Still no Thorium Carriers

that guy is a retard. but the Russians have a huge leg up .only recently has DOE been given enough money to actually do reactor research as. anti-nuke retards are strong in the dnc.

thorium is vastly over rated as a landbased reactor fuel why would you want it on a ship. I mean seriously ship reactors have always been vanilla as fuck for the sake of safety

>contingency plans
How would they get the power from an aircraft carrier to the city? Did the naval bases have some kind of special power transfer equipment?

Cables

>nuclear weapons on a naval vessel owned by a nuclear superpower
Oh no, what will we ever do?

Dude, US nuclear industry is more or less dead. Civilian is dead and sold. Rosatom meanwhile maybe the most successful Russian state owned corporation.

It’s not really dead. It’s definitely less big then it was in the 50s, but the US still absolutely has a nuclear industry.

>Dude, US nuclear industry is more or less dead.
What a bizarre thing to say considering how huge their fleet of commercial nuclear reactors is.

Attached: 150811-nuclear-reactors-chart.png (618x768, 41K)

Who do you think operates USN reactor plants?
Hint: it isn’t the zeroes.

Its 8 reactors and 4 turbines.

Yeah, big problem that average lifespan of your civilian reactor is 40 years. And US stopped building those in 1972. You do the math. US have a dozens of reactors that need immediate replacement, but Westinghouse Electric Company is bankrupt. Enrichment is in very bad shape either. Recycling almost doesn't exist. Maybe God Emperor Trump can fix some of that problems. Meanwhile Rosatom is ready to sell liquid metal cooled reactors - proof of concept BN-800 is ready and operational. First BN-1200 reactor that will be available for export is under construction. Their current export VVER-1200 is much more reliable than American AP-1000, which is ambitious but not polished enough.

>Your an airbase.
No I identify as an attack helicopter you bigot

Liquid-metal reactors were tried on at least one US sub in like the 50s. They lost interest in the technology after that. I know the Soviets tried them in their Alfa Class, but had a number of issues with the coolant freezing, with 4 out of 7 vessels allegedly being decommissioned after the reactor shut down and the metal solidified around it.

>I know the Soviets tried them in their Alfa Class, but had a number of issues with the coolant freezing
It was problem of Soviet fleet being clusterfuck and lack of a proper shore infrastructure. Reactor itself was great and because of that they continue to develop that technology. Coolant freezing is not a bug, but a feature that gives you a very reliable fail safe mechanism against incidents with radioactive materials.

>Coolant freezing is not a bug
until it freezes in a return pipe and your pile over heats and melts

Uranium mining is troublesome as you often have to deal with radioactive ore and xenon gas. Thorium isn't radioactive on it's own and only decays in the presence of neutron emitters and doesn't require enrichment. This means you can have a safer, cheaper reactor using existing designs.

The only reason we don't have Thorium reactors is that all our tech is Uranium based because of the need for nuclear bombs.

Unfortunately, Nuclear power competes with Coal and you know how hard Trump pushes coal.

It was purpose built for the Navy though, it was the Navy that funded the first liquid fuel Thorium reactor ever built.

But for the Pentagon, Congress, and Westinghouse, streamlining everything for uranium / plutonium was the answer so Thorium died.
The test reactor did great.

Why would you share a turbine between two reactors?
Or were they small reactors and big turbines, that would make sense in a “volume of steam needed” kinda way.

we did but it's still being tested. Don't want to "accidentally" like Russia does
>>some of them
all of them and most of the subs too. We also have a nuclear cruiser still floating around somewhere I think, not sure what they did with that.
Russia cant even properlyu change the oil in the ir petrol motors let alone try to operate a nuclear reactor. the fact is is that even though they've managed to create a nuclear arsenal it is so shit that even they fear to use it because of how dirty the reactions are.

Attached: 1548545459149.gif (627x502, 940K)

Obama tried to restart Americas nuclear with a LFTR design requirement which would be granted expedited build permits and vastly reduced insurance premiums.. but the Congress committee created to do it got lobbied by Westinghouse to use their old (but new) Gen3 AP-1000 design... which is exactly what the Administration said not to use.

