3 ms·

The problem with fusion is that in the form accessible to us here on Earth (deuterium-tritium), it still creates radioactive waste. It is not the sort of long l

by hetman 13y ago

The problem with fusion is that in the form accessible to us here on Earth (deuterium-tritium), it still creates radioactive waste. It is not the sort of long lived waste you would see from Uranium based nuclear fission, it is more comparable to Thorium based fission reactors. In other words we already have a pretty decent alternative. The real holy grail would be Hellium 3 fusion, but first we have to figure out how to import the fuel back to Earth from places like the surface of the Moon or from Jupiter.

sillysaurus 13y ago
Interesting. The moon has Helium 3, but the Earth doesn't?
- welterde 13y ago
  It does, but only in rather small quantities. In fact it seems that most He-3 that's used is produced in Tritium decay reactions rather than extracted.
sneak 13y ago
> first we have to figure out how to import the fuel back to Earth from places like the surface of the Moon All we need is a psycho korean holding company and Sam Rockwell and we should be good. (See "Moon" if you haven't. It's amazingly excellent.)
rfvtgb123 13y ago
There are no working reactors (not even tested designs) that harness the potential of thorium. Experimental plants have had serious problems (edit:)and low power generation from thorium (see for example THTR-300 in germany; beware of the english wikipedia page, it is incomplete). So... come up with a safe design for a thorium reactor? (Edit2:) Until then, you might as well say fusion. Anyway, none of this is a reason to keep classic LWRs going.
- dsego 13y ago
  What about the liquid fluoride thorium reactors? There's been some hype about these recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI
  - rfvtgb123 13y ago
    This is just molten salt reactors all over again. They have disastrous security problems. Basically the salt eats away metal parts of the reactor, the graphite moderators are flammable and large parts of the reactor become radioactive because they catch neutrons which makes repair, maintenance and deconstruction almost impossible. (edit:) I forgot about loss of fuel solubility events and the unsolved problem of tritium retention. (edit:) It's interesting how the english wikipedia pages miss all the details on the failed projects in this field.
    - dsego 13y ago
      Strange, Kirk Sorensen (the guy in the video) seems very sure that these are much safer then any other alternatives. They don't have to be pressurised and water-cooled. Instead there's passive security with a frozen plug and a drain tank. Here's a longer documentary with lots of details (about 2 hours) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HEijtqF5I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HEijtqF5I
      - rfvtgb123 13y ago
        Yeah, I'm sure someone trying to make money off this is trustworthy http://flibe-energy.com/?page_id=87 http://flibe-energy.com/?page_id=87
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]

by hetman 13y ago

sillysaurus 13y ago

Interesting. The moon has Helium 3, but the Earth doesn't?

welterde 13y ago
It does, but only in rather small quantities. In fact it seems that most He-3 that's used is produced in Tritium decay reactions rather than extracted.

sneak 13y ago

> first we have to figure out how to import the fuel back to Earth from places like the surface of the Moon All we need is a psycho korean holding company and Sam Rockwell and we should be good. (See "Moon" if you haven't. It's amazingly excellent.)

rfvtgb123 13y ago

There are no working reactors (not even tested designs) that harness the potential of thorium. Experimental plants have had serious problems (edit:)and low power generation from thorium (see for example THTR-300 in germany; beware of the english wikipedia page, it is incomplete). So... come up with a safe design for a thorium reactor? (Edit2:) Until then, you might as well say fusion. Anyway, none of this is a reason to keep classic LWRs going.

dsego 13y ago
What about the liquid fluoride thorium reactors? There's been some hype about these recently: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbyr7jZOllI
- rfvtgb123 13y ago
  This is just molten salt reactors all over again. They have disastrous security problems. Basically the salt eats away metal parts of the reactor, the graphite moderators are flammable and large parts of the reactor become radioactive because they catch neutrons which makes repair, maintenance and deconstruction almost impossible. (edit:) I forgot about loss of fuel solubility events and the unsolved problem of tritium retention. (edit:) It's interesting how the english wikipedia pages miss all the details on the failed projects in this field.
  - dsego 13y ago
    Strange, Kirk Sorensen (the guy in the video) seems very sure that these are much safer then any other alternatives. They don't have to be pressurised and water-cooled. Instead there's passive security with a frozen plug and a drain tank. Here's a longer documentary with lots of details (about 2 hours) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HEijtqF5I http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31HEijtqF5I
    - rfvtgb123 13y ago
      Yeah, I'm sure someone trying to make money off this is trustworthy http://flibe-energy.com/?page_id=87 http://flibe-energy.com/?page_id=87
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]