31 ms·
Also, it’s only energy positive under some specific carefully managed conditions, and is a real pain to make work. If you have easy access to uranium, you just
by lazide 1y ago
Also, it’s only energy positive under some specific carefully managed conditions, and is a real pain to make work.
If you have easy access to uranium, you just use it directly instead.
- hunterpayne 1y agoDepends on what you want out of your reactor. You want to make a synthetic fuel, Thorium not Uranium. You want a liquid fueled reactor (because its safer and proliferation resistant), Thorium not Uranium. You want 900C heat instead of 300C heat, Thorium not Uranium. The fuel costs of a NPP are a tiny rounding error. If you want electricity and want to build it today, Uranium not Thorium. You are using arguments from 50 years ago when many incorrect assumptions about cost structure and fuel availability were used to make decisions.
- lazide 1y agoThe cope is strong here. The only liquid fueled reactors with any operational experience got shut down because of corrosion issues causing major leaks. The pros you mention are theoretical - because the cons came out in force when actually tried, and they’ve been tried many times by many different countries.