Talk:Molten chloride fast reactor: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
Pat Palmer (talk | contribs) mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
= Physicist dismisses molten salt nuclear reactors as a "waste of time" = | = Physicist dismisses molten salt nuclear reactors as a "waste of time" = | ||
| Line 7: | Line 8: | ||
*06:05 It is unlikely that nuclear engineers will be able to overcome "these challenges". It will take "hundreds of millions of dollars" and many more years to prove a design will withstand earthquakes and fires. | *06:05 It is unlikely that nuclear engineers will be able to overcome "these challenges". It will take "hundreds of millions of dollars" and many more years to prove a design will withstand earthquakes and fires. | ||
Terrapower claims "Refueling without the need for ongoing enrichment or reprocessing facilities effectively eliminates weapons proliferation risks." https://www.terrapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/TP_2023_MCFR_Technology-0216.pdf This is a sales brochure. We need a better explanation of the MCFR fuel cycle, including reprocessing. [[User:David MacQuigg|David MacQuigg]] ([[User talk:David MacQuigg|talk]]) 05:45, 6 November 2023 (CST) | |||
Latest revision as of 07:44, 6 November 2023
Physicist dismisses molten salt nuclear reactors as a "waste of time"
Energi Media video 59,515 views Oct 11, 2021.
- 03:15 Only two MSRs ever been built, and they are unreliable. The MSRE at Oak Ridge National Laboratory ran only 4 years, and had to shut down 225 times.
- 04:15 The reprocessing technology (pyroprocessing) can be easily used to make nuclear weapons from plutonium. The reprocessed plutonium is not pure enough for weapons, but that doesn't matter. The last 10% of the work can be done by anybody anywhere.
- 04:55 Pyroprocessing has been tried in the United States, and the track record is "abysmal". The "EBR reactor" was a failure.
- 06:05 It is unlikely that nuclear engineers will be able to overcome "these challenges". It will take "hundreds of millions of dollars" and many more years to prove a design will withstand earthquakes and fires.
Terrapower claims "Refueling without the need for ongoing enrichment or reprocessing facilities effectively eliminates weapons proliferation risks." https://www.terrapower.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/TP_2023_MCFR_Technology-0216.pdf This is a sales brochure. We need a better explanation of the MCFR fuel cycle, including reprocessing. David MacQuigg (talk) 05:45, 6 November 2023 (CST)