Not nessesary. We could use chemical approach. Lunar soil contains a lot of aluminum oxides.
Yes, processing Lunar soil produce allot oxygen as Waste product !
Burning that Oxygen with slag as hybrid rocket works
ISP is lousy, but get the Payload off dirtsite into luna orbit...

Oh by way
Lunar mining for Helium-3 isotope for fusion reactors, it don't work !
next to scoop million square kilometre and process it, the output on Helium-3 is insufficient for Use on Earth.
you get more Helium-3 out atmosphere of Saturn, easier then processing the entire surface of the Moon.

What the hype about Helium-3 isotope ?
you can use it for fusion without neutrons
 
I don't understand the obsession with nuclear fusion, there are other alternatives (e.g. molten salt Thorium reactors) which could deliver the same quasi unlimited energy with very little radioactive waste. Unlike the fusion reactors these concepts allready work and deliver energy.
People are still researching those, but nobody has succeeded in solving the waste issues they do have.


Thorium cannot in itself power a reactor; unlike natural uranium, it does not contain enough fissile material to initiate a nuclear chain reaction. As a result it must first be bombarded with neutrons to produce the highly radioactive isotope uranium-233 – 'so these are really U-233 reactors,' says Karamoskos.

This isotope is more hazardous than the U-235 used in conventional reactors, he adds, because it produces U-232 as a side effect (half life: 160,000 years), on top of familiar fission by-products such as technetium-99 (half life: up to 300,000 years) and iodine-129 (half life: 15.7 million years).Add in actinides such as protactinium-231 (half life: 33,000 years) and it soon becomes apparent that thorium's superficial cleanliness will still depend on digging some pretty deep holes to bury the highly radioactive waste.


Another basic problem with MSRs is that the materials used to manufacture the various reactor components will be exposed to hot salts that are chemically corrosive, while being bombarded by radioactive particles. So far, there is no material that can perform satisfactorily in such an environment.
Yes, you need some Uranium to start the reaction, but what is the problem about it? Its just for the “cold start” and the reactor is breeding U233. There is nothing especially terrible about U233, btw. You can have highly radioactive Isotopes (those with a short half live) or long lasting isotopes (those with the long half time). With an half time of 160.000 years U233 and U 231 (33.000 years) will decay much faster than natural Uranium (U238 4,468,000 000, U235: 703800000). Despite that, the half life is almost irrelevant, because U233 will be used as fuel so that it want end up as nuclear waste. In a fast reactor, also other very heavy elements will be burned by fission and those with uneven numbers are easier to split (guess that’s as well true for protactinium-231)

Fortunately, molten salt as heat carrier in power plant is well established and long term tested in solar thermal power plants (e.g Andasol). The new molten salt reactor will be using the same type of salt (with higher purity) and basically the same technology for the pumps and pipes.

You should not concider, that every nuclear reactor is not only producing radioactive elements, but also burning radioactive elements. After 300 years, the radioactive waste of a thorium reactor is less radioactive, than the burned up radioactive thorium. After that, the total amount of radioactivity of the waste will be lower than that of the Thorium Lagerstätte (love to use a German word
 
People are still researching those, but nobody has succeeded in solving the waste issues they do have.

Well, Rosatom actually made research on the hybrid fusion-fission reactor (which would use Tokamak-type device to produce fusion plasma, that would bombard the thorium fuel with neutrons - thus "burning out" the Th-232 and resulting U-233 by intence neutron radiation. Boosted-fission reactor, sort of. Currently it's still a theory, but, well, Rosatom is a world leader in advanced reactors. They are the guys who are most likely to figure it out.
Rosatom is using Pu 239 from radioaktive waste of light water reeactors in the BN800 fast reactor as fuel (together with U238 waste from the enrichment. It has nothing to do with a Tokamak design, it is a pool type fast sodium cooled reactor. This is not theory, but producing electricity with 800 MW nearly every day.

 
Lunar mining for Helium-3 isotope for fusion reactors, it don't work !
next to scoop million square kilometre and process it, the output on Helium-3 is insufficient for Use on Earth.
you get more Helium-3 out atmosphere of Saturn, easier then processing the entire surface of the Moon.
Most importantly, we have little clues how to actually fuse the darn thing. There are enough headache trying to fuse deuterium-tritium. And D-T reaction is way lower in demands than He-3.
 
