SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-08-28/china-thorium-molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-energy/100351932
Scientists in China are about to turn on for the first time an experimental reactor that's believed by some to be the Holy Grail of nuclear energy — safer, cheaper and with less potential for weaponisation.
Construction on the thorium-based molten salt reactor was expected to be finished this month with the first tests to begin as early as September, according to a statement from the Gansu provincial government.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
China Set to Begin First Trials of Thorium Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 41 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Life is a serious burden, which no thinking, humane person would
wantonly inflict on someone else.
-- Clarence Darrow
(Score: 4, Insightful) by HiThere on Sunday August 29 2021, @01:42PM (7 children)
You are asserting as facts many things that are so far theoretical projections. They may well be right, but it's inappropriate to have certainty in them.
OTOH, I really hope that the molten salt reactors live up to their promise. Especially if they can consume the waste from the current reactors as fuel supplements.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sgleysti on Sunday August 29 2021, @04:40PM
Moltex Energy is working with the government of New Brunswick in Canada to construct a Stable Salt Reactor capable of burning reprocessed CANDU reactor waste as fuel by the early 2030s. https://www.moltexenergy.com/our-first-reactor/ [moltexenergy.com]
The Stable Salt Reactor concept seems excellent from an engineering and economic standpoint. Here's a good talk on it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V8ApH-0YHkA [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PinkyGigglebrain on Sunday August 29 2021, @07:02PM (1 child)
A valid point, and I will fully concede that MSR/Thorium fuel still has some technical, social, and political hurdles to clear.
Everything in life is based on "theoretical projections", even the belief that the sun will rise tomorrow morning. We assert it as fact because we believe it to be true based on experience and the evidence we have on hand, but it is not 100% certain that it is true so its nothing more than a projection. Just one with a VERY high probability of being right.
In the case of MSRs and Thorium fuel I've read the articles, watched the videos on both sides of the subject, since only a fool ignores the potential dangers of a technology while embracing it. and come to the personal conclusion that MSR/Thorium is a path that is worth advocating and following. The technology is not perfect, it still has it's long term issues like every other energy source Humanity is currently using, and there are still some things that need to be perfected but it is better than the majority of energy technologies we currently use in terms of safety, reliability, scalability, low environmental impact and long term viability. Even solar and wind have some negative environmental impacts that have been mostly ignored until recently.
Its not "certainty", its faith. Faith that something is true based on the evidence available.
Look at some of the things we are certain of; Hawking radiation, proton decay, fusion as a viable commercial power source, renewables that can meet Humanities rapidly growing energy needs indefinitely, etc..
Some of those are based on hard math, others on little more than wishful thinking. All of them have no confirmed observational proof to back them up and yet people still accepts them and believes them to be 100% true.
It all comes down to how much faith you have in the theoretical projections and validity of the facts those projections are based on.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Sunday August 29 2021, @11:08PM
I recently found myself in an argument when I said that something was an "interesting theory"; the person thought I meant "idea" or "perception" when I meant "scientifically verifiable theory", and had to requalify it a few times as "scientific theory".
Hence, I propose "scientific faith". The math is there, the science is there, the independently observable evidence (modulo the, uh, big interstellar telescope illuminati cartel) is there that the up-to-date theory matches the to-date observations, which is different than the vernacular "faith" [dumbingofage.com].
Example: "Crisis of scientific faith": we propose an update to the model, publish, and move on. You know, like we have every time it happened in scientific history.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 30 2021, @08:02AM (2 children)
There is already some info from experimental verification for this, check the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molten-Salt_Reactor_Experiment [wikipedia.org] from Oak Ridge in the 60s. While not a completely finished plant (missing the actual breeding from Thorium) it was in operation for several years demonstrating the possibility of molten salt systems.
(Score: 2, Disagree) by HiThere on Monday August 30 2021, @01:46PM
Yes, some preliminary tests have been done, but they haven't been done on any current design. So the approach is guaranteed to have certain capabilities, but it's not guaranteed what the costs will be, or whether it can be done at scale, or...well, lots of things. Many designs work fine in the lab, but fail on even pilot projects. In some fields it's well over half of the designs that fail, I don't know about nuclear reactors.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Monday August 30 2021, @05:33PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Monday August 30 2021, @12:52PM
You sure about that? I mean, they've been studying the things since the 40s, and built a MSR test reactor in 1965 that ran for 13,000 hours: https://www.ornl.gov/molten-salt-reactor/history [ornl.gov]
And it seems likely that other experimental reactors have been built and tested as well.
Granted, I'm not sure just how many stress-tests and failure modes they really subjected it to, or how many other experimental reactors have built. And there's often some surprises when scaling things up from experimental prototype to commercial scale. But it's not like the things are purely theoretical either.