43 UTC No. 16312118

>>16312011
In a PWR design, the coolant temperature can never exceed 374C, because that is the critical temperature of water. Generally, the reactor outlet coolant temperature will be about 320C. That is the upper limit of how hot any steam can be, although in reality it will be colder due to heat exchange inefficiencies. Once it has passed through the turbines, the steam should be vastly colder. The steam temperature at the end of the low pressure turbine can potentially reach below 100C with the use of a low-pressure condenser.

In the case of Heqi-1, it doesn't really use "waste heat"; the steam generation comes at the expense of electricity generation. The steam generated by Heqi-1 is about 260C. The 260C steam then loses about 20C during the 23km journey to the plant, and is only 240C when received. However, I believe a 240C steam supply is still highly valuable for a petrochemical plant because the energy needed to heat 20C water to 240C steam is a lot more than the energy needed to heat steam 240C to the ~900C temperature used in a steam cracker or steam reformer.

Simple estimate:

The specific heat of water is about 4.2*10^3J/kgK. The latent heat of vaporization of water is about 2.3*10^6J/kg. The specific heat of steam at constant pressure is about 2*10^3J/kgK. So producing 240C steam from 20C water requires about

[math]80K \times 4.2 \times 10^3J/kgK + 2.3 \timess 10^6J/kg + 140K \times 2 \times 10^3J/kgK \approx 2.9 \times 10^6J/kg[\math]

Heating steam from 240C to 900C requires about

[math]660K \times 2 \times 10^3J/kgK \approx 1.3*10^6J/kg[\math]

So the first step requires about 2/3 of the energy.

I'm making it very simple by assuming constant specific heat capacity and pressure, which is of course not the case in reality. The above numbers are just meant as a rough estimate that demonstrates the benefit of a 240C steam supply

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:38:07 UTC No. 16312122

test [math]4 \times a = 4a[/math]

🗑️ Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:41:22 UTC No. 16312126

>>16312011
In a PWR design, the coolant temperature can never exceed 374C, because that is the critical temperature of water. Generally, the reactor outlet coolant temperature will be about 320C. That is the upper limit of how hot any generated steam can be, although in reality it will be colder due to heat exchange inefficiencies. Once it has passed through the turbines, the steam should be vastly colder. The steam temperature at the end of the low pressure turbine can potentially reach below 100C with the use of a low-pressure condenser.

In the case of Heqi-1, it doesn't really use "waste heat"; the steam generation comes at the expense of electricity generation. The steam generated by Heqi-1 is about 260C. The 260C steam then loses about 20C during the 23km journey to the plant, and is only 240C when received. However, I believe a 240C steam supply is still highly valuable for a petrochemical plant because the energy needed to heat 20C water to 240C steam is a lot more than the energy needed to heat steam from 240C to the ~900C temperature used in a steam cracker or steam reformer.

Simple estimate:

The specific heat of water is about 4.2*10^3J/kgK. The latent heat of vaporization of water is about 2.3*10^6J/kg. The specific heat of steam at constant pressure is about 2*10^3J/kgK. So producing 240C steam from 20C water requires about

[math]80K \times 4.2 \times 10^3 J/kgK + 2.3 \timess 10^6J/kg + 140K \times 2 \times 10^3J/kgK \approx 2.9 \times 10^6J/kg[/math]

Heating steam from 240C to 900C requires about

[math]660K \times 2 \times 10^3J/kgK \approx 1.3*10^6J/kg[/math]

So the first step requires about 2/3 of the energy.

I'm making it very simple by assuming constant specific heat capacity and pressure, which is of course not the case in reality. The above numbers are just meant as a rough estimate that demonstrates the benefit of a 240C steam supply

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:47:03 UTC No. 16312134

>>16312011
In a PWR design, the coolant temperature can never exceed 374C, because that is the critical temperature of water. Generally, the reactor outlet coolant temperature will be about 320C. That is the upper limit of how hot any generated steam can be, although in reality it will be colder due to heat exchange inefficiencies. Once it has passed through the turbines, the steam should be vastly colder. The steam temperature at the end of the low pressure turbine can potentially reach below 100C with the use of a low-pressure condenser.

In the case of Heqi-1, it doesn't really use "waste heat"; the steam generation comes at the expense of electricity generation. The steam generated by Heqi-1 is about 260C. The 260C steam then loses about 20C during the 23km journey to the plant, and is only 240C when received. However, I believe a 240C steam supply is still highly valuable for a petrochemical plant because the energy needed to heat 20C water to 240C steam is a lot more than the energy needed to heat steam from 240C to the ~900C temperature used in a steam cracker or steam reformer.

