4 ms·
Sigh. Claims made by a few people about a particular molten salt reactor design do not stand up to scrutiny. Molten salt reactors, on the other hand, are prov
by ajarmst 10y ago
Sigh. Claims made by a few people about a particular molten salt reactor design do not stand up to scrutiny. Molten salt reactors, on the other hand, are proven technology.
- pjc50 10y agoHow many of them are in commercial use today? Where?
- ajarmst 10y ago"Proven Technology" != "Many are currently in commercial use". Had I meant the latter, that's what I would have said. The initial theory behind MSRs was well-defined prior to the 1960s, and experimental reactors (notably the ARE and MSRE) demonstrated the viability of the concept 50 years ago. THE LFTR is one of the most interesting modern reactor concepts and is being explored by several countries (I'm personally more of a fan of the LMBR--if only because it's closer to full commercial viability (and would already be there had Clinton and Gore not murdered the project)---but that's another story). The failure of Gen IV reactors to gain widespread commercial usage (especially in the age of global warming) is about fear, politics and economic interests, not the viability of the technology.
- m389571 10y agoБН-600 & БН-800, Russia.
- acidburnNSA 10y agoThose are both liquid-metal cooled solid-fueled reactors (sodium-cooled fast reactors). Sodium in elemental form is a metal, not a salt like sodium-chloride. There has never been a commercial molten-salt reactor.