Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

American teenager designs compact nuclear reactor

page: 5
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 06:44 PM
link   
Build your own..





posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:50 PM
link   
Honestly this is nothing new. Well, at least the idea is nothing new. I don't know if anyone has ever built one, although if so, it was probably the military who did it first. The military however usually focuses on things that can be weaponized, so they probably had no interest in this, otherwise we probably would have heard of it by now. I just don't see this being used as or in any kind of weapon. Unfortunately what usually happens with the US military, or government agencies, is that they somehow get the rights to patented technologies, whether they buy them, or who knows what else, and then they either develop the ideas or they don't.

If they don't, that is the last you hear about them. Oil companies have probably done this in the past as well towards products that will hurt their profits. They simply get the rights so no one else can build the things, despite the fact that the technology would better humanity as a whole. The benefits are endless. It just is not right, and I would hate to see what they would do to someone who would not sell them the patents to new technologies that would kill their bottom line. When there is potentially billions of dollars in lost revenue at stake, murder suddenly becomes feasible.

And then there are the technologies that would not necessarily hurt profits, but rather would not produce such large profits. This is the other motivation for buying and then shelving certain newly develop technologies and ideas. Just sickening. This idea however is something that would work. As I said, it has been known for probably decades. It is actually quite astonishing the level of advanced technologies that were developed in the decade after WWII. I mean really advanced stuff, even weapons like jet fighters and propulsion systems. If you look back, I am talking a giant leap from pre WWII, and even WWII era tech, to stuff that was not even feasible at those times.

And then, developments slowed to a trickle. There were still many developments, but they should have come at a much quicker rate, as that is usually the way technology progresses. It is more exponential than linear from what I understand and have seen. So this could be more proof of the government and corporations buying up and hiding technologies that either could be weaponized or that could benefit mankind but hurt their pocketbooks.

So let's say this kid rediscovered this technology. Who has the patent for it? Can it be patented? I'm sure it can. So will he sell out to those who come offering him millions for the patent, with the condition that he keep his mouth shut, which I can assure you will be part of the deal? This must not be patentable as a technology, because it would have been done already. Once a prototype is built however, then it will likely be patentable. There is nothing to stop this from being developed except large corporations, the government, and funding. I really do not think funding should be a problem for this person, considering the notoriety he has received thus far.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 07:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BrianG
Hmm a real life Tony Stark




I

LOVE

IT ~!!! Star~!!!!!



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:04 PM
link   
reply to post by purplemer
 





Maybe one day we will see small reactors powering homes and alike


I think..

this was actually an idea way back in the mid 50's and early 60's ...they even had ideas, although scary as it was, to have nuke powered cars LOL.. and as far I I remember.. there was a working prototype........yea...scary to say the least .. but,



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 08:57 PM
link   
reply to post by puncheex
 


(BTW, we're probably annoying those around us by going so far off topic. If you want to pursue this, please open a new thread or use one of the existing threads on nuclear power. Let us know where it is, and I'll meet you there.)

Why bother. You're a proponent of nuclear power. Nothing will convince you. Any argument is met with:

Off topic and not a valid argument. (Nice dodge)

Who's "us"?



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Komodo
 

Heres a prototype for jet engines...

Nuclear nonsense



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by purplemer
reply to post by Chrisfishenstein
 


I agree but I can not see us reducing our dependency on energy. I think a better alternative would be to turn off the power for an couple of hours a day apart from vital services or reduce our level of consumerism. That does not look like it is going to happen anytime soon.

Here in the UK we may well have an energy crisis within three years. Alternative energy methods are on the increase but we are still short What can we do about that. Build more coal powered stations to pollute the atmosphere and worsen global warming.

No magic fairy is going to wave a wand. We need to do something until we have fussion reactors up and running on a commercial scale and that is a way off yet. I would rather see these things dotted around than full scale nuclear reactors.


The answer is simple.

Build solar and mini wind turbines onto every existing home, completely cover the roof of every new home and every available roof space there is. The manufacturing could be done domestically, creating tens of thousands or more new jobs and revive the UK economy and provide a massive boost to the manufacturing and engineering industries, who would also be following up on the new battery technologies (super, super capacitors, as discussed on ATS recently) for massively more efficient storage and supply of the captured energy, than lead acid batteries provide today.

Aim for 3kW - 5kW for every home directly to come from the panels and turbines, which should be plenty for most average homes, with any excess being fed into the grid, which can be utilised by industry / fed into community based electric vehicle charging points, or for agricultural use.

It would enable energy for the 100's of 1000's of pensioners and others in 'energy poverty', who can't afford to heat their homes properly.

The cost would be large, but the benefits to our economy, way of life and future prospects would be larger.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phage
reply to post by TheComte
 


There is no "spent fuel" because you leave the fuel in the reactor until it is all used up. There is no radioactivity left.

No.

The products of nuclear fission include 235U and 239PU. Both radioactive but not fissionable.

Once the amount of fissionable fuel falls below critical mass the chain reaction stops and no power is produced. But there is still radioactive material remaining.

Normally inert materials (including the body of the reactor itself) become radioactive through neutron bombardment.

edit on 3/1/2013 by Phage because: (no reason given)


Good then, we can just take the remaining Plutonium 239, use it for fueling nuclear batteries that last for 87 years apiece (as used by Curiosity rover), and carry on the energy party.

Easy to turn a negative into a positive if you think about it isn't it..two power sources for the price of one.