Simple estimate:

The specific heat of water is about 4.2*10^3J/kgK. The latent heat of vaporization of water is about 2.3*10^6J/kg. The specific heat of steam at constant pressure is about 2*10^3J/kgK. So producing 240C steam from 20C water requires about

[math]80K \times 4.2 \times 10^3J/kgK + 2.3 \times 10^6J/kg + 140K \times 2 \times 10^3J/kgK \approx 2.9 \times 10^6J/kg[/math]

Heating steam from 240C to 900C requires about

[math]660K \times 2 \times 10^3J/kgK \approx 1.3 \times 10^6J/kg[/math]

So the first step requires about twice as much energy as the second step.

I'm making it very simple by assuming constant specific heat capacity and pressure, which is of course not the case in reality. The above numbers are just meant as a rough estimate that demonstrates the benefit of a 240C steam supply

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 12:52:21 UTC No. 16312142

>>16312134

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 13:14:29 UTC No. 16312168

>>16312011
>>16312011
In contrast, the HTR-PM reactor's primary coolant circuit has an outlet temperature of 750C, and steam is generated in the secondary coolant circuit at 567C

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 20:09:46 UTC No. 16312558

>>16308803
>>16310923
Could this make China's chemical industry more competitive compared to its overseas rivals? Or is it just because they want to reduce imports of gas and coal?

Anonymous at Tue, 6 Aug 2024 20:15:06 UTC No. 16312566

>>16312168
Apparently, they want to cluster 6 of these together as the "HTR-PM600". I don't understand that. What is the point of having as many as 6 of them in one place? Isn't the whole point of a pebble-bed reactor that you don't need to power it down to refuel, and thus you could use it to power a factory continuously on just one single reactor?

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 01:24:36 UTC No. 16312863

>>16312566
everyone is hyping up small reactors as more economic to build so I assume they are thinking the same thing

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 15:28:42 UTC No. 16313516

thoughts on this doodle someone posted
>>>/hr/4896023

Anonymous at Wed, 7 Aug 2024 18:52:55 UTC No. 16313858

>>16312863
I don't see how HTR-PM600's 6 reactor vessels and 6 steam generators for 600MWe can be more economical than for example Guohe-1's 1 reactor vessel and 2 steam generators for 1400MWe

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 03:56:57 UTC No. 16314548

>>16313858
They might be doing that so they can have passive cooling, smaller surface to volume ratio.

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 12:24:56 UTC No. 16314960

>>16313858
>>16314548
HTR-PM needs actively pumped coolant for normal operations like any other reactor. However, it's designed to be able to get rid of decay heat using only passive cooling, without ever reaching meltdown temperature. Which is why it's said to be "meltdown safe".

An explanation for the size of each HTR-PM reactor:

>Before 2006, the 458 MWth reactor module was studied with an annular core, in which the spheres were placed in the annular regime. Two schemes were compared in the middle of the annular core: graphite spheres and a graphite column. Problems with the graphite sphere scheme included: difficulty convincing the licensing authority that there was a clear and certain boundary between the fuel and the graphite spheres; the outlet helium temperature becoming more non-uniform because part of the helium flowed through the central graphite spheres; the worth of control rods in the side reflectors proving to be insufficient; and so forth. In the graphite column scheme, problems also existed: The graphite column had to be replaced in the reactor lifetime; more than three discharging tubes were necessary at the bottom of the reactor, inducing a complicated fuel sphere flow; there were difficulties with the structural stability of the central graphite column; and so forth. In September 2006, the technical scheme of the reactor core was determined: It was decided to change it from 1 × 458 MWth reactor module to 2 × 250 MWth reactor modules. The primary concern regarding the changed reactor design was the capital cost increment. After careful calculation, the total plant capital costs of the 1 × 458 MWth and 2 × 250 MWth reactor schemes were found to have a finite difference, so the budget remains unchanged.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809916301552

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 12:40:41 UTC No. 16314978

>>16312566
As I understand it, one of the main intended advantages of the HTR-PM is location flexibility (due to the passive safety) which increases the potential for co-generation. This compensates for the 10-20% higher cost compared to a 600MWe Gen III PWR

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362733960_600-MWe_high-temperature_gas-cooled_reactor_nuclear_power_plant_HTR-PM600

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 12:42:14 UTC No. 16314983

>>16314548
An explanation for the size of each HTR-PM reactor:

