Meltdown proof nuke reactors–I vote yes

Testing is on going.


10 responses to “Meltdown proof nuke reactors–I vote yes

  1. To avoid nuke reactor meltdown, we must first replace seventy years (1945-2015) of deceptive nuclear science.

  2. It’s worthwhile to lift a few paragraphs from the above-cited Web page for easy attention here:
    “First built and tested in the 1960s, at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, molten salt reactors would be the first genuinely new technology for nuclear power generation to reach the market in the last three decades. Producing zero carbon, they use a radioactive solution that blends nuclear fuel with a liquid salt. They can run on uranium, but are also ideally suited for thorium, an alternative nuclear fuel that is cleaner, safer, and more abundant than uranium.

    “Molten salt reactors also offer inherent safety advantages: because the fuel is liquid, it expands when heated, thus slowing the rate of nuclear reactions and making the reactor self-governing. And they’re built like bathtubs, with a drain in the bottom that’s blocked by a ‘freeze plug.’ If anything goes wrong, the freeze plug melts and the reactor core drains into a shielded underground container. They can operate as producers of thermal power or as “burner” reactors that consume nuclear waste from conventional reactors.

    “Essentially, molten salt reactors could solve the two problems that have bedeviled the nuclear power industry: safety and waste.”

    The Red Chinese have an added incentive to bring thorium-fueled molten salt fast reactors (MSFR) online, and that’s the fact that their primary method of electric power generation continues (and WILL continue) to be coal-fired plants, and even the cleanest-burning coal combustion methods result in fly ash concentrating naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) which include the isotope Th-232.

    This thorium radioisotope is fertile though not fissile, and must absorb a neutron to be transmuted to U-233, which _is_ fissile and which is usable in situ within such a molten salt reactor.

    For more, see:

  3. “…before we can safely harvest nuclear energy, we must correct the error introduced when the definition of nuclear stability was changed in nuclear physics textbooks after WWII.”

    Why “must” we “correct the error”? Because “the error” makes the harvest of nuclear energy less practicable than would otherwise be the case? Because “the error” makes such measures as have been implemented in nuclear energy harvest since 1945 less safe than would otherwise be the case?

    If the latter is true, how is that so? And how would correcting “the error” improve practicability and/or safety?

  4. Huh. Surprising that Iran isn’t leading the way, given their interest in safe nuclear power generation. (/s)

  5. Whatever happened to PBRs?

    • We have been promised many great sources of energy in the future by the same government sources that tried to forbid public knowledge of the energy in cores of:

      1. Heavy atoms like Uranium
      2. Some planets like Jupiter
      3. Ordinary stars like the Sun
      4. Galaxies like the Miky Way
      5. The now expanding Cosmos


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s