6 ms·
Okay, what's the solution? The Wikipedia article[1] says, "A 2011 MIT study concluded that although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cy
by kerkeslager 7y ago
Okay, what's the solution?
The Wikipedia article[1] says, "A 2011 MIT study concluded that although there is little in the way of barriers to a thorium fuel cycle, with current or near term light-water reactor designs there is also little incentive for any significant market penetration to occur. As such they conclude there is little chance of thorium cycles replacing conventional uranium cycles in the current nuclear power market, despite the potential benefits." What did they know at MIT in 2011 that we don't? Or were they just wrong?
If really no material will work for this, I can only imagine some sort of mag-lev design that keeps the molten salt out of contact with other materials, but that seems kind of far-fetched.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium_fuel_cycle
- Someone 7y ago”I can only imagine some sort of mag-lev design that keeps the molten salt out of contact with other materials” If you were to build that, how would you transfer the heat out of the molten salt?
- kerkeslager 7y agoI have no idea! Like I said, farfetched.
- akiselev 7y agoThe solution is to replace the reactor chamber far more often than you would in other reactor designs. It's not actually an insurmountable problem because fluoride chemistry is extremely common in nuclear engineering - most of our nuclear waste is stored as uranium hexafluoride after all - and there is a lot of expertise in dealing with exotic corrosive materials. It's just that replacing your entire reactor every year is astronomically expensive. Just because the technology exists to do it, doesn't mean that it can be done economically when competing against natural gas, solar, and wind.