>Before 2006, the 458 MWth reactor module was studied with an annular core, in which the spheres were placed in the annular regime. Two schemes were compared in the middle of the annular core: graphite spheres and a graphite column. Problems with the graphite sphere scheme included: difficulty convincing the licensing authority that there was a clear and certain boundary between the fuel and the graphite spheres; the outlet helium temperature becoming more non-uniform because part of the helium flowed through the central graphite spheres; the worth of control rods in the side reflectors proving to be insufficient; and so forth. In the graphite column scheme, problems also existed: The graphite column had to be replaced in the reactor lifetime; more than three discharging tubes were necessary at the bottom of the reactor, inducing a complicated fuel sphere flow; there were difficulties with the structural stability of the central graphite column; and so forth. In September 2006, the technical scheme of the reactor core was determined: It was decided to change it from 1 × 458 MWth reactor module to 2 × 250 MWth reactor modules. The primary concern regarding the changed reactor design was the capital cost increment. After careful calculation, the total plant capital costs of the 1 × 458 MWth and 2 × 250 MWth reactor schemes were found to have a finite difference, so the budget remains unchanged.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095809916301552

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 12:44:09 UTC No. 16314988

Proposed design for "small subsurface markers" to be buried randomly in great numbers across the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant

🗑️ Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 19:57:21 UTC No. 16315546

>>16314988
It should have a version of the text in Spanish. The intended readers are future generations, after all.

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 19:59:02 UTC No. 16315547

>>16314988
It should have a version of the text in Spanish

Anonymous at Thu, 8 Aug 2024 20:14:26 UTC No. 16315567

It seems that China is the main standard bearer of large scale nuclear power construction right now. What is the future economic rationale for nuclear in China, given that the photovoltaic alternative has a potential to drastically drop in cost even further, e.g. with perovskites and sodium-ion batteries? Is there potential for nuclear reactor construction in China to radically reduce costs as well?

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 05:11:58 UTC No. 16316298

>>16314988
What the hell is this gonna do? It would barely stop people living today from digging

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 14:48:39 UTC No. 16316959

>>16314988
I think the Goiânia incident showed that letters and trefoils are inadequate, and I don't think those funny faces are enough to compensate.

Anonymous at Fri, 9 Aug 2024 15:19:06 UTC No. 16317024

hello, I have a phd in nuclear engineering, and I'm rolling through to answer some of your stupid questions
>>16303460
>Why can't I use a neutron reflector to make an arbitrarily small critical mass?
neutron reflectors aren't magic, but yeah why not? What commercial purpose would there be for this? the interesting/difficult part of reactor design is about heat removal, not attaining criticality.

>>16302017
>I hope for some with electron emission, is there some "tables" for nuclear isotopes, that are backed by some institution, where I can look it up?
google 'chart of the nuclides'
>>16305718
>give it to me straight. When will be have a fusion reactor that will be able to produce net electricity at least for a few minutes.
probably never
>>16309660
>As an amerimutt, what are the odds I see some nuclear construction in my country in the next 15 years? I think it would be neat.
Nearly all nuclear power startups are just venture capital scams. The only one with any chance of building something is probably terrapower.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 03:27:34 UTC No. 16318135

>>16312134
So what's the maximum temperature for the coolant in a MSR reactor?

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 07:49:26 UTC No. 16318354

>>16317024
kairos actually started building a research reactor, how good of a sign is that for them

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 08:10:41 UTC No. 16318371

>>16309660
the way things are going (boeing planes, starliner, Intel collapsing) you are more likely to see a nuclear accident than a new reactor. though I think it would be related to the military instead of something civilian

>>16315567
>What is the future economic rationale for nuclear in China, given that the photovoltaic alternative has a potential to drastically drop in cost even further, e.g. with perovskites and sodium-ion batteries?

The sun is not always shining and people use electricity at night

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 12:27:45 UTC No. 16318500

>>16318354
It's a venture capital scam.

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 15:30:58 UTC No. 16318707

>>16318371
I mentioned sodium-ion batteries because I thought they had the potential to radically drop the cost of storage

Anonymous at Sat, 10 Aug 2024 17:14:20 UTC No. 16318852

>>16318500
>>16318500
how do people fall for these scams.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 03:44:04 UTC No. 16319478

>>16318500
why would they build something if its a scam? Nano gets all kinds of hype and they haven't even submitted anything to the NRC

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 04:06:10 UTC No. 16319485

>>16318500
company that is obviously spending money on R&D projects and isn't publicly traded doesn't exactly scream scam?

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 17:56:31 UTC No. 16320306

>>16318852
>how do people fall for these scams.
Sam Altman took Oklo public. Oklo is probably the scammiest scam company of them all. People with money are just dumb.

