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

Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–47 of 47 posts

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#41

Post by politician »

Kroem3r wrote: post #5
politician wrote: post #2

Ah, Thorium articles. Guaranteed views from nerds, a great way to discover a cohort in your audience, and an easy template to follow (e.g. "it'd be so great, but adoption is 10 years away"). (Don't vote me up for this either. Dismissive first posts are another HN trope, so in this regard I'm as guilty as The Economist.)

Pff. If 'molten salt' reactors are an inch closer in 10 years, I will eat my hat. The idea is only slightly more appealing than having the reactor fly around under it's own power. What makes you think The Economist is interested in probing the nerdosphere? Would Tesla, Apple, etc., be more effective? For sure, the '... adoption is 10 years away' thing is funny. Makes me reminisce for Popular Science. If I were to gue…

I was suggesting that The Economist knows how to write link bait articles that generate views, and that this article which offers nothing new is an application of that skill.

Of course I was down-voted: HN's readership doesn't like to be told that it's a trivially exploitable source of clicks.

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#42

Post by gnud »

jmccree wrote: post #39
einrealist wrote: post #10

What about the radioactive waste? All nuclear reactors produce waste (finally when disassembled after the reactors' end of life). I find it strange to search for more efficient reactor styles, while the waste problem is not solved.

The waste problem has been solved. We store it somewhere safe until we decide something better to do with it. What hasn't been solved is the effects of of all our coal, gas, and oil usage that could be replaced by nuclear power. It makes all the sense in the world to be finding ways we can widely and safely deploy nuclear power worldwide to replace coal and gas power plants. Generating clean electricity is a requisit…

> The waste problem has been solved. We store it somewhere safe until we decide something better to do with it.

Thus, solving the problem once and for all. ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#45

Post by crusso »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #34
twic wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The new thorium design should be the Mega-Joule Operationally Limited Nuclear Incident Reactor.

MJOLNIR?

You, my friend, have not had a proper nethack addiction if you don't have the desire to wish for a blessed +3 warhammer named Mjollnir.

http://www.nethack.org/

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#46

Post by eco »

gnud wrote: post #42
jmccree wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The waste problem has been solved. We store it somewhere safe until we decide something better to do with it. What hasn't been solved is the effects of of all our coal, gas, and oil usage that could be replaced by nuclear power. It makes all the sense in the world to be finding ways we can widely and safely deploy nuclear power worldwide to replace coal and gas power plants. Generating clean electricity is a requisit…

> The waste problem has been solved. We store it somewhere safe until we decide something better to do with it. Thus, solving the problem once and for all. ONCE AND FOR ALL!

I appreciate the Futurama reference but it is true. Nuclear "waste" is extremely valuable for use in upcoming reactor designs like MSRs that burn up significantly more of the long-lived waste. Keeping it stored temporarily until these reactors go live is the most prudent and efficient option.

Re: Thorium reactors: Asgard’s fire

#47

Post by Turing_Machine »

jff wrote: post #9
Kroem3r wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pff. If 'molten salt' reactors are an inch closer in 10 years, I will eat my hat. The idea is only slightly more appealing than having the reactor fly around under it's own power. What makes you think The Economist is interested in probing the nerdosphere? Would Tesla, Apple, etc., be more effective? For sure, the '... adoption is 10 years away' thing is funny. Makes me reminisce for Popular Science. If I were to gue…

> The idea is only slightly more appealing than having the reactor fly around under it's own power. That was a pretty fun one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto

This was better:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NERVA

If we hadn't canceled it we'd be colonizing the Solar System by now.

Post reply on HN