What Nuclear Energy Tells Us About the World
The fact that the Light-Water-Reactor is the basis of the nuclear industry world-wide tells us something about the world we seemingly don't want to admit. It tells us that a small Cabal of individuals actually runs everything regardless of how we may perceive nation-states.
So how does nuclear energy tell us this? It tells us this because the entire nuclear industry has been built around what is perhaps the dumbest reactor design possible where any second-year nuclear engineering student knows that the only way to build a reactor, from an engineering standpoint, is to imitate the Sun. When an entire industry can operate in a room where an elephant takes up 90% of the volume, there is only one explanation, and that is that someone has ordered the ignoring of the elephant.
What I have found to be the most profound fact of all is the observation that not a single country throughout the world ever rejected the light-water reactor design. And herein lies the revelation. It is one thing if a cabal dictates that the Nuclear Regulatory Agency promote a horrendously bad reactor design. But you would think that such a dictate would not be binding on Russia, or Japan, or Germany, or France, or all the other nations that have built nuclear power plants, and yet, not a single one of these nations, have ever chosen to build a really really inexpensive, inherently safe, Ideal Reactor (IR). And it is this universal adherence to the worst reactor design conceivable in the glaring obviousness of how to build an IR, that we see that one power center controls the entire world.
To corroborate these claims, it is only necessary to describe an IR and why most second year engineering student would see how and why it is an IR. Following this description, a brief comparison to a conventional reactor (CR) is made. After these explanations, it is left to the reader to explain how a country like Japan or Germany, with all the really bright people in their country, could not see the obviousness of an IR.
So what is a reactor and what makes a reactor ideal? A reactor is an assembly that must conserve neutrons to propagate a nuclear chain reaction while at the same time being able to convert the kinetic energy of charged particles into usable electricity. An IR is that design that performs these two functions at a minimum of risk and cost, in that order of primacy.
An IR consists of a 95% to 5% mixture of elemental Lead and Thorium powder that is circulated between a large tank and a heat exchanger. This design works because the absorption of fast neutrons in Lead is about 1% the absorption of neutrons in Thorium. This design optimizes both neutron conservation and heat exchange. It limits neutron loss to only the lead coolant because neutron stealing waste products are continuously removed and it does not have any core structure or other neutron scavenging apparati. It maximizes heat transfer by maximizing the fuel surface area to fuel volume ratio and by direct contact of the fuel in a metallic, high heat-conductivity, high heat-capacity, high boiling-point coolant.
This simple IR design is not just a multiple times superior reactor to CR, it is orders of magnitude superior. This reactor, first and foremost cannot be used as a force-multiplier weapon of mass destruction that can be used by an enemy against its own population. If a CR is bombed by an adversary, it will be a Fukishima scale disaster and all 100 U.S. reactors and 350 additional world-wide reactors have this character fault. In contrast, if an IR is bombed, the Thorium/Lead mixture may be spread hundreds of yards, but the Lead will rapidly congeal and encapsulate contamination within the Lead. It is doubtful that even 1/100th of 1% of the contamination could be disseminated.
An IR can be built and operated for 100 times lower costs. A CR cost about $5 billion for a one-gigawatt plant. An IR contains $50 million worth of lead and costs about $100 million for a plant that could produce 20-gigawatts of electricity. This is not an exaggeration or a typo, it is just the scale of how big the elephant in the room truly is. Because steam turbines and generators constitute 10% of electricity costs, an IR, while costing 100 times less than a CR, would only reduce electricity costs by 90%.
So how is it Germany, France, and Japan just blindly built incredibly dangerous and expensive CRs when an IR is so obvious and superior? How is it that out of all their nuclear engineer students in all these nations, no one could see the obvious? It belies belief that no one throughout the world could not see just how horrendous a design a light-water reactor truly is. Somehow and some way, the selection of the most superior engineer design was not allowed, and it was not allowed universally, world-wide. There are only two possible explanations. Either it takes a genius to note that Lead is a good heat carrier with a low, fast-neutron cross section or people make decisions world-wide and the appearance of national sovereignty is just a ruse to make people feel as if they have a semblance of self-determination. For myself, I do not think it takes a genius to note that Lead has two properties favorable to the two characteristics required by a nuclear reactor.
