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.
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.
view the rest of the comments →
[–] 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.