*promote my resent obsession

Post cannot be self promoted by original submitter GeeSussFreeK because GeeSussFreeK does not have enough Power Points. (You can always purchase more Power Points.)

*promote

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, February 28th, 2012 11:28am PST - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

Ooooooooooooooooh. Coming from an electronic music background, ADSR stands for Attack Decay Sustain Release. This ADSR has nothing to do with that.

The ADSR or "Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor" is unfortunately a massive waste of time. Why not build a properly configured LFTR reactor and it does just the same thing and you don't need to build 3 large particle accelerators to do it.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=a-path-to-sustainable-energy-by-2030

+ just note that the solar is expected to hit “grid parity” sooner than they projected in 2009 and the true cost of solar isn’t actually used.
-Source: Clean Technica (http://s.tt/13Ovp)

>> ^Spacedog79:

The ADSR or "Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor" is unfortunately a massive waste of time. Why not build a properly configured LFTR reactor and it does just the same thing and you don't need to build 3 large particle accelerators to do it.


I agree in one sense, but in another, the chemistry of the LFTR might prove impossible to solve (though this is hardly even a fear atm), so divesting in a "less" effective way to fission isn't a complete waste. Also, you could use this just to breed thorium which would be handy if you had thousands of thorium generators to start up (you need a good deal of U233 to start the reaction as Thorium is only fertile, not fissionable). This also would be a good way to burn up waste before we get a highly functional LFTR's with the ability to siphon in fission products. In the end, no road should be left uncharted when the end result maybe the salvation of the energy crisis and a life like star trek

I plan to dedicate most of my laymen efforts over the next couple of months in learning more about fission for use in determining if I want to drop my life for what is it now and pursue nuclear physics. Pretty sharp turn from where I am now, but I almost feel morally compelled to do so.

No doubt ADSR would produce some great science, but it wouldn't address chemistry issues, or any other important issue any better than a LFTR project. It seems to me that it just introduces large amounts of extra complexity and cost. Particle accelerators are big unreliable machines, hence the need for 3 of them for redundancy and they could well reduce safety if something goes wrong. They are not even particularly suited to breeding, as they produce protons which as the name suggests are charged and so need to be very high energy to hit a nucleus and cause fission. The cynic in me says the whole idea was cooked up by the nuclear energy industry to ensure costs could be kept high, and so turn them and their friends in other energy industries a bigger profit (or even just a profit?). My understanding is also that between the various stockpiles of fissile we have, and high breeding ratios from early LFTRs startup fuel should not be a big issue.

I wish you all the best in your learning, I can think of few endeavors more worthy of changing your life's direction >> ^GeeSussFreeK:

>> ^Spacedog79:
The ADSR or "Accelerator Driven Sub-critical Reactor" is unfortunately a massive waste of time. Why not build a properly configured LFTR reactor and it does just the same thing and you don't need to build 3 large particle accelerators to do it.

I agree in one sense, but in another, the chemistry of the LFTR might prove impossible to solve (though this is hardly even a fear atm), so divesting in a "less" effective way to fission isn't a complete waste. Also, you could use this just to breed thorium which would be handy if you hand thousands of thorium generators to start up (you need a good deal of U233 to start the reaction as Thorium is only fertile, not fissionable). This also would be a good way to burn up waste before we get a highly functional LFTR's with the ability to siphon in fission products. In the end, no road should be left uncharted when the end result maybe the salvation of the energy crisis and a life like star trek
I play to dedicate most of my laymen efforts over the next couple of months in learning more about fission for use in determining if I want to drop my life for what is it now and pursue nuclear physics. Pretty sharp turn from where I am now, but I almost feel morally compelled to do so.

This is all nice and dandy, except when you consider that every time you go to get a thorium node, some alliance fuck shows up and ninjas it...

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

Maybe Black Mesa?

(that was joke, haha fat chance)

@Spacedog79

Indeed, this takes a different approach than a LFTR, I wasn't meaning to suggest this would solve a parallel set of problems. And I don't know if the complexity of it should be a deal breaker right away, look at combustion engines, Diesel is by far simpler than Gasoline engines, however both have their uses; complexity alone can't be the deciding factor.

Also, from my understanding...and let me point out again that I am no expert, but it seemed that while they are indeed firing protons, they are firing them at a heavy metal, and through the spallation effect, producing a beam of neutrons (or that is the plan, they currently are just beaming electrons I believe). Either way, it is a complex way to go about fission; but very much like Gas Vs Diesel with the lack of a perfectly sustained reactor (Uranium or Thorium) of perfect ability, research in this quasi-dieselesk solution might not be a terrible waste of time and money.

There is also a "problem" of using the fissile we have today, as far as I understand it. As they are mixed with many other undesirable fissile and non-fissile fission products in a chemical stew. So to use that, you would need a secure, safe, and practical way to go about reconditioning and reconstituting it in a form you could use. Once again, not a deal breaker for that to happen either, but you have to keep your mind and options open for good technologies that offer a different game plan. Ultimately, I think a critical reactor is the way you want to go if you can get the engineering and physics behind you, if not, or in certain situations, perhaps sub-critical will offer some unique solutions.

Thanks for the well wishes, apparently, one of the better nuclear schools is in my state...score! And one of the others is near my family...double score!

This video needs a little less professor Robert Winston and lot more Peter Weyland.

You are most probably right about using spallation, I hadn't considered that. Either way it seems rather a complex solution to a non-existent problem. I am aware that some of the technology needed to make the accelerators powerful enough is fairly recent, so they must consume a fair amount of juice.

Reviving a super long dead convo, but it turns out you were WAAAY right. The reactor portion for these systems are still 99% critical, the accelerator is just providing a drastically small portion of neutrons. The less it provides the better return on energy, because like you said, the accelerator isn't running for free. If proton beams become cheaper in both capital costs and energy demands, perhaps their neutrons would be easier to design for than via chain reaction via moderation methods, but I don't see that happening soon, if ever. This might be one of those neat, but dumb things