So how does nuclear energy tell us this? It tells us this because the entire nuclear industry has been built around what is perhaps the dumbest reactor design possible where any second-year nuclear engineering student knows that the only way to build a reactor, from an engineering standpoint, is to imitate the Sun. When an entire industry can operate in a room where an elephant takes up 90% of the volume, there is only one explanation, and that is that someone has ordered the ignoring of the elephant.
What I have found to be the most profound fact of all is the observation that not a single country throughout the world ever rejected the light-water reactor design. And herein lies the revelation. It is one thing if a cabal dictates that the Nuclear Regulatory Agency promote a horrendously bad reactor design. But you would think that such a dictate would not be binding on Russia, or Japan, or Germany, or France, or all the other nations that have built nuclear power plants, and yet, not a single one of these nations, have ever chosen to build a really really inexpensive, inherently safe, Ideal Reactor (IR). And it is this universal adherence to the worst reactor design conceivable in the glaring obviousness of how to build an IR, that we see that one power center controls the entire world.
To corroborate these claims, it is only necessary to describe an IR and why most second year engineering student would see how and why it is an IR. Following this description, a brief comparison to a conventional reactor (CR) is made. After these explanations, it is left to the reader to explain how a country like Japan or Germany, with all the really bright people in their country, could not see the obviousness of an IR.
So what is a reactor and what makes a reactor ideal? A reactor is an assembly that must conserve neutrons to propagate a nuclear chain reaction while at the same time being able to convert the kinetic energy of charged particles into usable electricity. An IR is that design that performs these two functions at a minimum of risk and cost, in that order of primacy.
An IR consists of a 95% to 5% mixture of elemental Lead and Thorium powder that is circulated between a large tank and a heat exchanger. This design works because the absorption of fast neutrons in Lead is about 1% the absorption of neutrons in Thorium. This design optimizes both neutron conservation and heat exchange. It limits neutron loss to only the lead coolant because neutron stealing waste products are continuously removed and it does not have any core structure or other neutron scavenging apparati. It maximizes heat transfer by maximizing the fuel surface area to fuel volume ratio and by direct contact of the fuel in a metallic, high heat-conductivity, high heat-capacity, high boiling-point coolant.
This simple IR design is not just a multiple times superior reactor to CR, it is orders of magnitude superior. This reactor, first and foremost cannot be used as a force-multiplier weapon of mass destruction that can be used by an enemy against its own population. If a CR is bombed by an adversary, it will be a Fukishima scale disaster and all 100 U.S. reactors and 350 additional world-wide reactors have this character fault. In contrast, if an IR is bombed, the Thorium/Lead mixture may be spread hundreds of yards, but the Lead will rapidly congeal and encapsulate contamination within the Lead. It is doubtful that even 1/100th of 1% of the contamination could be disseminated.
An IR can be built and operated for 100 times lower costs. A CR cost about $5 billion for a one-gigawatt plant. An IR contains $50 million worth of lead and costs about $100 million for a plant that could produce 20-gigawatts of electricity. This is not an exaggeration or a typo, it is just the scale of how big the elephant in the room truly is. Because steam turbines and generators constitute 10% of electricity costs, an IR, while costing 100 times less than a CR, would only reduce electricity costs by 90%.
So how is it Germany, France, and Japan just blindly built incredibly dangerous and expensive CRs when an IR is so obvious and superior? How is it that out of all their nuclear engineer students in all these nations, no one could see the obvious? It belies belief that no one throughout the world could not see just how horrendous a design a light-water reactor truly is. Somehow and some way, the selection of the most superior engineer design was not allowed, and it was not allowed universally, world-wide. There are only two possible explanations. Either it takes a genius to note that Lead is a good heat carrier with a low, fast-neutron cross section or people make decisions world-wide and the appearance of national sovereignty is just a ruse to make people feel as if they have a semblance of self-determination. For myself, I do not think it takes a genius to note that Lead has two properties favorable to the two characteristics required by a nuclear reactor.
Comments
Post a Comment