In fact, the kid's reactors could be thought of as first an energy source, that provides energy for 30 years from problem waste currently being encased in concrete and dumped, while creating the fuel that will go on to provide energy for another 87 years in the form of nuclear batteries.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Why are you being a clown? You said they never had one of these operating and that is 100% a false statement. Why can't you admit you don't know squat about it? Your denials that this technology is practical borders on delusional. Many countries are developing these as you sit here and argue about it. But hey, believe what you want.


Originally posted by intrptr

Sorry dude.


You apologized to me and I accepted. I don't know what you were apologizing for. Probably for being an ass.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 11:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by puncheex
 


(BTW, we're probably annoying those around us by going so far off topic. If you want to pursue this, please open a new thread or use one of the existing threads on nuclear power. Let us know where it is, and I'll meet you there.)

Why bother. You're a proponent of nuclear power. Nothing will convince you. Any argument is met with:

Off topic and not a valid argument. (Nice dodge)

Who's "us"?



*sigh*. I've typed pages here addressing waste, safety, practicalities, fuel (did I mention that thorium is 4x more abundant than uranium of all kinds?) and economics. You've contributed a one liner about sustainable sources (which, as it happens, I also support and actually use in a rural setting), and a whimsical breakdown of the word nuclear which frankly left me baffled. Apparently you consider that a discussion about nuclear power's appropriateness. You're probably right about convincing me, but it's not about me, is it, but all these other readers, right? "Us" means those readers.

So - tell me why I'm wrong. I'm new unclear.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 11:16 PM
link   
reply to post by puncheex
 


There are always people like that. He'd probably tell the Wright brothers that their crazy contraption has no chance, no chance, of leaving the ground.



posted on Mar, 2 2013 @ 11:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheComte
This is a molten salt reactor. It is old technology, from the 50s. There is no "spent fuel" because you leave the fuel in the reactor until it is all used up.


In practice, this means that there is a large amount of intensely radioactive waste in a LIQUID form which is highly water soluble. Every nuclear plant has to be a reprocessing plant handling *liquid* radioactivity, and of course nobody can go inside for 50 years. And there will be leaks. Everything eventually leaks.



There is no radioactivity left.


There's plenty of radioactivity left, but perhaps less long-lived actinides



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 12:15 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


Yes, I acknowledge I was way too simplistic there. My bad.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 

Flattery will get you nowhere. Name calling might get you banned. Just so you know...

It wasn't an apology. Like "thanks for the insult" isn't gratitude.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:49 AM
link   
reply to post by puncheex
 


So - tell me why I'm wrong. I'm new unclear.



Not "wrong". The "New Clear" came from the (way back) senate hearing introducing the idea of nuclear power as a new and "clear as a glass of water" power source. The same dog and pony show you play now. "Nuclear power is okay, we're making it better. We have "new" nuclear power."

Tell it to the kiddies. They're young, they'll believe you.


Then lets take some spent fuel, enrich it and make pretty fireworks that do this...


Statue of a buddha melted at Hiroshima. Bronze melts at 1700 degrees.

Theres all kind of uses for nuclear fuel once its been exposed and depleted. Depleted Uranium penetrators...

DU

Now tell me (again) that Thorium reactors are different better and new. I'll remind you of the technology infrastructure already in place that feeds the Industrial military complex and will not change over to some less profitable, undeveloped, non military application pipe dream.

Personally I think the rhetoric is just to put people back to sleep and then restart the Uranium fueled nuclear power industry. Their popularity did take a hit after Fukushima.

If it had been viable, they would already be operating along side the water boilers. But not.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 01:52 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 



Yes, I acknowledge I was way too simplistic there. My bad.

I guess thats as close to an admission of error as we'll get.
Probably because you already knew that. You were just kidding us, right?



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:07 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


And where is your admission of error? Not forthcoming I imagine. People like you can never admit they're wrong.

Tell us you're kidding about continuing to mistake an MSR with the old style reactors that can melt down? Please, tell us you're kidding. Your line of reasoning is completely off point. Please tell us one reason why an MSR is not better than than current reactors so we can refute you point by point. Even the great Phage has not deemed to re-enter the thread.

Hey, King of Rock, you're out of your depth!


edit on 3-3-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by TheComte
 

Already been done.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

You said, "my bad" to that post.

I'm out.



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:33 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Well, that's good that you're done. Because you have nothing to add that will help your case.

You don't have to go in. You can have a sealed container, that has enough fuel for the life of the reactor. And when it's done, you store the liquid like you do now, only for a fraction of the time.

Advantages to the MSR:


Inherently safe design (safety by passive components and the strong negative temperature coefficient of reactivity of some designs).

Using an abundant supply of thorium to breed uranium-233 fuel.

Much cleaner: as a full recycle system, the discharge wastes from the reactor are predominately fission products, most of which have relatively short half lives compared to longer-lived actinide wastes. This can result in a significant reduction in the containment period in a geologic repository (300 years vs. tens of thousands of years).

The fuel's liquid phase not only allows for fission products to be separated easily from the fuel, but also from each other, which allows for some of the potentially useful fission products to be collected and sold.

There is no need for fuel rod manufacturing

Since the reactor operates at atmospheric pressure, there is no need for a pressure vessel

Can "burn" some problematic radioactive waste (with transuranic elements from traditional solid-fuel nuclear reactors). Possible even in small, even 2–8 MWth or 1–3 MWe. Submarine or aircraft size is possible.

Can react to load changes in less than 60 seconds (unlike "traditional" solid-fuel nuclear power plants).


And your disadvantages are?



edit on 3-3-2013 by TheComte because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 3 2013 @ 02:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mbkennel
 


The waste from a LFTR is not liquid at normal temperatures, and the fluorides of fission products are not water soluble.





new topics

top topics



 
31
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join