Nuclear Power

Yeah, but they really fucked up initial testing for that one:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Gnome
books.google.com/books?id=msBBarIrmJYC&lpg=PA102&ots=Y9caD88G95&dq=project gnome steam reporters&pg=PA102#v=onepage&q=project gnome steam reporters&f=false

They thought that hey, the salt dome will contain all the radiation, so they invited scientists and reporters to show just how safe it was. Well they fucked up and it spewed radioactive steam and dust right in front of reporters and scientists.

doesn't matter, because it's half fusion power

Actually, using nukes would be super cost-effective. A fission bomb is expensive but a thermonuclear bomb is literally just a fission bomb but with super cheap lithium deutride fusion fuel. Costs the same but much more explosive. There's really no limit to how big of a thermonuke you can make. So as long as you use really big nukes, it would be super cost effective. Just like project orion.

That happened because the reactor was made by literally a bunch of retarded monkeys aka communists. Wouldn't ever happen in America you fucking pussy.

it's not very practical. Because shielding is heavy, you can't afford to shield the whole reactor. So it's hard to handle when it's on the ground.

Now what we really need to do is build a space rated nuclear reactor. One with moving parts for thermal conversion so we can get more power out. That would solve so many problems related to space power systems.

Oh and the cool thing is that reactors can be LESS radioactive during launch than RTGs. Before the control rods are removed it would be pretty much inert.

Agree

>radiation is bad meme

Have you ever heard of something called neutron absorbers? Reactors release slow neutrons which make it easy to absorb or slow down with little materials. Even if we couldn't use reactors on the plane, we could use nuclear pumped lasers and beam the energy onto them. The idea of this thread is that nukes are superior.

whats the point of these cringe threads

>>neutron absorbers
were too heavy, so they had to resort to shadow shielding. They put enough shielding in just the right places so that the flight crew wouldn't get irradiated.

nnapprentice.com/alumni/letter/WHEN_NUCLEAR_POWER_WAS_FLYING_HIGH.pdf
aviation-history.com/articles/nuke-american.htm

>>nuclear pumped lasers and beam the energy onto them
no. Lasers are line of sight only. Without a complicated mirror system you more or less need nuclear lasers everywhere.

That's not very practical. Instead, we could use nuclear power to produce hydrogen, ammonia, or other burnable fuels

phys.org/news/2012-03-nuclear-power-hydrogen-fuel-economy.html
infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/50/49640.pdf
>>The idea of this thread is that nukes are superior.
well too bad, in some cases they aren't

books.google.com/books?id=OSEDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA98&dq=popular science 1951 atomic aircraft&hl=en&ei=dgzFTP-MF 8innQeCs-T4CQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result#v=onepage&q&f=true

Oh, please. The nuclear fuel would allow the plane to fly continuously even if the heavy reactor and shielding wouldn't be any lighter than traditional fuel. The literally retarded communists were just really bad engineers, and do not at all represent nuke tech. Research before you post, you dimwit.

Just use Neutron Absorbers or swap to a Thorium reactor, and all of those problems are solved. Now I'm just disappointed that we let uneducated civilian politics get in the way of potentially emission-free and practically endless flight.
>It could've happened bros.

Anybody want to talk about those Fusion bombs supposedly in development?
>"The Most Humane Bomb Ever"
>Equally if not more powerful than any sort of Thermonuclear device.
>Leaves absolutely no radiation or harmful byproduct behind and instantly vaporises everything within range.

>> citing an old popular science article

Sounds like bullshit. We don't have net gain fusion reactors.

>shame those who hate it

Fuck off shill. You only ever post here when there is a bad nuclear news story circulating. Fuck off and go spam some other site.

We could build one right now. We could have a net gain icf plant, by having the first pellet trigger the fusion of the next, like in a teller/ulam device, but that would probably blow the plant up.

youtube.com/watch?v=RrkzIN2eP0U

thread theme

Hence why I'd like to talk about it.
The idea is that the entire thing is wrapped up inside of a bomb, but it isn't your standard reactor apparently.

is this visible by the human eye?

Daily reminder that nuclear reactors will all melt down during the next solar storm.

Daily reminder that you're a faggot cuck.

...

