Energy From Thorium Discussion Forum

It is currently May 21, 2018 9:31 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
PostPosted: Aug 10, 2016 6:18 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Nov 30, 2006 3:30 pm
Posts: 3576
Location: Alabama
Tim Meyer wrote:
Welcome me to this forum, please.


Welcome to the forum.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 10, 2016 11:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
For all those who are adamantly anti-nuclear, I heard something today that really struck a chord. It is something we all know but I had just not heard it said so succinctly. It was in a text message from a distinguished nuclear physicist and dear colleague. It says so much, and is unforgettable:

"Every atom around us is nuclear waste."


Expanding slightly, each of us is nuclear waste.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2016 6:52 am 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1512
Well that is not technically accurate.

Every atom of us, or around us, that is not hydrogen is nuclear waste.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2016 10:44 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida
Kirk Sorensen wrote:
Tim Meyer wrote:
Welcome me to this forum, please.


Welcome to the forum.


Thank you, Kirk! I am really honored you've granted me access here. It has led to my new work with Alec and Alex and others. Your original project to rescue and capture the MSR program files from ORNL and then publish them online together with the highlight of:

Image

Fluid Fuel Reactors

has led to a flurry of proper attention to vital technologies.

On behalf of all the followers of Flibe Energy, Inc., may I say great success to you and your design. I noticed that folks have referred to the "lithium fluoride thorium reactor" in a generic sense that coincides with the FE "liquid fluoride thorium reactor" (LFTR) pronounced "lifter" in your company's good philosophy of lifting us out of this fossil-fueled world.

As I initiate casual conversations with voting citizens, I am usually successful in persuading them to support "new" nuclear when I offer them my fifteen-second sales pitch: already molten so meltdown-proof, not under pressure, dramatically less waste of the short-lived kind, smaller footprint, hotter and more efficient, SAFE! The one thing they all immediately recognize is that it is CLEAN. That's the main PC buzzword. They all are concerned about global warming and ocean acidification. They get excited when they learn about the thorium molten salt reactor.

Until corrected, I tell how our nation cancelled Dr. Weinberg's MSBR program to favor the Argonne (Chicago) LMFBR and they become intrigued with the story. I wish I knew the actual facts from within ORNL in 1975, four years before Three Mile Island. Was the MSBR program legitimately cancelled? What don't "we" know?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2016 2:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida
rc1111 wrote:
For all those who are adamantly anti-nuclear, I heard something today that really struck a chord. It is something we all know but I had just not heard it said so succinctly. It was in a text message from a distinguished nuclear physicist and dear colleague. It says so much, and is unforgettable:

"Every atom around us is nuclear waste."


Expanding slightly, each of us is nuclear waste.
E Ireland wrote:
Well that is not technically accurate.

Every atom of us, or around us, that is not hydrogen is nuclear waste.

1) Now we know, rc1111, that you're a close colleague of a "distinguished nuclear physicist" that means perhaps you're a . . . nuclear engineer?

2) E: Hydrogen? Cosmic ray spallation (lithium, beryllium, and boron) and stellar and supernova nucleosynthesis are nuclear processes.
Wikipedia wrote:
The quark epoch ended when the universe was about 10e-6 seconds old, when the average energy of particle interactions had fallen below the binding energy of hadrons. The following period, when quarks became confined within hadrons, is known as the hadron epoch.
So back to rc1111, we're all nuclear waste living amidst nuclear waste. The whole universe is waste? Who's waste? Is it time to call Code Enforcement?

3) Public fears of nuclear are significantly driven by nuclear waste.

4) If fears were overcome and people were persuaded to push for new nuclear, our U.S. Executive, if skilled in bipartisan negotiations, together with our Congress would be urged to pass Supreme-Court-proof laws that would fix our DOE and NRC to get and institute the rules for fluid fuel reactors and especially pass laws permitting the thorium fuel cycle initially parallel and integrated with the uranium fuel cycle.

Very nice thoughts. I want to know who the distinguished physicist is. Peter Higgs?

Why are we dancing around this? Obviously the carbon companies are the source for everything else and so banking works for them and the rest of us can . . . Do what? Money talks. But Arnold Schwarzenegger want's to know, "How does B.S. walk?"

If governments work for Big Carbon (Big Banks), democracy is irrelevant? That can't be. Walmart is worth more than all of them put together. Greg Penner and Doug McMillon are welcome to this forum. I know this because I am welcome to this forum. I wonder if they know their physics. Penner is on the board of "Teach for America" so maybe he's interested in nuclear physics education with an emphasis in reactor engineering. How about one that is in the fluid phase? Just an idea.

