3 ms·

· Liquid fueled MSR, safety is best of any other source. So, we think regulators will lower barriers over time as we prove this. · Waste management is easier s

· Liquid fueled MSR, safety is best of any other source. So, we think regulators will lower barriers over time as we prove this. · Waste management is easier since our waste will be ~5x less mass per kg fuel (~500x less mass per kWh energy), and also returns to natural radioactivity much faster (one or two centuries). We actually plan to sell most of the fission products as useful materials. · As of now, our reactors are planned to be mostly stainless steel. Most of the lifetime mass-throughput of current GI-GIII fission plants is concrete and steel, of which we have basically none of the concrete and much less steel because no pressure vessel. So, decommissioning is much easier and probably will be internally profitable. You're right about the last part, because solar will almost definitely get at least 2x cheaper than it is today, and within not more than a few decades. My perception is biased (ofc), but in my view it's actually very likely that we will reach or surpass our goal, though, so I personally wouldn't bet on renewables.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Thanks. There's been quite the resurgence of interest in salt since it just about disappeared in the 70s or 80s. I hope you manage it - though I tend to think we'll have a mix of sources rather than making renewables irrelevant. That may be reserve from having heard the "too cheap to meter" slogan a time or two too often. :) Even properly competitive nuclear will make decarbonising far easier, as I'm not at all convinced by grid scale battery, so I hope someone manages...
- johnmorrison 7y ago
  Yeah, I agree with you completely. I think we will probably get fission to like 4/5 of the world energy supply and 95% of electricity within our lifetimes. Solar panels are a great thing to have on your house if you can afford them and want the security in the case of some kind of grid problem. They're also good if you need energy in the middle of nowhere. We want to put fission reactors in most remote communities, even small ones, but if small enough groups of people are going out into uninhabited places it doesn't make sense, so solar panels are better. I don't really see any utility in wind energy at all, other than in areas where solar doesn't make sense. Batteries are a really environmentally bad idea for non-transport/device energy supply, because of density. So I think it's best we avoid intermittent sources for most of the grid power.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago

Thanks. There's been quite the resurgence of interest in salt since it just about disappeared in the 70s or 80s. I hope you manage it - though I tend to think we'll have a mix of sources rather than making renewables irrelevant. That may be reserve from having heard the "too cheap to meter" slogan a time or two too often. :) Even properly competitive nuclear will make decarbonising far easier, as I'm not at all convinced by grid scale battery, so I hope someone manages...

johnmorrison 7y ago
Yeah, I agree with you completely. I think we will probably get fission to like 4/5 of the world energy supply and 95% of electricity within our lifetimes. Solar panels are a great thing to have on your house if you can afford them and want the security in the case of some kind of grid problem. They're also good if you need energy in the middle of nowhere. We want to put fission reactors in most remote communities, even small ones, but if small enough groups of people are going out into uninhabited places it doesn't make sense, so solar panels are better. I don't really see any utility in wind energy at all, other than in areas where solar doesn't make sense. Batteries are a really environmentally bad idea for non-transport/device energy supply, because of density. So I think it's best we avoid intermittent sources for most of the grid power.