• partizan@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    Actually we can make nuclear molten salt reactors (working small scale stuff exist for long decades). Since the medium is liquid, it has much better utilization of the fuel, there is no pressurized radioactive water reservoirs (which is the actual issue with current reactors), to stop the reaction, you drain the fuel circulation into a container and you are done, no need to supply water to prevent criticality.

    But since those molten salt reactors could not be used to create plutonium for weapons, the current reactor design was chosen during cold war era.

    They have some drawbacks, like slow startup times, but the cons it provide are incredible.

    • burningquestion@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, but we don’t just need technological solutions that can crank out the requisite energy, we need technological solutions that aren’t going to facilitate nuclear proliferation even more than has already occurred. The United States right now is in an insane position vis a vis Pakistan because even though Pakistan shelters the US’s enemies and is effectively a passive-aggressively hostile power, it would be worse for the world if the current Pakistani state just collapsed. It’s a nuclear power, after all. What happens if, in the chaos, ISIS affiliates get their hands on Pakistani nukes? Or, I dunno, the Taliban? Or they disappear onto the international market and two years later the Sinaloa cartel proudly announces it’s the latest nuclear power? That’s the calculus with nuclear proliferation.

      This is such a drastic risk the US can’t bring itself to do anything about the people who sheltered Bin Laden and the Taliban during the Afghanistan War because that’s a lesser evil than running the risk of losing control of the nukes. Nuclear proliferation is a big deal.

    • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      MSRs and LFRs are horribly unreliable and don’t last. There hasn’t even been a successful demo reactor and the technical issues for running one safely at full power long term don’t even have proposed half-solutions.

        • schroedingershat@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          You’ve now swapped from molten salt reactors to sodium cooled ones while pretending they’re the same thing.

          CFR has also never run without using U235 as its main fuel source and the chinese program isn’t even pretending to do the hard bit of a breeder which is an economically viable separation system and burning transuranics (because it’s an even thinner veneer on the usual goal of failed breeder programs than usual).

          Mind-boggling stupidity as always.