If a phone call from within the Pentagon to a Senate committee chair can kill S. 2006, then . . . what? Climate change is a hoax? "Intelligence" (CIA?) is killing and muffling and otherwise misdirecting . . . thorium is disruptive? Ain't happening? Something is goofy.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2016 4:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Jun 19, 2013 11:49 am
Posts: 1512
Tim Meyer wrote:
2) E: Hydrogen? Cosmic ray spallation (lithium, beryllium, and boron) and stellar and supernova nucleosynthesis are nuclear processes.
Wikipedia wrote:
The quark epoch ended when the universe was about 10e-6 seconds old, when the average energy of particle interactions had fallen below the binding energy of hadrons. The following period, when quarks became confined within hadrons, is known as the hadron epoch.



Almost all protons in the universe are primordial and have been in that condition since the beginning of the hadron era as stated above. Almost none of these protons have ever been involved in a nuclear process.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2016 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida
C'mon, E. The point was nuclear waste, public perceptions, improving nuclear laws, thorium LFTRs. Really?

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2016 9:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
E. Ireland -- great catch.

Obviously the quarks in protons are a product of a very brief period after the Big Bang, and some time during that first 370-380 million years before the electrons could clear up the fog and the forces separate there are very good models of just about everything except inflation, but the insight is that every atom other than hydrogen (even the small amounts of helium, lithium, and trace amounts of beryllium) could be considered products in nature, even sans stellar nucleosynthesis. So it is technically correct that likely most of the hydrogen in the universe dates to the beginning (very shortly after of course,) i.e., primordial protons from when the quarks could form and hadrons begin their existence.

But I was thinking of all those other atoms and molecules that make up our nice earth, which without nuclear waste would not be here. The anti-nuclear crowd likely does not realize we are a good bit of nuclear wastes. Since we are mostly water and two of three atoms thereof are hydrogen, we are only mostly nuclear waste by mass.

And no, I was a physics professor, now retired, but also an elected member of an engineering society. And yes, friends of mine have been wonderful physicists and engineers. I count it a great honor that Eugene P. Wigner (among many other notables) visited my lab, and in an off topic manner mentioned the molten salt reactor way back in the second half of the 1960s. I was a bit too uneducated at the time (perhaps too dense is more accurate) to understand the full significance of this contribution to reactor physics, but I surely knew he was one of the most special scientists of our time -- a very impressive fellow, to say the least.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2016 10:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida
Thank you, rc1111, for sharing your story. How wonderful! I think it's good to know. I wonder what Dr. Wigner would think of our present state of affairs in nuclear after COP21. You were too uneducated then? I'm too uneducated now. We're always learning.

I suspect you have a very unique perspective on the present situation. Please comment on our DOE. If the LMFBR failed, and the MSBR was clearly stopped before it was finished, what would you do if you were in Dr. Moniz's shoes? RC1111 shoes? Are you Dr. Ernest Moniz? Never mind. I don't want to blow your cover. The EFT is a perfect place for people to hide. Except for Kirk and a few other brave souls.

Do I have a name, sir? E. Ireland is in his masters program in England. The E stands for enigma. I'm not as you are. Retired. Rather, I am on a mid-life retirement sampler. So far, so good.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 11, 2016 11:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
Let's stay anonymous in such a public forum. I like invisibility.

Being older, I got to meet many of my heroes in several areas of science and engineering. They were giants in any book, mostly amazing people and only a few grouches. And I got to serve on some national scientific groups within AIP and to serve AIME. I think many of those that have passed on would likely be less than pleased that today's science is so easily influenced by ideology and funding directives, and that some of our tier one research journals are seeing what appears to be degradation of rigor standards -- but I would add that is a wild guess, I have no data to prove it, although there are current papers pointing out the irreproducibility of research in some other areas. In general, I do not get excited about a few percent improvement in eV levels of intermittent low density energy when we have MeV processes at our disposal.

To me, it is illogical to shelve high density dispatchable energy in favor of intermittent low density energy at higher cost, and somehow think that is serving the welfare of society. I question the high subsidies and funding biases for some energy technologies. I applaud Kirk Sorensen (and all the rest of you) for bringing the thorium fuel cycle and molten salt reactors back into an expanded awareness. The misunderstandings about nuclear power in general continue to baffle me. But I hope to be around when the next molten salt reactor is brought online. We know we need disruptive technology, but few will accept that.

