5 ms·

While true, it's still better than fission in terms of waste. (And much less liable to Fukushima-style meltdowns, and less likely to lead to nuclear weapon prol

While true, it's still better than fission in terms of waste. (And much less liable to Fukushima-style meltdowns, and less likely to lead to nuclear weapon proliferation.)

dmitrygr 6y ago
Well, actually, a nice source of a large number of neutrons is a HUGE proliferation thread: weaponizable Pu-239 is produced out of easily-available U-238 by neutron capture. Only generation 2 (or 3) fusion, when we move past deuterium, will be proliferation-safe.
- reissbaker 6y ago
  It's a threat comparable to fission reactors only if fusion reactor containment vessels are built out of uranium, which they aren't. To put it another way: operating a nuclear reactor today is expensive due to regulatory constraints meant to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation. If the fuel for your reactor can't be mistaken for nuclear bomb parts, and the components of your reactor can't be mistaken for nuclear bomb parts, it's a lot cheaper to build and operate. And it's a lot safer for someone to sign off on "Yep that's a whole bunch of lithium for a fusion reactor" than looking at a bunch of uranium and being like... Well...
  - dmitrygr 6y ago
    > operating a nuclear reactor today is expensive due to regulatory constraints meant to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation The way I read that, you seem to imply that this cost dominates all others. If you do mean that, i'd like to see a citation please.
    - reissbaker 6y ago
      Here you go: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear... "These figures have profound implications for the industry’s bottom-line. Based on a review of per-plant profitability, there are at least six plants nationwide where regulatory burdens exceed profit margins." Regardless, as I mentioned, the entire process is safer from a proliferation perspective.
      - pfdietz 6y ago
        Those regulatory burdens described there exceed profit margins on operations. Those margins ignore the sunk capital cost of the plants. For new nuclear construction, these regulatory costs would be a small compared to the cost of actually building the plants. Of course, new nuclear plants would be outrageously unprofitable.
        reissbaker 6y ago
        You can't ignore operating costs because of sunk capital costs. That's the sunk cost fallacy! You can sometimes ignore sunk costs if operating revenue is good. But if it's negative, that's the problem.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        I wasn't ignoring operating costs. I was pointing out you can't ignore capital and financing costs.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
nickik 6y ago
This is exactly my point, a properly designed molten salt thorium fission reactor is really terrible to build nuclear weapons (no nation would ever do it) and a Fukushima-style meltdown is literally impossible. The waste from a closed cycle breeder reactor only has to be stored less then 300 years and you can put it back into a mine before that if you want.

While true, it's still better than fission in terms of waste. (And much less liable to Fukushima-style meltdowns, and less likely to lead to nuclear weapon proliferation.)

dmitrygr 6y ago

Well, actually, a nice source of a large number of neutrons is a HUGE proliferation thread: weaponizable Pu-239 is produced out of easily-available U-238 by neutron capture. Only generation 2 (or 3) fusion, when we move past deuterium, will be proliferation-safe.

reissbaker 6y ago
It's a threat comparable to fission reactors only if fusion reactor containment vessels are built out of uranium, which they aren't. To put it another way: operating a nuclear reactor today is expensive due to regulatory constraints meant to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation. If the fuel for your reactor can't be mistaken for nuclear bomb parts, and the components of your reactor can't be mistaken for nuclear bomb parts, it's a lot cheaper to build and operate. And it's a lot safer for someone to sign off on "Yep that's a whole bunch of lithium for a fusion reactor" than looking at a bunch of uranium and being like... Well...
- dmitrygr 6y ago
  > operating a nuclear reactor today is expensive due to regulatory constraints meant to prevent nuclear weapon proliferation The way I read that, you seem to imply that this cost dominates all others. If you do mean that, i'd like to see a citation please.
  - reissbaker 6y ago
    Here you go: https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear-regulatory-costs-context/ https://www.americanactionforum.org/research/putting-nuclear... "These figures have profound implications for the industry’s bottom-line. Based on a review of per-plant profitability, there are at least six plants nationwide where regulatory burdens exceed profit margins." Regardless, as I mentioned, the entire process is safer from a proliferation perspective.
    - pfdietz 6y ago
      Those regulatory burdens described there exceed profit margins on operations. Those margins ignore the sunk capital cost of the plants. For new nuclear construction, these regulatory costs would be a small compared to the cost of actually building the plants. Of course, new nuclear plants would be outrageously unprofitable.
      - reissbaker 6y ago
        You can't ignore operating costs because of sunk capital costs. That's the sunk cost fallacy! You can sometimes ignore sunk costs if operating revenue is good. But if it's negative, that's the problem.
        pfdietz 6y ago
        I wasn't ignoring operating costs. I was pointing out you can't ignore capital and financing costs.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

nickik 6y ago

This is exactly my point, a properly designed molten salt thorium fission reactor is really terrible to build nuclear weapons (no nation would ever do it) and a Fukushima-style meltdown is literally impossible. The waste from a closed cycle breeder reactor only has to be stored less then 300 years and you can put it back into a mine before that if you want.