That is ridiculous. Sodium is salt. It has the same chemical properties of salt. Sodium. You are like a dumb link bot. Google's what did you Google, molten salt. Was that everything they quoted in the press? How did you understand it? Did you read the chemicals of molten salts. Chlorides and nitrates? In that Wiki.
How can these people say there is no impact on the environment? Calling it Natrium. It isn't natural it is chemical and has big run off. Hence I asked. Sure it doesn't have the same nuclear waste. It has other run off. Read that Wiki link. Can you do that. With the rest of the chemicals in molten salts, they are environmentally toxic. Again they aren't the full process of that reactor.
Whoa whoa. Go take some high school chemistry and try again. Table salt contains the metal sodium. Sodium is NOT salt. It is a meltable metal that can store a lot of heat [and low absorption of neutrons which makes it a good coolant here], which is why it is used to transfer heat in a sodium-based reactor in cooling tubes.to boilers to make steam to run a turbine. The tubes are a sealed closed system and they do not contact the outside world. That is because the sodium would react badly with air and moisture. Basically this is like a railroad steam engine but with nukes instead of burning coal, and the steam drives electric turbines instead of wheels.
There is no runoff, it is a sealed system. You misinterpreted the Wiki article. Ask me anything and I will help with explanation.
It is using sodium derivatives. Sodium chloride and sodium nitrate for molten salts. Where are the emissions going, stream, like burning carbon causes what effect? Stop it.
A steam engine burning coal causes the release of carbon. You are arguing burning sodium causes nothing?
Sodium needs extreme heat before it is viable.
Sealed system that has emissions in the form of both steam and waste water. Anything with a furnace burning quote unquote metals does.
I didn't ask for your bullshit version of science either
I'm sorry to say you don't understand what you're talking about.
This type of reactor does not burn anything. it definitely doesn't burn sodium salts. It uses sodium metal as a coolant in the front stage of the cooling system. The following article shows a diagram of the system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor
Calling something you don't understand 'bullshit' doesn't do any of us any good.
Any way, the sea is salty, so it must be bad for the environment too? Hey, we need to ban the sea.
He has just admitted sodium is bad for the environment, read it. He said it. I had speculated that impact.
Yes chemistry has various salts, chlorides and nitrates etc. Almost all are various chemicals most are acidic. Reacting with the environment. Some help, most don't. We are talking about the compounds of sodium and its environmental impact. As it has been put into this paper.
Not whether you think, steam doesn't emit. It clearly does. He said the system is closed. Nonsense, when he compared it to a steam engine. But it isn't closed because all furnaces need ventilation and cooling, emitting. Leaving a run off.
Sodium is a type of salt. There are many different types of salts.
You are like a dumb link bot
Because "I'M" the one completely ignorant of how MSRs function. Ok, pal.
How did you understand it?
Nuclear energy is an interest of mine. I have a laymen understanding of MSRs, Chernobyl, weapons development, etc.
How can these people say there is no impact on the environment?
MSRs are self regulating. If the pressure gets too high it will stop, that's just because of the properties of these molten salts. Chernobyl on the other hand was made from spying on other programs so they were trying to fill in gaps. It had what was called a "positive output ratio" or some such nonsense. Basically the hotter it got, the better it ran. Which is completely illegal and imoral by any intelligent standards.
Sure, I bet if it did leak it wouldn't be great. It's by far much safer than what we're doing now, but you can't refine molten salts and attach them to an ICBM.
The speculation fucko was is sodium harmful to the environment. Yes.
Speculation was does the reactor called natrium, nothing natural about it using a chemical process, create run off. Again the answer is yes
Now answer how using sodium was so much better than carbon? I am struggling to understand it.
I didn't need your life story. I didn't ask for it, I don't care what you studied if you're bullshit and stupid. I speculated and since have had really dumb little bitches tell me really stupid things. The paper shits some advertising, next they're getting vaccinated for free and now their face is crooked, they can't have kids, and their brain is cloted, and their heart is enlarged, then they're in a coma but the press told them to swallow. I don't care about your Chernobyl. Speculation was the above. Not dumb analogies. Not how does it compare to nuclear, it doesn't, it doesn't have the same output.
