3 ms·
Sure. But why? MSRs don't have any real features that are worth spending that much money. Modern PWRs are just as passively safe, if they lose cooling and melt
by cyberax 2y ago
Sure. But why? MSRs don't have any real features that are worth spending that much money.
Modern PWRs are just as passively safe, if they lose cooling and melt down, the molten fuel will be safely contained by the core catcher.
Uranium is also not scarce, and if we want to get into breeding reactors, existing fuel reprocessing is an established industry, on which we _already_ have spent several hundred billion dollars.
- roenxi 2y agoThe thing about R&D spending is that it is speculative. Even if that question does have satisfying answers; it is unreasonable to expect people to prove that R&D will have a commercially successful outcomes with foresight.
- cyberax 2y agoThen why not fund fusion reactors? Or maybe thorium reactors ON A ZEPPELIN! With microwave power transmission. After all, if the objective to spend money on research, then what can be cooler than a nuclear reactor on a blimp?
- roenxi 2y agoIf you actually think that is a good idea you can try to give it a go. There are worse things to dedicate a life to and it might have big applications in disaster recovery scenarios or something.
- LargoLasskhyfv 2y agoYou know? That sounds actually interesting because of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-moderated_self-regulating_nuclear_power_module https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen-moderated_self-regula... Hydrogen can be so hawt!1!!