There's coal in them thar hills

They are. US nuclear reactor industry is kinda desolate, while Russians introduce things like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BN-1200_reactor
economist.com/graphic-detail/2018/08/07/russia-leads-the-world-at-nuclear-reactor-exports
This is the point he's making, not that Russia has the most nuclear reactors per se. The US just have their reactors going and don't bother much. Russians are actually developing and selling their reactors.
>Soviets tried them in their Alfa Class, but had a number of issues with the coolant freezing
It was 100% maintenance ashore problem.

Mobile Chernobyl was a gigantic shitshow.
Admiral Rickover HATED the idea of a nuclear surface fleet and intentionally made it as expensive, overcomplicated and shitty as possible so they'd never want to build another one.
It was still a huge success, and with the advent of nuclear cruisers, a carrier could ditch it's battlegroup, and blast through the ocean with an escort while they were both refueled via helicopter. Made the Soviets tactically shit themselves that we could have an air wing anywhere in the world at the drop of a hat

All subs are nuclear powered too dingus

you guys bought this: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor when soviet union collapsed and tried to copy it. you failed

If he wanted anything done with nuke power maybe she shouldn't have had a bunch of anti-nuke guys appointed at the DoE and NRC.

That said, the death of the US nuclear industry is highly exaggerated.

t. in the industry

>all of them
>All subs are nuclear powered
Lol, no.

Attached: 636.3 varshavyanka b-265 krasnodar & f82 hms somerset.jpg (3444x1816, 3.34M)

>TOPAZ_nuclear_reactor
Wait, what? I thought TOPAZ was used on US-A satellites for active over the horizon anti-ship missile guidance? Is it like a different thing or how the fuck did they sell it, I mean it's a fucking top notch technology.

Attached: us-a__2.jpg (400x188, 6K)

To put this into perspective, it's like the US selling Russia nuclear powered B-21 right now.

Lies

Fuel is corrosive.

>failed
But the TOPAZ-II section says testing was successful?

They weren't anti-nuclear, they were anti-nuclear weapon, aka anti-plutonium. Which is why the new nuclear push by the administration failed. Thanks lobbyists.

ALL US NAVY SUBS you dingus.

>ALL US NAVY SUBS
Well, should have specified it then.

Attached: 636.3 varshavyanka b-265 krasnodar (2).jpg (2000x1204, 663K)

>How would they get the power from an aircraft carrier to the city?

Attached: 1538753831702.jpg (903x960, 52K)

Every aircraft carrier is nuclear powered. The last conventionally powered carriers were decommissioned in the 90's and early 2000's.

There are also no nuclear powered ships beyond carriers and subs. Its to costly to maintain

>sincerely, a squid

It would also be an issue if the reactor had to shut down at sea. Can you imagine a reactor SCRAM meaning you just totaled the ship?

>Yeah, big problem that average lifespan of your civilian reactor is 40 years. And US stopped building those in 1972.
90 out of 98 US reactors have received 20 year extensions on their operating licenses, which allows them to operate for 60 years.
Some operators are contemplating applying for a additional 20 year licence extensions.

>You do the math. US have a dozens of reactors that need immediate replacement, but Westinghouse Electric Company is bankrupt.
Westinghouse was restructured after it filed for bankruptcy in 2017 and is not under creditor protection anymore, so what you're saying is factually wrong.
And there are other reactor vendors that can sell modern reactors to US electricity companies (GE Hitachi, Toshiba, KHNP, Framatome)

>Recycling almost doesn't exist.
Reprocessing was banned in the US in 1977.
But that's irrelevant because reprocessing makes no financial sense at current uranium prices.
It is only done in countries where the state owns the electricity companies and actually pays for the reprocessing (France, Russia).
The UK for example just closed its reprocessing plant at Sellafield because it was not financially viable anymore.

> Meanwhile Rosatom is ready to sell liquid metal cooled reactors - proof of concept BN-800 is ready and operational. First BN-1200 reactor that will be available for export is under construction.
I find no BN-1200 being under construction at pris.iaea.org.
And those fast breeder reactors are not competitive with light water reactors. They cost at least 20% more to operate.

>Their current export VVER-1200 is much more reliable than American AP-1000
Source?

Attached: power-reactors-license-renewals.png (1019x800, 476K)

Well, kinda yeaaah, but you know and I know, that US provides ten times better maintenance for boats than Soviets/Russians. So, accidents like that wouldn't happen in America.

