Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

thoriumenergyworld.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 170 posts

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#91

Post by acidburnNSA »

Sukotto wrote: post #76

I think we're making a serious PR mistake calling these "Thorium Reactors" even though the term is accurate. "Reactor" evokes "Nuclear Reactor". For many people, "nuclear reactor" is a deeply loaded term. Likewise "Thorium" (and other words that end in "-ium") sounds dangerously like "plutonium" and "uranium". It doesn't matter how much better/safer this technology is. Don't expect the public to respond positively wh…

A bunch of people have tried to rebrand our most energy-dense fuels (uranium and thorium). "Terrestrial Energy" comes to mind. And the unofficial Thorium PR lead, Kirk Sorensen, rebranded the Thorium-Molten Salt Reactor (T-MSR) as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) because "lifter" sounds better. As an engineer I'm a stickler on accurate naming so this suggestion bothers me, and I think the opposing forces will easily be able to point out that it's just a rebranding of advanced nuclear reactors and hurt proponents' credibility. I wish we could just teach people to weigh risks of things like nuclear reactors versus their real benefits (clean air that has saved 1.8 million people already, 24/7 reliability, tiny land/fuel/waste/transportation footprints, etc.) but on the other hand people are more emotional than not. I'm sure you're right that a sweet new name on a nuclear reactor would be a help.

Honestly I consider focus on Thorium fuel itself to be an attempt to rebrand the much broader but equally capable advanced nuclear industry.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#92

Post by wil421 »

nnfy wrote: post #88
wil421 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nuclear Magnetic Resonance was the original name for the imaging technique we call MRI. Patients were scared so they changed the name.

For years I've been confused by the two different names. That was an insightful comment.

It's also important to note nuclear refers to the atomic nucleus and not a nuclear reaction.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#93

Post by slagfart »

nnfy wrote: post #86
Sukotto wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might be swayed by facts. But that makes you one of the minority. A LOT of people make decisions based on emotion. Then they cherry pick the facts (if any) that support the choice, and disregard the facts that oppose.

This is true. However, I think logical people as a group hold a disproportionate amount of power in society. I'm not sure, though, and I'm only arguing out of, well, logic. What I mean to say is if I were a politician, I would be more concerned with aligning myself with other politicians, scientists, and policy makers, than my constituents in the initial term. Those who are non-technical may be won over later and wit…

This is why you won't make it as a politician, sadly.

You need initial popular buy-in to be elected, which is why populist policies will always do well.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#94

Post by snarfy »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #91
Sukotto wrote: post #76

I think we're making a serious PR mistake calling these "Thorium Reactors" even though the term is accurate. "Reactor" evokes "Nuclear Reactor". For many people, "nuclear reactor" is a deeply loaded term. Likewise "Thorium" (and other words that end in "-ium") sounds dangerously like "plutonium" and "uranium". It doesn't matter how much better/safer this technology is. Don't expect the public to respond positively wh…

A bunch of people have tried to rebrand our most energy-dense fuels (uranium and thorium). "Terrestrial Energy" comes to mind. And the unofficial Thorium PR lead, Kirk Sorensen, rebranded the Thorium-Molten Salt Reactor (T-MSR) as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) because "lifter" sounds better. As an engineer I'm a stickler on accurate naming so this suggestion bothers me, and I think the opposing forces wi…

Unfortunately regardless of what you wish, people do not weigh the risks. They have knee jerk reactions to terms like 'nuclear reactor'. It's human nature and shouldn't be ignored. Is it more important that it have an accurate name or that it's accepted by the public?

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#95

Post by ZoF »

snarfy wrote: post #94
acidburnNSA wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of people have tried to rebrand our most energy-dense fuels (uranium and thorium). "Terrestrial Energy" comes to mind. And the unofficial Thorium PR lead, Kirk Sorensen, rebranded the Thorium-Molten Salt Reactor (T-MSR) as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) because "lifter" sounds better. As an engineer I'm a stickler on accurate naming so this suggestion bothers me, and I think the opposing forces wi…

Unfortunately regardless of what you wish, people do not weigh the risks. They have knee jerk reactions to terms like 'nuclear reactor'. It's human nature and shouldn't be ignored. Is it more important that it have an accurate name or that it's accepted by the public?

