Thromium is used because it needs much lower temperatures to remain critical. Also, is less radioactive then uranium or plutonium. Still several hundreds of degrees needs to be maintained. And thromium reaction is more difficult to start.
A Thorium reactor needs a neutron source to kick it off and maintain it, ie it needs a small uranium/plutonium starter in order to get and keep the reaction going.
Its main advantage being its easy to shut off, block the source and the reaction slows until it stops. It thus requires less safety features from a power reactor stand point.
But to take thorium and put it into a car would be no less hazardous as the problem isn't the reaction itself, its getting hit or hitting other cars and obstacles which happens to millions of cars a year.
Fusion power is in use today all over the world. My son's new calculator is fusion powered! There is a huge fusion reactor in the center of our solar system, all we need to do is collect the free power.
That's true of course. But a small reactor can be made pretty sturdy. You probably couldn't fit the rest of the components into a small car, but a large semi-truck sure.
What are the smallest operational reactors, and how big are they? I'd guess the smallest are in submarines?
All right I'll draw you a distinction. I'm talking about a currently running nuclear fusion reaction, not stored up energy from past events. I'm taking about a nearly idea reactor that is currently up and running a nice safe distance with zero nuclear waste issues. All you gotta do is put up collectors and collect the free energy.All forms of energy in the universe are fusion based using this measure, including fission, the material for which was generated by fusion in a supernova. Calling every type of power fusion is pointless, all you are doing is removing the distinction between things which ought to be distinct.
All right I'll draw you a distinction. I'm talking about a currently running nuclear fusion reaction, not stored up energy from past events. I'm taking about a nearly idea reactor that is currently up and running a nice safe distance with zero nuclear waste issues. All you gotta do is put up collectors and collect the free energy.
Instead we are running around spending millions on terrestrial fusion which is not likely to ever be practical. They have been wasting my tax dollars my entire life and they have made zero progress. They have been shooting lasers at tiny targets for as long as I can remember. The lasers are getting bigger and better but as an energy source terrestrial fusion is just a pipe dream.
There was an article just the other day on terrestrial fusion claiming more power out than power in. What a load of crap! They are only counting the power used to run the lasers. Not all the power used to to construct the facility. Plus that power is just wasted anyhow. They are exactly nowhere on the ability to contain and collect power from a terrestrial fusion reaction.
Any practical source of energy needs to put out more energy than it took to produce said energy.
So what fraction of our energy needs are currently being supplied by terrestrial fusion? Let me help you answer that one, NONE!I've never understood the opposition to fusion research. Way more money has been wasted on solar and wind subsidies and boondoggles than has ever been spent on fusion research. Way, WAY more. Your argument is completely baseless and irrational. As for solar power, at < 20% efficiency and < 15% capacity factor, I'd hardly call it ideal. And at 10x the cost, hardly free either. The idea that wind and solar can provide anything more than a small fraction of our energy needs, now that is a pipe dream.
Fuel gain exceeding unity in an inertially confined fusion implosion
Ignition is needed to make fusion energy a viable alternative energy source, but has yet to be achieved1. A key step on the way to ignition is to have the energy generated through fusion reactions in an inertially confined fusion plasma exceed the amount of energy deposited into the deuteriumtritium fusion fuel and hotspot during the implosion process, resulting in a fuel gain greater than unity. Here we report the achievement of fusion fuel gains exceeding unity on the US National Ignition Facility using a high-foot implosion method2, 3, which is a manipulation of the laser pulse shape in a way that reduces instability in the implosion. These experiments show an order-of-magnitude improvement in yield performance over past deuteriumtritium implosion experiments. We also see a significant contribution to the yield from α-particle self-heating and evidence for the bootstrapping required to accelerate the deuteriumtritium fusion burn to eventually run away and ignite.
So what fraction of our energy needs are currently being supplied by terrestrial fusion? Let me help you answer that one, NONE!
As for Hydro, Solar and Wind, sure they are only a drop in the bucket but at least they are a drop and at least they all produce more energy than they took to make, except maybe some solar cells which do not.
Money spend on such endeavors is hardly wasted. With any forethought at all you can see that cheap fossil fuel's days are finite. We have no choice but to become sustainable and more efficient in the future. If terrestrial fusion had a snowball's chance I'd be all for it but such is not the case.
You seem like a bright person, you tell me the path for terrestrial fusion to become practical. I'm asking for something like: Well they have lasers going now, and containment is nearly solved by such and such, and they can keep the reaction going for more than a fraction of a second by such and such, etc.
In the computer industry you see progress year to year, terrestrial fusion not so much.
