3 ms·

Here's a well cited perspective, written by one of HN's own active commenters: https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-m

Here's a well cited perspective, written by one of HN's own active commenters: https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html

godelski 5y ago
Has anyone seen AcidBurn recently? They've been notably absent for some time. They used to appear in essentially any HN forum with nuclear. I miss their expert insight.
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  I'm around. I thought there were just fewer nuclear articles going around! I guess I missed some.
  - godelski 5y ago
    Haha well I've just made a habit of searching for you if there's a nuclear thread. Good to see you around.
apatheticonion 5y ago
Thanks for sharing this
- acidburnNSA 5y ago
  I should add this to the page linked, but another excellent resource to kind of help answer your question is the paper the Oak Ridge National Lab folks put together as they lost funding for the molten salt breeder reactor program in the early 1970s: ORNL-5018 -- Program plan for development of molten-salt breeder reactors[1]. This basically is them saying: "ok folks, we're wrapping up for now but when you inevitably pick up this work, here's what you have in front of you." Though a lot of time has passed since it was written, it's still largely relevant. [1] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4227904 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4227904
TimSchumann 5y ago
Good write up from a great guy. IIRC the author of that page, Nick Touran, works (worked?) for one of the Nuclear Startups that Gates funded. Met him and had a few drinks once, guy knows his stuff.
AtlasBarfed 5y ago
Hm, reading that, it doesn't seem to disprove or actually illuminate that much IMO: Misconception #1: I assume this is listed first because it is the biggest reason Thorium reactors weren't pursued? But really most MSR people seem to view it as political, and the bullet points in "Misconception #1" only underline that. Misconception #2: Almost all MSR presentations seem to assume a fissile "ignition" supply of uranium, that isn't hidden. And it seems to dovetail with the political opposition, since the regulatory agencies will block the supply of fissile uranium to start an MSR with. So this point seems to again highlight artificial/bureaucratic blockades. Miconception #3: Well, ok, this seems to be a decent answer based on the fundamentals of the science and engineering. Misconception #4: This seems to ignore the fact that a very very small amount of uranium is naturally fissile, while the Thorium all breeds to fissile. It also spouts off about seawater extraction, which hasn't happened AFAIK. This answer seems very misleading. Plus, the fact the author is from a competing design (a pebble design I believe, and one of the reasons pebble designs seem to exist is because of the prohibition on research labs from booting up a liquid reactor). I do agree the unknowns are the vessel degradation from the salts, but materials engineers these days are just so amazingly good. It just seems frustrating that the overarching influence of regulatory agency stubbornness and lobbying influence of solid fuel rod reprocessors and other fuel makers (who have a monopoly on nuclear fuel production I believe due to the regulatory agencies) is evident in this article. If it is true that China gets breeder/thorium/liquid reactors going, it all doesn't matter. The US will be a decade behind, and with the anti-nuclear opinions of the US voting populace, that will afford the entrenched interests cover to keep suppressing nuclear. I suppose it doesn't matter right now. Solar/Wind/Battery is improving so quickly you can't forecast/target a price/budget for a reactor design that is invariably 5-10 years out.
- techdragon 5y ago
  It matters geopolitically speaking in a big way, since any significant improvements to nuclear reactors built by China will have corresponding potential for improvement in their nuclear powered submarines and their future aircraft carriers which are being designed around a similar electric power heavy design philosophy as the US Navy’s Gerald Ford class, with the Chinese Type 004 aircraft carriers being designed as “full size” nuclear powered carriers using electromagnetic catapults to their launch aircraft.

Here's a well cited perspective, written by one of HN's own active commenters: https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium-myths.html

godelski 5y ago

Has anyone seen AcidBurn recently? They've been notably absent for some time. They used to appear in essentially any HN forum with nuclear. I miss their expert insight.

acidburnNSA 5y ago
I'm around. I thought there were just fewer nuclear articles going around! I guess I missed some.
- godelski 5y ago
  Haha well I've just made a habit of searching for you if there's a nuclear thread. Good to see you around.

apatheticonion 5y ago

Thanks for sharing this

acidburnNSA 5y ago
I should add this to the page linked, but another excellent resource to kind of help answer your question is the paper the Oak Ridge National Lab folks put together as they lost funding for the molten salt breeder reactor program in the early 1970s: ORNL-5018 -- Program plan for development of molten-salt breeder reactors[1]. This basically is them saying: "ok folks, we're wrapping up for now but when you inevitably pick up this work, here's what you have in front of you." Though a lot of time has passed since it was written, it's still largely relevant. [1] https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4227904 https://www.osti.gov/biblio/4227904

TimSchumann 5y ago

Good write up from a great guy. IIRC the author of that page, Nick Touran, works (worked?) for one of the Nuclear Startups that Gates funded. Met him and had a few drinks once, guy knows his stuff.

AtlasBarfed 5y ago

Hm, reading that, it doesn't seem to disprove or actually illuminate that much IMO: Misconception #1: I assume this is listed first because it is the biggest reason Thorium reactors weren't pursued? But really most MSR people seem to view it as political, and the bullet points in "Misconception #1" only underline that. Misconception #2: Almost all MSR presentations seem to assume a fissile "ignition" supply of uranium, that isn't hidden. And it seems to dovetail with the political opposition, since the regulatory agencies will block the supply of fissile uranium to start an MSR with. So this point seems to again highlight artificial/bureaucratic blockades. Miconception #3: Well, ok, this seems to be a decent answer based on the fundamentals of the science and engineering. Misconception #4: This seems to ignore the fact that a very very small amount of uranium is naturally fissile, while the Thorium all breeds to fissile. It also spouts off about seawater extraction, which hasn't happened AFAIK. This answer seems very misleading. Plus, the fact the author is from a competing design (a pebble design I believe, and one of the reasons pebble designs seem to exist is because of the prohibition on research labs from booting up a liquid reactor). I do agree the unknowns are the vessel degradation from the salts, but materials engineers these days are just so amazingly good. It just seems frustrating that the overarching influence of regulatory agency stubbornness and lobbying influence of solid fuel rod reprocessors and other fuel makers (who have a monopoly on nuclear fuel production I believe due to the regulatory agencies) is evident in this article. If it is true that China gets breeder/thorium/liquid reactors going, it all doesn't matter. The US will be a decade behind, and with the anti-nuclear opinions of the US voting populace, that will afford the entrenched interests cover to keep suppressing nuclear. I suppose it doesn't matter right now. Solar/Wind/Battery is improving so quickly you can't forecast/target a price/budget for a reactor design that is invariably 5-10 years out.

techdragon 5y ago
It matters geopolitically speaking in a big way, since any significant improvements to nuclear reactors built by China will have corresponding potential for improvement in their nuclear powered submarines and their future aircraft carriers which are being designed around a similar electric power heavy design philosophy as the US Navy’s Gerald Ford class, with the Chinese Type 004 aircraft carriers being designed as “full size” nuclear powered carriers using electromagnetic catapults to their launch aircraft.