3 ms·
The article is pretty thin, and starts out by stating that no-one doubts the ability of nuclear power to supply our energy needs more or less indefinitely (I'd
by Tloewald 14y ago
The article is pretty thin, and starts out by stating that no-one doubts the ability of nuclear power to supply our energy needs more or less indefinitely (I'd copy and paste the exact sentence but I can't — argh). This is a bad start.
MSR does look like a technology worth revisiting, but this article is a puff piece.
- fnordfnordfnord 14y agoI'm just happy to see press that isn't negative or dismissive. Here is a little more comprehensive Times article from earlier this week that gives a nod to the MSR if you're interested. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/science/in-search-of-energy-miracles.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/science/in-search-of-energ...
- viraj_shah 14y agoThe article certainly doesn't state anything new. Fail safes such as the "freeze plug" or the ship to order model or the lack of pressurization are not new. On the flip side though, at least we're seeing this resurgence (in public interest) in nuclear technology whether it be MSRs or other Generation IV+ reactors. Maybe having private companies make significant progress on a tight budget is what it takes to drive further funding from large governmental bodies, just as in the Space industry.
- ars 14y agoWhat's bad about it? Nuclear power could power us for at least 1,000 years if not 10,000. That's close enough to "foreseeable future" to me.