Yabut, then the trick will be to keep the specs safe so the SHTF survivors can have an efficient energy source to heat their caves !
</s>
Posted on 03/19/2014 4:28:24 PM PDT by dynachrome
The nuclear race is on. China is upping the ante dramatically on thorium nuclear energy. Scientists in Shanghai have been told to accelerate plans (sorry for the pun) to build the first fully-functioning thorium reactor within ten years, instead of 25 years as originally planned.
“This is definitely a race. China faces fierce competition from overseas and to get there first will not be an easy task”,” says Professor Li Zhong, a leader of the programme. He said researchers are working under “warlike” pressure to deliver.
Good for them. They may do the world a big favour. They may even help to close the era of fossil fuel hegemony, and with it close the rentier petro-gas regimes that have such trouble adapting to rational modern behaviour. The West risks being left behind, still relying on the old uranium reactor technology that was originally designed for US submarines in the 1950s.
As readers know, I have long been a fan of thorium (so is my DT economics colleague Szu Chan). It promises to be safer, cleaner, and ultimately cheaper than uranium. It is much harder to use in nuclear weapons, and therefore limits the proliferation risk.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.telegraph.co.uk ...
Yabut, then the trick will be to keep the specs safe so the SHTF survivors can have an efficient energy source to heat their caves !
</s>
Burning is E=MC^2
Check any nuclear engineering text for the energy release per reaction. IIRC it is about 200 MeV per fission (about 200 MeV is recoverable), and about 25 MeV per fusion (d-d reaction). Much higher energy release per reaction because the reactions involve the nucleus. Chemical reactions (burning coal) involve rearranging molecular bonds, which are electromagnetic forces. Nuclear forces are much stronger, so you get more energy output from rearranging a nucleus than you do a molecule. (Simplified explanation.)
Each ton of coal we burn up contains 13 times as much energy as that liberated by combustion of the carbon in said Thorium.
No.
Burning is chemical; breaking Carbon-Hydrogen bonds and recombining with oxygen.
E=MC^2 is nuclear, fission/fusion.
“No.”
YES!
I’m interested to see what the continual processing of the thorium radioactive waste will cost. Conventional nuclear reactor waste products don’t require continually processing. It can just be stored.
Ummm. No. It is not. Even if you use all caps.... it still is not.
“Ummm. No. It is not. Even if you use all caps.... it still is not.”
YES it is. E=MC^2 is a universal equation.
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module5_equations.htm#where
“I am in danger here of giving the impression that this quantification of energy conversion is only important in nuclear reactions. Not true: it is just as applicable to ordinary chemical reactions as well. In chemistry, however, the energies involved are so much smaller that the change in mass is difficult to measure. In principle, we would expect it to apply wherever work is done: when you do work W on an object by lifting it, one would expect its mass to increase by W/c2. However, because c is so large, this mass would be much smaller than other effects (e.g. the mass of your fingerprints) and would be impossible to measure. To see some values, follow this link.”
No it is not .
E=mc2 is the equation relating energy (e) to its mass equivalent (m). A fire (burning) uses no mass. Its energy release is in the electron bonds.
Whereas in fission, a nuclear, not a chemical, energy release is in the form of mass (a small amount) being converted to energy (a Large amount).
No. Burning has naught to do with E=mc2.
“No. Burning has naught to do with E=mc2”
Here are some calculations.
http://www.nscl.msu.edu/files/Benenson.pdf
” A fire (burning) uses no mass. “
Uh, Again .... E=MC^2 is universal.
Einstein formulated it BEFORE we knew about nuclear reactions. It applies to ALL Energy transformations.
“E=mc2 is the equation relating energy (e) to its mass equivalent (m). “
Yes. If there is a change in energy, there is a change in mass.
“A fire (burning) uses no mass.”
According to your above statement, there must be a change in mass.
Duncan has it right. Chemical energy vs. nuclear energy.
The molten salt reactor can be fueled from the so called “reactor waste” stored in cooling pools. LWR types with clad fuel burn at best 5% of fuel content before reaching accumulated damage limits. Strip the fuel and actinides from the ceramic base, and dissolve into a carrier salt. Now the fuel can be purified as needed. Estimates place available fuel so obtained at 75 to 150 years supply. Plenty of time to work up to a thorium breeder.
The chemical reprocessing of the fuel onsite is where the Chinese are on a steep learning curve. Reactors in operation generate waste which drain vitality as a parasite does a host. Materials processing will need to be accomplished at the molten temperature of the salt. The processing will resemble aluminum extraction thru electrolysis of molten ore. The engineering details to do this are only now addressed.
Carbon and Thorium are elements. There is no Carbon in Thorium (and no Thorium in Carbon). There is both Carbon and Thorium in coal.
I must bow to your uneducated brilliance. Or not.
Edit my post all you wish. You are wrong.
Nuclear reactions involve a loss of mass, converted into energy. That is not the case with chemical reactions. That is why a pellet the size of about the first bone on you pinky finger produces the same amount of energy as hundreds of pounds of coal.
MASS IS CONVERTED TO ENERGY in a nuclear reaction. Not a chemical reaction. Try again.
“I must bow to your uneducated brilliance. Or not.”
You obviously have a closed mind and did not read any of my links nor have you any comprehension of Einsteins work related to E=MC^2.
Nor can you see the logical conclusions of YOUR posts where you say Energy and Mass are related EXCEPT in certain cases such as combustion.
“Try again.”
No. I have spent enough time trying to educate you, already. Signed ... Nuclear Engineer (retired)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.