this post was submitted on 27 Jun 2024
660 points (69.4% liked)

Memes

45756 readers
983 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 11) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 5 months ago (17 children)

clean... so many storage pools full of spent fuel, no home for them in sight... hundreds of pools, spread all over the US....

clean?

I mean cleaner than coal, sure. but it's enormous infrastructure and regulatory hurdles aren't worth it.

[–] partizan@lemm.ee 0 points 5 months ago* (last edited 5 months ago) (1 children)

There are functioning Thorium based Molten Salt Breeder reactors, which for ~50MW can be built in a shipping container size - they are small, so can be deployed at local sites, thus reducing transmission losses, much harder to use for weapons (thats why the world tilted towards the use of uranium reactors in the first place), dont need prior enrichment, and can use much higher percentage of the fuel - so much less waste product. Also since the whole stuff is a molten salt, you just drain it from the reactor core and the reaction simply comes to halt.

The technology works, as it was tested when they were deciding if the industry goes with uranium or thorium, but the war lobby win out unfortunately, as they wanted a source for their nuclear weapons, at which the Thorium reactors are not great.

And yes, nuclear is super clean even if we compare it with solar+wind batteries not even counted in to the equation. BTW you can use "spent" fuel rods from conventional nuclear plants in a breeder reactor, to further diminish waste and use them up. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorium-based_nuclear_power

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›