Hmm. I see that you're passionate about resolving our dependencies on fossil fuels. I agree, but as an alternative, there's a growing consensus amongst us in the energy systems market showing that solar is on-track to becoming the most cost effective source of energy, short term.

Are there downsides to it? Yes. Materials science, the same field creating piping that can theoretically barely resist MSR's corrosiveness, is also making gains on more efficient solar arrays. Work is also in progress at one of our universities on recycling depleted silicon.

Perhaps fusion is unattainable on earth, for now. Spinoffs and developments out of its research are still quite valuable for us all.

There are many ways to solve this serious danger on the horizon for us all. Fastest, cheapest solution would be collectively reducing energy consumption. But that's unlikely. Making reactors at scale should be done carefully, as any mistakes will have ramifications for quite some time. MSRs are the least appealing solution as an engineer.

[–] thedeadwalking4242@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (8 children)

Solar is limited per region and does not provide stable high capacity power. It cannot serve for a base load power source and can't even be used as a substitute for base power in some regions where it is needed most. Nuclear especially thorium based reactors are proven to work, and have been since the 60s. It is the future for our base line power needs. The only reason we are pulling away is propaganda and fear mongering. It can be dangerous but it is a local danger. CO2 emissions endanger the entire global population and will end modern civilization if we do not switch from fossil fuels.

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Imagine using HVDC to distribute energy farther at much lower loss. An upgrade to HVDC would net us about 40% more energy capacity without having to build a single new plant.

Grid-scale storage is being worked on in clever, interesting ways. For example, there are interesting mechanical storage ideas like ARES, using concrete laden train cars to electrically convert kinetic into potential energy, and vice versa.

A hillside, some rails, chains, a motor and some rail cars. All proven tech that we currently depend on for moving goods at low cost of ownership and high reliability.

There are many other clever options. Expand imagination and we can live without long-lived radioactivity.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Sorry to tell you your fist point has been known for over 100 years and is how we have been electrifying the planet. Good thing you're catching up though!

Second point... Same thing countries have been doing this with water for decades, now were "discovering worse ways" to do the same thing

Ontario Canada has been making 80% of our electricity from our nuclear plants for the past 50 years with 0 deaths and less contamination from radiation and other particulate matter than burning shit to produce electricity. And on top of that we had nuclear plants for making medical isotopes used in all kinds of medical procedures which can not be made any other ways.

Thorium reactors only put out trans uranics that only last 300 years rather than 15,000 and can also desalinate water or capture CO2 from the atmosphere?

Oh and it can use the waste from other nuclear plants that last for 15,000 years to produce electricity and make them degrade in 300 years.

We can make all those type of transport better with clean electricity made in a Molten Salt Reactor

Sure I'll Open my mind to better ways to make electricty, this includes nuclear

Here learn something

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You know, tiny, it's funny how obvious it is that you've decided to actually look up the talking points to parrot now that I've actually challanged your low quality arguments. Would you like a cracker?

I don't generally learn what I need to know from sales brochures, as engineers are hired to find and resolve issues using the truth, dictated by physics and experience in machine shops. Additionally, there are a number of circumstantial issues that fog the translation between theory & reality. Keep up with me, tiny:

https://www.machiningdoctor.com/mds/?matId=5180 shows what we refer to as machinability, a reference number influenced by both crystal structure, and hardness. The low m/min value shows that it takes a lot of time (which is expensive) to machine a final product, be it a pipe, a valve, valve seat, or the particularly expensive heat exchangers.

Let's continue. What do people like drinking? Fresh water? Hey, you know where we ought to use the limited water supply? In a gigawatt energy storage system! Location needs to be right next to a river, which happens to be right next to a high mesa physically capable of withstanding several million gallons of weight (remember, 8.2lbs/gal of water, tiny). That tremendously limits location. How about problems related to flora and fauna, or the inability to scale the storage plants, or the issues of permeability of the ground, etc? Op-ex on gravity storage systems is almost as low as it gets, and a mechanical system further resolves most pain points, though admittedly adds a few small ones too. Still with me? Stop eating your crayons and pay attention!

Your medical isotopes only come from candu units, which are in limited supply for reasons which are fairly obvious to even tiny intelligences like yours. Very good, we've got Canucks doing a careful job with their reactors, though as with any plant, there have been mishaps and questions at other places. Indian point nuclear generating station, 20 miles north of NYC had a serious problem of unknown amounts of tritium leaking into the local water table, as well as the Hudson. The real problem was that after a decade of perimeter detectors going off constantly, nobody at entergy knew what the primary source was! I have direct experience dealing with this. As a single example,[ here's one of the times it happened.(https://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactors/ip/ip-groundwater-leakage.html). And this has kept happening over the years, to what in the industry was referred to as a model plant.

You need to understand that something can be high risk, low likelihood, and that's still enough of a deterrent to enactment. You're talking about a system which mixes extremely corrosive elements with high-gamma U~232~, making for a doubly-difficult to manage system. There are upsides vs b/pwr plants but both myself and professional industry agree that the upsides don't outweigh the very serious downsides.

I'll clarify that I am ok-nuclear, but only if nothing else works. Got it, tiny?

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

And you think current reactor designs aren't hard? Seriously? Wow OK end if story for you.

Thankfully casting this stuff is fairly easy. Has this stuff been tested in a SLS printer which would make your machining is hard point absolutely moot?

Tell me you have 0 clue about MSR by telling me they use water. Hilarious man. Try a CO2 heat exchange for the 500c temps the reactor runs at. The only water needed for a MSR is the secondary heat exchange between CO2 and water using a closed loop system.

Find any information bad on the much safer CANDU reactors, MSR are magnitudes of order safer due to not having 900+ psi water acting as a coolant

The limited supply of CANDU is just due to stupid politics/bureaucracy, Ontario has been trying to build a new reactor for the past decade and was nearly canceled under our moronic Liberal leadership at one point

Once again the guy who literally invented both types of reactors favored the MSR design. I'll take his opinion over yours as he actually worked with the shit leadingntonthe creation of Hastaloy N. Not C233 or w/e you linked.

We have the technology to deal with every problem you have with the MSR.

If gamma ray make it so hard to do anything why did we created cobalt-60?

And to put a cherry on top

[–] RubberElectrons@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I never, ever said MSRs use water. Like, ever. 🤷

Porosity, residual stresses, QA testing, all are significant factors with SLS forming. At no point in trying to discuss this with you in front of everyone has there been anything but an emotionally distressed, incoherent response to provided facts.

Everyone sees your hail Mary at play. Everyone. You are factually naked in front of everyone, trying your best to look competent.

Good luck, silly, I'm going to watch a movie with my kind-hearted girlfriend, and go to my nice well-paying job working on energy systems tomorrow to be a positive contributor instead of dead weight.

[–] n3m37h@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Then why did you mention fresh drinking water if MSR doesn't use it? Oh wait, it can desalinate water with MSR

Yeah Ii want good QA in a reactor, NASA / SpaceX use SLS to aide in manufacturing rockets, if it can handle those pressures I'm sure a 1 atmosphere of pressure in a MSR won't be much if a challenge for SLS printed parts.

Nothing I have stated is incoherent its just a shitty defense for you not being able to defend your position.

I'm sure you are a "productive member of society" enjoy your day

load more comments (5 replies)