You can login if you already have an account or register by clicking the button below.
Registering is free and all you need is a username and password. We never ask you for your e-mail.
The fact that it turns nuclear waste into energy, and it's waste has a half life of 40-80 years instead of 2000 years makes me wonder why we haven't built 100 of these.
^^ This is one of the huge indicators that significant, man made climate change is BS. With nuclear reactors and electric vehicles we could drastically reduce carbon emissions. Must not be an issue.
No fissile material can be produced with these reactors so there was no interest in using them for power production in the latter 20th Century. The Air Force experimented with Thorium reactors to power heavy bombers so that they could remain airborne indefinitely. Mid air refueling made them lose interest.
Most of the disadvantages listed in the Wiki article as very significant hurdles and complications. While proponents of LFTR and MSR technologies always focus on the benefits, these disadvantages actually nullify much of that benefit. Nuclear power, no matter which technology we use, is plagued with hazards and long term issues we are ill equipped to deal with. LFTR is interesting for sure, but for all those who are jumping on the bandwagon to support this, please be honest and do the research needed to truly evaluate the technology. We can't move forward by blindly endorsing a technology that is not what we want it to be in reality.
They had a reactor working and producing power for at least a decade (I was reading stuff a long while back on it). The downside was the cleanup when they were dismantling the reactor.
That same reactor was running at the very modest capacity of 8 MW (enough power to run about 8 average Walmart stores). The $130 million dollar decommissioning cost was extremely high for the amount of power it output over its entire operating lifetime. The economies of scale don't bode well for LFTR being a long term cost viable solution that still has many hurdles and disadvantages attached to it.
Sort: Top
[–] anamazonslittle 0 points 7 points 7 points (+7|-0) ago
The fact that it turns nuclear waste into energy, and it's waste has a half life of 40-80 years instead of 2000 years makes me wonder why we haven't built 100 of these.
[–] Myrkhofdi 0 points 5 points 5 points (+5|-0) ago
Nuclear scare tactics. Eco crazy leftists hate nuclear energy even though it's the most environmentally friendly option there is.
[–] bubbahicks 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
^^ This is one of the huge indicators that significant, man made climate change is BS. With nuclear reactors and electric vehicles we could drastically reduce carbon emissions. Must not be an issue.
[–] Metanoiac 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
No fissile material can be produced with these reactors so there was no interest in using them for power production in the latter 20th Century. The Air Force experimented with Thorium reactors to power heavy bombers so that they could remain airborne indefinitely. Mid air refueling made them lose interest.
[–] Gravspeed 0 points 6 points 6 points (+6|-0) ago
Thorium is the future of nuclear
[–] Tb0n3 0 points 3 points 3 points (+3|-0) ago
Yeah. As soon as they figure out how to keep molten salts from corroding every container.
[–] Gravspeed 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
I read they were having good luck with some ceramic coatings
[–] Myrkhofdi 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
maybe, I hope its everything they promise.. but..
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_fluoride_thorium_reactor#Disadvantages
[–] Morbo 0 points 1 point 1 point (+1|-0) ago
Most of the disadvantages listed in the Wiki article as very significant hurdles and complications. While proponents of LFTR and MSR technologies always focus on the benefits, these disadvantages actually nullify much of that benefit. Nuclear power, no matter which technology we use, is plagued with hazards and long term issues we are ill equipped to deal with. LFTR is interesting for sure, but for all those who are jumping on the bandwagon to support this, please be honest and do the research needed to truly evaluate the technology. We can't move forward by blindly endorsing a technology that is not what we want it to be in reality.
[–] B3bomber ago
They had a reactor working and producing power for at least a decade (I was reading stuff a long while back on it). The downside was the cleanup when they were dismantling the reactor.
[–] Morbo ago
That same reactor was running at the very modest capacity of 8 MW (enough power to run about 8 average Walmart stores). The $130 million dollar decommissioning cost was extremely high for the amount of power it output over its entire operating lifetime. The economies of scale don't bode well for LFTR being a long term cost viable solution that still has many hurdles and disadvantages attached to it.