jillery wrote:

Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>

This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>

Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
reactors at extremely low cost:
<https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>

This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
adoption.

-------------------------------------
I just saw that video earlier this evening.

I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Dexter <not@home.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>

This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>

Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
reactors at extremely low cost: <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>

This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
adoption.

-------------------------------------
I just saw that video earlier this evening.

I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

Sure, and once again:
The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
Can you guess why?

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Monday 29 January 2024 at 11:47:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Dexter <n...@home.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>

This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>

Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
reactors at extremely low cost: <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>

This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's adoption.

-------------------------------------
I just saw that video earlier this evening.

I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

Sure, and once again:
The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
Can you guess why?

It is general business tradition. Hard to raise funds to honest "we try to build something different, there are some theoretical calculations that
it may work".
It has to be displayed as revolutionary, extremely efficient, no brainer,
low hanging fruit picking, invest or others get all the profit.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> wrote:

On Monday 29 January 2024 at 11:47:53 UTC+2, J. J. Lodder wrote:

Dexter <n...@home.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>

This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>

Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt reactors at extremely low cost: <https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>

This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's adoption.

-------------------------------------
I just saw that video earlier this evening.

I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

Sure, and once again:
The best reactor always is the one you haven't built yet.
Can you guess why?

It is general business tradition. Hard to raise funds to honest "we try to build something different, there are some theoretical calculations that
it may work".
It has to be displayed as revolutionary, extremely efficient, no brainer,
low hanging fruit picking, invest or others get all the profit.

Yes, also know as 'fake it til you can make it.'.
It has make some lawyers real happy, and some fakers have gone to jail.

As for fanciful nuclear reactors (and also fusion) the hard question is:
what is a realistic estimate of how much a kilowatthour
is going to cost?

You never get a realistic answer to that, if you get one at all.

BTW, there is an even more fanciful and more insanely great proposal:
the accellerator-driven molten salt reactor.
It has all the insanly great advantages of the molten salt thing,
but it is also sub-critical, hence inherently safe, hopefully.
(the accelerator produces the extra neutrons to keep it going)

A bit surprising that our local youtube-technical genius
hasn't stumbled on that yet,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On 30/01/2024 03:16, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>

This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>

Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
reactors at extremely low cost:
<https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>

This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
adoption.

-------------------------------------
I just saw that video earlier this evening.

I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.

A lot of nations without nuclear weapon operate nuclear power stations.
Some of them may consider the potential to divert material to a weapons
program to be a feature rather than a bug, but I doubt that all do.
Israel and North Korea don't have nuclear power.

The people pushing nuclear non-proliferation (including the nuclear
powers) would prefer that nuclear power stations in countries without
nuclear weapons didn't have the ability to produce plutonium..

--
To know less than we don't know is the nature of most knowledge

--
alias Ernest Major

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

jillery <69jpil69@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>

This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>

Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
reactors at extremely low cost:
<https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>

This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
adoption.

-------------------------------------
I just saw that video earlier this evening.

I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.

For not too small values of 'recently'.
But you have a point, albeit a very old one.
Atomic weapons and atomic bombs were a kind of Siamese twin.

You can't have nuclear weapons without having a nuclear industry,
and you cannot have a nuclear industry on the defense budget alone.
So all nuclear weapon states must have nuclear power reactors
in order to make their weaponry affordble.

The converse is of course not true,
because you can buy them, and/or the know-how,
from others who developed their nuclear industry with weapons subsidies.

Your understanding of the situation is thoroughly flawed however,
because you don't understand the difference
between 'just any' plutonium and 'weapons-grade' plutonium.
FYI, commercial power reactors do not produce weapons-grade plutonium.
This is a standard nonsense argument used by the thorium lobby,

Jan

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

On 30/01/2024 03:16, jillery wrote:

On Mon, 29 Jan 2024 05:07:12 +0000, "Dexter" <not@home.com> wrote:

jillery wrote:

Arvin Ash recently posted a new 20-minute Youtube video which
discusses some of the advantages of molten-salt fission reactors, in
comparison to fusion and standard fission and fossil-fuel reactors:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsKmiutJBUM>

This is a follow-up to another Youtube video he posted two years ago:
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_jcbhE0u-8>

Ash highlights a company which hopes to manufacture molten-salt
reactors at extremely low cost:
<https://www.youtube.com/@CopenhagenAtomics>

This topic has been raised several times before in T.O. ISTM the
combination of AGW and energy demand would push this technology's
adoption.

-------------------------------------
I just saw that video earlier this evening.

I've been seeing articles about Thorium/molten salt reactors
for a number of years and why they haven't been adopted
yet mystifies me. They seem to have many advantages over t
he customary nuclear reactors in use now.

My impression is, until recently atomic energy was controlled by organizations whose primary interest is to create more plutonium for
atomic bombs. Thorium/molten-salt reactors don't produce plutonium.

A lot of nations without nuclear weapon operate nuclear power stations.
Some of them may consider the potential to divert material to a weapons program to be a feature rather than a bug, but I doubt that all do.

You cannot divert 'material to a weapons program' while operating
the power reactor -as a power reactor-.
Hence, under the non-proliferation treaty,
one of the tasks of the IAEA is to make sure, by inspections,
that power reactors are indeed operated as power reactors. [1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Atomic_Energy_Agency>

Israel and North Korea don't have nuclear power.

They also have only a 'small' number of bombs.
(which you can make over a long time with a small research-size reactor)
This is fine with them, for they don't want a nuclear arsenal.
They only want, and need, a DMD. (for Dead Man's Deterrent)
Both think that they have good reasons to want one.

The people pushing nuclear non-proliferation (including the nuclear
powers) would prefer that nuclear power stations in countries without
nuclear weapons didn't have the ability to produce plutonium..

Yes, hence the non-proliferation treaty, for what it is worth,

Jan

[1] In the early days of the American program,
operators of power plants got fuel rods practically for free,
if they agreed to have them frequently exchanged for fresh ones.

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)