Jump to content
Please support this forum by joining the SH Patreon ×
Sturgeon's House

T___A

Moderators
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    2,783

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    15

 Content Type 

Posts posted by T___A

  1. Random Nuclear Stuff

    in Dr. Strangelove's Nuclear Palace

    Posted

    A bit more from that guy:

     

    Ok so I'm a nuclear engineer (specializing in advanced reactor design). Thorium nuclear fuel is really cool for a lot of reasons. But there are a lot of clarifications I like to make when discussions about this stuff come up. I find that the Thorium Evangelical Internet Community spreads a lot of questionable information while advertising their fuel. I get it... they're trying to rebrand nuclear energy to get away from the negative implications. Maybe they're right to. But in my opinion, nuclear energy is what's awesome and Thorium is but one of many options that we have that are totally sweet.

    The thing I want you all to know is that there are literally thousands of nuclear reactor design options based on different combinations of coolant (water, gas, sodium, salt, CO2, lead, etc.), fuel form (uranium oxide, uranium metal, thorium oxide, thorium metal, thorium nitride, TRISO, pebble bed, aqueous, molten salt, etc. etc.), power level (small modular, large, medium), and about a dozen other parameters. We really only have 1 kind in commercial operation (uranium oxide fueled, pressurized water cooled reactors) and it has a lot of disadvantages over some of the other possibilities. Among all these options, there are a whole bunch of combinations that give performance far superior to the traditional reactors in terms of cost, safety, proliferation, waste, and sustainability. Thorium-based ideas are among them, but Thorium isn't some new thing held back by conspiracy.

    The key advantage of Thorium over all other things is that it uniquely allows you to make a breeder reactor in a thermal neutron spectrum. This advantage is subtle and fairly minor compared to the advantages that it shares with uranium fuel in advanced reactors.

    Anyway, this video brings up two of the clarifications I like to mention:

    Clarification 1: Lots of reactor concepts operate at low coolant pressure and can be passively safe

    The first part of this video discusses why high pressure coolant is a problem in decay heat removal. This is true! But, there's nothing Thorium-specific about the ability to operate with low-pressure coolant. That's a function of which coolant you choose (not fuel). For instance, sodium-cooled fast reactors operate at low pressure and the sodium-cooled EBR-II reactor in Idaho was the first and only reactor to demonstrate the ability to survive unprotected transients (meaning the control rods didn't even go in!!) This is incredible safety and is great. Other reactors that can do passive decay heat removal include:

    • Salt-cooled, solid fueled reactors like the FHR
    • Lead-cooled reactors
    • Lots of other Molten Salt Reactors, including Uranium-fueled ones (The Thorium-fueled MSR is just one kind of MSR).

    Clarification 2: FYI, there are also non-Thorium breeder reactors

    Kirk says this at 2:51:

    "We could use thorium about 200 more efficiently than we're using uranium now"

    Ugh. This statement is technically accurate. But it's totally misleading in this context. Any breeder reactor can get ~200x more energy out of its fuel, whether it's Uranium-Plutonium in a fast breeder reactor or Thorium-Uranium in a thermal molten salt reactor (MSR). So nuclear power is awesome! In the USA, the Dept. of Energy spent like infinity money trying to commercialize a uranium-plutonium breeder reactor that eventually got canceled.

    Using any kind of breeder reactors, we will not be running out of Uranium or Thorium any time soon.

    I've argued these points and others a bunch of times. I've even published a Thorium Myths page on my webpage. I even made /r/subredditdrama when one guy and myself argued 90 comments deep into a thread. I think I did fairly well but if you want to check it out here's the link to that thread and the subredditdrama discussion about it.

    I just really wish these folks would promote advanced nuclear in general instead of just focusing on one aspect of it. Maybe I'm just complaining about a reality of marketing.

     

    His Website please add to the list of websites.

     

    Awesome page on Thorium.

  9. Random Nuclear Stuff

    in Dr. Strangelove's Nuclear Palace

    Posted

     

    Oooh man. Here we go again. Ok so I'm a nuclear engineer (specializing in advanced reactor design). Thorium nuclear fuel is really cool for a lot of reasons. But there are a lot of clarifications I like to make when discussions about this stuff come up. I find that the Thorium Evangelical Internet Community spreads a lot of questionable information while advertising their fuel. I get it... they're trying to rebrand nuclear energy to get away from the negative implications. Maybe they're right to. But in my opinion, nuclear energy is what's awesome and Thorium is but one of many options that we have that are totally sweet.

    The thing I want you all to know is that there are literally thousands of nuclear reactor design options based on different combinations of coolant (water, gas, sodium, salt, CO2, lead, etc.), fuel form (uranium oxide, uranium metal, thorium oxide, thorium metal, thorium nitride, TRISO, pebble bed, aqueous, molten salt, etc. etc.), power level (small modular, large, medium), and about a dozen other parameters. We really only have 1 kind in commercial operation (uranium oxide fueled, pressurized water cooled reactors) and it has a lot of disadvantages over some of the other possibilities.