My position on energy is straight forward: CCNG (as a bridge) and disruptive new nuclear designs (including MSRs and LFTRs) are the most effective ways to provide the energy society will need while addressing CO2 issues. Anything else delays the problem and raises the cost, a tough road for our poor and middle class and our economy in general. That message seems very difficult to bring to the public consciousness for serious debate. Our problem is a public pretty much unwilling to consider more optimal solutions than our current unproductive path. Everyone can have an opinion and that is mine. Our hope is more people will ask for better progress.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 12, 2016 4:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida
Dear rc1111,

Tim again. My name is Tim. Off to the left there. That's my 1985 graduation from the University of Wisconsin in Stevens Point. I'm a very public fellow. Only "a few grouches"? I hope I don't end up a grouch! Isn't it that an oyster makes a pearl because it gets annoyed at a piece of grit in its shell? I appreciate your replies to my questions here. And welcome everyone! (Disclaimer: Only Kirk can welcome people here.)

Thank you, very sincerely and with great respect despite my foolishness, for offering at my prompting from your valuable experience that "many of those [who] have passed on would likely be less than pleased that today's science is so easily influenced by ideology and funding directives . . ." Political ideology? H.R. 4979 has good bipartisan support. Dr. Moniz was confirmed in the Senate 97-0. Which ideology? (Dr. Moniz served as the designated survivor for the January 28, 2014, State of the Union address. He could have become President Moniz.)

Funding directives? Public funds I'm guessing. Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Mark Zuckerberg, George Soros, Donald Trump, and a few more could pony up some of their private capital for a thorium fluid fuel reactor fund. Kirk's company for one is seriously eligible. Right. I join you in applause for Kirk Sorensen and his efforts to complete Dr. Weinberg's MSBR to start the thorium fuel cycle. I join Kirk and everyone who supports this technology. Especially those rich billionaires and their venture capital. Walmart.

I join you in your belief that carbon burning is unsustainable and is leading to conditions on Earth that threaten the whole ecosphere, marine life, impacts from polar ice melt, and God knows what. Wealthy carbon companies—Walmart—are in a financial position to care the most and do something about it. They would be wise to yield. Commercial nuclear energy is proven, safe, and a million times more powerful than fossil carbon burning. Their days are numbered.

You've recognized that the Flibe Energy, Inc. (Huntsville, AL) Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor is disruptive technology. Also, that energy technology such as the NetPower Allam Cycle installation underway at La Porte, TX, that will test Toshiba's scCO2 turbine burning natural gas with O2 (not air) capturing 100% of its CO2 output will work "as a bridge." I agree. Our whole group would agree, too, but my wager is proportional to my economic status.

I join you in caring about the poor and the middle classes and increasing the amount of cash flowing in the economies. That means a higher consumption rate of carbon energies as they are that power production and consumption. Higher natural gas production is already causing Illinois to shut down a couple of their reactors, and Appalachian coal.

To that message of care for raising the wealth of the poor and the middle classes you said, "[It] seems very difficult to bring to the public consciousness for serious debate [the better nuclear technologies over diffuse intermittent sources]. Our problem is a public pretty much unwilling to consider more optimal solutions than our current unproductive path. . . . Our hope is more people will ask for better progress."

Well, Dr. rc1111, Alec Herbert and Alex Kernan started this "Need Some Help Helping LFTR and Nuclear Energy Overall" topic to enlist EFT members here to contribute to 5-Minute Nuclear (5MN) expressly to achieve the very goals you've kindly articulated.
Dr. rc1111 wrote:
To me, it is illogical to shelve high density dispatchable [sic] energy in favor of intermittent low density energy at higher cost, and somehow think that is serving the welfare of society. I question the high subsidies and funding biases for some energy technologies.
Excellent statement! We're in the choir now.

But logic? Invisibility "in such a public forum" is illogical. I thought physicists were skilled in logic. Those of us who choose to actually participate in educating the public and pushing lawmakers to permit the development of new nuclear and especially the most disruptive thorium fuel cycle would never be invisible. Kirk Sorensen (Hi Kirk!) is a nuclear rock star. Take it from me. I know rock stars. They are somewhat visible people. Like Dr. Wigner. (Do you know how to work with Wigner's Theorem? How impenetrable!)

The designs and techniques for building nuclear weapons, their locations, launch codes, the whereabouts of nuclear submarines, are supposed to be invisible . . . to our enemies. Do you remember President Eisenhower's "Atoms for Peace" speech?

Accountability requires high visibility. Nuclear reactors aren't developed and run in secret. There are public hearings with C-SPAN recording and publishing the proceedings. It all is in the open according to the wise nuclear laws. When has invisibility ever been possible or desirable?