Rosatom is using Pu 239 from radioaktive waste of light water reeactors in the BN800 fast reactor as fuel (together with U238 waste from the enrichment. It has nothing to do with a Tokamak design, it is a pool type fast sodium cooled reactor. This is not theory, but producing electricity with 800 MW nearly every day.
I was talking about hybrid fission-fusion thorium reactor research:


Hybrid fission-fusion - half tokamak, half MSR. The Best Way To Go.
Proposed as early as 1978 by Blinkin and Novikov at Kurchatov Institute. MSR is poisoned by tritium, fusion loves tritium. MSR breeder needs fast neutrons, to turn U235 into 238 or Pu239, or Th232 into U233. Good news: tokamak produce fast neutrons.
End result: a tokamak and a MSR breeder can quite literally feed each other in a truly symbiotic way, a bit like sharks and remora fishs.
That hybrid could also eat dismantled nuclear bomb cores and also nuclear waste (like the fast breeder).
 
Rosatom is using Pu 239 from radioaktive waste of light water reeactors in the BN800 fast reactor as fuel (together with U238 waste from the enrichment. It has nothing to do with a Tokamak design, it is a pool type fast sodium cooled reactor. This is not theory, but producing electricity with 800 MW nearly every day.

Those have been around for a long time.


 
Yes, but none of them was ever fed with Pu239/U238 from nuclear waste before.

@Dilandu You have been answering to another thread ("People are still researching those, but nobody has succeeded in solving the waste issues they do have"). The BN800 might not have solved all proplems at once, but it clearly solved a big part of the problem and shows one way forward. The Brest-300 will be another big step with its closed fuel cycle
 
Last edited:
Yes, you need some Uranium to start the reaction, but what is the problem about it? Its just for the “cold start” and the reactor is breeding U233. There is nothing especially terrible about U233, btw. You can have highly radioactive Isotopes (those with a short half live) or long lasting isotopes (those with the long half time). With an half time of 160.000 years U233 and U 231 (33.000 years) will decay much faster than natural Uranium (U238 4,468,000 000, U235: 703800000). Despite that, the half life is almost irrelevant, because U233 will be used as fuel so that it want end up as nuclear waste. In a fast reactor, also other very heavy elements will be burned by fission and those with uneven numbers are easier to split (guess that’s as well true for protactinium-231)

Fortunately, molten salt as heat carrier in power plant is well established and long term tested in solar thermal power plants (e.g Andasol). The new molten salt reactor will be using the same type of salt (with higher purity) and basically the same technology for the pumps and pipes.

You should not concider, that every nuclear reactor is not only producing radioactive elements, but also burning radioactive elements. After 300 years, the radioactive waste of a thorium reactor is less radioactive, than the burned up radioactive thorium. After that, the total amount of radioactivity of the waste will be lower than that of the Thorium Lagerstätte (love to use a German word
There are plenty of other problems too though.


Such that most of the interest now is other types of molten salt reactors.



 
The Chinese just comissioned two MSR Thorium reactors. One of them with fuel bundels and one with Torium in solution and continously fuel feeding/reprocessing.

 
Instead of fighting about if Fission or Fusion is better, lets ask the question, "Why not both?". We can and should invest resources into both types.

As for the efficiency of NIF, it uses 1980's laser technology designed for max power instead of max efficiency. With modern technolgy you can get much closer to break even.

Speaking of nuclear waste, you can design "burner" reactors that greatly reduce nuclear waste, including the current waste we haven't been able to deal with. Problems are solvable.
 
Not everything which has something to do with nuclear waste or fast reactors is necessarily the same.The BN800 doesnt need any U235 and runs on waste fuel only (some U235 is of course allway inherent in the U238). The Magnox was also a fast reactor, but of a total different type.
 
Well, Rosatom actually made research on the hybrid fusion-fission reactor (which would use Tokamak-type device to produce fusion plasma, that would bombard the thorium fuel with neutrons - thus "burning out" the Th-232 and resulting U-233 by intence neutron radiation. Boosted-fission reactor, sort of. Currently it's still a theory, but, well, Rosatom is a world leader in advanced reactors. They are the guys who are most likely to figure it out.
Yeah, I remember reading about this, possibly even linked it a while back.
 
Not everything which has something to do with nuclear waste or fast reactors is necessarily the same.The BN800 doesnt need any U235 and runs on waste fuel only (some U235 is of course allway inherent in the U238). The Magnox was also a fast reactor, but of a total different type.
I was referring to the THORP and Magnox plants at Sellafield, not Magnox reactors.