    Among all these options, there are a whole bunch of combinations that give performance far superior to the traditional reactors in terms of cost, safety, proliferation, waste, and sustainability. Thorium-based ideas are among them, but Thorium isn't some new thing held back by conspiracy.

    The key advantage of Thorium over all other things is that it uniquely allows you to make a breeder reactor in a thermal neutron spectrum. This advantage is subtle and fairly minor compared to the advantages that it shares with uranium fuel in advanced reactors. Anyway, this video brings up two of the clarifications I like to mention:

    Clarification 1: Lots of reactor concepts operate at low coolant pressure and can be passively safe The first part of this video discusses why high pressure coolant is a problem in decay heat removal. This is true! But, there's nothing Thorium-specific about the ability to operate with low-pressure coolant. That's a function of which coolant you choose (not fuel).

    For instance, sodium-cooled fast reactors operate at low pressure and the sodium-cooled EBR-II reactor in Idaho was the first and only reactor to demonstrate the ability to survive unprotected transients (meaning the control rods didn't even go in!!) This is incredible safety and is great.

    Other reactors that can do passive decay heat removal include: Salt-cooled, solid fueled reactors like the FHR Lead-cooled reactors Lots of other Molten Salt Reactors, including Uranium-fueled ones (The Thorium-fueled MSR is just one kind of MSR).

    Clarification 2: FYI, there are also non-Thorium breeder reactors Kirk says this at 2:51: "We could use thorium about 200 more efficiently than we're using uranium now"Ugh. This statement is technically accurate. But it's totally misleading in this context. Any breeder reactor can get ~200x more energy out of its fuel, whether it's Uranium-Plutonium in a fast breeder reactor or Thorium-Uranium in a thermal molten salt reactor (MSR). So nuclear power is awesome! In the USA, the Dept. of Energy spent like infinity money trying to commercialize a uranium-plutonium breeder reactor that eventually got canceled. Using any kind of breeder reactors, we will not be running out of Uranium or Thorium any time soon.

    I've argued these points and others a bunch of times. I've even published a Thorium Myths page on my webpage. I even made
    when one guy and myself argued 90 comments deep into a thread. I think I did fairly well but if you want to check it out here's the link to that thread and the subredditdrama discussion about it. I just really wish these folks would promote advanced nuclear in general instead of just focusing on one aspect of it. Maybe I'm just complaining about a reality of marketing.

    EDIT: expanded acronyms

  12. T92 Light Tank Video

    in Mechanized Warfare

    Posted

    And at 24 tonnes, object 416 was only a smidge heavier than the M41 that T92 was supposed to replace.  By Western standards it would have been a light tank or a tank destroyer.

     

     

    While a few years older I think the PT-85/90 is a better comparison as they have the same roles. Still, the PT-85/90 packed a serious punch.

  14. Historical Pictures Thread

    in History, Culture, and Archaeology

    Posted

    Vasily Blokhin the most prolific executioner in history, believed to have killed anywhere from 20,000 to 50,000 people during his time as chief executioner of the Stalinist regime. With a Walther PP he personally executed 7,000 people in 29 days during the Katyn Massacre. Some of his victims include Mikhail Tukhachevsky, Genrikh Yagoda, Nikolai Yezhov, Isaac Babel, and Nikolai Bukharin.

    YcSakKc.jpg

  21. Obsolete American Accents

    in History, Culture, and Archaeology

    Posted

    Analysis of the  speaking patterns of early 1900s presidents from reddit:

     

    This is great! Some observations:

    • McKinley seems to adopt an exaggerated rhetorical style whereby unstressed vowels are given their stressed value (e.g. "governmEnt" with the vowel of DRESS). He also rolls his Rs and is non-rhotic -- both traits that he must have learned consciously, being from Ohio.

    • Teddy Roosevelt is also non-rhotic, although this would have been standard in New York where he grew up. Initial and stressed plosives seem unaspirated -- e.g. "terms", "people". The way he says "Republican Party" at 0:49 is bizarre, using the FOOT vowel instead of STRUT, almost as if he is trying to pronounce it as a classical Latin word. "Can't" has the vowel of FATHER, as in southern England. There is no trace of nasal influence on the stressed vowels of "men" and "industry" -- this would be a surefire marker of a non-American today. An extremely conservative fully-back vowel in "who".

    • Taft The first speaker who actually sounds American to me! Fully rhotic. Nasalization of the vowel in "man". The final vowel in "justifies" has slight glide deletion. Lenition of the /t/ in "duty".

    • Wilson Not much to work with. It's noticeable that Wilson, like most of the preceding speakers, has completely clear /l/s with no trace of velarization, as in "unmistakable". This may be what sounded "Welsh" to /u/intergalacticspy

    • Harding Lenition of /t/ in "eighty", "liberty". Rhotic.

    • Coolidge. Variably rhotic. Sounds like Woody Woodpecker.

    • Hoover intones his speech like a monk singing Gregorian chant. (try 1:16).

×
×
  • Create New...