If you are referring to liquid-metal reactors on Alfa-class, they are safe by nature. They literally seal themselves in case of such an accident. Not a single man suffered any type of radiation poisoning with these reactors despite them being rather faulty due to the issue of imperfect maintenance ashore.

>Reprocessing was banned in the US in 1977.
What the fuck, why? It's the future of this technology in general.

>Current status of the nuclear industry:
>452 nuclear power reactors in Operation
>0 nuclear power reactors in Long Term Shutdown
>54 nuclear power reactors Under Construction

>zero in long term shutdown
Wait, does that mean the Japs restarted the reactors north of Fukushima ( facility name started with an O ) that were turned off because of the damaged power grid?

Same as Yucca complex, GREENPEACE lobbying.

B/c Jimmy Carter is a communist faggot who should die in a fire after choking on a bag of AIDS infected dicks.

>What the fuck, why?
From Wiki: “On 7 April 1977, President Jimmy Carter banned the reprocessing of commercial reactor spent nuclear fuel.
The key issue driving this policy was the risk of nuclear weapons proliferation by diversion of plutonium from the civilian fuel cycle, and to encourage other nations to follow the USA lead.
President Reagan lifted the ban in 1981, but did not provide the substantial subsidy that would have been necessary to start up commercial reprocessing.”

Reprocessing isn’t actually banned anymore, but since it would likely never be financially profitable no one has been willing to do it in the US.
Only a government program could make it a reality.

Attached: 85B23D2A-EBE4-4A14-A0F5-91FE5D61C052.jpg (720x480, 66K)

>GREENPEACE
Fuck them.
>two operatives sank the flagship of the Greenpeace fleet, the Rainbow Warrior, at the Port of Auckland in New Zealand on its way to a protest against a planned French nuclear test in Moruroa
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_the_Rainbow_Warrior
>Russian authorities seized the Greenpeace ship the Arctic Sunrise in international waters in the Russian Exclusive Economic Zone on 19 September 2013, arrested the crew at gunpoint, towed the ship to Murmansk, and detained the crew of 28 activists and two freelance journalists
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenpeace_Arctic_Sunrise_ship_case

to

Attached: greenpeace-arctic-sunrise-court-.jpg (690x388, 365K)

The issue isn't safety, it's the inability to restart if it's left off for too long. An emergency shutdown in most naval reactors doesn't require you to be towed to shore for reactor replacement.

>Wait, does that mean the Japs restarted the reactors north of Fukushima that were turned off because of the damaged power grid?
Japan’s nuclear reactor fleet wasn’t taken offline because of damage to the grid, but because the government ordered them to do so during 2011-2012.
Their whole regulatory system was overhauled in 2013 and electricity companies have had to reapply for new operating licenses with much stricter safety requirements.
Only 9 reactors have been restarted up until now and the only reason why the other 30 or so operable reactors are not officially seen as being in long-term shutdown is because Japan has never told the IAEA to classify them as such.
It’s probably for PR reasons.
The government wants those reactors back in operation.

Attached: 6F72F9A8-EF3D-4805-940F-C0D3ABA26554.jpg (324x498, 75K)

Sounds like these reactors would be excellent for industrial powerplants. Especially since you can keep the restart equipment onsite.

Russia does exactly that nowadays.

>The issue isn't safety, it's the inability to restart if it's left off for too long
Yes, this is indeed an issue because once it;s solid there;s not much you can do, but it's a logistical one, the one you can deal with if we're talking nuclear power plants. Pint being it's probably the safest design in the sense of being accident-proof by far nowadays and it's a really damn efficient one too.

Russia has 2 fast breeder reactors, 10 RBMKs and 20 VVERs in operation.
All their new builds are VVERs.
The future of russian nuclear power are light water reactors, not fast breeders.

Attached: E5972306-8980-41EF-986E-3D2E982279D6.jpg (638x442, 72K)

>using MW instead of SHP
pls

I have no idea actually.
Thats just the way it is. Maybe the 8 turbine figure user pointed out is correct in the sense that you will most likely have a high and a low pressure turbine, feeding on the expanded steam of turbine one, on a single shaft. But if that is the case it is still to be considered one turbine set, as these are never independent.