Or did you mean taking waste direct, minus processing, as a fuel?
 
No, they extract the Pu239 out of the used fuel bundels and reuse the remaining U235 for the LWR. The Pu239 is than mixed with U238 which is otherwise waste (or ammunition...).

In a reprocessing plant usually Pu239 and U235 are mixed in a combination which is suitable for LWR.
 
No, they extract the Pu239 out of the used fuel bundels and reuse the remaining U235 for the LWR. The Pu239 is than mixed with U238 which is otherwise waste (or ammunition...).

In a reprocessing plant usually Pu239 and U235 are mixed in a combination which is suitable for LWR.
I think in the UK they just stockpiled the Pu-239, all 140 tons of it, which is why they've renewed interest in Plutonium reactors.
 
You could otherwise built a lot of bombs out of it...

I prefere the use in reactors and I know that in GB many smart people are working on new designs.
 
The problem with lasers is what powers them? I could see power sats beaming energy to spacecraft with pellets and beam-splitters as the earliest use of the NIF method. Imagine two parabolic dishs back to back-the aft rod fires pellets to the dish's point of focus-the dish now is Solum's Medusa-no heavy magnets- your engine a pellet gun. As for the dish? Read today's phys.org article "Team creates protein-based material that can stop supersonic impacts" using TSAM/Talin...a bigger breakthrough than the fusion announcement in my book. And darn if that doesn't sound like Ouamuamua-a fusion sail.
 
Last edited:
This experiment shouldn’t be used as a guide to the technology used in an actual power plant for a start you would be using more efficient solid state lasers in something like that. This article has more details on an actual power plant.


The critical take away here with this news is that ignition was achieved, not just scientific break even. In other words, the fusion heat contributed to producing significantly more fusion reactions (not just external heat), ie a chain reaction. That does portend well to scaling up ICF to higher and higher gain, although it may start to make sense to build a more capable facility as the yield is now becoming high enough to damage the chamber and you’d really want a gain of 20-50 to enable actual electricity generation.
 
Last edited:
Yes the NIF lasers are not optimized for max efficiency and are 1980's technology with like 1% efficiency. Modern lasers can achieve closer to 50% efficiency.
Well, even '80s lasers were 10-20% depending on type when operated in CW mode, however when using a short pulse, more energy is always lost. Modern solid state lasers have achieved 76%.
 
Zen, I've surely missed some arcane subtlety in your analogy but, IIRC, Iron is the 'sump' of fusion binding curve. Which is why giant stars get 'core collapse' when they reach that stage...
Fusion is not burning.
 
Isn’t the biggest positive take away from this news that it will increase the level of interest from some of the people who hold the purse strings. That maybe some of the organisations and companies in this race might find it just a bit easier to get financial backing for their projects.
 
Isn’t the biggest positive take away from this news that it will increase the level of interest from some of the people who hold the purse strings. That maybe some of the organisations and companies in this race might find it just a bit easier to get financial backing for their projects.
Thats the key takeaway. By proving that it can be done, NIF has taken the big risk and has opened the door for private investment and companies to take over and drive the technology forward.
 
This nice lady again, well telling how it really is;-
View: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Zr0Q_LGrQcg

(Quite few other interesting bits an pieces as well)
Wow, those are some crappy lasers efficiency-wise. 0.5% efficiency!
As pointed out in the video ,NIF was designed in the 90s and efficiency of the lasers wasn't a major focus. The goal was to reach Ignition and then produce data from Ignition tests which could be used to design and build more practical systems.
 
ITER maybe delayed by years.

OMG. I despair. :rolleyes:

One problem, he said, was wrong sizes for the joints of blocks to be welded together for the installation’s 19 metres by 11 metres (62ft by 36ft) chamber.

The second was traces of corrosion in a thermal shield designed to protect the outside world from the enormous heat created during nuclear fusion.

Fixing the problems “is not a question of weeks, but months, even years”, Barabaschi said.
 
ITER maybe delayed by years.

The best thing they can do with this monstrosity is to close the project definitively, otherwise all the scientists will become civil servants hired indefinitely by the European Commission through my taxes.:(
 
intresting view from an expert in this field:

That wouldn't be too bad, but it then has to convert that to electricity.
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom