Yes at QPR (1975) watch online (quality HD 720p)
We offer you to watch the movie Yes at QPR (1975), which you can enjoy in the arms of a loved one. This film is in HD quality. Less words, more movies! Watch and enjoy!
The western environmentalists would rather we continue burning coal and building windmills than talk about real solutions. Most places, natural gas costs a lot more, and so pays government a lot more, per joule than coal. But, then, they hate fracking too. DDupuis Why would you make a comment like this?
We like wind and sun because no other energy production offers clean, abundant energy. No enviro-conscious individual would consider this bad news. Dennis Ray Williams Molten salt is used instead of water in the reactor making it much safer, salt cools and solidifies instead of leaking into the sea as in Japan right now and no way to stop it. Also the thorium is very abundant, much much more than 3X uranium, cheap and easy to acquire.
JFK was very interested in Molten Salt Thorium Reactors and pushed development but lesser brains cancelled it later after he was assassinated. DDupuis Very cool Dennis. Ike Bottema It is! But really the exciting part is the MSR. However thorium itself is not fissile and must be converted to Uranium In any case, an MSR can burn all types of fissile matter! Naturally-occuring uranium can also be used as a fuel. So can any plutonium remaining from nuclear weapons.
Also all that spent nuclear fuel that some wanted to bury at Yucca mountain can be burned in an MSR. All types of fuel used would be burned much more completely leaving radioactive waste that would a be rendered harmless within centuries rather than the current millennia and b far less in quantity. All this, while being much safer. By that, I mean that should an accident occur, the physics are such that fission will cease, no high-pressure release of radioactive materials is possible, and any additional heat would be dispersed passively i.
In addition, the fuel is water insoluble thus could not be dispersed by ground-water for example. Bongstar I believe a dirty MSR must be Thorium based if you wish to actually make better than break even on power output.
Dirty meaning more long-live products left behind? One does not follow from the other. Actually when the U fissions, 2. Bongstar Dirty…Like actual dirt thown into the reactor. Uranium cycles require very high refinement of feed stocks and become poisoned quickly impurities stop operation. Some Thorium is burnable as unrefined sand, though not most efficiently.
Thorium burns fissions with much more crap floating around at a lower concentration.. Probably due to its neuron yield like you mentioned. Well Thorium does have to be converted to U before fusion occurs. Michael Mann Did you mean Fission not fusion? Ike Bottema Yes of course I meant fission, sorry. Did I really say that out loud? Byron Liveoak To be pedantic, you typed it to the internet.
Unless you read it out-loud at some point, in which case, yes, yes, you did.
Ike Bottema OK then, you got me on my rather feeble attempt to cover my mistake with some humour. Thorium is not fissionable.
The reactor needs to breed uranium It has to have sufficient fissionables, meaning U, U, or Pu For example the Thorcon and IMSR reactors have the U dissolved with the salts and the let is circulated from the graphite moderated part of the reactor where criticality is achieved, thru a heat exchanger which transfers heat to a second salt loop which is not radioactive.
The Moltex design however has the U dissolved in a salt solution within a fuel pin, pins assembled into bundles and a number of bundles form a module, a number of which are lowered into a salt coolant solution where criticality is achieved without moderators i.
All this to say that there are different ways to make an MSR. LFTR is yet another design that is intended to use a blanket salt with Th dissolved so as to breed U which is then introduced to the inner containment where fission criticality is achieved. AuldLochinvar Strictly speaking, the entire molten fluid of actinide ions, fluoride ions, and alkali metal or beryllium ions is not just the coolant, it is both the fuel and the working fluid.
Van Snyder The same degree of safety, based upon immutable laws of thermodynamics, physics, and materials — not clever engineering of complicated safety systems and software or heroic actions by operators — was demonstrated at EBR-II near Arco, Idaho in Ike Bottema There is some amount of reticence towards the use of metallic sodium. The fear of leaks such that the sodium comes in contact with water is reasonable it seems to me.
Yes: Live – 1975 at Q.P.R. - Wikipedia
Leaks happen and in the case of sodium such a leak might not be pretty. Van Snyder This fear is only rational if you believe 1 the engineers and scients at Argonne and INEEL are too stupid to have thought of it, or 2 they thought of it, but are too heartless to care. The reactor vessel at EBR-II had a double shell so the gap could be inspected for sodium leaks none happened.