Irrelevant because that's not what makes MSRs work, buckaroo.
chemical process, create run off.
What process and what "run off"?
Now answer how using sodium was so much better than carbon
What carbon? You mean coal? Did you mispell cesium?
if you're bullshit and stupid
No, U
since have had really dumb little bitches tell me really stupid things.
I can relate
The paper shits some advertising, next they're getting vaccinated for free and now their face is crooked, they can't have kids, and their brain is cloted, and their heart is enlarged, then they're in a coma but the press told them to swallow.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
don't care about your Chernobyl
Pretty relevant when discussing how safe reactors are.
it doesn't have the same output.
And electric cars don't have the same output as gas. What's the point? Are you making an argument or just making observations?
Electric cars are actually worse for the environment. How many more emissions are used in making brand new car manufacture. Rather than in the previous vehicles already manufactured and in use. It will take at least 3 generations of EVs to pay off that debt. Which they won't because they break quicker. Where does the energy come from. Many are still using coal power. Solar and wind need even more costs for the greater demand of even more energy being used, neither are environmental. Ewaste isn't being recycled according to the increasing demand we have already changed epochs from it. Panels contain
acids lead and plastic forgetting the battery. Turbines are made from carbon fibre. Regardless, how long do EVs last. The battery lasts about 7 years. Electricity is the first product to break in every car. Most people can't repair those parts. Costing even more services and lessening lifetimes. Every product used creating more emissions to reproduce. Unlike previous gas cars averaging much longer lifetimes for every part. EVs don't recycle like gas cars they are largely ewaste. Their batteries are also much worse environmentally for recycling.
But we are talking about your bullshit, the turbine is a vent. It has hot and cooled processes requiring water. It is a resource being depleted. If it isn't full of the production. Like nuclear water.
Aside from the run off of the constant resources needed to create its energy.
In the reactor setup, the sodium in this case and pressurized water in the case of a PWR are in a closed loop to prevent exposure to the atmosphere. The heat is passed via a heat exchanger with cool water on one side of a metal wall and hot water or melted sodium on the other. The nuclear reactor heated medium be it water or sodium does NOT make contact with the cooling medium, usually water. Think of it like a cooling block for a water cooled computer. The coolant passes through my cooling block, over the metal and takes the heat from the processor on the other side, and water never touches the processor.
Or to explain it like your car, your cars cooling system is pumping coolant around the outside of the cylinder and not inside the cylinder. The heating action of the cars combustion is cooled via conduction of the heat through the metal engine block to the coolant and to the environment via the radiator.
The vents on the steam turbine and cooling towers is non irradiated cooling water dropped into the tower, allowing it to condense into water and be reused at the bottom and excess heat floating out the top as steam. You can build a nuclear tower style cooling system for water cooled pc’s, I’ve done it in the past. Use a y connector with a 4” fan to blow air into and up the “tower”, use a shower head on top of the tower to drop the water like rain, and pump the collected water in the bottom through your water cooling setup. It’s possible to run the computer slightly under room temperature with this setup, and can be built rather cheaply.
And for your car, check for coolant leaks around your heater core, hoses and radiator. If there’s no visible coolant leak you’ve probably got a head gasket blown. Get that shit fixed before you ruin your engine. I’ve got a 1977 New Yorker that still doesn’t leak coolant to this day with original hoses on it. Losing coolant ISNT normal.
I didn't imply coolant was leaking only that an engine emits as it is in use, and the coolant level constantly needs topping up. Hence the constant run off of further resources needed in energy production and machine use. What amounts does it need to sustain its energy?
It is more energy efficient, because it using more resources. These are supposedly more environmental because it is sodium burning hotter and cooling quicker.