So it still holds true that the Enterprise feeds one turbine set by 2 reactors and i was always interested in why. As I dont have any layouts of the powerplant i can only guess on a few factors. One could be, that you see the combined output is just slightly above a Nimitz-Class, maybe it was a technical necessity because you just did not have high powered compact PWRs then. On the other hand that is a major safety issue, although one might initially think that you gain resundancy. 8 Nuclear plants, each reactor will have its own independend coolant circle(s), which means extraordinary maintenance, way more controlled spaces and generelly the increase in operational risk of 8 fucking reactors, compared to one on most subs or 2 on bigger russian subs and most nuclear survace vessels.

Iam actually keen on learning more on that design decision.

Attached: scooby doos.jpg (992x1024, 102K)

Why haven't we nuclear tanks yet?
>muh crew shielding
robots
>why?
energy output = firepower when lasers/railguns are the armament.
>easily killed with missiles
CIWS, laser countermeasures, and active defense systems like Lockheed or Rheinmetal's

A carrier reactor will be able to support hundreds of the small athena lasers which has been used to disable drones @ 2 kilometers range, using them in an array can increase the range of lethal intensity dozens of times allowing one of these vehicles to clear the skies with lasers.

Attached: bagger288.jpg (2550x1534, 752K)

fucking retard

un-enlightened

Firstly the sea-wolf failed because of material engineering, there wasn't a material that would be a good enough heat transfer medium while being a pressure boundary for 1200 psig steam at the time.

Secondly, the usual liquid metal reactors have very small coolant volumes and thus have a low reserve heat capacity. This is the largest reason the Russians and USA haven't gone back. If you have low heat capacity, when the reactor shuts down for some reason you;ll only have propulsion for a few seconds vice tens of minutes for other designs. Also with a low heat capacity changes in load have to be effected over a long span of time to not drastically change plant parameters.

Thirdly, you never want to loose flow through the reactor. This is how you loose your ability to remove decay heat and have a Japan scale fuck up on your hands.

The reason was that the reactors were submarine plants so that parts commonality was a thing. Originally the plan was for one type of reactor with four different uses.

Two reactors shared a engine room that had a high and low pressure propulsion turbine combination, a ships services turbine generator, and a reactor coolant pump turbine generator. This made the ship have 4x engine rooms with 2x reactors each for a total of 8 reactors.

>weaponizing bucket-wheel excavators
STOP REMINDING ME OF MY ANGUISH

See The reason for eight reactors was based on the steam usage of the previous non nuclear CVs. They had a submarine plant that had a specific power rating and steam generation capability then shoe horned enough of them to fit on a CV platform.

Who else is relevant in the discussion of nuclear sub and aircraft carrier vessels?

What's the most damage resistant reactor design and how dangerous overall would it be to equip a permanent fortification with a nuclear reactor?

I though reprocessing had a military bonus side effect so that's why the Russians and France still do it.
>>The separated plutonium can be used to fuel reactors, but also to make nuclear weapons. In the late 1970’s, the United States decided on nuclear non-proliferation grounds not to reprocess spent fuel from U.S. power reactors

Do you even know anything about the age, state and performance of U.S. nuclear power plants and their carrier companies? Or did you just Google some shit because you got butthurt?

>received 20 year extensions on their operating licenses, which allows them to operate for 60 years.
Wow I guess they are basically as good as new and compareable to modern nuclear power plants and thanks for doing the math on 40+20

>Westinghouse was restructured after defacto bankruptcy
Is this supposed to be a good thing?

>there are other reactor vendors that can sell modern reactors to US electricity companies (GE Hitachi, Toshiba, KHNP, Framatome)
ah yes the famous U.S. companies GE Hitachi, Toshiba, KHNP and Framatome

I think the Germans had this problem with the Tiger tank. Something that massive is fairly limited as to what it can move across. Too heavy and it needs strong ground, too big a footprint to reduce the ground pressure and you need flat land. The world is too big and uneven a place for super tanks like that. By comparison aircraft carriers have it easier because so much of the world is ocean, and that ocean is more or less consistent no matter where you sail.

compared to any other power storage / generation system a nuclear fortification is safer in every way. Nuclear power has the potentiality of being completely closed so your water/steam cycle can be done entirely underground.