What's more important, an educated populace or your maintained feeling of intellectual superiority?

People aren't as dumb as you think.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#96

Post by topspin »

PaulHoule wrote: post #9

I am surprised they are using stainless steel instead of Hastelloy-N http://www.haynesintl.com/alloys/alloy-portfolio_/Corrosion-... The Hastelloy family of super alloys is basically stainless steel without the steel and was proven in the Oak Ridge MSR experiment.

Oak Ridge MSRE found unexpected cracking throughout the reactor anywhere Hastelloy came into contact with the salt fuel. Experiments produced various means of reducing the cracking, but it is not exactly true to characterize this system as "proven."

In 1977 Oak Ridge concluded [1]:

    Controlling the oxidation potential of the salt coupled with the
    presence of chromium ions in the salt appears to be an effective means
    of limiting tellurium embrittlement of Hastelloy N. However, further
    studies are needed to assess the effects of longer exposure times and
    to measure the interaction parameters for chromium and tellurium under
    varying salt oxidation potentials.
We know that without very precise control of the salt fuel chemistry Hastalloy N. will become brittle. It's an open question what happens with longer exposure. And that is where it was left by MSRE.

[1] http://moltensalt.org.s3-website-us-east-1.amazonaws.com/ref...

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#97

Post by acidburnNSA »

snarfy wrote: post #94
acidburnNSA wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A bunch of people have tried to rebrand our most energy-dense fuels (uranium and thorium). "Terrestrial Energy" comes to mind. And the unofficial Thorium PR lead, Kirk Sorensen, rebranded the Thorium-Molten Salt Reactor (T-MSR) as the LFTR (Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor) because "lifter" sounds better. As an engineer I'm a stickler on accurate naming so this suggestion bothers me, and I think the opposing forces wi…

Unfortunately regardless of what you wish, people do not weigh the risks. They have knee jerk reactions to terms like 'nuclear reactor'. It's human nature and shouldn't be ignored. Is it more important that it have an accurate name or that it's accepted by the public?

Definitely the latter. I just hope to find other ways to influence people's feelings about things like nuclear reactors. If some epic rebranding is what it takes, then that's great. I feel that it will take more than that.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#98

Post by philipkglass »

acidburnNSA wrote: post #97
snarfy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately regardless of what you wish, people do not weigh the risks. They have knee jerk reactions to terms like 'nuclear reactor'. It's human nature and shouldn't be ignored. Is it more important that it have an accurate name or that it's accepted by the public?

Definitely the latter. I just hope to find other ways to influence people's feelings about things like nuclear reactors. If some epic rebranding is what it takes, then that's great. I feel that it will take more than that.

Any such rebranding would probably last about as long as it takes people to learn that the facilities are built by nuclear contractors, regulated by the NRC, and employing nuclear operators.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#99

Post by candiodari »

chrisallenlane wrote: post #54
theptip wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the cost of editing is not exorbitant (i.e. is lower than the average per-capita cost of paying for the condition being edited away), healthcare providers would be incentivized to pay for the editing to reduce their costs. The incentives are obviously stronger in single-payer countries, but even in the US you could imagine an insurance company that competed on lower premiums conditional upon certain gene edits bei…

> in the US you could imagine an insurance company that competed on lower premiums conditional upon certain gene edits being applied to covered children. On one hand, this sounds entirely economically reasonable (and even humanitarian). On the other hand, I fear this would inevitably produce unintended consequences that would shape our society in distopian, sci-fi/horror-flavored ways. I have no idea how it would act…

Given the economics, I feel pretty confident predicting that these edits will be mandatory before most people on this site die.

Re: A Thorium-Salt Reactor Has Fired Up for the First Time in Four Decades

#100

Post by wtallis »

bduerst wrote: post #59
didgeoridoo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Comments like this are why I don't bother getting my tech & science news from anywhere but HN.

I've seen an increase in the number of NLP bots that give snippets, but they're far from consistently being accurate. Are there any services that can give you summations like this, kind of like the WSJ's What's News section?

Sometimes, the best summary is "this article is bunk". You won't get that from a bot. The fatal flaws in bad journalism are too often subtle and require careful parsing or outside knowledge to identify.
Post reply on HN