That is ridiculous. Sodium is salt. It has the same chemical properties of salt. Sodium. You are like a dumb link bot. Google's what did you Google, molten salt. Was that everything they quoted in the press? How did you understand it? Did you read the chemicals of molten salts. Chlorides and nitrates? In that Wiki.
How can these people say there is no impact on the environment? Calling it Natrium. It isn't natural it is chemical and has big run off. Hence I asked. Sure it doesn't have the same nuclear waste. It has other run off. Read that Wiki link. Can you do that. With the rest of the chemicals in molten salts, they are environmentally toxic. Again they aren't the full process of that reactor.
It potentially is worse than carbon.
Whoa whoa. Go take some high school chemistry and try again. Table salt contains the metal sodium. Sodium is NOT salt. It is a meltable metal that can store a lot of heat [and low absorption of neutrons which makes it a good coolant here], which is why it is used to transfer heat in a sodium-based reactor in cooling tubes.to boilers to make steam to run a turbine. The tubes are a sealed closed system and they do not contact the outside world. That is because the sodium would react badly with air and moisture. Basically this is like a railroad steam engine but with nukes instead of burning coal, and the steam drives electric turbines instead of wheels.
There is no runoff, it is a sealed system. You misinterpreted the Wiki article. Ask me anything and I will help with explanation.
It is using sodium derivatives. Sodium chloride and sodium nitrate for molten salts. Where are the emissions going, stream, like burning carbon causes what effect? Stop it.
A steam engine burning coal causes the release of carbon. You are arguing burning sodium causes nothing?
Sodium needs extreme heat before it is viable.
Sealed system that has emissions in the form of both steam and waste water. Anything with a furnace burning quote unquote metals does.
I didn't ask for your bullshit version of science either
I'm sorry to say you don't understand what you're talking about. This type of reactor does not burn anything. it definitely doesn't burn sodium salts. It uses sodium metal as a coolant in the front stage of the cooling system. The following article shows a diagram of the system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-cooled_fast_reactor
Calling something you don't understand 'bullshit' doesn't do any of us any good.
Any way, the sea is salty, so it must be bad for the environment too? Hey, we need to ban the sea.
Look at it you dumb stupid moron. What is wrong with you. It has hot and cold. Where it heats and cools. It has water and steam vents.
You are the epitome of a brainless nigger. I will call you bullshit.
He has just admitted sodium is bad for the environment, read it. He said it. I had speculated that impact.
Yes chemistry has various salts, chlorides and nitrates etc. Almost all are various chemicals most are acidic. Reacting with the environment. Some help, most don't. We are talking about the compounds of sodium and its environmental impact. As it has been put into this paper.
Not whether you think, steam doesn't emit. It clearly does. He said the system is closed. Nonsense, when he compared it to a steam engine. But it isn't closed because all furnaces need ventilation and cooling, emitting. Leaving a run off.
Sodium as he also said is bad environmentally.
Sodium is a type of salt. There are many different types of salts.
Because "I'M" the one completely ignorant of how MSRs function. Ok, pal.
Nuclear energy is an interest of mine. I have a laymen understanding of MSRs, Chernobyl, weapons development, etc.
MSRs are self regulating. If the pressure gets too high it will stop, that's just because of the properties of these molten salts. Chernobyl on the other hand was made from spying on other programs so they were trying to fill in gaps. It had what was called a "positive output ratio" or some such nonsense. Basically the hotter it got, the better it ran. Which is completely illegal and imoral by any intelligent standards.
Sure, I bet if it did leak it wouldn't be great. It's by far much safer than what we're doing now, but you can't refine molten salts and attach them to an ICBM.
What are you babbling on about?
The speculation fucko was is sodium harmful to the environment. Yes. Speculation was does the reactor called natrium, nothing natural about it using a chemical process, create run off. Again the answer is yes
Now answer how using sodium was so much better than carbon? I am struggling to understand it.