The danger would depend on the reactor type, how much power you're generating, and how shielded the crew are. Generally speaking if something could damage the reactor it also destroyed the fortification as well.

bagger drives on loose soil, ground pressure = area of contact / weight

And furthermore massive objects like this stabilize their own ground by creating little pressure ripples between the contact points, each foot compresses the earth toward one another locking the soil in place.

If you were truly worried about getting the vehicle stuck it could come with its own bucket wheel to carve out favourable inclines and clear obstacles. I think the best way to use it would be to plan a course through desirable terrain and sightlines then simply crawl toward the enemy positions.

literally everything in this statement is wrong

Attached: 1533539316132.jpg (1000x1000, 231K)

>Onagawa
Yeah, that one.
Sweet Jebus all that electricity capacity being offline, what the hell is powering Japan right now then, diesel generation sets?

God I wish North American governments would do that against GP, they've done so much damage to people with their damned propaganda.
Alberta didn't get its first electricity providing nuclear reactor built up by Grimshaw because of them. Something that would reduce this provinces pollution output and they ruined it.

weight and area are round the wrong way in your equation.

true

Attached: landkreuzer.jpg (1920x1276, 843K)

Civilian NUKE WORKER
AMA til i pass out

It's a shame since Alberta is literally an ideal location for a nuclear plant.

How you nod kno ddis

how many meltdowns a week do you have on average?

Would a modern nuclear powered aircraft be more feasible, something that can stay in the air perpetually? I know they tried doing a nuclear powered bomber back in the 50s.

Shielding and weight would make it absolutely not viable.

That and a plane exploding in atmosphere would literally cover the entire globe in fallout while a aircraft carrier would be shielded by water and contained by pressure (hopefully it goes down in deepwater)

How does an RBMK reactor explode?

By running the reactor with none of its failsafes on.
>explode
More like flips fucking damn near upside down.

Google SL1 Incident USA
Bro gets kababed by a control rod because some dude was getting cucked by a coworkerm

If a fission powered craft ever passes 1:1 thrust to weight ratio it WON'T be using a helicopter-like blade.

IMHO the only feasible way for this to happen is with rockets, so a potential method would be to rapidly decompose atmospheric water into h2 and o2 in your reactor then use that as fuel for the rocket(s)

Attached: helicarrier.jpg (1400x788, 1.12M)

those big ass turbines @ speed of sound wouldn't even lift 10% of the weight

>And the there's no argument against not having thorium carriers, as your not making nuclear weapons on board your vessel.

Thorium's fuel cycle unavoidably features protactinium as one of its intermediate isotopes. It's excessively radioactive, and takes weeks to decay to acceptable levels for maintenance tasks. Needing to wait for weeks to perform any kind of emergency maintenance on a nuclear carrier outside of combat conditions is unacceptable.

thanks

Literally the only thing wrong is

>Literally the only thing wrong is
I meant to say "literally the only thing wrong has been corrected by "

Nobody tried to copy it. TOPAZ I was vaguely interesting but ultimately too unreliable to to be of any use and TOPAZ II was exactly the same but attempts to correct the serious problems with the first models increased the weight to the point that it was useless for any space based application.

It's more like selling an atomic powered Chevy Skylark. The technical challenges to make it are interesting, but it's of no use to anyone.

This

>Do you even know anything about the age, state and performance of U.S. nuclear power plants?
What are you implying? That the US reactor fleet is unreliable?
That is simply not true. US commercial reactors have been running at around 90% operating factors since the early 2000s.
Let's take Oconee reactor 1 as an example, a reactor that is now 46 years old.
In 2015, it operated at full power throughout the entire year. That's a 100% operating factor.
Source: pris.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/ReactorDetails.aspx?current=624

>Is this supposed to be a good thing?
Yes, because the company is now operating normally again.

>ah yes the famous U.S. companies GE Hitachi, Toshiba, KHNP and Framatome
GE Hitachi is headquartered in North Carolina.

Attached: Oconee+INPO+photo_hero.jpg (1920x480, 182K)

>Sweet Jebus all that electricity capacity being offline, what the hell is powering Japan right now then, diesel generation sets?
No, it's mostly natural gas and coal, which isn't financially sustainable in the long term.

Attached: chart3.png (587x290, 28K)