Way to keep it civil.Since when did liberals care about wasting taxpayer dollars anyway? No, you and the other anti-fusion research kooks have some sort of agenda. The only thing I can think of is that you are luddites afraid of progress or something.
The idea that wind and solar can provide anything more than a small fraction of our energy needs, now that is a pipe dream.
A pipe dream? The Danish government are aiming to make renewable energy provide a net 100% of the country's energy needs by 2050. Even today, wind power is providing more than 100% of needed electrical power on windy days (ie. power is being exported to the rest of Europe) . This December, renewable energy provided more than 50% of needed power overall (In Denmark, that is, but I believe France broke the 50% barrier as well).
Many other European countries, for instance Sweden, Germany and France, have similar goals and are seeing similar results, though I believe Denmark is the most ambitious.
Renewable energy as a major part of a country's energy needs is not a unicorn in the garden. It is happening right now in some of the world's most most powerhungry (per capita) economies.
As such, your claim that renewable energy cannot provide more than a small fraction of our energy needs is plainly wrong. It is not a matter of discussing in theory, or a matter of political observation. It is happening right now.
That does not mean that I do not agree with you that money spent on fusion research is very well spent. Fundamental science studies, overall, always pay off, even though it might not be in the way expected. The possible gains of a working fusion reactor is so large that a even an investment of tens of billions is very small in comparison.
Denmark has a small population with a lot of coastline so that is one area where wind power is ideal.
That being said, they only produce 1/3 of their electric needs from wind,
and they are totally reliant on backup power from Germany which is primarily coal.
Furthermore, they have the highest electricity costs in Europe.
The total wind energy produced by Denmark under ideal circumstances is on the order of the output of one nuclear reactor.
You can't beat the laws of thermodynamics or economics.
How do you know this? But OK, I concur that 100% is impractical. However, 80% or 90% with traditional energy production as backup will also have a very positive effect on the environment, while lessening the dependency on the generally volatile fossil fuel producing countries, and avoiding the issues of nuclear power.Having 100% of your energy produced by renewables is a nice WISH,
but it is not physically possible at the rate we currently use energy.
How do you know this?If you want to rely 100% on renewable power,
your standard of living will decrease by a factor of 5-10 i.e. everything you buy will cost 5-10x more while your income stays the same.
15% renewable energy, you say? More than a "small fraction". Also, that fact rather disproves your point about extrapolating the situation in Denmark to the rest of the world.And FYI France produces 75% of their power from nuclear, 10% fossil fuels, and the rest mostly hydro.
Further there is no point in carrying a reactor around with you everywhere you go. Hook an electric car up to a grid powered by a nuke plant.
shipyard workers have twice the cancer rate of the general population.
workers on nuke subs have 6 times the cancer rate of the general population.
workers who refuel nuke subs have 12 times the cancer rate of the general population.
per the union at the shipyard I worked at in 1978
The biggest issue with mobile nuclear power is the cooling requirements.
No, the biggest issue is shielding requirements. If a regular internal combustion engine for a car can reject heat with a water-cooled radiator, so could a nuclear reactor of the same size. The efficiency of both is around the same.
Air cooling nuclear reactors directly is a mess. Even air-cooling the primary coolant loop isn't done in commercial reactors, because the coolant gets activated as it circulates through the core.
No, primary coolant loop can not contaminate the secondary loop. They are separate, that's the whole point. There are gas cooled power reactors around and they work just fine.
In nautical applications, you can use seawater cooling very efficiently. But even then, nuclear surface ships at times have difficulties crossing the equator, because the intake water temperatures are problematic.
No. Nautical reactors (and power reactors that use a body of water for heat sink) are less efficient when the water is warmer but there is nothing preventing them from operating normally.
Most commercial plants either use evaporation cooling or exhaust the warm water directly into a river or the sea. That's impossible in most mobile applications, because there's no body of water in proximity. Alternatively you would have to frequently replenish a water tank - much like steam engines in the past.
No, reactors can be air cooled just fine. Air cooling is less efficient but the reactor power is far less than a nautical or power reactor.
Outside of nautical applications, the only kind of mobile nuclear reactor that I could imagine, would be a vast freight train. A direct train connection between China and Europe might be the only way this could be economically interesting, if it could be made cheaper, faster and more reliable than ships going through Suez or around the Cape of good hope.
But even then it would probably be cheaper to electrify the whole thing and use electrical power, than to have a nuclear locomotive. And the fact that it couldn't be gauge-compatible with any existing train, and it would have to go through some of the most arid parts of the world (Siberia/Mongolia) basically render it just another complete pipe dream.
But that's the thing with nuclear: if you're going to use it, you're instantly limited to gigantic use cases, as the economies of scale are brutal for nuclear propulsion.