LFTR's

Discussion in 'Physics & Math' started by ZMacZ, Dec 17, 2014.

  1. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    I just read something about LFTR's..

    In a basic description they say that there's two 'circuits' involved to supply them with fuel and to cool them..

    Why ?

    If the fuel itself heats up, can't that by itself be used in direct heat exchange ?

    (the heat fuel releases it's heat into the water, converting that to steam ?)

    It says it's being pumped in there, starts to react, and heats up..

    So when it comes out it oughta be like really hot by itself right ?

    Release it's heat into the water..get steam ?..or am I seeing this too nooby ?

    And instead of using a diff source of initial neutrons..can't it use it's own ?
    I mean, if it's the actual fuel, it oughta release neutrons right ?
    So..when it releases neutrons, why would it need a separate source ?

    Yea..I know..questions questions..but you guys studied for it right ?
    (I'm not an encyclopedic brain like urs..)
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    Hmm..

    http://www.gizmag.com/fission-reactor-space-mission/25178/

    getting these guys to work in tandem..I think it would yield plenty of energy..

    So.. - makes up mind -....

    LFTR+Sterlings..you could actually use the fuel system to transport the heat around..allowing for modular power production...

    Although I would make sure it would have the ability to shut off the fuel transport to damaged sections..(micro-meteorites..)

    But ofc..I'm either not making sense to you guys again right ?

    but that's ok..useful constructive comments plz..pro's and con's are ok in either direction..

    thanx..
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    The separate circuits are there to keep the radioactivity isolated/contained.
     
    KitemanSA likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    Umm..sorry for the long reply..

    But..in space..does it matter that there's some radiation left ? It's spread out for thousands of kilometres..
    (and also..neutrons keep their inertia when they get emitted right ?..which means they'd not be there for long at all ?..)
    (I mean..those neutrons would get absorbed by other planetary bodies or
    would shoot out of the solar system in a really long trajectory no ?)

    (do correct me if I'm wrong..)
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    21,644
    If you ever have to service, replace or decommission the thing - yes, it matters.
    It's not the neutrons themselves that are the problem in a reactor that has been shut down. It is the secondary radiation in all the reactor hardware that results from neutron bombardment. That often results in gamma ray radiation and remains dangerous for a long, long time.
     
  9. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    I'm not sure I'm following: Has an LFTR ever been used in space? I don't think they have. For ground-based reactors, safety is paramount. If you are just asking about a hypothetical: In space, maybe not, but there are other issues beyond even servicing: many materials don't like radiation and deteriorate when exposed to it.
     
  10. ZMacZ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    123
    Ah..ok....didn't think that through...so..secondary flow is required...thanx...

    (and no..they are not being used in space..as far as I know....)
    (and yes..radiation bawd...but I was thinking unmanned probe...no service..)
     

Share This Page