5 ms·
Mentioning Chernobyl at all, at least to me, shows a deep lack of understanding about nuclear power infrastructure and capabilities in the 21st century. It cann
by widowlark 3y ago
Mentioning Chernobyl at all, at least to me, shows a deep lack of understanding about nuclear power infrastructure and capabilities in the 21st century. It cannot be stressed enough that Chernobyl was a fluke on top of a fluke, with bad design and dangerous elemental choices at its core. It is nothing like the nuclear power tech we would choose to use today. Thorium MSR poses literally near-zero risk of meltdown, and the meltdown potential of Thorium can be compared to Chernobyl in parts per million.
Considering all of this, mentioning the threat of another Chernobyl every time nuclear power is positioned as a viable option is like thinking that the Valdez disaster occurs every time we ship gas overseas.
- angiosperm 3y agoNobody knows what the risks are of thorium deployment, because no thorium plant has been deployed. Pretending "unknown = zero" is how we got here. But it is all moot, because thermal generation of any kind has wholly priced itself out of the market. There is hardly even a place remaining for geothermal.
- widowlark 3y agoIt's true that no large scale Thorium reactor has been built yet. It's also true that its mathematically, chemically, and physically impossible for Thorium to pose the same radiation threat that Uranium poses under load.
- credit_guy 3y agoI'm a huge nuclear fan, but Thorium reactors are overhyped. Yes, it is chemically, physically and mathematically impossible for Thorium to pose any danger because Thorium is not fissile. Thorium by itself cannot sustain a chain reaction. Whatever Thorium reactor people envision, inevitably you will have Uranium, and sometimes Plutonium, inside that reactor too. Now, you are free to claim that only a small part of the reactor is going to be Uranium or Plutonium, to which I'm going to say that only a small part of a regular Uranium reactor core is the U-235 type, 95% is the somewhat inert U-238. Now, can Thorium reactors be good, or great? Sure thing, but for the time being all their purported advantages are on paper only, while the PWR reactors are in wide use.
- widowlark 3y agoThe issue isn’t the U232-33-35. Its the potential for meltdown, which the MSRE systems fully mitigate in situ
- credit_guy 3y agoMSR stands for Molten Salt Reactor. It's a type of reactor that can use either Thorium or Uranium or Plutonium. For some reason a lot of people equate it with Thorium. MSRE specifically refers to the Molten Salt Reactor Experiment [1], which was a reactor that burned only Uranium, never Thorium. By the way, the Department of Energy is collaborating with the private industry on a number of advanced reactor designs [2]. There is only one molten salt reactor and that one uses Uranium or Plutonium, not Thorium (see [3], slide 3). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment [2] https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reactor-development https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/infographic-advanced-reac... [3] https://www.nationalacademies.org/documents/embed/link/LF2255DA3DD1C41C0A42D3BEF0989ACAECE3053A6A9B/file/DB0D308269688B2BD7B1AF60BAA143D48890C2DE80BB?noSaveAs=1 https://www.nationalacademies.org/documents/embed/link/LF225...
- widowlark 3y agoI am aware that MSR/E can refer to multiple reactor fuel types - since we were talking about thorium, I didn't feel the need to specify which I meant. The current environment of Nuclear Plant technology does not negate the benefits of MSR Thorium reactors