This. Cant wait for the next carrington event -tier solar storm when modern civilization will come crumbling down and 99% our fine electrical systems and grids will be fucked.

Not nuclear related but, what about drilling holes far into the ground so we can use Earth molten core to generate energy? At the end of the day it's always about heating water.

/ourguy/

>There's really no limit to how big of a thermonuke you can make.

Bullshit. Eventually you reach a point where the fuel blows itself apart before it can be used.

Australia?

Nuclear is dangerous because it blow up and destroy half a continent.

>1951

> thermonuclear being a hydrogen bomb
so there really isn't much of a limit, just the initial stage is limited, but the secondary and tertiary and so on are not limited.

>Heat up the surface and cool the core (weakening magnetosphere)
What a brainlet idea

Shill really? I'd think the shills were losers like Helen Caldicott

Not with LFTR.

of course

Please. All it does is poison the local ecosystem and get potheads on the internet to think their fish are poisoned or that the car exhaust and waste particulates they call air has turned sour from the 1 part per 100 trillion that is slightly more radioactive than normal.

Found the retard.
What are you even doing on Veeky Forums?
>inb4 RBMK a shit

Post geiger counters

Came across this recently: atomic-skies.blogspot.com/2012/07/those-magnificent-men-and-their-atomic.html

Use the heat of a nuclear reactor to melt holes into the ground as a method of digging tunnels.
That's already a thing. Well sort of. Most such plants operate in regions with volcanic activity because its currently impractical to dig deep enough to do it anywhere.

>What is geothermal

If you are in Sydney, there's gonna be a conference by the ANA in October @ UTS.

Pic related.
I'm going.

Reminder that there is a safe and reliable reactor type that does not produce highly radioactve waste is cannot ever have a meltdown.

Reminder that it is not used because you loose your "civil" and "peaceful" excuse to produce weapon grade uranium.

dang nuclear power, you have some nice colors

Lmfao, you use a windows phone?

cry about it

You do know that they build reactors underground right, retard?

That blue isn't actually caused by cherenkov radiation, this is a pool for new fuel elements.

You guys ever heard of a thorium reactor.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle

what about earthquakes

Is nuclear for sexual?
Ask those retarded Japanes, they know all about how good nuclear reactors and a region with a lot of tectonic activity mix.

But Thorium Is way more effective as uranium and you can't build a bomb out of it so why would you use a nuklear plane if you can use a thorium plane

>nuklear
brainlet or bait; really can't tell

>nuclear is the superior energy source

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA.

>it gets the least government support

Every nuke plant ever has been fully subsidized by the government.

Im going to need more credibility than a screenshot with a link to some blog

Nowhere near as bad as Greenpeace makes it out to be.

>No naked ladies on the aircraft

0/10

Nuclear to phase out Coal/Gas stations.
Renewables to crop up in the developing world.
Fusion gets funded once things have settled.
We will make it to K1 one day boys.

>implying we won't find a way to fuck us up before that

Relevant, Ford had made a concept nuclear powered car during 40s. Nevertheless, both would have been not useful.

That is what fusion bombs do though. Is this some North Korea propaganda shit?

Literally a glorified water boiler, complete with most of its mass being devoted to a maze of active failsafes. Most inefficient hacked together mess to ever be widely praised.

The core is pretty deep but swallow plants should possible. Maybe they aren't worth it.

Nuclear Engineer here, ask me anything. I studied in the most prestigious uni in latin america, the Balseiro Institute. And yes, Chemical and Electrical engineering are easy as fuck compared to Nuclear.

>most prestigious uni in latin america
thats like being, the most majestic ant or something.

Latin american degrees are harder than american degrees. Here you have to take over 50 classes to get an engineering degree (5 years). That's why my degree is considered a bachelor + master in burguerland and europe.

>A fission bomb is expensive
No it isn't
There are signficant startup costs but actually churning out nuclear anything is extremely cheap in comparison. Simply due to immense energy density.

serious question
is there any logical explanationn why we don't shoot nuclear waste into space?

Cost and danger.