I didn't need your life story. I didn't ask for it, I don't care what you studied if you're bullshit and stupid. I speculated and since have had really dumb little bitches tell me really stupid things. The paper shits some advertising, next they're getting vaccinated for free and now their face is crooked, they can't have kids, and their brain is cloted, and their heart is enlarged, then they're in a coma but the press told them to swallow. I don't care about your Chernobyl. Speculation was the above. Not dumb analogies. Not how does it compare to nuclear, it doesn't, it doesn't have the same output.
Irrelevant because that's not what makes MSRs work, buckaroo.
What process and what "run off"?
What carbon? You mean coal? Did you mispell cesium?
No, U
I can relate
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
Pretty relevant when discussing how safe reactors are.
And electric cars don't have the same output as gas. What's the point? Are you making an argument or just making observations?
Electric cars are actually worse for the environment. How many more emissions are used in making brand new car manufacture. Rather than in the previous vehicles already manufactured and in use. It will take at least 3 generations of EVs to pay off that debt. Which they won't because they break quicker. Where does the energy come from. Many are still using coal power. Solar and wind need even more costs for the greater demand of even more energy being used, neither are environmental. Ewaste isn't being recycled according to the increasing demand we have already changed epochs from it. Panels contain acids lead and plastic forgetting the battery. Turbines are made from carbon fibre. Regardless, how long do EVs last. The battery lasts about 7 years. Electricity is the first product to break in every car. Most people can't repair those parts. Costing even more services and lessening lifetimes. Every product used creating more emissions to reproduce. Unlike previous gas cars averaging much longer lifetimes for every part. EVs don't recycle like gas cars they are largely ewaste. Their batteries are also much worse environmentally for recycling.
But we are talking about your bullshit, the turbine is a vent. It has hot and cooled processes requiring water. It is a resource being depleted. If it isn't full of the production. Like nuclear water.
Aside from the run off of the constant resources needed to create its energy.
In the reactor setup, the sodium in this case and pressurized water in the case of a PWR are in a closed loop to prevent exposure to the atmosphere. The heat is passed via a heat exchanger with cool water on one side of a metal wall and hot water or melted sodium on the other. The nuclear reactor heated medium be it water or sodium does NOT make contact with the cooling medium, usually water. Think of it like a cooling block for a water cooled computer. The coolant passes through my cooling block, over the metal and takes the heat from the processor on the other side, and water never touches the processor.
Or to explain it like your car, your cars cooling system is pumping coolant around the outside of the cylinder and not inside the cylinder. The heating action of the cars combustion is cooled via conduction of the heat through the metal engine block to the coolant and to the environment via the radiator.
The vents on the steam turbine and cooling towers is non irradiated cooling water dropped into the tower, allowing it to condense into water and be reused at the bottom and excess heat floating out the top as steam. You can build a nuclear tower style cooling system for water cooled pc’s, I’ve done it in the past. Use a y connector with a 4” fan to blow air into and up the “tower”, use a shower head on top of the tower to drop the water like rain, and pump the collected water in the bottom through your water cooling setup. It’s possible to run the computer slightly under room temperature with this setup, and can be built rather cheaply.
https://www.overclockers.com/nuclear-tower-water-cooling/ For an article explaining it, I was doing this kind of thing 20 years ago. Not my article, although i do have a couple on that site.
And for your car, check for coolant leaks around your heater core, hoses and radiator. If there’s no visible coolant leak you’ve probably got a head gasket blown. Get that shit fixed before you ruin your engine. I’ve got a 1977 New Yorker that still doesn’t leak coolant to this day with original hoses on it. Losing coolant ISNT normal.
Thank you for the reasonable explanation offered.
I didn't imply coolant was leaking only that an engine emits as it is in use, and the coolant level constantly needs topping up. Hence the constant run off of further resources needed in energy production and machine use. What amounts does it need to sustain its energy?
It is more energy efficient, because it using more resources. These are supposedly more environmental because it is sodium burning hotter and cooling quicker.
NA2+. Sodium. NAtrium