China Says It's Closing in on Thorium Nuclear Reactor

Post by lenkite » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 4:44 PM UTC

seiferteric wrote: post #58

mdorazio wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to qualify a few statements there. Total electricity consumption peaked in Western nations over a decade ago and has basically been flat or dropping since [1][2]. So when you say, "In the future, we will need far more electrical energy" it's missing ... "in the developing world." Which, personally, is not my first choice for where to put nuclear reactors. Second, we don't actually need to use a bunch of elec…

We definitely should plant more trees, but the idea that it is the solution to removing carbon I think has been pretty debunked at this point. Between increase in forrest fires, lack of rainfall, lack of available and viable land to grow trees and other issues, it just is not even close to the whole solution.

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:42 PM UTC

lamontcg wrote: post #72

apatheticonion wrote: post #24

I have been doing my best to find critical information on the viability of Thorium based nuclear reactors (because they sound too good to be true). Everyone sings their praises, but what engineering challenges are there and are those engineering challenges large enough to discourage their development/adoption? The biggest thing I have found is that the salt solution for Thorium reactors is quite corrosive and that is…

> The biggest thing I have found is that the salt solution for Thorium reactors is quite corrosive and that is challenging to contain. If you can figure out the molten salt problem you can replace the nuclear reactor with concentrated solar thermal and get solar baseload power without having to worry about meltdowns for way less than the cost of a nuke plant.

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:46 PM UTC

RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote: post #28

Tade0 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Problem is, we might not be able to build them fast enough. China is currently the leader in deployment of nuclear power, but even there wind power overtook it in terms of GWh delivered in 2013 and the difference was been widening ever since. Similarly within a decade solar went from delivering 1% of the energy nuclear did, to 70%. At this rate it will close the gap before 2025.

If there is a will, there is a way. The US invented the nuclear bomb in just a few years with the Manhattan project. The biggest obstacle has been the anti-science FUD spread largely by environmental groups.

Post by pfdietz » Thu, Aug 05, 2021, 9:48 PM UTC

vbezhenar wrote: post #36

j_walter wrote: post #2

Nuclear is far from the best source of electricity, but it is far less damaging to the environment than coal or NG if handled and designed properly. If countries can work together to put them in places that protect from major earthquakes or other natural disasters then I think we can get some decent movement on reduce GHG emissions from power plants.

Fusion electricity is what will provide humanity with energy for centuries to come. It'll be available very soon and until then it does not really matter whether we will use nuclear or coal. We just need a final push for 50-100 years and energy issue will be solved once and forever. All the environment issues will be dealt with, when we will have a free energy and better technologies. Spending too much effort on clea…

Post by wolverine876 » Fri, Aug 06, 2021, 3:53 AM UTC

arcticbull wrote: post #34

wolverine876 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> maybe in movies No, I said "IME". Don't try to dismiss other people.

I think some citations and evidence are generally preferable to broad sweeping statements prefixed with "in my experience" - I'm not saying you're wrong but you've given me no reason to believe.