All LMFBR designs have primary and secondary cooling loops, precisely to prevent the primary cooling loop from having an opportunity to come into contact with water.
Even if there were a leak from the secondary loop into the steam generator, or from the steam generator into the secondary loop, the secondary loop and indeed the primary loop could be shut down without consequence. There seems to be no end to the invention of fabulous objections, none of which are physically credible.
One should become knowledgeable before objecting to something about which one is ignorant. Their big concern is the difficulty of preventing leaks around components like pumps. Freeze plug allowed to melt on Fri. Read Kirk Sorensons interview.
Attention Required! | Cloudflare
Sorry to correct but with a screen name called Pro-Thorium we want to make sure your information is impeccable. Alvin Weinberg director of project. Van Snyder UF6 is a gas that evolved from the fuel, getting into everything, making cleanup after the experiment was shut down more expensive than building and running the experiment.
Others have disputed claims that corrosion problems were solved. Fluoride salts are terrible stuff. Marcelo Pacheco Except we can do simpler non breeder DMSRs that will achieve 4x LWR burnup and 6x energy per ton of mined Uranium without the regulatory challenges associated with Nuclear Fuel reprocessing, and without the risks associated with Sodium coolant.
Water is an excellent moderator, so if the concentration gets too high, you get criticality accidents. It also extracts only plutonium and uranium, leaving other actinides in the waste stream. The other actinides are what make waste a , year problem. Fission products, about 1 tonne per GWe-year, are a year problem, easily solved with glass, concrete, and either deep places in the oceans, or depleted oil wells. The primary device, the electrorefiner, is about the size of a dishwasher. Argonne has put forward a proposal for a pilot plant to process tonnes per year.
It would occupy 40 acres. This process provides a nearly-complete separation of fission products from actinides. An all-electric American energy economy would need about GW capacity, and would therefore produce about tonnes of fission products needing special custody for more than 30 years. Marcelo Pacheco Traditional reprocessing is an inefficient process for sure. When I talk about reprocessing, it usually means pyro reprocessing. But MSRs achieve much higher burnups per cycle than Sodium FBR due to the fuel being dissolved with the core coolant and fission gas sparging online removal of Xe and Kr.
And if reprocessing is needed, the fuel is already fluorinated pyro reprocessing uses fuel in Fluorinated form , and batches of fuel with proportional doses of core fluid can be removed and reprocessed without shutdown.
There are even fast and epithermal MSR designs tuned for higher plutonium and actinide burnup. We need to do something quickly to eliminate CO2 emissions, and consume used LWR fuel and weapons-productions waste. If the patient is critical and you open two boxes and one contains bandages, antiseptics, antibiotics, sutures, hemostats, scalpels, … and the other contains some vague instructions, which box would you use first? Marcelo Pacheco Then by all means get those reactors to market.
Just like you said, certification is perhaps the biggest problems. Reprocessing helps, but not mandatory. Cs and Sr oxides tend to boil if meltdown happens, Cs and Sr Fluorides have very high boiling temps. The MSRE experiment ran for hours.
Safety comes from basic principles such as chemical characterists of all materials involved. Negative temperature and negative void coefficients. No argon gas layer required for certification. Once it is proven that fission products can economically be separated from unused fuel, there will be incentive to build reactors that can use the fuel, rather than arguing it ought to be stored for , years.
Van Snyder Like the toxicity of oleander leaves, dangers of sodium fires are greatly exaggerated. Sodium does burn spontaneously in air, but only slowly, and nothing like the explosive reaction with water. During the last forty years, since Clinch River was canceled because of imaginary concerns about sodium, industry has learned to use liquid sodium in a great many processes, without significant safety problems. Safety of EBR-II also came from basic principles of thermodynamics, physics, and materials science, not from clever engineering of complex safety systems or computer control algorithms, dependence upon heroic actions by operators, or hefty containment structures.
It was demonstrated to be passively safe, to an invited international audience, in Van Snyder Pyroprocessing uses chlorine salts, not fluorine salts.
Van Snyder The pyroprocessor proper in the tonne per year plant would be 2x2x4 yards. Nuclear power is short of uranium in just ten years, according to the IAEA and others. Thorium reactors also need uranium to start up even so often. Solar, wind and renewable are cheaper, with infinite free distributed fuel.