[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 51 KB, 636x420, thorium_india.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991408 No.3991408 [Reply] [Original]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/nov/01/india-thorium-nuclear-plant

why are nuclear energy articles always so lightweight?

also, would everyone just shut up about thorium in the context of solid fuel reactors? i mean, it's nice that they're getting off of MOX. but solid thorium is just irritating to implement without too much increased return or safety benefit

>> No.3991423

Yeah really
who cares about solid throium reactors?
It's all about MSR.


Also I like how they always say 'safer' as if they doubt that it's actually safe.

>> No.3991437

>>3991423
Fukushima was safe. Your move.

>> No.3991443

>>3991423
They're covering themselves against litigation by MOX plants. If they outright stated they were safer it'd be their own opinion they'd have to prove in court, by putting it in quotes they show it's someone else saying it. Because our legal system is fucked enough for defenders in libel cases to be guilty until proven innocent.

>> No.3991450

>>3991443
they could prove its safer through worst-case-scenario simulations as well as pointing to the MSRE.

but this is the american legal system. whoever has the most expensive lawyers wins

>> No.3991456

>>3991450
Guardian article, they can definitely use ours if they want.

And even the guardian don't have the kind of people who would be able to make a verifiable case for its safety, they have decent reporters but no nuclear physicists. It's a lot "safer" for them to just be overly careful.

>> No.3991461

>>3991456
>It's a lot "safer" for them to just be overly careful.
i don't want to live on this planet anymore.jpg

>> No.3991466

>India has announced plans for a prototype nuclear power plant that uses an innovative "safer" fuel.
>innovative "safer" fuel
>"safer"
>""
>for why

>> No.3991469
File: 14 KB, 318x398, nam.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991469

>>3991461
>mvq

>>3991466
see
>>3991443

>> No.3991484

Solid Thorium Reactors aren't any good, but Liquid Thorium... now we're talking...

>> No.3991492

When you say "industry", you're automatically talking about something that's thoroughly resistant to change. The nuclear industrialists are used to solid fuels. So that's where they remain invested, mentally.

>> No.3991708

>>3991492
there probably just needs to be some profitable buisness model built around LFTR for it to take off. Selling reactors at a high markup sounds decent since you can claim the fuel is super cheap (and it is)
just gold plate the core or something silly to boost the cost.

>>3991484
that was the implication, yes

>> No.3991724
File: 48 KB, 500x375, washhands.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3991724

>>3991466

>> No.3991757

>>3991708
> there probably just needs to be some profitable buisness model built around LFTR for it to take off.

That's verrrrrrrrrrry difficult to achieve, considering how far up the ass of the nuclear power industry that government commonly is.

>> No.3991775

>>3991757
FUCK THE ODDS

the other possibility is doing very small scale startup reactors for investing, like what FLIBE is doing.
unfortunately the NRC is a bag of dicks and will probably demand a 20 year waiting period to "check designs" or whatever