Oh, thank you. I intended only a very narrow point about chloride reactors being untested (not MSRs: just fast-spectrum chloride MSRs). I didn't mean to provoke

Oh, thank you. I intended only a very narrow point about chloride reactors being untested (not MSRs: just fast-spectrum chloride MSRs). I didn't mean to provoke a debate between molten-salt and liquid metal reactors. I claim neutrality. :) LFTR safety is based on passive cooling. Pu breeders do not share this property. I'm unfamiliar with the details, but I read that liquid-sodium reactors are capable of fully-passive decay heat removal, e.g. [0] (slide 6). Certainly sodium has a much higher boiling point than water. By the way, fast-spectrum MSRs are really Pu breeders -- that's the point of actinide burning! 3. MSR reactors don't suffer from the control complications introduced by Xe poisoning in solid fuels. This is not a relevant issue with fast-spectrum reactors, e.g. [1] (c.f. [2]): "The xenon-135 and samarium-149 mechanisms are dependent on their very large thermal neutron cross sections and only affect thermal reactor systems. In fast reactors, neither these nor any other fission products have a major poisoning influence." 4. MSRs involve a continuous liquid process. Essentially all industrial chemical processes work that way, Pretty sure it's a batch process? [0] http://rpd.ans.org/presentations/DesignFeatures_Economics.pdf http://rpd.ans.org/presentations/DesignFeatures_Economics.pd... [1] http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/handbook/h1019v2.pdf http://www.hss.doe.gov/nuclearsafety/techstds/docs/handbook/... [2] Xe-135 absorption: http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/getPlot.jsp?evalid=15174&mf=3&mt=102&nsub=10 http://www.nndc.bnl.gov/sigma/getPlot.jsp?evalid=15174&m...