A seasoned physicist with who knows how many valuable experiences with how many renowned scientists as yourself doesn't need to reveal his or her identity in this truly and thankfully public forum. But I am here to visibly encourage you to share here in this, Alec's topic, as much as you can for the sake of his and Alex's public outreach that I have joined and that is vital to promoting PRO-nuclear policies and to converting the ANTI-nuclear voting U.S. citizens to "consider more optimal solutions." Apologies to our non-U.S. members here; like the English who are discussing energy storage—a fascinating evaluation.

Thank you for revealing that you served the American Institute of Physics. That means you're an American. Oops. Now we know where you're from—or do we? My theory is you're Dr. Moniz and we'll never know for sure.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 12, 2016 11:15 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 29, 2011 10:14 am
Posts: 217
One final note about Eugene P. Wigner, and I will stop.

Wigner was a uniquely brilliant scientist with a breath of contributions among the best of all time. One has to remember the time period over which he was contributing value with the things he did. Astonishing!

He actually was trained initially as a chemical engineer but his amazing scope includes everything from being on the patents for the Oak Ridge reactor designs (including the molten salt) to the Wigner Theorem about the symmetries and operators in Hilbert space for quantum mechanics. So, he was famous for theoretical physics and mathematical theorems, and also reactor design. Also, if you did quantum mechanics, you used the Wigner-Eckart theorem for handling angular momentum couplings among other things. He helped make the esoteric nature of algebras and groups into useful tools of quantum physics for generations.

He was uncomfortably direct to some but was always a most humble gentleman in my experience -- a one of a kind Nobel Laureate and a true father of atomic and nuclear physics ideas of major importance from inception until today and beyond.

I know this note is misplaced here (apologies,) but I think Wigner deserves even more admiration and many here may not know of his contributions. Names like Fermi, Weinberg, Seaborg, Wheeler, Teller, Dirac, and others are justifiably revered but Wigner was truly a one-of-a-kind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 13, 2016 10:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mar 17, 2016 9:01 am
Posts: 2
I would like to welcome rc1111 to this discussion.

We who can define "energy density" can easily recognize the impending failures of wind/solar. rc1111, you said this quite elegantly. How about writing for 5MN where you shall be heard and seen by millions?

I may not know who you are here but I can clearly tell you have a passion for this new nuclear technology. I have sent a PM and would like to discuss a few things with you outside this forum.

Great enthusiasm everyone. 5MN has made major strides this week. Let us keep pushing.

RLTW,

Alex Kernan

_________________
-Alex Kernan


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 13, 2016 12:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida
Rangers do lead the way (RLTW) but the engineers get it done. Essayons!

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Aug 13, 2016 12:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Dec 22, 2015 8:40 pm
Posts: 358
Location: Florida
rc1111 wrote:
I know this note is misplaced here (apologies,) but I think Wigner deserves even more admiration and many here may not know of his contributions. Names like Fermi, Weinberg, Seaborg, Wheeler, Teller, Dirac, and others are justifiably revered but Wigner was truly a one-of-a-kind.
This note is very well placed here! My God! Thank you, rc1111!

Alec, Alex, and the 5MN contributors are trying to get LFTR (Flibe Energy, Huntsville) bumped to top priority. That takes authority. I feel contributions on perspective are exactly what we need. Please continue, rc1111.

This is a science education effort. Explaining Dr. Wigner's work is very good and useful. How wonderful to have a member here who actually met him. Just awesome.

Gotta love a gambit! So you're not Secretary Moniz, rc1111. And there are certain members here who have legitimate and productive reasons for keeping a low profile. I apologize for messing around. I thought it was entertaining. Keeping things light in grave situations helps, from my perspective.

Scientists and engineers in this arena have the power to expose the incompetence of lawmakers who are a reflection of the electorate. One member here has declared climate change a hoax that is an extreme minority position. That same member recognizes the million-to-one power advantage of nuclear over NG and coal. So the climate change argument becomes moot.

I will find the reference, but I've heard that the U.S. (DOE and who else?) have spent $39 billion—thirty-nine billion U.S. dollars U.S.!—per year over (the past?) five years for renewable programs and subsidies. I agree with the view that just one of those billions could do some amazing things for molten salt reactors—but the people trusted with the power to get things done are not doing them.

Alex mentioned passion. That's right! Our President has the power to direct the Secretary of Energy to use funds allocated by our Congress to put the molten salt reactor technologies and the initiation of the thorium fuel cycle at the very top of the first-most fundamental of all national and international priorities: energy.

_________________
"Those who say it can’t be done are usually interrupted by others doing it."

—James Arthur Baldwin, American novelist, essayist, playwright, poet, and social critic


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group