>>16319478
>>16319485
The scam: show that you're a strong company by grifting some DOE money, attract rich, stupid venture capital money, go public in big IPO, cash out.
Building *something* is part of the process. What they absolutely won't build is a powerplant.

Anonymous at Sun, 11 Aug 2024 23:30:46 UTC No. 16320668

>>16320306
I agree that a bunch of the startups seem like they won't go anywhere, but what is so wrong with Kairos? They already got 2 NRC approvals under their belt so whatever they developed is obviously extremely licensable, why wouldn't they just try for a power plant after all that effort.

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:34:25 UTC No. 16321248

>>16318135
One design was apparently intended to reach 1000C.

Although,
>The AHTR-LT [705C] uses existing materials, the AHTR-IT [800C] uses existing materials that have not been fully tested, and the AHTR-HT [1000C] uses advanced materials.

https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/840501

https://world-nuclear.org/information-library/current-and-future-generation/molten-salt-reactors#other-solid--or-fixed-fuel-types

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Aug 2024 12:36:19 UTC No. 16321251

>>16318852
i think it's a natural consequence of years of cheap capital due low interest rates

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:08:43 UTC No. 16321288

Nuclear powerplant would have bigger output if you use tourbine to directly power heatpump compressor.

Why not?

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Aug 2024 13:11:33 UTC No. 16321293

>>16301496
>Atomic Energy General #2
The so called nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were complete frauds, the aftermath has more in common with a coonventional and fire bombing campaign and the nuclear signature was more consistent with reactor waste sprinked dirty bombs.

Anonymous at Mon, 12 Aug 2024 20:26:14 UTC No. 16322043

>>16318852
Near Zero interest rates and investors not always being the most thoughtful, so they throw easy money at 10x speculation bets

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 00:50:46 UTC No. 16322549

>>16321288
You wouldn't be able to get more electricity out of it but I guess it could work if your just trying to get a bunch of low temperature heat and no electricity for some reason

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 05:57:46 UTC No. 16322921

>>16322549
How I come there would be no electricity if I used coolant and heat it by heatpumping to over 100degree celsius? Heat pumps can go even in that way, and they have effectivity over 400%.

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 06:09:01 UTC No. 16322930

>>16322549
It's not closed system. Therefore even if you have heatpump connected to itself it doesn't violate laws of thermodynamics.

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:14:44 UTC No. 16323560

>>16321288
What? You mean like a Brayton cycle?

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:22:28 UTC No. 16323570

>>16323560
Not exactly, just from compression you get heat, you use coolant that has 30degree celsius boiling point, to power tourbine.

Where compression happens is separated by different coolants, you can use something else, then when you cool it by coolant that goes into turbine, you expand it.

Meanwhile in tourbine power is generated, it's consumed by the compressor, but tourbine can yield like 60% effectivity, while compressor can pump 4 times more heat, than joules consumed.

Practically you'd cool air/ground/water, to obtain rotary motion you can use for dynamo.

After I finish my current project maybe I'll create diagram of it, so somebody could simulate.

It's not magic, it doesn't work well in winter, but somehow when air is around room temperature it could be enough to power appliances of common person, including datacenters they use.

Kek at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 16:28:01 UTC No. 16323578

This isn't a meant to happen thing, fags. It was arranged un-neatly.

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:09:35 UTC No. 16323957

>>16323570
I'm interested in the diagram

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 20:19:03 UTC No. 16323973

Dumb question i only found retarded answers about on reddit:
Why is the LHC so fucking deep underground (around 100m)?
>potential dangers by experiments going wrong black mesa style - i doubt it
>Trying to avoid getting the permissions by surrounding property owners/villages because of underground penetration by swiss/french law - is 100m not a little too much for that?
>Digging deep down so you can keep the whole thing straight without the problems of earth curvature - i really dont think we need to dig 100m down to accomplish that

Whats the real reason?

Anonymous at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 22:28:41 UTC No. 16324156

>>16301496
The future is now.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gAafujsox_8

Anonymous at Wed, 14 Aug 2024 01:07:07 UTC No. 16324404

>>16322930
you would be harvesting heat from the environment and "upgrading" it to be slightly warm. If the reactor is 33% efficient at driving the pump but the heat pump its driving has COP of 4 you could provide more heat than the reactor is producing at low temperatures

Anonymous at Wed, 14 Aug 2024 06:15:39 UTC No. 16324712

>>16323973
idk perhaps the rock is more solid at that depth and tunneling is easier.

Anonymous at Wed, 14 Aug 2024 06:50:40 UTC No. 16324752

>>16317024
Are you referring to Natrium or the molten chloride reactor? I think Natrium is kind of a shitty design.
>>16318354
TRISO is a shitty fuel type and any reactor that uses it is not economic.