1. Its valuable
2. Its perfectly safe to store here on earth: After all it was taken from here, we can just put it back where it came from
3. Ridiculously expensive to shoot stuff into space, even moreso to shoot it in a way that it wont come down later (50k/kg and more)
4. Very risky. Rockets occasionally explode

Not a question, but explain in technical terms to environmententalist degenerates, why nuclear power is way safer then other sources, and how it would be way cheaper than other sources if it wasn't overregulated.

What do communists have to do with this? HTRE-3 was American designed and still had to be scrapped after an accident in its test bed. If that shit had happened while its compressor was running in flight it would have seriously fucked some shit up. How do you even service the fucking thing, the entire compressor and turbine assembly is going to be highly irradiated, and have questionable material properties due to embrittlement. Every hour of operation for a direct-cycle plant like that just increases the risk to populations, and would make ground operations of the plane untenable. Nuclear aircraft were just a bad idea, and will only ever be suitable for very specialized military applications, like those automated death bombers.

The Soviets made a really shitty nuke plane that had shitty shielding. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tupolev_Tu-95LAL Americans wouldn't ever do that you dipshit. The shielding on the american plane was more than adequate. Once in the air, the atmosphere works as a great shield. The reactor is tiny so very little fuel is used, so very little radioactive material is produced you dimwit. It makes servicing doable.

You say the Americans didn't do it, but they did and it melted down.

Those are environmentalist lies.

You're a joke. :) You're autistic REEE's aren't going to bring back atomic aircraft. Maybe if you watch some more youtube videos on the subject you can really convince your friends and family you are an authority on the subject.

Or you could get over you ignorance and actually read something on the subject, and slowly realize just how bad of an idea it is, but that's not going to happen is it?

>source is youtube videos

XD

Bitch please, i know more about this than you do. Radioactivity and fallout is a meme. Source is pic.

sadly in german, not english (though I think a translation exists):
spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-54002273.html

TL;DR: Less than 1000 radiation deaths confirmed from Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Tchernobyl combined. People surviving cracy radiation levels that should officially kill them in 50minutes for years and decades.

Turns out when those "this will kill you" limits were set, we did not know all that much about the risks and decided to err on the side of caution.

Yeah I know. The whole radioactivity is bad meme was coldwar détente propaganda

what about Chernobyl? Still uninhabitable 30 years later.

Go thell that to the animals and plants there.
Its perfectly safe.

A Swedish girl wants me to take her to EBR1.

Sounds like a fucking amazing one in a million first date but I don't find her physically attractive at all.

Pix?

Imo, nuclear energy is the most reasonable energy source available to humanity, HOWEVER, humanity is not reasonable enough to deserve it. Even if engineers make it 100 % safe, there is still the human factor like revolutions, and suddenly your new leader wants plutonium warheads. You get the idea.

What would probalby work though is having a secret city full of high IQ brainmores with a nuclear power plant just for themselves.

You gotta be kidding me. Seen what happened to the robots they used for exploring Fukushima? Would you rather like to be the one instead of the robot?

I think they haven't still resolved the part where the pipes clog a bit, but I may be misremembering something.

Why radiactive waste has to be cooled down before storing?

Wouldn't it make more sense to, you know, keep using the things if they are generaing heat? Isn't that the point of having self-heating bars of stuff?

>and reliable
citation needed.

Is it possible to buid a nuclear power plant deep underground that if it fails the radiation wont reach the average joe above ground?
t. interested brainlet

Sounds terribly expensive.

Better yet just don't store your waste on site and dont use weapon grade nuclear fuel. Nuclear "waste" has uses in science and industry but because people are scared of muh dirty bombs we decided that all these extremely valuable heavy elements should be kept hidden away somewhere. Usually this means just keeping the waste on site, so that every time something goes wrong all of that waste leaks. Apparently the threat of every nuclear reactor in America being an actual time bomb is a lesser concern than the possibility that someone might for some reason leak radioactive materials intentionally.

this is different. The robot was directly next to an uncontained remain of a reactor meltdown.

Illustration: If you sit right into a fire you will die, but sitting next to it is quite pleasant.

Not to mention that Fukushima and Tchernobyl are quite different. The latter is now safe behind meters and meters of concrete.
According to the fearmongers everyone working in that plant when it blew should have died within weeks, in reality while there were more cancer incidents compared to the general population, most lived for decades and many are still alive today.

kys retard