Anonymous at Wed, 14 Aug 2024 08:17:19 UTC No. 16324825

>>16323957
This is not nuclear version, in nuclear version you power compressor by nuclear steam tourbine not the heat one.

But assuming COP of heatpump can be up to 4 or 5, and heat tourbine with proper coolant get atleast 50% it runs until heat is too low, that it compresser wouldn't be enough to boil coolant #2.

In nuclear version starter is common nuclear tourbine.

Anonymous at Wed, 14 Aug 2024 09:25:54 UTC No. 16324914

>>16324825
I've got OCD moment, so here it is corrected.

Anonymous at Wed, 14 Aug 2024 09:47:26 UTC No. 16324939

>>16324914
Maybe another heatpump powered by tourbine attached to condenser would increase net flow of energy therefore you'd get more power.

Anonymous at Wed, 14 Aug 2024 09:52:22 UTC No. 16324945

>>16324404
It would get some dietyl or dimethyl ether boiling, or some coolant gas, therefore it could be converted back to mechanical.

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Aug 2024 01:38:42 UTC No. 16326200

>>16322921
the temprature the heat pump would be outputting would be low, if you go too high the COP drops fast and that "400% efficiency" goes out the window. Colder temperature means the efficiency of converting it back to mechanical will suck enough to offset the advantage of the heat pump. If you want some thermal black magic, what about using low quality geothermal heat to preheat steam for steam turbines.

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:47:30 UTC No. 16326362

>>16326200
I don't need high temperature for high pressure.

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Aug 2024 05:56:17 UTC No. 16326379

>>16326362
? I was more thinking you use low temperature geothermal heat to preheat water before raising it to full temperature in the reactor, so it can utilize cheap geothermal heat but with the efficiency of a proper thermal power plant. Sort of like what >>16312134 was talking about but with the reactor being the hot end instead

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Aug 2024 06:00:56 UTC No. 16326388

>>16326362
I think im retarded and diden't read your question right, what is the pressure doing? I am still kinda confused what your doing so the heat pump raises efficiency

Anonymous at Thu, 15 Aug 2024 11:01:59 UTC No. 16326738

>>16326379
Well, if you need less kilojoules to heat it to 900C, you get less power output once you harvest temperature gradient. Maybe all you need is something with boiling point of -30 or + 30 celsius and not to care much about overheating steam.

>>16326388
It's that there is bigger flow of energy, it's more important than temperature. Temperature can be low, but if we have pressurized and boiling diethyl ether, we can at 30 degrees be at what with water is possible on 100 degrees, and that's converting gradient to mechanical energy. It's higher energy, less temperature.

Anonymous at Fri, 16 Aug 2024 04:22:01 UTC No. 16328472

>>16301496
what is the status of research into muon induced low temperature fusion?

Anonymous at Fri, 16 Aug 2024 08:50:31 UTC No. 16328725

>>16328472
What about metal-hydride(deutrid) lattice fusion?

I've seen some NASA paper then when titanium deutride is smashed by free electron laser it became radiactive(maybe tricium output)

Anonymous at Fri, 16 Aug 2024 11:40:08 UTC No. 16328834

>>16328472
>>16328725
Still just a physics demo that probably can't produce net power but it seems like a neat neutron source

Anonymous at Fri, 16 Aug 2024 11:45:43 UTC No. 16328840

>>16328834
Nickel 63 mass production could spring of that. And betavoltaic batteries can advance drone warefare very much.

Anonymous at Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:51:26 UTC No. 16329039

>>16324156
Excitement new

Anonymous at Fri, 16 Aug 2024 14:55:55 UTC No. 16329047

>>16324156
You can nucleary power ethanol, get carbon from carbon capture and you don't have to change all the cars.

Literally 10year old cars now aren't bad or something.

Do you think you'll make entire population to switch cars for fuel? That's degenerate, better to make ethanol, even from coal if you can't carbon capture, and that's it.

Hydrogen is somehow more dangerous.

Anonymous at Sat, 17 Aug 2024 00:24:20 UTC No. 16329779

>>16329047
esearch has been proceeding to develop a line of automation products that establishes new standards for quality, technological leadership, and operating excellence, work has been proceeding on the crudely conceived idea of an instrument that would not only provide inverse reactive current, for use in unilateral phase detractors, but would also be capable of automatically synchronizing cardinal grammeters. Such an instrument comprised of Dodge gears and bearings Reliance Electric motors and Allen-Bradley controls